CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › I've Outgrown...Aliens
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I've Outgrown...Aliens - Page 3

post #101 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
I guess I see it (and, as Nordling said, Cameron affirms it), but it seems like a pretty thin comparison, overall. Now, if the aliens managed to take down the marines strictly on cunning, maybe I could buy it, but my understanding is the Viet Cong weren't super strong, didn't have acid for blood, and didn't implant chestbursters. I think that hurts the "superior firepower vs. strategic ingenuity/adaptation to the environment/sheer numbers" analogy. It kinda stacks the deck when your Viet Cong stand-ins are monstrous killing machines.
I see you're getting at, but that seems overly literal as a mechanism to disagree with the point.

Plus, despite the obvious physical differences, the aliens and the Viet Cong stack up well. Both are susceptible to having their heads blown off, acid blood or not, so their method of attack is surprise to get in close, because they know that exposing themselves means losing. So they're the same in the sense that for them, being shot/blown up/set on fire/ripped apart by bullets = death. They approach the fight the same way.

I like Cameron's little touch when Gorman refers to them in the briefing as xenomorphs. To the invading forces in each conflict, the enemy was a xenomorph, whether on LV-426 or in the South Pacific.

Quote:
Politically, it also kind of falls apart, since it's not like the marines in Aliens are forced by the government to stick around in a no-win situation.
I agree in the macro sense, but not micro. If you think of it from the point of view of the grunt, either way they have no choice because they're completely isolated geographically, which is to say that the orders given by the authorities have essentially forced them into a no-win situation because there is so little chance of retreat.
post #102 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewlett
Like the Ewoks and the Empire in Return of the Jedi.
If forced to pick the stronger analogy, I'd go with the Ewoks, actually. Either way, it's kind of an insulting characterization of the Vietnamese, but at least that one doesn't suggest that American soldiers failed in Vietnam because their opponents were somehow akin to exo-skeletoned, hive-minded, acid-blooded monsters.
post #103 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
Either way, it's kind of an insulting characterization of the Vietnamese,
I was about to get jokey, but this intrigues me. How is it insulting to suggest that the Viet Cong overcame an overwhelming deficiency in technology against invading forces with superior skill and tactics? No one's saying they're predators in the movie's sense.
post #104 of 445
What specifically is different about the director's cut of Alien 3 that makes it a different movie than the lousy theatrical version?
post #105 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Banks is my hero
I was about to get jokey, but this intrigues me. How is it insulting to suggest that the Viet Cong overcame an overwhelming deficiency in technology against invading forces with superior skill and tactics? No one's saying they're predators in the movie's sense.
I'm guessing he's opposed to the de-humanizing of the Vietnamese into teddy bears and drooling bugs.
post #106 of 445
Quote:
What specifically is different about the director's cut of Alien 3 that makes it a different movie than the lousy theatrical version?
They replaced the doglien with a oxlien, for starters (and the oxlien birth scene is surprisingly well realized for a director's cut version). There are more scenes with the doctor character, and there's even a great sequence where they trap the alien in a waste vault, only to have one of the prisoners sabotage them by releasing it. It's significantly different.
post #107 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny
I'm guessing he's opposed to the de-humanizing of the Vietnamese into teddy bears and drooling bugs.
Details, details. Again with the literal.
post #108 of 445
I think it makes sense that both would be metaphors for Vietnam, if not 1:1 allegories.

So many Vietnam movies have come out since that it's hard to remember there were only 1 or 2 out at the time. These directors did all come of age, though, during Veitnam and it makes sense it would shape their approach.
post #109 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll
I'm with Spike. This movie isn't anywhere CLOSE to as good as Alien or as visually interesting as Alien 3. Fuck this movie.
Them's fightin' words, pal!
post #110 of 445
Alien is one of the best horror films ever made. It has just about everything you could possibly want, and then some.

But Aliens has GIGANTIC FUCKING PULSE RIFLES. And we all know that guns are cool.

Aliens wins.
post #111 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Banks is my hero
Details, details. Again with the literal.
You have the luxury of complaining about an adherence to "the literal," because you haven't been equated to a bloodthirsty monster or a primitive with slightly more sophistication than a monkey. When you take a human conflict (especially one that's, at its heart, ideological) and make one of the participants less intelligent than a human, you run the risk of neutering your analogy. In the cases of both Aliens and Jedi, I think we're in castrati-land.
post #112 of 445
Quote:
and make one of the participants less intelligent than a human
I always thought that they were portrayed as being quite intelligent. I mean, they're not Richard Attenborough intelligent, but still, they mostly outwitted all humans they came into contact with. Mostly.
post #113 of 445
The Ewoks are obviously portrayed as being a less intelligent, primitive culture. And the aliens are bugs with a hive mind. Dave has a point, here. If your Vietnam analogy involves turning the Vietnamese into subhumans, just what are you really trying to say?
post #114 of 445
I don't think its denigrating the Vietnamese to make these analogies...the real comparison is the tactics used by aliens/ewoks and the American response to said tactics. The same way that the book and movie(s) of War of the Worlds compare the alien invasions to British and American imperliasm or, with the case of the sixties version, the Russians.

They're just metaphors, after all, and a lot of movies do more damage by portraying Russians or the Vietnamese or Muslims as really evil, inhumane people.
post #115 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minsky
I always thought that they were portrayed as being quite intelligent. I mean, they're not Richard Attenborough intelligent, but still, they mostly outwitted all humans they came into contact with. Mostly.
Yeah, but I prefer the odds of a smart rifle vs. Richard Attenborough. This is the guy who directed GANDHI, after all. He wouldn't have a chance. He even cried when they shot a raptor.
post #116 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektro87
I don't think its denigrating the Vietnamese to make these analogies...the real comparison is the tactics used by aliens/ewoks and the American response to said tactics. The same way that the book and movie(s) of War of the Worlds compare the alien invasions to British and American imperliasm or, with the case of the sixties version, the Russians.

They're just metaphors, after all, and a lot of movies do more damage by portraying Russians or the Vietnamese or Muslims as really evil, inhumane people.
If we're just talking about tactics, there's nothing particularly Vietnam about Aliens and Jedi at all, though. You could just as easily draw a comparison to guerilla tactics used in the Revolutionary War or in Algiers.

If we're to accept that there's a 'Nam parallel being made for either movie, it seems to me that an essential point would be the circumstances of the combatants. Now, I'm sure it's tempting for fans to stop at some comfortable line like "they're similar in that they have inferior firepower" or "they're similar because they use the land to their advantage," but these lines are entirely arbitrary. If you follow through with the analysis, you can't really ignore the fact that Cameron's Viet Cong stand-ins are violent, powerful beasts without an ounce of humanity and Lucas' are simple, stupid animals who manage to luck out a lot.

Sure, they're "just" metaphors, but I don't think you need to be Edward Said to figure out the obvious Western-centrism going on.
post #117 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
Sure, they're "just" metaphors, but I don't think you need to be Edward Said to figure out the obvious Western-centrism going on.
Well, sure, but then you also have to discount most, if not all, cinema for the same reason. I mean, isn't that the whole reason for translating real world ideas/people into genre filmmaking...so that you can isolate a characteristic or two and comment on those without making an overtly political statement or mischaracterizing ideas and people?

You know, like V for Vendetta makes Blair and Bush look like Hitler and, while that's overly simplifying the sitch, its entertaining...and I don't think the Wachowskis actually think that Blair and Bush are that evil...they're just making a point.

And I think you're right about the examples of the American revolution, etc....I think, if there was a conscious intent on the part of the directors, then it would center around the way the 'Americans' in both movies (the Empire in Jedi and the Marines in Aliens) approach to the fight...with arrogance, a false sense of security based on tech. advantages, etc.

Vietnam just seems to be the most appropo analogy because most filmmakers/goers of the '70s and '80s lived through that war and it shapes the way they think of armed conflict.
post #118 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektro87
Well, sure, but then you also have to discount most, if not all, cinema for the same reason. I mean, isn't that the whole reason for translating real world ideas/people into genre filmmaking...so that you can isolate a characteristic or two and comment on those without making an overtly political statement or mischaracterizing ideas and people?
I don't understand your argument. What exactly are you commenting on if you remove overtly political statements from your analogies? Unless you strip the Vietnam component of Aliens down to "guerilla warfare is an effective way to overpower a well-armed battalion" (which effectively makes it not about Vietnam at all), there's only so much isolating you can do. What's more central to a conflict than the circumstances of the two parties involved?

Quote:
You know, like V for Vendetta makes Blair and Bush look like Hitler and, while that's overly simplifying the sitch, its entertaining...and I don't think the Wachowskis actually think that Blair and Bush are that evil...they're just making a point.
The difference is that V for Vendetta is a critique of a sort of mentality that the Wachowskis (and, arguably, Moore, I suppose) recognize in Hitler, Blair, and Bush. It doesn't matter if it's an exaggeration, because the seed is there. What exactly is the seed that would prompt someone to characterize the Viet Cong as monsters or simpletons? I'd say that seed is a strictly Western-centric view of the conflict with some discomforting racist overtones.
post #119 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
I'd say that seed is a strictly Western-centric view of the conflict with some discomforting racist overtones.
Let's be clear about this, Dave. I'm really enjoying this debate, but is this comment being lobbed at Cameron specifically or those here who are reiterating what he himself has said about his film?
post #120 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
If we're just talking about tactics, there's nothing particularly Vietnam about Aliens and Jedi at all, though. You could just as easily draw a comparison to guerilla tactics used in the Revolutionary War or in Algiers.
I don't think anyone was arguing against that. It's just, like electro was saying, Vietnam was the most immediate example for the filmmakers/audiences to apply it to at the time. Today our minds might jump to Iraq first.

And yes, it is western-centric, as in it's about how technologically superior powers manage to get our asses handed to us by those who shouldn't stand a chance on paper. That message of the allegory is intended for the superpower, not the underdogs, so it's not as necessary to make that side well-rounded.

It's more about how we fought than why. Regardless of whether we should've fought the Viet Cong or not, the issue is how we could lose to such a ragtag force.

Edit: You seem to have already responded to this while I was typing, but yeah, the allegory does break down to "guerilla warfare and grassroots resistance are an effective counter to technological hubris." Nobody said it was a particularly deep message. It's not specific to Vietnam at all, except that that was the example everyone had staring them in the face at the time.
post #121 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Banks is my hero
Let's be clear about this, Dave. I'm really enjoying this debate, but is this comment being lobbed at Cameron specifically or those here who are reiterating what he himself has said about his film?
Nah, I got the impression he's lobbing this at filmmakers who try to emulate the Vietnam conflict allegorically and use basically sub-human creatures to represent the Vietnamese. JEDI and ALIENS aren't the only films that do this. In a lesser extent, so does STARSHIP TROOPERS.
post #122 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
And yes, it is western-centric, as in it's about how technologically superior powers manage to get our asses handed to us by those who shouldn't stand a chance on paper. That message of the allegory is intended for the superpower, not the underdogs, so it's not as necessary to make that side well-rounded.

It's more about how we fought than why. Regardless of whether we should've fought the Viet Cong or not, the issue is how we could lose to such a ragtag force.
That's what I meant, said more clearly.

And not to get too technical, but its also the difference between metaphor and allegory.

A metaphor being when you lift a piece of an idea/situation, etc. and play around with it. An allegory, typically, is meant to present a 1:1 ratio, where every detail of a real-life situation is re-presented in a piece of art. i don't think that was Cameron's intent, at all.
post #123 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Banks is my hero
Let's be clear about this, Dave. I'm really enjoying this debate, but is this comment being lobbed at Cameron specifically or those here who are reiterating what he himself has said about his film?
Cameron. Kind of. It's less about who's doing the interpreting and more about the ramifications of that interpretation. I don't think that Cameron necessarily had to be consciously commenting on the nature of the Viet Cong, but to insist that Aliens is a Vietnam allegory certainly opens the door to a pretty damning depiction of them.

I'm not calling you a racist for enjoying the movie or for re-stating Cameron's intention that it be taken as a 'Nam allegory, if that's what you're asking.
post #124 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektro87
That's what I meant, said more clearly.

And not to get too technical, but its also the difference between metaphor and allegory.

A metaphor being when you lift a piece of an idea/situation, etc. and play around with it. An allegory, typically, is meant to present a 1:1 ratio, where every detail of a real-life situation is re-presented in a piece of art. i don't think that was Cameron's intent, at all.
Both metaphors and allegories are representational, so I think that slippery slope toward a racist reading exists in both. A metaphor isn't just imagery you've lifted at random and played with.

I think what you guys (elektro and Schwartz) are getting at is neither metaphor nor allegory - it's that Cameron was using imagery and some basic ideas from the war in Vietnam to give Aliens some texture. In other words, the 'Nam stuff is not particularly central to the conflict depicted in Aliens, but is only really applicable in how the characters respond to the situation, etc.

I think that's one way to see it, but Jonathan's comments (as well as Cameron's, according to Nordling) suggest that the connection was meant to be deeper than this.
post #125 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektro87
A metaphor being when you lift a piece of an idea/situation, etc. and play around with it. An allegory, typically, is meant to present a 1:1 ratio, where every detail of a real-life situation is re-presented in a piece of art. i don't think that was Cameron's intent, at all.
In fairness, allegory was the word I used, which was what set the argument in the direction it's gone. And that's my mistake, because I didn't mean to suggest a 1:1 ratio kind of relationship.

Schwartz summed up what I meant very nicely, which is that ALIENS is a product of its time, and while the conflict could certainly metaphorically represent any number of conflicts in history, Cameron intended for it to be Vietnam. Depending on how you look at it, it could be seen to dehumanize the entirety of the Vietnamese fighting forces, but I just tend to see it as a big action movie where Cameron used Vietnam as a source of certain thematic influences.
post #126 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
And yes, it is western-centric, as in it's about how technologically superior powers manage to get our asses handed to us by those who shouldn't stand a chance on paper. That message of the allegory is intended for the superpower, not the underdogs, so it's not as necessary to make that side well-rounded.
The message doesn't really make any sense when you stack the deck in such a weird way, though, because, despite the marines' weaponry, there's not a moment in Aliens when the audience buys that the aliens are underdogs.
post #127 of 445
I mean, I've never even considered there to be a parallel between the Vietnamese and either the aliens or the ewoks and, in that way, I can see what you mean, Dave. I think its just symantics, whether or not either film holds up well as a metaphor. I guess you could simply argue that each director is playing on the cultural tropes and fears of the time.
post #128 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Banks is my hero
but I just tend to see it as a big action movie where Cameron used Vietnam as a source of certain thematic influences.
Okay, that I'll buy.
post #129 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
I think what you guys (elektro and Schwartz) are getting at is neither metaphor nor allegory - it's that Cameron was using imagery and some basic ideas from the war in Vietnam to give Aliens some texture. In other words, the 'Nam stuff is not particularly central to the conflict depicted in Aliens, but is only really applicable in how the characters respond to the situation, etc.

I think that's one way to see it, but Jonathan's comments (as well as Cameron's, according to Nordling) suggest that the connection was meant to be deeper than this.
The comments on which you're basing this were just my reading into the film based on what Cameron has said. I honestly don't know how deep it's supposed to go (Nordling might know more about this). Like I said before, I could be just reading way too much into certain things, especially the comparion between the Company of the film and LBJ's administration. I just think it's interesting to try to decipher that kind of thing. It's part of the fun of the movies.

My personal take on it is more in line with what you're saying about giving the film texture. I think the thematic parallels are there, but at the end of the day it's entertainment. I might be wrong, but I don't think Cameron intended it to go deeper than that (although the time period in which the film was made might suggest otherwise). I don't know how clear I was about this above, but it's where my "literal" responses came from. I think the racist overtones can be argued for if you want to look at it that deeply, but that suggests more of a strict allegorical structure than Cameron was probably going for.
post #130 of 445

Fun Irony

Question: When does a Xenomorph pop out of your stomach?
Answer: When it outgrows YOU.
post #131 of 445
I guess I'm not even sure what you would call this sort of thing. Metaphor is probably the wrong term, too.

Like the end of Bonnie and Clyde which Arthur Penn has said was meant to echo the May-Lai massacre...the movie is obviously not an attempt to make some grand statement about 'Nam, but he wanted to convey the shocking violence of that war in his movie.

Or MASH--set in Korea, but Altman intended that audience take it as commentary on Vietnam.
post #132 of 445
Cameron doesn't talk about it too much, as far as I can tell. He just brings it up briefly. I think the truth is that he used Vietnam like Banks said. I haven't listened to the commentary on ALIENS yet, just watched the docs.
post #133 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
The message doesn't really make any sense when you stack the deck in such a weird way, though, because, despite the marines' weaponry, there's not a moment in Aliens when the audience buys that the aliens are underdogs.
No, but the troops do, and that's where the metaphor/influence (allegory is the wrong word) lies. Cameron may have made a futuristic army vs. bugs movie even if there never had been a Nam, but he probably wouldn't have played up the marines' overconfidence and trigger-happiness quite as much. Vietnam gave resonance to that aspect of that film, even if it was only reflected obliquely.
post #134 of 445
I don't think there's anything wrong with having the long run up to the first action sequence, either. The film spends the time to introduce and create these characters before dropping them into the shit. I always thought that was a strength of the film, compared to other action films that are in too much of a rush to create any characters at all, and are shallower for it.
post #135 of 445
Thread Starter 
Yeah but Aliens spends 80 minutes or so before the initial battle and the characters still seem thin and superficial, Alien has about 30 minutes before the face hugger incident and you feel like you know and understand the characters by that point. I think it's because Cameron is more concerned with the macho bullshit and the technology rather than giving his characters any qualities other than their hubris and arrogance.
post #136 of 445
I just think Cameron, God bless 'im, just doesn't really understand people. He thinks he's got character chops, but no. He's a techie at heart.
post #137 of 445
Thread Starter 
Also doesn't the fact that the Marines suffer their biggest loss when they're effectively stripped of their weapons make the whole Vietnam metaphor obsolete anyway.
post #138 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall
Also doesn't the fact that the Marines suffer their biggest loss when they're effectively stripped of their weapons make the whole Vietnam metaphor obsolete anyway.
They're unable to use their preferred weapons/tactics because they did inadequate recon to prepare themselves to fight in this particular terrain. So no, not really.
post #139 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall
I think it's because Cameron is more concerned with the macho bullshit and the technology rather than giving his characters any qualities other than their hubris and arrogance.
And we understand that hubris and arrogance because of the 80 minutes (80? really?) that was spent setting it up. Also - you're forgetting the Ripley part of the setup.
post #140 of 445
post #141 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
They're unable to use their preferred weapons/tactics because they did inadequate recon to prepare themselves to fight in this particular terrain. So no, not really.
But also, adding to the Vietnam angle, is the confused or rather limiting 'rules' of the mission. In Vietnam the Army was limited in their use of force and tactics because it wasn't 'really' a war, it was a police action.

In Aliens, their mission was reconaissance, not destruction. They were not perpared to defeat an army or to win a war and they had rules limiting tactics that would have allowed them to be sucessful.
post #142 of 445
Face it, Aliens makes Alien look like a plate of poop rings.
post #143 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Magner
Alien is one of the best horror films ever made. It has just about everything you could possibly want, and then some.

But Aliens has GIGANTIC FUCKING PULSE RIFLES. And we all know that guns are cool.

Aliens wins.
But Doom had the BFG. And Doom lost. Beverly Hills Cop III had the Annihilator 2000. Beverly Hills III too lost.
post #144 of 445
If Aliens suffers from anything its the hive mentality given to the creature. The first film portrays it as a thinking critter; having it stalking, raping and generally fucking with people.
post #145 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall
But Aliens, Aliens left me cold.
You mean to tell me, that the scene where Ripley takes the Marine-tumbler to save the marines doesn't make you tremble with pride for the human race? To this day I still have a thing against aliens. I kicked an alien out of my house the other day and pulled up my shirt to reveal my USMC tattoo.
"You see this? It means NOT WELCOME."
post #146 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Zod
If Aliens suffers from anything its the hive mentality given to the creature. The first film portrays it as a thinking critter; having it stalking, raping and generally fucking with people.
This has always been the heart of my complaint. I really don't see how they can be the same creature. Cameron fucked around with the concept too much. It isn't the same thing. And the queen is completely unnecessary, only serving to water down the idea by putting a big bow on the whole lazy insect conversion.

Oh, and going way back up in the thread, I fully agree about the director's cut of The Abyss. Not only is it Cameron's strongest film, but it's also the most striking example of a director's cut making a better film that I've ever seen. The theatrical version practically destroyed the entire point of the film. I was floored when I saw the longer version.
post #147 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil!
Ian Holm doing the knife trick and being impaled by an Alien Queen's tail would kinda play differently.
But Ian Holm could sell it. Bishop would be different, but he'd still be Bishop. I bet Lance Henrikson would've played a pretty menacing Ash as well.
post #148 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
The message doesn't really make any sense when you stack the deck in such a weird way, though, because, despite the marines' weaponry, there's not a moment in Aliens when the audience buys that the aliens are underdogs
Dave (and I say this as a minority) you're reading too much racism into it. They're not supposed to be seen as underdogs. Cameron's stated time and again that the Aliens aren't evil; they're just instictively defending they're turf as most animals do. The American public never saw the Viet Cong as underdogs in FULL METAL JACKET, APOCALYPSE NOW, GO tELL THE SPARTANS, or any number of other Vietman themed movies either.

Cameron intended Aliens as a movie whose main theme was that overreliance on superior firepower/technology is often no match for an enemy that fights with instinct and tenacity for their survival.. See our current siruation in Iraq for a modern example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
This has always been the heart of my complaint. I really don't see how they can be the same creature. Cameron fucked around with the concept too much. It isn't the same thing. And the queen is completely unnecessary, only serving to water down the idea by putting a big bow on the whole lazy insect conversion.
Sorry, but this just sounds like typical fanboy nitpicking.

So you're saying that all species of ant's look and behave the same? All species of Spiders look and behave the same? There's a spider that literally lives underwater in an oxygenated bubble with no web and only surfaces to grab it's prey. Because it doesn't spin a web on land does that make it less of an arachnid?

As far as the creature was concerned Cameron tried to get Giger involved but he was too busy working on POLTERGEIST II. So he gave Cameron his blessing. As did Ridley Scott. Giger has stated in several inerviews that he liked Cameron's Queen design and the idea of the hive mentality, especially since shots of the creatures embedded in the walls were reminiscent of Giger's original paintings.

The Queen isn't unnecessary. She's essential to one of the themes of the film: motherhood. When she meets Ripley it's a showdown of two mothers trying to protect their brood.
post #149 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minsky
However, I do enjoy the extended cut of Alien 3 much more than I remember enjoying the theatrical cut, and Aliens has lost some of its luster over the years.
The recut ALIEN 3 is vastly superior to the theatrical cut. I like ALIEN 3 for being different still from the first two, and for a movie that went through more development hell than most movies, the extended version came out pretty damn good.

ALIENS is pretty fucking awesome when you first see, and also when you're younger. Then you tend to grow up, your tastes mature, and flaws show. Then you rediscover ALIEN and now that you can appreciate more than explosions and guns, you come to find it a better film.

That's my experience anyway.

The second half of ALIENS is totally awesome, but the "slow build" first half doesn't work for me anymore. OK, it establishes the marines and their character... and then all but four of them bite it in the initial assault. Considering the fact that none of them as interesting as Ripley or even Newt, its pretty much wasted screentime.

The stuff with the aliens is all great, though, particularly the initial attack and the facehuggers scene.



And we can't forget the Alien Queen, in my opinion one of the best designed movie monsters of pretty much ever. The scene where Ripley runs into the egg chamber is still one of the best "OH FUCK" moments in movies.
post #150 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
This has always been the heart of my complaint. I really don't see how they can be the same creature. Cameron fucked around with the concept too much. It isn't the same thing.
I think it's easily explained that the alien in the first film was alone in an unfamiliar environment and was therefore being slow and cautious, whereas the ones in Aliens were essentially "at home", had numbers on their side, and were defending their queen. And if you notice, the aliens right near the queens chamber moved and looked a lot more like the first version, so maybe they have queen, worker, and drone classes like bees do.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › I've Outgrown...Aliens