ALIENS versus PREDATOR

Much as I love ALIENS, PREDATOR is a leaner better film.

Yeah, Predator - aside from the 5-minute stretch where Arnie deploys a bunch of one-lines - is a perfect film and has aged damn well. Its arguably Arnie's best film.

Aliens is pure 80s and, while still pretty great, hasn't aged nearly as well.

Aliens, may not be, Cameron's best film, but it is the best of the...Alien Quadrillogy, and far better than...Predator.

A DIE HARD vs PREDATOR Poll would be a close thing indeed. I am not sure how I would choose in that case.

Predator is a much better film than Aliens. It may not have as much gung-ho action, but I think Predator does a really good job of mixing up action movie thrills with horror movie tension, and the cast goes a long way to make sure that their somewhat meat-headed characters aren't simply laser cannon fodder for the picture's monster. I think the creature effects in Predator have also aged a bit better than those in Aliens (on net, anyway, the regular xenomorphs can look pretty shitty, but the Queen looks excellent).

I prefer the Aliens franchise, but as separate films, PREDATOR is far superior to ALIENS. I can't even fathom people disputing that.

Evi, As a Schwarzenegger film, Predator is...Way, down the list of his great films. Aliens is, Sigourney Weavers best film, and I love the action heavy Aliens more. The opening action scene in Predator is...Awesome, but the film never reaches the heights of the early scene. I do prefer action to horror, and Michael Biehn's reunion with Cameron, puts, Aliens over Predator.

I prefer ALIENS to PREDATOR, though they both provide a nice cache of excellent quotes. PREDATOR seems both lighter and meaner, if that makes any sense. While the colonial marines aren't really fleshed out, Ripley provides a human, empathetic center for ALIENS, and I'm more emotionally invested in the story. PREDATOR has some cool, kickass stereotypes, but nothing really resembling actual characterization (Bill Duke's mournful ramblings perhaps excepted). I also think ALIENS does a better job of continually ratcheting up the tension throughout the film.

Love both. But I own ALIENS, and doubt I'll ever own PREDATOR.

Real close call, but the relationships between the characters and Weaver's performance give ALIENS the edge for me.

Well, neither movie really has any fleshed out characters, just these collections of types. For me, it all comes down to how the casts gel and what their rapport brings out. Personally, I buy the chemistry between the grunts in Predator more than the chemistry in Aliens. Better dialog probably helps there.

Very close call...but it has to go to Predator for me.

Ask me today and I'd say X...ask me tomorrow and I'd say Y. I'm just going to call it a complete and utter tie and move on. Both are great.

Everything I like about Predator only emphasizes everything I don't like about Aliens because, even though Predator is a vastly superior film, there's a very thin line between the two.

Please tell me that's a typo.

Ripley's not fleshed out in ALIENS? Really?

Yep.

I love both, but theres just a little too much bloat in Aliens. McTiernan's pacing is perfect. Plus, Arnie's squad of badasses has so much more personality than the Colonial Marines. And, trite as it may be, the gorehound in me is always a tad disappointed with all the off-screen kills in Aliens. There are some spectacular exits in Predator.

Advantage: Predator

I prefer Predator mostly because it is leaner, and Arnold sells the shit out of the movie. I would definitely agree the ensemble makes Predator so much more enjoyable. Aliens is just slow, I caught it on TV a few times in the last couple years and it just takes forever to get anywhere interesting.
Wouldn't Alien and Predator be a better comparison?

There's nothing in 'Predator' that compares to the intensity of the final 40 minutes of 'Aliens'.

Went with Aliens, but nothing against Predator. I give Aliens the nod in no small part because I like the world Cameron created. And what some call slow, I call building tension, something that, as enjoyable as it is, I never felt in Predator. I never doubted Arnie was going to somehow win.

Maybe my standards are unreasonable, but I never thought so. She always struck me as a "strong mother" type and not much else, particularly as the film progresses, and where she ends up never (to me) really felt like a progression from where she's at in the beginning. Her fear/PTSD is an interesting element, but that's done away with pretty much as soon as she agrees to go on the mission with the Marines. It seems like Cameron didn't want to explore any of the character's vulnerability as expressed in Alien. So he drops it, and Ripley becomes another of the film's unflappable badasses (instead of one of the on edge badasses), who then meets Newt, so it's like she has a kid. Ripley doesn't go through an arc so much as she changes pretty much exactly as the plot does, doing exactly what it requires to express its themes, which are in and of themselves kind of shallow. Sigourney does do a lot with the role, though.

This is not to say Aliens is a bad film. It certainly has way more on its mind than Predator does (But Predator is surprising in this regard with it's going back to nature to beat the big bad alien conceit. What's that all about?), but I can't help but feel that it fails to live up to its ambitions in many ways. Predator is content with being a perfectly crafted scifi thriller, and it hits its mark. Certainly, Predator is a more deftly crafted film than Aliens.

Predator for me as well. I just revisited Aliens when I got the Blu-ray Anthology set, and I really like it a lot, but Predator is the one that I find myself watching and even quoting more often. The entire cast is great, top notch directing and the score is essentially another character in the film. The score was so great and essential, Silvestri reused parts of it in Predator 2, and Debney even used it in Predators.

Plus I almost always quote the entire scene at the beginning between Dutch and Dillon with my friend.

I actually feel like the most intense part of Aliens is that second act build up, peaking with the reveal of what happened to the colonists and the ensuing chaotic first encounter with the aliens. To me, its downhill after that.

I think it's inaccurate to say Ripley doesn't have an arc; you don't like it or find it particularly effective, which is fair enough, but to say she doesn't have one isn't true.

Ripley starts the movie alone, afraid, and after an attempt to alert the Company, cares for no one but herself. Through the course of the film, her maternal instincts waken and warm, and she faces the things she fears the most out of love for someone else.

That seems like an arc. Again, fair enough if you find it not moving or effective. But to say she's not developed or doesn't have an arc just isn't reflecting the actual film.

I almost don't like comparing them, really, because I think you're on the mark here: ALIENS has more on its mind than simply being an intense sci-fi action flick. PREDATORS is happy to be a gory, asskicking horror show with action and SF trappings.

I feel like what you're describing is the intended arc, but I don't think the film does a great job of executing that. It always felt to me that for each phase of the film's plot (and they're pretty distinct), there is a different and distinct phase for who Ripley is, rather than a progression in who Ripley is as each new circumstance arises. The way it's presented in the film, Ripley has overcome her fears when she decides to go on the mission (more to the point, we are never really presented with a compelling reason why she would do this), so her later heroism doesn't really come as a surprise to me. Don't get me wrong, I love this movie, it just takes a lot for granted, and holds itself back as a result.

Also the central conceit, that they need Ripley there, is so stupid. She knows so little about the Xenomorphs and has told the powers that be everything she knows (several times). To me it's only a couple steps removed from Armageddon's "teach oil drillers to be astronauts" conceit.

I always got the impression Ripley was sent along to have an "accident". She is the only one who knows the truth behind the whole thing.

I think it's clear why she goes; her life is falling apart at the seams, and she can't think of any other way to exorcise the constant fear and crippling anxiety. Is that a believable, "realistic" reason? YMMV. For some here, it's not.

Again, I don't think it's really disputable whether she has an arc or if the character is given additional depth over what we saw in the original film. How effectively (and believably) it's done is, as that's far more subjective and open to the viewer's tastes and reactions.

You don't think Ripley's character in the film moves believably and organically from one stage to the next. I can see that, though I disagree.

Same here.

I never liked that Cameron inserted that stuff about Ripley's daughter into the directors cut. Its so on the nose and it really cheapens the mother-daughter dynamic between Ripley and Newt.

Agreed. The other extra stuff is fine, but not needed; but the information about Ripley being a mother and hearing that she's outlived her daughter actually takes away from the relationship with Newt.

Along with LAST OF THE MOHICANS, I prefer the theatrical cut of ALIENS against the director's take.

PREDATOR. I can't believe this is even a debate.

I don't know if I'd use the word "complexity", but there's jabs or critiques at 1980s business (the review board session seems like a very thinly veiled stab at Reagan-era big business) as well as exploring the maternal issues.

I don't think ALIENS is a Bergman film or anything. I just think it had ideas over and above being a thrilling SF actioner. Ain't nothing wrong with the latter - Hollywood's ledger books are littered with poorly executed SF actioners - but of the two films, I think it's ALIENS that has more in mind than the surface plot alone. Whether it's successful in exploring or using them is another matter. I don't think it's a particularly deep or insightful film, frankly. Cameron just doesn't do subtle.

I love them both pretty much equally for different reasons, but I have to say, Ben is totally right about how the films have aged. Part of it is the film stock they used for Aliens, sure, but pretty much everything in Predator has aged beautifully, while Aliens looks a bit rough nowadays(not just the film stock, but the design, clothes, effects, etc).
Predator looks like it could have been filmed yesterday.

I agree with this, but it also highlights the problem I have with most Cameron films. He seems to think the movies hes making are more high-minded than they actually are. He's a master at crafting exciting set pieces, but so clumsy when exploring anything beyond the surface plot. Even The Abyss, which is one of my favorite movies of all time, comes dangerously close to flying completely off the rails in the ridiculously ham-fisted climax.

This was a real tough choice for me as both are two of my favourate films ever, but I had to go with PREDATOR over ALIENS. For all the reasons everyone else has said but also that it's so much more fun than ALIENS. The great camraderie between the Rescue Team is so infectious and Schwarzenegger is at his Badass best IMO, all of which just makes it a great ride. As much as I like ALIENS you don't care nearly as much when Vasquez or Hudson die as opposed to when Blaine or Billy bite it for example, which goes a long way in my book.

Kind of a tangent, but Cameron and Spielberg (and Lucas, of course) seem to be birds of a feather to me. Both directors recent films have focused as much or more on spectacle rather than substance, yet both seem to be of the opinion that they aren't doing that.

Are there any directors working today that could pull off films like they make (high concept sci-fi actioners) and actually inject more substance into them?

Neill Blomkamp

Neil Blomkamp, Duncan Jones, Alfonso Cuaron, take your pic!

My opinion/s as well. It's not just about intention. It's execution. Maybe PREDATOR sets its bar a tad lower in purpose, but it executes flawlessly. And if such a thing mattered, it's rewatchable as hell.

I'm not slagging on PREDATOR. I don't disagree with the praises heaped on it here. But I don't think ALIENS is as flawed as all that, and I don't think it's executed any less deftly.

Darkmite, are you saying ALIENS doesn't have a high repeat viewing value? Man, if I flipped past either of these flicks, I'd be sucked in right away, and I think ALIENS goes toe to toe with PREDATOR for quotable lines and action scenes that reward repeat viewings.

I feel exactly the opposite. I was seriously bummed out when Hudson and Vasquez buy it in ALIENS, whereas most of the deaths in PREDATOR are just sort of, "Aw, cool!". No emotional weight whatsover for me.

As far as repeat viewings go, I'll take the perfectly executed and paced action movie over the sorta bloated action movie with a little more on it's mind, any day.

I'll give you Cuaron and Blomkamp have both done it once each, but Duncan Jones film was not in the same vein as Spielberg or Cameron. I loved it, but it's just a different animal. Blomkamp is more along the lines of what I am thinking, and I don't know how I just forgot about District 9. That kind of filmmaker that can stradle that delicate line really intrigues me, and I am looking forward to his future projects.

The supporting characters in both films are there to essentially die. Both squads are equally entertaining as they march towards their deaths, so I really don't see an argument being made around their comparitive qualities.

Most compelling death in 'Predator': Billy's, because it takes place inside of your imagination.
Most compelling death in 'Aliens': Drake's, because his is the only death to provoke a legitimate emotional reaction from a comrade (Vasquez).

I don't get calling the theatrical cut of ALIENS bloated. The DC, sure, because the stuff added feels mostly like fanwank. But the theatrical release? Yes, it's 2:17, but what feels fatty or slow in it?

Oh yeah I totally agree MOON isn't in the same vein but I'm just of the mind that Jones has the potential to make a film of that type. SOURCE CODE looks like a step in the right direction as does MUTE if that ever gets made but that's just my thinking.

I guess it's just a matter of personal taste but I just enjoy the chemistry more between the PREDATOR crew. Yeah both squads are essentially a bunch of meat shields but to use an example again: I buy Jesse Ventura and Bill Duke being friends more than I do Vasquez and Drake.

And I don't want people to think I'm slagging on ALIENS. As I said, both are personal favourates of mine, I can sit down and enjoy the shit out of both and I truly don't hold it against anyone if they prefer it over PREDATOR but if I had to choose (like now) I'll go with Arnie and The Band of Badasses Vs. Vagina Mouth

Aliens. It's not even close for me. It helps that I recently saw it in a theater with an awesome crowd, but I never related to the nerd love of Predator. Thought it was 'fine' in '87. Watched it again on DVD about a year ago mostly because of the online hype stating it's aged so well.

Nope. Still just a fine Joel Silver production. I mean, it's okay. I don't dislike it or anything.


I must add that the director's cut of Aliens is terribly inferior. A textbook case of a studio keeping a talented director's worst instincts in check. Also the power of editing. It's the antithesis of Friedman led Fox situation.