.

[Thor 7,468]

3 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

8/10? Almost as much as Alien. What a world! What a world!

 

ALIEN is 10/10.

 

But these numbers are always relative. I mean, every year will have a few 10/10 films (so far this year, I've given that rating -- or rather 5/5 -- to ELLE and NERUDA over on MUBI). That doesn't mean they're on the same level as certain historical classics, even if they have the same rating. The way I use it, it's just a way of saying how great (or not) a film is.

[crocodile 7,984]

23 hours ago, Incanus said:

So game over Ridley?! Game over?!

Till the next game over in a couple of years.

 

Karol

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[crocodile 7,984]

Ridley Scott doesn't need your opinions (as he eloquently puts in this clip).

 

 

Karol

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Anyone know what Ridley has said about Aliens over the years?

[A24 4,326]

Scott said Aliens is the only other Alien movie that worked because Cameron didn't copy the first one but instead created an intense action movie.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

He's right.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Scott and Cameron have only ever spoken with admiration of each others films.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

I think Ridley needs to repay the favour and prove he can make something new from an original film which was wholly conceived and created by its director.

 

In other words, Ridley needs to make Terminators.  Or Titanics.

[A24 4,326]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Scott and Cameron have only ever spoken with admiration of each others films.

 

Scott didn't sound like he admired it. He just said it works.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Arpy 4,145]

4 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Avatars!

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

No room for Ridley to do an Avatars, four more coming already! (or is it five)

 

That's assuming that the first one doesn't crash & burn. Never bet against Cameron, but if the first one doesn't work, I don't know WTF they're going to do.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

10 hours ago, RPurton said:

 

 

Is that Blue Man Group? Nice.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 if the first one doesn't work, I don't know WTF they're going to do.

 

They make better, and original, films.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

Well, sure. But I'm talking about all the resources that have been poured into making four films (they're apparently going to be shot simultaneously w/individual post, ala LOTR).

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I quit on this movie right around the time we see David's HR Giger fan art and then switches places with Walter, oh and when Danny McBride decides to take the ship filled with thousands of colonists into a hurricane for no justifiable reason.  I still can't believe just how dumb this movie was.  Not one thing made any damn sense.  No character motivations, no plot "twist" ugh just so bad.

 

In the immortal words of Roger Ebert, I Hated Hated Hated This Movie!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,498]

Don't forget "hated".

Is it really as bad as NORTH?

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

7 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

I quit on this movie right around the time we see David's HR Giger fan art and then switches places with Walter, oh and when Danny McBride decides to take the ship filled with thousands of colonists into a hurricane for no justifiable reason.  I still can't believe just how dumb this movie was.  Not one thing made any damn sense.  No character motivations, no plot "twist" ugh just so bad.

 

In the immortal words of Roger Ebert, I Hated Hated Hated This Movie!

 

See, that's what I'm talking about. Don't tell me how "intelligent" and though provoking a film is if it can't even get the basics of story telling and character building right. You have to start with that. If you don't have believable people acting in a believable way, and not merely as functions of the plot, then nothing else works. And there's nothing that turns me off a film more than characters who act without motivation, or in a stupid fashion, simply to service the plot.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

BB, do you dislike this movie enough to ignore it when it comes out on video...i.e., are you willing to reappraise it?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Worst film of 2017

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It was alright. Not great, not bad. Had some okay bits in it. Wouldn't have complained if it was never made.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Oh it was bad, really bad. Danny McBride was a clue it's bad.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's the first Alien movie to not make me get excited for the home video edition. Alien movies on tape used to be exciting.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

26 minutes ago, JoeinAR said:

Worst film of 2017

 

I agree.  You weren't posting back in May or June or whenever it was, but I walked out 3/4 of the way through I hated it so much.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Joe, are you gonna do your annual Summer Blockbuster thread this year?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

No. Boxoffice has become extremely fluid. I still don't understand foreign grosses or how to work them in. Staggered release dates overseas is not logical. Predicting has become extremely difficult. 

Case in point IT was tracking at 50 million in the states a few weeks back. Then a few non-spoiler review comments were released and they were extremely positive. Warner Bros. up their estimates to 65 million. Box-Office mojo and The Numbers were more optimistic. After last Thursday night very successful previews pundits speculated a possibility of 100 million plus. Then Sunday intial reports were the weekend would end with an all time high (for a horror film) of 117 million. I personally doubted that number because I felt 2nd timers would be a strong mix on Sunday and that turned out to be correct as the film made 123+ million. That's a high number for a non-sequel non-superhero film. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

IT really benefited from a perfect storm of (a) great marketing and (b) the desert that was the August release schedule, leaving audiences thirsty for a major movie to congregate around.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

While you didn't care for IT much, it is a rousing crowd pleaser and people often underestimate the power of word of mouth.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I know!  No, I didn't like it that much but I didn't think my above statement was disparaging of the film?  I wasn't saying it wouldn't have been successful without the open playing field of no major releases to compete with, I'm saying that helped IT get the MEGA CRAZY numbers (for an R rated horror film) that it got.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

51 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

IT really benefited from a perfect storm of (a) great marketing and (b) the desert that was the August release schedule, leaving audiences thirsty for a major movie to congregate around.

 

So you are saying the quality of the filn has nothing to do with IT?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I don't think so, he's saying IT had perfect timing.

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Indeed.  Although I think Stefan just wanted to have fun with the title of the film also being an English pronoun.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

16 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

IT really benefited from a perfect storm of (a) great marketing and (b) the desert that was the August release schedule, leaving audiences thirsty for a major movie to congregate around.

 

Not to mention all the clown memes from the last few years.

[Arpy 4,145]

17 hours ago, JoeinAR said:

Oh it was bad, really bad. Danny McBride was a clue it's bad.

Whilst I thought this movie was just another shit in the bucket for Scott, I think McBride's presence as a character was the most similar thing I could find in the film to the tone and character that Alien (1979) gave us. For once he wasn't playing an idiot, but a space trucker, and I think if the film had returned to some of the more basic roots that the original is known for, I think I would've been much happier with the film.

 

Somewhere along the line, like Lucas did with Revenge of the Sith in needing to close the gap prematurely, Scott was thinking: "Okay, I guess we should just have the xenomorph link right here, right away; people will be pissed if they don't see the xenomorph." Then resulted in two hours of bad decisions, half of which can't simply be forgiven to 'flustered humans don't think reasonably in stressful situations', because you begin to sacrifice all believability in your story if your characters aren't convincing.

 

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

It was about the point McBride decided to take the ship of thousands of colonists down into the planet atmosphere and nobody tried to stop him that I bailed. It became a perfect storm of fucking stupid shit on the planet and stupid shit in the ship. 

[A24 4,326]

The studios put the franchise on hold. Smart move!

 

Maybe they realize they need to go back to the drawing board or bury it forever.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

But how will I know what David did afterward? Fan fiction?

[A24 4,326]

Just rewatch Alien and forget about the rest.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

And Aliens!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

And.... oh wait 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You actually need Alien 3 and Ressurection for the full Ripley story

[JoeinAR 1,949]

21 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

And Alien³!

Absolutely not. Aliens and Alien. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[JoeinAR 1,949]

3 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

It was about the point McBride decided to take the ship of thousands of colonists down into the planet atmosphere and nobody tried to stop him that I bailed. It became a perfect storm of fucking stupid shit on the planet and stupid shit in the ship. 

Then the tarde character decided to go smoking on a planet he knows nothing about. I looked at Dave and said somebody-wrote this down and got paid for it.

[A24 4,326]

On 14-9-2017 at 5:46 PM, Stefancos said:

You actually need Alien 3 and Ressurection for the full Ripley story

 

You provocateur!

 

 

On 14-9-2017 at 5:26 PM, Stefancos said:

And Aliens!

 

Not necessary. It doesn't add more mystique (quite the opposite, actually).

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I actually enjoy parts of Resurrection quite a bit as a Jeunet film.  The parts where it has to be an Alien film not so much.