Do You Ever Get Sick Of "The Book Is Better Than The Movie" bit?

Yeah, that's somewhat where I stand. Up until the chestburster, the film is perfect. After that, however, the remainder of the film, though it's still really good and full of a couple great horror set pieces, doesn't capture what I loved about what came before to the same degree and I often have to push myself to watch the final third of Alien. In spite of this, however, I still prefer Alien over Aliens, but neither film is a perfect 10/10 for me.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

I don't find any issue with the fairly conventional end to Alien, in regards to all the crew members being picked off one by one. It's still very much in the vein of a spectacle movie the industry put a decent amount of money into, so I don't expect a game changer on every element. It has to have its pay off for the audience. So, ssure, its narrative structure in somewhat predictable. But the filmmaking and sets and sound design and special effects and editing isn't. That element remains unique to the end. I suppose we just acclimatize to it as it goes along.


And ya, Aliens is by definition more fun. But I don't know why fun gets such a good rep. It can also be fun kicking a rock down the street if one is bored enough. Cameron is a pretty great filmmaker who works within the limitations of the system, so I'll always have respect for him in regards to that (barring ****ing Avatar). And Aliens is a great beast of a movie to stand alongside of the Predators and Commandos and et al of the 80's. But Aliens can only look bad and clunky and ugly next to the majestic thing that Ridley Scott created.

Besmirching Alien for its narrative structure is akin to knocking Goodfellas because in gangster pics, they always get busted.

As if the gender norms of that film weren’t subversive for the science fiction genre (like virtually everything else about the film) and audiences were conditioned to view Dallas as the protagonist until he wasn’t. It’s nearly Psycho level in its execution but sequels seemingly devalued that element by clearly making Ripley the star.

That’s not even going into the psycho sexual subtext of the violence in the film (committed both by the alien and Ash) that creates an undercurrent of tension and dread that’s completely thrown out the window in favor of Cameron’s literal minded space bugs.

Cameron even follows the same structure as Alien, so it’s an odd criticism in the conversation of which is better. He just makes it dumber, louder, and bigger.

This is the part of the conversation I always have to repeat that I love Aliens. I just find the notion that it’s better than Alien to be a hate crime and worthy of violent retribution. Nothing unreasonable.

Despite having seen it loads of times, the third act of Alien still managed to legitimately stress me out the last time I watched it. I love Aliens and have probably rewatched it more often (it scratches more genre itches), but it does not have quite the same effect on me.

I remember watching ALIENS theaters and turning to the audience to watch their reaction when a chest burster does a jump scare at Burke in the lab. Hand to God, the everyone in the theater jumped a foot in the air. Straight up! It was a great moment to watch people react to. It wasn't just fun, but it was intense. It was so intense that Roger Ebert would complain that is tummy was knotted up and that he felt tense, that it was overkill, and that it upset him.



Siskel had similar complaints, stating that he wasn't sure he would tell a friend to see it (too much!). For action junkies this is like saying, "This drug will get you too high little man, you don't want it!"

ALIENS ain't just kickin' rocks fun. It's a roller coaster fun. It's right up there with Raiders of the Lost Ark for action adventure. We should give the film it's due. It was one heck of a ride.

Cameron is more of a technician (every scene a thrill with tricks like clever rear projection), where Scott is more of an artist (every frame a painting). Cameron aimed less at static perfection and went for fluid action, simplifying the ALIEN outfits so that actors could move dynamically, and it worked.

Also, I should note that I am reflecting on having seen both films dozens of times. Action adventure has the compensatory values of dynamic motion, one liners, plucky heroism, etc. ALIEN is more of a suspense/horror/thriller, which has more to do with not knowing who will get it next or if anyone will survive. The first time you see ALIEN it is quite frightening, because you're immersed in the psychologically of information (you don't know what will happen next, you fear for everyone's life), where ALIENS gets by a little more on the psychology of form (the joy we take in the repetition of a thing, like that middle eight in a pop song that we're waiting to sing too). So, yeah. For me, ALIEN falls a bit flat in the 3rd act after nearly infinite re-watches of both. But I still kept popping in my VHS of ALIEN because it is more visually immersive and is one of the best slow-burns for a horror movie, ever. You feel like you are there in a real place - this was Scott's magic back when he was really making Ridley Scott movies.

It may all be because I’d sleep with Burke. Daddy issues, male-dominated work environment, you understand.

*shakes fist* This isn’t the first time Paul Reiser’s beautiful ass saved someone from a stomping and it won’t be the last!

That ass. Hmm.

Oh those daddy’s issues. I have So many memories with women who have had them…..oh wait…what were we talking about?

Regarding my personal thoughts on the first two Alien movies, I have to repeat that, while Cameron's sequel did a great job of gradually transitioning the series from Horror to Action, and the final result is probably the best possible result we could've gotten from such a change in genre, it still loses a certain something in that process, which renders it slightly inferior to Scott's original. I mean, I think that only stands to reason, since the original was designed from the ground up to be a Sci-Fi/Horror movie, while the second one "retrofitted" the series into another genre, so, while still great, Cameron's movie naturally doesn't feel as special as the first, whether it the way it went from Giger's lavish, other-worldly production design to the endless, anonymous industrial corridors of a first person shooter, or the way the Xenomorph went from being a singular, unstoppable extraterrestrial version of Michael Meyers, to faceless waves of cannon fodder for the Colonial Marines to blow away.

First person shooters didn't exist when this film was made. First person shooters would copy this film.


And not everything in ALIEN aged well.

What’s not aging well?

The head-gag that is obviously a hole in the table. The jump cut from the obviously fake head to the real head. The 2001 control room which is a bunch of white blinking lights with no instrumentation, just lots and lots of lights. A few of the exterior shots of the Nostromo. The uneven lights on the bottom of the ship. The "you can't unsee it" use of little kids in space suits to sell the scale of the bottom of the ship. The rigidity of movement of Bolaji Badejo in the super-tight suit.

Admit it, you just wanted more goop on Ian Holm.

Only if tastefully applied by while he goes on about the monster having no conscience, mercy, or pity and being a perfect machine. And he has to say "What are you doing Sub-Commander!" at some point.

Practical effects and retro futurism aren’t the aged poorly gotchas you think they are. Especially when things like the little kids are only noticeable if you’ve been told.

Knowing how a magic trick is done doesn’t make the trick age poorly.

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.

Corax just wanted more goop in the movie. Just piles and piles, every surface in every scene.

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.

Well, it worked for The Thing, didn't it? Whenever a prop looked off poor Robin Bottin would put more goop on and insist on bringing the lights a little lower. And for the most part, it worked. I mean, that it happens to be my fetish doesn't mean that I'm wrong does it?