Koki on 12/10/2008 at 17:40
Quote Posted by The_Raven
You guys may want to enlighten me on this, I haven't played Starcraft, but wasn't it just a giant rip off of Aliens?
You may want to enlighten me on this, I didn't read Aliens, but isn't it a horror/thriller?
d0om on 12/10/2008 at 18:15
Starcraft is more of a rip-off off Warhammer 40k
The Terrans are very similar to Space Marines
Zerg are practically Tyranids
and the Protoss are very similar to the Eldar
Complete rip-off tbh.
Same with Warcraft and Warhammer, although not quite as blatant.
The_Raven on 12/10/2008 at 18:18
Aliens is principally a movie by James Cameron. Sure, there were novelizations and spin-offs; but I'm unsure why you wrote "read." :weird:
june gloom on 12/10/2008 at 18:38
Because he's ignorant and wouldn't know a good movie if it bit him in the ass?
Seriously Koki, go watch it.
Some of the books are really good though- I recommend Berzerker.
The_Raven on 12/10/2008 at 19:04
I'm one of those Alien > Aliens types who doesn't think the second movie in the franchise is all it's cracked up to be. Sure, it has its moments; but there's a decent amount of cringe worthy ones as well.
Sulphur on 12/10/2008 at 19:25
Naw dude, you're thinking Ghostbusters II or sodding Hannibal.
Aliens is a textbook example of how to do a sequel by making it - measure for measure - bigger, better, and filled with so much intensity and pure awesome that it explodes; and it's only really been bested by Terminator 2.
JohnnyTheWolf on 12/10/2008 at 19:58
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Naw dude, you're thinking Ghostbusters II or sodding
Hannibal.
Aliens is a textbook example of how to do a sequel by making it - measure for measure - bigger, better, and filled with so much intensity and pure awesome that it
explodes; and it's only really been bested by Terminator 2.
Plus corny dialogue, screaming little girl, cliched characters (bureaucrats = evil scheming bastards, marines = arrogant idiots), preposterous plot... James Cameron may be a fine director with good ideas, but he is way, way too overrated as a screenwriter.
However, "Battle of the Amerigo" remains one of my favorite SC cutscenes, so I guess it's the movie itself I have problems with, not the concept. But again, SC takes itself a lot less seriously than Aliens.
Sulphur on 12/10/2008 at 21:11
Yeah but us hyperbolerisers (hyperbolicists?) tend to gloss over those bits in favour of the overall package. Besides, the first thing about Aliens is really how well it gets the art of pacing, buildup, and climax across the entire film.
James Cameron isn't the most consistent of screenwriters, I'll agree. But apart from the stereotypes, the story isn't that ham-handed at all. It's actually got a fair amount of heart, which is more than I can say for Alien.
Not that I think Alien's bad or anything; while it's a great movie, it had even less characterisation than Aliens.
Oh, and dethy: Gah, Alien Resurrection. While I'd rather not talk about it, your article nailed most of the reasons why it was a travesty of a movie. Also, while I more or less have come to respect Alien 3, I can't help but think how much better it would have been if Fincher had used William Gibson's script instead.
The_Raven on 12/10/2008 at 21:38
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Perhaps he's getting it confused with Alien Resurrection, the worst sequel in the history of man?
If I meant Alien Resurrection, I would have said that. Hell, I even mentioned Cameron by name previously. You'll also realize that I did say that Aliens isn't without its moments; however, half of the movie and its dialog I could really do without.
Marine1: Ultimate ass kicker! Aim by PFM! Hurahhh!
Marine2: Hur, hur, hur.
Pilot: In the pipe 5-by-5!
Lieutenant: I think that you should maybe...hmmm...set up a perimeter.
Hudson: Game over, man! Game over!
Ripley: Punch it, Bishop!
While I'd admit some of this awful writing is by design, Cameron was trying to make "Vietnam in space," it is just bad no matter what way you look at it. Then there's the times when Cameron attempts to recreate some of Ridley's shots from the first movie, they're grossly inferior and have nowhere near the same amount of impact. Then you get wonderful shit in the last bit of the movie where Ripley decides to tape a flamethrower and submachine gun together in order to use both at the same time, and a huge alien queen squeezes into a relatively tiny elevator and then pushes the right buttons to ascend. :rolleyes:
I guess this is how I would break the movie down in terms of my opinion:
Good: opening, aftermath of the destruction of the Nostromo, Ripley's alienation from her home, stranded within the complex.
Bad: Both segments aboard the Sulaco, both visits to the Hive, initial landing at Haley's Hope.
<HR>
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Aliens is a textbook example of how to do a sequel by making it - measure for measure - bigger, better, and filled with so much intensity and pure awesome that it explodes; and it's only really been bested by Terminator 2.
Hahaha, Terminator 1 > Terminator 2. There's really no contest there. In fact, Terminator 2 is essentially left overs from the first movie that they didn't end up doing for one reason or another. Most of the movie is "kid tries to teach a cyborg to be cool." :weird:
<HR>
EDIT:Quote Posted by Sulphur
Also, while I more or less have come to respect Alien 3, I can't help but think how much better it would have been if Fincher had used William Gibson's script instead.
The one with the Alien spores and space communists?! You're joking, right?
