Watch Ben 10 Ultimate Alien
Ilse Marseau
I am a Sci-fi fan but not that much into horror and that is probably why I have seen Alien (1979) just a few months ago. I enjoyed it and was going to watch the next one but am know puzzled because there are so many movies and I don't know where to start.
So far I am quite confused where to start. For example, wiki does not even list the Predator as part of the Alien franchise but only the Alien vs. Predator movies. This seems odd to me. Further, I found lists that recommend in what order to watch the movies but the lists refer to the different storylines individually. For example, see here a list that only says how to watch the original Alien series, leaving out everything else or see here a source that says how to watch the alien movies, the Predator movies and the Alien vs. Predator movies, i.e. this source makes suggestions for each storyline individually. But in what order to watch all this movies listed above?
While all the movies within the series follow each other (i.e. "Aliens" is a direct continuation of "Alien"), the relation between different series is relatively loose, and it doesn't matter that much. What's more, it sometimes contradicts itself - for example, the first "Alien vs Predator" tells that xenomorphs exist for at least thousands of years (as Predators used to hunt them on Earth in ancient times), but the "Prometheus" suggests that they are a new specie artificially created quite recently (recently to the events of the original "Alien").
Originally, the "Predator" universe was completely separate from the "Alien" franchise, that is until the "Predator II" movie, when the director decided to place xenomorph skull among the trophies in the Predator ship
This started a whole series of "Alien vs Predator" comic series, which was suggesting that Predators kidnap alien Queens and then use their eggs to "seed" xenomorphs for the ritualistic hunt. The same concept was used in many computer games, starting from the "Alien vs Predator"in 1993.
The crossover movies seem to follow the same idea: Predators use humans as hosts for xenomorphs and then hunt the latter (occasionally killing some unlucky human). Those movies have just a tiny connection to the original franchise in the form of the names of some characters: In the first AvP Lance Henriksen plays a rich entrepreneur Charles Bishop Weyland, while in "Aliens/Aliens 3" he plays android "Bishop" and the company that Ripley works for is called "Weyland-Yutani" (the latter name is used in the "AvP Requiem" exactly once).
There is nothing wrong with Yasskier's answer, but I will offer a third option to go with the two he suggests: watch the films in the order they were made. Alien first, Aliens second, Predator third, etc. There are a couple of reasons why this is a good way to watch them.
The later films were made with the assumption that a large part of the audience saw the preceding films. Therefore, exposition of lore is optimized if you watch the movies in the order they were released. You will also avoid spoilers. In addition, when the movies start to break the lore, like Prometheus did, you will recognize it as the lore being broken and not established. This will keep you from being confused by watching earlier movies afterward.
It is quite possible that you will love every one of these movies from beginning to end. It is even possible that you'll think the later movies are better than the earlier ones. But talking to fans you will find a loose consensus around the belief that both the Alien and Predator franchises suffer from diminishing returns as time goes on. Watching them in the order they were made ensures that you'll see what are widely considered the best movies first (you've already done so with Alien) and when the ideas start to get tired and stale, you can abandon this project without subjecting yourself to things like Alien: Covenant, featuring Jussie Smollett's second worst performance.
You state that you are not that into horror, but obviously you have an appreciation for good horror since you liked Alien. You will very likely find that many of the later movies aren't good enough to trump your lukewarm attitude toward horror. It would be a shame if you missed Aliens or the first two Predator movies because you got turned off by watching some of the other stuff first.
In 2008, a case stood unresolved before India's HighCourt, calling for reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Thatprovision, almost 150 years old, punishes "carnal intercourse against the orderof nature with any man, woman or animal" with imprisonment up to life.[1]This law, understood to criminalize consensual homosexual conduct, allows thestate to invade the lives and intimacies of millions of adult Indians.
In a second case in the same month, in Malaysia, a courtarraigned Anwar Ibrahim, former deputy prime minister and now a leader of theopposition. He stood charged with sexual relations with a male former aide,under Section 377 of Malaysia's penal code, which also criminalizes "carnalintercourse against the order of nature."
It was Anwar's second trial for what the Malaysian pressuniversally called "sodomy." Like the first charges, nine years earlier, theseshowed every sign of a political frame-up. Anwar had been preparing to returnto political life in a parliamentary by-election when the allegations broke. IfMalaysia's government believed, as India's apparently did, that thecolonial-era law mirrored deep social prejudices, then the case was a perfecttool to discredit him.
Yet according to an opinion poll, two-thirds of Malaysiansthought politics lurked behind the charges, and only one-third believed thecriminal-justice system could handle Anwar's case fairly.[6] Regardlessof how Malaysians felt about homosexual conduct, they did not trust the governmentto administer the law. The state's handling of the evidence fed suspicions.Police had sent the man who filed the complaint to a hospital, for analexaminations designed to prove the charges: standard procedure in manycountries. Embarrassingly, however, the tests-later leaked on the internet-apparentlyfound no proof. The government vacillated, too, between charging Anwar withconsensual and non-consensual "sodomy." The uncertainty came easy. The law hadonly relatively recently made a distinction between the two-and it stillprovided virtually identical punishments, regardless of consent.
A third case came in Uganda, where three members ofan organization defending lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)people's rights faced trial. They had staged a peaceful protest at an AIDSconference in Kampala, drawing attention to the government's refusal to respondto the pandemic among the country's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender(LGBT) communities. Police promptly arrested them and charged them withcriminal trespass.
Seemingly the case had nothing to do with "sodomy" or sex, butover it hung the shadow of Uganda's law punishing "carnal knowledge against theorder of nature." That law, Section 140 of the criminal code, was also aBritish colonial inheritance, though in 1990 legislators had strengthened it,raising the highest penalty to life imprisonment. The government used therevised law to harass both individuals and activists who were lesbian or gay,censoring their speech, threatening them with prison, raiding their homes. Officialsalso relied on the law to explain, or excuse, their failure to support HIV/AIDSprevention efforts among LGBT people-the inaction that sparked the protest.Four years earlier, the Minister of Information had demanded that both theUnited Nations and national AIDS authorities shut out all LGBT people from HIV/AIDSprograms and planning. He cited the law against homosexual conduct. [7] A spokesman for the Uganda AIDS Commission, the central national clearinghousefor prevention and treatment, conceded in 2006: "There's no mention ofgays and lesbians in the national strategic framework, because the practice ofhomosexuality is illegal."[8]
The law primed the whole populace to help extirpate the"danger." For instance, one influential pastor-famous for his campaigns againstcondom use-urged that "Homosexuals should absolutely not be included inUganda's HIV/AIDS framework. It is a crime, and when you are trying to stampout a crime you don't include it in your programmes."[11]The same minister listed Ugandan LGBT rights activists by name on awebsite, posting pictures and addresses of the "homosexual promoters"-makingthem bullseyes for brute vengeance. The atmosphere crackled with explosivemenace. Hundreds marched in 2007 to threaten punishment for LGBT people,calling them "criminal" and "against the laws of nature."[12] Yetgovernment ministers still warned that tougher anti-gay measures were needed. "Satan,"one said, "is having an upper hand in our country."[13]
These laws invade privacy and create inequality. Theyrelegate people to inferior status because of how they look or who they love. Theydegrade people's dignity by declaring their most intimate feelings "unnatural"or illegal. They can be used to discredit enemies and destroy careers andlives. They promote violence and give it impunity. They hand police and othersthe power to arrest, blackmail, and abuse. They drive people underground tolive in invisibility and fear.[15]
This report describes the strange afterlife of a coloniallegacy. It will tell how one British law-the version of Section 377 thecolonizers introduced into the Indian Penal Code in 1860-spread across immensetracts of the British Empire.
Colonial legislators and jurists introduced such laws, withno debates or "cultural consultations," to support colonial control. Theybelieved laws could inculcate European morality into resistant masses. Theybrought in the legislation, in fact, because they thought "native" cultures didnot punish"perverse" sex enough. The colonized needed compulsoryre-education in sexual mores. Imperial rulers held that, as long as theysweltered through the promiscuous proximities of settler societies, "native"viciousness and "white" virtue had to be segregated: the latter praised andprotected, the former policed and kept subjected.
c80f0f1006