FRANCHISE ME: ALIENS

If my love of cinema were a superpower, then Aliens would be my "origin" story.  Too young to see Alien in theaters (only on network TV), I was 12 when Aliens came out, just 2-3 years into seeing R rated films.  I grew up on Star Wars (obviously), but Aliens was revelatory to me, and informed my cultural and narrative interests ever since.

 

Alien is certainly more timeless, but Aliens felt more immediate.

I dunno, I liked Newt. Her lines tend to be a little clunky, sure, but in ways that feel more like what you'd conceivably hear from a child forced into a very adult situation than too-precocious twits like Lex from Jurassic Park. (Well, in a "movie-speak" sense, anyway.) And she doesn't do that much screaming.

"I mean she's talking Thermonuclear explosion and Adios Muchachos."

 

"Maybe we could build a fire. Sing a couple of songs."

 

Which one of the Marines is Wierzbowski? Never really recognise him.

Wierzbowski can be seen like 3 times, but you can see him daily on Facebook.

My friend told me that Trevor Speedman friended him on Facebook.  Why I asked, because he joined the Wierzbowski Hunter group.  I saw the pics, the guy still wears a Space Marine outfit to this day.  Kind of funny, and sad at the same time.

I used to prefer ALIENS to ALIEN, but as I've gotten older it has reversed. But it is also like saying I prefer pizza to burritos. I love them both, and they fit different moods anyway. I can't imagine debating which I wanted to watch at any given moment. I'm either primed for some badass action and Bill Paxton, or moody Gothic horror.

It's the Godfather I or II argument for me.  I grew up with both films, picking one over the other would be like picking what kid I love the most.  The both exist, and they both are great.  Shame that some internet writers can't grasp that notion, and write stupid "vs" articles. 

 

"Ripleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey!!!!!!!!!"

 

"Indyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!"

 

Only just struck me how close they are...

 

This is true except where funny equals sad so that it reads, "this is sad and sad at the same time'

 

I like the tone being set here, that they really need not be compared, because they're both terrific in completely different ways. 

Yes , setting the tone for the crapfest that will be 'cubed'!

Question.  The Atmospheric Processor blew up because?

 

Ship crash?

Vasquez and Drake unloading with their guns inside the nest?

Lack of upkeep ala The Shinning Novel?

This, I believe. Wasn't it foreshadowed by their instructions not to go trigger-happy before they went down into the nest?

all of the above i believe.

 

I think bishop says something along those lines as to why it can't be shut down

This movie was the best amusement park ride I'd ever been on when I saw it at fourteen.

 

Nice writeup Josh

Processor Explosion:

 

That bag full of ammo explodes also. But the smart guns are supposed to be firing armor-piercing rounds too. Be funny if it was Ripley's terrible driving behind it though...

Processor exp;osion, because: Ticking Clock

 

 

"Because". Hahaha.

For me the debate on ALIEN vs ALIENS is simple. The former. I think you make a great point at ALIEN being a great film and ALIENS being a great movie. That's how I always saw it. I definitely prefer the theatrical cut. The Special Edition ruins too much of the suspense by showing the planet pre-investation, that's basically a cut made by the Cameron who made TERMINATOR 2 while the theatrical cut is by the guy who made TERMINATOR 1 and knew how to make a really effective thriller without compromising for whatever satisfies his ego. I also agree that it doesn't make sense with Ripley turning out to be a mom. For a mother, she didn't seem all that concerned about wanting to see her daughter again while in deep space.

Here's one debate that might really stir things up: ALIENS vs ALIEN 3. I actually prefer the latter. It's a very flawed film but I personally find it more enjoyable for a variety of reasons. Would have been nice if Fincher had returned to finish it up for the 2003 DVD but I guess the Assembly Cut is the closest we'll ever get to that. But that's a discussion that should be saved for later.

 

You mean the same debate someone always proposes after saying why they think ALIENS is so clearly inferior to ALIEN and yadda yadda yadda 'it's not even close'? :)

Any movie that kills Michael Bien and Lance Henriksen and a little girl right outta the gate loses. Simple as that.

Killing the little girl actually makes it even better in my book. I can live without Bien. Henriksen doesn't die right out of the gate, and he does return as a scumbag company man with the worst lying skills ever.

 

See I just see that as an epic case of brass balls personally.

 

 

Great point, Josh. For me, this is almost as important an element of Cameron's filmmaking than his pursuit of technical innovation. When it isn't firing on all cylinders it's eye-roll-inducing (See: A lot of Avatar), but when it's firing on all cylinders he can take the most stock, well-worn tropes and make you feel like you're seeing them for the first time. Aliens is one of the best examples of that cinematic alchemy in action. I understand the problems some people have with it, but personally the movie is still such a blast after 26 years (Fuuuck...) I'll pretty much forgive it anything.

 

And for all its faults (and there are so, so many...) I'll always give Alien 3 credit for its brass balls. They tried to pull some ridiculous shit for supposed unneccessary Hollywood sequel.

I think I've mentioned this before on these boards, but I grew up on an old VHS copy of a recording of Aliens off ABC primetime. This was a weird cut, in that it had the Ripley's daughter scene, and the sentry gun subplot, and the "Ellen" "Dwayne" scene, but not the colonists scene or the discussion of how the aliens must be like insects scene. For years that was my preferred cut, a cut I could never recapture because it wasn't official in any capacity, but Josh has convinced me of the lack of necessity for Ripley having a daughter.

 

I actually love Alien 3, and have defended it pretty thoroughly in the past, but that's for a few days from now...

and a half fucked robot with a nice 'death' scene.

 

"It's very dark here Ripley.." was always a great little speech I thought.

I dunno, I'm pretty well past the point in my life where I respect ballsy moves simply for being ballsy; if it's not in the service of making the story better, I don't feel any obligation to go "oh, wow." And I don't even think it was a ballsy move so much as just a way to get around the fact that Carrie Henn wasn't returning and Hicks and Bishop wouldn't have fit with the movie's "back to formula, but in a prison this time" approach. (And anyway, even if they were that hell-bent on getting them out of the way, there had to be less douchey ways to do it.)

Anyway, Cameron thought it was an insult and Alan Dean Motherfucking Foster called it "an obscenity," so I'm pretty well content to go "yeah, pretty much that" and be done with it.

I like that they didn't just kill Newt and got over it, but they performed an autopsy on her before throwing her corpse in the furnace with Bein. I'm sure Cameron shit himself watching that autopsy scene.

I know this guy who always tried to make his own homemade horror movies. He would only shoot scenes of women getting brutalized, no plot, no suspense. He just like shooting those scenes.

 

I guess shitting all over Cameron's movie and showing a little-girl autopsy is cool in that way. 

Nah, there are other reasons I prefer 3. Killing Newt was just icing on the cake. But like I said, that's a discussion saved for the eventual ALIEN 3 thread.

Oy. There's a whole other rant thread in the topic of "why do people find petty destructivism and torture to be cool and 'adult'..."

Aliens made me so happy when I was thirteen that no amount of adult hindsight can make me disrespect it too much, even if I far prefer the original at this point. A bit of a victim of me over watching it for the last twenty years, it was just about the greatest movie a teenager in the 80s or 90s could ask for. I don't much care if that perspective is biased or nostalgic, because it seems to me that everyone's high school years were improved by it.

A3 doesn't shit all over anything unless you subscribe to some bizarre world view that writers can introduce characters but then not remove them.  This whole thing of losing Newt being some personal afront is bizarre.  And while people may joke about her being gone lightening the scream load (mercifully), are people really going to tell me all of that is handled without pathos? Seriously?  Did you watch the movie?  Stop shaking your fist at the writer gods and try again if you missed a few scenes.

By now this whole attitude isn't much more than people being mad they didn't get their fan service (which oddly reflects badly on Aliens as anything more than a Ra-Ra chest bump of a film.  Good work die hard fans).

 

It doesn't matter what weird contractual quirks landed them in this situation, or the convenient eggs showing up to set things in motion.  They are their own thing.  After that they handled it well.  And for a movie about spitting the face of cruel fate it's utterly brilliant actually.

Throw me up on the board with those who think everyone needs to stop comparing the first two in this franchise because they are so different from one another.  They're both classics, but in completely different genres.

 

 

 

Oh, and here's something to mull over before the eventual Alien 3 piece and discussion:  Killing Hicks and Newt was Sigourney Weaver's idea.  She wanted Ripley to be "alone" again.  This is something I find hilarious whenever Cameron rails against the film, blaming both Fox and (to a lesser degree) Fincher for destroying his "family".  Nope Jim, it was your pal Sigourney's request.

 

I think we should leave discussion of the third film for the proper time, of course, but I just wanted to get that out there so that everyone who wasn't aware of it has time to think it over before the next article arrives.

Also, it's no wonder Jim didn't follow from the excised "Nest" sequence from the first film.  While the IDEA is cool as a concept, the execution was botched.  Take away any pre-knowledge of the fact that Dallas & Brett are supposedly transforming into eggs and it's not very clear at all in terms of what exactly is happening in that scene.  It really does seem more like a "spider has tied up its prey for a future snack" scenario than a "somehow this beast is magically transforming humans into facehugger apartments" thing.  The latter might be the intention of the creators, but it comes off more like the former in execution.  Just food for thought.

 
Agree with S.D., as I've been hanging back from continuing the Alien 3 discussion for fear of derailment (But suffice to say - guys, an appreciation of artistic ballsiness doesn't mean you have a mental age of 13)

 

It's interesting though, how Aliens essentially 'made' Ripley the character she is (In terms of being a character whose femininity is front and centre while kicking more ass than most mortal men) and how strongly it affected Weaver. It seems to have fostered a real sense of ownership of the character in her, and clearly helped lead to some of those decisions when the third movie came around. IMO, by Resurrection th efranchise had become just as much around Ripley as it was the Aliens, and arguably not in a good way. Cameron may have been horrified, but it was arguably a monster he helped create.

Yeah, it very much became the Ellen Ripley show. I wonder how the franchise would have gone had they still had Ripley be discovered, but have her be so terrified she wouldnt go back.

That adds more to the scariness of the alien and you'd get a different protagonist, possibly someone from the company.

Anyway, so much for fanwank. It is what it is. Alien 3 does complete her arc well as she's pretty nihilistic through the whole thing, rather than gung ho. Rookie to soldier to burn out.

Being the Ripley show worked.

 

I am an unabashed fan of this film.  I know there has been some distinct thought in recent years (no doubt due in some part to dissatisfaction in Cameron's two recent films, and their world-beating success) to revisit that and see Cameron as a more talented Michael Bay.  Spike even started his blog with the the first subject and continuing title of "I've Outgrown Aliens".

 

I've certainly expanded my cineaste palate since I was 12.  I'll even cop to hating Alien 3 in 1992 when I was 18 years old.  It felt like a betrayal, and it was one of the first times I ever cursed a director (I blamed him, not the Screenwriter and not Fox), promsing I would never see another movie of his.  I wanted a sequel to Aliens, and Alien 3 was a sequel to the series, not the most recent movie.

 

And Alien 3 is probably the one I watch more now than the others.  But I'll sing those praises (and share the lament of what it could have been) when we get to that film.

 

 

I don't know how many folks remember, but Sigourney Weaver got a BEST ACTRESS nom for Aliens.  It turned her into a superstar and put her on the A-list in a way few actresses get it.  And this wasn't the "throw a bone to the geeks" Hollywood.  This was unprecedented.  An lead acting nom for a genre action film?!?  Asa stated earlier, Cameron not only made a blockbuster action sci-fi film, he made it with a female lead (and decidedly female)...and made the most badass Marine, an audience favorite, another woman.  Hollywood can't even do that now (props to Soderbergh).

 

I consider the film a fucking clinic in directing tension and action (and I prefer the Theatrical version for this very reason), and incorporating character and stakes into the action scenes.

 

But I'm with S.D. above.  The films are in different genres, which is what makes the 1 - 2 punch so incredible.  Alien is a clinic in dread and horror.  I already mentioned I consider it more timeless and pure.  But Aliens is a capital "G" great movie.  Scott probably watched it 5 times before he made Black Hawk Down.  McTiernan probably watched it five times before he made Die Hard.  26 years later, we are getting a videogame sequel specifically to the movie.

 

I've always felt it is OK to love Aliens and still consider yourself a mature film lover.  It is more than just a badass action movie for 15 year olds.

 

 

For me, I thought Aliens was the perfect end to Ripley's story.  She faced her demons, and basically became a mother again.  Alien 3, IMO, should have just dropped the Ripley character all together and went back to either the Space Jockey element, or better yet, concentrated on Weyland Yutani and what they were about. 

 

From watching and reading the pre-production of Alien 3, Fox, Hill and Giler all seemed to be confused on what they wanted.  Will Ripley be the hero, maybe Hicks, maybe a new guy.  Will it take place on Earth, the Alien home world???  Nah, too expensive. 

 

Aliens, the movie had time to develop on it's own terms.  Fox wanted a sequel (after a few regime changes at Fox), and Cameron while waiting for Arnold to become free to film Terminator, had a chance to take on a writ ting assignment.  Fox liked what Cameron had written, and actually WAITED for him to become free again, to finish writ ting the script and to possibly direct.  Fox decided upon that!!  Then you fast forward to Alien 3, and Fox had that release date circled on the calender.  I think Fincher did the best he could with what he had.  Alien 3 for me, doesn't work because it asks you to accept a lot in the first 15 minutes of the film.  It just so happens there is an alien (or 2) on board, it just so happens the Sulacco has no other protocol for a fire then to toss the sleeping people out into space, just so happens the EEV had no engines and just FALLS, it just so happens that they land a planet that has people on it, and right next to their facility mind you.  So much happenstance.  I can deal with character deaths, no one should be untouchable, but the autopsy scene was included for no other point then to shock and gross out people.  Sorry, 30 minutes later Ripley is being scanned on the EEV, makes no sense that Ripley had to rip her open.  And what was she going to do if there was a Alien inside Newt?  If Ripley thought it was dead inside Newt, why not just use the EEV and find out.  If she thought there was a living Alien waiting to burst out of her chest, Ripley has seen how that would go down, so why not just burn the bodies ASAP and not rip her open with no way of killing the Alien?   Not to mention, Ripley being the surrogate mother to this girl.  Alien or not, the fact that she is insisting on ripping open this girl is a lot to accept.  Yeah, I get it, she's a war hardened veteran, but to acknowledge that, you would have to also understand that what she did made no sense for someone with her knowledge and experience. 

 

Alien 3 doesn't even deliver on the premise.  You have an Alien, that won't harm Ripley because of the Queen embryo (so lucky that takes much much longer to birth!) but it allows Ripley to be around other humans?  If it was protective of her, why not capture her?  We know these creatures can cocoon human hosts for just that purpose, but it allows Ripley to be around other humans, humans who tried to rape and possibly kill her.  Why not have the Alien be the one who saved Ripley from the inmates who attacked her?  Why not have the Alien, NOT KILLING PRISONERS and cocooning them instead.  Smart movie Alien Dog, let's kill the future hosts.   Movie would have played better IMO, to have Ripley in a enviroment where she is conflicted.  Alien is the enemy, but it's also protecting her from another enemy.  Would have made for an interesting internal struggle for her. 

Nordling dissects ALIEN: RESURRECTION.

 

Did he find peanuts and corn inside that turd?

Sign me up for those who find the ALIEN vs ALIENS debate utterly tired and pointless. 

 

I adore this film. I saw it in the theaters when it first came out; I was 18, and ALIENS was, at that point, the most suspenseful and sphincter-puckering film I'd seen yet. Just an amazing theatrical experience. While I don't think it's a hollow thrill ride, IMNSHO it's not as "deep", for lack of a better word, as ALIEN. That doesn't make it a lesser film, just a different one. (A contemporary comparison could be THE DARK KNIGHT and AVENGERS; one is most definitely a "film", the other a "movie," and yet both succeed wildly and represent filmmakers at the top of their game.) As the excellent article expressed, ALIENS should be lauded for being a sequel that more than successfully expands the world of the original, gives nods to the famous story beats without simply regurgitating them, and solidly furthering the arc of the main (surviving) character. Ain't a lot of sequels that do that AND manage to be ridiculously, terrifyingly entertaining. 

 

One thing I love about this film is how well most of the effects hold up. The fight with the queen at the end, in particular, never feels choppy or faked or anything less than dynamic, real and dangerous. 

 

My biggest (and only significant) problem with ALIENS is Ripley's way of killing the queen; like many other aspects, it mirrors the original but magnifies and expands it.....but to the point of breaking willing suspension of disbelief. If the vacuum from the open airlock is strong enough to break the queen's grip, it's strong enough to tear Ripley's body away from her arm wrapped around the rung. It's a truly dumb moment in an otherwise very smart film.

it's the "shooting the tanks in the sharks mouth" moment.  The film has earned it. 

This whole "film vs. movie" debate seems silly to me. They're the same thing. How is one term more "elite" than another? I use them pretty much interchangeably.

 

Otherwise, great article. After watching Alien for the first time recently, I did a rewatch of this, and found it to be a lot of fun to compare the differences in Scott and Cameron's respective approaches.

I still remember first hearing that the guy who made The Terminator was going to do a sequel to Alien. And then again, when the title was announced and it wasn't just something like "Alien 2". Seriously, sit down and think about that title for a second. We take it for granted now, but in the day, the question was, why make a sequel to Alien? What's worse than the Alien? Answer: lots of them. Aliens. Inspired.

Edited by Hammerhead - 6/2/12 at 10:36pm

 

Exactly.

I don't agree, but hey, YMMV and all that. I think the film earned a big and somewhat silly finale. But watching the alien queen defeated by the same vacuum that Ripley manages to somehow defy...yeah, I just never bought it. I do love the film, though - I ardently argue it's one of the best modern action films, period, and I think it's a phenomenally terrific sequel for all the reasons given in the article and above. 

Watched this in a double bill with Alien last night. Coming off Scott's film the shift in tone is odd for maybe the first half hour, but the film is so much bloody fun you stop caring. Weaver is the glue that brings the two films together for sure, and watching again after a few years really brought up a lot of subtleties in her performance that completely sells her as the same character. As things go rapidly south for the marines, you get a real sense off her of 'I'm going to have to deal with this myself again, aren't I?' that just builds and builds until she loses it and commandeers the APC. 

 

Also, it was interesting seeing the slight awkwardness in the way she interacts with Newt. The film's just as much about her rediscovering her maternal instincts as it is about her asserting them, and there's lovely sort of quietly lost quality about her in these scenes. You can tell that she's trying to figure out how to be a mother again, and trying to be confident as opposed to the natural assertiveness she has with the marines. Weaver has a lot of BIG ACTING MOMENTS in this film, but this time I found it was her quieter, less assured moments that really make her performance tick.

 

Also, both these films look fucking beautiful on blu ray. So many small details I'd never noticed before: signs, the scrawled slogans on the marines' gear, the logos on cigarette packets. Want to know how to create an instant orgy? Just bring the guy who invented blu ray into a room full of art directors.

I really want to have a "ABC" cut of the film.  I love the sentry guns, and the learning of Ripley's daughters fate is essential to the story.  The scene at the colony before the outbreak, I can live without.  I like the mystery of "what happened".

 

I'm still of the opinion that Weyland Yuntani isn't responsible for the colony getting eaten up.  It was all Burke. 

 

My theory is, the company didn't want another "Nostromo" incident.  So they let Ripley just "be" in the escape shuttle, hoping to let sleeping dogs lie, and they set up a colony on LV-426 with the intention of making the planet breathable, so LATER they could set up a science/weapon base on the planet and not risk taking the creature off the planet.  Burke had no idea about this, was just a company stooge, who learned about Ripley's story and took it upon himself to try and claim this "find" so he could make himself rich. 

 

I'd like to take this point to talk about the visual quality of the film in general. Cameron's aesthetic is bold strokes compared to Scott's love of fiddly textures, but their attention to detail is about equal. Cameron made a conscious decision to achieve as much of Aliens' FX in-camera as possible, and in the pre-digital age, that means his images are that much sharper because they haven't been duped and re-composited. He gets away with some CRAZY low-tech stuff, like the old-school rear-projection in the elevator sequence or cutting directly between full-size props and miniatures in the Queen fight and the APC escape. There are maybe four bluescreen comps in the entire film.

 

Also, check out the scene where the Marines suit up and march onto the drop-ship. It's one long tracking shot, with no hidden transitions. You NEVER see that in a fantasy film, in a completely constructed environment. Talk about every dollar on the screen.

Really? I'd heard some very bad things about Aliens BluRay. That the tight budget and film stock really jump out and slap you in the face. ALIEN however, is insanely benefited by BluRay. The people I heard this from are really into the practical side of things and it was just and endless list of "visible holes-in-the-queen's neck", clearly visible gaffer tape keeping stuff together, inconsistent film grain etc.

 

Made me extremely worried about BluRay in general actually. I haven't bothered rushing into the format. I like a movie to be a movie first and an instructional video second.