Prometheus Plot Reveal - Aliens ARE In It

Started by Darkoo, Jan 27, 2011, 03:03:32 PM

Author
Prometheus Plot Reveal - Aliens ARE In It (Read 148,509 times)

nendo

Quote from: Sharp Sticks on Feb 06, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
So you'd prefer it if Aliens (sorry, make that Alien 2) was another horror movie sequel that failed to live up to the legacy of the original? It's like O'Bannon said, there was nowhere else to go with the concept. The only way to make the creature fresh and different the second time around was to put it in an action movie.

Alien, as a film, permenantly sandbagged the horror/monster movie genre; a mediocre knockoff would be an insult to its legacy. And we got plenty of those mediocre knockoffs after Aliens.

don't get me wrong i'm no way saying Aliens was a bad film. I enjoy watching it and think its one of my all time fav films.

I'm not saying they should of just redone the first film for a sequel. I'm just saying it could of had more tension building moments in it like the first film had and also could of done something abit more original than a hive system u see everyday on earth. Atleast with the cocoon scene is was something abit fresh and exciting where as a hive system is like. Oh...Bees.

plus they had so much to explore from the first film that some of it was completly ignore. For example the space jockey. The ship, Origins etc. Just seems alot of this protential story was ignored simply to cash in on an action film

Like i said. Thats my opinion

Valaquen

The entire first hour is spent on building and building. After the dropship crashes it builds again all the way to the Aliens infiltrating Operations. Then Ripley escaping. No tension? My knuckles were white. Everything about the Alien is derived from strange things on Earth. Fact can be stranger than fiction, in fact, all fiction is derived from it, [like Descartes said, no painter can paint anything, no matter how odd the amalgamation, that isn't already present in his reality]. It's really up to Ridley and Giger to explore the Jockey, I reckon.

OmegaZilla

OmegaZilla

#422
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 06, 2011, 04:14:35 PM
:laugh: I hope that's a compliment.
It is. ;)

Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 06, 2011, 04:14:35 PM
what's a disagreement?!
one of those wonderful things that draws the world back from being boring. :)

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Feb 06, 2011, 04:42:19 PM
I'm 35,
Aaaaand who cares, exactly? You tell me. You could be 27, 42, or X+2Y², I couldn't give less of a shit.

Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Feb 06, 2011, 04:42:19 PM
by using their formula as opposed to trying to make a better story work on it's own.
Precisely what Aliens and Alien3 did. Resurrection was involved around the Resurrection of Ripley and the dangers of genetical engineering. None of the precedent films deal with clonation. None of the precedent films deal with an android that is more human than humans. Et cetera.

Sharp Sticks

Not a single weapon is fired until an hour into Aliens. Hardly a conventional action film.

DoomRulz

Quote from: Sharp Sticks on Feb 06, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
So you'd prefer it if Aliens (sorry, make that Alien 2) was another horror movie sequel that failed to live up to the legacy of the original? It's like O'Bannon said, there was nowhere else to go with the concept. The only way to make the creature fresh and different the second time around was to put it in an action movie.

Alien, as a film, permenantly sandbagged the horror/monster movie genre; a mediocre knockoff would be an insult to its legacy. And we got plenty of those mediocre knockoffs after Aliens.

Something tells me that by fresh and different, he didn't quite mean generic and stupid. Which is exactly what the Alien was turned into.

Valaquen

Quote from: Sharp Sticks on Feb 06, 2011, 06:30:49 PM
Not a single weapon is fired until an hour into Aliens. Hardly a conventional action film.
And one of it's biggest action sequences is outmatched by Alien 3 for explosions and mayhem. Aliens Operations attack explosions: 3. Alien 3 tunnel fail: 19 to my count. Could even be more.

Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 06, 2011, 06:34:42 PM
Something tells me that by fresh and different, he didn't quite mean generic and stupid. Which is exactly what the Alien was turned into.
Explain generic and stupid, rather than making declarative statements. It helps.

DoomRulz

The Alien became a screaming space bug. It became something that Ridley didn't intend for.

Doesn't surprise me considering Cameron could never write something original anyway.

OmegaZilla

OmegaZilla

#427
I wonder how much 'screaming space bugs' we've seen in a film before Aliens.
Can I say I remember practically none? Not even one? It's not like the Aliens act like a Moon calf.

The idea was original at the time. There was nothing like the Aliens before them and their 'screaming space bug' attitude.

Valaquen

Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 06, 2011, 06:49:44 PM
The Alien became a screaming space bug. It became something that Ridley didn't intend for.

'What gave us the coccoon concept was that insects will utilise others' bodies to be the host of their eggs. That's how the Alien would use Dallas and each of the crew it kills ... It wants to use each person as a separate host each time it has new eggs.'
Ridley Scott, interview with Danny Peary, 1984

'[W]e decided it would be a good idea to have these [Alien] eggs inside the derelict like termites inside the walls of a house.'
HR Giger.

'[W]e had to combine the derelict ship and the hatchery silo. I thought we could place the egg silo under the ship, a bit like termites do.'
HR Giger.

Now [Ripley's] on her own ... and so she stumbles into that room, which is the landing leg room, and finds this hive. [It's] the nest. She finds the bodies [of Brett and Dallas] and Harry [Brett] is gone ... and Skerritt is already half-gone, but he's still alive. He is really the host for the insect, which is the Alien. '
Ridley Scott, Interview with Don Shay, Alien laserdisc.

'People have read all kinds of things into it that we didn't intend, not even subconsciously. But there was one thing we did do. It was our idea that it would be the life-cycle of an insect. The way a wasp will sting a spider, paralyze it, and lay its eggs in the spider; its eggs grow off the living spider, like a surrogate mother. That we did want it to be. We didn't want it to be a human mated with an alien and a hybrid. We thought people might pick up on it and say, "Yeah, an alien life-cycle can be like an insect life-cycle."'
Ron Shusset, Executing the Alien.

'It's like a rather beautiful, humanoid, biomechanoid insect.'
Ridley Scott on Giger's Alien design.

'There are insects like that [androgynous, asexual], so we based that on a little bit of good old Mother Nature.'
Ridley Scott, 2003 Alien commentary.


Yes, no-one involved in Alien, not even Ridley, intended no analogues or comparisons to insects. In fact, he was so incensed that Cameron misinterpretated his intentions, that he slammed Aliens, saying:

'It's always a tough job to follow a successful film with a sequel to it ... so what I think James Cameron [did with Aliens] was an excellent action picture. It really was amazing what he accomplished.'
Ridley Scott, Aliens: Illustrated Screenplay.


[And for anyone who likes to chastise Cameron for this interpretation, don't forget Fincher, who actually had a character onscreen point to the Alien and cry, "I hate bugs!"

'We wanted the creature to walk on the ceilings and really sell the idea that this thing is a bug from outer space.'
David Fincher, Alien: The Special Effects.
]

The Alien behaviour is derived from insects. That's all there is to it. This is buffeted by the actual design of the creature, which was diluted in further sequels. The line begins to blur when the sequels line the creatures up to be mown down [AVPR] or the EU material screams 'bugs!' at their every appearance.

QuoteDoesn't surprise me considering Cameron could never write something original anyway.
Sure.

DoomRulz

Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 06, 2011, 06:58:52 PM
I wonder how much 'screaming space bugs' we've seen in a film before Aliens.
Can I say I remember practically none? Not even one? It's not like the Aliens act like a Moon calf.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FqFnlaIEUw4/0.jpg
The idea was original at the time. There was nothing like the Aliens before them and their 'screaming space bug' attitude.

That's exactly my point. The Alien was a very unique creature and was something that no one had ever seen before. It had a new look to it, behaved in a very odd manner, and was just plain scary. Cameron did the exact the opposite and made it into every space alien we've seen a hundred times before.

I don't normally do this, but SiL said it best in an older thread. He makes the point rather clear.

Quote from: SiL on Oct 07, 2008, 01:01:13 AM
In 1979, we had a psychosexual biomechanical nightmare the likes of which the world had never seen. We had something that was alien. Incomprehensible. It acted in mysterious ways, you couldn't pin a behaviour on it. Its mannerisms and actions were a perversion of humanity and nature. There's even implied rape, or at the very least, some form of horrific mutilation never seen since.

In 1986, oh wait, it's a giant f**king termite.

The Alien's personality was completely changed. It went from dark and mysterious, to a terrestrial insect on steroids. It went from something creepy and unknown, to cannon fodder. It became the ants from Them!. It became the freakin' antithesis of what the original filmmakers had set out to achieve. Where once they tried to make something unique, Cameron set out to make something mundane and derivative.

Valaquen

Valaquen

#430
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 06, 2011, 07:16:43 PM
That's exactly my point. The Alien was a very unique creature and was something that no one had ever seen before. It had a new look to it, behaved in a very odd manner, and was just plain scary. Cameron did the exact the opposite and made it into every space alien we've seen a hundred times before.

I don't normally do this, but SiL said it best in an older thread. He makes the point rather clear.

Quote from: SiL on Oct 07, 2008, 01:01:13 AM
In 1979, we had a psychosexual biomechanical nightmare the likes of which the world had never seen. We had something that was alien. Incomprehensible. It acted in mysterious ways, you couldn't pin a behaviour on it. Its mannerisms and actions were a perversion of humanity and nature. There's even implied rape, or at the very least, some form of horrific mutilation never seen since.

In 1986, oh wait, it's a giant f**king termite.

The Alien's personality was completely changed. It went from dark and mysterious, to a terrestrial insect on steroids. It went from something creepy and unknown, to cannon fodder. It became the ants from Them!. It became the freakin' antithesis of what the original filmmakers had set out to achieve. Where once they tried to make something unique, Cameron set out to make something mundane and derivative.

If they didn't want to explore the creature further, then don't make a sequel, which was gonna be done regardless [with marines and loadsa Aliens a Giler/Hill mandate, by the by]. If they wanted another singular floating Alien, then remake or create a derivative sequel to the first. If you go to see a sequel to a film you're either going to get an exploration of the wider universe or a derivative rehash [and being a sequel, you should be well aware of what you're paying for]. Egg-morph aside, Cameron followed on from what his predeccesors set down, and every single one of them to a T was pleased with what he done. Any 'bah! the Alien's been disrespected!' feelings come solely from fans and honestly, I care more for the feelings of the film-makers than for the sea of subjectivism and ignorance you can find in fan-circles.

'I was stuck on one point; once they got the thing on the spaceship, I wanted to avoid the cliche of bullets bouncing off of it: the indestructible monster, I mean, that's the ancient cliche, right? "You can't stop it, bullets won't stop it." Not at all. I wanted the thing to be, in every respect, a natural animal, which means, yes, if you shoot it, it'll die.'
Dan O'Bannon.


'Once I had gotten the Alien inside the ship, I encountered a narrative problem, namely, why didn't they just kill the thing? ... Generations of writers before me had resorted to, "Bullets won't stop it!" which is, of course, the big gest groaner of all time. Bullets will stop anything ... Though deadly, the critter was as vulnerable as any other animal to having holes drilled in it.'
Dan O'Bannon.


Remembering of course, that the original Alien screamed like a bitch when sprayed by hot air in the Narcissus and was blasted by a speargun. I reckon high velocity, caseless, 1200RPM death dealers will leave a scratch.

EDIT: I think that, in the wake of Halo and the Starship Troopers movie, may here have either forgotten or are too young to recall that space marines vs a horde of vicious Aliens had rarely, if ever, been put to film before.

Gash

Without wanting to get into a pointless slanging match about Aliens, I'd just say that there is a lot of implied stuff in Alien that could have made for a very interesting second story without it being a clone-like rehash. It might have been action, or it might have been horror and suspense, either could have worked. But to me Aliens always felt like it was taking the easy route, dismissing some of the more interesting ideas (that were known, even if cut from Alien) and so becoming part of that 80's bandwagon of action movies. Of it's type it is undoubtedly one of the landmark movies of that era but I personally find it too 'safe'. It's not really the tone of the film that bothers me, it does have a build up and atmosphere, but ultimately it seems to me to fashion the alien creatures into a characterless threat, there's no sense of inherent sadism or horror in them as there was before. As an action film Aliens does everything it can possibly do in retelling the story on a plural level, but ultimately there's not that much to it. Two things really hold sway in the film; hardware (guns predominantly) and the mother/child analogy. Both of which make me cringe a bit personally. It sets out its stall and it closes the story, but all the most interesting threads from Alien are largely ignored. In their place is pretty much the structure and denouement of the original film for 80's action sensibilities.

It works, it's perfectly serviceable, it can't be criticised for incompetence and I wouldn't have the arrogance to tell people who like it that they are wrong, but yeah, my problem is that it feels too safe.

In the intervening years between 79 and 86 when thoughts of where this story could go occasionally occupied my thoughts, I must admit I never saw Ripley as an essential element. She was a survivor by chance, so I think that perhaps a big part of my problem with the sequels is Ripley. Her inclusion in Aliens follows reasonable logic, as it does for Alien 3, but I think the whole franchise is bogged down in her character.

It's one of the reasons I remain excited by Prometheus. Potentially it could be everything that the sequels aren't. A whole different take on the Alien universe that has a grander scale than humans vs 'xenos'. It'll be interesting to see whether (assuming the connections are strong) Ridley takes any elements at all from the sequels, or simply ignores them in favour of setting up the back story to events before the Nostromo. I think it's possible to do that without destroying continuity (AVP aside).

arachnophilia

Quote from: Federick Gonsa on Feb 05, 2011, 11:57:53 PM
I saw the movies in this order:

Alien, Aliens, Alien3, Alien R, I saw them in succession. Alien 3, though, only saw it once by the time I watch Alien R (I HATE Alien 3).

have you tried the assembly/"director's" cut? it's a significantly better movie.

Quote from: Remonster on Feb 06, 2011, 04:32:19 AM
Am i the only person that doesn't like what Aliens changed about the creature? Now they only seem threatening when there are dozens of them.

to be fair, everything's a whole lot less frightening when you're carrying an m41a pulse rifle.

Quote from: Remonster on Feb 06, 2011, 04:45:32 AMYeah, I watch it all the time. And the alien wasn't throwing itself at them with reckless abandon, and It actually seemed to be able to think for itself instead of just being some brainless bug.

i kind of get where that comes from, but keep in mind that they employ diversionary tactics, apparently have a working knowledge of the station's electrical systems, and effectively eliminate an entire team of highly trained and armed marine corps with only their teeth and claws.

Quote from: SiL on Feb 06, 2011, 05:54:27 AM
Bitching about making them act like insects, and have an insectile social structure, on the other hand, is entirely valid.

agreed. even if we were to carry the early insect analogies to their extreme, there are still solitary insects. not all insects operate in a hive, or employ the use extreme gender dimorphism/haplo-diploid reproduction (queen/worker/males). it may not have come completely from left field, but it's still a change. one that works well enough that i don't really whine about what horrible things james cameron did. it's a good movie, so, whatever. i prefer the original reproductive cycle, but the queen doesn't come completely as a surprise.

Quote from: Sharp Sticks on Feb 06, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
So you'd prefer it if Aliens (sorry, make that Alien 2) was another horror movie sequel that failed to live up to the legacy of the original? It's like O'Bannon said, there was nowhere else to go with the concept. The only way to make the creature fresh and different the second time around was to put it in an action movie.

Alien, as a film, permenantly sandbagged the horror/monster movie genre; a mediocre knockoff would be an insult to its legacy. And we got plenty of those mediocre knockoffs after Aliens.

agreed with this entirely. and i hope prometheus is different still.

Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 06, 2011, 06:30:13 PM
Precisely what Aliens and Alien3 did. Resurrection was involved around the Resurrection of Ripley and the dangers of genetical engineering. None of the precedent films deal with clonation. None of the precedent films deal with an android that is more human than humans. Et cetera.

true. but it still wasn't a very good film.

Valaquen

As per sadism, the abduction of 150 men, women and children who all suffer a lonely, helpless, embedded-in-the-walls Kane fate is pretty horrific to me. It makes the quick slaughter of the Nostromo crew, as per the original cut, seem like a mercy. The apparent ideas floating around the Alien 2 in the early 80's was a prequel, a film following the Alien tailing Ripley to Earth, the planetoid exploding and sending spore into space, or a film about another group of visitors who have to face a horde of Aliens. I feel that we got the better deal, saw the Aliens tackle and defeat a highly armed military enemy, got a nice expansion to their life-cycle [that Scott through to Giger loved]. I am excited about Prometheus, it's the right way to tackle yet another Alien film, if it is so.

SPECIAL FORCES

SPECIAL FORCES

#434
People who are a bit more action fans love aliens more than alien...its just that simple.

Both films are EPIC...i love aliens too i just like 0.0001% more the first alien movie.
The only thing that i didnt like is how easy the aliens were killed at the 2nd movie.
Made the alien creatures to look less frightening and badass in my mind.
To be honest i was scared more of the facehugger scenes than the ones with the alien creatures.
But i guess Cameron couldn't do differently since this was the way he wanted to go.

*alien3 ''treated'' the alien creature better,made you feel more scared whenever it appeared...but wasnt as good movie as the other 2.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News