Alien Trilogy and time

[alvspr]

As SiL said there's no change.  He never was a "bad ass mofo" - he made up a "bad ass mofo" front to cover the "scared shitless guy" who was always underneath.

I'll apologise for this as I was in a rush when I made that post.

When i said "Bad ass Mofo" I really meant "cocky."

But he does go through a range.  He goes from that cocky son of a bitch to the scared shitless guy.

[SM]

Maybe so, but I wouldn't call it depth or an arc or anything.  Hudson is the same as Burke in that he presents on face to begin with, before the true face is revealed.

[JamesCameronOnline]

Indeed, the tension and atmosphere overrides some of the cheese - but the characters (and character development), acting, most of the dialog and the soundtrack are hardly cutting edge.

I'm not complaining. It's 'timeless' in terms of entertainment value, but if someone watched Aliens having never heard of it, they could probably guess when it was made. Alien (and to some extent Alien 3), on the other hand, could have been made yesterday.

I completely disagree Alien couldve been made today. Alien 3 , yes. Alien and Aliens, no. Show this movie to anybody and they will guess that one was made a very long time ago and one in the 80s. Tgheres no way anyone could mistaken it for a movie made recently. And im not talking about special FX or haircuts. Since its a thread about Alien:  The main reason is music (c'mon, as great as Goldsmith's score is, its the classic 70s score ala Star trek, very "broadway" and thus very signature to the 70s) and pacing. Theres no way a movie would be allowed such a long buildup and pacing like Alien (and Aliens) had, and so much dialogue and character and tension building without eye popping monsters intercutting or some CG eye candy of any sort. Alien 3 shows action right off the bat and the danger is instant. Thats one of the reasons it can be mistaken for a 2009 movie. The story, or more so, the way the story is presented in Alien 3 is also more adaptable to today's style

[SiL]

The main reason is music (c'mon, as great as Goldsmith's score is, its the classic 70s score ala Star trek, very "broadway" and thus very signature to the 70s)

I really cannot even begin to comprehend this. It's not the first time I've heard it, and I just don't get it. Goldsmith's score isn't very typical of 70s movies - Heck, by any standards his score was never particularly conventional in its use of some instruments.

and pacing. Theres no way a movie would be allowed such a long buildup and pacing like Alien (and Aliens) had,

King Kong waits longer than either movie.

Not to mention neither movie were particularly typical of the time. Most 70s horror started with a bang and then built, and most 80s action had shit blowing up every ten minutes.

Alien 3 shows action right off the bat and the danger is instant. Thats one of the reasons it can be mistaken for a 2009 movie. The story, or more so, the way the story is presented in Alien 3 is also more adaptable to today's style

The effects, however, cannot be mistaken for 2009.

[JamesCameronOnline]

I really cannot even begin to comprehend this. It's not the first time I've heard it, and I just don't get it. Goldsmith's score isn't very typical of 70s movies - Heck, by any standards his score was never particularly conventional in its use of some instruments.

Again, it was very Broadway. Some of the cues were realy reminiscent of the 70s adventure movies and even have elements of the late 60s scores. The most apparent are: the track playing during the wide shot when Nostromo is getting close to gas giant and the music playing during the credits. Those are two  prime examples. I am NOT criticizing it or taking a shot at it, im just saying its a classic old fashioned score, thatsd all. Something that for me at least seems very apparent

King Kong waits longer than either movie.

Yes, and you had CG filled money shots before you got to see Kong and plenty of action and danger involving the ship and its struggles on its way to the siland. Besides, its not ONLY the buildup. Its the entire construction and pacing. Both Alien and Aliens have an incredibly long, quiet and suspensful buildup. Theres nothing going on for most of the movie, than one bigger scene happens, and then back to a very long wait untill the scene leading to the climax and climax itself.

Not to mention neither movie were particularly typical of the time. Most 70s horror started with a bang and then built, and most 80s action had shit blowing up every ten minutes.

Thats true. Alien or Aliens were certainly very atypical for their time. Alien wasnt a space adventure or a sterilized cornfest like most (ah heck, ALL) 70s space movies. Im just saying that there ARE elements dating it, and im not talking about visuals of any kind or any technical elements. Music , pacing and the construtction of the story is something that wouldnt allow this movie to be mistaken for a new release. Same with Aliens. Its a jewel among the 80s cornfest thats around there. Typical 80s action as far as I know is action without logic behind it (never ending ammo, bad guys all having bad aim), filled with one liners and lighter atmoshepre on the main character's part and usually scored with recognizable typical 80s score with the use  of synthesizers. I dont see anything like that in Alilens. Its a movie with real suspenful buildup, incredible tension and seriousness to it. But since its a faithful continuation of Alien's style, it also wouldnt be possible for movie to be written this way today. Both Ridley and Jim did the movies when people actually thought of them as an art form and treated it as such. Both used same angles, use of light, shadows, same lenses etc. All that creates some breathtaking and surreal imagery.
I think AVP movies represent how Alien movies would be done nowadays.

The effects, however, cannot be mistaken for 2009.

Not necessary. Those qucik cuts of alien look like a cheap CG done for some TV series or TV movie, so it could pass for that

[SiL]

Yes, and you had CG filled money shots before you got to see Kong

Alien had plenty of space shots, the alien planet, and the derelict.

Those qucik cuts of alien look like a cheap CG done for some TV series or TV movie, so it could pass for that

The rod-puppet Alien aren't the only effects in the movie, but. The compositing on the exterior of the beach, for example, wouldn't look that dirty even on a low-budget DTV movie.

[alvspr]

Typical 80s action as far as I know is action without logic behind it (never ending ammo, bad guys all having bad aim), filled with one liners and lighter atmoshepre on the main character's part

I just want to echo this as well.  I have always called it "80's action" that kind of stuff.

[SiL]

Which isn't Aliens.

[alvspr]

correct.

[maledoro]

Typical 80s action as far as I know is filled with one liners and lighter atmosphere on the main character's part.  I dont see anything like that in Aliens.

[alvspr]

To be fair - Aliens does have some nifty one liners.

But the action is logical for the most part.

[maledoro]

To be fair - Aliens does have some nifty one liners.

But the action is logical for the most part.

[alvspr]

okkkkkaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy

[maledoro]

okkkkkaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy

[alvspr]

thats a great way to give me your opinion Mal. I appreciate your fully thought out and reasoned argument.