Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethbro | Hacker News Reader

I think the key here, in retrospect, is that this would have been Gibson in his 30s, immediately after writing Count Zero (and Neuromancer before that).

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.

View on HN

> 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.

30 years later Aliens looks like a cliché action movie. I think it looks that way because it set a lot of standards for action movies. Poke around at popular action movies from the early 80's. Aliens has no Star Wars mysticism. Aliens lacks Star Trek optimism. It's not 'a guy with a grudge' like Rambo or Commando or any of a dozen others.

It certainly pulled from old westerns and war movies, but did it in a (imho) pretty innovative way.

In a lot of ways, it's Alien: Vietnam.

I think it's just that people have seen Aliens more, because it's easier to jump into it and have a good time, laugh at the "Game over man" scene, etc. Whereas with Alien you are on the edge of your seat the entire time. Much more draining.

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.

> Aliens is a bit different from your typical action movie in that the heroes are getting their butts kicked the entire time

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.

The movie also shows a female hero without putting a thumb on the scale. Compare Ripley's descent into the Alien Queen's lair vs. that time the girl kicked a whole Velociraptor out the window using gymnastics

Yup, but to be honest very few actresses can play such kind of roles. Sigourney Weaver is just an extraordinary fit for these kind of characters.

"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."

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.

> 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.

I read a lengthy interview a few years ago with Fincher, and he essentially said that he knew Alien 3 was a disaster before they started shooting.

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.

Please note that Fincher disowned the movie and walked away due to his claim of studio interference. He wasn't involved in the final production of the film. I haven't seen it in a while but I believe Fincher's name is not in the credits.

I did not know that. Yet he still made the movie with the script knowing exactly what was in the story, which was really shit if you ask me, compared to the first two episodes.

> but I can't understand the fascination with Aliens

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.

Alien always reminded me of Japanese horror (implied), whereas Aliens was Western (shown).

Here's a scene from Alien known as the "chestburster":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsD6AL3HJtM

(it's plenty graphic)

It's also one of the only such moments in the movie where you clearly see the horror and gore. You've cherry-picked the one contradiction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com