ALIENS versus PREDATOR - Page 2

Predator. Aliens has aged like dogshit.

PREDATOR. I love the score. Arnie at his prime doesn't hurt either.

I love ALIENS, but...
... basically.

I just get more "cravings" for a helping of PREDATOR. ALIENS may be more... filling, but PREDATOR tends to satisfy my sweet tooth more.

I agree. Cameron likes his movies to wear their themes on their sleeves, but that doesn't make them intelligent.

I'm not sure the studio was really pushing Cameron to cut anything in particular, but he went after just the right things to take out. The whole chunk of the colonists and Newt's family is terrible, there's no need to see any of those characters before the Marines arrive. I like some of the Ripley's daughter stuff, but it's more as an interesting curiosity than anything else. The only thing that I really enjoy in the extended cut is the sentry gun scene, just because it further enforces the sheer numbers they're dealing with.

I guess I'm in the minority with Aliens, that movie never drags for me at all, even the first 45 minutes/hour before an alien shows up.

Vietnam allegory? I don't know if I buy that.

I think I'm going to have call BS on myself here, as it seems like both films are getting jumped up beyond their actual content and quality. Both films may indeed have goals of muted or vague commentary on failed war, big business, and other agreeably fuzzy topics, but I don't think either of them succeed in rising above their genre. No shame in that; succeeding or shining in the genre is an accomplishment, as so many films so awfully don't.

I love both films. I quote both films. And I agree that PREDATOR is the zenith of Arnold's action flicks. It holds up remarkably well after almost 25 years. Bottom line, though, is that ALIENS appeals more to me, and seems to have more going on. Whether that's reflective of actual thematic complexity or it's simply that it's a "bigger" story (spanning two worlds and a bigger environment), I don't know.

The poll is a lot closer than you'd think from just reading this thread.

Aliens is a much better film than a lot of people in this thread are making out. That's been the case long before the Anthology Blu-ray set showed just how well it's aged. I completely reject the notion that it's some sort of creaking embarrassment and there's a quality chasm between these two movies.

There's nothing in Predator (another film I love) that you can't get in Aliens. The same can't be said of the reverse.

Indeed. I see a lot of Cameron nit-picking and slagging off, but the fact is the Special Edition of Aliens shows just how well the horror aspect of the beast is handled. What some people are calling "bloat" or "fat" here is actually wonderfully atmospheric buildup. It might not be to everyone's taste, but to call it self-indulgent fluff is just nonsense. The guy clearly knew what he was doing and it holds up beautifully today.

In a world, nay universe where no-one knows much of anything about them, it makes more sense to bring the one person who does know something. No matter how small or seemingly insignificant (although I'd call schooling one and living to tell the tale pretty significant.) Every little helps, as the ads say.

This criticism also completely overlooks the "Ripley silencing her lambs" aspect of the conceit - the main point, ultimately.

Ten years ago, I would've answered ALIENS, no question. It remains THE most powerful theatrical experience of my life, no matter the flaws that have revealed themselves since 1986.

Now, I'm on the fence.

Pieces like this one by the great Walter Chaw have made me really reconsider. He suggests a thematic depth and resonance to Predator that I'd never really given much thought to before. I mean, take just this passage:

I really dig his take on it. I'm coming over to the Predator side...

I don't know, that reading seems to assume people went in expecting a typical commando-style action movie and were stunned when it turned into one about an alien picking off the squad, when little attempt was made to promote the film as anything but "Arnie vs. a monster".

Predator might be shorter, but brevity and quality aren't mutually exclusive. Like I said before, Aliens builds atmosphere through all the lead-up and additional material. Not all of it may help tell the story in the shortest possible time, but all of it contributes somehow. It isn't superfluous, as wrongly suggested. Since when is film-making a race, anyway?

Also, Aliens doesn't just have archetypal characters and its cast is easily as strong as that of Predator, not to mention more ambitious.

It's been called "bloated" and "slow", its central conceit has been branded "stupid", and just about every nit that can be picked from a film has been (the Marines aren't fleshed out/diverse or interesting enough? Gimme a break.) I think it's safe to say people have been slamming Aliens. In that very safe "let's all rag on Cameron because he doesn't make movies the way we would" way that's so popular now.

"Special Edition" was the title on the hand-me-down VHS I inherited of it many moons ago. No matter what it's currently going by, I'm calling it by the original title. At least, in this neck of the woods.

As far as the complaints about pacing go, I really am taken aback by people finding it a "slog"; I can only imagine how difficult some people must find 2001. I re-watched Aliens very recently on Blu and it's anything but slow. Considering how many elements are at work (sci-fi horror/action/drama) it does a wonderful balancing act while keeping things moving forward in an exciting fashion.

Is there a leaner, 90 minute cut that could easily match Predator in the straight-forward, brisk action stakes? Absolutely. That's not the point, though. Aliens isn't trying to be just that movie so comparing the two like this isn't strictly a true comparison. In terms of which is best, though, what plays to some as "overstuffed" is the ultimate jam-packed sci-fi blast 'em up.

This is exactly what happened to me. And I caught it on cable! For whatever reason, the trailers didn't penetrate my nearly-inert 19 year old skull. I first saw PREDATOR on cable, thinking it would be another COMMANDO (which I then hated, as I didn't have the CHUD community to teach me the error of my ways), and being joyfully surprised by it being about a reptilian humanoid ET hunting the shit out of the commandos.

(I'd like to see a COMMANDO vs PREDATOR thread, come to think of it.)

I think an ALIEN -VS- THE THING discussion brought me to CHUD somehow years ago, but damned if I can find that thread.

"Aliens" was an okay sequel. I loved Sigourney Weaver's passionate performance and Lance Henriksen work as Bishop, but the other characters were annoying stereotypes unlike those in the first "Alien" movie where they were each quirky and interesting in their own way, without ever being grating. "Aliens" had some good action sequences, but it was hurt by the presence of worthless characters like those played by Paxton and Reiser. Also, while it finishes strong, it drags in the middle.

"Predator", on the other hand, is enthralling from start to finish. It's great when we're watching entertaining conversations between the hilariously badass eclectic cast and it gets even better and surprisingly intense when the cast is reduced to Arnold and the Predator. It has two distinct halves and each is distinctively awesome.

I really don't get how the characters in Aliens are "annoying stereotypes" when it seems like the only thing distinguishing them from the characters in Predator is that ones in Predator are played by guys most of you have man-crushes on.

Well the guys in "Predator" may have all been soldiers, but each was an individual with his own strong personality traits. This is different from "Aliens" where you have characters like 'loudmouth impulsive impatient dumbass military guy' played by Paxton and 'immoral, slimy, greedy corporate guy' played by Reiser.

Funny, those sound like -- wait for it -- personality traits.

To me, the characters in Predator are all variations on "badass commando guy". This one's the joker. This one's the Native American tough guy. This one's the quiet one. It's not exactly a ground-breaking bunch either.

Agreed, I was surprised to see so much negativity towards the directors cut in this thread, personally I think it's much better. The theatrical cut is an action movie, the directors cut is a dramatic atmospheric horror movie. I think everything that was taken out of the theatrical cut is the stuff that really makes you care about the characters and get a sense of tension and dread.

Yup.

I disagree. Just saying that both sets of characters are "badasses" and therefore nothing distinguishes them, is doing the films a disservice. It's all about the writing, and how the performances sell it. I bought every moment in Predators. They gave the characters nuances and made them pop for me. Aliens, on the other hand, played its characters to extremes and made them totally unrealistic. Reiser, Paxton, Biehn... There was barely any shading there which, IMO, makes Predators superior.

MichaelM, Commando vs Predator! No Contest! Commando by leaps and bounds over...Predator. To me, Commando is Schwarzenegger's best film, with True Lies, his second. Arnold, as a...One Man Army, delivering devastating blows, collateral damage and numerous Awesome kills, vs Dan Hedaya and his goons, at their private...Mercs R US! Rae Dawn Chong, was a humorous gal pal, for the Austrian Oak, while the fight with Bill Duke, was a gem. It is too bad that there wasn't a sequel, more than a decade later, with Arnold and a 20 something, Alyssa Milano as his daughter Jenny.

Jesus, we're calling Predator introspective now? Guys, the movie's already gone home with you. You can stop hitting on it now.

I don't know, I watch the scene in Aliens where the Marines are waking from hypersleep, and it sure seems like they have a shared history beyond the scope of the film.

And you honestly don't think everything orbits around Arnie in Predator?

Look, I like Predator. A lot. But I think the film is getting unreasonably elevated to a level it simply doesn't merit in this thread.

Not at all. In fact, apart from the fact that he's their leader, Dillon is the only one who has a real relationship to Dutch. The others are off on their own tangents.

EDIT: or what Andrew said.

If I were to look at both films at the script level, I would probably see very little difference in the characterization of the two squads of badasses, just that the ones from Predator tell better jokes. On paper, that's about the extent of it. A lot of what elevates Predator with regard to its squad of badasses is the chemistry of the cast, in which case it's not a matter of Aliens getting something wrong or being deficient in some way on the story level, just Predator having that on-set element that makes a little more special than it would be otherwise.

This, absolutely. The lunchroom scene in ALIENS alone has more characterization than most of PREDATOR. There is also a genuine warmth in Ripley's relationship with Newt that elevates the film above simply "Run From The Monster!!"

I disagree, and cite the examples Merriweather just pointed out a few posts back. There's a significant chunk of screentime devoted to Mac reflecting on Blaine's death. You get a sense that these guys have been through shit together; fought and bled together.

The lunchroom scene is nothing but banter. It works just fine in the context of Cameron's cartoony sci-fi action movie, but lets not mistake Vasquez doing pull ups and Frost reminiscing about Arcturian poon-tang for characterization.

I disagree completely. Almost none of the characterisations in ALIENS feel real or lived-in.

I disagree with this.
- Crowe, Dietricht, Frost, Wierzbowski, Spunkmeyer...these guys are throways, relegated completely to being background characters who are there, essentially, to die.
- Hicks, Hudson, Vasquez, Drake...they may be locker room stereotypes to a certain degree, but you understand who they are and how they relate to one another.
- You get the sense that Drake and Vasquez have the same kind of history that Blaine and Mac have. They have professional respect for one another as well as friendship. Vasquez has a definite emotional reaction to Drake's loss. She doesn't have a BIG MOMENT like Mac does to have a 'goodbye bro' speech, but she doesn't need to. Her NOOOOOO is all that she needs.
- Hudson is the joker of the group with a puffed up sense of capability. Sure, he panics when the shit hits the fan, but he also is able to pull it together and deliver the goods. You DO wonder if he's gonna be a liability to the team at the end of the film. Will he rise to the occasion or will he cower in a corner? The fact that he goes down fighting in a flurry of FUCK YOU's and GET SOMES says it all.

I could go on but you get the idea. Are they the most rounded characters? No, but they're just as fleshed out as the Predator crew.

I'm not saying either film is a hallmark of deep characterization, but I think we're elevating the guys in Predator waaaaay too high.

I mean honestly, it seems like instead of just saying, "Hey, I like Predator better than Aliens" and being done with it, some of you feel like you have to elevate Predator to this unassailable level and/or knock Aliens down. When both are really strong, classic pieces of genre entertainment.

I'm saying they're comparable, and that Predator's isn't anywhere near as lofty as some of you are giving it credit for.

We're just saying that if your sole reason for elevating 'Predator' above 'Aliens' is that the soldiers have better characterizations than the marines, then your logic is flawed. It's another thing entirely to prefer one group over the other...that's subjective.

Because they're facing ONE predator, instead of hundreds. The marines die because of arrogance and the company's deceit in not sharing intel. The xenomorphs don't show up on infrared, perfectly blend in with the "improvements" they've made to the infrastructure, and then surprise and overwhelm the marines.

There are also, if I'm not mistaken, more marines in ALIENS than commandos in PREDATOR. It would take more time - ahem, I mean "bloat" - to get all those character beats out.

ALIENS resembles a war film more than a horror one; in war films (and in war!), groups of people die often die quickly without individual meaning or beats to the deaths. This isn't a weakness; it's part of the genre adapted by Cameron.

Vasquez: the badass throughout the film. She covers everyone during the 'escape' when the aliens attack. Never scared, she goes down by putting her fucking boot into an alien's face and plugging it with a handgun.

Gorman: the incompetent. He loses it to brain gridlock and then gets sidelined by a headwound. He wisely lets Hicks retain command even when he could assume it again. He tries to redeem his earlier failure in an act of heroism by trying to rescue Vasquez. He fails in rescuing her but it's not his fault. They both go down by their own terms.

Hudson: the blowhard who panics. He rallies himself at the end and, defying expectations, goes down swinging.

Reasons why PREDATOR is better than ALIENS should at least start with Newt.

Though I'm still taking Dutch's commandos over the Colonial Marines as a more fleshed out combat unit, this is a really good point.

Reasons why 'Aliens' is better than 'Predator' should at least start with Anna.

I think I'm just going to start seeing how mad I can make MichaelM and Dickson.

Facehugger scene aside, the action sequences in Aliens are really weak. Fact.