Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Better character development.  OK, I can see that, sure.

Somehow, I'm feeling you're saying that in jest.

It was, however, a very quotable movie:

Hudson: Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we
just got our asses kicked, pal!

++++

Hudson: Let's just bug out and call it even, OK? What are we talking about this for?
Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be
sure.
Hudson: Fuckin' A...
Burke: Ho-ho-hold on, hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar
value attached to it.
Ripley: They can *bill* me. 

+++

Hudson: That's it man, game over man, game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now?
What are we gonna do?
Burke: Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why
don't we try that? 

+++

Ripley: How long after we're declared overdue can we expect a rescue?
Hicks: [pause] Seventeen days.
Hudson: Seventeen *days?* Hey man, I don't wanna rain on your parade, but we're not
gonna last seventeen *hours!* Those things are gonna come in here just like they did
before. And they're gonna come in here...
Ripley: Hudson!
Hudson: ...and they're gonna come in here AND THEY'RE GONNA GET US!
Ripley: Hudson! This little girl survived longer than that with no weapons and no
training.
[to Newt]
Ripley: Right?
[Newt apes a salute]
Hudson: What, you put her in charge? 

+++

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> I don't know why people really thought that. There are few movies where
> the sequel is as good as the original, and I'll grant Aliens held its
> own. But I didn't like it as much as Alien. Perhaps it was just because
> I was at the right age for Alien and too cynical by the time Aliens came
> out or something.

The two are really different movies.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

> Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
>> And if you want a really poor movie from an SF perspective, go and watch
>> District 9.
>
>   I'm beginning to think that there are *no* good sci-fi movies in existence.
>
>   Every time a sci-fi movie comes out, somebody will complain and point
> out how ludicrous some detail about it is, hence making it nothing but a
> caricature of "good" sci-fi. I don't think there exists any movie which
> would be considered "good" in this regard.
>
>   This makes me wonder what these people are comparing the movies to.
> Nothing, I suppose. Some vapid imaginary concept they have about what
> a "good" sci-fi movie should be like.

I compare to textual SF (i.e. novels and stories). 

Don't get me wrong - I really liked District 9. Just had some poor SF
aspects. A lot of my issues with it could have been resolved without
much effort. It just wasn't the director's goal. 

If one can call The Man From Earth SF, I'd say that's good SF. 

The original Planet Of The Apes movie was probably good SF.

As was The Forbidden Planet.

Of course, I suppose your point is that this is all subjective...

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> If one can call The Man From Earth SF, I'd say that's good SF. 

I've heard this many times, but somehow the movie didn't do it for me. 
The last movie which I had a different reaction like this was Waking 
Life, and I keep wondering what I'm missing with both of them.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> Don't get me wrong - I really liked District 9. Just had some poor SF
> aspects. A lot of my issues with it could have been resolved without
> much effort. It just wasn't the director's goal.

I'm sure you mentioned it when the movie was first released, but OOC what were
your main issues with it?

> Of course, I suppose your point is that this is all subjective...

It strikes me that there are are lot of good 'SF' movies that are actually quite
poor (or barely even) SF (eg Empire Strikes Back), and a lot of poor movies
which feature good SF (eg Johnny Mnemonic). And a spectrum in between. Of
course, this is highly subjective ;-)

With regard to the Alien films, I'm surprised nobody thought to mention that
Alien is primarily a horror ('haunted house'-type) film, whereas the sequel is
primarily an action/war film. Of course, both are in an SF setting, and both
feature good and poor SF detail (my biggest SF gripe with the Alien series: what
on earth does the critter eat, to get man-sized in a matter of hours/days?)

Bill

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:
> 
>> Better character development.  OK, I can see that, sure.
> 
> Somehow, I'm feeling you're saying that in jest.

No, I was actually 100% serious. Unless the point of the movie is character 
development (i.e., the characters develop noticably during the movie) it's 
not something I tend to remember 10 years later about a movie. :-)

> It was, however, a very quotable movie:

That's always good. I think movies (and to some extent books) turn into 
culture in direct proportion to their quotability.

I think Wizard of Oz still wins on that front, tho.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> (my biggest SF gripe with the Alien series: what
> on earth does the critter eat, to get man-sized in a matter of hours/days?)

See, that's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. You don't see it 
happen, so you complain. (Not the personal "you" there.)

Clearly the alien got into the food stores that were stocked away for a 
multi-year mining mission. It wasn't eating the people, so where else would 
it get food?

I liked how the human shape was explained as the alien taking on some of the 
characteristics of the host, tho.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > (my biggest SF gripe with the Alien series: what
> > on earth does the critter eat, to get man-sized in a matter of hours/days?)
>
> See, that's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. You don't see it
> happen, so you complain. (Not the personal "you" there.)

Yeah... sorry :)

Still, I say 'big' gripe, it's not really a big gripe cos I love the first 2
Alien movies!

> I liked how the human shape was explained as the alien taking on some of the
> characteristics of the host, tho.

Yeah, I didn't really get that until the dog-like alien in the 3rd movie. And
*that* alien, at least, did appear to eat people.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Yeah, I didn't really get that until the dog-like alien in the 3rd movie. And
> *that* alien, at least, did appear to eat people.

Because they weren't dogs, and hence useless for reproduction.

(To be fair, I am not sure I got it in the first movies either. I think some 
out-of-band explanation was offered me.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that it's best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
> > Yeah, I didn't really get that until the dog-like alien in the 3rd movie. And
> > *that* alien, at least, did appear to eat people.
>
> Because they weren't dogs, and hence useless for reproduction.
>
> (To be fair, I am not sure I got it in the first movies either. I think some
> out-of-band explanation was offered me.)

Good point though... what was the creature's motivation in the original?
(ignoring the deleted scenes with two cocooned crewmembers!)

Post a reply to this message