Why do some people prefer Alien over Aliens?

[BlueMarsalis79]

I doubt it's the view history's going to take. As far as related to Alien Percy Bysshe Shelleys work, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelleys work, with William Shakespeares works arguably the most famous example of one becoming the other.

[SiL]

Often a number of successful popular art gets reframed as high art, as time goes on, Alien's one such example.

I'd appreciate some examples if it's that often.

"High" and "Low" art usually refer to whether something is accessible to the masses or more for those with refined taste. Alien was and is easily accessible to anyone.

[SiL]

Thanks!

I disagree Alien has yet risen above "popular", though (and and again I don't see that as a bad thing). I think we've got a few years left before brain sucking monsters become the purview of the refined.

[Kradan]

Alien is very far removed from a Kubrick movie. You could slap Kubrick's name on it, but you'd just have people being very confused at his abandonment of all of his vision and style.

Agreed. Ridley was clearly inspired by Kubrick and 2001 but his take on sci-fi is very distinct from Kubrick's one. 2001 to me feels as epic story that raises grand philosophical questions about humanity and universe. Alien in it's core is much more grounded movie about common people being thrown into uncommon situation. The only thing in Alien that has that "grand" feel to it is Space Jockey scene

[son_of_kane]

Alien is very far removed from a Kubrick movie. You could slap Kubrick's name on it, but you'd just have people being very confused at his abandonment of all of his vision and style.

Agreed. Ridley was clearly inspired by Kubrick and 2001 but his take on sci-fi is very distinct from Kubrick's one. 2001 to me feels as epic story that raises grand philosophical questions about humanity and universe. Alien in it's core is much more grounded movie about common people being thrown into uncommon situation. The only thing in Alien that has that "grand" feel to it is Space Jockey scene

It wasn't really my intention to compare 2001 with Alien. That's apples and oranges. But if in the 70s Kubrick wanted to make a science fiction horror movie in outer space that was grounded in "realism" and featured a hostile organism (kind of like the opposite to his 2001) then the film he would've made probably wouldn't have been a million miles away from Alien. Of course, we'll never know 

[Immortan Jonesy]

Agreed. Ridley was clearly inspired by Kubrick and 2001 but his take on sci-fi is very distinct from Kubrick's one. 2001 to me feels as epic story that raises grand philosophical questions about humanity and universe.

Oh, he made that one.. well kinda.

Spoiler

[close]

Definitely not high art though

[Kradan]

Agreed. Ridley was clearly inspired by Kubrick and 2001 but his take on sci-fi is very distinct from Kubrick's one. 2001 to me feels as epic story that raises grand philosophical questions about humanity and universe.

Oh, he made that one.. well kinda.

Spoiler

[close]

Definitely not high art though

You know what ? I enjoy Prometheus hell a lot more than 2001 which I've watched only once. People who say that Alien has slow pacing definetly haven't seen 2001. My God, Kubrick just loves to drag the movie for as long as possible and that irritates the shit out of me

[Voodoo Magic]

Alien is a lot of things but high art is a stretch...

Yeah, I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly.

Not being high art isn't a knock to the film of course!  Not at all!

[Nrmiller]

Alien is a lot of things but high art is a stretch...

Maybe "high" is a divisive term, I could certainly put on a pretty impassioned speech but I'll admit I'm pretty skewed. The important thing is that Alien and Aliens are to me very distinct types of films and are at the same times, prime examples of the subgenres they inhabit.

[SiL]

One's horror and one's action. One's designed to chill, the other to thrill. They are very different types of films - but both were designed to entertain an audience.

Everyone involved in Alien was trying to make an unpretentious scary movie and they succeeded - I think calling it high art or arthouse kind of undermines what an achievement it really was. Alien thrilled the masses, not the cultural elite.

[BlueMarsalis79]

High Art
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture#High_art

Art house:
A cinema which specializes in showing films that are artistic or experimental rather than merely entertaining.
Or
Used to refer to films that are of high quality but may not be extremely popular or successful.

Often times "high art" usually's created with the intention to primarily entertain but gets value attributed to it over time, whether it's expertise in the text or various readings of the subtext.

It all gets particularly muddy when you bring other non-western or non-wealthy opinions for example, into the mix, people ask why's Alien not counted amongst high cultural works? William Shakespeare's plays, once thought of as nothing but low brow entertainment, now hold a firm place as high brow entertainment.

But it is in theme primarily, while rarely meditated upon enough to give a definitive answer, the word play acted as an entertaining vessel for the musings- although apparently not intended to become a great philosophical thing- it did. Much the same's applicable to Alien I think, and will only increase in the years to come as it's groundbreaking qualities get re-examined over and over again. 

[SiL]

Art house:
A cinema which specializes in showing films that are artistic or experimental rather than merely entertaining.

Not Alien.

Or
Used to refer to films that are of high quality but may not be extremely popular or successful.

Latter part also not Alien.

William Shakespeare's plays, once thought of as nothing but low brow entertainment, now hold a firm place as high brow entertainment.

Some do, but not all of them. Titus, for example, has always been a black sheep in his works.

As time goes on and attention spans continuously shrink I think it'll end up becoming 'high art' as a byproduct of changing tastes. But it's still a successful, popular work that continues to entertain.

I guess I just don't see why it's not enough to say Alien is very well made and resonates more with some people than Aliens. I'm finding more people trying to put it on some sort of artistic pedestal and it grinds against my disdain for elitism; especially when it seems almost invariably coupled with digging at Aliens for being some sort of "low brow", almost disposable entertainment.

[son_of_kane]

Quoted from "10 great arthouse sci-fi films" from the BFI: "...sci-fi is such a huge part of modern cinema that filmmakers like Ridley Scott (Alien, 1979; Blade Runner,1982) and Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, 2004) have blurred distinctions between mainstream and arthouse". It's an interesting discussion.

[Voodoo Magic]

Blurred distinctions? Definitely more so Blade Runner than Alien by far in my opinion, but that's ultimately fair. To different degrees it's like The Shinning, not high art, but yet...

I guess I just don't see why it's not enough to say Alien is very well made and resonates more with some people than Aliens. I'm finding more people trying to put it on some sort of artistic pedestal and it grinds against my disdain for elitism; especially when it seems almost invariably coupled with digging at Aliens for being some sort of "low brow", almost disposable entertainment.

Agreed. I enjoy the discussion on it's own merits, but too often in conversation I hear Alien elected into some sort of film aristocracy with the single purpose to bludgeon its sequel with it.

[SiL]

Quoted from "10 great arthouse sci-fi films" from the BFI: "...sci-fi is such a huge part of modern cinema that filmmakers like Ridley Scott (Alien, 1979; Blade Runner,1982) and Christopher Nolan (Interstellar, 2004) have blurred distinctions between mainstream and arthouse". It's an interesting discussion.

https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/lists/10-great-arthouse-sci-fi-films

In context it reads like he says the directors are blurring the lines, but not necessarily those films (surely Inception would be a better pick for Nolan.)

Alien is an entirely conventional movie with great art design, that really doesn't make it arthouse. Blade Runner would be closer to the mark.

I don't think Scott would appreciate the title, though - he makes films for the common audience. When people were trying to reassure him by saying Blade Runner was just ahead of its time he said that was just as bad as being behind its time.