Aliens - My Own Cut - Cinema Series

[TC]

What new techniques and what proper effects are you considering?
...

You need to read my post again. You are misunderstanding what i was saying. The "proper effect" i was talking about is the effect of watching a movie for the first time, as opposed to a repeat viewing of that movie.

Let me put it another way: In a repeat viewing you put your brain into another mode of willing suspension of disbelief in which you suspend your belief that you already know the story. But of course, it's just a pretense and therefore not properly successful. For example, jump-scares no longer work, mysteries have solutions that are already known, red-herrings no longer fool you.

...
You can't have mystery and suspense in the second movie because the first movie already did that.

Of course you can. The second movie did so and to good effect. I'll give you some examples:

There's the mystery, upon arrival at Hadley's Hope, of what happened to all the colonists and where they went.

There's the mystery of where all the aliens came from. (Ripley: "So who's laying these eggs?" Bishop: "I'm not sure. It must be something we haven't seen yet.")

There's suspense in the motion tracker showing the approaching aliens gathering outside the door to operations while our heroes wait for them to attack. The suspense heightens even more when the aliens get inside the door but are somehow invisible. ("Eleven metres. Ten." "That can't be right, that's inside the room!")

There's suspense when Ripley and Newt clamber aboard the dropship, trying to beat the countdown to the atmosphere processing station's nuclear explosion which is only seconds away. Will they make it in time?

...
And if you want things like actual facehugging, then that was done, too, in the first movie, and showing that and everything else in the second would have turned the latter into an imaginary documentary.

I didn't call for showing "everything else" from the first movie in the second movie. That would be silly.

But for the reason i already explained, i think it's a good idea to reshow an actual face-hugging (of Russ Jorden). It's only a brief reprise and serves as a reminder to audiences of the alien's metamorphic life cycle. Remember, for some viewers it was seven years between films (Alien came out in 1979, Aliens in 1986). The same applies to the Aliens chestburster scene ("We got a live one here!"). Do you feel that this, too, was redundant?

And also, there were even first time Aliens viewers who never even saw the first film. I'd rather not deprive them of witnessing actual hugging and bursting action.

Finally, that and replacing anything about Hicks with more dialogue between Ripley and Newt would have ruined the pacing.

You fail to grasp my point. I was distinguishing between a plot element that's important and another that is less important. Namely: The Ripley/Newt relationship is critical to the story's central dramatic question whereas the Ripley/Hicks one is not.

If you're saying that removing Hicks from the script would result in a poorer movie, then read my post again: I also said exactly this. But after removing Hicks and patching the remaining script together the story would still work. Whereas in the case of removing Newt, it would not. Ripley's entire arc would need to be rethought.

TC

[ralfy]

What new techniques and what proper effects are you considering?
...

You need to read my post again. You are misunderstanding what i was saying. The "proper effect" i was talking about is the effect of watching a movie for the first time, as opposed to a repeat viewing of that movie.

Let me put it another way: In a repeat viewing you put your brain into another mode of willing suspension of disbelief in which you suspend your belief that you already know the story. But of course, it's just a pretense and therefore not properly successful. For example, jump-scares no longer work, mysteries have solutions that are already known, red-herrings no longer fool you.

...
You can't have mystery and suspense in the second movie because the first movie already did that.

Of course you can. The second movie did so and to good effect. I'll give you some examples:

There's the mystery, upon arrival at Hadley's Hope, of what happened to all the colonists and where they went.

There's the mystery of where all the aliens came from. (Ripley: "So who's laying these eggs?" Bishop: "I'm not sure. It must be something we haven't seen yet.")

There's suspense in the motion tracker showing the approaching aliens gathering outside the door to operations while our heroes wait for them to attack. The suspense heightens even more when the aliens get inside the door but are somehow invisible. ("Eleven metres. Ten." "That can't be right, that's inside the room!")

There's suspense when Ripley and Newt clamber aboard the dropship, trying to beat the countdown to the atmosphere processing station's nuclear explosion which is only seconds away. Will they make it in time?

...
And if you want things like actual facehugging, then that was done, too, in the first movie, and showing that and everything else in the second would have turned the latter into an imaginary documentary.

I didn't call for showing "everything else" from the first movie in the second movie. That would be silly.

But for the reason i already explained, i think it's a good idea to reshow an actual face-hugging (of Russ Jorden). It's only a brief reprise and serves as a reminder to audiences of the alien's metamorphic life cycle. Remember, for some viewers it was seven years between films (Alien came out in 1979, Aliens in 1986). The same applies to the Aliens chestburster scene ("We got a live one here!"). Do you feel that this, too, was redundant?

And also, there were even first time Aliens viewers who never even saw the first film. I'd rather not deprive them of witnessing actual hugging and bursting action.

Finally, that and replacing anything about Hicks with more dialogue between Ripley and Newt would have ruined the pacing.

You fail to grasp my point. I was distinguishing between a plot element that's important and another that is less important. Namely: The Ripley/Newt relationship is critical to the story's central dramatic question whereas the Ripley/Hicks one is not.

If you're saying that removing Hicks from the script would result in a poorer movie, then read my post again: I also said exactly this. But after removing Hicks and patching the remaining script together the story would still work. Whereas in the case of removing Newt, it would not. Ripley's entire arc would need to be rethought.

TC

Suspension of disbelief is not a technique but the effect of various techniques.

By mystery and suspense, I mean horror stemming from an unknown creature. By the time the first movie came out, audiences already knew about it, which is why they couldn't repeat what was done in such.

That left them with having multiple aliens (which was already hinted at given the title of the movie), which with Marines could only mean one thing: action.

Again, I'm not referring to elements of mystery and suspense but that as the main driver of horror in the first movie.

I'm not talking about showing everything else from the first movie but showing everything else. Movies are not like documentaries; sometimes, by not showing things wholly you increase the level of terror and intrigue.

Finally, the central dramatic question in the second movie is whether or not they'll get out of the situation alive, and that doesn't even involve a lot of dialogue.

[TC]

Finally, the central dramatic question in the second movie is whether or not they'll get out of the situation alive,
...

Is that not the Central Dramatic Question in the first movie, Alien '79 ?

TC

[ralfy]

Finally, the central dramatic question in the second movie is whether or not they'll get out of the situation alive,
...

Is that not the Central Dramatic Question in the first movie, Alien '79 ?

TC

Yes, but that still doesn't make the relationship between Ripley and Newt important to such.

[SiL]

Their relationship goes to the theme of the film, not the central dramatic question.

[TC]

Finally, the central dramatic question in the second movie is whether or not they'll get out of the situation alive,
...

Is that not the Central Dramatic Question in the first movie, Alien '79 ?

TC

Yes, but that still doesn't make the relationship between Ripley and Newt important to such.

What about Alien 3?  I think we want to know if Ripley and the prisoners will get out of their situation alive, too.

Is this the CDQ in Alien 3 as well?

TC

[SM]

Alien 3 we don't give a rats arse about the prisoners.

[BlueMarsalis79]

I did.

In Aliens, I thought even as a kid the fact the film had a child character meant that the whole experience had a safety net where, I know immediately that our heroes will more or less win just, in what way exactly?

[TC]

Alien 3 we don't give a rats arse about the prisoners.

Lord no! I beseech that no rats arses to the Fiorina Prisoners' Sympathy Fund be given!

But if it costs you nothing, and you want to follow the story, then why not hold some interest in what happens to them?

Their relationship goes to the theme of the film, not the central dramatic question.

Damn you! I was deciding whether or not to address this very issue when it turns out you were way ahead of me!

So, it happens that I'm a lazy bastard and in trying to avoid writing a term paper on the subject I made an abreviated, simplified statement that the Ripley/Newt relationship formed the Central Dramatic Question (CDQ).

That's not accurate.

In truth, they make up the Secondary Dramatic Question (SDQ).

Yep, that's right; there's more than one dramatic question! This is something that's quite common in character-driven stories of any length, with characters whose development over the course of the story (i.e. their character arcs) help define the story's theme.

To wit:
CDQ is derived from the main plot (which I call the 'action plot').
SDQ is derived from sub-plot (but a special sub-plot I call the 'thematic plot').

I was taught this as an epithet: "Main plot carries the action, sub-plot carries the theme."

So, the theme of redemption is in the Ripley/Newt sub-plot, expressed in the SDQ as: "Will Ripley redeem herself as a mother?"

I think now everyone can see why I wanted to avoid getting into all this. 

TC

[BlueMarsalis79]

So, the theme of redemption is in the Ripley/Newt sub-plot, expressed in the SDQ as: "Will Ripley redeem herself as a mother?"

Where's the throwing up emoji?

[TC]

Ha ha. Happy New Year!

[skhellter]

Alien 3 we don't give a rats arse about the prisoners.

And we already know at one point that ripley WILL die.

and Aliens already taught us that Ripley's heart leads her to sacrifice herself to save others.

Biggest problem i have with Alien 3 is that it doesn't dig deeper in a meaningful way into her character.  It just underlines what we already know.
Ripley's first big SCENE in Alien is her refusing to let the crew into the ship - willing to do the "potentially horrible" moral play of sacrificing them to keep her and the rest of the ship safe 

Ripley never has to make a decision on that level again in any of the movies.
And it feels like a waste, dramatically speaking. 

[SM]

The last third of Alien 3 has a different angle on Ripley where she learns she's carrying the Queen.  She's gone from last survivor to 'I need to die but I don't know how'.  It's not a very obvious shift in character, and she does oscillate a bit - particularly in the workprint - which is also a change in character.  Ripley is generally - we stick to the plan until circumstances change, rather than just changing her mind.

But if it costs you nothing, and you want to follow the story, then why not hold some interest in what happens to them?

You don't need to care to follow the story.  And it's hard work for most of the audience to care about bald nameless lookalike rapists and murderers running around in the dark shouting f**k at each other. (TM)

[ralfy]

Finally, the central dramatic question in the second movie is whether or not they'll get out of the situation alive,
...

Is that not the Central Dramatic Question in the first movie, Alien '79 ?

TC

Yes, but that still doesn't make the relationship between Ripley and Newt important to such.

What about Alien 3?  I think we want to know if Ripley and the prisoners will get out of their situation alive, too.

Is this the CDQ in Alien 3 as well?

TC

Yes, but it still doesn't make the relationship between Ripley and Newt important to such. Worse, Newt's character is discarded, together with Hicks'.

In addition, the idea of surviving the aliens is coupled with the company ordering them around, etc.


In the third movie, more sympathy towards the prisoners takes place as they realize that they're all alone, just like Ripley, and that the company doesn't care for them, just as they didn't care for the colonists, their own people, the Marines, etc.

The next time they sent in marines, they were expendable, too. What makes you think they're gonna care about a bunch of lifers, who found God at the ass-end of space? You really think they're gonna let you interfere with their plans for this thing? They think we're--we're crud, and they don't give a f***k about one friend of yours that's died. Not one.

"We're all gonna die. The only question is, How you check out. Do you want it on your feet, or on your f***in' knees, begging?"

[SM]

By the time of that rallying scene three quarters through the film we know all of two of their names Morse and David. It's easier to have sympathy for people you can identify versus guys who exist to get eaten.