|
Xenomrph posted:I agree with you for the most part. The problem here is that you are thinking in terms of what a movie is 'trying to do'. Intentions. So then you get these weird fantasies about how professional director is making this entire movie because he's sad. It sort of betrays a lack of understanding of why artists do things. Blomkamp's previous movies have all been satirical 'mockbuster' versions of popular sci-fi films: Independence Day, Star Wars, and Short Circuit/Robocop. His 'thing' is that he takes these basic premises and really goes hard into the speculative realism. So Blomkamp obviously could have absolutely just made his own high-class Alien knockoff if he had wanted to. The only difference is that he now has access to the 'official' IP. So, like Scott, he can attack the series from the inside. Like, did Blomkamp make a version of Star Wars that's set in a Mexican ghetto and that criticizes the cheap anarchoprimitivism of Return Of The Jedi because he was 'sad'? Or is that an overly simplistic motivation that you ascribe to him, in order to avoid the burden of having to read a given film?
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
It's more likely I'm reaching the conclusion that he's dissatisfied with Alien3 and is making his "true sequel" to "correct" it because that's what he's said in interviews. And even if he hadn't outright said it, everything else I've said still holds true - trying to "undo" Alien3 wholesale implies that Alien3 is wrong or bad somehow, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of Alien3. "Attacking it from the inside" implies some sort of omniscient meta-textual attempt to intentionally sabotage one's own work or the work of others as a means for social commentary or something, and I think that's giving Scott and Blomkamp a hell of a lot more credit than they deserve. Sure there were some fans that wanted to know "the true answers" behind the Space Jockey, but those are the fans that missed the point, that failed to grasp that the mystery itself and lack of knowledge is what made the Space Jockey interesting and scary. But the majority of fans "got it" and were very happy that the Space Jockey wasn't explained. Sure there were EU stories that tackled it, but they fell into the same pitfall as the fans who didn't get why having it unexplained was a good thing. Scott explaining the Space Jockey indicates one of two things. One, he's actively sabotaging 'Alien' in an effort to say "you want an explanation? Suck it, nerds." and stick it to a small subset of a niche group, which doesn't change the fact that he's sabotaging his own movie. Or two, he doesn't understand why the Space Jockey's mystery is a good thing. I'm going with the latter, because he outright says it in his introduction to the 'Prometheus' concept art book. He flat out says "hey what's the deal with the guy in the chair, don't you want to know his story?" when the obvious answer is "no, that's a bad idea, leave it alone". Likewise, Blomkamp isn't making a clever meta-commentary about the Alien series, he's literally missing the point of 'Alien3' in the same way that dozens of other fans and other casual audience members have done so for over 20 years. As for the "burden of reading a given film", are you talking about Blomkamp? You realize that his movie doesn't exist yet and that there's no film to read, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Contrary to people's complaints, having a shitload of plot information about the space jockey - right down to a DNA scan - doesn't explain anything. It explained everything, space jockey DNA is a 100% match for human DNA. That's why space jockeys are 7 foot tall albino black eyed people. Xenomrph posted:Sure there were some fans that wanted to know "the true answers" behind the Space Jockey, but those are the fans that missed the point, that failed to grasp that the mystery itself and lack of knowledge is what made the Space Jockey interesting and scary. You were scared about a dead alien race that is never talked about in any alien movie for at least 30 years? Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
The Space Jockey looks weird and hosed up and otherworldly, you weren't scared of it when you first saw it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:False. If canon-lovers actually liked and understood the prequels, they would not continue to be obsessed with canon. The sort of people who would insert the 'canon information' presented in the prequels into a database to catalogue it have not grasped that the films are telling them, if they loved Star Wars, not to do that. i really love your youtube videos so please don't troll me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:It's more likely I'm reaching the conclusion that he's dissatisfied with Alien3 and is making his "true sequel" to "correct" it because that's what he's said in interviews. Blomkamp is right though; Alien3 is absolutely not a 'true sequel' to Cameron's film. The opening credits of Alien3 are Fincher delivering a massive 'gently caress you' to Cameron's liberal ideology and pulling a near-literal sharp left turn. Calling Alien3 merely a film about overcoming grief or whatever actually just strips out all the nuance. Fincher depicts the prison colony the same way he depicts the abandoned mall full of homeless people in Gone Girl. That's his primary concern. Class warfare. Exploitation. The apocalypse. In extremely basic terms, Cameron ended his film with the characters en route to a 'purified' Earth. It's a fable about reaching utopia (thanks to Ripley, who will implicitly come back and make those white male conservatives listen to her this time). Cameron's thematic sequel, continuing the journey to utopia, is Terminator 2. (And he would obviously return to those utopian themes in Avatar.) Fincher, instead, almost literally sabotages this journey, halts Cameron's 'progress' in its tracks, and depicts of Earth (under a different name) as a blasted purgatorial hellscape. So, you are misinterpreting Blomkamp's statements. His objective, with this alternate sequel, is to go back and closely examine the ideological implications of Cameron's film, instead of rejecting the entire premise with a sneer. (I've already gone over Alien3's ideological issues in previous posts.) He really is making a true sequel. You miss this stuff because you fear giving these professional artists 'more credit than they deserve'. Also, you perceive their political thought as a threat to the integrity of the franchise, instead of a way to make good movies that directly attack you. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
That's a legitimately interesting interpretation, but I'm unconvinced. No seriously, I'm not trying to just be dismissive. I get what you're saying and I can see how it can make sense, but ultimately I just don't agree with it. I'm still looking forward to Blomkamp's movie, although I stand by my assessment that its premise is misguided. Likewise, I still like Prometheus, even if its attempts to "explain" the Space Jockey were misguided.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:That's a legitimately interesting interpretation, but I'm unconvinced. Well it's like I just said earlier, you can be told these things - you can be shown this imagery - but it is nonetheless enormously difficult to interpret things on your own. All the information in the world won't help if you can't read effectively. That was the joke in that famous Twilight Zone episode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
The thing is, that assumes there's only one way to read. It's the same mistake as conflating "agreement" with "understanding". One can understand another's point of view without agreeing with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:The thing is, that assumes there's only one way to read. It's the same mistake as conflating "agreement" with "understanding". One can understand another's point of view without agreeing with it. You are not actually voicing a disagreement. Well, except the notion that Scott, Blomkamp and Fincher are too stupid for political thought, even though they made films that (respectively) promote a radicalized Christianity, directly advocate full communism now, and satirize the liberal media. I often see people shut down. Like "everything you're saying is correct, but I just disagree for no reason." Like, you should actually examine what you are saying. If Blomkamp is a fanboy of Aliens, what aspects do you think he is a fan of - given what we've seen in his own films? Certainly not Cameron's liberalism. Liberals are the bad guys in all of his films. Is Blomkamp just sad that Rebecca died? There's no Rebecca-like character in any of his films. Elysium even ends with the hero leaving the little girl and her mother behind, because he has a higher ethical cause than merely starting a family. He sacrifices himself like Ripley does! There is such a thing as truth. You can't retreat into 'it's just my opinion' and still expect to be taken seriously. That's having your cake and eating it too. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Blomkamp forgot the 'r' in Max's name. I don't understand why people are looking for to his alien movie.
Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Blomkamp is a very sincere filmmaker imo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:03
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Blomkamp is a very sincere filmmaker imo. Sincere about SPACE GUNS anyway everything else in his movies tends to be either a setup for SPACE GUNS or forgotten as soon as the SPACE GUNS come out
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:There is such a thing as truth. you mean in art.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
On the subject of art, it looks like Alien: Covenant will have a visual style much closer to Alien if these photos of the ship are anything to go by. Looks much better than Prometheus did: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:False. If canon-lovers actually liked and understood the prequels, they would not continue to be obsessed with canon. The sort of people who would insert the 'canon information' presented in the prequels into a database to catalogue it have not grasped that the films are telling them, if they loved Star Wars, not to do that. So yeah, speaking of fanboys... Your thesis on Bloodborne vs the other souls games fails to take into consideration the joy of survival horror inherent to the sword & board play-style you're steered towards in those first games. For sure the dodge-heavy Bloodborne style is fun and probably more accessible, but it's not necessarily a bad thing that the souls games let's players explore the world feeling afraid rather than like a somewhat inept bad-rear end the first time around. The strategy/exploit heavy ranged/magic playstyles are a third option and a lot of fun when you go through the game for the second or third time trying to find all the hidden stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love Bloodborne and agree with most of your arguments. It is a really tight and well-designed game. However, the large amount of choice and variety in the souls games really tie into the sense of wonder and mystery when you explore the game and was one of the things that made me fall in love with it. I don't really care if that means not everyone else will like it. Love your channel. SUNKOS posted:On the subject of art, it looks like Alien: Covenant will have a visual style much closer to Alien if these photos of the ship are anything to go by. Looks much better than Prometheus did: Looks more like Aliens if you ask me. thotsky fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The problem here is that you are thinking in terms of what a movie is 'trying to do'. Intentions. So then you get these weird fantasies about how professional director is making this entire movie because he's sad. It sort of betrays a lack of understanding of why artists do things. Hell yes artistic creation,something renowned for having never been inspired by one's sadness. Tenzarin posted:You were scared about a dead alien race that is never talked about in any alien movie for at least 30 years? The implications of the space jockey's condition and it being unnerving is literally the first half of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Hell yes artistic creation,something renowned for having never been inspired by one's sadness. We're talking about sadness over the death of a fictional space marine in a 1993 b-movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:We're talking about sadness over the death of a fictional space marine in a 1993 b-movie. Actually we're talking about SuperMechagodzilla posted:The problem here is that you are thinking in terms of what a movie is 'trying to do'. Intentions. So then you get these weird fantasies about how professional director is making this entire movie because he's sad. It sort of betrays a lack of understanding of why artists do things. and how that is, in fact, a totally reasonable motive for why an artist does something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Biomute posted:So yeah, speaking of fanboys... In Alien news, Blomkamp is probably not making an entire movie purely about how annoyed you think he is about alien 3. He is, probably, a creator, with a multitude of ideas and an understanding of how to communicate them. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
I'm just going off of his statements in interviews where he's said pretty much that. Like yeah I'm sure his movie will bring more to the table than just a grudge against Alien3 (and his other ideas, whatever they may be, are the main reason I'm looking forward to it), but the man has literally said he wants to do "a proper sequel" to 'Aliens' and to "give Ripley closure", implying that Alien3 is neither of those. I mean, the writing is on the wall. It doesn't help that his plans to bring Ripley and Hicks back reeks of bad fanfiction - there's tons of interesting themes and ideas to explore within the Alien universe and they don't need to hinge on two specific characters. To go back to your sorta-derail, what is your YouTube channel?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Do we know if Sharlto Copley is going to be in Blomkamp alien Because he better be
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
SUNKOS posted:On the subject of art, it looks like Alien: Covenant will have a visual style much closer to Alien if these photos of the ship are anything to go by. Looks much better than Prometheus did: Somebody took the criticisms of Prometheus (the ship) to heart and said "this time, more toggle switches and more chains!" What is it with the dangling chains in Alien movies? They are a major visual feature of the first three films. Might have even been in Resurrection too but I tend to block that movie out. RE: Fanboy discussion - I am die hard Alien fanboy, no question. Probably the only film or medium I can really say that about, actually, I like it that much. And none of my issues with the post-Aliens movies have much to do with the plot. As I've said before I think Alien 3 and Prometheus both could have worked with the same stories, I just don't like the execution and feel they were badly done. Resurrection is the one film I take exception to - I think the story was just off. Which is ironic because Joss Whedon feels the same way about Resurrection as I do about the Alien 3/Prometheus - he likes what he wrote, and he feels like they more or less told that story (with a major change to the ending, which was partially his fault because none of the 5 he ended up writing worked anyway) but they told it "wrong". Two fun direct quotes from him re: Resurrection are quote:"It wasn't a question of doing everything differently, although they changed the ending; it was mostly a matter of doing everything wrong. They said the lines...mostly...but they said them all wrong. And they cast it wrong. And they designed it wrong. And they scored it wrong. They did everything wrong that they could possibly do. There's actually a fascinating lesson in filmmaking, because everything that they did reflects back to the script or looks like something from the script, and people assume that, if I hated it, then they’d changed the script...but it wasn’t so much that they’d changed the script; it’s that they just executed it in such a ghastly fashion as to render it almost unwatchable." That's his most well known statement on the film. A few years later he elaborated: quote:"Casting is storytelling," he added when asked about what his experience working on the Jean-Pierre Jeunet helmed movie taught him. "I wrote two characters for Alien: Resurrection and their arc was that you would not know what way they were going to go. One of them turned out to be insane - and what do they do? They call Brad Dourif. So there is no plot twist. Brad is a very good actor but he has been pigeonholed into these roles. Then they case J.E. Freeman as a thug - and his character was also supposed to be a mystery. So there you go again - the mystery is gone. Those are just a couple of examples because there are thousands of them when it comes to Alien: Resurrection." Personally I think he deserves more of the blame then he is letting himself in on, though he has a point about casting. The other major change was when the character he envisioned for Chow Yun Fat got re-cast and re-worked in to what Winona Ryder ended up doing, and her portrayal of Call is one of the very worst things about that movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
The only difference between those sets and comparitive ship interiors in Prometheus is the lighting, and since neither is final they don't really indicate much of a change yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Your thesis on Bloodborne vs the other souls games fails to take into consideration the joy of survival horror inherent to the sword & board play-style you're steered towards in those first games. For sure the dodge-heavy Bloodborne style is fun and probably more accessible, but it's not necessarily a bad thing that the souls games let's players explore the world feeling afraid rather than like a somewhat inept bad-rear end the first time around. The strategy/exploit heavy ranged/magic playstyles are a third option and a lot of fun when you go through the game for the second or third time trying to find all the hidden stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love Bloodborne and agree with most of your arguments. It is a really tight and well-designed game. However, the large amount of choice and variety in the souls games really tie into the sense of wonder and mystery when you explore the game and was one of the things that made me fall in love with it. I don't really care if that means not everyone else will like it. if you play sword and board in souls game you're playing it on easy mode. the joke the shield makes in bloodborne is just the best (i was someone skeptical of the new combat since i don't parry in souls games but bloodborne ended up being my fave game ever). Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Bloodborne's beginning can be a little rough because of the number of bad guys it throws at you at once right out the gate but in general it does a great job capturing that feeling of danger FromSoftware's other fantasy games have. It really needed a little tutorial area like Demon's Souls though since it changes things up so much. Demon's Souls has one of the best tutorial areas ever made on every level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:if you play sword and board in souls game you're playing it on easy mode. You should watch Hbomberguys youtube thing for some context here I think. I've played the souls games every which way multiple times. I'd probably disagree that sword and board is necessarily "easy" mode, as there are plenty of traps in the game that are designed to catch a cautious player unaware. Now, you should check out his movie, but in short Hbomberguy feels like the way the souls games steer the player towards using sword and board does the players a disservice, as it is a less engaging way of playing the game. I think he's partly right. The sword and board play-style is one players ultimately shed, either during your first run or during subsequent playthroughs, but I think the journey from hiding behind your shield inching your way through an unfamiliar landscape in a dangerous world to dodge-rolling bad-rear end is an integral part of the souls experience, and one that sets it apart from Bloodborne without necessarily making it inferior to Bloodborne.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
i seen all his videos. multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I'm just going off of his statements in interviews where he's said pretty much that. The problem here is that you understand 'Ripley' as, like, a simulated person and not a locus for (and expression of) those exact themes and ideas. Ripley is a concept. ''Holmes' means something different from 'Marlowe'. And nobody complains about Holmes and Watson, like "there's tons of interesting themes and ideas to explore within the Victorian Era Britain Universe and they don't need to hinge on two specific characters." Like, "why does this story have to be about Sherlock Holmes? Why not just invent a new detective?" When a director talks about a character, they are already-automatically talking about the themes associated with that character. Also Alien3 did provide closure for the character. Blomkamp is criticizing Alien 4 and its bad ending.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Ripley is a good character, but the main character in the first movie is the Alien, and in the second one it is the Aliens. The sequels and spin-offs have missed the mark by not providing those characters with a convincing arc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:Sincere about SPACE GUNS anyway Chappie carries its themes right through the 2nd act action and reaches its logical conclusion with America being reborn in Chappie's humanity and actions when confronting Hugh Jackman's character and ultimately begins to recreate the world in his image.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Ripley is a good character, but the main character in the first movie is the Alien, and in the second one it is the Aliens. The sequels and spin-offs have missed the mark by not providing those characters with a convincing arc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
one thing i didn't like about chappie is they didn't explain/explore that it's not really their friend in the robot but a copy of him and their friend is still dead as a doornail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Also Alien3 did provide closure for the character. Alien, Aliens and Alien 3 really were a brilliantly executed trilogy that achieved perfect closure in relation to the overarching themes and narrative of the franchise as a whole (up until that point) in my opinion. I'm actually really curious to see if Blomkamp is going to ignore Alien 3 entirely or instead try to craft some kind of Alien 2.5 that attempts to slot neatly between both Aliens and Alien 3. He certainly has the opportunity to do so but I get the impression that he might instead try to ignore Alien 3 entirely, which would be unfortunate I think since it's really the perfect ending for a series such as this. Given how Aliens ends with Ripley & co. entering hypersleep and Alien 3 begins with them still in hypersleep, there's nothing to prevent him from crafting a story between those two points where they awaken somewhere else and tell whatever story it is that he wants to, before ending with the three of them back in hypersleep and the events of Alien 3 taking place. What we have seen from the concept art however is images of Ripley and Hicks reflecting the age that both Weaver and Biehn currently are, so I'm thinking that he's going to find some way to ignore Alien 3 entirely which I think would be a mistake on his part. I vaguely recall mentions of Newt being an adult now as well, so it seems like Blomkamp is just going to pretend that Alien 3 never happened at all. I don't think that it's a wise decision but I'm interested to see what he creates regardless, especially since from a visual standpoint I've no doubt that he would do a superb job aesthetically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:one thing i didn't like about chappie is they didn't explain/explore that it's not really their friend in the robot but a copy of him and their friend is still dead as a doornail. It is absolutely explained. There just isn't any expository dialogue. The entire film sets the groundwork for - and builds up to - the final image, which encapsulates the idea that the the protagonists have birthed a race of demons. The beauty of the film is that these demons are still understood as the underdog heroes in the battle against humanity. And this is all established with a rigorous hard-sci-fi logic that, it bears repeating, is conveyed without exposition. SUNKOS posted:Alien, Aliens and Alien 3 really were a brilliantly executed trilogy that achieved perfect closure in relation to the overarching themes and narrative of the franchise as a whole (up until that point) in my opinion. There's actually very little thematic continuity between the first three Alien films. Cameron's interpretation of Scott's Alien, for example, is that Ripley is racist against robots in that film. He then attempted to 'fix' this perceived issue by introducing the Bishop character and doing everything to emphasize that the aliens - instead of the corporation - are the ultimate evil. Like, straight up, Cameron says that the events of Alien only went bad because the company had not yet developed good enough humanitarian programming for its robots. Offscreen, in the 75 years since Alien, Cameron says Weyland-Yutani worked hard to voluntarily solve what was ultimately a technical problem - and he praises the company for their success. The company's going 'green', 'ethical', etc. It's liberalism! And then of course Ripley fuckin kills herself rather than even talk to them, in the next film. Alien3's Ripley suddenly holds W-Y directly responsible for the deaths of the marines. Fincher suddenly veered towards a harsh anticapitalism. What you do get are these various directors riffing on the same basic images, but each one offers a fairly different interpretation of what those images ultimately mean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Like, straight up, Cameron says that the events of Alien only went bad because the company had not yet developed good enough humanitarian programming for its robots. Offscreen, in the 75 years since Alien, Cameron says Weyland-Yutani worked hard to voluntarily solve what was ultimately a technical problem - and he praises the company for their success. The company's going 'green', 'ethical', etc. It's liberalism! Although this is thematically appropriate as a Vietnam analogy. Nixon was elected on a promise to "end the war," a similarly hypocritical promise that the establishment envisioned a humanitarian outcome to sending in the troops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:This is an interesting interpretation, what are their arcs in the first two movies? I'm no film major, but in Alien the Alien is introduced very effectively. The opening of the stasis pods foreshadows the opening of the alien egg and the foreboding, black and glossy planet and downed ship serves as exposition for the creature itself. What could possibly live down there but a survivor. The fallen alien pilot which would dwarf any human could not stand up to it, so we're primed to think of it as powerful. As the movie progresses we learn these things to be true as the crew does, the stakes rising with the action, the growth of the Alien and the death toll. Everyone gets a defined relationship with the Alien. Some are merely its victims, others become admiring allies, while Ripley is set up as the rival. The other characters are put into conflict with each other over it from the start. There's a bond that forms between Ripley and the Alien that seemingly is deeper than her just being another victim with the climax coming when it corners her undressed in the tight space of the shuttle. Ripley ultimately defeats the Alien. I guess if you wanna get artsy about it you could say that she (r)ejects it. The Alien is left floating in space, possibly dead, as Ripley reenters the cocoon of the stasis pod. We now have a pretty clear picture of the Alien as a weirdly intimate and efficient killer. We know bit about how it works, and we might have an idea of what it wants, but there are still unanswered questions and a sense of mystery to it. We know a ship full of the things is still on the planet and we're left wanting more. In Aliens they pick up on those threads, giving us answers to some of the remaining mysteries about the eggs left behind, and the life cycle of the Alien. Basically fleshing out the motivations of the Aliens somewhat. Ripleys talks with the company, and her nightmares serves as exposition for the character of the Alien. We already know to fear it going in. However, we're quickly disabused of the notion that the Alien is simply content to simply wait in a ship like before. It's already loose, and the Alien has become the Aliens. We learn as do the landing party, that the Aliens want hosts and are willing to go looking for them. We learn they are many and can work in context. The character of the Aliens is fleshed out not only in their motivations, but also in their actions as they've gone from hiding in the shadows to launching outright assaults. They leap. They crawl. One can prefer the menace of the first movie, but clearly the Alien has grown into a stronger foe, personified by the queen. In Aliens we learn the aliens are not mindless through the actions of their Queen in what is arguably the start of the climax, both for the movie and the character of the aliens. The Queen makes her motivations clear to Ripley, and ripley again rejects the aliens, burning the nest and ultimately ejecting the alien out into the coldness of space again before going back to her stasis. In the third movie the Alien itself has regressed. It's more animal-like than in the first one, and it does not feel like it's done purposefully. We learn nothing new of consequence about it. It feels pretty inconsequential to the movie that it is an alien doing the killing. A woman washes up on the shores of a monastery and helps reveal a murderous monk who is killing his brothers? I could see it. In the fourth an attempt is made to evolve the character of the Alien. We learn that they're not above killing each other to secure escape, but we're never quite clear on what their motivations are and how the Aliens relate to the human characters in the movie. I'm guessing the thought was that the human characters have to pass through this gauntlet the aliens have created guided by Ripley who is now a human-alien hybrid, but it feels more like a circus. Deaths have no real meaning. The alien-human hybrid could be seen as an attempt to further humanize the aliens like the queen did in Aliens, but the only motivation it demonstrates is some kind of wish to be intimate with Ripley and we learned that three movies ago. In the AvP spin-offs the Aliens are cardboard cut-out movie monsters. They kill/gently caress people because that is what is expected, and sometimes they do so with slightly novel variations for shock value. They're pretty much backdrop, so much so that they must literally branded as individuals by the predators in an attempt to make us care. I think this is why Ridley Scott goes on about the Space Jockey so much. He wanted to do what James Cameron did for the Alien in Aliens, but the Aliens are already quite fleshed out and if you deviate too much from its character people get upset. Safer to expand upon the remaining mysteries of the first movie. I'm avoiding spoilers, but it seems like Neill Blomkamp wants to take the risk of messing with the core character of the Aliens themselves, further evolving them. If he can do that without it coming across as silly and complicated, while staying on the good side of the fans that would be the best way forwards, but I rather doubt he will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Biomute posted:In the third movie the Alien itself has regressed. It's more animal-like than in the first one, and it does not feel like it's done purposefully. We learn nothing new of consequence about it. It feels pretty inconsequential to the movie that it is an alien doing the killing. A woman washes up on the shores of a monastery and helps reveal a murderous monk who is killing his brothers? I could see it. I always thought of the alien as being Ripley's guardian angel in the third movie, it was an interesting change in the dynamics between the two characters I think. It's a shame that they never adopted Giger's proposals to make the alien more feminine either, but I think they were too conscious of how that might interfere with the established order for the species after the queen was unveiled in the second film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It is absolutely explained. There just isn't any expository dialogue. The entire film sets the groundwork for - and builds up to - the final image, which encapsulates the idea that the the protagonists have birthed a race of demons. The beauty of the film is that these demons are still understood as the underdog heroes in the battle against humanity. And this is all established with a rigorous hard-sci-fi logic that, it bears repeating, is conveyed without exposition. nah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
They explicitly show that the copies are not the same people; the version of the character at the end of the film is based on a save-state from roughly half the film ago. The same point was made at the end of the film Oblivion. Both these films end with this point because there's not really much else to 'explore'. There's a clone with the face of a loved one. It looks like them but it's not, so it's awkward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 00:07
|
|