Reply to Topic
Yeah, what the **** ARE you people talking about!? We're talking my favorite movie a couple days ago and I come back and it's a bachelor pad with the cast.
Do You Ever Get Sick Of "The Book Is Better Than The Movie" bit?
Corax just wanted more goop in the movie. Just piles and piles, every surface in every scene.
X
User Lists
First person shooters didn't exist when this film was made. First person shooters would copy this film.
X
Favorite Movies
That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate point of comparison/criticism, though.
In this case, I don't think it is. ALIENS did it first, so it looks like... ...itself. Video games that copy ALIENS (e.g., DOOM) look like it, not the other way around. It is not derivative. It not really fair to complain that it looks like the stuff that copied it. Of course it does; they were copying it.
And I don't think that the accusation the ALIENS looks like a FPS gets purchase, because the charge is anachronistic. Again, I think both films are great, but if we want to go over them with a fine-toothed comb we will find flaws, if that is what we're looking for. The practical effect of the head was rather poorly pulled off and even Scott winces a little and admits that the robots arms look "dodgy" when Ash gets his head knocked off. It's so glaring, in part, because the scene with the chest-burster is pulled off so well. The jump-cut from robot head to Ian's head is too obvious. They should have done a few more takes. Also, they should have worked a little more on the neck prosthetic and framing and lighting and angle to really sell the idea that Ian's head wasn't simply poking through a hole in a table.
Watching interviews after the fact and seeing how they did it and how Scott sees it doesn’t really affect how well it was done or if it aged poorly.
Show Alien to just about anyone that’s scene it and the execution of that scene, with its domestic violence and sexual assault underpinnings culminating in a bukake of android fluid spraying everyone and “the arms look a bit fake” won’t be their reaction.
Could it be done better? Sure. Every film one can say that about. That doesn’t mean it’s aged poorly. That it was once grand and has now been withered by the passage of time. For any faults, the texture of the practical effects in that film are timeless and have aged better than effects a fraction of its age.
X
User Lists
In this case, I don't think it is. ALIENS did it first, so it looks like... ...itself. Video games that copy ALIENS (e.g., DOOM) look like it, not the other way around. It is not derivative. It not really fair to complain that it looks like the stuff that copied it. Of course it does; they were copying it.
X
Favorite Movies
I have not argued the FPS comparison even slightly, so I don’t see the point in bringing it up.
Now you're objecting that you didn't raise the point about FPS, but that charge is still the central claim in my exchange with Stu. It doesn't stop being the central claim just because you have entered the comment chain. Cue the Carly Simon. "The point" is that this is the central point under discussion in my exchange with Stu. It does not cease to the central point in my exchange with Stu simply because you entered the exchange. Moreover, it would be unfair for an interlocutor to enter into an exchange and insist that global relevance of the discussion should exclusively shift to the local point they wished to discuss.
Watching interviews after the fact and seeing how they did it and how Scott sees it doesn’t really affect how well it was done or if it aged poorly.
And we didn't need any behind the scenes interviews to recognize the jump cut or the obvious head-gag with the table or to notice the "dodgy" robot arms when Ash gets his block knocked off.
These are not just shots that aged poorly, but were not of the highest quality to begin with. To say they aged poorly is more like saying that they are more glaring with each rewatch and not that we're more sophisticated as viewers (it doesn't take much sophistication to note a jump cut).
The only thing that is really given away in the interviews and commentary is the kids being used for forced perspective for exterior shots of the Nostromo. If you want that point, I'll concede it, but not the rest.
Show Alien to just about anyone that’s scene it and the execution of that scene, with its domestic violence and sexual assault underpinnings culminating in a bukake of android fluid spraying everyone and “the arms look a bit fake” won’t be their reaction.
At the time, I took offense, but I had to admit that at the edges of Blade Runner are some rather obvious models and matte paintings.
Also, we're entering into anachronism here, again. Bukake porn was not a thing in 1979. Sigourney Weaver covered in white blood/oil in '79 would not necessarily read as "Oh, yeah, that's totally a Bukake bath" for them as it would be for modern viewers. It's not domestic violence, as this is work relationship and there is no indication of a romantic connection between Ripley and Ash.
Could it be done better? Sure. Every film one can say that about. That doesn’t mean it’s aged poorly. That it was once grand and has now been withered by the passage of time. For any faults, the texture of the practical effects in that film are timeless and have aged better than effects a fraction of its age.
Stu doesn't like the look of the corridors, but haven't we noticed that utilitarian construction is a bit monotonous? Would we expect a "shake and bake colony" to be more brutalist/industrialist or more "Frank Lloyd Wright"?
The corridors of the Nostromo and the Derelict vessel are more impressive than the corridors of the Sulaco and Colony on LV-426, but what happens in those corridors IS impressive; how those corridors are used is fantastic, and I take objection (again, this is the central claim I have in dispute with Stu) to the anachronistic objection that ALIENS looks FPS when FPS games have worked so hard to replicate the look and feeling of ALIENS.
You entered in to an exchange that I was having with Stu. Stu objected that ALIENS looks poor in comparison, because (according to Stu) it looks like a first person shooter. I was responding to that particular charge. You took umbrage because I claimed that not all of the FX in ALIEN have aged like wine. You defended the honor of the practical effects. My response emphasized that my purpose was not so much to attack the effects shots/set design in ALIEN as it was to comparatively note that ALIENS was not really terrible in comparison, especially not in terms of the particular objection Stu voiced.
Now you're objecting that you didn't raise the point about FPS, but that charge is still the central claim in my exchange with Stu. It doesn't stop being the central claim just because you have entered the comment chain. Cue the Carly Simon. "The point" is that this is the central point under discussion in my exchange with Stu. It does not cease to the central point in my exchange with Stu simply because you entered the exchange. Moreover, it would be unfair for an interlocutor to enter into an exchange and insist that global relevance of the discussion should exclusively shift to the local point they wished to discuss.
The blinky lights room was already a bit threadbare and tropey when we saw it in '79. So much so that it was parodied three years later in Airplane 2.
And we didn't need any behind the scenes interviews to recognize the jump cut or the obvious head-gag with the table or to notice the "dodgy" robot arms when Ash gets his block knocked off.
These are not just shots that aged poorly, but were not of the highest quality to begin with. To say they aged poorly is more like saying that they are more glaring with each rewatch and not that we're more sophisticated as viewers (it doesn't take much sophistication to note a jump cut).
The only thing that is really given away in the interviews and commentary is the kids being used for forced perspective for exterior shots of the Nostromo. If you want that point, I'll concede it, but not the rest.
Are you sure about that? It's an empirical question. We can gather the audiences. I still stand in awe of the effects shots in Blade Runner and I still agree with effects artists who claim that they are a high water mark for practical effects shots. Even so, I remember watching a scene from Blade Runner on TV with a few twenty-year olds in the year 2000 who laughed at the shots of the spinner descending on the police building because the lights in the windows of the buildings at the periphery were are all at the exact same temperature/color giving away their artifice as models. They laughed and said, "Nice fake buildings!"
At the time, I took offense, but I had to admit that at the edges of Blade Runner are some rather obvious models and matte paintings.
Also, we're entering into anachronism here, again. Bukake porn was not a thing in 1979. Sigourney Weaver covered in white blood/oil in '79 would not necessarily read as "Oh, yeah, that's totally a Bukake bath" for them as it would be for modern viewers. It's not domestic violence, as this is work relationship and there is no indication of a romantic connection between Ripley and Ash.
I didn't watch ALIEN 50,000 times on VHS because I thought it sucked or wasn't pretty to look at. It's prettier than ALIENS. Scott is better painting the frame than Cameron. For dynamic action, on the other hand it's hard to beat Cameron at the peak of his powers. They both bring something different to the table.
Stu doesn't like the look of the corridors, but haven't we noticed that utilitarian construction is a bit monotonous? Would we expect a "shake and bake colony" to be more brutalist/industrialist or more "Frank Lloyd Wright"?
The corridors of the Nostromo and the Derelict vessel are more impressive than the corridors of the Sulaco and Colony on LV-426, but what happens in those corridors IS impressive; how those corridors are used is fantastic, and I take objection (again, this is the central claim I have in dispute with Stu) to the anachronistic objection that ALIENS looks FPS when FPS games have worked so hard to replicate the look and feeling of ALIENS.
Now you're objecting that you didn't raise the point about FPS, but that charge is still the central claim in my exchange with Stu. It doesn't stop being the central claim just because you have entered the comment chain. Cue the Carly Simon. "The point" is that this is the central point under discussion in my exchange with Stu. It does not cease to the central point in my exchange with Stu simply because you entered the exchange. Moreover, it would be unfair for an interlocutor to enter into an exchange and insist that global relevance of the discussion should exclusively shift to the local point they wished to discuss.
The blinky lights room was already a bit threadbare and tropey when we saw it in '79. So much so that it was parodied three years later in Airplane 2.
And we didn't need any behind the scenes interviews to recognize the jump cut or the obvious head-gag with the table or to notice the "dodgy" robot arms when Ash gets his block knocked off.
These are not just shots that aged poorly, but were not of the highest quality to begin with. To say they aged poorly is more like saying that they are more glaring with each rewatch and not that we're more sophisticated as viewers (it doesn't take much sophistication to note a jump cut).
The only thing that is really given away in the interviews and commentary is the kids being used for forced perspective for exterior shots of the Nostromo. If you want that point, I'll concede it, but not the rest.
Are you sure about that? It's an empirical question. We can gather the audiences. I still stand in awe of the effects shots in Blade Runner and I still agree with effects artists who claim that they are a high water mark for practical effects shots. Even so, I remember watching a scene from Blade Runner on TV with a few twenty-year olds in the year 2000 who laughed at the shots of the spinner descending on the police building because the lights in the windows of the buildings at the periphery were are all at the exact same temperature/color giving away their artifice as models. They laughed and said, "Nice fake buildings!"
At the time, I took offense, but I had to admit that at the edges of Blade Runner are some rather obvious models and matte paintings.
Also, we're entering into anachronism here, again. Bukake porn was not a thing in 1979. Sigourney Weaver covered in white blood/oil in '79 would not necessarily read as "Oh, yeah, that's totally a Bukake bath" for them as it would be for modern viewers. It's not domestic violence, as this is work relationship and there is no indication of a romantic connection between Ripley and Ash.
I didn't watch ALIEN 50,000 times on VHS because I thought it sucked or wasn't pretty to look at. It's prettier than ALIENS. Scott is better painting the frame than Cameron. For dynamic action, on the other hand it's hard to beat Cameron at the peak of his powers. They both bring something different to the table.
Stu doesn't like the look of the corridors, but haven't we noticed that utilitarian construction is a bit monotonous? Would we expect a "shake and bake colony" to be more brutalist/industrialist or more "Frank Lloyd Wright"?
The corridors of the Nostromo and the Derelict vessel are more impressive than the corridors of the Sulaco and Colony on LV-426, but what happens in those corridors IS impressive; how those corridors are used is fantastic, and I take objection (again, this is the central claim I have in dispute with Stu) to the anachronistic objection that ALIENS looks FPS when FPS games have worked so hard to replicate the look and feeling of ALIENS.
I’m not going to do a point by point rebuttal to an avalanche approach to argument, so I’ll just make a few points:
1) I don’t have to agree with Stu to take issue with your defense.
2) There are always incredulous people in their interactions towards art. That doesn’t make their interpretation worth much. A critic recently said “There’s only so much actors can do with Shakespeare,” in a review of Tragedy of MacBeth. The cinemasins perspective is an asinine approach to cinema and your critique feels very much akin.
3) The same people that point out “fake buildings” and “His head is clearly in a hole” aren’t particularly astute observers. They simply know there’s an effect and approach it with crossed arms. These people are the same ones shocked by the amount of composition and digital alterations in films by David Fincher, Scorsese and most recently, Jane Campion’s Power of the Dog. They only see the effect when they know there has to be an effect.
4) I live in the modern world and used Bukake as a description. Ejaculate existed when Alien was released and tinge of sexual abuse and domestic violence (it’s a work relationship but they live together and it plays out identical to what many, many women experience at the hands of an angry husband).
Feel free to type 20 pages in response. I’ll respond to however much I feel remotely invested.
X
User Lists
So let me get this straight
1) We can make a comparison towards the practical effects that Alien uses and how they don't match up to the effects modern films use. Modern effects that weren't developed yet and used the work of older SFX artists to build upon. This can be therefore be used as evidence of something aging poorly
2) We can make a comparison towards the computer designs shown in Alien and then compare them to how they were not prophetic in determining how modern technology would look and operate, for a similar reason of arguing Alien aged poorly. Even though this C64 looking terminal would be one of the prototypes for all future computer designs to follow.
3) We CANNOT draw a comparison between the set design of Aliens and all of the first player shooter games that have retroactively made that movie look like a shitty first person shooter game? Because first player shooter games were influenced by the set design of Aliens?
Got it.
1) We can make a comparison towards the practical effects that Alien uses and how they don't match up to the effects modern films use. Modern effects that weren't developed yet and used the work of older SFX artists to build upon. This can be therefore be used as evidence of something aging poorly
2) We can make a comparison towards the computer designs shown in Alien and then compare them to how they were not prophetic in determining how modern technology would look and operate, for a similar reason of arguing Alien aged poorly. Even though this C64 looking terminal would be one of the prototypes for all future computer designs to follow.
3) We CANNOT draw a comparison between the set design of Aliens and all of the first player shooter games that have retroactively made that movie look like a shitty first person shooter game? Because first player shooter games were influenced by the set design of Aliens?
Got it.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Also, what movie that is 40 years old doesn't 'age poorly'?
"Hey, look at the those cars chasing eachother in the French Connection! Cars don't look like that now! Stupid previous generations ruining my suspension of disbelief! Again!"
"Hey, look at the those cars chasing eachother in the French Connection! Cars don't look like that now! Stupid previous generations ruining my suspension of disbelief! Again!"
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
1) I don’t have to agree with Stu to take issue with your defense.
The cinemasins perspective is an asinine approach to cinema and your critique feels very much akin.
The same people that point out “fake buildings” and “His head is clearly in a hole” aren’t particularly astute observers.
I live in the modern world and used Bukake as a description.
Feel free to type 20 pages in response. I’ll respond to however much I feel remotely invested.
1) We can make a comparison towards the practical effects that Alien uses and how they don't match up to the effects modern films use. Modern effects that weren't developed yet and used the work of older SFX artists to build upon. This can be therefore be used as evidence of something aging poorly
We can note that this is a non-unique disadvantage when others are complaining about the sequel. If the criticism is dignified, then it is one shared in consideration of both films.
And we should note that the effects shots that were not "so good" were not failures for want of CGI, but for want of showing less, or doing more takes (e.g., to line up the jump cut better), or finding a better angle, etc.
2) We can make a comparison towards the computer designs shown in Alien and then compare them to how they were not prophetic in determining how modern technology would look and operate, for a similar reason of arguing Alien aged poorly. Even though this C64 looking terminal would be one of the prototypes for all future computer designs to follow.
I believe you will find that the criticism was of the room itself, not the computer. All the blinking pointless white lights that have no read out meter / letting associated with them.
3) We CANNOT draw a comparison between the set design of Aliens and all of the first player shooter games that have retroactively made that movie look like a shitty first person shooter game? Because first player shooter games were influenced by the set design of Aliens?
Correct. This is not fair.
And ALIENS doesn't look like a shi**y first shooter game. Why the hate for ALIENS? It looks like a lot of shooter games. It's a whole genre. It also looks like some great FPS games. That it looks dated now, is because it set the bar by which it is being judged by Stu. And that is not really fair.
And I don't have to give up the central claim in the discussion because you entered the conversation. Moreover, it is a bit odd to ask what the central point under contention has to do with anything.
I am not taking a cinemasins approach. I am speaking honestly about two beloved films.
They're astute enough. The effects are supposed to fool us, draw us in. We shouldn't have to squint too hard to believe what we're seeing. When viewers see the artifice of an FX shot plainly, that shot wasn't done well or hasn't aged well. It doesn't make the film horrible, it just means that the seams are showing in some areas. It is what it is.
I didn't say that you didn't. I am sure this was a perfectly natural word for you to type.
LOL.
I am not taking a cinemasins approach. I am speaking honestly about two beloved films.
They're astute enough. The effects are supposed to fool us, draw us in. We shouldn't have to squint too hard to believe what we're seeing. When viewers see the artifice of an FX shot plainly, that shot wasn't done well or hasn't aged well. It doesn't make the film horrible, it just means that the seams are showing in some areas. It is what it is.
I didn't say that you didn't. I am sure this was a perfectly natural word for you to type.
LOL.
You are, in an attempt to reveal what you think are relative weaknesses.
When you see a movie, if you’re an adult, you know when you see an Android getting its head knocked off or you’re seeing an Alien with a toothed tongue, that you’re seeing an effect. These are easy criticisms to make as the viewer enters the film KNOWING this is fake. I’m incredulous to their incredulity. Plenty of audiences have entered in good faith and suspended disbelief for effects to work. The effects in Alien are still highly effective, thus have not “aged poorly.”
Your prude is showing. Which causes me to ask, how did you know what Bukake was? *gasp/clutch pearls*
X
User Lists
The central claim I responded to (as you’re acutely aware can be shifted depending on what you chose to reply to) was the the effects aged poorly. Your conversation with Stu is not your conversation with me, even if there is overlap at times. Welcome to a movie forum!
No. You pushed your snout into a conversation that I was having with Stu and then protested that you didn't see the point of the main discussion after you had waded into it. This is a simple dialectical error on your part. You don't get to argue that the main point under discussion is irrelevant because somehow you missed it and you don't get to reposition what support premises in my argument are doing so as to reframe my position.
Your prude is showing. Which causes me to ask, how did you know what Bukake was? *gasp/clutch pearls*
On the contrary, I have embraced Rockatansky's quip that I am true lover of goop and that I wanted to see more on Ian Holm. I ain't judging your kink, homie. Indeed, I regret the prosaic blue ball I now have in your premature rejection of the thick ropey ejaculations I wanted to make in the form of walls of text in response. You have proved yourself the intellectual prude, if anything.
No. You pushed your snout into a conversation that I was having with Stu and then protested that you didn't see the point of the main discussion after you had waded into it. This is a simple dialectical error on your part. You don't get to argue that the main point under discussion is irrelevant because somehow you missed it and you don't get to reposition what support premises in my argument are doing so as to reframe my position.
On the contrary, I have embraced Rockatansky's quip that I am true lover of goop and that I wanted to see more on Ian Holm. I ain't judging your kink, homie. Indeed, I regret the prosaic blue ball I now have in your premature rejection of the thick ropey ejaculations I wanted to make in the form of walls of text in response. You have proved yourself the intellectual prude, if anything.
On the contrary, I have embraced Rockatansky's quip that I am true lover of goop and that I wanted to see more on Ian Holm. I ain't judging your kink, homie. Indeed, I regret the prosaic blue ball I now have in your premature rejection of the thick ropey ejaculations I wanted to make in the form of walls of text in response. You have proved yourself the intellectual prude, if anything.
It was more akin to explosive diarrhea, on (or out?) your end. A kink I will admit that I do not share with you. Go goop it up, brother! Goop with God.
X
User Lists
FTR I don't think anyone here is dismissing Aliens. They are just saying it has an ugly set design. And it does, regardless of whether or not the look has been diminished by junky RPG games. As a fan of the movie, I've always thought it looked ugly. Because it's ugly. Now maybe this is deliberate on the part of the designers, and in that case, fine, but I've still never been a fan of its aesthetics. Other than this though, the movie is essentially great.
Also, I've also never much liked the Ian Holm edit. But I don't see this as much as a film aging poorly (as has already been mentioned, the clumsiness of the edit was apparent at the time it came out) as it just being a slight glitch on an otherwise fantastic scene. Unfortunate but no deal breaker (and, as stated, it isn't a deal breaker for anyone here)
But basically, I think the argument of 'aging poorly' is almost always a pretty empty criticism. It is usually used as a quick dismissal of the past, instead of embracing how things were done then. Which is annoying as art is best understood with an empathetic eye on both its history, where it presently is, and where it is going. But, unfortunately, this angle is still clearly a fan favorite with general audience members as it comes up all of the time. I've even had arguments with my grandmother who thinks the acting in the movies she watched as a kid have 'aged poorly' and I basically have to defend Bogart and Cagney and Cary Grant to her as she somehow believes modern acting is more 'realistic'. Even though modern acting is yet just another phony approximation of what we take to be real. Outside of Mike Leigh, and some efforts from neo-realism, nothing on screen can ever really pass as something from real life.
The reality is that things are nearly always destined to become dated. Whether this is acting, or special effects, or the editing, or the camera work, or the politics of the time. And while it's fair to mention this 'datedness' as an observation, especially if it is a part of a bigger conversation on how to get 'better', it gets wonky when it starts being used to dismiss things just out of hand (not saying this is what is specifically happening here)
And if the kids of this generation can't learn to suspend their disbelief over a bad edit, or some blinking lights, they suck as film critics and hopefully they grow out of it.
Also, I've also never much liked the Ian Holm edit. But I don't see this as much as a film aging poorly (as has already been mentioned, the clumsiness of the edit was apparent at the time it came out) as it just being a slight glitch on an otherwise fantastic scene. Unfortunate but no deal breaker (and, as stated, it isn't a deal breaker for anyone here)
But basically, I think the argument of 'aging poorly' is almost always a pretty empty criticism. It is usually used as a quick dismissal of the past, instead of embracing how things were done then. Which is annoying as art is best understood with an empathetic eye on both its history, where it presently is, and where it is going. But, unfortunately, this angle is still clearly a fan favorite with general audience members as it comes up all of the time. I've even had arguments with my grandmother who thinks the acting in the movies she watched as a kid have 'aged poorly' and I basically have to defend Bogart and Cagney and Cary Grant to her as she somehow believes modern acting is more 'realistic'. Even though modern acting is yet just another phony approximation of what we take to be real. Outside of Mike Leigh, and some efforts from neo-realism, nothing on screen can ever really pass as something from real life.
The reality is that things are nearly always destined to become dated. Whether this is acting, or special effects, or the editing, or the camera work, or the politics of the time. And while it's fair to mention this 'datedness' as an observation, especially if it is a part of a bigger conversation on how to get 'better', it gets wonky when it starts being used to dismiss things just out of hand (not saying this is what is specifically happening here)
And if the kids of this generation can't learn to suspend their disbelief over a bad edit, or some blinking lights, they suck as film critics and hopefully they grow out of it.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
FTR I don't think anyone here is dismissing Aliens. They are just saying it has an ugly set design. And it does, regardless of whether or not the look has been diminished by junky RPG games. As a fan of the movie, I've always thought it looked ugly. Because it's ugly. Now maybe this is deliberate on the part of the designers, and in that case, fine, but I've still never been a fan of its aesthetics. Other than this though, the movie is essentially great.
Also, I've also never much liked the Ian Holm edit. But I don't see this as much as a film aging poorly (as has already been mentioned, the clumsiness of the edit was apparent at the time it came out) as it just being a slight glitch on an otherwise fantastic scene. Unfortunate but no deal breaker (and, as stated, it isn't a deal breaker for anyone here)
But basically, I think the argument of 'aging poorly' is almost always a pretty empty criticism. It is usually used as a quick dismissal of the past, instead of embracing how things were done then. Which is annoying as art is best understood with an empathetic eye on both its history, where it presently is, and where it is going. But, unfortunately, this angle is still clearly a fan favorite with general audience members as it comes up all of the time. I've even had arguments with my grandmother who thinks the acting in the movies she watched as a kid have 'aged poorly' and I basically have to defend Bogart and Cagney and Cary Grant to her as she somehow believes modern acting is more 'realistic'. Even though modern acting is yet just another phony approximation of what we take to be real. Outside of Mike Leigh, and some efforts from neo-realism, nothing on screen can ever really pass as something from real life.
The reality is that things are nearly always destined to become dated. Whether this is acting, or special effects, or the editing, or the camera work, or the politics of the time. And while it's fair to mention this 'datedness' as an observation, especially if it is a part of a bigger conversation on how to get 'better', it gets wonky when it starts being used to dismiss things just out of hand (not saying this is what is specifically happening here)
And if the kids of this generation can't learn to suspend their disbelief over a bad edit, or some blinking lights, they suck as film critics and hopefully they grow out of it.
Also, I've also never much liked the Ian Holm edit. But I don't see this as much as a film aging poorly (as has already been mentioned, the clumsiness of the edit was apparent at the time it came out) as it just being a slight glitch on an otherwise fantastic scene. Unfortunate but no deal breaker (and, as stated, it isn't a deal breaker for anyone here)
But basically, I think the argument of 'aging poorly' is almost always a pretty empty criticism. It is usually used as a quick dismissal of the past, instead of embracing how things were done then. Which is annoying as art is best understood with an empathetic eye on both its history, where it presently is, and where it is going. But, unfortunately, this angle is still clearly a fan favorite with general audience members as it comes up all of the time. I've even had arguments with my grandmother who thinks the acting in the movies she watched as a kid have 'aged poorly' and I basically have to defend Bogart and Cagney and Cary Grant to her as she somehow believes modern acting is more 'realistic'. Even though modern acting is yet just another phony approximation of what we take to be real. Outside of Mike Leigh, and some efforts from neo-realism, nothing on screen can ever really pass as something from real life.
The reality is that things are nearly always destined to become dated. Whether this is acting, or special effects, or the editing, or the camera work, or the politics of the time. And while it's fair to mention this 'datedness' as an observation, especially if it is a part of a bigger conversation on how to get 'better', it gets wonky when it starts being used to dismiss things just out of hand (not saying this is what is specifically happening here)
And if the kids of this generation can't learn to suspend their disbelief over a bad edit, or some blinking lights, they suck as film critics and hopefully they grow out of it.
How goopy are you?
X
User Lists
It is interesting that this discussion has gone totally off the rails and we are now discussing two movies that are both original screenplays.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
It is interesting that this discussion has gone totally off the rails and we are now discussing two movies that are both original screenplays.
X
Favorite Movies
Alien is the far more innovative and impressive film considering when it was released. It, like Jaws before it, inspired a lot of copy cat films that couldn’t capture the same feeling of dread. It’s easy to see it’s influence.
That being said, Aliens is a slightly better film, for me, due to its sleek designs, better action, and better pace (at times). They’re different types of films really. Sci fi horror and sci fi horror action hybrids, respectively. However, it also benefits from special effects becoming more impressive during this period. This alone shouldn’t be held as something of a knock against Alien, which I can recognize as something of a masterpiece for its legacy alone.
That being said, Aliens is a slightly better film, for me, due to its sleek designs, better action, and better pace (at times). They’re different types of films really. Sci fi horror and sci fi horror action hybrids, respectively. However, it also benefits from special effects becoming more impressive during this period. This alone shouldn’t be held as something of a knock against Alien, which I can recognize as something of a masterpiece for its legacy alone.
X
Favorite Movies
X