Alien or Predator?

[Master Chief]

Smarter than whatever happens to walk into the trap.   My argument is that, they weren't dim-witted.

[Deadmeat]

Smarter than whatever happens to walk into the trap.   My argument is that, they weren't dim-witted.

They weren't. They where smart because the they tried to dry out the sentry guns. But it didn't work (they thought), so they tried alternative versions. Like NOT banging into welded walls, but crawling though the celing like a face-raping bat.

[dachande89]

Doesn't make them intelligent. It's just their instinct to let prey come to them because they can be ambush creatures. The trapdoor spider does it, but that doesn't make it a terribly intelligent creature.

You've been talking to Steve Perry haven't you. lol. But honestly I think it is an advanced instinct that makes them so smart. (True the running into sentry guns with wave after wave is not smart) but I simply say that happens when the Queen is involved since she commands them and then its hive first, Alien lives second. When Aliens have no queen, or are by themselves, they act smarter. How would a group of Aliens behave without a Queen to command them? Thats a question I want to know.

[DoomRulz]

I haven't spoken to Steve Perry at all. And I'm not seeing how charging at their enemies, screaming, makes them intelligent creatures. It's not an 'advanced instinct' as you put it because all predatory animals have that capability. They're only as intelligent as they need to be so that they can outsmart their prey, but it doesn't mean they're geniuses.

[dachande89]

I haven't spoken to Steve Perry at all. And I'm not seeing how charging at their enemies, screaming, makes them intelligent creatures. It's not an 'advanced instinct' as you put it because all predatory animals have that capability. They're only as intelligent as they need to be so that they can outsmart their prey, but it doesn't mean they're geniuses.

oh cause perry is giving the same arguement. Well they only charge while they are in a hive with the queen directing them to protect the survival of the hive. When its only a single alien, its more important for self preservation. The Alien in Alien was smart enough to use the air ducts to move around rather than walking down corridors. It did not "scream and charge" its enemies. It moved steathily through the ship, never making a sound, until it finally struck. Alone they are smarter, or maybe its they use their instincts while they are alone, but the Queen overrides that in a hive. Idk. But my point is, when they are alone, they at least act smarter.

[JamesCameronOnline]

For me definetely Aliens. The creature is much more interesting. The design is very elegant and its a real piece of art. Love it. Also the fact that theyre actually space 'animals', unlike in many cheesy scifi horror films when theyre presented as some human-like, evil or greedy creatures. The fact that theyre animals makes it that much more believable and creepy at the same time cause theres no reasoning with them

Having said that, Predator rocks in my book as well

[DoomRulz]

Yet they were reduced to screaming space bugs, which are the subject of every cheesy sci-fi horror film ever made. Whatever mystery the creature had in the first film was non-existent when the sequel came along.

[The PredBen]

LOL that shitty post I made got some attention. Anyway I pick Predator because I liked that first. I love aliens now though , but Predators... something cool about them. Anyway it was really close. I hope that answer works now!

[JamesCameronOnline]

Yet they were reduced to screaming space bugs, which are the subject of every cheesy sci-fi horror film ever made. Whatever mystery the creature had in the first film was non-existent when the sequel came along.

I dont see it that way. They were even more nightmarish after sequel, almost never fully shown. You've seen less of aliens in the second movie than in any other. The use of backlight and shadows did its job.

I really dont see how the sequel made them screaming bugs  - they were the same in the first movie, same/similar noises were done by the creature from Alien. The alien abducted some to coccoon, left alive others. And i have yet to see any other movie showing Aliens/monsters as well as the first three movies did - almost not showing them at all and having them lurk somewhere in the shadows or dark corridors without the idea being corny. The idea of locking yurself in the room and golding the door so the killers wont go through

As for the mystery, personally I prefer seeing something as amazing as we did in Aliens then not seeing anything at all just for the sake of 'mystery'. Plus, even the first movie originally wanted to explain the unexplained - it showed the life cycle, something Aliens did. Aliens didnt do more than showing the new life cycle.

If something, I think it secured Aliens' portrayal as something very believable and real, because they werent some intelligent evil alien life forms like in every single movie, but something more equivalent to animals, something based on real nature. And Fincher explored the great idea of aliens taking their host's characteristics further, completing the onscreen presentation of one , if not THE most fascinating creatures in movie history

I think some are just grasping strwas and try to make Aliens what its not by overexagerating the differences simply because they dont like the idea that the sequel is different and wanted more of the same. I myself love the first three movies almost equally and think that the great variety is one of the reason's why this series is so great and has such a wide audience

[DoomRulz]

I dont see it that way. They were even more nightmarish after sequel, almost never fully shown. You've seen less of aliens in the second movie than in any other. The use of backlight and shadows did its job.

We get at least 4-5 body shots of the Alien, which is more than we did in the first movie.

I really dont see how the sequel made them screaming bugs  - they were the same in the first movie, same/similar noises were done by the creature from Alien.

Kane's Son never used the elephant/peacock squeal that Cameron's film popularized.

The alien abducted some to coccoon, left alive others.

But a reason for doing so was made explicit. They were being cocooned for the purpose of growing the Hive. In Alien, the Alien's behaviour was more bizzare because it would behave more erratically. Case in point: it killed Brett who posed no threat to it, yet kept Dallas alive for a purpose we discover only in the Director's Cut. It killed Parker who was a definite threat, and whatever it did to Lambert is left to our own imagination.

As for the mystery, personally I prefer seeing something as amazing as we did in Aliens then not seeing anything at all just for the sake of 'mystery'. Plus, even the first movie originally wanted to explain the unexplained - it showed the life cycle, something Aliens did. Aliens didnt do more than showing the new life cycle.

Aliens did do more. It gave us the Queen which showed us where the eggs come from and it also showed us how the Aliens actually live. All Alien did was give us egg-->chestburster-->drone. We got nothing more.

If something, I think it secured Aliens' portrayal as something very believable and real, because they werent some intelligent evil alien life forms like in every single movie, but something more equivalent to animals, something based on real nature.

And therein lies the problem. The creators of the original film wanted to produce something that was totally new; something the audience had never seen before. It was fresh and scary because it's behaviour was so random. Then along comes Jim Bob, and turns the Alien into something we've seen a hundred times before: a screaming space bug.

And Fincher explored the great idea of aliens taking their host's characteristics further, completing the onscreen presentation of one , if not THE most fascinating creatures in movie history

I agree, and I also think his portrayal of the Alien was way better than Cameron's.

[Vulhala]

Kane's Son never used the elephant/peacock squeal that Cameron's film popularized.

True, but Kanes son was never shot at.

Case in point: it killed Brett who posed no threat to it, yet kept Dallas alive for a purpose we discover only in the Director's Cut.

We don't know it killed Brett. I may be wrong as I haven't seen the DC of Alien in some time, but I'm pretty sure that we see Brett in the scene you're talking about, but just in a more advanced state of transformation/mutation into an egg.

[DoomRulz]

It bit Brett in the head. He died.

[EEV2650]

It bit Brett in the head. He died.

I would concur but for one thing. We see it bite some part of Brett's body because we see the brief shot of the inner mouth hitting flesh and then blood coming out. If it did head-bite him then how was Brett able to scream all the while and still be screaming when he was pulled up into the airducts.

[Vulhala]

^Beat me to it   

[JamesCameronOnline]

We get at least 4-5 body shots of the Alien, which is more than we did in the first movie.

yet we still see less. We either see them in light for split second or in the shadows with baclight like this

Kane's Son never used the elephant/peacock squeal that Cameron's film popularized.

No EXACTLY the same, but it squeeked as well. The Elephant/peacock sound was used very little. Nitpicking trivial differences in sounds is just nitpicking. Fact is they both squeeked with high pitched sound. Look, I see you obviously dont like the movie. And im not here to change anybody's mind because I respect everyone's opinion. Just dont pick trivial stuff or untrue facts to bring it down. Be fair and give it a fair trial

But a reason for doing so was made explicit. They were being cocooned for the purpose of growing the Hive. In Alien, the Alien's behaviour was more bizzare because it would behave more erratically. Case in point: it killed Brett who posed no threat to it, yet kept Dallas alive for a purpose we discover only in the Director's Cut. It killed Parker who was a definite threat, and whatever it did to Lambert is left to our own imagination.

Not really, its the same thing. In both alien and aliens, Alien killed some and abducted others. Those abducted were coccooned for the purposes of reproduction. Same thing in both movies.

http://Aliens did do more. It gave us the Queen which showed us where the eggs come from and it also showed us how the Aliens actually live. All Alien did was give us egg-->chestburster-->drone. We got nothing more.

Which is showing a new lifecycle, just like I said. it didnt change anything since the original cycle was dropped from the movie. And Alien was the FIRST movie. How awful woyuld that be for a movie to do everything at once? introduce the basic organism first, then eventually evolve the story in the next movie

And therein lies the problem. The creators of the original film wanted to produce something that was totally new; something the audience had never seen before. It was fresh and scary because it's behaviour was so random.

As much as I love Alien, Im not blind. There were millions of monsters in/from space movies. What amde Alien different was the design and great presentation. But the idea was centuries old.

Then along comes Jim Bob, and turns the Alien into something we've seen a hundred times before: a screaming space bug.

Then along comes JIm and turns the name into a major franchsie wihcih continues today with the same logo and same sucessful ideas. He lands Aliens on Time Magazine cover and creates scifi classic. And one of the reasons is because it wowed the audiences cause no one has ever seen anything before. Again, youre saying like monster from space was a uniqye idea - it wasnt, it was ar from it. And one way or another, it has no bearing on how great each of the movie is. Despite the generic idea, Alien is a masterpiece because of the presentation. The presentation is what counts

I agree, and I also think his portrayal of the Alien was way better than Cameron's.

Meaning? how is Alien different from Aliens in the second movie behavior wise?