› ›

ALIEN Franchise

1…1213151718…27

Comments

  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm not a fan of the 'Transformers' series but I'm sure those movies look absolutely ridiculous in IMAX. That'd probably be the only way to put my ass in a seat for one of those movies.

    The format really does elevate sequences even Transformers though I agree the films are not great, the third films last hour where Chicago is destroyed is the highlight of the series for me.
    bondjames wrote: »
    TDK/TDKR/Interstellar were all absolutely magnificent in IMAX. Can't wait for Dunkirk!

    I was thinking the same I like Nolans work, and like it even more so because he embraces the technology.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Interstellar is an incredible film. Especially if we're going to talk visually
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    Interstellar is an incredible film. Especially if we're going to talk visually

    Agree like 2001 before it Interstellar is a visual experience.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That docking scene near the end is one of the most visually awe inducing things I've seen in a theatre, especially since the tension built up beautifully up to that point. Near perfection in IMAX, with Zimmer's ominous organs blaring at full blast.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    edited June 2017 Posts: 6,432
    bondjames wrote: »
    That docking scene near the end is one of the most visually awe inducing things I've seen in a theatre, especially since the tension built up beautifully up to that point. Near perfection in IMAX, with Zimmer's ominous organs blaring at full blast.

    Agree it's so deliberately executed the docking scene Interstellar really does illustrate the vastness of space incredibly well, I love the scene when they fly past Saturn and the lead up toward the worm hole.

    The sense of scale is phenomenal not done Justice by that clip.

    Also the freakish tidal waves are eye popping, on first watch I recall thinking surely not... the audience realises just before the characters that they ain't mountains.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    It's a phenomenal film and a very ambitious story to tell in the run time that they had. I agree on the tidal waves. I was blown away by that bit, and again Zimmer nailed the score.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    edited June 2017 Posts: 6,432
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's a phenomenal film and a very ambitious story to tell in the run time that they had. I agree on the tidal waves. I was blown away by that bit, and again Zimmer nailed the score.

    I have alot of Zimmer's score's some I know don't rate him though I find his recent work certainly for Nolan very cinematic, the run time I very rarely notice I think the film has good pacing and I really enjoyed the earth scenes and character building.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    I haven't seen 2001. It's definitely on my list of stuff to watch but from the space movies that I've seen. Interstellar is by far the best. I love the high concepts, story, acting, and obviously the visuals
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Ashamed to admit that I've still yet to see '2001,' as well. It's most certainly not out of a lack of interest, it just seems like one of those movies you really need to be in the mood for, and it's not one I want to shut off 20 minutes in.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    edited June 2017 Posts: 6,432
    I read many of Arthur C. Clarke science fiction novels in my teenage years, 2001 and subsequent novels in the series are a must in the genre Clarke also Co wrote the screenplay with Kubrick. The film 2001: A Space Odyssey is just that an Odyssey, I have watched the film numerous times over the years it's very much a philosophical journey there is almost zero exposition though some great thought provoking imagery highly recommend. The film influenced Star Wars, Alien... there are nods to 2001 in Interstellar.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    The term 'masterpiece' gets thrown around a lot but I think 2001: A Space Odyssey deserves it.

    I've seen it many times but the highlight was seeing a 70mm print and it was magnificent. Even though I prefer watching 'A Clockwork Orange' or 'Dr Strangelove' - '2001' is Kubrick's crowning achievement - and considering his catalogue - that's saying something.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    edited June 2017 Posts: 6,432
    Kubrick managed to make a classic in several different genres, 2001 is my favouraite of his films though The Shinning and Dr Strangelove come close. A Clockwork Orange is a very good film, though never found it particularly easy to watch. Hate to admit I have never seen Barry Lyndon or Paths of Glory, Paths of Glory I have owned for years I really should watch it.

    Swerving back on topic ;) from a interview from a few years ago... DEADLINE: So Ridley Scott’s Alien exists, thanks to Star Wars?
    SCOTT: Thanks to Star Wars, and to Stanley Kubrick for the way he influenced George and definitely influenced me, with 2001. The design on 2001…that’s the threshold for everything being real. You look at 2001 and you look at Star Wars. Stanley’s design influenced everybody. I’ve never shaken it off; it influenced me even with Prometheus. Stanley really got it right. Stanley was like the Big Daddy, so I never got jealous of him. I watched his 18th Century film Barry Lyndon when I was about to do The Duellists and I’d go, wow Stanley, you did all that in one shot. Hmm. Stanley was like the godfather. There’s a certain level of director where we all feed off each other. It’s like a painter who looks at the work of a peer and goes, damn. The influences can come even from brand new work, because I look at everything. Everything. Most of it is not so good.
    http://deadline.com/2015/09/ridley-scott-the-martian-star-wars-2001-alien-blade-runner-prometheus-toronto-film-festival-1201522484/
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    To be fair: Danny McBride has screen presence in A: C.

    And it´s a good sign they didn´t use 3D. So there are indeed two good things about the film besides Fassbender.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I find the high praise for Nolan truly staggering as well as baffling considering the majority of his movies are instantly forgettable. I honestly can't say there's one Nolan movie I'm instantly drawn to watching again and again after its initial release, unlike Kubrick's work. Nolan is no Kubrick, and it's a shame some feel the need to make a comparison between the two. I'd rather sit through 2001 than another repeat showing of that utter dirge Interstellar, that's for sure. Much like Cameron's Titanic movie not being a patch on 1958's A Night To Remember, certainly story wise, I won't be surprised if the same thing applies to the 1958 version of the Dunkirk movie, especially as the former stars Harry Styles, a good enough reason to avoid watching this already soiled event, unlike the Leslie Norman version that starred Bernard Lee, John Mills and Dicky Attenborough.

    Alien Covenant wasn't shot in 3D, and Ridley Scott wasn't a fan of post production rendering, which was why the latest Alien isn't being shown in 3D, apparently.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    That goes without saying. The reason why the 3d in Prometheus was so good, was that it was shot that way by people who knew what they were doing.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    bondsum wrote: »
    I find the high praise for Nolan truly staggering as well as baffling considering the majority of his movies are instantly forgettable. I honestly can't say there's one Nolan movie I'm instantly drawn to watching again and again after its initial release, unlike Kubrick's work. Nolan is no Kubrick, and it's a shame some feel the need to make a comparison between the two. I'd rather sit through 2001 than another repeat showing of that utter dirge Interstellar, that's for sure. Much like Cameron's Titanic movie not being a patch on 1958's A Night To Remember, certainly story wise, I won't be surprised if the same thing applies to the 1958 version of the Dunkirk movie, especially as the former stars Harry Styles, a good enough reason to avoid watching this already soiled event, unlike the Leslie Norman version that starred Bernard Lee, John Mills and Dicky Attenborough.

    Alien Covenant wasn't shot in 3D, and Ridley Scott wasn't a fan of post production rendering, which was why the latest Alien isn't being shown in 3D, apparently.

    Memento is the single greatest film of all time
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't recall anyone comparing Nolan to Kubrick. They are entirely different types of film makers. However, Nolan is probably one of the best working today. Very versatile and dependable. He can deliver complex & original stories in ways that impress critically and resonate at the box office.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    Haven't seen Covenant yet—and honestly the more I hear the less I want to—but I think the problem with both these franchises (Alien and Bond) is this idea of making it up as you go along. There's no clear vision, just tenuous ideas that maybe could pan out into this or pan out into that. So then the screenwriters come in and are told make it fun, make it exciting, insert big idea here, insert big idea there. And then something else strikes the director and he wants this other idea worked in, regardless of whether it lines up with the last film or boxes the franchise into a corner moving forward. Everything is worked out on the fly with little thought given to where it's all ultimately heading.

    YEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!!!! ( you get the picture )
  • ColonelSunColonelSun
    Posts: 1,490
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    I haven't seen 2001. It's definitely on my list of stuff to watch but from the space movies that I've seen. Interstellar is by far the best. I love the high concepts, story, acting, and obviously the visuals

    2001 is an extraordinary film. In my top 3 of all time. I've seen it several times on the big screen including Kubrick's approved remastered print at the National Film Theatre, London in 2001 - and introduced by Arthur C. Clarke himself, then wheelchair bound but in great humour - he even did an impression of Dr. Strangelove's uncontrollable Nazi salute. Anyway, see 2001 on the biggest screen you can - and don't expect a traditional narrative structure, character arcs, or answers - just experience mans journey from apeman to modern man and to the stars and far beyond.

    Oh, and re; Alien Covenant - it makes the mistake - which 2001 does not - of answering too many questions - forgetting that the answers are frequently far less interesting than the questions. What made the original Alien so good was, like 2001, it left things open - Who was the space jokey? Where did the aliens come from? I think they are making a mistake by answering those questions, especially because the answers so far are so unoriginal and obvious.
  • bondsumbondsum
    edited June 2017 Posts: 3,333
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't recall anyone comparing Nolan to Kubrick.
    Good, then let's keep it that way. (wink wink) Though Nolan might deliver complex and original stories, some might dispute this with his visual magpie approach to certain key-sequences from past Bond movies, namely OHMSS and LTK (I'm sure there's more). He also fails spectacularly to put the fun back into entertainment. I've never had fun in any of his movies. His movies tend to be either too solemn or overly complicated to trick moviegoers into thinking that they're watching something more grandiose and weighty than they actually are. As far as resonating at the box office, you're forgetting The Prestige and Insomnia, both did poorly at the BO. Not too sure about Interstellar, didn't it just about break even? It'll be interesting to see how a British war movie without any American involvement will go down with US audiences. Hopefully he'll have better luck than Saltzman did with his Battle of Britain movie. For the record, I don't hate Nolan's movies, I just find them too po-faced and all rather a joyless affair is all.

    And @JamesBondKenya, if you honestly think that Momento is the single greatest film of all time, then you haven't watched very many films.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    I haven't seen 2001. It's definitely on my list of stuff to watch but from the space movies that I've seen. Interstellar is by far the best. I love the high concepts, story, acting, and obviously the visuals

    2001 is an extraordinary film. In my top 3 of all time. I've seen it several times on the big screen including Kubrick's approved remastered print at the National Film Theatre, London in 2001 - and introduced by Arthur C. Clarke himself, then wheelchair bound but in great humour - he even did an impression of Dr. Strangelove's uncontrollable Nazi salute. Anyway, see 2001 on the biggest screen you can - and don't expect a traditional narrative structure, character arcs, or answers - just experience mans journey from apeman to modern man and to the stars and far beyond.

    Oh, and re; Alien Covenant - it makes the mistake - which 2001 does not - of answering too many questions - forgetting that the answers are frequently far less interesting than the questions. What made the original Alien so good was, like 2001, it left things open - Who was the space jokey? Where did the aliens come from? I think they are making a mistake by answering those questions, especially because the answers so far are so unoriginal and obvious.

    Exactly right.

    I don't care where the Space Jockey came from. I don't care who put the Alien eggs there. That's what makes Alien such a cool film. It's full of mystery and we as an audience are as much in the dark as the characters.

    I have no interest in Alien Covenant and wish I could erase Prometheus from my memory. These films just cheapen the original masterpiece by taking all the mystery out of it.

    Sometimes I wonder if Scott even understands his own films
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,207
    LeonardPine wrote: »

    Exactly right.

    I don't care where the Space Jockey came from. I don't care who put the Alien eggs there. That's what makes Alien such a cool film. It's full of mystery and we as an audience are as much in the dark as the characters.

    I have no interest in Alien Covenant and wish I could erase Prometheus from my memory. These films just cheapen the original masterpiece by taking all the mystery out of it.

    Sometimes I wonder if Scott even understands his own films

    I agree 100%. My daughter and I just watched Alien and Aliens. For me that is where the saga begins and ends. The mystery of the Space Jockey is part of the appeal.
    Also, knowing what happens to Newt and Hicks in Alien3 cheapens the resolution of Aliens.
    Blomkamp may not have gotten to produce his alternate sequel but in my mind's cinema Ripley, Hicks and Newt survive and make it back to Earth.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    talos7 wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »

    Exactly right.

    I don't care where the Space Jockey came from. I don't care who put the Alien eggs there. That's what makes Alien such a cool film. It's full of mystery and we as an audience are as much in the dark as the characters.

    I have no interest in Alien Covenant and wish I could erase Prometheus from my memory. These films just cheapen the original masterpiece by taking all the mystery out of it.

    Sometimes I wonder if Scott even understands his own films

    I agree 100%. My daughter and I just watched Alien and Aliens. For me that is where the saga begins and ends. The mystery of the Space Jockey is part of the appeal.
    Also, knowing what happens to Newt and Hicks in Alien3 cheapens the resolution of Aliens.
    Blomkamp may not have gotten to produce his alternate sequel but in my mind's cinema Ripley, Hicks and Newt survive and make it back to Earth.

    Same for me. Alien and Aliens. Everything else is pointless or worthless.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »

    Exactly right.

    I don't care where the Space Jockey came from. I don't care who put the Alien eggs there. That's what makes Alien such a cool film. It's full of mystery and we as an audience are as much in the dark as the characters.

    I have no interest in Alien Covenant and wish I could erase Prometheus from my memory. These films just cheapen the original masterpiece by taking all the mystery out of it.

    Sometimes I wonder if Scott even understands his own films

    I agree 100%. My daughter and I just watched Alien and Aliens. For me that is where the saga begins and ends. The mystery of the Space Jockey is part of the appeal.
    Also, knowing what happens to Newt and Hicks in Alien3 cheapens the resolution of Aliens.
    Blomkamp may not have gotten to produce his alternate sequel but in my mind's cinema Ripley, Hicks and Newt survive and make it back to Earth.

    Same for me. Alien and Aliens. Everything else is pointless or worthless.

    I don't mind watching 'Alien 3' and 'Resurrection' every now and then, but I'm pretty much in the same boat here, too: 'Alien' and 'Aliens' are the only two I truly focus on, love, and constantly rewatch.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,207
    I realize that Sigourney Weaver and the character of Ripley are a major draw but In hindsight, Alien 3 may have worked better as a separate storyline, with all new characters. Had this been done, later films could have been made with Ripley, Hicks and Newt.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    talos7 wrote: »
    I realize that Sigourney Weaver and the character of Ripley are a major draw but In hindsight, Alien 3 may have worked better as a separate storyline, with all new characters. Had this been done, later films could have been made with Ripley, Hicks and Newt.

    They could've gone with what they had, sans Ripley crash-landing on the planet. I loved the idea of it, some desolate prison on a dilapidated planet, far from help.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,207
    Yes, you're in prison on a grim, desolate planet, how could things get any worse? :D
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,970
    Saw Covenant last week. Thought it was pretty good. I liked it better than Prometheus.

    Here's my Alien movie rankings
    1. Aliens
    2. Alien
    3. Alien Covenant
    4. Prometheus








    5. Alien 3
    6. Alien Resurrection
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    1 Alien
    2 Prometheus
    3 Alien Covenant

    4 Alien IV: Alien Resurrection
    5 Alien 3

    6 Aliens
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    Alien
    Aliens
    Prometheus
    Alien3
    Alien Resurrection
Sign In or Register to comment.