MovieChat Forums > AZ > Replies
AZ's Replies
The area secure line was said about the colony not the processor. The colony had barricades, bullet damage, holes in the floor... ok we can convince ourselves that an incompetent officer would say that area is clear.
The processor is a different can of worms. It looks like a maze to start with = easy to get disorientated in. Then they find the hive, which was an obvious sign of something not human. Probably Ripley's alien. It wouldn't take much logic to figure out that they were real and dangerous - from the missing colonists, to the traumatized Newt, to the melted floors.
The movie uses a common horror trope. The character(s) walking into the scary dark room when you know and they should know there's trouble in it. Characters in horror stories are supposed to show a lack of logic and survival instinct because the plot requires it.
That could have been done more intelligently with someone at least mentioning the insanity of proceeding with a mission like that with only a few flamethrowers. No need to even say it's bad writing, let's say it was a lapse in awareness. Maybe Cameron was excited about this cool scene and got caught up in it.
She wasn't ignored, that's the point. She was listened to when she warned about the reactor, which is the reason Gorman disarmed his Marines.
All I'm saying is there should have been a line of dialogue like "You're not just gonna send them in unarmed!" and Gorman could say "They have flamethrowers Ripley" and shut her up. That would give her more reason to finally take control when she springs into action with the APC.
Good points about how the scene defines the characters yet the scene as is doesn't seem complete.
I would have liked to see anyone make more of an issue of proceeding into the nightmare processor unarmed, to cover that base. Ripley was the most logical person to sound the warning.
Even Apone could have spoken up more. Unless there is some rule in the USCM that gets you a firing squad for questioning an officer while on mission.
I get what you mean. I wouldn't have minded if Burke mentioned it, someone should of.
It's the king of thing people don't often think of with movies like this because they're basically horror movies where characters exist to be killed off or traumatized.
Ok sometimes people do think about these things with horror stories and make melodramatic and plodding movies from it. They try to make the horror and villains "realistic" and more relatable, and explain away the mystique and intrigue. Horror works best when it's strange though. The Alien movies almost work on an archetypal level where things aren't exactly realistic and characters (their traumas) aren't given a ton of on screen exploration. Yet there is a mystique to them. They make you wonder and fill in the blanks when it comes to the characters... like about Ripley. It's good when a movie leaves you thinking more about its characters than say a convoluted plot in which the writers were too lazy or stupid to make sense of.
Had they all survived Alien 3 what would their lives have been like? Would they be able to go on normally or would the company hold them for questioning? Would they be put away indefinitely or even killed for their knowledge of the alien and the company corruption? I like to wonder about that because even without the aliens the universe looks like a harsh place. Ripley, Hicks, and Newt might find other challenges.
Indeed he could have written it better. Although compared to today's movies and the often lazy plots, it's not too bad. It just could have been so much better if more care was put into setting up the processor fiasco.
I get that the Marines were intentionally portrayed as over confident so boldly went ahead into enemy territory where the enemy had obvious advantage. It's tough to believe that someone wouldn't have spoken up about the insanity of that, even Burke as you suggested. It's like their survival instincts were non existent. At least Vasquez and Drake had some will to survive with keeping their smartguns armed.
The point is she did speak up when she noticed they were under the heat exchanger. She was brave and bold enough to do that so why not follow through?
It seems somewhat inconsistent to me that she would speak up on the Sulaco when the Marines were being arrogant and then interrupt a mission in progress yet couldn't have said, "Hey maybe sending your troops into this nightmarish environment unarmed is a bad idea"
She was a civilian and didn't seem to care about the chain of command or authority figures after what the company did to her crew in Alien. Then how they treated her during the gateway scene. Heck she blew up at some powerful people in that scene. Probably company people and official lackeys who could have had her locked up if they wanted to.
I just wish an extra 10 seconds or so was added to the processor scene, for someone to have challenged Gorman for continuing the mission as is.
He redeemed himself in the end by trying to save Vasquez, and somewhat throughout the second half of the movie by conceding authority to Ripley and Hicks. That's another quality of the movie not seen today - there's no power struggles or bickering among characters who are supposed to be on the same side. Burke is a heel so he does have spats with the others.
Gorman was 110% honorable Marine in the end, he was however a fool to the processor scene. Which was intentional. Cameron was intrigued by the Vietnam war. Gorman was the "butterbar" officer fresh out of OCS, sent to lead more seasoned men.
In a different sort of movie in which his character were given more to do and allowed to live, he might have turned out to be a good leader. Unfortunately the Alien movies are not forgiving toward mistakes. Perhaps sometimes too unforgiving. Some leniency shown to Hicks and Newt in Alien 3 would have given us a different Alien universe today.
<spoiler>Newt drowned in her capsule and Hicks was impaled by a beam.</spoiler>
Unless you're referring to the Colonial Marines game. I haven't played that but know it changes things.
Project much or are you trying to troll?
I'm calm and collected. How about you?
I can play the projection and presumption game too. YOU must be triggered by someone harshly criticizing this movie.
No one criticized you personally. It's just people here critiquing the flaws of this movie.
I'm sure many of us who are critiquing it could find positives in it too. The negatives are glaring though.
True it was fast, and a pity because it had potential. It had a very sci-fi tone to it. If only they stayed with that longer instead of immediately going to the drab prison planet.
They show eggs at the start. Have you seen the movie?
The magic of retcons and total disrespect for logic and the previous movie. Alien 3 was groundbreaking in its nihilistic hatred of the source material. Before there was woke Star Wars and nu-Trek there was Alien 3 showing us in straight up brutal fashion how you piss off the audience and ruin a series in the first minutes of a film.
You have to figure there's been some people who have hated the message of hope and triumph in the original movies for years. This was their chance to attack that message and troll the audience.
Also, wahman, they are perfect. They are better than men. Even if according to modern hollyweird they can't earn anything for themselves. They need to be given the skills and accomplishments of male characters without the work.
It's kinda creepy, like an existential Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs. What classic movie will they skin next to use the carcass to cloth their cynical social agendas?
So he just wants to do the savior idea but call it something it's not?!
What's the difference between saying "Hey John Connor you're gonna be the savior of humanity!" vs. "Hey random girl you're gonna be the savior of humanity!"
John Connor was living as the "everyman" trouble making teenager in Terminator 2. He wasn't living a privileged savior life. The same with the girl.
It's not apples and oranges. It's apples and apples.
All Tim Miller did was replace one savior with another. Some people are so desperate to prove they are different they resort to denigration of the other thing to raise their own selves or ideas.
That disrespect is woven into the movie.
People like that shouldn't be making Hollywood movies. Yet they're all over the place in the media.
Also in what movie is the savior character ever not the "everyman" from the start? Luke Skywalker was a farmer. Neo was a cubicle dweller. Ripley was a space trucker.
John Connor was a messed up kid who probably didn't know if his mom was telling the truth or crazy.
I would have liked to see a movie that has John Connor with a "normal" job and family (as if somehow that makes you a lesser person?!). Having to struggle with his memories and questioning whether the terminators were real or not. Then throw some action in. Show respect to the character first.
I agree and disagree. The movie has an austere tone yet that works with the theme and location - a group of grizzled middle aged men working in the deadening cold of the antarctic. The unrelenting tone of the movie wouldn't have been possible if it had more emotion and warmth.
Most mainstream film makers aren't able to create a unique and consistent tone with their movies let alone be bold enough to create one of nihilistic dread. The Thing does that well without getting too gory like some b horror movies do. It's palpable enough for mainstream audiences.
The Thing works because of its tone. No that doesn't mean Carpenter was in a good place when he made it or should have stayed in that place. It's good he got help and moved on. Yet he created something with that state of mind which is one of the most unique horror movies ever made.
I'm not a particular fan of horror movies yet I am a fan of movies that have their own identity and stand the test of time. Whether it be a horror movie or an uplifting musical. The tone of movies today is so homogenized, so many look and feel the same. You have to appreciate the old gems in the rough. Maybe they are gems because they were allowed to be rough and have edges.
I don't think Carpenter compromised when he made his earlier movies. I would say he was authentic to who and where he was if overly focused on negative stuff which he grew out of with age and wisdom.
This is amazing. You should put this on a blog so people can share it on twitter and facebook.
So the point of this thread is if you like or criticize movies you're gonna be judged on political reasons = hollywood can do anything and people will defend it to spite the other side or people will attack it to spite the other side and that still helps the studios because publicity.
I don't like what they'd done to Rambo and said the same about 4. The times we live in lack the creativity of old and our world can't do justice to things like Rambo, or Star Wars, or so on.