I was thinking last night how the interior corridors of Hadley's Hope (Aliens) looks on blu-ray. Kind of cheap and cheesy.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Holy Balls. The first two Alien movies are amazing.
- Thread starter Ultima_5
- Start date
- Status
I was thinking last night how the interior corridors of Hadley's Hope (Aliens) looks on blu-ray. Kind of cheap and cheesy.
The only redeeming thing about Alien 3 is this:
It's funny that, besides Ripley carrying Newt and the guns, this image is the most iconic and recognizable image from the series. Everyone, even my mom, has seen that shot.
Not saying it's the best shot or anything like that, but that frame is burned into our collective memory. I bet most people don't even know it's from Alien 3.
The Lamonster
Member
You guys that are praising the special effects of Alien are forgetting about the Ash head on table scene. It's embarrassingly dated and horrible.
Only if it features entirely new characters. And not Sam Worthington.
OK sure but there is so much else to praise as well.
Insane Metal
Gold Member
From the other thread:
I've just re-watched Aliens and I gotta say I changed my mind. I remembered the movie from when I was young, so my thoughts were different in relation to movies etc. You know what I mean.
Anyway, Alien is the best film. Even being 7 years older than Aliens, the special effects on it look better (IMO), the overall design is much more remarkable, and the suspense really makes it stand out.
Aliens on the other hand has lots of cheesy dialogue, and lacks the remarkable visuals from the first movie. But it has some nice stuff too, like the sound of the guns, which is incredible (I think it's the best), the scenes with the queen, etc.
Anyway both movies are still amazing today, but Alien is superior and holds up to its age better than Aliens.
Of course, just my opinion.
I've just re-watched Aliens and I gotta say I changed my mind. I remembered the movie from when I was young, so my thoughts were different in relation to movies etc. You know what I mean.
Anyway, Alien is the best film. Even being 7 years older than Aliens, the special effects on it look better (IMO), the overall design is much more remarkable, and the suspense really makes it stand out.
Aliens on the other hand has lots of cheesy dialogue, and lacks the remarkable visuals from the first movie. But it has some nice stuff too, like the sound of the guns, which is incredible (I think it's the best), the scenes with the queen, etc.
Anyway both movies are still amazing today, but Alien is superior and holds up to its age better than Aliens.
Of course, just my opinion.
base shagohod
Member
I thought the same. I never paid any attention to the Alien movies when I was younger (I was born in '86). Watched the first two this past week and I think the first looks less dated than the second in general. Both are amazing movies, obviously.
Muffdraul
Member
I was 10 years old when Alien was released. I've been a sci-fi nut since birth, and I still remember the first image I ever saw, in Starlog magazine, a full color two-page shot of three people in space suits standing around the space jockey. Mind was blown just from that, I'd never seen anything remotely like it at the time. From that moment on I was completely fascinated and obsessed and devoured any info I could find. My parents forbade me to see it (fair enough, I was 10, it was R) but my sweet older sister took me on a secret mission to see it. Cannot express how much I loved it. We got our first VCR in 1982 and I got a dubbed copy from a friend. It was blurry as hell and the sound was out of sync, but that didn't stop me from watching it over and over.
I was 17 when Aliens came out. I loved it at the time. I really liked Alien 3 too. Resurrection, not so much. But as time has gone on, I've found that Alien only grows in my esteem, while all of the sequels sink lower and lower every time I watch them. At this point my opinion is that Aliens is to Alien as 2010 is to 2001 A Space Odyssey; not really a bad movie per se, but so deep in the original's shadow that there's not much of a connection in my mind. I think I totally get what Ridley Scott is trying to do w/ Prometheus.
I was 17 when Aliens came out. I loved it at the time. I really liked Alien 3 too. Resurrection, not so much. But as time has gone on, I've found that Alien only grows in my esteem, while all of the sequels sink lower and lower every time I watch them. At this point my opinion is that Aliens is to Alien as 2010 is to 2001 A Space Odyssey; not really a bad movie per se, but so deep in the original's shadow that there's not much of a connection in my mind. I think I totally get what Ridley Scott is trying to do w/ Prometheus.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Idk, I watched it yesterday and even though the cut is obvious, it doesn't make the sequence any less awesome or disturbing.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
No. Its not true at all. T2 doesn't change anything about time travel in Cameron's Terminator films. The way time operates is consistent so long as you discount any of the post-T2 movies/TV bullshit.
sixteen-bit
Member
I just saw Alien and Aliens for the first time 2 days ago.
Alien is a fucking masterpiece. Aliens was pretty good but it was a totally different kind of movie.
My only regret is not seeing them sooner, as they've been parodied and ripped off so much in popular culture that it took away some of the excitement.
Alien is a fucking masterpiece. Aliens was pretty good but it was a totally different kind of movie.
My only regret is not seeing them sooner, as they've been parodied and ripped off so much in popular culture that it took away some of the excitement.
I'm watching the bonus content on the Anthology now and I don't know when I'm going to be done with this. On disc 5 alone there's a mindboggling amount of interesting stuff. Watching the Alien docus was great, especially the interviews with O' Bannon (so neurotic!), Giger and Scott himself. It's impressive to see that the Nostromo was one connected, claustrophobic set. And man, the guy in the Alien suit... The test footage is creepy as hell.
Also, it seems like the 'nobody knew anything about the chestburster scene' story is kind of exaggerated? Seems like most of the cast knew exactly what was going to happen and how, only Cartwright was truly in shock.
Also, it seems like the 'nobody knew anything about the chestburster scene' story is kind of exaggerated? Seems like most of the cast knew exactly what was going to happen and how, only Cartwright was truly in shock.
Nappuccino
Member
Yeah, they just never saw the effect work, but they knew what was supposed to happen... at least that's how i understand that situation.
If any of them had read the script they'd know what was going to happen, just not how it'd be achieved.
Terminator 4 or Alien 4? Because this could work for either one.
If it's Alien Resurrection, here's my take:
Alien Resurrection, wtf is this, I don't even...
If it's Terminator 4, there are a lot of reasons. Its portrayal of the war-ravaged future didn't look anything like what Cameron showed in the first two films. Sam Worthington's half-Terminator character made no sense. Why would you give a Terminator a human heart? The heart is one of the most failure-prone body parts you have. If I could replace one of my organs with a mechanical version that wouldn't break down (and wouldn't trigger an immune reaction), I'd replace my heart, no question. Plus why would it need a heart? Are the mechanical parts of its body powered by blood? It made no sense.
Also, Kyle Reese as a teenager wasn't convincing in the slightest.
Nappuccino
Member
more or less yeah.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
What I liked were the outdoor segments. Loved the look of the planet, rain and scattered equipment all around.
SlipperySlope
Banned
One of the main ideas behind Terminator 1 is that the future can't be changed. Terminator 2 changed it so you can change the future. Terminator 3 followed Terminator 1's path where Judgement day is inevitable.
This makes the first and third movies much darker than the second. The whole idea that the world will end soon, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Edit - One of the things I didn't understand about Terminator 3 was why was Kate Brewster's father a target? The targets were supposed to be Connor's leutenants. But the cyborg told Connor that the Mojave area would sustain massive nuclear fallout and he would not live if he went there. But Kate Brewster's father was there... so he would have died... right? So then why was he a target???? My head!
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
You are incorrect, sir. T2 did no such thing. T2 simply expressed the hope that you can change the future.
I'm just going to explain my understanding of the Terminator timeline theory so you know where I'm coming from.
It works exactly like this in the Terminator series (T1 and T2): Time is cyclical. Whatever has, is and will happen has always been that way. Nothing is changed, ever. There is no beginning, middle or end. Kyle is ALWAYS John's father, because he is always sent back in time.
It's only confusing if you try to assume there was a starting point for the John that sends Kyle back (as if there were a 'first' time). That there has to be some version of John that existed before he sends Reese back to fuck Sarah. Nope. John has always been the son of Kyle and Kyle always fathers John. Time doesn't have a beginning or ending point in this universe. Time is and has always, continued to go around in a loop.
Thus, in T2 it is revealed that most of Dyson's work was based on the chip from the first Terminator. Then how was the first Terminator originally built that his work was based off? Well, it came from the work of Dyson, of course. Time is cyclical.
Judgment Day, whether Sarah and friends attempt to change it or not, is triggered on August 29th, 1997 at 2am eastern time. Every time. Every go around. It always happens.
And then in the future, Skynet sends the first T800 back to kill Sarah, whilst the resistance sends Kyle through the portal after him, then blows the factory.
Skynet realizes at that instant it failed and constructs a new time displacement field in 2029, and somewhere in the interim, the resistance has captured a T800 and reprogrammed it and we have this T800 go to the year 1994 to stop the T1000.
Only John in the future knows that they're going to try again in 1994, but he knows if he sends the reprogrammed T800 back, it will work out fine, because it already has. Because all of that is set in stone.
Much to the dismay of Sarah and Kyle's best hopes, the future is set. Judgment Day will come and John Connor will always lead the resistance to victory.
I always felt the outdoor sections looked too much like foam sets with a huge greenscreen behind them, while the interior looked like some kind of 80's future office complex gone to hell.
OK all, so I just bought this:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003AQBYUG/?tag=neogaf0e-20
What are the chances that it's actually going to be a shitty HK knock-off? I got it from the seller Region-Free Titles, and the order was fulfilled by Amazon.
There's only a handful of reviews in on it, and it *looks* legitimate. Someone said that their copy of Aliens looked like a VHS rip though. Ugh.
I should've just ordered it from Amazon.co.uk -- I could've had it for $10 cheaper, and it would have been shipped and sold from Amazon, so I'd know it was legit.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003AQBYUG/?tag=neogaf0e-20
What are the chances that it's actually going to be a shitty HK knock-off? I got it from the seller Region-Free Titles, and the order was fulfilled by Amazon.
There's only a handful of reviews in on it, and it *looks* legitimate. Someone said that their copy of Aliens looked like a VHS rip though. Ugh.
I should've just ordered it from Amazon.co.uk -- I could've had it for $10 cheaper, and it would have been shipped and sold from Amazon, so I'd know it was legit.
SlipperySlope
Banned
Fair enough, but I thought there were multiple timeline theories?
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
There are multiple timeline theories. Though none of them make any sense.
I really don't think this meshes with what the film shows us at all. First of all, according to Reese in T1, the time displacement field that sent the Terminator and Reese back was a last ditch effort and done pretty much after Skynet had already lost. T2 at *the very least* retconned that, and at most made it a concrete change to the timeline as a result of the events of T1 somehow.
Second, since it didn't explicitly show us a changed future, all we have to go on is the sentiment of the characters at the end of the movie, and that sentiment was absolutely that they had changed the future (and thus had to destroy the friendly T800 to ensure it remained changed). Nothing in the narrative of the film suggests that time is fixed, and thematically (especially with the retcon of the line "no fate but the one we make") the implication is absolutely that time is not fixed and can be changed.
You're arguing against the film here, as far as I can tell.
Terminator remains the only film that absolutely and unquestionably leaves time fixed, with the later ones at the very least altering the date of Judgement Day if not the likelihood of it happening.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Both the T800 that goes through to 1984 and the T1000/T800 that go to 1994 both leave in the year 2029. The T1000 was an 'advanced prototype' that couldn't be perfected because Skynet didn't have the time, because yes, they were under the pump with their defense grids smashed, as Kyle had explained in T1. So we have to infer they obviously built a second time displacement field. So what exactly was the concrete change made to the timeline?
Again, I don't know why on earth you are arguing this. The movie ends driving down the neverending highway. 'The unknown future rolls ahead. I face it for the first time with a sense of hope.' There is nothing concrete about that, only that Sarah's apocalyptic nightmare of the future has eased somewhat with the hope that they have changed something.
The 'No Fate' motto is a sense of hope that Kyle and Sarah share. Hope does not = fact. And yes, there is something in the film that suggests time is fixed. When John is fixing the truck with the T800 and is talking about his life, he says 'I never even met my father', to which the T800 replies 'You will', 'Yeah. When I'm like forty-five I think.'
You also have the T800's line earlier in the film 'Thirty-five years from now, you reprogrammed me to be your protector here, in this time.'
All of this is certainly a lot more concrete evidence than what you're insinuating as a concrete retcon based on the idea that Sarah's motto of hope about changing the future came true. I'm not even going to mention the fact that when Sarah narrates the future war in 2029, she is speaking in past tense about Skynet's second attempt - because that I feel is done purely to set up the narrative of the film, rather than anything definitive.
SilentProtagonist
Member
Unless all of your friends and family also hate it, you probably will end up watching it.
Let's be real.
All well and good, but you're talking about what you think, not what's in the movie. At BEST you can say that T2 leaves the question of fate open, but to argue that it unquestionably advocates a fixed timeline is reading a lot into the film that just isn't there.
I'm pulling quotes and character views from the film to support my argument, and for all you've written here all you seem to have to say is "you're wrong." But WHY am I wrong? What from the actual text of the film says the future is fixed? That the friendly T800 comes from a future where John reprogrammed it is absolutely irrelevant (what other future could it have come from, anyways?) to the question of if time can be changed, as it had not yet been changed.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I'm saying you're wrong about insinuating that T2 definitely retcons the idea of a closed timeline that is established in T1. That is all. You say you've pulled character quotes to support your arguments, and I've addressed those as not proving the retcon you level at T2. The quotes that I used are examples of what you said did not exist in the film: allusions to a fixed timeline.
I can accept the idea that it may not be a cyclical timeline - but there is nothing you have said that proves it isn't and nothing the movie does that suggests it either. It does nothing to retcon T1 and you haven't said anything that proves otherwise.
They are also allusions to a branching timeline, which is the only kind of mutable timeline that actually works on a narrative level with the predestination paradoxes Terminator established to begin with. They don't argue either way. Which leaves only the tone and theme of the narrative to indicate, and the tone and the theme are definitely supportive of a mutable timeline.
Also, you've moved the goalposts here. You initially said:
But moving from unambiguously fixed to even ambiguously fixed (and I would continue to argue that it changed it to ambiguously mutable) is absolutely a change in the time travel model. Bringing that ambiguity into it is in fact the driving force of the film, without which there would be barely any story except a simple retread of the first one.
Also, you've moved the goalposts here. You initially said:
But moving from unambiguously fixed to even ambiguously fixed (and I would continue to argue that it changed it to ambiguously mutable) is absolutely a change in the time travel model. Bringing that ambiguity into it is in fact the driving force of the film, without which there would be barely any story except a simple retread of the first one.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I disagree. T1 suggests a cyclical timeline more than it suggests a branching timeline. As everybody knows a branching timeline couldn't make sense in T1 for obvious father/son reasons.
In T1, Kyle says to Sarah that he knows her husband dies before the war. He also manages to have the photograph that she takes after he dies. These ideas support a cyclical timeline more than a branching timeline, because when you have the branching theory, you have to answer where John originally came from.
Of course. Bringing in the hope of changing the future creates drama. But there is nothing to suggest they change a damn thing. There is no retcon. You can talk about theme and tone all you want, it has nothing to do with the facts of what happens, because what happens isn't the same as what the characters hope will happen.
SlipperySlope
Banned
I kind of find it funny that 20 years later, we're still arguing about Terminator timelines.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I misread you, either way, doesn't change my point about T2.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Thanks to this thread, I was inspired to get geeky in a way I haven't for a very, very long time. Enjoy.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Cyclic timelines are logically problematic and Cameron is therefore a hack writer who never did anything good. Fact. Thanks for stopping by.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
What's wrong with the logic?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
The resistance blew the factory before anybody else could be sent through. As soon as Kyle went in after the T800, they blew it.
As for when they send them back to 1994 (T2), I guess they assumed a goddamn mimentic morphic Robert Patrick should be able to handle the job of killing a kid.
There is no paradox under the Cyclical time line.
It seems that T1 had a pretty solid story line, and in T2 it all sorta feel apart =/
Count Dookkake
Member
The best way to look at the Terminator flicks, no matter how many you choose to recognize, is that they don't really connect to each other. The loops keep happening, so details keep changing. Perhaps something like part 1 happened before part 2, but it wasn't exactly the same event that we saw. This explains away any mistakes or plot holes.
If time is changed somehow at the end of T2, and things do end up differently (ie time isn't fixed), wouldn't John essentially be erasing himself from existence by melting the T800? If he never has to send Kyle back to 1984 he would never be conceived in the first place. Even 3 and 4 for all their faults (and there are a lot of them) still seem to follow this line of thinking.
ryutaro's mama
Member
This should settle everything:
If they were truly successful in averting Judgment Day in T2, John Connor should have instantly disappeared as soon as the T-800's thumb sank into the molten metal.
He didn't.
EDIT: Beaten!
If they were truly successful in averting Judgment Day in T2, John Connor should have instantly disappeared as soon as the T-800's thumb sank into the molten metal.
He didn't.
EDIT: Beaten!
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Yes there is. You have established a "closed loop", a timeline featuring causes produced by their own effects. You even directly acknowledge this in the middle of your picture. The events have no discernible origin - they were bootstrapped.
lol i posted that a few days ago. i was told to just ignore it essentially
ryutaro's mama
Member
*brofist*
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
Thanks to this thread, I was inspired to get geeky in a way I haven't for a very, very long time. Enjoy.
But when does Hyrule get flooded?
- Status