Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,185
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 741
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 05:51:33 AM

Login with username, password and session length

New "Alien" movie coming from Neill Blomkamp

Started by surreal, February 19, 2015, 07:53:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

greenman

Quote from: Replies From View on March 14, 2015, 03:50:11 PM
A follow-up to 'Aliens' in the style of the James Cameron film but without his involvement, using the "family" of Ripley, Hicks and Newt would have been disappointingly shite.  I'm surprised that so many people overlook this in their thoughts of what could have been.  'Alien3' was a far braver and more interesting turn to take, and did what needed to be done to keep the story about Ripley and the xenomorphs rather than Ripley and whoever survived from the previous films added together.

I remember reading a potential script for an Aliens style follow up where Ripley and Newt don't feature at all being sent back to Earth safely when the Sulaco gets back to a military space station. The plot basically revolves about the company having influence/control of the military and getting Alien DNA samples from the ship whilst a communist separatist movement do the same earlier from the Sulaco in transit. The DNA experiments make the Aliens air born growing inside people and they take over the station with only Hicks/Bishop escaping with a space commie ship after there base had suffered the same fate.

newbridge

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on July 20, 2015, 01:11:28 PM
Did you watch the director's cut? It explains it better. The family went there with the understanding that there could be something valuable there that they could keep. The company would known about the aliens because of Ripley's testimony, although it wouldn't be until the bloke came back with the one on his face that they knew for sure. Ripley went purely because she needed to be in the film, although they make out that she is needed as an adviser since she had experience with the aliens.

The last 30 mins of Aliens are the most exciting in film history, imho. Genuinely stressful even after my 100th or so viewing.

Alien 3 is pretty bad but looks quite good compared to the 4th one.

I think maybe I misinterpreted it because it seems almost no time passes between Ripley's rescue and the mission back (in which case the Company's plan makes no sense), but I guess it's implied that a substantial period of time passes (during which the Company tells the colonists to go look and the base is lost). I guess that leads to the further inference that they wanted Ripley to go in order to kill her (i.e. getting an alien to use her as a host) so that nobody else would know about the aliens in the first place. Ok, fair enough, James Cameron - could have spelled that out a little clearer in the film, but fair enough.

I will say this for Aliens, the special effects are fantastic.


mothman

Shittest teaser trailer ever? What was the slogan going to be for the third film? "... SOME people CAN hear you scream, but they're convicts so don't count?"

newbridge

I'm 15 minutes into Alien 3, they've killed off the small child that Ripley spent the entire climax of the last movie saving, and now they're cutting open the dead child's rib cage. That's some expert level mean-spiritedness!

newbridge

This movie is some bullshit. Absolutely terrible.

Mango Chimes

Quote from: mothman on July 21, 2015, 07:17:44 PM
Shittest teaser trailer ever?

Nah, that teaser's fantastic. Only problem was that the film it was teasing didn't exist.

El Unicornio, mang

Good documentary about the tortuous making of Alien3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hip868rxkg4

This 3-hour Aliens making of is worth a watch too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWLKwrmYd6A

stunted

I thought the original Alien3 was well better that the assembly cut. Apparently I was only 12 when it came out but I don't see that as any reason to distrust my opinion.

El Unicornio, mang

I think so too. There are a ton of differences between the two, and also the fact that it's 30 minutes longer is a problem. It just seems to drag on and on.

http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Alien_3_Assembly_Cut

SavageHedgehog

The assembly cut doesn't feel like a real film to me, with that cheapo music they use to fill in the previously unused scenes. Plus there's a lot of useless stuff like that idiot going on about "the dragon" (no, it's an Alien, like in that film from thirteen years earlier, Alien), and they cut out what for me is the most memorable moment of the film
Spoiler alert
the chestbuster bursting out of Ripley as she falls to her death
[close]
. I've heard some people who think that the theatrical version of the scene was cheesy, and they prefer the restraint of the assembly cut but
Spoiler alert
fuck those guys
[close]
.

newbridge

I watched the theatrical version because I didn't want to see 30 extra minutes of unfinished footage. David Fincher's having a bit of a laugh if he's blaming the movie's failure on studio intervention. It was just poorly directed: case in point, the baffling, never-ending "climax" where the inmates are running around in some kind of lead-casting maze. One of the most poorly filmed action sequences I can recall. Beyond a basic understanding that they wanted to trap the alien somewhere and pour lead on it, I defy anyone on first viewing to explain what the hell is actually going on in that sequence.

The script was the real culprit though. Is it so hard to write an action movie featuring the alien(s)? I could write a fucking amazing alien script, this one was total crap.

I thought the acting was actually pretty good all things considered.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: newbridge on July 24, 2015, 02:04:02 AM
I watched the theatrical version because I didn't want to see 30 extra minutes of unfinished footage. David Fincher's having a bit of a laugh if he's blaming the movie's failure on studio intervention.

The assembly cut also features a much longer/bloodier Newt autopsy, so you'll be glad you missed that.

My main issue with Alien 3 is that the characters are just all so horribly annoying/unsympathetic. I don't even like Ripley that much in the film. The only character I really liked that much is Charles Dance,
Spoiler alert
but he's killed off quite early on.
[close]
And maybe the black preacher bloke. I think it's actually well made, as far as cinematography and whatnot goes. Some really cool shots and the steadicam footage through the corridors is ace. I don't think Fincher could have saved it even if he had complete control, but I do think it could have been a lot worse. Like, Alien Resurrection worse.

newbridge

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on July 24, 2015, 12:40:19 PM
Like, Alien Resurrection worse.

I just watched it and greatly prefer Alien: Resurrection to Alien 3. The script is a bit dodgy in places, but at least you get a sense of Jean-Pierre Jeunet's cinematic style and the movie has some interesting bits. Alien 3 had no redeeming value to me, it felt like everyone involved was being held at gunpoint and told to "make an Alien movie" no matter how lifeless and pointless it all felt (which, based on the production history, isn't half wrong).

#4 could have used a rewrite explaining how exactly cloning a dead host to a parasitic life form allows you to also clone the parasite and/or create a new hybrid form of life, but whatever.

I agree you with you about that.

'Alien 3' attempted the sort of gritty cyberpunk that was popular at the time - even bringing William Gibson on board at one point - but it didn't succeed. It came off as really... dare I say cheap? I know the film had a $50m budget, but the end product is really naff and downmarket. It's like a nerdy fan-film; like a bunch of English engineering students and Red Dwarf enthusiasts getting together to make a You Tube adaptation of their favourite 2000AD comic strip. That's what 'Alien 3' is like.

Whereas 'Alien: Resurrection', for all its flaws, can at least hold its head high and say that it looks and feels like a real Hollywood movie.

greenman

Quote from: Default to the negative on July 25, 2015, 05:29:21 AM
I agree you with you about that.

'Alien 3' attempted the sort of gritty cyberpunk that was popular at the time - even bringing William Gibson on board at one point - but it didn't succeed. It came off as really... dare I say cheap? I know the film had a $50m budget, but the end product is really naff and downmarket. It's like a nerdy fan-film; like a bunch of English engineering students and Red Dwarf enthusiasts getting together to make a You Tube adaptation of their favourite 2000AD comic strip. That's what 'Alien 3' is like.

Whereas 'Alien: Resurrection', for all its flaws, can at least hold its head high and say that it looks and feels like a real Hollywood movie.

Gibson's was I believe at least partly behind the space commie script that I mention above that's out there somewhere on the net.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: newbridge on July 25, 2015, 04:14:25 AM
I just watched it and greatly prefer Alien: Resurrection to Alien 3. The script is a bit dodgy in places, but at least you get a sense of Jean-Pierre Jeunet's cinematic style and the movie has some interesting bits. Alien 3 had no redeeming value to me, it felt like everyone involved was being held at gunpoint and told to "make an Alien movie" no matter how lifeless and pointless it all felt (which, based on the production history, isn't half wrong).

#4 could have used a rewrite explaining how exactly cloning a dead host to a parasitic life form allows you to also clone the parasite and/or create a new hybrid form of life, but whatever.

My main issue is that it had that kind of slightly wacky, comic book style that some French directors use when they make Hollywood films. I just don't think it suits the Alien universe at all. There are even some actual comedy bits that belong in a Naked Gun movie, like when he sees the spider. Plus the characters are all awful. I just really hate it, not just as an Alien sequel but as a film. The only thing I would say it has over Alien3 is more variety in the visuals, less of the constant grimness.

newbridge

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on July 25, 2015, 01:03:25 PM
My main issue is that it had that kind of slightly wacky, comic book style that some French directors use when they make Hollywood films. I just don't think it suits the Alien universe at all. There are even some actual comedy bits that belong in a Naked Gun movie, like when he sees the spider. Plus the characters are all awful. I just really hate it, not just as an Alien sequel but as a film. The only thing I would say it has over Alien3 is more variety in the visuals, less of the constant grimness.

It feels very distinctively Jean-Pierre Jeunet though, it has the same dark-comedic surrealism. Not just because of the actor crossover, but you can tell it's the same guy who made Delicatessen and City of Lost Children.

Granted, thats a million miles from the style of the original Alien, but so was Aliens in my opinion. I think Alien 1, 2, & 4 are all good because they bring entirely different takes to the franchise, not necessarily because they are internally consistent.

Plus, as bad as the script is at points (blame Joss Whedon), I thought the ambiguous characterization of hybrid-Ripley was actually fairly interesting.

Mark Steels Stockbroker

I thought the point was that all the residues of Ripley they found also contained Alien DNA, and they could only incubate it attached to a host, so that's why it was done that way.

I've always found it more mysterious how chestbursters grow to full adult size so quickly.

Spiteface

I think the mystery is part of the appeal with the Alien series, and there's still gaps in the "Life cycle" of them. There's never really been a small alien with legs has there? I mean one that's a bit more matured than a chestburster, but not quite fully grown. Usually they come out of the host, disappear and are next seen full size. Sometimes you'd see a supply of food that had been raided, but never that phase inbetween with the things.

Which is one reason to hate Prometheus, for trying to explain the Space Jockey.

Mango Chimes

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on July 23, 2015, 02:22:40 PM
Good documentary about the tortuous making of Alien3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hip868rxkg4

Interesting bit in that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hip868rxkg4&feature=youtu.be&t=26m13s,) where Sigourney Weaver, on the set of Alien 3, says that writers other than Giler, Hill and Cameron would write Ripley (badly) as a "tough, obnoxious woman".

Jump forward five years, and she's playing a version of Ripley who's a stone-faced, Alien-shagging hard-arse with super-human strength and acid blood.

Deanjam

Quote from: Mark Steels Stockbroker on July 26, 2015, 03:55:50 PM
I've always found it more mysterious how chestbursters grow to full adult size so quickly.

In Alan Dean Foster's 'Alien' novel it raids the ships food supplies and also - if I recall correctly - can consume certain elements of the ship itself. That's why it grows so fast. It also begins to create a new egg out of the remains of Brett's body.

It's a whole different creature to the space bug of Cameron's film.

Deanjam

Re the discussion above of why the Alien hides in the shuttle at the end of the first film. I think it's implied that the creature somehow knows the Nostromo is getting destroyed and so hitches a ride with Ripley. Scott has said that he originally wanted to end the film with the alien killing Ripley and then speaking with her voice into the communication system. There was a lot of interesting ideas floating around the makers of the first film.

Pdine

Surely what is needed is something that explores what the Alien's cock is like? Why are people skirting this issue? I'm hoping for a big cock, possibly with a smaller cock that pops out of the end.

Replies From View

Quote from: SavageHedgehog on July 23, 2015, 07:57:58 PM
The assembly cut doesn't feel like a real film to me, with that cheapo music they use to fill in the previously unused scenes. Plus there's a lot of useless stuff like that idiot going on about "the dragon" (no, it's an Alien, like in that film from thirteen years earlier, Alien), and they cut out what for me is the most memorable moment of the film
Spoiler alert
the chestbuster bursting out of Ripley as she falls to her death
[close]
. I've heard some people who think that the theatrical version of the scene was cheesy, and they prefer the restraint of the assembly cut but
Spoiler alert
fuck those guys
[close]
.

I tend to agree with this.  There's also the fact that, if the implication is that the alien creature has borrowed some DNA from its host in order to become a better predator of them, it makes more sense having come from a dog rather than a lumbering ox.  The sense I get is that the assembly cut tries to be as different as possible to the theatrical version, which means including the ox scene as a curio rather than the dog one for its consistency.


I love Alien3 though.  The nihilistic approach - killing everyone except Ripley from the second film, then wiping out all the new characters just as we were growing to like them - was a brave decision, allowing the alien films to finish (if you ignore Alien Resurrection, which is lowest common denominator Hollywood guff, and a transparent attempt to eke more sequels out of a franchise that needed no more) with Ripley alone against the alien again, rather than a tedious family of action adventurers going around, guns ablazing, saving the universe for sequel after sequel.  It's nice that those who disagree with me will get their own wish now, though.

greenman

Alien Resurrection does do a good job of showing what a pulpy hack Wheden really is, the third film has some weaknesses and does crap on the 2nd a bit too much for my liking but does have a good story and a good selection of characters.

The Masked Unit

My uncle Ian's seen this already (works at WH Smiths and gets to see all the films early because it's in the films department) and he reckons its' well good. Ripley actually gets off with an alien and you see its knob and everything, and then she kills it with a rocket launcher but she's already fucked by that point, cos he's got her pregnant and she has to kill her own baby when it comes out her stomach, and she's well pissed off about it.

The Masked Unit

Oh yeah he's got Ghostbusters 3 as well and guess what, yeah, after they finished making it they were all watching it and noticed a ghost in it that they didn't recognise, not even the computer graphics bloke who done it all, and everyone was like "Where the fucks that from?" and it turns out it was actually a real ghost that got on the set and was floating about in the background just like well takin the piss.

El Unicornio, mang

Heh, I had an Aliens-obsessed friend at school who said he had a special copy of Aliens on video that had extra scenes (not the director's cut, it was some other shit he made up) but he wasn't allowed to let anyone see it, and that his Uncle had made the Aliens arcade machine, and he brought an Aliens comic in which he said was only available in the USA, even though the price on the cover was in GBPs and was in the local newsagents. Last time I saw him he was wearing an Aliens t-shirt under a long raincoat, and sunglasses. Probably still telling Aliens related lies. His upper lip bumfluff was always slightly moist too. Proper knobhead.

batwings

Before Alien 3 was released, there was some bloke I knew who claimed to have a pirate copy of it and that it was all about the Aliens coming to earth and attacking a city. He said it was called Aliens: Invasion Earth and he had it on a VHS tape that he somehow kept forgetting to bring with him, despite always promising to let us borrow it.