Toho Kingdom

Spirit Ghidorah 2010 wrote:I loved Casablanca and Titanic, which says alot.

You loved two extremely popular, mainstream romantic flicks...which is relevant to a discussion of a film that has little in common with either of those films how? Because one contains a reluctant hero and the other has a suicidal woman at the end?! If you want to make comparisons, at least choose films that are as nihilistic as Alien 3.

How the hell is Alien 3 nihilistic? Because 2 of the main characters died before the movie even started? Because a woman's efforts can be all for nothing? Please, that means every Call of Duty game is nihilistic.

Alien 3 was a complete mess. I would watch Alien Resurrection and AVP long before I watch Alien 3 again. At least they were entertaining.

Guys...not an Alien3 thread...

And AVP:R is still bad (what what on topic!)

Since there's no actual AvP Discussion thread, I don't see a problem with side discussion on another Alien film.

But yeah... AvP: R sucks.

wataru wrote:Quick, rename is 'The Aliens/Predator Franchise Thread' and sticky it!

Personally, I thought of suggesting a merging of all the Alien/Predator threads we have and just re-naming that. Anyone have anything against doing this?

Okay, let me throw my hat into this one...

So, how many of you folks who say the movie sucks (it IS bad, critically speaking, don't mistake me) are Xenomorph fanboys? The meat-and-potatoes of the matter is a good majority of the Alien fanbase felt alienated (no pun intended) by the movie because the Xenos got pasted. I've actually argued with Alien fans that the movie "doesn't have real aliens in it 'cause they got their asses kicked too badly." I'll grant you a trite and overused plot and cardboard characters, but the overall acting isn't THAT bad. No worse than the acting in the original Alien (and yeah, I'll go on record as saying the acting in it was shit, overall), at the very least.

Does the film fail overall? Sure, if you don't know what the intention was. The film was created to be the polar opposite of the first AvP. It was designed to appeal to Predator fans who were pissed over the poor treatment of the Predators in that movie. Best described, it was a Predator movie with Aliens thrown in for cannon fodder.

Did it suck? No. Was it bad? Oh, very. Was it enjoyable? Sure, as long as you like a Predator slaughtering everything in it's path. As I said... it's not an AvP film, it's a Predator film.

KaneLocke wrote:Okay, let me throw my hat into this one...

So, how many of you folks who say the movie sucks (it IS bad, critically speaking, don't mistake me) are Xenomorph fanboys? The meat-and-potatoes of the matter is a good majority of the Alien fanbase felt alienated (no pun intended) by the movie because the Xenos got pasted. I've actually argued with Alien fans that the movie "doesn't have real aliens in it 'cause they got their asses kicked too badly." I'll grant you a trite and overused plot and cardboard characters, but the overall acting isn't THAT bad. No worse than the acting in the original Alien (and yeah, I'll go on record as saying the acting in it was shit, overall), at the very least.

Does the film fail overall? Sure, if you don't know what the intention was. The film was created to be the polar opposite of the first AvP. It was designed to appeal to Predator fans who were pissed over the poor treatment of the Predators in that movie. Best described, it was a Predator movie with Aliens thrown in for cannon fodder.

Did it suck? No. Was it bad? Oh, very. Was it enjoyable? Sure, as long as you like a Predator slaughtering everything in it's path. As I said... it's not an AvP film, it's a Predator film.

Mother of God, THIS.

Arrow wrote:

wataru wrote:Quick, rename is 'The Aliens/Predator Franchise Thread' and sticky it!

Personally, I thought of suggesting a merging of all the Alien/Predator threads we have and just re-naming that. Anyone have anything against doing this?

I don't have an issue with this it's just going to have a shit ton of pages is all.

wataru wrote:Because, like the flipside of Alien3 fans, there's a flipside to Titanic fans who think its a snore-fest.

Huh? Once again this makes no sense. Alien 3 has more detractors than fans, and there are far more people who love Titanic than there are people who have even seen Alien 3.

RESURRECTION better than ALIEN 3?

Now THAT's funny.

I enjoyed Predators, but its time to give all three of these franchises a break.

Goji wrote:RESURRECTION better than ALIEN 3?

Now THAT's funny.

Because, unlike Alien 3, it had a shred of entertainment value.

Spirit Ghidorah 2010 wrote:

Goji wrote:RESURRECTION better than ALIEN 3?

Now THAT's funny.

Because, unlike Alien 3, it had a shred of entertainment value.

Which is completely counterbalanced by Winona Ryder and her shitty shitness.

wataru wrote:There are people that rabidly defend A3 and there are those that hate it. There are people that rabidly hate Titanic and those that love it.

That is such a weak comparison that it hardly even counts as one. By those standards, any two films can be compared. I'd tell you to use your brain, but with piss-poor arguments like that...eh, never mind. It's Thanksgiving. You're spared an insult today. Eat, drink, and be merry, no matter what film you're watching.

If you had presented debatable points (i.e. something more substantive than, "Two movies both have fans and detractors!"), then I would bother to take a stance. You have made no assertion worth discussing. Citizen Kane is a popular movie, but not everyone likes it...I guess that makes it just like Alien 3! (Heaven forbid we compare films on actual criteria, such as the way that both Citizen Kane and Alien 3 employ heavy use of low-angle shots to enhance the drama.)

I love how everyone chooses to ignore how piss poor the acting is in A:R (especially in comparison to ALIEN 3), but instead choose to focus on how much of a "mess" ALIEN 3 is, and then don't elaborate on what they mean by that. Ron Pearlman was the only stand out performance in the entire cast. Don't even get me started on everything else that's bad about this movie, because frankly, if you're an actual fan of this stuff, most of it kind of goes without saying. The movie was just plain unnecessary, and it suffers greatly because of that.

You know what, maybe I'll give A:R another viewing. I actually saw it in the theater about 13 years ago exactly, coincidently enough. I've honestly seen the film maybe 5 times in this time span, and it's at least deserving of another viewing. I'll see if there is anything that stands out this time around..which is doubtful

I don't think Alien 3 is a mess. It's highly flawed, yes, but it - and I've said this several times before - holds up a lot better than anything else coming out in the Alien franchise. It's like Predator 2 for me, I don't care for it, but I don't think it's a terrible movie. A:R and the two AvP films are trash, IMO, however. The plot hole in the beginning of A3 is pretty bad, though.

gvamp wrote:I don't have an issue with this it's just going to have a shit ton of pages is all.

Fair point. Maybe just re-naming this thread would be better. It's kinda strange to have all these threads and be unable to talk about and compare all of the movies.

This is now the "Alien and Predator Discussion Thread". If anyone has a problem with that, feel free to say so.

Goji wrote:I'd love to make a fan edit someday that implements the theatrical ending, and the restored footage from the recent Blue-ray release.

Something like that does exist. It's called the "Re-Assembly Cut", which also uses the dog from the theatrical version instead of an ox.

As for the franchise I'd go like this:

Alien 5/5.
Aliens 3.5/5.
Predator 3.5/5.
Predator 2 2/5.
Alien 3 4/5.
Alien Resurrection 3.5/5.

Haven't seen Predators yet, and the AvP films don't exist in my world.

Hellspawn28 wrote:I don't know why people hated Predator 2 so much? I mean has just as much action or if not more as the first movie, a great setting, tells us more about the Predator universe, and some decent characters. It was a great sequel if you ask me.

Predator 2 is everything that John McTiernan prevented the first film from being. It's a movie that is fairly shallow, crude, and only really interested in its monster. The sequel is what the writers of both films intended the 1987 film to be before McTiernan transformed that film into a satire of 80's action flicks. Stephen Hopkins simply shot 2's script.

While I understand that sci-fi sequels should expand upon the universe created in the original film, I would also argue that the original Predator is artistically stronger as a stand-alone picture than as the start of a franchise. If Predator 2 was trying to point out the idiocy of cop thrillers in the way that Predator pointed out the idiocy of films like First Blood Part 2, then it failed to make that attempt clear or potent. It felt excessive for the sake of excess rather than excessive for the sake of satire. It never seemed interested in deconstructing the genre that it used as a template.