AnimeSuki Forums

HasuMasu · 2012-06-16, 10:08

^

"And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him." -Leviticus Chapter 4 Verse 26

Roger Rambo · 2012-06-16, 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

"The 1979 Alien is a much more cerebral movie than its sequels, with the characters (and the audience) genuinely engaged in curiosity about this weirdest of lifeforms...Unfortunately, the films it influenced studied its thrills but not its thinking. – Roger Ebert"

Thus to the casual audience, it's a mindless horror action film. With Prometheus, Scott should have done away with his agenda and look back at what made Alien great.

Uhhh, so to prove that casual audiences perceive Alien as a mindless action horror flick...you post a quote of Robert Ebert saying Alien wasn't a mindless action horror flick?

antediluvian · 2012-06-16, 14:59

I personally enjoyed Prometheus a great deal. We're looking for too much sometimes and maybe we set our standards too high. There is a great deal of thought that goes into even the most shitty movies, and Prometheus, in my humble opinion, gets a 10 just due to the fact that I had fun while watching it with my little brother. I could knit all the pieces of the movie together and the side stories came together well. What more can I ask of Ridley Scott?

I also wait in anticipation for the sequel.

MakubeX2 · 2012-06-16, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Uhhh, so to prove that casual audiences perceive Alien as a mindless action horror flick...you post a quote of Robert Ebert saying Alien wasn't a mindless action horror flick?

Thought I lift the words from the God Emperor of film critics himself.

Roger Rambo · 2012-06-17, 06:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

Thought I lift the words from the God Emperor of film critics himself.

I just read Eberts Alien reviews, and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion at all.

I don't quite get how we go from Ebert praising Alien as a smart, slow paced sci-fi movie, calling back to the golden age of written scifi, with the idea that the general public thinks of it as a mindless action film.

MakubeX2 · 2012-06-17, 07:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I don't quite get how we go from Ebert praising Alien as a smart, slow paced sci-fi movie, calling back to the golden age of written scifi, with the idea that the general public thinks of it as a mindless action film.

In a sense that if we go by how the words of Ebert, of how the film Alien influenced having the thrills but not the philosophy, it can only meant what the general public percieved it as.

Roger Rambo · 2012-06-17, 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

In a sense that if we go by how the words of Ebert, of how the film Alien influenced having the thrills but not the philosophy, it can only meant what the general public percieved it as.

But the general public didn't make the follow up alien movies after Aliens, or the various cheap knockoffs. Those films were less popular with the general public.

MakubeX2 · 2012-06-17, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

But the general public didn't make the follow up alien movies after Aliens, or the various cheap knockoffs. Those films were less popular with the general public.

They were still profitable if you look at the earnings. Also, the fact that the whole Alien brand turns into cheap thrillers such as AvP just only strengthen the belief.

Ithekro · 2012-06-17, 16:03

Aliens did well from what I recall. It was a decent action film. Also had a fair soundtrack by James Horner.

Roger Rambo · 2012-06-17, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Aliens did well from what I recall. It was a decent action film. Also had a fair soundtrack by James Horner.

Most people who are critical of the later alien films for being mindless stupid action tend to praise Aliens for being an example of an intelligent action movie.

Really. Has ANY movie since Aliens been able to match Sigourney Weaver playing Ripley as a heroic empowered heroine in an action film?

I hate modern female action heroines. And in a way, I don't think Ridley Scott has a good a grasp of them as James Cameron does.

Roger Rambo · 2012-06-19, 19:40

Spoiler for The "Engineers made us theory" is bullshit:

Engineers have human DNA=Related to humans.

A fairly simple statement...but the implications are more far reaching. If they're related to us, that means they're also related to ALL other life on earth that has ever existed...which goes back billions of years.

Ignoring why the Space Jockey's would spend billions of years replicating Darwinian development of life, as a technological civilization they're just too primitive to be a billion years old. Hell. As a SPECIES they're to static to be a billion years old. A species that had spent a billion years zipping around in the stars would evolutionary diverge into uncountable different orders of life forms! And that's ASSUMING they don't perform genetic engineering on themselves. By the time humans evolved on earth, whatever had seeded life initially would be nothing like what had started the process.

And again. Not even counting the kind of artifacts a billion year old civilization would leave behind...or every star systems for millions of light years stripped of every natural resource!

What's more likely than billion year old engineers? Engineers aren't our creators. They're humans that were augmented by 3rd party aliens who discovered prehistoric man. The aliens used Engineers as workers/slaves/soldiers/ship-crew. Some engineers on earth interacted with ancient humans, and left behind knowledge of the nearest installation/base where engineers were located at, on LV262.

IMHO, Space Jockey's did not create us. So the question about WHY they created us, or would try to destroy their creations, are on sequitur.

And remember. Shaw and Halloway have merely decided to believe that the Space Jockey's have made us. They have offered no empirical proof, evidence, or even a good guess about why this could be true. They just have a gut feeling. And that Space Jockey scene at the begging of the movie doesn't help at all. Ridley Scott himself has said this isn't necessarily earth, or how far back in the past it was. So the scene is not a basis to conclude the Space Jockey's made us.

There IS no indication in the film that the Space Jockey's are our makers.

2012-06-16, 10:08	Link #101
HasuMasu Senior Member Artist Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: The Middle Way	^ "And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him." -Leviticus Chapter 4 Verse 26 __________________

2012-06-17, 16:03	Link #109
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Aliens did well from what I recall. It was a decent action film. Also had a fair soundtrack by James Horner. __________________

2012-06-19, 19:40	Link #111
Roger Rambo Sensei, aishite imasu Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome	Spoiler for The "Engineers made us theory" is bullshit: Engineers have human DNA=Related to humans. A fairly simple statement...but the implications are more far reaching. If they're related to us, that means they're also related to ALL other life on earth that has ever existed...which goes back billions of years. Ignoring why the Space Jockey's would spend billions of years replicating Darwinian development of life, as a technological civilization they're just too primitive to be a billion years old. Hell. As a SPECIES they're to static to be a billion years old. A species that had spent a billion years zipping around in the stars would evolutionary diverge into uncountable different orders of life forms! And that's ASSUMING they don't perform genetic engineering on themselves. By the time humans evolved on earth, whatever had seeded life initially would be nothing like what had started the process. And again. Not even counting the kind of artifacts a billion year old civilization would leave behind...or every star systems for millions of light years stripped of every natural resource! What's more likely than billion year old engineers? Engineers aren't our creators. They're humans that were augmented by 3rd party aliens who discovered prehistoric man. The aliens used Engineers as workers/slaves/soldiers/ship-crew. Some engineers on earth interacted with ancient humans, and left behind knowledge of the nearest installation/base where engineers were located at, on LV262. IMHO, Space Jockey's did not create us. So the question about WHY they created us, or would try to destroy their creations, are on sequitur. And remember. Shaw and Halloway have merely decided to believe that the Space Jockey's have made us. They have offered no empirical proof, evidence, or even a good guess about why this could be true. They just have a gut feeling. And that Space Jockey scene at the begging of the movie doesn't help at all. Ridley Scott himself has said this isn't necessarily earth, or how far back in the past it was. So the scene is not a basis to conclude the Space Jockey's made us. There IS no indication in the film that the Space Jockey's are our makers. __________________ DEEP WITHIN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE WHERE GENESTEALERS ARE MADE OF F***ING RUBBER!

2012-06-16, 14:59	Link #103
antediluvian Before the Deluge Join Date: Jun 2012	I personally enjoyed Prometheus a great deal. We're looking for too much sometimes and maybe we set our standards too high. There is a great deal of thought that goes into even the most shitty movies, and Prometheus, in my humble opinion, gets a 10 just due to the fact that I had fun while watching it with my little brother. I could knit all the pieces of the movie together and the side stories came together well. What more can I ask of Ridley Scott? I also wait in anticipation for the sequel.