Much of what I read in the article about what he wrote reminds me heavily of Alien: Resurrection.
That was a really, really bad movie. Jeunet had absolutely no idea what he was doing directing that movie.
I can't think of a better thematic match to continue on from Aliens.
Also incredibly annoyed that the noted reason it got shot down was "not being innovative enough." I feel like most movies die from overly innovative scripts, whereas most of the classics, reduced to script form, are really simple ideas executed well.
I mean, &#(@, look at the script for Alien and Aliens.
I am a huge Alien fan, but I can't understand the fascination with Aliens, it always seemed like a cheap action movie when compared with the true psychological horror of the first one.
Aliens is a bit different from your typical action movie in that the heroes are getting their butts kicked the entire time. The only time where the heroes really had a fist-pump moment was when the 2 sacrificed themselves by blowing up a bomb and taking out a couple of aliens.
Yeah, especially the first scene at the beginning when they start to get into the Alien lair and get their ass massively kicked. That whole scene was awesome from beginning to end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsD6AL3HJtM
(it's plenty graphic)
It certainly pulled from old westerns and war movies, but did it in a (imho) pretty innovative way.
Having seen both movies during their original release, I originally liked Aliens more; probably a side-effect of being in my teens and liking guns and explosions. As I've gotten older, as much as I've come to further appreciate the suspense and design of the original, Cameron's film is still one of my favorite movies and IMO is a rare example of a worthy sequel.
In Alien, Ellen Ripley is a victim of circumstance. She's the smarter-than-average crewmember whose advice is largely ignored and despite doing the best she can barely survives an ordeal that should be guaranteed to leave her with a lifetime of PTSD.
In Aliens, we quickly find out that Ripley is once again a victim of circumstance: her lifeboat drifted off course while she was in stasis, resulting in her returning home after decades. Nobody believes her about the Xenomorph, and she's considered a responsible party for the destruction of the ship in the first movie. Deleted scenes (restored in the director's cut, I believe?) revealed that her daughter died of old age before Ripley returned.
She's in rough shape. Traumatized by what happened and relegated to menial work due to her perceived unreliability, she's given a path for redemption: go back to where it all started and help the military (which is revealed to be largely incompetent and impotent when things go south).
Alien is a great horror movie, to be sure. But Aliens is, IMO, a redemption movie when you look past the swagger and gunfire. A smart character who should be in good shape (after being victorious in the first movie) is shown to be a fractured, vulnerable person who still summons the strength to face her fears, rescue another victim of circumstance (Newt), overcome her bias (against Bishop), presumably prevent the problem from ever happening again, and definitively prove that she was right all along.
And all, IMO, without cheapening the first movie and by revisiting one of the strongest female characters to appear in a movie franchise. It nukes the Bechdel test from orbit.
This is also why I hate Alien 3, as it was released, with a burning passion. It completely invalidates Ripley's character arc in Aliens with the lazy reverse deus ex machina of killing Newt, Bishop and Hicks in the first act. I'm not a huge fan of Gibson's screenplay, but it would have been much better than the dreck that was ultimately released.
Agree. I hate Alien 3 even more knowing Fincher directed it - he made so many good movies I can't understand for the life of me how he butchered that one so bad.
Although there was a large budget, he was viewed as an inexperienced director and the studio wouldn't give him enough money in one chunk to construct the sets he wanted.
This meant he had to make substantial compromises, particularly with respect to shooting the alien, and the lengthy takes he had planned simply weren't possible because he didn't have enough of a built set to shoot.
Aliens is THE perfect movie for me. The story is simple but eventful and with lots of surprises. There are many characters that are well written and who all have their opportunity to shine. Cinematography-wise, it's extremely solid with Cameron as a director, doing some of his very best work. Casting was perfect, everyone fit extremely well in their roles. Even special effects for the most part, were extremely well done and remain believable to this day. And the musical score was the icing on the top.
Really, I can't find anything wrong with Aliens. I like Alien (1) as well but it's a very, very different movie.
That movie's pretty much all man-in-suit and practical props, with a number of shots using rod puppets on blue screen. Those shots do look bad, but it's because of the bad compositing (not sure if optical compositing or bad, early digital compositing, the blacks and matte lines are horrible). True CGI would have looked and moved worse.
There's pretty much one CGI shot in there though, and that's when the alien's head dome crackles under thermal shock in the foundry (looks like CGI crackles comped onto man-in-suit plate, from memory).
Haven't watched the "behind the scenes DVD" features in a couple years though. I think it even has Richard Edlund and Tom Woodruff talking about how they were one of the last movies to do most everything the old way at that time.
I'd say Alien 3's bigger problem is the development hell it suffered from, as mentioned by others.
Excuse me ? Terminator 2 came out in the very same year, and had fantastic CGI. It's just a matter of who works on them, even at the time.