Ripley's daughter isn't "crucial." Nobody was ever confused about her relationship with Newt for like 2 decades before the Quadrilogy made the Special Edition easily available. But it doesn't hurt the movie either. It's a nice little humanizing touch. It should stay in the movie.
The colony scene is terrible for tension-building. Ideally in horror films, the characters should encounter the "monster" at the same time as the audience. Even though it's a sequel, and the audience "knows" what happened, showing what happened to the colonists spoils any tension of the colony search. Cutting it out was the right idea for the Theatrical Cut. It's a fun worldbuilding addition for a second viewing. Same with the Ant Hive lines, which he also decides to cut.
Hudson's speech is fine, but it needs to have the audio fixed to remove him saying "Check it out" three times.
The gerbil/hamster scene should go. It is a "motion tracker fakeout" which is fine, but that fakeout happens twice in the movie which detracts from the tension of the second one. Since we need the Newt scene, this one needs to go. Not finding anything is way more scary than a cheap jump scare. The rest of the extended colony search footage should stay.
There's no "action" in the sentry guns scene. It's almost entirely static shots of faces, computer screens and sentry guns rotating. And it re-uses VFX shots of the Aliens dying. Very visually uninteresting and lacks any dynamics. It also makes the Aliens so stupid that they charge into 2000 rounds of machinegun fire. The sentry guns can stay in the film, but it should just be one scene (in the movie at the place with the second scene), and have the Aliens give up faster. Cut out the last shots of depleted ammo counters (so we don't know where the guns stop) and have the Aliens give up. You cut Hicks's line in the second scene of "next time they walk right up and knock" and go straight to Ripley's "They're probably looking for other ways to get in. That will take them a while." Fixes the problem with those scenes. Keeps the sentry guns (cool world building), keeps the Aliens dangerous and scary (as opposed to so stupid they charge at machineguns), and, like getting rid of the gerbil, reduces the redundancy and pacing problems of two scenes that are exactly the same and don't add anything to the story by having two of them.
@VeteranSergeant doesn't post enough. His opinions are always on point.
The DC was released in the early 90s and was more easily obtainable than the theatrical cut on VHS for most people. The Quadrilogy made the theatrical edition more accessible if anything.
I prefer the DC honestly, though I prefer longer versions of these movies almost always. Especially if whole scenes are deleted/shortened. I'm still sad that Prometheus didn't officially get a version with all of it's deleted scenes as a whole (I know of the fan edit).
Any time I watch the DC, my interest begins to drift as soon as it cuts to Hadley's after the inquest.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 12, 2023, 02:49:23 AMThe DC was released in the early 90s and was more easily obtainable than the theatrical cut on VHS for most people. The Quadrilogy made the theatrical edition more accessible if anything.
That doesn't seem like a real thing. The Special Edition was only available on Laserdisc until 1999. The only reason I had a VHS of the Special Edition was because I had a buddy with a Laserdisc player who was able to rip it.
It is true that Aliens was missing on DVD for a while (99-2003), but not VHS. The theatrical cut was the only official version of the film sold on VHS between 1987 and 1999.
I think it may have been a bit different in Australia, IIRC.
My first experience with the special edition was in 99 on VHS, had the amazing AvP PC trailer attached. I think it came with the VHS Alien Legacy box set. I still have it actually. I still have the Aliens VHS from the late 80's
I like seeing more with the SE but I have always preferred the Theatrical Cut. The TC is a master class in tension building.
Quote from: VeteranSergeant on Jul 12, 2023, 03:37:15 PMThat doesn't seem like a real thing. The Special Edition was only available on Laserdisc until 1999. The only reason I had a VHS of the Special Edition was because I had a buddy with a Laserdisc player who was able to rip it.
Aliens SE was released on VHS in 1992. Maybe only in PAL territories?
It was the one with THIS TIME, IT'S MORE tagline.
What if Ripley's daughter wasn't mentioned until her talk with Newt?
Would that be effective?
That make it even more convenient.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 12, 2023, 09:29:53 PMQuote from: VeteranSergeant on Jul 12, 2023, 03:37:15 PMThat doesn't seem like a real thing. The Special Edition was only available on Laserdisc until 1999. The only reason I had a VHS of the Special Edition was because I had a buddy with a Laserdisc player who was able to rip it.
Aliens SE was released on VHS in 1992. Maybe only in PAL territories?
It was the one with THIS TIME, IT'S MORE tagline.
I've heard it aired on TV in the US in 1989. I still have the version I taped off the TV in 1992. It actually has 'Special Edition' come up as part of the opening titles.
Good points, thanks.
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jul 12, 2023, 02:28:54 PMI prefer the DC honestly, though I prefer longer versions of these movies almost always. Especially if whole scenes are deleted/shortened. I'm still sad that Prometheus didn't officially get a version with all of it's deleted scenes as a whole (I know of the fan edit).
Some stuff needs to be deleted, because it serves no purpose. I can't think of any stuff from Prometheus that would've improved the film had it been re-inserted.
Our first Alien and the scene between Janek and Vickers, in which he tells a story, more should have been cut in other places.
Apart from the Alien score additions, this is just a stronger film: https://ifdb.fanedit.org/prometheus-special-edition/
Apparently Ninth Circle Edition which was just this but better was even screened in Melbourne back in 2021, but no sign of it materialising anywhere on the Internet.
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Nov 23, 2023, 02:47:32 AMQuote from: nanison on Nov 23, 2023, 02:41:18 AMDo all Ridley Scott movies have a director's cut? What about Prometheus?
Prometheus, despite desperately feeling like it is in need of another cut (preferably, one that doesn't feel like they left a monkey alone in the editing bay to do the job), does not have one.
First alien wouldn't have hurt. The Janek and Vickers scene takes us away from Shaw and David for too long and was ultimately superfluous.
Fan cuts pffft
As you would say.
:laugh:
"Special Edition" like 4K77 does much more than just cut, despite my misgivings about the score.
For example, halving that particular scene, for the exact reason you outlined. But it is also good to have that scene just for characterisation, for motivation.
It's a good character scene - if those were the main characters.
Also I have no idea what ""Special Edition" like 4K77 does much more than just cut, despite my misgivings about the score" means.
You have no idea, because you have a preconception. "Fan cuts pffft."
Prometheus Special Edition the "Agent 9" fan cut, has colour corrected shots, finished effects. In the prior post, the link has a full list of changes, I am just glad Pietro Scalia does not cut for Fede Alvarez.
4K77's a "fan cut" that essentially, it's a print of the original Star Wars painstakingly restored by fans. 4K80's still being worked on as it is in pretty rough shape, 4K83's in good shape.
I saw a fan cut of Prometheus that had mercifully removed most of Fifield's worst scenes. I liked that more than the theatrical.
Quotecut fifield howeling like a wolf
cut holloway asking fifield for directions
cut alien "piss" conversation
cut fifield saying "what did you find?"
cut fifield yelling at shaw and saying he's going back to ship
cut fifield & millburn talking about being lost
added audio que / transition
cut various shots of millburn in structure
cut fifield smoking in his respirator
Jesus, I didn't realize how many scenes Fifield actually had.
Quote from: VeteranSergeant on Jul 11, 2023, 11:51:31 PMThe gerbil/hamster scene should go. It is a "motion tracker fakeout" which is fine, but that fakeout happens twice in the movie which detracts from the tension of the second one. Since we need the Newt scene, this one needs to go. Not finding anything is way more scary than a cheap jump scare.
The sped-up shot of Vasquez and Hudson bursting into the room, looks bad - reason enough to dump the scene, imo.
Quote from: BlueMarsalis79 on Nov 23, 2023, 10:50:59 PMYou have no idea, because you have a preconception. "Fan cuts pffft."
Prometheus Special Edition the "Agent 9" fan cut, has colour corrected shots, finished effects. In the prior post, the link has a full list of changes, I am just glad Pietro Scalia does not cut for Fede Alvarez.
4K77's a "fan cut" that essentially, it's a print of the original Star Wars painstakingly restored by fans. 4K80's still being worked on as it is in pretty rough shape, 4K83's in good shape.
I was actually asking what the 4K77 thing is in good faith, because I didn't know what you were talking about. I didn't realise you were talking about Star Wars.
Oh that eternal and everlasting snark though... I have missed it so...
Quote from: Local Trouble on Nov 23, 2023, 10:55:58 PMI saw a fan cut of Prometheus that had mercifully removed most of Fifield's worst scenes. I liked that more than the theatrical.
Space Jesus and Fifield love you.
:laugh:
As I would say.
Opening scene going back to the Planet would be a big no, we just left there in Alien. I much prefer the robot scanner starting. I imagine watching this for the fist time (I obviously can't remember) you would potentially think a jump scare is coming, is the Alien still in there? Is something else in there...?
I actually do agree that seeing more of Hadley's Hope is really cool. It's one of the best area's/sets in a sci-fi movie ever, I'm just not sure where you put it and sadly it probably is better left out.
Cameron has the Bishop exchange already perfect in the Theatrical "It must be something we haven't seen yet". Perfection.
Quote from: SM on Nov 24, 2023, 12:29:03 AMOh that eternal and everlasting snark though... I have missed it so...
I find it genuinely endearing, but I may be biased.
Quote from: SM on Nov 24, 2023, 12:29:03 AMQuote from: BlueMarsalis79 on Nov 23, 2023, 10:50:59 PMYou have no idea, because you have a preconception. "Fan cuts pffft."
Prometheus Special Edition the "Agent 9" fan cut, has colour corrected shots, finished effects. In the prior post, the link has a full list of changes, I am just glad Pietro Scalia does not cut for Fede Alvarez.
4K77's a "fan cut" that essentially, it's a print of the original Star Wars painstakingly restored by fans. 4K80's still being worked on as it is in pretty rough shape, 4K83's in good shape.
I was actually asking what the 4K77 thing is in good faith, because I didn't know what you were talking about. I didn't realise you were talking about Star Wars.
Oh that eternal and everlasting snark though... I have missed it so...
Forgive me for not thinking "pffft" and good faith go well together.
You are forgiven.
Quote from: BlueMarsalis79 on Nov 24, 2023, 01:12:04 AMQuote from: SM on Nov 24, 2023, 12:29:03 AMQuote from: BlueMarsalis79 on Nov 23, 2023, 10:50:59 PMYou have no idea, because you have a preconception. "Fan cuts pffft."
Prometheus Special Edition the "Agent 9" fan cut, has colour corrected shots, finished effects. In the prior post, the link has a full list of changes, I am just glad Pietro Scalia does not cut for Fede Alvarez.
4K77's a "fan cut" that essentially, it's a print of the original Star Wars painstakingly restored by fans. 4K80's still being worked on as it is in pretty rough shape, 4K83's in good shape.
I was actually asking what the 4K77 thing is in good faith, because I didn't know what you were talking about. I didn't realise you were talking about Star Wars.
Oh that eternal and everlasting snark though... I have missed it so...
Forgive me for not thinking "pffft" and good faith go well together.
Good thing he didn't put them together? The pffft and asking about 4K77 are separate posts.
I think the thing with these cuts is it's possible to have both because you're only watching with one set of eyes and one experience.
The Theatrical cut is better, but I always watch the Special, because.....spoiler alert, I know what happens and I simply just want to see more of a kick ass movie, more characters , more Hicks, more Hudson, more Hadley's hope.
If you were to say to me, there's a version of predator that's about to be released with 15 more minutes of Dutch just talking smack ....take my money :laugh:
If he wants to be informed without snark, he should retire his own brand.
Quote from: Highland on Nov 24, 2023, 10:58:43 AM...
The Theatrical cut is better, but I always watch the Special, because.....spoiler alert, I know what happens and I simply just want to see more of a kick ass movie, more characters , more Hicks, more Hudson, more Hadley's hope.
If you were to say to me, there's a version of predator that's about to be released with 15 more minutes of Dutch just talking smack ....take my money :laugh:
Yeah, i only watch the
Aliens special edition too. Simply because there's more to see.
With
Aliens issues like pacing, plotting, character development etc, are irrelevant because of the many times I've seen it by now (I lost count long ago). I know what's happening, what's about to happen, and what isn't about to happen. There's no real suspense or mystery anymore. (So why bother with repeat viewings? The music and sound, photography, lighting, the acting, i.e. all the sensory stuff; as well as the FX with the miniatures and creatures. These are the things I can enjoy over and over.)
Something I often say is how precious a first-time viewing is. You can only ever have that experience once. Forever thereafter, you're watching the movie with all your acquired knowledge altering the experience.
Now, about the special edition's opening Acheron sequence that many people seem so keen to cut: One thing it does is show us graphically what a facehugger does to you (i'm talking about the scene in which Russ Jorden is facehugged). Nowhere else in the movie do we get to see actual facehugging. I know we get Ripley's verbal description during the hangar briefing, and we see Burke dip his face to the speciman jar with the facehugger thrashing around inside, but it's much better for us to see it explicitly doing its thing; it's more vivid and visceral. And I think this pays off in the later scene when Ripley gets attacked -- we know exactly what it's trying to do. Prior knowledge makes the horror hit you in the gut much more.
Of course, this means nothing to anyone on this fan site. Everyone here knows exactly what's going on. And if you're a first-time
Aliens viewer, it's probable that you saw the first
Alien movie and got to witness Kane's facehugging. But in 1986, and quite possibly today as well, studios were loathe to make sequels in which audiences felt it necessary to see the previous film before watching the new one (for obvious reasons). And if you're the filmmaker, it's more gratifying to think that your sequel is still fully effective as a standalone. (That would be my guess, anyway.)
One other thing about the Acheron sequence: By introducing Newt to us this way her character is elevated into far more of a co-protagonist role alongside Ripley, rather than being a mere support character that Ripley picks up along the way. In the theatrical cut we only get Ripley's inciting incident, which is what compels her to join the mission back to LV-426 and exorcise her PTSD demons. But Newt has demons of her own, and the special edition allows us to witness the inciting incident that creates them: the attack on her father. This incident sweeps her into the story's narrative separately from Ripley. So now they are both searching for salvation and the stage is set for their stories to converge and begin the love story. (Usually when I talk about the love story in
Aliens people think I'm referring to Ripley and Hicks. Far from it. The love story in
Aliens is the love of mother and child -- Ripley and Newt. Hicks could even be written out of the movie and the plot would hardly change. The movie would be much weaker for it, but it would be a comparatively easy rewrite).
TC
There's more than enough coverage of facehuggers in the rest of the film that it's easy to get away with not seeing it stuck to someone's face.
Hicks on the other hand needs to balance out Newt, in order for Ripley to battle the Queen.
That said, I too always watch the SE over the theatrical in spite of the unnecessary additions.
Quote from: BlueMarsalis79 on Nov 24, 2023, 01:59:50 PMIf he wants to be informed without snark, he should retire his own brand.
(https://media.tenor.com/LLLJYVQJNVAAAAAC/chefs-kiss-french-chef.gif)
Aside from the Sentries, I do not miss anything from the Special Edition personally.
Some pro writers give this suggestion: Show, don't tell. Add too many details, like an explanation of what facehuggers do, and it ruins pacing, etc.
Also, pacing and plot were actually critical in the movie because its subgenre is action. One notable thing about it is that the main action takes place much later, which in turn allows for more exposition and even drama.
Quote from: ralfy on Nov 24, 2023, 10:52:03 PM...
Also, pacing and plot were actually critical in the movie because its subgenre is action.
...
I think you misunderstood me. Of course pacing and plot are important.
What I was trying to say is that once you go beyond your first viewing the usual plot devices of setups and payoffs, mysteries and solutions, red-herrings, twists, surprises etc. no longer work. These are techniques that rely on engaging your curiosity or ancipation of something unknown, and once the unknown is known... well, the proper effect isn't there anymore.
But there is a kind of "improper" effect that I think occurs during a re-watch, which is that you subconsciously play a mental game and pretend to yourself that you haven't seen the movie before. But, at least with me, I think it's more correct to say that I'm
observing the ins and outs of the plot rather than
experiencing them.
Or another way of putting it is that in a re-watch my brain is running a simulation of watching the movie for the first time, and it does it by recollecting memories made from that first occasion. Kind of like when neuropsychologists say that when you remember something from your distant past, you aren't so much remembering the actual event but remembering your last recollection of the event.
It's just a fun theory of mine. :)
TC
Quote from: TC on Nov 27, 2023, 04:34:11 PMQuote from: ralfy on Nov 24, 2023, 10:52:03 PM...
Also, pacing and plot were actually critical in the movie because its subgenre is action.
...
I think you misunderstood me. Of course pacing and plot are important.
What I was trying to say is that once you go beyond your first viewing the usual plot devices of setups and payoffs, mysteries and solutions, red-herrings, twists, surprises etc. no longer work. These are techniques that rely on engaging your curiosity or ancipation of something unknown, and once the unknown is known... well, the proper effect isn't there anymore.
But there is a kind of "improper" effect that I think occurs during a re-watch, which is that you subconsciously play a mental game and pretend to yourself that you haven't seen the movie before. But, at least with me, I think it's more correct to say that I'm observing the ins and outs of the plot rather than experiencing them.
Or another way of putting it is that in a re-watch my brain is running a simulation of watching the movie for the first time, and it does it by recollecting memories made from that first occasion. Kind of like when neuropsychologists say that when you remember something from your distant past, you aren't so much remembering the actual event but remembering your last recollection of the event.
It's just a fun theory of mine. :)
TC
What new techniques and what proper effects are you considering? You can't have mystery and suspense in the second movie because the first movie already did that. 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. Finally, that and replacing anything about Hicks with more dialogue between Ripley and Newt would have ruined the pacing.
Aliens had plenty of mystery and suspense.
One thing that irked me about Prometheus was that it has two "Infected Person at the ship ramp" scenes with two very different outcomes.
You would maybe expect that the first one offers some foreshadowing for the second one (or that the characters learn something), but there is nothing.
Just for the hell of it, I would combine these two into a fan-edited scene:
"Infected tattoo guy" stands up, gets torched by Vickers.
But what to do with all the people you need to be killed off? Just have a smaller crew from the start then.
Or just drive them into the sunset, which basically happens to about 2-3 of them if I'm not mistaken.
"Hey have we taken off?"
"Never mind that - what's this 'collision imminent'?"
To be fair though, there's little they can do in regards to Fifield. Janek twigs something's up but by then Fifield's attacking everyone.
Quote from: Wweyland on Nov 28, 2023, 11:52:56 AMOne thing that irked me about Prometheus was that it has two "Infected Person at the ship ramp" scenes with two very different outcomes.
You would maybe expect that the first one offers some foreshadowing for the second one (or that the characters learn something), but there is nothing.
Just for the hell of it, I would combine these two into a fan-edited scene:
"Infected tattoo guy" stands up, gets torched by Vickers.
But what to do with all the people you need to be killed off? Just have a smaller crew from the start then.
Or just drive them into the sunset, which basically happens to about 2-3 of them if I'm not mistaken.
I think visiting the Pyramid twice was an even bigger crime. I get the whole whacky black slime stuff, but the back and forth between the Pyramid completely killed the movie. You could have just had the original team stuck in there and the outside team try to help them and get picked off by different beasties inside.
The aliens running into machine gun fire isn't really that stupid. Soldiers blindly ran into the same fire rate in WW1 out of the trenches and apparently the Russians are still applying this tactic in the current war.
In the past sacrifices were also made to count the amount of guns and the fire rate of your opponent.
That said I think much of aliens distracts me from what we learned from the first film. They're just bugs now, not longer the scary perfect mysterious organism.
I cannot dislike aliens for it though, it is still an all time favorite but it will never ever top the first film.
It was always a bug. Aliens just specified which kind.
Quote from: ralfy on Nov 28, 2023, 01:05:07 AMWhat 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief#:~:text=Suspension%20of%20disbelief%20is%20the,sake%20of%20enjoying%20its%20narrative.) 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.
Quote from: ralfy on Nov 28, 2023, 01:05:07 AM...
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?
Quote from: ralfy on Nov 28, 2023, 01:05:07 AM...
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.
Quote from: ralfy on Nov 28, 2023, 01:05:07 AMFinally, 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 (https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-find-the-central-dramatic-question-of-your-story) 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
Quote from: TC on Dec 21, 2023, 03:42:07 PMQuote from: ralfy on Nov 28, 2023, 01:05:07 AMWhat 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief#:~:text=Suspension%20of%20disbelief%20is%20the,sake%20of%20enjoying%20its%20narrative.) 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.
Quote from: ralfy on Nov 28, 2023, 01:05:07 AM...
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?
Quote from: ralfy on Nov 28, 2023, 01:05:07 AM...
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.
Quote from: ralfy on Nov 28, 2023, 01:05:07 AMFinally, 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 (https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-find-the-central-dramatic-question-of-your-story) 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.
Quote from: ralfy on Dec 22, 2023, 01:35:37 AMFinally, 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
Quote from: TC on Dec 31, 2023, 05:59:06 AMQuote from: TC on Dec 31, 2023, 05:59:06 AMQuote from: ralfy on Dec 22, 2023, 01:35:37 AMFinally, 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.
Their relationship goes to the theme of the film, not the central dramatic question.
Quote from: ralfy on Dec 31, 2023, 06:55:38 AMQuote from: TC on Dec 31, 2023, 05:59:06 AMQuote from: ralfy on Dec 22, 2023, 01:35:37 AMFinally, 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
Alien 3 we don't give a rats arse about the prisoners.
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?
Quote from: SM on Dec 31, 2023, 11:06:16 AMAlien 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?
Quote from: SiL on Dec 31, 2023, 07:40:48 AMTheir 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. :P
TC
Quote from: TC on Dec 31, 2023, 02:28:49 PMSo, 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?
Ha ha. Happy New Year!
Quote from: SM on Dec 31, 2023, 11:06:16 AMAlien 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.
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.
QuoteBut 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)
Quote from: TC on Dec 31, 2023, 10:14:06 AMQuote from: ralfy on Dec 31, 2023, 06:55:38 AMQuote from: TC on Dec 31, 2023, 05:59:06 AMQuote from: ralfy on Dec 22, 2023, 01:35:37 AMFinally, 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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote"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?"
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.
I do not ever recall learning the character name of Pete Postlewaite, (for the best considering the prequels) but I think him, Morse and Dillon, you do get familiar with anyway. It is a testament to the acting prowess of the cast that they make paper thin characters feel real with single scenes, like the scissors scene, or the laughter in the tunnels scene for some examples.
I do not necessarily like them, but I do see real humanity.
Don't doubt the acting chops of any of them, but what they had to work with wasn't great and was largely deleted. There's definitely more going on with Junior, Gregor, David, William but it's irrelevant to the story and wisely excised.
They whole 'can't tell these guys apart' thing is writ large and very possibly self referential when David has to tell Aaron his name because the latter forgot.
I only know David because he was Pete Postlethwaite and I saw Jurassic World beforehand.
Which one was it that got a name, but was never shown? Was that Vincent?
Vincent is seen in the 'what are we going to do now' scene played by legendary stunty Nick Gillard. They f**k the character up later on by having him the first to die in the bait and chase despite being absent since the fire.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 01, 2024, 06:14:45 AMI only know David because he was Pete Postlethwaite and I saw Jurassic World beforehand.
I think I recognised him in JP 2 because of Alien 3.
I recognized him in The Usual Suspects because of Alien 3.
One missed opportunity of Alien 3 is having the prisoners actually work on something interesting.
"Lead lids for toxic waste containers" seems the most boring thing and we actually never see them do it.
How about the "glass works" instead, and a scene/montage of them devoted to making some beautiful glass objects or something. Have the aliens shatter them, making the prisoners pissed.
Although to give credit, exploring/mapping abandoned tunnels is somewhat interesting.
also - why don't they have the maps to their own facility.
Andrews would probably have that, or could request it.
the world building is nonsense. but whatever.
it's VIBES: the movie.
and Fincher always sets a cool vibe.
let's not mention that they do an autopsy on newt while they have a working machine that can look inside her in a non invasive way. the movie is really devoted to always picking the edgiest thing that could happen at the expense of anything making sense [petty cinemasins dings going off]
I think an argument can be made for immediacy there with the autopsy scene.
Also they do have maps though?
Aaron and Ripley look at a map when planning the toxic waste trap.
As for Newt's autopsy Ripley was looking for 'cholera'.
Quote from: Wweyland on Jan 01, 2024, 11:38:37 AMOne missed opportunity of Alien 3 is having the prisoners actually work on something interesting.
"Lead lids for toxic waste containers" seems the most boring thing and we actually never see them do it.
How about the "glass works" instead, and a scene/montage of them devoted to making some beautiful glass objects or something. Have the aliens shatter them, making the prisoners pissed.
Although to give credit, exploring/mapping abandoned tunnels is somewhat interesting.
The December 1990 script has them shutting down work in the foundry in order to do the cremation and the October 1990 script has a glass works instead using Ward/ Fasano's original concept.
However in the film Dillon says the piston hasn't been used for five or six years.
I'm guessing Ripley may have surmised that hauling Newt's corpse past all the prisoners to the EEV could be a problem. Plus, using the cryotube's scanner on her may have revealed to Clemens, a bonafide medical doctor, that her cholera story was bullshit and she was looking for something else entirely.
Indeed.
Also worth noting is that cholera is a bacterial infection of the small intestine. Ripley blew it when she asked Clemens to open Newt's chest cavity, which is pretty obvious by the look he gave her.
What's the view on the "slow pan through the Sulaco" scene?
Feels a bit Cameron trying to be Scott and a not-naturally Cameron scene.
He usually doesn't do subtle or ambient, he is directly to the point.
We see the same places later, so it doesn't give much.
Absolutely trying to recreate the reveal of the Nostromo.
Right down to the clanking chains and gyroscope toy on the dining table recalling the dippy bird.
Cameron put serious effort into trying to make his film follow from Scott's. You'll also notice there are a shitload more closeups in Aliens than in most Cameron movies, because Alien is full of close-ups especially in the second half (he mentions trying to keep up in the commentary).
But he turned the aliens into bugs though.
Bugs :o ? 🪳
(https://s13.gifyu.com/images/SjtcU.gif)
Quote from: skhellter on Jan 01, 2024, 02:19:48 PMalso - why don't they have the maps to their own facility.
Andrews would probably have that, or could request it.
the world building is nonsense. but whatever.
For real world reference, we tend to keep maps of the prison away from the prisoners. Only certain very specific staff have access to detailed maps/floorplans, but a generalized satellite view is readily away to all staff.
Boggs, Rains and Golic had a map while they were foraging.
Such an odd and easily debunked criticism.
Quote from: SM on Jan 18, 2024, 10:44:43 AMBoggs, Rains and Golic had a map while they were foraging.
Yeah, there is that too. :laugh:
And Aaron and Ripley had schematics/flooorplans while trying to figure out where the Alien was.
Yeah I mentioned that on the last page. They spend half a scene looking at and talking about it.
Quote from: Elmazalman on Nov 23, 2023, 11:13:06 PMQuote from: VeteranSergeant on Jul 11, 2023, 11:51:31 PMThe gerbil/hamster scene should go. It is a "motion tracker fakeout" which is fine, but that fakeout happens twice in the movie which detracts from the tension of the second one. Since we need the Newt scene, this one needs to go. Not finding anything is way more scary than a cheap jump scare.
The sped-up shot of Vasquez and Hudson bursting into the room, looks bad - reason enough to dump the scene, imo.
Not to mention, as a former Marine, I find the idea of breaching a room with a four foot long machinegun amusing.
But, then again, these are the same guys searching a civilian habitation structure armed with flamethrowers.
The storming of the room in slo mo I always find horrible.
It's a crap scene that has no business being in the film.
I said slo mo I meant sped up of course. I wonder why they even thought it was a good idea in the first place.
Probably looked awkward at normal speed, and Cameron wanted to show how badass they were.
Plus it was cut anyway.
That was a good call.