And yet you like Aliens, strange.
Not strange at all seeing as Aliens had all those things where Alien 3 lacked all of them.
Cliches?
I AM a Voyager fan, actually.
Wow.
That actually explains a lot.
What do we think of Alien 3?
- Thread starter saturn5
- Start date
Wow.
That actually explains a lot.
Interesting analogy since that is what people were saying back in 2001. They were saying Voyager's entering Earth orbit and cue credits was like Berman and Braga giving the middle finger to all the viewers who, for seven years wanted to see the crew get home and see their families and so on. Personally, I had given up on Wrongway Janeway, Seven of Tits and the bunch of addled halfwits many years before, so I couldn't two two shits.
I guess it foreshadowed TATV, a few years later.
Do you like ENT, too?
I guess it foreshadowed TATV, a few years later.
Do you like ENT, too?
And yet you like Aliens, strange.
Not strange at all seeing as Aliens had all those things where Alien 3 lacked all of them.
Cliches?
I AM a Voyager fan, actually.
Wow... total shocker...
I think I would have gone with 'great' rather than 'good' had there been such an option. 'Masterpiece' would be a bit much in my opinion. Then again, I wouldn't call any of the Alien films a masterpiece, I think, not even the first one.
I really like Alien 3, to be honest. In many ways I feel it returns to some of the things that made the first film interesting while carving out an identity all its own. On some level, it's almost a quiet, introspective film. Yet it doesn't forget the terror and fear that the aliens can inflict. And the style of filming (which IIRC was, on some level, pretty new at the time) really supported that, with the aliens scaling the tunnels for what they're worth and not just sticking to the floors.
This one comes right behind Alien for me and well ahead of Aliens or Alien 4.
I really like Alien 3, to be honest. In many ways I feel it returns to some of the things that made the first film interesting while carving out an identity all its own. On some level, it's almost a quiet, introspective film. Yet it doesn't forget the terror and fear that the aliens can inflict. And the style of filming (which IIRC was, on some level, pretty new at the time) really supported that, with the aliens scaling the tunnels for what they're worth and not just sticking to the floors.
This one comes right behind Alien for me and well ahead of Aliens or Alien 4.
All they did there was just the same thing they did in the first movie by keeping it dark and stuff. Or cop-outs like just turning the camera feed upside down. In A3 they showed a much more maneuverable alien REALLY moving, the techniques required weren't even finished film technology (the rod puppet). FOX didn't give them enough time to make it fit in right in post-production.
Ah, but what Alien 3 succeeded in (and what I was getting at) is making it feel dynamic in a way Aliens was never able to (this image of a big, sluggish alien zoo / circus heading towards the camera will forever be stuck in my head, I think). The aliens in Alien 3 actually felt fast and vicious. Whereas, in my view, Aliens hid the lack of dynamism through the sheer number of foes (which fits very well with what Aliens did in general, i.e. being bigger and louder overall than its predecessor).
Except it looked much better in "Aliens" because they were actually there on set, rather than in A3 in which they used a matted in rod puppet().
Even Richard Edlund admits on the quadrilogy documentary that it didn't work.
I'm sorry to hear he feels that way. But frankly I disagree with his opinion. It may not be perfect but it certainly worked very well for me.
Ah, but what Alien 3 succeeded in (and what I was getting at) is making it feel dynamic in a way Aliens was never able to (this image of a big, sluggish alien zoo / circus heading towards the camera will forever be stuck in my head, I think). The aliens in Alien 3 actually felt fast and vicious. Whereas, in my view, Aliens hid the lack of dynamism through the sheer number of foes (which fits very well with what Aliens did in general, i.e. being bigger and louder overall than its predecessor).
Except it looked much better in "Aliens" because they were actually there on set, rather than in A3 in which they used a matted in rod puppet(
Even Richard Edlund admits on the quadrilogy documentary that it didn't work.
I'm sorry to hear he feels that way. But frankly I disagree with his opinion. It may not be perfect but it certainly worked very well for me.
The problem is that the post production for Alien 3 was rushed and certain special effects like the rod puppet were not completed to the best standard available.
I know that doesn't really help the situation, but if viewers can appreciate that the film had a difficult production period and put these errors into context, then the film is a much more worthwhile experience.
What you see as a "cop out" I find intriguing.
I LOVED watching the making of show and seeing all the "in camera" techniques used. It just seems much more clever when you know that three different quick edits created the facehugger jumping or the aliens were crawling along the ground but they flipped the camera to make it seem like they were clinging to ducting from the ceiling.
The "OMG" moment came for me when they showed the "overhang" miniature that extended the sub basement/alien lair set and made the roof seem cavernous - no CGI needed, no optical effects, just a scale miniature hanging in front of the camera, matching the real life size set with pen lights shone onto it to simulate the marines' helmet lamps.
The fact that it all LOOKED realistic makes the sheer simplicity and economy of it even better! Add to that the CLEVERNESS and I was in awe!
Cop out?
No.
Responsibly staying within budget and delivering a finished product that STILL stands up today?
Yes.
But it didn't LOOK real.
I was taken out of the film and put squarely back into Edlund's photo chemical lab EVERY TIME the dark matte lines appeared and the contrasted wrong lighting showed itself.
And THAT is the unforgiveable sin of a special effect.
It did not do its job effectively.
Next.
Again,
I
DO
NOT
CARE.
Not MY problem.
In the famous words of Marc Borchardt(Google him),
"Nobody ever paid to see this,
[motions to his hands displaying NOTHING]
on screen!"
You're just making excuses now.
I believe you are now in the intractable position of setting yourself up as the counter culture film defender and are getting desperate having to defend even the weakest elements and thus, put forward the weakest arguments for this film. Granted, over time I have seen SOME redeeming features in A3 but the rod puppet creature effects are something that any person with two eyes can see are NOT one of them!
Again, I will grant you that there ARE some things about the film I can respect. I will begrudgingly say I respect the fact they went COMPLETELY nihilistic and made a TOTALLY different film, thus making the first three films all separate sub-genres but I also expect you, if only to yourself, to acknowledge that, by defending this film as staunchly as you have done, are entering the territory of wannabe counter culture film elitist.
Certainly this argument cements that.
Well, that's your problem then. At least you didn't start blathering on about it's "horrid CGI!" like most dimwit haters who don't do their homework.
And anyways, if the same thing happened to Cameron you'd be the one making the excuses saying that the effects would be good if they had the right time, etc.
I appreciate what they were going for.
What, it's okay to only like mainstream stuff? Because that's what you're basically saying.
When I saw the film at the cinema in 1993, I assumed it was CGI. The tech was new at the time and I think a lot of people assumed they were using this new fangled thing to recreate the alien.
All one has to do now is watch the documentary to know they didn't. Oh and btw, I find all four "Making of" docs for the alien films to be OUTSTANDING. The A3 one is incredible if only for the fact that it's basically a two hour, "This is how we fucked up" confession.
Not throwing a cheap shot, just a, "WOW - I cannot believe you ACTUALLy took THAT approach!" kinda deal!
Respectfully, how do you know that?
If what you're saying is I am a James Cameron booster, I would direct your attention to the "Avatar is stupid" thread where I say a couple of times how much I disliked the film. I think Cameron has bought into his own hype and has become the stereotypical bleeding heart left wing wanker. Avatar is simplistic in how it presents its message, panders to the audience and insulted my intelligence with its "military bad/pretty natives living in harmony with nature good" nonsense(and yes, I KNOW they weren't strictly military, but they are close enough that is does not matter!).
So, no, I actually really dislike Cameron's latest work and don't like what he has turned into.
Besides, as I said, it's the simplicity with how he created a REAL WORLD(no overblown CGI shit)with basic tech for "Aliens" that is just another part of why I LOVE that film!
What, it's okay to only like mainstream stuff? Because that's what you're basically saying.
No, but I do appreciate your wink.
I do think you have backed yourself into a corner and were not anticipating the extreme and sheer hatred people have for A3. You pretty much admitted yourself it's a niche film and your tastes are unconventional. If nothing else, you could admit its appeal was very limited with American audiences(though I will grant it was more popular in Europe where sensibilities are different.....more mature?).
There.
That's pretty much my equivalent of a written handshake.
If you think the documentary with Alien 3 was harsh on the studio, just remember that it was supposed to be worse; the studio gutted the Alien 3 documentary.
And given Fincher's attitude toward Alien 3, it has always surprised me that that Workprint in the Quadrilogy wasn't officially directed by Alan Smithee.
And he sure wishes it wasn't... which says a lot about the experience of making the movie but even more about the final product... because lets face it, even if making the movie was terrible for him, if the final product was good he wouldn't be distancing himself from it the way he is.
The Production staff thought it was good, Fincher is simply a perfectionist who doesn't like it when he's not 100% in control. The "If it was good he'd talk about it!" stuff is just BS by the A3-haters who don't do their homework.
Hell, Empire magazine even used A3 as having one of the finest scenes Fincher ever directed in it on their article about him.
Hell, Empire magazine even used A3 as having one of the finest scenes Fincher ever directed in it on their article about him.
Similar threads
- Poll
