• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Holy Balls. The first two Alien movies are amazing.

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is getting into the kind of technicalities you just have to not think about in these kinds of movies. Seriously.
 
Nappuccino said:
Sigh.

In theory no. If two people took a time machine at different times (let's just say 2 hours apart) to the same point in time (for this example 2:03am, Feb 2nd, 1984) then yes, they would arrive at the same time.

However, in this case, what the t-800 wants to do is destroy the possibility of resistance and, by that fact Reese's ability to even get to a time machine much less the need for a time machine to even exist!.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Great! Now we can get somewhere!

Nappuccino said:
The t-800 leaves first and changes the past.
Click to expand...
Alright, just above we have concluded that leaving first means absolutely nothing. Zilch. Squat. Leaving first means nothing so long as Reese is able to enter and arrive at the same time. The T800 changes nothing by leaving first.

Nappuccino said:
If he changes the past then Reese cannot go back in time because his ability to do so is removed.
Click to expand...

And once again, just above we have concluded that the T800 cannot change the past while the displacement field remains open for Reese to go through. The T800 doesn't change anything in the past, precisely because it remains open for Reese. It doesn't disappear because he's already gone through, precisely because (as we have concluded) his going through means squat. Only the removal of the field or Reese himself after the T800 goes through would change anything.
 
Nappuccino said:
Nope. We can't. The specifics of this situation don't apply to the hypothetical "two people go back to the same point in time" question you asked despite it's superficial similarities.
Click to expand...

How doesn't it? Are you saying that in your theory they don't arrive at a pre-set time destination? Because you literally just said that if they go to a pre-set time, that it makes no sense for one to arrive 'first'.
 
Scullibundo said:
Well Nappa's thought supposes that one can arrive 'first' to a pre-set time destination. Which makes no sense whatsoever - even under his own theory.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. His statement is logically sound, he just doesn't agree with the cycle. You are insufferable.

His question revolves completely around the time of departure and has 0 to do with the time of arrival. Perhaps if you took your own advice and read the posts you would understand.
 
Narpas Sword0 said:
No, it doesn't. His statement is logically sound, he just doesn't agree with the cycle. You are insufferable.

His question revolves completely around the time of departure and has 0 to do with the time of arrival. Perhaps if you took your own advice and read the posts you would understand.
Click to expand...

But just posts ago, we agreed that the time of departure is completely irrelevant. Whoever leaves when, however it happens. If Kyle Reese is allowed to go back to 1984 and arrive at the same time as the T800, nothing changes. Ever.

If the T800 goes through first, nothing changes instantly because he has already failed back in 1984. Reese has already stopped him back then and is yes, about to enter after him to do just that.
 
Nappuccino said:
Reese was trying to save her. If he gets there first the timeline wouldn't change. So the t-800 would be able to come to the same point in time with no issue.
Click to expand...

Nappuccino said:
Sigh.

In theory no. If two people took a time machine at different times (let's just say 2 hours apart) to the same point in time (for this example 2:03am, Feb 2nd, 1984) then yes, they would arrive at the same time.

However, in this case, what the t-800 wants to do is destroy the possibility of resistance and, by that fact Reese's ability to even get to a time machine much less the need for a time machine to even exist!. The t-800 leaves first and changes the past. If he changes the past then Reese cannot go back in time because his ability to do so is removed.
Click to expand...


ThoseDeafMutes said:
There are so many ways this could turn out. If we assume quantum-forking (type four) timelines, then when each time-travel event occurs, a new timeline is created. So you end up with the original timeline (no changes, skynet / Connor all occur organically as a result of regular cause and effect), the timeline in which the Terminator alone goes back in time and kills Sarah, and then the timeline in which Reese follows the Terminator back and we get T1. Reese and the Terminator's arrivals are not logically inconsistent even if the future changes then, because the original timeline where they came from is preserved and cannot be altered, ensuring they arrive.

Assuming you are capable of accessing your own past (single timeline theories), then contradictions and paradoxes can occur. Whether or not the timeline should change "instantly" or not is based around two things - can the timeline change ever, and is time predetermined? If the timeline cannot change ever, then predestination is automatically assumed. But predestination does not automatically assume that time travel can or cannot make changes. If we have predestination in a universe which does allow time-travel related changes, then the thing should have instantly switched as soon as the first time travel event occurred. If not, then we get what we see in T1, a fixed, unchanging timeline where time travelers never-the-less go about with their business. I must reiterate though that this sort of universe doesn't make much sense logically, even though it's fairly popular in fiction.



If you have a spacetime bridge to a fixed point in the past from shifting points in the future, as described, if the first person goes through and makes changes, then the second person never gets to go through at all. Since they can't go through (because the past has changed precluding these circumstances from ever occurring) then they never arrive in the past, even though if they DID they would arrive simultaneously with the initial traveler. The distinction then is, as I said, whether the past can be changed at all. If it can't, then the second man can follow the first through, but if it can, then he doesn't.
Click to expand...

Yes to these posts.
 
Scullibundo said:
But just posts ago, we agreed that the time of departure is completely irrelevant. Whoever leaves when, however it happens. If Kyle Reese is allowed to go back to 1984 at the same time as the T800, nothing changes. Ever.

If the T800 goes through first, nothing changes instantly because he has already failed back in 1984. Reese has already stopped him back then and is yes, about to enter after him to do just that.
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant in that hypothetical situation. Not here.
 
Nappuccino said:
Nope. We can't. The specifics of this situation don't apply to the hypothetical "two people go back to the same point in time" question you asked despite the superficial similarities.
Click to expand...

It's basically it happened that way because it had to have happened that way. The only way they are in the timeline now is because it happened. Predestination paradox abound in the first one. It was a simple premise, don't think about it too hard.
 
Jobiensis said:
It's basically it happened that way because it had to have happened that way. The only way they are in the timeline now is because it happened. Predestination paradox abound in the first one. It was a simple premise, don't think about it too hard.
Click to expand...

Right. For the sake of enjoyment, I just roll with it. If we're actually going to discuss it well, that leads to some flaws in the general premise.
 
Its a good thing we were only arguing about T1/T2.

Don't get me started on the flaws in Terminator Salvation. It doesn't even stand up to its own logic as a self-contained film.
 
Tobor said:
If Jeunet had directed Aliens and Cameron had directed Ressurection, you'd be praising Whedon.

Of course, in that scenario, we would never get to Ressurection because Jeunet would have torpedoed the franchise two movies early.
Click to expand...

Jeunet at his best > either Cameron or Whedon.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Jeunet at his best > either Cameron or Whedon.
Click to expand...

Cameron at his best is more than a force to be reckoned with. I love Amelie, but it in no way, shape or form will ever mean squat compared to T1 in my eyes. And outside of Amelie, I'm only slightly impressed by The City of Lost Children and Micmacs.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Jeunet at his best > either Cameron or Whedon.
Click to expand...

I agree with Whedon, but better than Cameron at his best? First of all it's apples and oranges, and second of all, it's just

A5Z2q.gif
 
I agree with puddles. I mean, I know which director I enjoy more (I love Amelie more than anything Cameron has done... though True Lies and T1 are probably very close)... but I have a hard time directly comparing the two.
 
Just watched Aliens with my two younger brothers, went with the theatrical cut for the first time (for some reason I had always gone with the DC previously). Anyways the blu-ray was gorgeous for about 95% of the shots which thrilled me and while I do understand the why the TC removed some things, I kinda missed them. I think for future viewings I'll go back to that cut.

<3 Hicks <3

Such an amazing cast. I want Cameron to do his Prometheus only he will just follow the marines squad from Aliens while they did what ever they did before that mission lol.

Other than Blade Runner, Alien + Aliens have gotta be my fav sci-fi movies.
 
Eh, Jeunet at his best makes movies I care about more than the other two. Cameron t his best is pretty good, though. He just hasn't been there in 20 years.

I really don't get Whedon love at all, though.

(Edit: His best is Delicatessen, btw)
 
It is just silly to compare the two as they operate in entirely different realms.

When it comes to science fiction, action or an epic - Cameron will win every time.

When it comes to crafting a more intimate film or something that operates outside of Hollywood conventions (be it visual or narrative language), Jeunet will win every time.
 
Scullibundo said:
It is just silly to compare the two as they operate in entirely different realms.

When it comes to science fiction, action or an epic - Cameron will win every time.

When it comes to crafting a more intimate film or something that operates outside of Hollywood conventions (be it visual or narrative language), Jeunet will win every time.
Click to expand...

I would like to see Cameron try his hand at the latter.
 
Oh, man. I wouldn't. It would be horrible. That is not where his talents lie.

Though I wouldn't have minded too much if he finally got around to making The Last Train from Hiroshima.
 
Scullibundo said:
Oh, man. I wouldn't. It would be horrible. That is not where his talents lie.

Though I wouldn't have minded too much if he finally got around to making The Last Train from Hiroshima.
Click to expand...

Well that's just it, it would be nice to see him push himself in a way that wasn't through the use of new technology.

ThoseDeafMutes said:
I would like to see Cameron return to making movies I like. Haven't cared for anything he's done since maybe True Lies.
Click to expand...

I thought Avatar was ok enough... it entranced me for one viewing even though my mind still recognized all its flaws. I just cannot watch it again.
 
Finished Resurrection. Two things I appreciated 1.) How they reveal what Winona Ryder is and 2.) Ripley's encounter with the clone experiments.
 
While we're on the topic of Terminator...

John Connor: Kyle, my friend, you've gotta go into the past to stop the evil robot from fuckin things up.

Kyle: Okay..... dude your mom's hot...

John: .. O- okay, just get out of here.

Kyle: Sure thing, bro.

*goes into the past, fucks his friends mom, becomes his friend's dad, trollface

Am I understanding this right or should I draw a diagram?
 
SilentProtagonist said:
While we're on the topic of Terminator...

John Connor: Kyle, my friend, you've gotta go into the past to stop the evil robot from fuckin things up.

Kyle: Okay..... dude your mom's hot...

John: .. O- okay, just get out of here.

Kyle: Sure thing, bro.

*goes into the past, fucks his friends mom, becomes his friend's dad, trollface

Am I understanding this right or should I draw a diagram?
Click to expand...

More or less... yes. Though John probably knew exactly what Reese was going to do to his mother.
 
SilentProtagonist said:
While we're on the topic of Terminator...

John Connor: Kyle, my friend, you've gotta go into the past to stop the evil robot from fuckin things up.

Kyle: Okay..... dude your mom's hot...

John: .. O- okay, just get out of here.

Kyle: Sure thing, bro.

*goes into the past, fucks his friends mom, becomes his friend's dad, trollface

Am I understanding this right or should I draw a diagram?
Click to expand...

Unless John wants to stop existing, Kyle has to go back. I mean Sarah does tell him who his father is, so he'd know before Kyle does why he's going back.
 
I think you're assuming they're friends and not comrades. Other than whatever moment where John gives him the photo (which John knows has to happen), I don't think there's any reason to believe they see each other as much more than commander and soldier.

But maybe I'm not recalling some dialogue from Terminator. It's been a while.
 
Time travel is always going to have paradoxes. Terminator/2's is the Predestination paradox. Ironically, the characters act as though they can alter events, but they cannot.
 
OK, it's because of this thread I took it upon myself to watch each Alien movie this week for the first time!


FUCK, this series is good and deserves its praise! And yeah ... I can clearly see how Metroid is a rip-off of/ based heavily on this o.O

There are some STRANGE things about this though. Like ... how the CG got better in the 2nd one and got real shitty in the 3rd one and then got way better in the 4th one.

I was afraid that the 3rd and 4th ones would crap up the greatness of the first 2 but I'm happy to find out they don't! They aren't better than the first 2 but they're not crap! :]

The 4th one ... seemed like it needed some more time in the oven on that script though. :/
There's just a nice amount of things in it that just don't add up or go anywhere.

But over all I rate them as ...

Alien 2> Alien> Alien 4> Alien 3
 
Black-Wind said:
There are some STRANGE things about this though. Like ... how the CG got better in the 2nd one and got real shitty in the 3rd one and then got way better in the 4th one.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by the CGI 'got real shitty in the third'?
And while I disagree with your rankings, welcome to the Alien franchise.
 
Saw Aliens for the first time in god knows how many years. Good film, but don't understand how so many people call it scary, and especially scarier than Alien. I am a total wuss (any piece of shit horror film makes me afraid of the dark for at least a day or two) but I wasn't moved in the least. Good suspense, but once the aliens showed up they of course looked scary but were pretty much useless. Action was excellent and I did like the first time you got to see the Queen, but total lack of any kind of a real sense of danger and thrills coupled with the incredible lame marines and their horrid macho dialogue puts the film several notches below Alien.

Alien 3 of course sucks, but you got to give it credit for totally pissing on Cameron's space family adventure tripe.
 
Black-Wind said:
There are some STRANGE things about this though. Like ... how the CG got better in the 2nd one and got real shitty in the 3rd one and then got way better in the 4th one.

I was afraid that the 3rd and 4th ones would crap up the greatness of the first 2 but I'm happy to find out they don't! They aren't better than the first 2 but they're not crap! :]
Click to expand...
I fucking LOL'd.

I saw Alien 3 when it came out and it was totally forgettable, so I watched the Assembly Cut the other day and unfortunately it still completely blows. Just too many terrible script decisions for it to have worked out regardless of director. The combined talents of Scott and Cameron couldn't have saved that thing.

Decided to finally watch Alien Resurrection and went with the Extended Cut, and it was even worse than I thought it could be. What an absolute clusterfuck of shittiness that was. Shitty script, performances, set design, sound, human/Xenomorph thing at the end, shitty everything.

At least with Alien 3 the shots are nice and the lighting is superb. The hallway corridor sequence at the end was abysmal and the CG was pretty horrific for the most part, but aside from that the movie isn't painful to look at and you can get a sense that Fincher could have done something great had he been there from the beginning with a solid script. Resurrection is just disgusting to look at on a technical level. Everything about it screams cheap ass cash-in, and the direction is embarrassing.

Glad my palate is cleaned for dat Prometheus. Will probably watch Alien & Aliens one more time before it releases. Those are just soooo fucking good.
 
julls said:
There's no CG in the second one.
Click to expand...

Oh really?
Then the 3rd one looked crappier than I thought :/

Satyamdas said:
I fucking LOL'd.

I saw Alien 3 when it came out and it was totally forgettable, so I watched the Assembly Cut the other day and unfortunately it still completely blows. Just too many terrible script decisions for it to have worked out regardless of director. The combined talents of Scott and Cameron couldn't have saved that thing.

Decided to finally watch Alien Resurrection and went with the Extended Cut, and it was even worse than I thought it could be. What an absolute clusterfuck of shittiness that was. Shitty script, performances, set design, sound, human/Xenomorph thing at the end, shitty everything.

At least with Alien 3 the shots are nice and the lighting is superb. The hallway corridor sequence at the end was abysmal and the CG was pretty horrific for the most part, but aside from that the movie isn't painful to look at and you can get a sense that Fincher could have done something great had he been there from the beginning with a solid script. Resurrection is just disgusting to look at on a technical level. Everything about it screams cheap ass cash-in, and the direction is embarrassing.

Glad my palate is cleaned for dat Prometheus. Will probably watch Alien & Aliens one more time before it releases. Those are just soooo fucking good.
Click to expand...

4 had a lot of ... bad. Nasty ass thing at the end being what I would call a perma-stain on the series. But it was enjoyable for that it was, just needed a ton more work.

But hell, after seeing how great Aliens was I just assumed the last 2 would be hot shit on a stick cause there was not way they would best that (was gonna come in here and ask if I should even watch the last 2 but on one of these pages everyone was talking about how 3 was underrated ) so maybe my expectations were super low.

But at least we can agree 1 and 2 are greatly better than 3 and 4. :]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Underrated movies that are good.
43
1K
Itchy.Tasty. replied
Alien III - any good?
39
1K
Little Mac replied
Tim Burchett : There are underwater Alien bases
2
63
1K
j0hnnix replied
CBC balls deep in the oilers?
9
442
kikkis replied
Vought Rising | First Look | The Boys Prequel
28
389
Novaex replied
Top Bottom