Alien Quadrilogy

[fortunesfool]

You're gonna love Alien 3

[HardcoreNinja]

I dont mind the character, I just feel she's so underwritten. I understand the screaming, but I imagine after an ordeal like that you would either have complete recluse devoid of emotion, or emotional wreck, and she is neither, she challenges some emotional depth, while also challenging recluse; her character development is lost somewhere, and instead of getting a definitive person you get a rather empty medium.

And me judging both films together is me saying that the quality of the first film undermines my enjoyment of the second, as I feel they should be done in a similar style due to the story and general tone of the films.

[morris]

Originally Posted by HardcoreNinja

I dont mind the character, I just feel she's so underwritten.

You don't mind the character, which is why you mentioned her on the most obnoxious/irritating child actors thread.

I imagine after an ordeal like that you would either have complete recluse devoid of emotion, or emotional wreck, and she is neither, she challenges some emotional depth, while also challenging recluse;

Not necessarily. You said before that it depends on character and experience. It depends on age, upbringing and so many things. It's impossible to say what kind of reaction is natural or correct. There are too many variables in human nature.
You say she 'challenges some emotional depth, while also challenging recluse' and conclude that means she is neither. Actually it means she is both and more. Emotional character development is never a big part of an action movie, which is what Aliens is. She is a child in an adult oriented story. She's there to help illustrate the loss of Ripley's own child from another time and as such her development is adequate.

And me judging both films together is me saying that the quality of the first film undermines my enjoyment of the second, as I feel they should be done in a similar style due to the story and general tone of the films.

That's unfortunate for you. So instead of getting a different film experience from a different genre, you'd have preferred to be served the same thing over again. You must be happy with the glut of predictable samey sequels being churned out by the Hollywood movie machine then.

[HardcoreNinja]

I was talking about the character here, not the actress, who I cant stand.

I preferred the style of the 1st film to the 2nd, so why wouldnt I want to see that again? And because of the change in story it wouldnt mean a hollow repetition, it would mean a different interpretation, by your logic there it says a director should only do 1 film as all the rest is a hollow interpretation. Directors change to script, and I would have preferred to see Ridley Scotts interpretation of the 2nd film more than James Cameron's.

[morris]

The actress has hardly been in anything else of note, the point being you obviously have a bug bear about her, the character of Newt or the girl who plays her. Who cares?

Originally Posted by HardcoreNinja

I preferred the style of the 1st film to the 2nd, so why wouldnt I want to see that again?

Because you're paying for a different film? Because you could just watch the first one again, rather than hire a different film if you don't want a different experience? Who the fuck knows.

By my logic? I'm perfectly capable of expressing my own logic, thanks, I don't need your cak-handed version. Don't twist my words. I believe each director should do what they are best at. Both Ridley Scott and James Cameron did exactly that with their films. No one does Ridley Scott's style like Ridley Scott, and Cameron has a different vision and ability. Scott is a more arty director, but Cameron is a talented director of action movies. To expect one director to echo the style of the one who made a franchise film before them is daft; why should they? Each one has been made to be different. Alien 3 is different again. It's darker.

I would have preferred to see Ridley Scotts interpretation of the 2nd film more than James Cameron's.

Yes, so you keep saying. As I said, it's unfortunate that you didn't get your wish, but that does not by default make Aliens a bad film or an unsuccessful film on any level. And I'm not talking about the money it made but how it told the story it had to tell, in a different style to the story presented in the original film.

[fortunesfool]

If you put both movies together they're actually uncannily similar - from the way the characters are introduced, the air vent set piece, the race against time rescue and the 'just when you think its all over' finale.

Cameron just made it into a war movie. In fact I think it was him that described them as - Alien was a haunted house movie in space, Aliens was Vietnam in Space, Alien 3 was the long dark hour of the soul and Resurrection was the one with the crap monster.

So, what you're actually seeing is different interpretations of the same material, until the fourth one, which was rubbish.

[morris]

Or to simplify even further, each film is a story about people trying to get away from monsters who wish to kill them.
Alien 3 is the Apocalypse Now of the Alien films. Resurrection is better not mentioned at all.

[HardcoreNinja]

A rather over top reaction to someone stating they dont like a film. I'm not saying Cameron's direction is the sole reason for me disliking it, but its an attributing factor. So I didnt like a 'classic' film. So what. I'm sure lots of people dont as well as lots of people dislike all the 'best films around' much like I dont like Pulp Fiction.

You can grill all this guff about James Cameron in to me as much as you want it's not going to change how I feel about this film. James Camerons huge reputation often comes because of how he uses huge budgets and set pieces, anyone can be made to look good via great CGI and being able to do anything because of the budget, hence why Jerry Bruckheimer is quite an overrated producer, all his films are huge budget and are asthetically pleasing, when actually the only film of note ive seen him do is Pirates 1.

[fortunesfool]

Originally Posted by HardcoreNinja

A rather over top reaction to someone stating they dont like a film. I'm not saying Cameron's direction is the sole reason for me disliking it, but its an attributing factor. So I didnt like a 'classic' film. So what. I'm sure lots of people dont as well as lots of people dislike all the 'best films around' much like I dont like Pulp Fiction.

You can grill all this guff about James Cameron in to me as much as you want it's not going to change how I feel about this film. James Camerons huge reputation often comes because of how he uses huge budgets and set pieces, anyone can be made to look good via great CGI and being able to do anything because of the budget, hence why Jerry Bruckheimer is quite an overrated producer, all his films are huge budget and are asthetically pleasing, when actually the only film of note ive seen him do is Pirates 1.

There's so much wrong with everything you've just written there that i'm simply going to stop discussing anything cinema related with you. Life's too short.

[Jonesy]

Originally Posted by HardcoreNinja

, hence why Jerry Bruckheimer is quite an overrated producer, all his films are huge budget and are asthetically pleasing, when actually the only film of note ive seen him do is Pirates 1.

Bruckheimer's films are aesthetically pleasing? Honestly? How? When?

On second thoughts, don't answer that. I'm wasting my Bank Holiday.