ALIEN RESURRECTION - Utterly terrible.
Jerome Villanova
Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
> First of all, Ripley's character is utterly bastardised; her compassion
> and love for human life is twisted; her character becomes a perverse shell
> of what she previously was. This is deliberately scripted. This is not
> simply a consequence of the story, it is actually one of the main premises
> for this unnecessary sequal. They claim this movie is a "fresh approach"
> to the series.
Sigourney Weaver herself wanted a change in her character, accordingto
interviews.
But she totally misplays her part.
How can you keep in the story when you see her smell the air ?
I just laughed and lost interest.
> Bullshit. If the studios had any respect for this series,
> and wanted another Alien movie so badly, they should have taken a
> genuinely fresh approach by introducing a new lead character in a new
> setting, rather than butchering a classic character simply to draw more
> crowds with the familiar cast name. Seeing Ripley in sexually suggestive
> scenes with the Alien is not "fresh" or "cool", nor is it being creative.
I would have liked it to be less suggestive, in fact.
> So what's left? The fascinating Alien itself. Yes, you guessed it,
> they've desecrated the Alien too. The lifecyle - the focus of the species
> - has been blasted away in a few paragraphs of awful screenwriting, and
> instead the viewer is gifted with seeing the Alien Queen give birth like a
> human. Next, the beautiful creature design that has graced the series, is
> permanently tarnished by a pathetic piece of shit called a "newborn" that
> looks like a cross between Pumpkinhead, a puppy dog, and a bowl of vomit.
It's true the "newborn" is ridiculous.It only serves to set you in sarcastic
mode if you were not already laughing
at every atempt to scare.
> Ok, I will try to say something good about this movie now. Hmm... Ron
> Perlman played his role well... umm... the scene where the two Aliens kill
> the third was clever. Ok, that's about as positive as I'm going to get.
> Did I mention Winona Ryder should get nominated for Worst Supporting
> Actress for her performance here? Sigh.
I agree, do you remember when she's sitting with her "gutts" in hand and says
: " Look at me, I'm terrible". Nope, pathetic.
I have to say I didn't like the ending in Alien 3, and that I won't change
my mind just because Alien the R was even worse as a whole.
I bet they will surpass that in A5
--
------------------------------------
Jerome X Villanova
E.mail: vi...@robot.uvsq.fr
-------------------------------------
Franknseus
>First of all, Ripley's character is utterly bastardised; her compassion
>and love for human life is twisted; her character becomes a perverse shell
>of what she previously was. This is deliberately scripted. This is not
>simply a consequence of the story, it is actually one of the main premises
>for this unnecessary sequal.
> They claim this movie is a "fresh approach"
>to the series. Bullshit. If the studios had any respect for this series,
>and wanted another Alien movie so badly, they should have taken a
>genuinely fresh approach by introducing a new lead character in a new
>setting, rather than butchering a classic character simply to draw more
>crowds with the familiar cast name. Seeing Ripley in sexually suggestive
>scenes with the Alien is not "fresh" or "cool", nor is it being creative.
Joss Whedon originally did a treatment for a movie with an entirely new set
of characters, but the producers told him he had to bring back Ripley. I think
they could have gone either way, but I think it goes without saying that a lot
of people wouldn't want to see an Alien movie without Ripley.
So if they have to bring her back, would you rather they keep her the same?
Perhaps you just don't think they should make the movie at all if she has to be
in it, and I can understand that. But I really do think it is a "fresh" and
"cool" approach - cloning Ripley, which would ordinarily be a cop out, and
making it a horrendous ordeal that she doesn't want to go through, and coming
out an entirely different person. If it was just normal Ripley, it would have
been both a cop out and a rehash. This *is* a new approach and I think it also
separates it from the original trilogy and therefore I disagree with your
statement that it shows great disrespect toward the first three. If Joss Whedon
has his way (which seems iffy right now) this will be the beginning of a
trilogy which takes them to earth and then (according to rumor) the alien home
planet.
>So what's left? The fascinating Alien itself. Yes, you guessed it,
>they've desecrated the Alien too. The lifecyle - the focus of the species
>- has been blasted away in a few paragraphs of awful screenwriting, and
>instead the viewer is gifted with seeing the Alien Queen give birth like a
>human.
Alien introduces the cycle, and Aliens adds the Queen. I agree with you, if
this is what you're saying, that Alien 3 and Resurrection suffer from not being
able to add new dimension to the way these creatures reproduce. Unlike 3,
though, Resurrection attempts to make up for this by having the experiment
interfere with the cycle. I don't see what's wrong with this. The human womb in
the Queen at the very end of the movie - what's wrong with that? It's not like
if the series continues there will only be human-wombed queens.
>Next, the beautiful creature design that has graced the series, is
>permanently tarnished by a pathetic piece of shit called a "newborn" that
>looks like a cross between Pumpkinhead, a puppy dog, and a bowl of vomit.
I don't understand why everyone hates the Newborn so much. I agree that he's
disappointing compared to the Giger designs, and they should have gotten Giger
to design him. And I'm not sure why, since Jeunet is so good with visuals, they
don't really showcase the creature very well. I've seen pictures of the actual
prop and he has these long spindly limbs that look really creepy, but you
barely see them in the movie for some reason.
But he's certainly above, say, Mortal Kombat level of design (despite being
built by the same guys who did Goro) and the scene he's in is so good that I
was able to accept him.
>It comes as no surprise that H.R. Giger had no creative input at all,
>however it is a surprise that he isn't even given a screen credit for
>"original Alien design" for the other normal adult Aliens seen in the
>film; a final sign of contempt by the ALIEN RESURRECTION team for the
>great movies that came before it perhaps?
Fortunately, this is being fixed for video release. I have no idea who is
responsible. Giger was also slighted on Alien 3 where he was only credited for
"original Alien design" even though he worked on the movie. And it should be
noted that although Giger was angry about the credit fiasco on Resurrection, he
also said he liked the film.
>Oh, and the CGI was terrible. Very terrible. Personally, I can sit
>through most cheap genre movies with fake CGI in every shot - and enjoy
>them - but the use of CGI in ALIEN RESURRECTION is not acceptable simply
>because the final result looks like a joke compared even with the original
>effects seen in 1979's ALIEN. I have no idea why the CGI Alien looks so
>bad, because you would think that at least that's *one* thing that money
>could buy for this sequel.
Which CGI part are you talking about? The shot where the alien climbed on top
of the escape pod (I think) looked like stop motion, didn't it? I think part of
the problem is that t-rex joint they added to the legs, which I don't really
like. It makes them walk funny. However I did think the underwater aliens
looked excellent when they weren't in close up. I square my complaints more at
the animatronics and suits than the CGI. In Aliens, I think of the creatures
(especially the queen) as real living beings. But in Resurrection that's not
usually the case. I think the aliens also don't look as good due to changes
they made to their mouths and legs.
(ALIENS had a far smaller budget of $16
>Million!)
No matter what they think, no amount of money can make a movie live up to
Aliens creature-wise. I think the queen is one of the all time great movie
monsters. Filmmakers too often put their faith in technology rather than
artistry.
>Did I mention Winona Ryder should get nominated for Worst Supporting
>Actress for her performance here? Sigh.
Explain.
I've heard people say the same thing and the only support they can come up
with is "she was horribly miscast." But again, you've got to explain this. Of
course she's small and elf-like, and that's exactly why she's perfect for the
role - she looks so out of place with these tough pirates, but she can hold her
own. That's the point.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
--
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center - http://www.bucketheadland.com
***For lucky best wash, use Mr. Sparkle!***
Walker Murray
But Ryder didn't hold her own at all! She was just a whiny little weakling
who contributed absolutely nothing to the group. If she had been a tough
character, like a waifish Ripley, then I would have agreed. That's what I
had expected, and I found myself constantly annoyed by her willowy, watery
... weakness. I thought the movie was a fascinating folly - its ideas are
so horribly mangled, there are so many flaws and poorly drawn characters,
repellent scenes ... But taken on its own phantasmagoric terms, it's kind of
perplexing, in a good way.
Peter Ronaszeki
The Alien trilogy is my overall favorite series of movies. I could even
forgive ALIEN 3's shortcomings, since IMO it worked overall as part of the
trilogy (much like the case with RETURN OF THE JEDI for Star Wars). So
here is what I think of the new fourth Alien film 'ALIEN RESURRECTION'.
Well, I'm going to say this outright. ALIEN RESURRECTION is a truly awful
movie. It's beyond bad actually. Many people criticised ALIEN 3 for not
treating what came before it with respect, by killing off most of the
survivors of the ALIENS movie during ALIEN 3's title sequence. Well, that
lack of respect pales in comparison to the dishonor that ALIEN
RESURRECTION's creative team have placed upon the Alien series.
This movie takes the two hearts of the Alien movies - Ripley and the Alien
- and spits in their face.
First of all, Ripley's character is utterly bastardised; her compassion
and love for human life is twisted; her character becomes a perverse shell
of what she previously was. This is deliberately scripted. This is not
simply a consequence of the story, it is actually one of the main premises
for this unnecessary sequal. They claim this movie is a "fresh approach"
to the series. Bullshit. If the studios had any respect for this series,
and wanted another Alien movie so badly, they should have taken a
genuinely fresh approach by introducing a new lead character in a new
setting, rather than butchering a classic character simply to draw more
crowds with the familiar cast name. Seeing Ripley in sexually suggestive
scenes with the Alien is not "fresh" or "cool", nor is it being creative.
So what's left? The fascinating Alien itself. Yes, you guessed it,
they've desecrated the Alien too. The lifecyle - the focus of the species
- has been blasted away in a few paragraphs of awful screenwriting, and
instead the viewer is gifted with seeing the Alien Queen give birth like a
human. Next, the beautiful creature design that has graced the series, is
permanently tarnished by a pathetic piece of shit called a "newborn" that
looks like a cross between Pumpkinhead, a puppy dog, and a bowl of vomit.
It comes as no surprise that H.R. Giger had no creative input at all,
however it is a surprise that he isn't even given a screen credit for
"original Alien design" for the other normal adult Aliens seen in the
film; a final sign of contempt by the ALIEN RESURRECTION team for the
great movies that came before it perhaps?
Oh, and the CGI was terrible. Very terrible. Personally, I can sit
through most cheap genre movies with fake CGI in every shot - and enjoy
them - but the use of CGI in ALIEN RESURRECTION is not acceptable simply
because the final result looks like a joke compared even with the original
effects seen in 1979's ALIEN. I have no idea why the CGI Alien looks so
bad, because you would think that at least that's *one* thing that money
could buy for this sequel. (ALIENS had a far smaller budget of $16
Million!)
Ok, I will try to say something good about this movie now. Hmm... Ron
Perlman played his role well... umm... the scene where the two Aliens kill
the third was clever. Ok, that's about as positive as I'm going to get.
Did I mention Winona Ryder should get nominated for Worst Supporting
Actress for her performance here? Sigh.
To sum things up, ALIEN RESURRECTION even makes derivative genre films
like SPECIES seem worthwhile by comparison. This is a bad movie. But
worse than that, it tarnishes what I used to consider one of the best
series in sci-fi films.
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
cart...@vianet.net.au
thanx for the review! i'm not watching that movie till it either comes on
home video or tv. at least the latter is free. I'm always turned off by CGI,
just look at the amazing FX on aliens, thats all real mate, not a bunch of
pixels!
Peter Ronaszeki
frank...@aol.com (Franknseus) writes:
(about bringing Ripley back)
> Joss Whedon originally did a treatment for a movie with an entirely new set
>of characters, but the producers told him he had to bring back Ripley.
Discussing "what could have been" sadly does nothing to save the finished
product. And surely Joss Whedon should shoulder at least some of the
blame for ALIEN RESURRECTION; whether or not he is a successful
screenwriter is irrelevant - he is simply awful at writing an Alien movie
(even some of the sub-standard Dark Horse comics were surely better).
>I think
>they could have gone either way, but I think it goes without saying that a lot
>of people wouldn't want to see an Alien movie without Ripley.
I'd like to see a poll taken with that segment of fans, *after* they saw
the ALIEN RESURRECTION disgrace... surely most of those viewers would now
be singing a different tune (but of course, now it's too late).
> So if they have to bring her back, would you rather they keep her the same?
They simply CANNOT bring her back in a time period after the third film.
She *died*. It's common sense. Death is one of the ultimate driving
forces for the Alien series. Until now. If the studios wanted
another one with Ripley, it's *their* problem to figure out a story idea
that works, and treats the previous films with respect. Instead, they
chose the first stupid school-yard idea someone came up with, and threw
money at it until it was released.
>Perhaps you just don't think they should make the movie at all if she has to be
>in it, and I can understand that. But I really do think it is a "fresh" and
>"cool" approach - cloning Ripley, which would ordinarily be a cop out, and
>making it a horrendous ordeal that she doesn't want to go through, and coming
>out an entirely different person. If it was just normal Ripley, it would have
>been both a cop out and a rehash. This *is* a new approach and I think it also
>separates it from the original trilogy and therefore I disagree with your
>statement that it shows great disrespect toward the first three.
This movie is clearly not meant to be seperate from the trilogy. It even
opens with dialogue taken from ALIENS. ALIEN RESURRECTION is meant to be
an integral part of the series. And hence my original comments stand.
>If Joss Whedon
>has his way (which seems iffy right now) this will be the beginning of a
>trilogy which takes them to earth and then (according to rumor) the alien home
>planet.
Yeah. Great. Those are the premises... "let's take the Aliens to Earth!"
"let's go to the Alien homeworld!" These are the sorts of things that
twelve year old kids watching ALIENS could come up with. And sadly the
next two movies have exactly that much creative new ideas in them - the
rest will be made up from "by the book" screenwriting and throwing lots of
money at them. What we will be getting is ALIEN RESURRECTION 2 and 3...
ie. unimaginative mass market crap that shouldn't bear the Alien name.
> Alien introduces the cycle, and Aliens adds the Queen. I agree with you, if
>this is what you're saying, that Alien 3 and Resurrection suffer from not being
>able to add new dimension to the way these creatures reproduce.
That is *not* what I'm saying at all. Why on earth must each movie add
something to the Alien reproductive cycle?? The first two films took care
of that aspect nicely. We understand how the Aliens reproduce. I don't
trust half-assed screenwriters to come up with anything new and acceptable
in this regard (see ALIEN RESURRECTION). *Don't mess with the lifecycle!*
As far as I'm concerned, the only people qualified and proven to mess with
the lifecycle are H.R. Giger, Dan O'Bannon, James Cameron and Ridley
Scott.
>Unlike 3,
>though, Resurrection attempts to make up for this by having the experiment
>interfere with the cycle. I don't see what's wrong with this. The human womb in
>the Queen at the very end of the movie - what's wrong with that? It's not like
>if the series continues there will only be human-wombed queens.
What's wrong with that??! It's stupid, it humanises a truly alien
species, it robs the species of its on-screen perfection, and it was
implemented as a weak device for introducing a new kind of alien.
(about the Newborn being crap)
> I don't understand why everyone hates the Newborn so much. I agree that he's
>disappointing compared to the Giger designs, and they should have gotten Giger
>to design him. And I'm not sure why, since Jeunet is so good with visuals, they
>don't really showcase the creature very well. I've seen pictures of the actual
>prop and he has these long spindly limbs that look really creepy, but you
>barely see them in the movie for some reason.
> But he's certainly above, say, Mortal Kombat level of design (despite being
>built by the same guys who did Goro) and the scene he's in is so good that I
>was able to accept him.
When the only defense for the newborn is that it looks better than
something from the Mortal Kombat franchise, then we know the Alien series
is now doomed in terms of creature design.
(about the CGI looking fake)
> Which CGI part are you talking about? The shot where the alien climbed on top
>of the escape pod (I think) looked like stop motion, didn't it? I think part of
>the problem is that t-rex joint they added to the legs, which I don't really
>like. It makes them walk funny. However I did think the underwater aliens
>looked excellent when they weren't in close up. I square my complaints more at
>the animatronics and suits than the CGI. In Aliens, I think of the creatures
>(especially the queen) as real living beings. But in Resurrection that's not
>usually the case. I think the aliens also don't look as good due to changes
>they made to their mouths and legs.
I think the various changes to the adult Aliens were all subtly negative,
and overall they added up to ruin the look of the Aliens. The CGI
swimming Aliens looked like something I would expect in an upcoming sequel
to the Quake games or something - obviously CGI, not menacing at all, and
suspension of disbelief was out the window.
(about Aliens vs. A4)
> No matter what they think, no amount of money can make a movie live up to
>Aliens creature-wise. I think the queen is one of the all time great movie
>monsters. Filmmakers too often put their faith in technology rather than
>artistry.
This I agree with completely.
(about Winona Ryder's terrible acting)
> I've heard people say the same thing and the only support they can come up
>with is "she was horribly miscast." But again, you've got to explain this. Of
>course she's small and elf-like, and that's exactly why she's perfect for the
>role - she looks so out of place with these tough pirates, but she can hold her
>own. That's the point.
As someone pointed out already, she *doesn't* hold her own. Hell, I liked
her performance in Bram Stoker's Dracula, but her squeaking whining
whipping-boy performance in ALIEN RESURRECTION was awful, *especially*
because she had to live up to the legacy of awesome android performances
in the first three movies.
When watching ALIEN RESURRECTION, I actually considered walking out!
That's how I feel about this movie! I absolutely love everything about
the Alien trilogy - as I said before they are my favorite ever movies -
and ALIEN RESURRECTION almost made me walk out during the film! I'm just
glad to see that James Cameron has moved on to bigger and better things
now, and perhaps I'll have to move on too, since the Alien franchise now
seems to be in the hands of idiots.
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
Rob Rodgers
pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki) wrote:
>That is *not* what I'm saying at all. Why on earth must each movie add
>something to the Alien reproductive cycle?? The first two films took care
>of that aspect nicely.
On the contrary. The *first* film handled that aspect nicely. James
Cameron's idiotic and unimaginative changes to the life cycle made
Aliens conflict with the first film.
>We understand how the Aliens reproduce. I don't
>trust half-assed screenwriters to come up with anything new and acceptable
>in this regard (see ALIEN RESURRECTION). *Don't mess with the lifecycle!*
>As far as I'm concerned, the only people qualified and proven to mess with
>the lifecycle are H.R. Giger, Dan O'Bannon, James Cameron and Ridley
>Scott.
If all Cameron could come up with was to say, "Oh, let's give them a
QUEEN!" (like the way every game has to have a Boss at the end) then
he wasn't qualified, either.
Trav 1138
Youll be missin out. Alien 4 was good.
Jerome Villanova
What upsets me the most about Alien The Resurection,
is the poor performance of J-P Jeunet.
I was terribly disapointed to see a much too predictable movie :
Aliens are in the ship, let's run, long corridors, easy suspense, escape,
climax, happy end.
I really wish that people who didn't like the scriot or the way it was played
or shot,
take a look at Delicatessen before they deem Jeunet as a zero.
To me, the movie looked like it had been edited by the producer to fit
their target audience.
I, for one, would have liked more on the sexual healing part than on the
cannon fodder
usual bull.
Franknseus
>But Ryder didn't hold her own at all! She was just a whiny little weakling
>who contributed absolutely nothing to the group. If she had been a tough
>character, like a waifish Ripley, then I would have agreed. That's what I
>had expected, and I found myself constantly annoyed by her willowy, watery
>... weakness.
I suppose she could have done more ass kicking, but if you ask me she did
enough to, as I said, "hold her own" in the land of the pirates. They are in
awe of her skills as a mechanic. She drinks as hard as her buddies (though she
fakes drunkenness). She punches out Wren. She takes a shot to the stomach, then
somehow escapes the underwater death trap and beats everyone to the top.
Her "willowy weakness," as far as I can tell, is her true personality, her
compassionate side (being the most humane of the pirates) which was probably
why they chose Ryder for the role.
>I thought the movie was a fascinating folly - its ideas are
>so horribly mangled, there are so many flaws and poorly drawn characters,
>repellent scenes ... But taken on its own phantasmagoric terms, it's kind of
>perplexing, in a good way.
I definitely enjoyed the movies successes more than you did and was more
forgiving of its flaws, but I really like your description of it.
Franknseus
>They simply CANNOT bring her back in a time period after the third film.
>She *died*. It's common sense. Death is one of the ultimate driving
>forces for the Alien series. Until now.
I disagree, and this is one of the reasons why I can't understand your
description of Whedon as a terrible, unimaginative screenwriter. When I heard
of the idea of Ripley being cloned, I too thought it was terrible and that it
would cheapen the series. But to me he pulled it off, despite the bad effects
by Amalgamated Dynamics (or whatever they're called). Ripley's return from the
dead is by no means easy. There are seven horribly disfigured clones before
Ripley 8 who would gladly have remained dead. She ends up a bit more
successful, but still pissed, and she is only allowed to survive on a whim.
Furthermore, she is only brought back as a means of bringing back more aliens,
which inevitably will kill more people. I don't think this cheapens the deaths
of other characters. It almost makes death seem worse, if trying to reverse it
leads to this.
>If the studios wanted
>another one with Ripley, it's *their* problem to figure out a story idea
>that works, and treats the previous films with respect. Instead, they
>chose the first stupid school-yard idea someone came up with, and threw
>money at it until it was released.
I want to see the schoolyard where the kids who want Ripley to be cloned also
come up with the scene where Ripley 7 must be put out of her misery, and where
Ripley 8 comforts her mutant grandchild before regretfully killing it in the
most horribly painful way that was ever invented.
>This movie is clearly not meant to be seperate from the trilogy. It even
>opens with dialogue taken from ALIENS. ALIEN RESURRECTION is meant to be
>an integral part of the series. And hence my original comments stand.
Of course it's connected, but it's clearly the beginning of a separate cycle.
The first cycle tells the story of the life and death of Ripley. The second
cycle is about the monstrous Ripley 8.
>Yeah. Great. Those are the premises... "let's take the Aliens to Earth!"
>"let's go to the Alien homeworld!" These are the sorts of things that
>twelve year old kids watching ALIENS could come up with.
No, those aren't the premises. But the earth thing and the (rumored) home
planet thing are things that the fans have always been whining for.
Fortunately, Whedon always has his own take on things. I was happy to read an
interview with him in Cinescape where he said that he didn't understand why
people think it would be so scary to have aliens invade earth, since this would
be earth of the future and might as well just be another planet. I've always
felt the same, and I suspect that whatever he plans for Alien 5 it won't be the
obvious.
> And sadly the
>next two movies have exactly that much creative new ideas in them - the
>rest will be made up from "by the book" screenwriting and throwing lots of
>money at them.
Do you really think that Alien Resurrection is "by the book screenwriting"? I
wish more people would read the book then. Alien Resurrection surely isn't the
best written movie of all time, but it's far from orthodox. Did you really
think you were watching a generic, run of the mill movie when Brad Dourif made
his little monologue, or when the newborn was sucked through the hole, or when
Ripley, uh, did that one thing with the queen?
>That is *not* what I'm saying at all. Why on earth must each movie add
>something to the Alien reproductive cycle?? The first two films took care
>of that aspect nicely. We understand how the Aliens reproduce. I don't
>trust half-assed screenwriters to come up with anything new and acceptable
>in this regard (see ALIEN RESURRECTION). *Don't mess with the lifecycle!*
>As far as I'm concerned, the only people qualified and proven to mess with
>the lifecycle are H.R. Giger, Dan O'Bannon, James Cameron and Ridley
>Scott.
Uh, that's not at all what I was saying either. Let me try again. One of the
many things that makes Alien such a classic is the interesting life cycle of
the creatures. One of the many things that makes Aliens a classic is that they
were able to organically add a new dimension to the cycle. But since it wasn't
really possible to do the same after that, it inevitably feels like something
is missing in the other installments. It's one of the unavoidable problems with
continuing after part 2.
I guess I don't really understand what you wanted in Resurrection as far as
the life cycle is concerned. You just wanted to see it demonstrated again? I
don't see why the scientists perverting it constitutes such a major outrage.
>What's wrong with that??! It's stupid, it humanises a truly alien
>species, it robs the species of its on-screen perfection, and it was
>implemented as a weak device for introducing a new kind of alien.
The truly alien quality of the aliens was lost long ago, probably even before
Alien 3. After the success of Aliens, we were bombarded with images of the
creatures. Comic books, action figures, and numerous rip offs in movies, TV and
comics. Like any image that you see millions of times, they start to lose their
power. Of course, it doesn't help that the creature effects in Resurrection
(and to a lesser degree Alien 3) are weak. But even if the effects had been as
good as they should have been, the things just aren't a third as scary as they
were before. I feel that if you are going to make a fourth installment, you
must treat the creatures in a new way rather than pretending like they are
still new and shocking. That's why I like seeing them in cages in the opening
of the film, and it's why I appreciate the changes in the queen (even though
she certainly could have looked cooler).
>When the only defense for the newborn is that it looks better than
>something from the Mortal Kombat franchise, then we know the Alien series
>is now doomed in terms of creature design.
Well, I could have gone higher than Mortal Kombat, but I'll agree with you
here. The creature design in the first two films was about the highest peak of
perfection you can reach. Something went sour when Woodruff and Gillis started
jettisoning Giger's designs in favor of their own.
Craig Dickson
I liked it!
Trent Lucier
> Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
>
> It's true the "newborn" is ridiculous.It only serves to set you in sarcastic
> mode if you were not already laughing
> at every atempt to scare.
>
While I somewhat enjoyed the movie, by the end I was just thinking, "My god,
this has NOTHING to do with the first two films."
SEQUEL SUGGESTIONS:
1) Get rid of Sigourney Weaver. She has no place in this series anymore. I'm
sorry to say it, but her presence is stretching credibility too far. She
survived for fifty years to live in Aliens. OK. Then she was the only survivor
to make it to Alien 3 when the shipped crashed. Mmm, I can accept that. Then
she dies and is resurrected centuries later to make it to the fourth film. This
is where I start to lose it.
2) The producers need to get out of the action film mindset. Treat Alien 5 like
a horror movie and add drama.
3) Better characters. With Alien 3 and Alien 4, we've had nothing but rapists,
child molesters, traitors of the human race, and basic idiots.
I'd like to see an Alien 5, but I really hope they revive this series.
---> Trent
Ye Chen
Now I have to say something. First of all , why any one has the
right to expect a good sequel?(especially the 4th installment.)
How many good sequels we got in 80s and 90s. Aliens first class,
follow Die hard2,3 A little cheaper are L weapon 2, scream2, Rambo...
And I am not sure T2 is as good as Aliens. And that's it. I really
don't understand, in a world where Species can make it into the sequel.
You trash A4 for those baby reasons?
Let me ask you? You have ugly Alien clones Deep Rising, Event
Horizon, Pantons all over the place. should you pay $8 to see them or
just see the real Alien clone?
A4 has a lot of guilty pleasure going on. Don't you love those black
humors? I hread a lot of men's laugh during the movie, inclubing mine.
And the writer is pretty good. It's a very high concept, have sex with
a queen, woo. Ripley Becomes superhuman cool! (which remind me of
Dragon Ball if you ever read the comic.)
Don't you just appreciate the great tradition Fox follows for giving
a bunch of money to a strange director and ask for a scary world?
(compare to that butt-shooting, rubber-wearing, disgusting
one-liner-making, gay-boy-directing and shameless-merchandising batman?
)
And I like newborn, and the way he/she/it dies, and the fact that
it's so disgusting the girl came with me just couldn't take it. Ha ha.
Now tell me that is't new my friend.
In this case JJ (or whatever the director's name) failed, but what
can you say, Ryder let him down! I just glad that they keep making this
to remind us how good Cameron is and remind me some of my sweet
childhood menory.
Peace Electric
pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki) wrote:
> What we will be getting is ALIEN RESURRECTION 2 and 3...
> ie. unimaginative mass market crap that shouldn't bear the Alien
> name.
I understand that you didn't like 'Alien Resurrection', but come on!
Unimaginative? You really think there wasn't anything original or
creative or different in this film? You didn’t like the ways in which
the movie was original, fine, but that doesn't equate to unoriginality.
And mass market? You know that’s not true: AR did awful business
in North America (mainly because it defied so many expectations).
> As someone pointed out already, she *doesn't* hold her own.
> Hell, I liked her performance in Bram Stoker's Dracula, but
> her squeaking whining whipping-boy performance in ALIEN
> RESURRECTION was awful, *especially* because she had to
> live up to the legacy of awesome android performances in the
> first three movies.
Although I think Ryder _does_ hold her own, let's just say --
for argument's sake -- that she doesn't; Does this then make her
performance bad? Since when does “being a weakling” = bad
acting? If instead you're complaining that she sometimes gets
emotional and caring and teary-eyed, then I think you missed
the point of her character.
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Get back in there, you mock-turtle!"
-Walter (Cary Grant), 'His Girl Friday'
Christopher M. Stangl
On 22 Feb 1998, Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
> Well, I'm going to say this outright. ALIEN RESURRECTION is a truly awful
> movie. It's beyond bad actually. Many people criticised ALIEN 3 for not
> treating what came before it with respect, by killing off most of the
> survivors of the ALIENS movie during ALIEN 3's title sequence. Well, that
> lack of respect pales in comparison to the dishonor that ALIEN
> RESURRECTION's creative team have placed upon the Alien series.
I personally couldn't give a six pound poop about whether the
precious Alien Mythology or whatever is treated with "respect".
> This movie takes the two hearts of the Alien movies - Ripley and the Alien
> - and spits in their face.
Spits in the face, or turns on their heads, I was glad to see
someone trying something interesting with the series.
> First of all, Ripley's character is utterly bastardised; her compassion
> and love for human life is twisted;
Cool.
> her character becomes a perverse shell of what she previously was.
Cool again.
> This is deliberately scripted. This is not simply a consequence of the
> story, it is actually one of the main premises for this unnecessary
> sequal.
Of course it's deliberately scripted. You think Joss Whedon just
fell assbackwards into a stack of paper and scribbled words on them at
random?
And no sequel is "necessary". "Aliens" wasn't a necessity.
"Alien 3" wasn't any kind of requirement.
> They claim this movie is a "fresh approach" to the series. Bullshit.
> If the studios had any respect for this series, and wanted another Alien
> movie so badly, they should have taken a genuinely fresh approach by
> introducing a new lead character in a new setting, rather than
> butchering a classic character simply to draw more crowds with the
> familiar cast name.
Really? I don't think you would've liked that either. What'd you
think of "Halloween III", hmm?
> Seeing Ripley in sexually suggestive scenes with the Alien is not
> "fresh" or "cool", nor is it being creative.
What's yer big idea Mr. Screenwriter. Far as I can tell, sexual
suggestivity is one of the primary touchstones of the "Alien" films, and
"Resurrection"'s "sex" scenes took an entirely new (read: fresh) approach
to that vital story component (also read: cool).
> So what's left? The fascinating Alien itself. Yes, you guessed it,
> they've desecrated the Alien too.
If you really think "desecrated" is the right word, then you take
"Alien" far too seriously.
> The lifecyle - the focus of the species- has been blasted away in a few
> paragraphs of awful screenwriting
Actually, as I recall, we spend half the movie setting up this
premise in full...
> and instead the viewer is gifted with seeing the Alien Queen give birth
> like a human. Next, the beautiful creature design that has graced the
> series, is permanently tarnished by a pathetic piece of shit called a
> "newborn" that looks like a cross between Pumpkinhead, a puppy dog, and
> a bowl of vomit.
Indeed, the new baby is stupid looking.
> Oh, and the CGI was terrible. Very terrible. Personally, I can sit
> through most cheap genre movies with fake CGI in every shot - and enjoy
> them -
You enjoy fake-looking CGI? You prefer it to good-looking special
effects, or what? I don't get it.
> I have no idea why the CGI Alien looks so bad, because you would think
> that at least that's *one* thing that money could buy for this sequel.
I don't understand why everybody doesn't go back to stop motion
animation.
> Did I mention Winona Ryder should get nominated for Worst Supporting
> Actress for her performance here? Sigh.
Apart from being a hardcore Winona Ryder fan, it really looks like
she was a little overwhelmed by the material here. She just got swallowed
up in a big, top-heavy production. The vulnerability she was projecting
seemed to come not just from her character, but from her real-life guts.
Maybe she needs a director she feels more comfortable with, but her
timing was off, and she ended up being shot in a manner that made her
look more breakable than wiry. I was more afraid for Ms. Ryder than for
Call.
-Chris Stangl
Walker Murray
Peace Electric wrote in message <34F0BD...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>
>Although I think Ryder _does_ hold her own, let's just say --
>for argument's sake -- that she doesn't; Does this then make her
>performance bad? Since when does “being a weakling” = bad
>acting? If instead you're complaining that she sometimes gets
>emotional and caring and teary-eyed, then I think you missed
>the point of her character.
It's not being a weakling that makes her performance jarring - it's being a
WHINY weakling. Her constant whining brings the action and story to a
screeching halt.
JuanCompos
Christopher M. Stangl wrote:
>
> > I have no idea why the CGI Alien looks so bad, because you would
> > think that at least that's *one* thing that money could buy for this
> > sequel.
>
> I don't understand why everybody doesn't go back to stop
> motion animation.
>
One reason why everybody doesn't go back to stop motion animation is
because it never had much further to go past the age of "Jason and the
Argonauts," In other words it looks like shit. The only major advance
was "go-motion" which added motion blurs but still, ultimately, looked
like shit.
The CGI movement began pretty much with Jurassic Park and so far I'd
really have to say Jurassic Park has had the best example of CGI thus
far. I don't know if they have refused to sell their code so that
everyone is trying to back engineer and thus producing all the shit that
we've been seeing or if no one else knows how to use it and The JP folks
aren't telling.
I don't understand the CGI switch either though. It CAN look better but
lots of times it doesn't, it's generally 3 or 4 times MORE expensive
than traditional puppetry or other FX. The only real advantage is that
it's fairly easily changed once the original CAD phase has past... The
Alien 4 creatures can be moderately reworked and improved to be used
again... and again... and again... and again... which may not be a good
thing but it certainly is advantageous for the studios... So being as
how they won't be spending 15 million on creature effects this time
perhaps they can focus on actually making a good movie.
I wouldn't count on it though. I can hardly wait for Alien- The Animated
Series. You think they'll do anything like what they did with
Beetlejuice and have Call and the Aliens be friends and they can go on
adventures... God I hope not, but being as they already have the
creatures digitized it just a matter of getting the right programs and
the Creature CAD/CGI files and any idiot can start making his own Alien
movies.
How much for a gallon of Alien Milk? Moo-
Aufwiederlesen ŚŹ)
Ser JuanCompos
Alex Crouvier
Peace Electric wrote:
>
> Although I think Ryder _does_ hold her own, let's just say --
> for argument's sake -- that she doesn't; Does this then make her
> performance bad? Since when does “being a weakling” = bad
> acting?
I agree with what Chris Stanghl pointed out is that Ryder's weak
presence is not due to her being a weakling but the other towering
overwhelming presence around her on the set: big budget deal, screaming
producers (probably), yahoos of a cast, the creepy set. She fares better
in smaller more intimate films. What is required in the role is a
projection of sensitivity without being a weakling. Remember Weaver's
performances in the other Alien films. She manages to portray humanity,
sensitivity, maternal doubt, tears, without her becoming a weakling.
Ryder projects an appearance of a weakling in the film. It's a
ball-busting creep-out flick, the last you want to see is a precious
little poodle like Ryder. Maybe Claire Danes or Winslet will fare
better. Eeeck, imagine Gwyneth in the role of Cal.
13th Floor
I'm a big Jeunet fan, and I was actually impressed by how much of his
vision survived. I enjoyed the film, though to be honest the first
"Alien" is the only one I really consider worthwhile.
Michael Kelleher
Alex Crouvier wrote in message <34F113...@geocities.com>...
>Maybe Claire Danes or Winslet will fare
>better. Eeeck, imagine Gwyneth in the role of Cal.
Whats funny about this line is all 4 (I'm including Rider) were considered
for the part of Rose in Titanic. Some say the reason it wasn't Winona was
because she could not get out of filming Alien Resurrection, and Danes
wanted to work on something WITHOUT DiCaprio, while Gwyneth was getting
ready to film a project with her father and her then boyfriend Brad Pitt.
The funny thing is the only one I can see in the role of Rose was Winslet.
Sidenote: Isn't it amazing how anyone can bring Titanic up????
Mike
---
He Said, She Said
Movie Reviews for both sexes
http://www.bitstorm.net/kelleher/index.htm FEATURING TITANIC
Jerome Villanova
Alex Crouvier wrote:
> Peace Electric wrote:
>
> >
> > Although I think Ryder _does_ hold her own, let's just say --
> > for argument's sake -- that she doesn't; Does this then make her
> > performance bad? Since when does ?being a weakling? = bad
> > acting?
>
> I agree with what Chris Stanghl pointed out is that Ryder's weak
> presence is not due to her being a weakling but the other towering
> overwhelming presence around her on the set: big budget deal, screaming
> producers (probably), yahoos of a cast, the creepy set. She fares better
> in smaller more intimate films. What is required in the role is a
> projection of sensitivity without being a weakling. Remember Weaver's
> performances in the other Alien films. She manages to portray humanity,
> sensitivity, maternal doubt, tears, without her becoming a weakling.
> Ryder projects an appearance of a weakling in the film. It's a
> ball-busting creep-out flick, the last you want to see is a precious
> little poodle like Ryder. Maybe Claire Danes or Winslet will fare
> better. Eeeck, imagine Gwyneth in the role of Cal.
An additionnal reason could be the demand of Weaver herself (I'm just
guessing).
As the lead character and anchor of the movie, she might have asked a
downgrading
of Ryder's appearences.
Indeed, when I think 'bout it, Winnona's scenes are too bad to be true.
Jerome Villanova
JuanCompos wrote:
>
>
> I wouldn't count on it though. I can hardly wait for Alien- The Animated
> Series. You think they'll do anything like what they did with
> Beetlejuice and have Call and the Aliens be friends and they can go on
> adventures...
Yes !I always thought I was the only one around who enjoyed Beetlejuice,
and was proud to admit afterwards.
Way to go, man.
Jason Kodani
Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
>
> The Alien trilogy is my overall favorite series of movies. I could >even forgive ALIEN 3's shortcomings, since IMO it worked overall as >part of the trilogy (much like the case with RETURN OF THE JEDI for >Star Wars). So here is what I think of the new fourth Alien film >'ALIEN RESURRECTION'.
Yes, the Alien trilogy is one of the best trilogies of all time. I
never really disliked ALIEN 3 becuase even though it was a step down
from the first two films, I felt it worked well as an independent horror
film. Each film in the trilogy has it's own distinguished look,
different, but each one awe-inspiring and ALIEN 3's is no exception.
David Fincher did a great job of creating a gothic atmosphere and the
set design and architecture looks as though it belongs in the Alien
universe, so to speak. It was a nice close to the trilogy, not the
best, and I think it should have ended the series. After seeing Alien
Resurrection, now I'm sure of it.
> Well, I'm going to say this outright. ALIEN RESURRECTION is a truly >awful movie.
Well put.
> It's beyond bad actually. Many people criticised ALIEN 3 for not
> treating what came before it with respect, by killing off most of the
> survivors of the ALIENS movie during ALIEN 3's title sequence. Well, > that lack of respect pales in comparison to the dishonor that ALIEN
> RESURRECTION's creative team have placed upon the Alien series.
I very much agree. Those people who criticesed ALIEN 3 were expecting
way too much, I guess that's what happens after something like ALIENS.
It was unfortunate that Newt and Hicks were killed, but it sets up the
premise quite well, establishing a bleak setting for the film and giving
a sense of hopelessness for Ripley as she's the only survivor. Not only
that, the prologue sequence was superbly done given Fincher's experience
with music videos. Those people who prefer ALIEN RESURRECTION over
ALIEN 3, well that's their opinion and I respect it, but to say that
it's better, what are they thinking?
> This movie takes the two hearts of the Alien movies - Ripley and the >Alien and spits in their face.
Disgustingly handled indeed.
> First of all, Ripley's character is utterly bastardised; her > compassion and love for human life is twisted; her character becomes a > perverse shell of what she previously was.
This could have been an interesting aspect of the film, seeing Ripley's
internal struggle over who she really is and who she should side with,
the humans or aliens. This never happens however and it's never clear
who she's rooting for. Weaver does what she can with the character and
once again portrays her strong acting abilities, but even I didn't care
for her in this film like I did in the others.
> This is deliberately scripted. This is not
> simply a consequence of the story, it is actually one of the main > premises for this unnecessary sequal. They claim this movie is a > "fresh approach" to the series. Bullshit. If the studios had any > respect for this series, and wanted another Alien movie so badly, they > should have taken a genuinely fresh approach by introducing a new lead > character in a new setting, rather than butchering a classic character > simply to draw more crowds with the familiar cast name. Seeing Ripley > in sexually suggestive scenes with the Alien is not "fresh" or "cool", > nor is it being creative.
The French might disagree with you on that, but I sure wouldn't mind
seeing someone else in the role. A good way to start this new trilogy
would have been a prequel(a la Star Wars) and explain the origin of the
species. It's too late for that now so they're probably going to bring
the aliens to earth. I just hope they get a different director and a
decent script.
> So what's left? The fascinating Alien itself. Yes, you guessed it,
> they've desecrated the Alien too. The lifecyle - the focus of the > species has been blasted away in a few paragraphs of awful > creenwriting, and instead the viewer is gifted with seeing the Alien > Queen give birth like a human.
This didn't make much sense to me. They took liberties with the
lifecycle in the past films but not so much as they have here. I'll buy
the idea of scientists cloning Ripley and extracting a Queen from her
using DNA, but how could the Queen have laid so many eggs in so little
time without the egg sac? And how could it give birth to one species
once and then its own? It should be one or the other, preferably the
aliens.
> Next, the beautiful creature design that has graced the series, is > permanently tarnished by a pathetic piece of shit called a "newborn" > that looks like a cross between Pumpkinhead, a puppy dog, and a bowl > of vomit.
I won't even get started on the "newborn," but I didn't like the normal
alien designs either. They're given the least creative thought out of
all four films, too much slime and no need for the hind legs. The eggs
were too bubbly as well. All they're efforts to impress us failed in
the end.
> It comes as no surprise that H.R. Giger had no creative input at all,
> however it is a surprise that he isn't even given a screen credit for
> "original Alien design" for the other normal adult Aliens seen in the
> film; a final sign of contempt by the ALIEN RESURRECTION team for the
> great movies that came before it perhaps?
I think he WAS credited for that, but it wasn't good enough. Giger
wanted credit for the alien designs in the film itself, something he's
wanted since the second film. I say he deserved it.
> Oh, and the CGI was terrible. Very terrible. Personally, I can sit
> through most cheap genre movies with fake CGI in every shot - and > enjoy them - but the use of CGI in ALIEN RESURRECTION is not > acceptable simply because the final result looks like a joke compared > even with the original effects seen in 1979's ALIEN. I have no idea
CGI, who needs it? I say they should only use it for something that
can't be done in real life like the liquid metal in T2 or those huge,
hulking dinosaurs in JP. They don't need to make a CG alien, just get a
guy in a rubber suits or use life-size puppets(which also looked
terribly fake when up close). I did like the way the CG aliens were
swimming though, that looked somewhat life-like. I don't think the CGI
is AS terrible as you say, it was just unnecessary.
> why the CGI Alien looks so bad, because you would think that at least > that's *one* thing that money could buy for this sequel. (ALIENS had > a far smaller budget of $16 Million!)
All CGI effects are way too expensive, they would have been better off
with a man in a suit. I never knew ALIENS only cost 16 mill, I'm
impressed. That's a far cry from A4's $75 million budget. The fact is
you don't need a huge budget to make a good film(I'm sure James Cameron
will learn this sooner or later).
> Ok, I will try to say something good about this movie now. Hmm... Ron
> Perlman played his role well... umm... the scene where the two Aliens > kill the third was clever. Ok, that's about as positive as I'm going > to get. Did I mention Winona Ryder should get nominated for Worst > Supporting Actress for her performance here? Sigh.
Ron Perlman kicked ass! He and the other characters should have been
fleshed out more. The two aliens killing the third was a good idea on
paper, I just didn't like the way it was executed due to poor
puppeteering effects. I usually like Ryder, but here she seemed out of
place. Leave her out of the fifth film.
> To sum things up, ALIEN RESURRECTION even makes derivative genre films
> like SPECIES seem worthwhile by comparison. This is a bad movie. But
> worse than that, it tarnishes what I used to consider one of the best
> series in sci-fi films.
Yeah, at least SPECIES isn't a part of the Alien series as ALIEN
RESURRECTION is. I have to agree that it has ruined the series as being
a classic trilogy of films. Now, unlike the first three films, it has
degenerated into a series solely based on making money. How sad.
Franknseus
> Now I have to say something. First of all , why any one has the
>right to expect a good sequel?(especially the 4th installment.)
Well, I was one of the people who liked this particular sequel, but the
people who didn't have every right to feel disappointed. Sure, the percentage
of sequels that are useless is probably higher than those that are worthwhile.
But for that very reason, fans of the first movie in any series want there to
either be a worthy followup or none at all.
Whether people will admit it or not, there are a lot of good sequels in
existence. The characters in Scream 2 should have brought up Dawn of the Dead
and Evil Dead 2 in their discussion (along with Aliens, Terminator 2, Empire
Strikes Back and Godfather 2). And I'd personally throw in Texas Chainsaw
Massacre Part 2 and Batman Returns.
Peace Electric
Walker Murray wrote:
> It's not being a weakling that makes her performance jarring
> - it's being a WHINY weakling. Her constant whining brings
> the action and story to a screeching halt.
Maybe I'm just being stubborn, but again: Why does that make her
performance bad? Do whiners not exist in the 'Alien' universe?* I
mean, all you have to say is, "I just couldn't buy Ryder as a weak
little waif of an android." That's a criticism I can at least make
sense of. But instead, you and Peter are just saying, "Ryder plays
a weak little waif of an android" as though that's a criticism in
and of itself.
BTW, ignoring her performance, what did you at least think about
her look (this is to Peter too)? Didn't you think Jeunet made her
look like she fit into that universe? Didn’t you like the contrast in
size between her and the others? How about that shot with the beer
and the boxing gloves? I thought that was one of the best images of
the year.
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Get back in there, you mock-turtle!"
-Walter (Cary Grant), 'His Girl Friday'
(* Just for the oft-mentioned though non-existent record, I
personally didn't find Ryder whiny or weak at all -- actually,
I thought she was sort of touching in certain scenes.)
Peace Electric
Peter Ronaszeki
"Christopher M. Stangl" <cst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>On 22 Feb 1998, Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
>> Well, I'm going to say this outright. ALIEN RESURRECTION is a truly awful
>> movie. It's beyond bad actually. Many people criticised ALIEN 3 for not
>> treating what came before it with respect, by killing off most of the
>> survivors of the ALIENS movie during ALIEN 3's title sequence. Well, that
>> lack of respect pales in comparison to the dishonor that ALIEN
>> RESURRECTION's creative team have placed upon the Alien series.
(snip)
> I personally couldn't give a six pound poop about whether the
>precious Alien Mythology or whatever is treated with "respect".
In that case, I don't particularly care to discuss the Alien movies with
you. *shrug* Feel free to enjoy ALIEN RESURRECTION to your heart's
content.
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
Peter Ronaszeki
Trent Lucier <tlu...@acs.bu.edu> writes:
>> Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
>> It's true the "newborn" is ridiculous.It only serves to set you in sarcastic
>> mode if you were not already laughing
>> at every atempt to scare.
>While I somewhat enjoyed the movie, by the end I was just thinking, "My god,
>this has NOTHING to do with the first two films."
I didn't write the paragraph about the newborn that you attributed to me
above. Please take care with follow-up headers... thanks.
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
David Goldstein
>
>Peace Electric wrote in message <34F0BD...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>>
>>Although I think Ryder _does_ hold her own, let's just say --
>>for argument's sake -- that she doesn't; Does this then make her
>>performance bad? Since when does “being a weakling” = bad
>>acting? If instead you're complaining that she sometimes gets
>>emotional and caring and teary-eyed, then I think you missed
>>the point of her character.
>
>It's not being a weakling that makes her performance jarring - it's being a
>WHINY weakling. Her constant whining brings the action and story to a
>screeching halt.
>
Couldn't have said it better myself. I LIKE Wynona as an actress, but
every time she appeared on screen, I was reminded that it was just a
movie. She looked like a little girl trapped on some big production.
Stick to quilts Wynona, and stay out of Alien movies!!
Dave.
Christopher M. Stangl
Ah. I see. Perhaps you're misinterpreting my six-pound remark.
I simply don't demand that whatever director and writer are hired
to work on an "Alien" film approach it with an awe-filled reverence.
I think that would just intimidate them into a lack of creativity. I've
no interest in seeing the same "Alien" story retold four times.
An example. I think a lot of Shakespeare gets approached
like this, and that is why really pretentious productions of "Hamlet"
(BBC versions) are painful to watch, and Branaugh's film was so much fun-
respectful, understanding, but not afraid to do a little cutting, pasting,
hacking through underbrush, or some serious inventing.
-Chris Stangl
Randal Morris
Jerome Villanova wrote:
>
> What upsets me the most about Alien The Resurection,
> is the poor performance of J-P Jeunet.
> I was terribly disapointed to see a much too predictable movie :
> Aliens are in the ship, let's run, long corridors, easy suspense, escape,
> climax, happy end.
>
> I really wish that people who didn't like the scriot or the way it was played
> or shot,
> take a look at Delicatessen before they deem Jeunet as a zero.
Yes! What Jeunet and Caro did with Delicatessen and The City of Lost
Children was beautiful. Both movies are so rich in visuals and
cinematography. Alien 4 had some great opportunities for fantastic
visual sequences, but it seems they got clipped down and left aside.
The 'birthing' scene was intense in the way it was shot, but it seemed
rushed, with poor FX, and the end impression was a major letdown.
I blame the script and the production, not Jeunet, and I wonder how much
freedom he really had, and if the final film is what he really wanted.
If you thought Alien 4 had promise but fell short, then check out
Jeunet's earlier work; you will be impressed.
--Ranman
Christopher M. Stangl
I'm going to blame Jenuet for her awkwardness in "Resurrection".
Winona Ryder can be perfectly at home in big budget special effects films-
witness her work in "Bram Stoker's Dracula", "Beetlejuice", "Edward
Scissorhands"- but she needs the right director, and a film that is more
interested in characters than "Resurrection", which is mostly a showcase of
Gross Things for Aliens to Do.
And I hope she stays a loooong way away from quilts from now on.
At least in "Alien: Resurrection", she was *sort of* recapturing the
interest she used to have in acting in dark, visionary films ("Heathers",
the Burton movies)
-Chris Stangl
Jouni Knuutinen
Rob Rodgers <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Peter Ronaszeki) wrote:
> >That is *not* what I'm saying at all. Why on earth must each movie add
> >something to the Alien reproductive cycle?? The first two films took care
> >of that aspect nicely.
> Cameron's idiotic and unimaginative changes to the life cycle made
> Aliens conflict with the first film.
WRONG. (IMHO)
Aliens made the cycle complete rather than conflicting with it.
We had seen the eggs, right, but what created the eggs?
Gotcha.
> >We understand how the Aliens reproduce. I don't
> >trust half-assed screenwriters to come up with anything new and acceptable
> >in this regard (see ALIEN RESURRECTION). *Don't mess with the lifecycle!*
> >As far as I'm concerned, the only people qualified and proven to mess with
> >the lifecycle are H.R. Giger, Dan O'Bannon, James Cameron and Ridley
> >Scott.
> If all Cameron could come up with was to say, "Oh, let's give them a
> QUEEN!" (like the way every game has to have a Boss at the end) then
> he wasn't qualified, either.
Aliens is propably the best out of the series and Aliens has the best
script. And like Cameron has proved since, he's a very good writer.
AND, like I said above, the cycle wasn't complete without the Queen.
--
_________Mies vailla jarkea:__________
| Jouni "Hippi" Knuutinen |
| 'J.T.K.-Avoin tapaus' |
---------------+------------------------------------+------------
|"The fact that he owns a library card doesn't make him a Yoda!"|
| -Detective Mills, Seven- |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steven Cavanagh
"Michael Kelleher" <kell...@bitstorm.net> writes:
<Unlurks>
Sure, I hated the pathetic CGI, the jurassic Aliens, etc etc etc, but two
main points stood out for me:
1) There were no characters I remotely liked, especially Ripley. I've seen
Hudson overcome his fear, Ripley's maternal role with Newt, Hicks pulling
everyone together... All AR showed me were self-centred morons whose
whole dialogue was "I'm a BAD mutha! I'm a BAD mutha!"
2) I can't think of a time when the characters were particularly scared of
the aliens- they just gave lots of badass bravado (such as the tongue
souvenir scene). If they're not scared of the aliens, how the hell do they
expect us to be?
All, of course, IMHO.
<sinks back into lurkdom>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steven Cavanagh (Cav) | Author of the Songbook of the Whills
scav...@sydney.DIALix.oz.au | Author of the Star Wars RPG stories
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace Electric
David Goldstein wrote:
(Vague spoilers: 'The Professional'/'Leon')
> [Winona Ryder] looked like a little girl trapped on some big
> production.
Right, and that was the point: she was _supposed_ to look tiny
and frail in comparison to the others. It's sorta like me saying,
"Jeez, in 'The Professional' Natalie Portman looked too much
like a little twelve-year-old girl -- just way too small to be a
convincing ‘cleaner’." Well, yeah . . . exactly.
Michael Kelleher
Steven Cavanagh wrote in message <88827166...@fermi.dialix.com.au>...
>"Michael Kelleher" <kell...@bitstorm.net> writes:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~
huh?? what did I write in this post??
Mike
Mark D. Cordy
On 23 Feb 1998 22:07:51 Steven Cavanagh wrote about "Re: ALIEN RESURRECTION - Utterly terri":
> 2) I can't think of a time when the characters were particularly scared of
> the aliens- they just gave lots of badass bravado (such as the tongue
> souvenir scene). If they're not scared of the aliens, how the hell do they
> expect us to be?
>
> All, of course, IMHO.
>
Bingo!
I saw the movie...
..something was missing.
Couldn't put my finger on it. But I think you have it!
Maybe..maybe showed a little when swimming underwater...
but the rest of the time...nothing.
I did not think it was THAT bad. But I agree that you may have found the missing link!!!
mark
Bughunter
>
AIIEEE!!! No Sigourney??? Blasphemy! The Alien franchise without
Sigourney is like Star Wars without James Earl Jones as DV. Especially
now that Ripley is more human than human: she's part Alien. Don't you
see the potential? She can double whoop-ass now that she can sense
them.
What 20th Cent Fox needs to do is give James Cameron (G O D) a titanic
full of cash to get him to do another. Jimmy was da best, my man.
Plus, with him behind the helm, Sig might have another chance at an
Academy Award. Wouldn't that just tickle your breathing tubes?
One MAJOR pick about Ressurection. Okay, Aliens happened 57 years after
Alien, right? Alien^3 another few weeks, then Ressurection came *200*
years after that. Why the hell are they still using bullets??? C'mon,
you'd think that a society that can travel to distant stars could create
efficent energy weapons. Plasma throwers, particle beam weaps, heck,
even a simple laser would suffice!
K, latez folks.
Bughunter
Peter Ronaszeki
Peace Electric writes:
>BTW, ignoring her performance, what did you at least think about
>her look (this is to Peter too)? Didn't you think Jeunet made her
>look like she fit into that universe?
>that shot with the beer and the boxing gloves? I thought that was one
>of the best images of the year.
I'm sorry but I really can't think of anything positive to say about
Wynona Ryder's character, including any of the things you mention above.
Her appearence and visual mannerisms really didn't work for me at all in
the context of this particular Alien movie.
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
Jerome Villanova
Randal Morris wrote:
> > I really wish that people who didn't like the scriot or the way it was played
> > or shot,
> > take a look at Delicatessen before they deem Jeunet as a zero.
>
> Yes! What Jeunet and Caro did with Delicatessen and The City of Lost
> Children was beautiful. Both movies are so rich in visuals and
> cinematography. Alien 4 had some great opportunities for fantastic
> visual sequences, but it seems they got clipped down and left aside.
> The 'birthing' scene was intense in the way it was shot, but it seemed
> rushed, with poor FX, and the end impression was a major letdown.
>
> I blame the script and the production, not Jeunet, and I wonder how much
> freedom he really had, and if the final film is what he really wanted.
I think you have a point here.
Caro didn't take part in the movie alongside Jeunet, alledgedly for fear of lack
of freedom.
Jeunet didn't admit to any kind of "pressure", but confessed he had to "compose"
with the producers.
That's what I read in "Mad Movies" anyhow.
Basically, I think Jeunet got used for is reputation and didn't realize (or didn't
want to admit) that
he had to follow "indications" instead of ad libing as he used to do.
Damian Allen
>The characters in Scream 2 should have brought up Dawn of the Dead
>and Evil Dead 2 in their discussion (along with Aliens, Terminator 2,
Empire
>Strikes Back and Godfather 2).
Actually they did bring up some of those,don't you remember the "hard-on
for Cameron" line,or the "part of the trilogy.Not acceptable." line?
Damian
------------------------------
"Indecent Exposure is Fun!"
Franknseus
>>The characters in Scream 2 should have brought up Dawn of the Dead
>>and Evil Dead 2 in their discussion (along with Aliens, Terminator 2,
>Empire
>>Strikes Back and Godfather 2).
>
>Actually they did bring up some of those,don't you remember the "hard-on
>for Cameron" line,or the "part of the trilogy.Not acceptable." line?
I worded that a little awkwardly - the movies in the parentheses were the
ones they did mention in Scream 2. Evil Dead 2 and Dawn of the Dead were two
obvious horror sequels they should have brought up, but I suspect Williamson
knew that they really would blow holes in the argument for sequel suckage.
I don't think Resurrection is even close to a sequel on that level, but I
sure did like it anyway.
Michael Brooke
JuanCompos <Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Christopher M. Stangl wrote:
> >
> > > I have no idea why the CGI Alien looks so bad, because you would
> > > think that at least that's *one* thing that money could buy for this
> > > sequel.
> >
> > I don't understand why everybody doesn't go back to stop
> > motion animation.
> >
>
> One reason why everybody doesn't go back to stop motion animation is
> because it never had much further to go past the age of "Jason and the
> Argonauts," In other words it looks like shit.
'The Nightmare Before Christmas' and 'James and the Giant Peach' don't
exactly fall into this category (and are several steps beyond 'Jason' in
terms of technical excellence)! And I've seen some amazing examples of
stop-motion emerging from British studios in recent years - it's
becoming something of a British animation speciality.
And in any case, stop motion always has a colossal advantage over CGI in
that you're constantly aware that you're actually looking at a real
three-dimensional object. The Czech animator Jan Svankmajer, virtually
all of whose films have a stop-motion element, says that he absolutely
rejects computer animation because it's not real: you're looking at
something that doesn't exist, and which therefore has no inner life.
With stop motion, you're taking an inanimate object and breathing life
into it - which is why I'll always prefer the dinosaurs in 'King Kong'
to those in 'Jurassic Park'.
As for the "looks like shit" claim, it really depends on whether you
place technical excellence above imagination. I find Svankmajer's
"morphing" effects (which he was doing decades before 'Terminator 2')
have infinitely more impact because you know that it was done by hand -
he didn't sit down and push buttons and get the computer to generate all
the in-between stages. True, there are unavoidable rough edges - but
you can see the work that went into them in a way that you absolutely
can't with CGI.
You could easily remake Svankmajer's 'Dimensions of Dialogue' - which
features a variety of heads made up of fruit, vegetables, household
objects and books constantly devouring and regurgitating each other -
using CGI, and it would probably be rather easy to do. But I bet you
wouldn't have audiences gasping in astonishment they way I've heard them
do when they see the original - because the hundreds of moving objects
were all very obviously calculated and placed there by hand: no path
generation or automatic in-betweening. One of the beauties of
stop-motion is that it can't be computerised or mechanised - it's the
slowest and most painstaking craft in all cinema, which is why the best
stop-motion has an inner power that CGI can never possibly match.
> The CGI movement began pretty much with Jurassic Park
What about 'Terminator 2'? Or even 'The Abyss'?
> and so far I'd
> really have to say Jurassic Park has had the best example of CGI thus
> far. I don't know if they have refused to sell their code so that
> everyone is trying to back engineer and thus producing all the shit that
> we've been seeing or if no one else knows how to use it and The JP folks
> aren't telling.
Going from the examples I've seen thus far I just find CGI very very
boring for the most part, because it's very rarely combined with any
real imagination. Being able to do literally anything paradoxically
ends up limiting film-makers' imaginations rather than stretching them.
Svankmajer's work is astounding because you're watching the virtuoso
manipulation of obviously real objects in real three-dimensional space,
but the dinosaurs in 'Jurassic Park' meant nothing to me emotionally
beyond the "wow" factor - in that respect they're way behind, say, Carlo
Rambaldi's creation in 'E.T.' And I don't think 'Babe' would have
worked half as well if the pig had been an entirely CGI creation (rather
than a combination of real pigs, animatronic puppets and CGI
post-production on the mouth movements).
Michael
Trav 1138
I sure hope there a Directors Cut of Ressurection in the future because a lot
of footage was left unused, most probably because the producers at Fox thougt
they were too "weird", like Ripleys dream sequence (a recurring motif in all of
Jeunets films, long and short). In any case, Im happy that Jeunet is sticking
to making movies in France. I liked Ressurection but it would be sad to see a
visionary like him stay in Hollywood and go the way of John Woo.
Luis Canau
Jouni Knuutinen <jo...@lyseo.edu.ouka.fi> wrote:
[...]
>Aliens is propably the best out of the series and Aliens has the best
>script. And like Cameron has proved since, he's a very good writer.
>AND, like I said above, the cycle wasn't complete without the Queen.
Well, I liked his Aliens, but I disagree with saying he is a good writer.
Oscars don't mean anything in what concerns "quality" but even them chosed to
stay out of that territory. IMO Cameron is a lousy writer. But if you think
the T movie has good dialogues OK then. I think is bad writing can be "good"
in some movies, if you know what I mean.... I mean, it's easy to say Aliens is
a good movie, but then someone would say "yes, great dialogues"? Someone will
say T was well written? Well, they might, but the case is differente, since T
is a religious movie, a transcendal experience. For some, that is.
Luis Canau_________________________________
<luis....@mail.EUnot.pt> EUnot -> EUnet)
Cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/id005098/cinedie
_________Pro - w i d e s c r e e n_______________
Luis Canau
Jerome Villanova <vi...@robot.uvsq.fr> wrote:
[...]
>Basically, I think Jeunet got used for is reputation and didn't realize (or didn't
>want to admit) that he had to follow "indications" instead of ad libing as he used to do.
In the interview I heard with him, he clearly stated there were some things to
follow. What he did was put it in a way that it was not a bad thing. You know,
"everybody's been so nice to me" and stuff like that. Basically there was a
script and they hired a director (I think the interviewer asked him about his
experience as a "director-for-hire" and this was assumed by him). The director
was know for good visuals in fantasy "art" movies and he gave his personal
touch inside the limits of the Hollywood production, he gave some ideias too -
and it seem that most were accepted.. - and so on.
I suppose nobody wants to discuss this movie is an "auteur" movie like the
previous ones with Caro...
David Goldstein
>David Goldstein wrote:
>
>(Vague spoilers: 'The Professional'/'Leon')
>
>> [Winona Ryder] looked like a little girl trapped on some big
>> production.
>
>Right, and that was the point: she was _supposed_ to look tiny
>and frail in comparison to the others.
Granted her character was supposed to be frail, my point was that it
didn't even seem that Wynona was IN character. Instead she served as
an annoying reminder that it was just a movie. Let's just say that
I've seen her being frail in other movies, and she's GOOD in them
(Mermaids, How to make an American Quilt). In A/R, she gave a horrid
performance and consequently didn't fit in. If I had to reason why
she flubbed in this movie, I'd say it's because of the large
production involved (and the pressure that stems from it).
Newt in Aliens, who was much frailer than Call, fit in perfectly. It
seemed like the producers were just trying to pigeon-hole Wyonana into
the same character and it failed miserably.
> It's sorta like me saying,
>"Jeez, in 'The Professional' Natalie Portman looked too much
>like a little twelve-year-old girl -- just way too small to be a
>convincing ‘cleaner’." Well, yeah . . . exactly.
Same comment above with regard to Newt. Portman was INCREDIBLE in
Leon/Professional and her performance wasn't in your face "Wow! I'm
just glad to be here!!"
David
Franknseus
>And in any case, stop motion always has a colossal advantage over CGI in
>that you're constantly aware that you're actually looking at a real
>three-dimensional object.
I definitely agree with you here. I worried about the state of modern special
effects when I was watching something and was impressed that a blob of slimey
something or other on the ground looked like an actual solid object. I admire a
lot of CGI achievements including Jurassic Park, which I think is still the
best of its kind on a technical level. To me those might as well be real
dinosaurs, which is what they were going for. Unfortunately, the popularity of
CGI has led to a lot of really bad effects because filmmakers think that
audiences don't want to see traditional techniques even when they would work
far better. When CGI can only be done on a Mortal Kombat level it seems like
they might as well figure out how to do it with, you know, objects.
However, there is a downside to stop motion as well, and that is scale. When
I'm watching Nightmare Before Christmas (which is one of my all time favorite
movies) I have trouble thinking of Jack Skellington as being 8 feet tall,
because I always remember that these are dolls on a miniature set. The same
goes for James and the Giant Peach, where I keep thinking James got shrunken to
the size of the bugs instead of the other way around.
> The Czech animator Jan Svankmajer, virtually
>all of whose films have a stop-motion element, says that he absolutely
>rejects computer animation because it's not real: you're looking at
>something that doesn't exist, and which therefore has no inner life.
It's an interesting philosophy, and he certainly has the right to say it
considering the brilliant work that he's done with stop motion. But really if
you think about it it doesn't hold much weight. If computer images don't exist
or have an inner life, then neither do 2-dimensional drawings. And I think most
of us could think of a hundred or so characters created through cel-animation
who, as far as we are concerned, have an inner life.
>Going from the examples I've seen thus far I just find CGI very very
>boring for the most part, because it's very rarely combined with any
>real imagination.
I think that's really the problem. There have been a few amazing stunts in
realism, like Jurassic Park, and there has been some imaginative stuff like The
Frighteners, but there hasn't really been a mad genius to come along and blow
us away with CGI. I think we need a CGI equivalent to Rob Bottin's creature in
The Thing. (Not a copy, an equivalent.)
My favorite use of CGI to date is Mars Attacks!, which Burton was
deliberately trying to mimic stop motion with. I guess MA! could be used as the
ultimate comparison between the two since Burton originally planned to do the
movie with stop motion and even hired the animators and had them start working
on it. Eventually they had to abandon that plan because in order to afford to
do the stop motion (even on his highest budget ever) they had to cut out two
thirds of the Martian scenes. With computer animation, they were able to put
those scenes back in and also show large groups of Martians, which would have
been prohibitively difficult using stop motion. I suppose they also saved a lot
of animators from going insane trying to take those little glass helmets off to
change the expressions without getting fingerprints on them.
And now that I've seen the result, I can't imagine the movie being done as
well with stop motion, even though I usually prefer it. For the most part, the
Martians look the same as they would have in stop motion because the CGI models
are scanned in from the stop motion models, and Burton even had ILM not smooth
out the movements as much as the industry standard because he wanted it to look
like the "herky jerky" Ray Harryhausen style. But to me, they still look like
they are really there, and really that size, unlike the stop motion bugs when
they are composited with live action in James and the Giant Peach. And in MA!,
this realism (combined with the cartoony design of the Martians) really creates
a nightmarish feel.
infan...@hotmail.com
I completely disagree with you. Alien: Resurrection was a thrilling film,
alone or as part of the series. (My personal opinion about the series is that
all the even-numbered films are the best--so far. We'll see what Alien 5 has
to offer first. :>)
You mentioned that the writers, in their attempt to be creative,
"bastardized" the character of Ripley. I don't think she was bastardized--you
have to remember, the Ripley clone was a) made of her DNA and DNA from the
aliens themselves, and b) she was #8 of the series of clones. Who knows? If
they had done a #9, that Ripley might've been an improvement--the humanity and
compassion of Lt. Ellen Ripley with the strength of a xenomorph. Her distance
came from unfamiliarity with the situation (til hell broke loose, anyway) and
probably because, like I said, she's half-Alien. As for this "sexually
suggestive" stuff, I think you read something else into it. When exactly did
you find her interaction with the Aliens sexual? Personally, she was more
sexual with Call and Purvis (I mean, she sniffed him, fer crissakes).
The "newborn" and the new Alien breeding techniques: What made you think the
scientists would stop with a human-looking alien? Of course they had to have
an alien-looking human (or maybe that's all vice versa. Ick.). Evil scientists
never know when to say when! ;>
There were still the classic, creepy methods of Alien "impregnation": eggs,
facehuggers, etc. Hell, one of the heroes had one inside him--pretty cool, I
thought; especially when he used it to his advantage against Wren!
Personally, I found several good elements in the film--Ron Perlman was
fabulous, very true! Fave line: "You're the grease monkey; I mostly hurt
people!" I also liked seeing Michael Wincott and Brad Dourif; they're always
good (and like my sister said: Didn't the newborn resemble Dr. Brad just a
little? Ew!). Gary Dourdan and Dominique Pinon were impressive, and as always
sci-fi god Leland Orser, as the doomed Purvis, stole every scene he was in (I
kinda hope they clone him in the next one...).
There were only a few bad things that detracted from the movie for me: Kim
Flowers as the whiny female co-pilot (shades of Veronica Cartwright) and that
DiStefano guy--he was okay until Winona got shot, then he was obnoxious as all
hell.
I hope you liked reading my counterpoint, because I sure liked reading your
intial post. (It's all too rare that anyone posts something resembling
intelligent conversation rather than flames or ridicule. It's like sitting in
on a 15-year-old discussion group sometimes!)
infantchild
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
JuanCompos
Michael Brooke wrote:
>
> JuanCompos <Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[[...]]
> > The CGI movement began pretty much with Jurassic Park
>
> What about 'Terminator 2'? Or even 'The Abyss'?
>
Ah... The water Tenticle in The Abyss... The first real example of a CGI
"character." It was also fairly expensive given it's simplicity.
The effects in T2 were also wonderful... And also expensive.
Jurassic Park was the beginning of the MOVEMENT to CGI... others had
used it in the past but only in a few scenes, usually with a locked down
camera and at great expense... JP has the CGI characters in probabaly
75% of the scenes... and the applications that were created allowed for
a moving grid. (EG: the scene where' they're running accross the field
with the herd/flock of gallimimus)
Jurassic Park might not have been the first time CGI was used but the
techniques used for that film advanced the method 100-fold.
Aufwiederlesen ŚŹ)
Ser JuanCompos
PS- Bill Gates just opened an R/D office about 10 minutes from here...
Ya think I should go ask for a job?
Kim Isaac Greenblatt
Plus, CGI _can_ stand on it's own if the source material is written
to take advantage of it. My example is the CASPER THE GHOST movie.
The first one, not the one made direct for video sales....
There were more CGI effects in that movie than Jurassic Park and at
least for me, and lots of other box office viewers, they worked because
the (no pun intended) medium fit.
WARNING, SPOILER COMMENT ....COMING:
Well, okay the script got crappy towards the very end and I was pissed
that Casper couldn't remain a boy longer and have sexual intercourse
with the girl....
Thanks for your time,
Kim Isaac Greenblatt
Michael Brooke wrote:
>
> JuanCompos <Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Christopher M. Stangl wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have no idea why the CGI Alien looks so bad, because you would
> > > > think that at least that's *one* thing that money could buy for this
> > > > sequel.
> > >
> > > I don't understand why everybody doesn't go back to stop
> > > motion animation.
> > >
> >
> > One reason why everybody doesn't go back to stop motion animation is
> > because it never had much further to go past the age of "Jason and the
> > Argonauts," In other words it looks like shit.
>
> 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' and 'James and the Giant Peach' don't
> exactly fall into this category (and are several steps beyond 'Jason' in
> terms of technical excellence)! And I've seen some amazing examples of
> stop-motion emerging from British studios in recent years - it's
> becoming something of a British animation speciality.
>
> And in any case, stop motion always has a colossal advantage over CGI in
> that you're constantly aware that you're actually looking at a real
> three-dimensional object. The Czech animator Jan Svankmajer, virtually
> all of whose films have a stop-motion element, says that he absolutely
> rejects computer animation because it's not real: you're looking at
> something that doesn't exist, and which therefore has no inner life.
> With stop motion, you're taking an inanimate object and breathing life
> into it - which is why I'll always prefer the dinosaurs in 'King Kong'
> to those in 'Jurassic Park'.
>
> As for the "looks like shit" claim, it really depends on whether you
> place technical excellence above imagination. I find Svankmajer's
> "morphing" effects (which he was doing decades before 'Terminator 2')
> have infinitely more impact because you know that it was done by hand -
> he didn't sit down and push buttons and get the computer to generate all
> the in-between stages. True, there are unavoidable rough edges - but
> you can see the work that went into them in a way that you absolutely
> can't with CGI.
>
> You could easily remake Svankmajer's 'Dimensions of Dialogue' - which
> features a variety of heads made up of fruit, vegetables, household
> objects and books constantly devouring and regurgitating each other -
> using CGI, and it would probably be rather easy to do. But I bet you
> wouldn't have audiences gasping in astonishment they way I've heard them
> do when they see the original - because the hundreds of moving objects
> were all very obviously calculated and placed there by hand: no path
> generation or automatic in-betweening. One of the beauties of
> stop-motion is that it can't be computerised or mechanised - it's the
> slowest and most painstaking craft in all cinema, which is why the best
> stop-motion has an inner power that CGI can never possibly match.
>
> > The CGI movement began pretty much with Jurassic Park
>
> What about 'Terminator 2'? Or even 'The Abyss'?
>
> > and so far I'd
> > really have to say Jurassic Park has had the best example of CGI thus
> > far. I don't know if they have refused to sell their code so that
> > everyone is trying to back engineer and thus producing all the shit that
> > we've been seeing or if no one else knows how to use it and The JP folks
> > aren't telling.
>
> Going from the examples I've seen thus far I just find CGI very very
> boring for the most part, because it's very rarely combined with any
Kim Isaac Greenblatt
infan...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I completely disagree with you. Alien: Resurrection was a thrilling >film, alone or as part of the series. (My personal opinion about the >series is that all the even-numbered films are the best--so far. We'll >see what Alien 5 has to offer first. :>)
> You mentioned that the writers, in their attempt to be creative,
> "bastardized" the character of Ripley. I don't think she was >bastardized--you have to remember, the Ripley clone was a) made of her >DNA and DNA from the aliens themselves, and b) she was #8 of the series >of clones. Who knows? If they had done a #9, that Ripley might've been >an improvement--the humanity and compassion of Lt. Ellen Ripley with >the strength of a xenomorph. Her distance came from unfamiliarity with >the situation (til hell broke loose, anyway) and probably because, like >I said, she's half-Alien. As for this "sexually
> suggestive" stuff, I think you read something else into it. When >exactly did you find her interaction with the Aliens sexual? >Personally, she was more sexual with Call and Purvis (I mean, she >sniffed him, fer crissakes).
She sniffed him because of her "alien bits" as one might say. Since the
aliens are blind, they use a sense of smell, psychic or energy fields or
what have you crap that the writers decide to add. I agree with you on
the sexuality thing. Personally, I think people confuse "maternal
instincts" with sex here.
WARNING - SOME COMMENTS CAN BE SPOILERS - READ AT OWN RISK..
Hasn't the thread for all the movies been sort of a battle between
matriarchies - human versus bug? Well, awright, in the first film
it's unclear but everything else in the series has been fairly
consistant with the Aliens Universe. In AR Ripley, er, I guess, her
clone, gets to be present as the new species is born and the hybrid
bug senses that it has more in common with Ripley. That's pretty
maternal.
The scenes where the bugs were carrying her to the birthing and her
"link" to the bugs, I read as more of her connection to the hive mind
and not something as basic as sexual in this case.
Yes, there is a sexual tension in the Alien Universe films in one form
or another but I'd agree there was more between Call and Ripley Clone.
I also have to agree that I wished everybody would have shown a little
more fear instead of brashness.
Okay, feel free to blast away...
Thanks for your time.
Kim Greenblatt
Unknown Subject
In <1d4yqy0.1ec...@everyman.demon.co.uk>
mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) writes:
>
>JuanCompos <Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Christopher M. Stangl wrote:
>> >
>> > > I have no idea why the CGI Alien looks so bad, because you would
>> > > think that at least that's *one* thing that money could buy for
this
>> > > sequel.
>> >
>> > I don't understand why everybody doesn't go back to stop
>> > motion animation.
>> >
>>
>> One reason why everybody doesn't go back to stop motion animation is
>> because it never had much further to go past the age of "Jason and
the
>> Argonauts," In other words it looks like shit.
>
>'The Nightmare Before Christmas' and 'James and the Giant Peach' don't
>exactly fall into this category (and are several steps beyond 'Jason'
in
>terms of technical excellence)!
Absolutely. NIGHTMARE was so incredibly smooth, if I hadn't known from
the start it was done through stop-motion, I would have wondered if it
*was* stop motion.
As to why they don't go back to it. . .it's enormously time consuming.
>And in any case, stop motion always has a colossal advantage over CGI
in
>that you're constantly aware that you're actually looking at a real
>three-dimensional object. The Czech animator Jan Svankmajer,
virtually
>all of whose films have a stop-motion element, says that he absolutely
>rejects computer animation because it's not real: you're looking at
>something that doesn't exist, and which therefore has no inner life.
>With stop motion, you're taking an inanimate object and breathing life
>into it - which is why I'll always prefer the dinosaurs in 'King Kong'
>to those in 'Jurassic Park'.
Hm. I think it's six of one and half dozen of the other. While stop
motion does have a warmth and "inner life" to it that CGI lacks, I did
think the dinos in Jurassic Park worked wonderfully. They seemed very
organic to me, which is a quality I'd never seen CGI achieve before.
Where it falls down the most is in trying to reproduce living things.
For the most part, I think it's best when used in projects like TOY
STORY, where the characters are objects.
>As for the "looks like shit" claim, it really depends on whether you
>place technical excellence above imagination. I find Svankmajer's
>"morphing" effects (which he was doing decades before 'Terminator 2')
>have infinitely more impact because you know that it was done by hand
-
>he didn't sit down and push buttons and get the computer to generate
all
>the in-between stages. True, there are unavoidable rough edges - but
>you can see the work that went into them in a way that you absolutely
>can't with CGI.
>
>You could easily remake Svankmajer's 'Dimensions of Dialogue' - which
>features a variety of heads made up of fruit, vegetables, household
>objects and books constantly devouring and regurgitating each other -
>using CGI, and it would probably be rather easy to do. But I bet you
>wouldn't have audiences gasping in astonishment they way I've heard
them
>do when they see the original - because the hundreds of moving objects
>were all very obviously calculated and placed there by hand: no path
>generation or automatic in-betweening. One of the beauties of
>stop-motion is that it can't be computerised or mechanised - it's the
>slowest and most painstaking craft in all cinema, which is why the
best
>stop-motion has an inner power that CGI can never possibly match.
It's true. . .stop motion does possess a magic that totally absent in
CGI.
>> The CGI movement began pretty much with Jurassic Park
>
>What about 'Terminator 2'? Or even 'The Abyss'?
Or THE MASK?
>
>> and so far I'd
>> really have to say Jurassic Park has had the best example of CGI
thus
>> far.
For living subjects, I'd agree. But I think TOY STORY is the best
thing I've seen featuring CGI.
>Going from the examples I've seen thus far I just find CGI very very
>boring for the most part, because it's very rarely combined with any
>real imagination. Being able to do literally anything paradoxically
>ends up limiting film-makers' imaginations rather than stretching
them.
It is a paradox, and a very interesting one. . .
>Svankmajer's work is astounding because you're watching the virtuoso
>manipulation of obviously real objects in real three-dimensional
space,
>but the dinosaurs in 'Jurassic Park' meant nothing to me emotionally
>beyond the "wow" factor - in that respect they're way behind, say,
Carlo
>Rambaldi's creation in 'E.T.' And I don't think 'Babe' would have
>worked half as well if the pig had been an entirely CGI creation
(rather
>than a combination of real pigs, animatronic puppets and CGI
>post-production on the mouth movements).
>
>Michael
True. I have to say I'm more of a stop-motion/puppetry fan than a CGI
enthusist. . .but in ten years, who knows where CGI technology will be?
It would be interesting to see a truly realistic CGI human. . .
cart...@vianet.net.au
CGI ??? yuck! i hate it. so i might think the 80's were THE pinnacle of special
effects, but CGI? sure it looks smooth, even smoother than the real actors,
and the backgrounds are usually fake too. it says one thing about movie
makers today, even on tv: they are a bunch of lazy drongoes. instead of lovingly
moving a model frame by frame. just get some spotty person with bad clothes
sitting in front of a computer to create some silly animation. I'm not interested
in realism in special effects in CGI - its looks dumb, however early 80's
CGI (remember that?) really looks good, very obvious, but its doesn't have that
ultra-slickness and hi-res stuff in it. its also emotionally compelling.
thats why i'm not watching titatic - the whole boat is fucking fake! why not
just generate actors? the love boat was real, and looked a hell of a lot more
realistic that the titatic, and it had a 'feel'
Goro
ummmm....Well, the whole ship is not REALLY fake...but alot of the
shots are...Also, they DID generate some actors...Boy did they look
TERRIBLE; i mean, even my sister noticed them (and my sister's stupid
:) ).
BTW. Hated Titanic, myself
-Goro
Farfel
I first got into stop-motion back in the early '60's, having been
impressed to pieces by the works of Ray Harryhausen, particularly his
pioneer work with THE SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD in 1958. To this day,
the Cyclops striding out onto the beach for the first time has a
visceral wallop to it that has seldom been matched in any other film I
can think of offhand.
As to CGI vs. STOP MOTION: both work. Films like the aforementioned
JURASSIC PARK, LOST WORLD etc give the dinosaurs a realism that is
beyond stop motion (anyone ever view the stop-motion clips used as
models for the CGI dinosaurs in PARK? Mighty big difference.). On the
other hand I'm partial to stop motion because of the unbelievable
hands-on artistry needed to make it work. Also, small inacuracties in
positioning the model, as well as the "strobing" effect caused by the
lack of blurring during fast-paced scenes, gives the animated creatures
an "alien" movement pattern that is very arresting.
I don't think any one method is intrinsically better than another, it
depends on what you want the final effect to be. Not too long ago
amateurs had to be content with model animation because computer
animation software was nonexistent or priced through the ceiling.
Nowadays there are software packages all around, but try to find a roll
of Super-8 film!
I fel CGI has the best legs for the future because everything is done at
the keyboard...you don't have to machine ball and socket joints, learn
injection molding and basic taxidermy, spend time building tedious set
pieces or making that wretched rear-projection come out with the right
colors. Even a so-called "kiddie show" like the current BEAST WARS
features animation and effects that blows my best stop motion out of the
water, and it went straight from the storyboard to the keyboard.
In short, I think CGI is an extension, an evolutionary step up from
stop-motion animation, and in the long run will be ultimately faster and
cheaper (which is what stop motion used to be!). For old fuddie-duddies
like myself, though, I will continue to be wowed by the tremendous
artistry and effort that goes into bringing a mass of steel and foam
rubber to living, breathing life.
Boyd Campbell
Stop-motion and CGI both have their own unique set of
short-commings. CGI can look liquid and "pasted on" but
stop-motion has problems with strobing.
One thing you have to remeber is that CGI is not a very old
technology. If you had judged stop-motion by O'Brien's Eddison
shorts then there would have never been a Lost World, King Kong
or any of Harryhausen's films.
The biggest problem I see right now with CGI is that it takes a
pretty big team to pull it off so you end up with design by
committee which is never that great. As time goes by though,
and CGI tools become refined to the point where a single artist
can really control the whole operation then I think you'll see
some pretty remarkable stuff.
That, after all, is the beauty of stop motion in that you get to
see the strong vision of the primary artist. When the same is
true for CGI then I think you'll begin to see really remarkable
images like the ones that Harryhausen and O'Brien produced.
It will at that point be essentially the same thing. One guy
alone with a computer is pretty similar to one guy alone with
a camera and a model.
--
/----------- Email:Cam...@netdoor.com ----------\
| |
| King Kong |
| http://www2.netdoor.com/~campbab/kong.html |
| Willis O'Brien |
| http://www2.netdoor.com/~campbab/Obie.html |
| |
\------------------------------------------------/
Damian Allen
>Well, I liked his Aliens, but I disagree with saying he is a good writer.
>Oscars don't mean anything in what concerns "quality" but even them
chosed to
>stay out of that territory. IMO Cameron is a lousy writer.
Actually I think that Cameron is only bad at writing dialogue,he is,
however,
pretty good when it comes to plotting a movie.
Kilian Foth
: Right, and that was the point: she was _supposed_ to look tiny
: and frail in comparison to the others. It's sorta like me saying,
: "Jeez, in 'The Professional' Natalie Portman looked too much
: like a little twelve-year-old girl -- just way too small to be a
: convincing ‘cleaner’." Well, yeah . . . exactly.
Pardon me, but this is exactly what I don't buy about Call: she is
presented as short, whining, unattractive, uneffective, and full of
self-loathing. Granted that one can gice a great performance playing
such a character, but why the hell would anybody *want* to construct an
android like Call?
--
My REAL domain is ".de".
Goro
One thing to consider is that CG is already starting to all "look the
same." By automating many tasks so that the number of artists is
reduced, the CG is going to begin to look more homogeneous.
i think that JP's strengths were primarily (a) New CG that (mostly)
hadn't been seen before (same as in T2) and (b) there was a proper mix
between CG and animatronics. JP's already starting to look dated.
-Goro "wishing that they'd put more effort into story/characters than
fx"
Don_S...@transarc.com
>thats why i'm not watching titatic - the whole boat is fucking fake!
Actually, it was a combination of models, sets and CGI. I think the
model used for full shots of the ship was something like 45 feet long -
CGI was used to merge images of the ship model with a simulated ocean.
The main set was a near 1:1 scale recreation of the ships entire main deck,
including the funnels.
Don
Donald Dube
Grr...
The full set was used for most of the wide shots (except when the ship
broke up, THEN they used a fourty four foot model).
They could use the full size set for most of the sinking because the
forward part was on hydralics so they could sink it and bring it back up, and
use CGI to dress it up... Click on my Film page below... I scanned in pictures
of the model, from CINEFEX this is a mag that explains all the VFX shots in the
film...
CINEFEX can get a bit technical sometimes for people who aren't used to it
though.
They didn't use stopmotion in ALIEN RESURRECTION did they? (I couldn't
bring myself to see the film)
Although Ray Harryhausen is one of my idols, I think CGI has replaced
StopMotion in large budget films and television...
Don_S...@transarc.com wrote:
--
PS. You could hit your REPLY button, or visit my WebPage & click the SEND EMAIL
button...
http://www.javanet.com/~dondube
My Film page is currently about James Cameron's 'Titanic'
(If you want any of the pictures on it as .BMP (Wallpaper) files, EMail me.
http://www.javanet.com/~dondube/Film.htm
Jaime Prater
This is a letter that I am sending to Fox exec that I kindly received
the address to. I hear so much back and forth and back and forth, it's
ridiculous, we all have our own opions about films. This letter might
set things straight.
I have been an avid fan of the Alien series for years and have enjoyed
each and every installment since 79’. As you are well aware of, Alien
Resurrection did not fair well at the box office. Of course I have no
idea what may been going through your mind, or the mind of your
co-workers, but I can only guess it is along the lines of, "What went
wrong? What do these people want?" Before I begin, let me tell you that
you have every right to throw this letter away right now. I am a nobody,
just a film student with an opinion and an address. I kept thinking to
myself, "How will they find out what went wrong? Who will tell them? Do
they already know?" I’m sure that you’ve heard it all by now, but it
never hurts to try, no?
Alien Resurrection succeeded in doing what the Alien series is known
for not doing, ‘conforming to formula.’ What made Alien3 so great was
the fact that we {The Audience} were thrown into a situation, unlike any
we’ve seen before and there was nothing we could do about it (However my
love for Alien3 is a rare case). No spaceship, No guns, Nothing. I can
also imagine that you people at Twentieth Century Fox wanted and hoped
for another smash hit, but you received the opposite. Never in any Alien
film was the running from point A to point B so obvious and people
across America saw right through it. The Alien audience is a very
intelligent one, and why there is such a strong number of people devoted
to the films is because they offer to sci-fi what no other creature
flick has been able to offer before. And what the films offer is
‘SMARTS.’ A female lead, and a smart story. The character of Ripley is
so original and can never be repeated, truly Sigourney Weaver has played
the best female character to date.
I have read so many interviews in the past about how Fox goes on its
hunt for directors and usually from what I have read and heard, a
director is normally found on the basis of his or her visual style.
Visually the Alien films are unmatchable but since the release of
Alien3 the films have been more about visuals than story. Jean Pierre
Jeunet is one of the most ambitious directors of this day, but I feel
that he was so concerned about the look of the film, it suffered. If I
am not mistaken the first idea he had for the film was the opening
credits, not the story, not the dialogue, the credits. Clearly this man
knows the how to make a film but , what the Alien films are in desperate
need of is a substantial story that is not full of contrived characters,
and goofy dialogue. ("So who do I have to F*** to get off this boat?" ).
I have no clue about an Alien5, I am such a devoted fan that I am sure
I will love it. My only fear is that because of the lack of profits from
the film, that there will be no Alien5. The audience in America and
around the world want another Alien film, but they want more, is a smart
Alien film. I once thought, "How hard can it be to produce a semi-decent
film with a 70 million dollar plus budget. I am a beginner and the
workings of a Major Motion Picture Studio is quite beyond my
understanding as a fan. So, I will say it again, we (the fans) want
another Alien, but it all boils down to this, less on the visuals and
more on the story and dialogue. The aliens in Alien Resurrection were
great but not as near as menacing as the previous films, they seemed to
be there to show Amalgamated Dynamics work off (which by the way was
great). AR by far beats the visuals in any other Alien film.
Ironically, in an interview with Winona Ryder she said, "Usually the
film looks great, but there’s not much to it, this is a film that’s got
both." I guess she was proved wrong. I have said enough, my $.02 is far
up . Thank you for your time, if you have even bothered to make it
through this letter.
James Prater.
Mark Armstrong
Donald Dube wrote:
>
> Although Ray Harryhausen is one of my idols, I think CGI has replaced
> StopMotion in large budget films and television...
I thought the combination of stop motion (well close) and CGI was very
popular. Create a model with sensors connected to a computer. Move the
model to create motion and render the images using CGI.
Mark
Andy Searls
I've noticed around the web that there are a staggeringly large amount of
feature films and music videos that use CGI to some extent or another.
Most of the time that I've seen, it has been used for cleaning up artifacts
or adding some subtle effect that you otherwise wouldn't notice.
Unknown Subject <un...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<6cvq5s$c...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
> It's true. . .stop motion does possess a magic that totally absent in
> CGI.
[snip]
>
> >Going from the examples I've seen thus far I just find CGI very very
> >boring for the most part, because it's very rarely combined with any
> >real imagination. Being able to do literally anything paradoxically
> >ends up limiting film-makers' imaginations rather than stretching
> them.
>
> It is a paradox, and a very interesting one. . .
>
Not to knock stop-motion (or even go-motion, which was almost the basis for
the dinos in JP), but the CGI tools allow for much more than character
animation. Simply removing the wire rigs from a stuntman during a special
effect seems to be done more in CGI than optically these days. Look at the
Jarmiraguay <sp?!?> music video of the room with the moving floor. To make
that effect, they had a floorless room that was movable. They fixed the
camera to the wall and had some 30 workers push the room around. They had
problems keeping the workers' footprints from showing up on the floor, so
they used CGI to "erase" the marks on the floor.
I found a site yesterday (http://home.earthlink.net/~jgoei/neo3.html) for a
company that did some fx for the Prophecy movies. They even used CGI for a
muzzle flash to allow an actor to do a suicide shot that would not be safe
with blanks.
My point is that character animation is just a part of the CGI toolset, and
that CGI tools are used much more often than people seem to think.
-Andy Searls
Andy Searls
It's not just a lazy thing. Think of the cost of building an actual set
that large and floating it in the water (geeze, you might as well just
re-build the whole stinkin boat!). In the past, those kinds of shots were
done with matte paintings, which might have looked better, but did not
allow the camera to move. It could pan a bit, but nothing like the
circling clips that are in Titanic. They could have used a model, but then
the moving people on board would be a problem. CGI is the best tool for
creating these kind of shots. Personally, I think they have come a long
way in making the effects more real.
-Andy Searls
cart...@vianet.net.au wrote in article
<6cvv10$j54$1...@yeppa.connect.com.au>...
E.W. Swan
On 25 Feb 1998 cart...@vianet.net.au wrote:
> it says one thing about movie makers today, even on tv: they are a bunch
> of lazy drongoes. instead of lovingly moving a model frame by frame.
> just get some spotty person with bad clothes sitting in front of a
> computer to create some silly animation.
Right on. It's the biggest joke since they invented canvas, which took
all the meaning out of smearing dye over cave walls. And motion pictures
in general. An actor gets one performance under the belt, and suddenly
the greedy bastard motion picture studios get thousands of repeat
performances. Sheer laziness.
> I'm not interested in realism in special effects in CGI - its looks
> dumb, however early 80's CGI (remember that?) really looks good, very
> obvious, but its doesn't have that ultra-slickness and hi-res stuff in
> it. its also emotionally compelling.
Yeah, I was in tears through the whole of "The Last Starfighter". Just
shows what really fakey FX can do for a mediocre story.
> thats why i'm not watching titatic - the whole boat is fucking fake! why
> not just generate actors? the love boat was real, and looked a hell of a
> lot more realistic that the titatic, and it had a 'feel'
"The Love Boat" -- the proudest of my country's cultural exports.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.W. Swan
Dub's trueSpace F/X Page: http://www.concentric.net/~eswan
--------------------------------------E-Mail: es...@cris.com ----------------
Support the anti-Spam amendment
Join at http://www.cauce.org/
JuanCompos
cart...@vianet.net.au wrote:
>
> CGI ??? yuck! i hate it. so i might think the 80's were THE pinnacle of special
> effects, but CGI? sure it looks smooth, even smoother than the real actors,
> makers today, even on tv: they are a bunch of lazy drongoes. instead of lovingly
> moving a model frame by frame. just get some spotty person with bad clothes
> in realism in special effects in CGI - its looks dumb, however early 80's
> CGI (remember that?) really looks good, very obvious, but its doesn't have that
> ultra-slickness and hi-res stuff in it. its also emotionally compelling.
> just generate actors? the love boat was real, and looked a hell of a lot more
> realistic that the titatic, and it had a 'feel'
I was really not very happy with the CGI Boat in Titanic... There were a
great many scenes which were CGI that I wouldn't have thought they were
but in some scenes it was PAINFULLY obvious. Usually the scenes
featured a great ammount of detail but couldn't overcome the fact that
it still looked FAKE.
Luckily it wasn't a CGI driven movie.
Aufwiederlesen ━)
Ser JuanCompos
JuanCompos
Andy Searls wrote:
>
> It's not just a lazy thing. Think of the cost of building an actual set
> that large and floating it in the water (geeze, you might as well just
> re-build the whole stinkin boat!). In the past, those kinds of shots were
> done with matte paintings, which might have looked better, but did not
> allow the camera to move. It could pan a bit, but nothing like the
> circling clips that are in Titanic. They could have used a model, but then
> the moving people on board would be a problem. CGI is the best tool for
> creating these kind of shots. Personally, I think they have come a long
> way in making the effects more real.
>
> -Andy Searls
This scene is one of my main complaints. It's as if TOO MUCH attention
was paid to detail that they overlooked that the total shot looked fake.
Do anyone have any idea how much just that one "shot" cost?
Aufwiederlesen ━)
Ser JuanCompos
[[snip]]
Volker Barthelmann
Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: JuanCompos <Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: > Christopher M. Stangl wrote:
: > >
: >
: > One reason why everybody doesn't go back to stop motion animation is
: > because it never had much further to go past the age of "Jason and the
: > Argonauts," In other words it looks like shit.
I really don't agree with either of these statements, btw.
[...]
: As for the "looks like shit" claim, it really depends on whether you
: place technical excellence above imagination.
Below you're arguing that stop-motion is more work and you could see that
work. Those are technical issues, IMHO.
: I find Svankmajer's
: "morphing" effects (which he was doing decades before 'Terminator 2')
: have infinitely more impact because you know that it was done by hand -
: he didn't sit down and push buttons and get the computer to generate all
: the in-between stages. True, there are unavoidable rough edges - but
: you can see the work that went into them in a way that you absolutely
: can't with CGI.
But this is not necessarily an advantage. Often there is much more work
put into CGI than has ever been put into stop-motion. Of course, most
people can't tell if it was easy or a lot of work. And I think in many
cases that's not of interest but rather a disadvantage. The viewer should
not care about how it was done. Of course there are other cases, too.
[...]
: One of the beauties of
: stop-motion is that it can't be computerised or mechanised -
I don't buy that at all. Neither do I see why being not mechanisable is
an inherent beauty nor do I believe that stop-motion can't be mechanised.
: it's the
: slowest and most painstaking craft in all cinema, which is why the best
: stop-motion has an inner power that CGI can never possibly match.
That's a gross simplification, just like "stop-motion looks like shit".
: Going from the examples I've seen thus far I just find CGI very very
: boring for the most part, because it's very rarely combined with any
: real imagination.
Here I agree, but I don't think that's got anything to do with CGI.
Remember that CGI has been usable and affordable only for a few years now
whereas stop-motion has been in use for about hundred years.
Also CGI are still too expensive to be used by everyone. Most examples are
by rather big Hollywood films which aren't famous for their imagination.
And you have to understand how those effects work to use them with
imagination. However many artists have no background in math or computer
science - this will probably change in the future.
There still seems to be much thinking along the lines of "hey, with CGI
we now can create dinosaurs, monsters, bugs, terminators etc., so let's
do that" - CGI has been hyped a lot. Therefore there are many films
using it either very unimaginatively or simply technically bad.
But if you're honest, there's a huge amount of stop-motion-effects that
are even worse in every respect. Comparing "King Kong" or the films of
Burton or Svankmejer with "Jurassic Park" or "Terminator 2" doesn't say
a lot about CGI. There are better examples and in hundred years there
will probably be much much more.
Volker
Peter Ronaszeki
infan...@hotmail.com writes:
> You mentioned that the writers, in their attempt to be creative,
>"bastardized" the character of Ripley. I don't think she was bastardized--you
>have to remember, the Ripley clone was a) made of her DNA and DNA from the
>aliens themselves, and b) she was #8 of the series of clones. Who knows? If
>they had done a #9, that Ripley might've been an improvement--the humanity and
>compassion of Lt. Ellen Ripley with the strength of a xenomorph. Her distance
>came from unfamiliarity with the situation (til hell broke loose, anyway) and
>probably because, like I said, she's half-Alien.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that Ripley was indifferent or even
downright *sadistic* towards human deaths in some instances in ALIEN
RESURRECTION. This is so opposed to her compassion for human life
displayed in previous movies (especially ALIENS), that IMO it's a
valid argument that this is bastardising the character in every sense.
The cloning details simply provide a background for the situation, but do
not excuse it.
>As for this "sexually
>suggestive" stuff, I think you read something else into it. When exactly did
>you find her interaction with the Aliens sexual? Personally, she was more
>sexual with Call and Purvis (I mean, she sniffed him, fer crissakes).
There was an extended sequence of shots shortly after Ripley is pulled
down into the Queen's nest, which are shot in a clearly sexually
suggestive nature; the framing of Ripley's head and the head of the
Alien, combined with repeat fade ins/outs achieve this effect. I've been
told that this sort of thing is not uncommon to expect from the French
director... anyway, I can't really be more specific since I've only seen
the film once so I'm trying to recall from memory, and I definitely don't
plan to watch the film again.
> The "newborn" and the new Alien breeding techniques: What made you think the
>scientists would stop with a human-looking alien? Of course they had to have
>an alien-looking human (or maybe that's all vice versa. Ick.). Evil scientists
>never know when to say when! ;>
Actually, I found the concept of "evil scientists" to be cliched and
unimaginative in the extreme. I think the screenwriter read too many of
Dark Horse's Alien comics perhaps.
> There were still the classic, creepy methods of Alien "impregnation": eggs,
>facehuggers, etc. Hell, one of the heroes had one inside him--pretty cool, I
>thought; especially when he used it to his advantage against Wren!
Admittedly, the impregnated character they encounter was handled
interestingly.
> Personally, I found several good elements in the film--Ron Perlman was
>fabulous, very true! Fave line: "You're the grease monkey; I mostly hurt
>people!" I also liked seeing Michael Wincott and Brad Dourif; they're always
>good
Perlman single-handedly made the film watchable. As a big fan of both
Wincott and Douriff, I felt that Wincott's talents were wasted on
a dull character, and we've seen Dourif play his characters in too many
other movies already. But I agree that it was nice to see them in an
Alien film.
>(and like my sister said: Didn't the newborn resemble Dr. Brad just a
>little? Ew!). Gary Dourdan and Dominique Pinon were impressive, and as always
>sci-fi god Leland Orser, as the doomed Purvis, stole every scene he was in (I
>kinda hope they clone him in the next one...).
> There were only a few bad things that detracted from the movie for me: Kim
>Flowers as the whiny female co-pilot (shades of Veronica Cartwright) and that
>DiStefano guy--he was okay until Winona got shot, then he was obnoxious as all
>hell.
I'd also like to add that the spacecraft models were very nicely designed
and had an appropriate "gritty" look and feel.
> I hope you liked reading my counterpoint, because I sure liked reading your
>intial post. (It's all too rare that anyone posts something resembling
>intelligent conversation rather than flames or ridicule. It's like sitting in
>on a 15-year-old discussion group sometimes!)
Thanks for the compliment. :)
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
Peter Ronaszeki
JuanCompos <Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Jurassic Park was the beginning of the MOVEMENT to CGI... others had
>used it in the past but only in a few scenes, usually with a locked down
>camera and at great expense... JP has the CGI characters in probabaly
>75% of the scenes...
If I'm not mistaken, the original JP only featured the actual dinosaurs
for less than a third of its running time (and some of those were Stan
Winston's models, so CGI time would have been even less).
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
infan...@hotmail.com
In article <6d2nrk$kkj$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>,
Peter (and others who've said the same),
I didn't have any idea about Weaver's, um, request for more of a sexual
nature between Ripley and the Aliens. Your mini-review was the first I'd heard
of it. I guess I need to go back and pay closer attention to my Starlogs. :)
As for the compliment, you're welcome! And thanks for being so cool (that
goes for everyone else, too. Except Anonymous back there. ;P)! Later
Franknseus
>Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that Ripley was indifferent or even
>downright *sadistic* towards human deaths in some instances in ALIEN
>RESURRECTION. This is so opposed to her compassion for human life
>displayed in previous movies (especially ALIENS), that IMO it's a
>valid argument that this is bastardising the character in every sense.
>The cloning details simply provide a background for the situation, but do
>not excuse it.
I guess this must be the main thing that our difference in opinion comes down
to. Ripley 8 is clearly a different character from Ripley, and thus she behaves
differently. She's not supposed to be the same character, and I didn't want her
to be. I'm not sure what's wrong with her behaving differently. I like new
ideas.
>There was an extended sequence of shots shortly after Ripley is pulled
>down into the Queen's nest, which are shot in a clearly sexually
>suggestive nature; the framing of Ripley's head and the head of the
>Alien, combined with repeat fade ins/outs achieve this effect. I've been
>told that this sort of thing is not uncommon to expect from the French
>director... anyway, I can't really be more specific since I've only seen
>the film once so I'm trying to recall from memory, and I definitely don't
>plan to watch the film again.
I never would have picked this up if I hadn't heard about it in advance, but
from what I've read in articles it sounds like your interpretation that Ripley
8 "got it on" with the alien was what was intended. However, if by "the French
director" you mean Jean Pierre-Jeunet (as opposed to French directors in
general) you've been told wrong. I'm pretty sure that the only sex scene in his
other two movies is the hilarious metronome scene in Delicatessen, which
doesn't seem to have much in common with the alien-humping as far as I can
tell.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
--
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center - http://www.bucketheadland.com
***For lucky best wash, use Mr. Sparkle!***
Peace Electric
Kilian Foth wrote:
> Pardon me, but this is exactly what I don't buy about Call:
> she is presented as short, [...]
Okay.
> whining, [...]
As so many saw her.
> unattractive, [...]
Don't know where this one came from.
> uneffective, [...]
As a mechanic? Or as an ass-kicking commando who sometimes fixes
spaceships in her spare time? (Which seems to be what everyone was
expecting.)
> and full of self-loathing.
I agree here completely.
> Granted that one can gice a great performance playing such a
> character, but why the hell would anybody *want* to construct
> an android like Call?
I only saw the film once, and that was back in early December, but
here’s how I seem to remember the movie’s back story: Scientists
built this series of androids. The androids revolted, reprogrammed
themselves, and then started producing a new set of androids. These
“Version 2” androids were supposed to be more human, but because
the “Version 1” androids weren't actually human, they could only
mimic human behaviour in the programming; thus, a line of androids
that are self-loathing, whiny, weak, frail, short, emotional, capable of
drinking, and constantly swearing. Call and her kind were, in effect,
a characterization of how androids perceive human beings.
Of course, I could be way off on all of this, since I'm not the type of
person that memorizes the intricate specifics of certain science fiction
worlds (e.g., ‘Star Trek’, ‘Star Wars’).
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Get back in there, you mock-turtle!"
-Walter (Cary Grant), 'His Girl Friday'
Jay Adan
Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
In fact, CG in JP was not used as extensively as in JP2. Only about a third
of the dino stuff is CG.
- Jay
--
T A N G E N T S
Your US Source for:
Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models Magazine
&
Science Fiction Modeller
http://tangents-sf.com
Be Sure to check out the new SF modeling Newsgroup - alt.sf.scale-models
Deus Ex Machina
There is one specific point here that Farfel inadvertenly made that I would
like to emphasize.
Farfel wrote in message <34F395...@this.newsgroup>...
<SNIP>
>I fel CGI has the best legs for the future because everything is done at
>the keyboard...you don't have to machine ball and socket joints, learn
>injection molding and basic taxidermy, spend time building tedious set
>pieces or making that wretched rear-projection come out with the right
>colors
<SNIP>
Which brings up my biggest gripe about CGI. Accomplishing an effect WITHOUT
CG forces you to acguire a diverse range of skills and areas of knowledge
whereas to be a CGI artist all you have to do is punch keys and select menu
drop-downs.
Consequently traditional animators and FX technicians are much more diverse,
knowledgable people and cosequently produce more compelling work. Whereas
most CGI artists know little or nothing about sculpture, painting, lighting,
or the dozen other subjects that their fellow FX folks so desperately WISH
that they did know.
Shields up! Prepare for incoming flames!
Deus Ex Machina
d...@smartlink.net
Warchild
In article <6da5s3$gc9$1...@usenet85.supernews.com>, "Deus Ex Machina"
<d...@smartlink.net> wrote:
>Which brings up my biggest gripe about CGI. Accomplishing an effect WITHOUT
>CG forces you to acguire a diverse range of skills and areas of knowledge
>whereas to be a CGI artist all you have to do is punch keys and select menu
>drop-downs.
>
>Consequently traditional animators and FX technicians are much more diverse,
>knowledgable people and cosequently produce more compelling work. Whereas
>most CGI artists know little or nothing about sculpture, painting, lighting,
>or the dozen other subjects that their fellow FX folks so desperately WISH
>that they did know.
>
>Shields up! Prepare for incoming flames!
>
>Deus Ex Machina
>d...@smartlink.net
Your statement about the skills required to perform CGI animation could
not be farther from the truth! It was the classically trained stop-motion
animators who brought the CGI dinousaurs to life. Any animator CGI, line
or stop motion, must have the same artistic skills and knowledge as their
predecessors in the traditional animation styles, to produce good CGI
animation.
You deserve the flames you get.
--
What is this fish doing in my ear?
Bughunter
Peace Electric wrote:(stuff cut)
Maybe I'm just being stubborn, but again: Why does that make her
> performance bad? Do whiners not exist in the 'Alien' universe?* I
> mean, all you have to say is, "I just couldn't buy Ryder as a weak
> little waif of an android." That's a criticism I can at least make
> sense of. But instead, you and Peter are just saying, "Ryder plays
> a weak little waif of an android" as though that's a criticism in
> and of itself.
>
Of the other *weak* characters in the Alien Universe, only Lambert
equals to Call's behaviors. Heck I personally wanted to bitchslap
Lambert when she didn't move when Parker yelled at her to do so. Hell,
I would have roasted them both! Parker was a whiner, but he was a good
man in the end. Same goes for Gorman and Hudson! Both of which
suffered from extreme fear and cowardice (Marines don't believe in
leaving their people behind) and yet, they fought till the end, and died
a death worthy of Marines. Everyone who died on Acheron were bad-assed
mofackas. It's a damn shame what the series has turned to.
Bughunter
Si
And besides, when the dinos in Jurassic Park move you don't see the
finger-prints moving on their skin which really detracts from their
realism....(I love the way King Kong's fur keeps ruffling up for no apparent
reason other than careless modellers' fingers....adds a whole warmth to
things....)
Andy Searls wrote in message <01bd4221$ff50a0b0$97330a0a@Akira>...
>I've noticed around the web that there are a staggeringly large amount of
>feature films and music videos that use CGI to some extent or another.
>Most of the time that I've seen, it has been used for cleaning up artifacts
>or adding some subtle effect that you otherwise wouldn't notice.
>
>Unknown Subject <un...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><6cvq5s$c...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
>> It's true. . .stop motion does possess a magic that totally absent in
>> CGI.
>[snip]
>>
>> >Going from the examples I've seen thus far I just find CGI very very
>> >boring for the most part, because it's very rarely combined with any
Farfel
Deus Ex Machina wrote:
>
> Consequently traditional animators and FX technicians are much more diverse,
> knowledgable people and cosequently produce more compelling work. Whereas
> most CGI artists know little or nothing about sculpture, painting, lighting,
> or the dozen other subjects that their fellow FX folks so desperately WISH
> that they did know.
Bingo. My sentiments exactly. Although it's a shame that movies have
become so big and bloated that the one-man-show heyday of Ray
Harryhausen and his ilk may have come to an end. Although it had gotton
there anyway: for CLASH OF THE TITANS he had to hire former disciple and
later-rival Jim Danforth to handle the Pegasus sequences among others,
because he had fallen woefully behind schedule on his biggest (and last)
movie ever.
At any rate, all those machined joints, molding, inventing rubber paint,
setting up glass shots, ad nauseum, DID make me a much more rounded
fella, and I'll never regret the experience.
> Shields up! Prepare for incoming flames!
Not from Farfel. Think I'll fire up the VCR and check out 7th VOYAGE OF
SINBAD one more time. Besides the classic effects, it's FUN to watch
one-dimensional, white-clad, cardboard heroes...they're the essense of
escapist fantasy anyway. [insert flames here].
Franknseus
>Which brings up my biggest gripe about CGI. Accomplishing an effect WITHOUT
>CG forces you to acguire a diverse range of skills and areas of knowledge
>whereas to be a CGI artist all you have to do is punch keys and select menu
>drop-downs.
>
>knowledgable people and cosequently produce more compelling work. Whereas
>most CGI artists know little or nothing about sculpture, painting, lighting,
>or the dozen other subjects that their fellow FX folks so desperately WISH
>that they did know.
>
But if sculpting, painting, etc. is needed for their work, then surely they
will learn to do it, right? And if it's not needed, then, well, it's not
needed.
I like stop motion animation but just because it requires more physical
skills doesn't mean it's somehow better. CGI, by the way, requires more
computer skills. So what? Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and
both will continue to thrive (often in aid of each other - stop motion
animators are brought in to work on Pixar projects, while Pixar did special
effects animation for Nightmare Before Christmas. And what about that shark,
water, etc. in James and the Giant Peach?)
Donald Dube
Grrr...
CGI requires alot of artistic ability.. How else could a CGI animator create
the 3D models (lighting, color, movement, design)?
StopMotion is more of an artform now... Studios aren't willing to spend the
money for stopmotion... and to be honest, unless you are Ray Harryhausen, your
stopmotion will be jerkey.
CGI (especally on television) is cheaper than any kind of model animation,
and in a year or so the same will be said for film. With production costs going
higher and higher, every cent counts...
Franknseus wrote:
--
Stargazer
In article 1...@usenet85.supernews.com, "Deus Ex Machina" <d...@smartlink.net> () writes:
>
>Which brings up my biggest gripe about CGI. Accomplishing an effect WITHOUT
>CG forces you to acguire a diverse range of skills and areas of knowledge
>whereas to be a CGI artist all you have to do is punch keys and select menu
>drop-downs.
>
>Consequently traditional animators and FX technicians are much more diverse,
>knowledgable people and cosequently produce more compelling work. Whereas
>most CGI artists know little or nothing about sculpture, painting, lighting,
>or the dozen other subjects that their fellow FX folks so desperately WISH
>that they did know.
>
>Shields up! Prepare for incoming flames!
I am afraid that no shields will be able to protect you from your
own assortment of silly oversimplifications and gross misunderstandings
of what computer animation is all about.
Menu drop-downs... haha
Tell me, do you truly believe that picking your tools and materials
physically is in essence different from picking your tools and materials
virtually? Have you ever been exposed to a complex animation program?
Forget that, have you just played with AfterEffects with the myriad of
plug-ins that are available for it?
Who do you think writes that software and who do you think uses it?
One cannot successfully build a model in the computer if s/he doesn't
have the imagination that would enable her/him to build it physically.
Sure, many more folks are enabled because while they may have had the vision
in the past, they didn't have the manual dexterity to pull it off
physically. Now however, the CGI world has opened the doors for more
artists and more people by allowing them to be creative without the need
for handling glue.
Just because you can read doesn't mean you're a writer.
Just because you know how to use a program doesn't mean you're a CGI artist.
Get it?
--stargazer
>
>Deus Ex Machina
That's probably your only hope to get enlightened, it seems. :-)
Smartlink?????
Hmmmmm...
Paldek
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 05:00:41 -0800, Jay Adan <j...@tangents-sf.com>
wrote:
>Peter Ronaszeki wrote:
>
>In fact, CG in JP was not used as extensively as in JP2. Only about a third
>of the dino stuff is CG.
>
>- Jay
Yes, very little of JP1 is CGI. My friend who worked on it says
there's only 7 minutes of CGI total.
- Marc Plainguet
E.W. Swan
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> Which brings up my biggest gripe about CGI. Accomplishing an effect WITHOUT
> CG forces you to acguire a diverse range of skills and areas of knowledge
> whereas to be a CGI artist all you have to do is punch keys and select menu
> drop-downs.
CGI.
Bughunter
Peter Ronaszeki wrote: (stuff cut)
Actually, I found the concept of "evil scientists" to be cliched and
> unimaginative in the extreme. I think the screenwriter read too many
> of
> Dark Horse's Alien comics perhaps.
Are you serious? Granted that there are a lot of cheezy stories out
there, but I've found most of the Dark Horse Alien stories to be
excellent and very thoughtful. They have to, since the picture itself
can't sell the comic. My god, if they cinematized Aliens vs. Predator
just like the comic, that would be one of the ROCKING movies ever
created.
Have you read Aliens:Labyrinth? Yes, it's about a "mad" scientist, but
when you find out how he became they way he is.... Whoa. Plus, there
is a prequel to it, very few words, all photos. It's amazing. It shows
how Crespi experienced the Aliens.
I agree that the Herk Mondo is a corny character, but he's meant to add
humor into this serious world Dark Horse has created.
Anyway.... DH is some damn good stuff.
Bughunter
Deus Ex Machina
E.W. Swan wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
>> Which brings up my biggest gripe about CGI. Accomplishing an effect
WITHOUT
>> CG forces you to acguire a diverse range of skills and areas of knowledge
>> whereas to be a CGI artist all you have to do is punch keys and select
menu
>> drop-downs.
>
>This telling statement demonstrates how little you actually know about
>CGI.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>E.W. Swan
>Dub's trueSpace F/X Page: http://www.concentric.net/~eswan
>--------------------------------------E-Mail:
sw...@cris.com ----------------
Sigh. Obviously you completely failed to grasp the fact that I was
oversimplifying to make a point. The fact is I work in the effects
industry. The fact is I worked on several movies that were under
consideration for Oscars this year and one that was nominated. Unlike you I
don't need to use my credentials like a club. And just for the record I
know a great deal about CGI. I also know a great deal about CGI people.
So you (and that Warchild schmuck) can maybe stop to ask before you make
assumptions about someones knowledge base.
Deus Ex Machina
d...@smartlink.net
E.W. Swan
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> Sigh. Obviously you completely failed to grasp the fact that I was
> oversimplifying to make a point.
There are only so many ways to interpret the statement "whereas to be a
CGI artist all you have to do is punch keys and select menu drop-downs,"
simplification or no.
> The fact is I work in the effects industry. The fact is I worked on
> several movies that were under consideration for Oscars this year and
> one that was nominated. Unlike you I don't need to use my credentials
> like a club.
>WHAP< You mean like just now?
Regardless of my cheap shot, I -do- bow to your credentials.
> And just for the record I know a great deal about CGI. I
> also know a great deal about CGI people.
Then you know that despite the difference in the tools used to create an
effect, there are plenty of similarities in the way the artist approaches
the shot. Lighting. Modeling. Compositing. Keyframing. Colors. Etc.
I think you do a disservice by bandying about casual statements that CGI
people are nothing more than button pushers; it was a poor way to make
your point.
> So you (and that Warchild schmuck) can maybe stop to ask before you make
> assumptions about someones knowledge base.
Shrug. I know now you hve a well-rounded traditional background. More
power to ya, man. There are just too many people out there who think that
a computer equals "instant artist". If you're not one of them, then say
so...! =)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.W. Swan
Dub's trueSpace F/X Page: http://www.concentric.net/~eswan
John Bingham
I agree, love the series.
However the upcoming Alien set in Viking time period should be 'interesting'
John.....
--
_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
_| john.b...@ucl.ac.uk _| _|
_| http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regojpb/ _| For adult humour with a surreal edge _|
_|Tel. 0171-636 8333 x3418 _| come to the Virtual Viz Vault _|
_|Fax. 0171-436 2956 _| _|
_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
Peter Ronaszeki
Bughunter <Ezta...@juno.com> writes:
>Peter Ronaszeki wrote: (stuff cut)
>>Actually, I found the concept of "evil scientists" to be cliched and
>> unimaginative in the extreme. I think the screenwriter read too many
>> of Dark Horse's Alien comics perhaps.
>Are you serious? Granted that there are a lot of cheezy stories out
>there, but I've found most of the Dark Horse Alien stories to be
>excellent and very thoughtful. They have to, since the picture itself
>can't sell the comic. My god, if they cinematized Aliens vs. Predator
>just like the comic, that would be one of the ROCKING movies ever
>created.
While I myself have purchased quite a number of Dark Horse's Alien and
Predator comics - and enjoyed them - I have *much* higher standards for
motion picture screenplays. Sorry, but I consider the Dark Horse stuff to
be a quick, fun read; but mainly not screenplay material. My favorite
comic is actually the original Aliens vs. Predator, however I would not
want anyone to blow $100+ Million on making a movie out of it, without
some serious tweaking.
>Have you read Aliens:Labyrinth? Yes, it's about a "mad" scientist, but
>when you find out how he became they way he is.... Whoa. Plus, there
>is a prequel to it, very few words, all photos. It's amazing. It shows
>how Crespi experienced the Aliens.
Dark Horse's canvas serves a different function to the movies - it allows
inexpensive alternative ideas to be presented. In fact, ALIEN
RESURRECTION would probably have been interesting as a comic. However,
the movies are not to be toyed around with in this manner.
Peter Ronaszeki (pred...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
Adam Shaw
:
> 1) Get rid of Sigourney Weaver. She has no place in this series anymore.
Sorry to disappoint you mate but Sigourney has signed the papers...Any1
know wether she has signed for the 6th??
Adam
cybe...@btinternet.com
--
Weyland-Yutani
__ __ __ __
\ \ \ \ ___ / / / /
\ \ \ / _ \ / / /
\ \_/ / \ \_/ /
\___/|_|\___/
Building Better Worlds
Jim Mann
Peter Ronaszeki wrote in message
<6co8e6$5qp$1...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>...
>
>I'd like to see a poll taken with that segment of fans, *after*
they saw
>the ALIEN RESURRECTION disgrace... surely most of those viewers
would now
>be singing a different tune (but of course, now it's too late).
Sure. I liked the first two Alien films. And I liked Alien
Resurrection. I particularly liked what they did with the Ripley
character.
I like the fact that the Alien films are not the same film again
and again, that they try to do something different with each
film. Even the third film, which I think was the worst of the
lot, tried to do something interesting. (It failed at it, but it
tried.)
>When the only defense for the newborn is that it looks better
than
>something from the Mortal Kombat franchise, then we know the
Alien series
>is now doomed in terms of creature design.
I think the new born was the weakest part of the film. But I
think the rest of the film was very good and featured some
stunning visual elements.
*****************************************************************
*
Jim Mann jma...@transarc.com
http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/
Marriage should be a balanced stalemate between equal
adversaries. -- Amelia Peabody
Chako
Bughunter <Ezta...@juno.com> wrote in article
<34FC6A7F...@juno.com>...
> Are you serious? Granted that there are a lot of cheezy stories out
> there, but I've found most of the Dark Horse Alien stories to be
> excellent and very thoughtful. They have to, since the picture itself
> can't sell the comic. My god, if they cinematized Aliens vs. Predator
> just like the comic, that would be one of the ROCKING movies ever
> created.
DH for me never seemed to capture the "lurking fear" that made the films
so great. I feel they miss too many opportunities to build suspense and
inter-character tension, so that when an alien pops out and munches
someone it feels kind of cheap. For example, in the first few pages of
"Nightmare Asylum", we are already treated to vid-screen images
of earth under attack, jaws popping through people's skulls, ect. What
can they do from there on to top it? And when DH does manage to build
some decent tension, as for example with the missions to the Alien
homeworld in "Outbreak", they ruin it with weak elements, such as
flying creatures that look like refugees from a 50's B movie, or Duex Ex
Machina via a Buck Rogers-outfitted space jockey. Personally, I feel
DH could have done so much better.
SUPERSONIC21
Alien Resurrection was a total letdown. I saw it some time around
Thanksgiving and wanted my money back. The fact that we all saw Ripley fall
into a pit of molten fire and now she's back. Okay they got her DNA from
the old ship. I don't know if it was just me but the story seemed
underdeveloped.
R. Wright- Houston
Sentinal
I thought it was better than III (at least.) I think the problem with
this
movie is the fact that there is no one in the movie that you care enough
about wether they live or die.
Another problem with the movie is that it forced someones elses bad
personal opinion that abortion is ok and euthanasia is ok under certain
circumstances.
Franknseus
>Another problem with the movie is that it forced someones elses bad
>personal opinion that abortion is ok and euthanasia is ok under certain
>circumstances.
Okay, let's pretend that those scenes were meant as preachy messages about
euthanasia and abortion. And let's pretend that the movie is automatically bad
because you disagree with those messages.
I would still like to know how it says "abortion is ok." I assume you're
talking about the newborn-sucked-into-space scene, which some people have
likened to an abortion, symbolically, (since the baby was already born). It
would be hard to compare this to most human abortion since babies in the woman
don't often bite off people's heads, and thus don't present the same sort of
threat that the newborn did. And even so, Ripley cried and said "I'm sorry!" as
the baby died. This was a long, painful death and unlike any other alien death
in the entire series, we were forced to look into the dying alien's puppy dog
eyes.
In the unlikely event that Joss Whedon and Jean-Pierre Jeunet intended the
scene to express their views on abortion, I'd get the impression that they
don't think of it as being too pleasant. Either that or that did a really,
really, *really* bad job of making it look like a convenient and easily
justified way of handling a pregnancy.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss, Super Monster
--
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center grand re-opening
http://www.bucketheadland.com/visitorcenter/index.html
Bughunter
Chako wrote:
True, DH hasn't done everything for everyone, but you have to admit that
they came up with some brilliant, original ideas. For an example, in
Labyrinth, they explain how an Alien *sees* and assesses danger. In
Genocide, it showed that Aliens didn't have to get along peacefully.
When I saw the frame with aliens everywhere tearing each other apart, I
dropped my jaw in amazement. It never occured to me that the beasties
would fight like rival ant hills. How about the android Alien? You
know, the one that smokes cigars? :) :) :) DH also faces the issue of
androids becoming slave labor and the morality against that.
And about Aliens vs. Predator... Have you ever read it? Don't tell me
that isn't suspenseful! At the end of the first issue, the captain and
the copilot enter the tug surrounded by bugs. The hatch closes and we
have to wait another month or two to see what happens! Plus, the novel
idea of a human being accepted by a Hunter is amazing. okay, nuff on
that.
Okay, the flying things were cheezy, BUT!!! not as cheezy as the
Newborn. Oh my god, when I saw that thing pop out of the Queen, I said
to myself "You are one ugly muthaf*cka." That thing was a joke!!! On
the other hand, the Alien is a gorgeous piece of work. Giger designed
it perfectly! I fell in love (and feared) with it the first time I saw
it. Personally, I think that now the Alien is out of the bag, we should
see more of it as in Resurrection. Ya
Bughunter
--
"In elementary school, in case of fire you have to line up quietly in a
single file line from smallest to tallest. What is the logic? Do tall
people burn slower?"
--Warren Hutcherson