Better idea. Go watch the rerelease of Alien right now. See what a real Sci-Fi thriller is supposed to be like. Then go watch the Aliens rerelease in 2004, and see how a sequel should be done.
Basically Cameron knew the sheer horror of the first couldn't be reproduced, so he decided to add guns...lots of guns. It worked splendidly.
Unfortunately the franchise was ruined after that...Game Over. GAME OVER MAAAAN!
I cringe when I think of any of the alien films being related to the first great movie . . . . they don't even compare . . Alien one was a master piece of Film Noir . .
Predator was a good summer action film but doesn't compare to the serious depth and, as the NYtimes said recently, the "existential anxiety" of the first Alien movie
The combination of the two is just another cheap marketing gimmick probably inspired by Jason vs Halloween --or whatever that was called-- and will be forgotten before you get in your cars . . . you'll be more satisfied by the popcorn which at least will have a little nutrients . .
I think that Sci-Fi is a wasted genre . . . there are, unfortunately, very rarely decent Sci Fi films . . . .Alien 1, Blade Runner, 2001 . . . and even truly good Sci Fi novels are few and far between
Alien was an ok horror flick. The first sequel, Aliens, was a very good science fiction movie. It is the perfect example of the rare occurrence of a sequel being better then the original.
Alien was an ok horror flick. The first sequel, Aliens, was a very good science fiction movie. It is the perfect example of the rare occurrence of a sequel being better then the original.
That's true of the Mad Max "Road Warrior" film..
& maybe even for " The Empire Strikes Back "
but as for the rest......i can't think of any others off hand..
I think that Sci-Fi is a wasted genre . . . there are, unfortunately, very rarely decent Sci Fi films . . . .Alien 1, Blade Runner, 2001 . . . and even truly good Sci Fi novels are few and far between
It was an intentional 90 degree turn on Cameron's part to make Aliens the way it was. He didn't want to make Alien all over again. That would have been pointless. You can't really compare the first two Alien films, let alone rank them.
As for 2001, typical Kubrick. I hated it. It was visually stunning, but that was about it.
It was an intentional 90 degree turn on Cameron's part to make Aliens they way it was. He didn't want to make Alien all over again. That would have been pointless. You can't really compare the first two Alien films, let alone rank them.
As for 2001, typical Kubrick. I hated it. It was visually stunning, but that was about it.
I agree fot this first point.
For the second, the fact you hated it, let me think that you are not very found of metaphysical stuff
And seriously, I'd put the matrix series ahead of 2001 and Blade Runner as far as sci fi. All have generally lightweight philosophical underpinnings and good visuals. I'd say that the visuals in 2001 and The Matrix are better than those in Blade Runner, but unlike 2001, the matrix manages to have extremely fitting visual tones while maintaining a constant level of astonishment and stunning sequence.
Are you on crack? Matrix ahead of 2001? Don't get me wrong, The Matrix is a amazing movie, but 2001 is perhaps the greatest piece of cinema ever. What Kubrick was able to do FX wise blows away movies today. But it was not about FX. If you actually watch it and try and think about it, it truly is amazing.
Oh, on topic, I can't wait for AVP. It looks like a great pop corn flick that will be good for turning off the mind for a few hours. LIke I said, I can't wait.
Are you on crack? Matrix ahead of 2001? Don't get me wrong, The Matrix is a amazing movie, but 2001 is perhaps the greatest piece of cinema ever. What Kubrick was able to do FX wise blows away movies today. But it was not about FX. If you actually watch it and try and think about it, it truly is amazing.
Oh, on topic, I can't wait for AVP. It looks like a great pop corn flick that will be good for turning off the mind for a few hours. LIke I said, I can't wait.
Considering 2001 to be the best movie ever (at least best Sci Fi movie ever) is a symptom of a disease that I don't like: namely the sydrone of considering all that is old before all that is new.
In 30 years the Matrix will be so much bigger than 2001. 2001 was based on a very interesting story, and in many ways there's a lot of similarity between it and the matrix, especially regarding the placement of computers and the "evolution" of men. But the Matrix is much more tangible than is 2001. There are far too many meaningless, 5 minute sequences in 2001 that, really, are little more than eye candy. Perhaps they set the mood, but there are enough of those nuances in the Matrix as well. The Matrix has much, much more eye candy and manages to say a lot more than 2001 does. . . perhaps because there's only 40 minutes of dialog in 2001.
2001 ranks high on technical merit and concept, but all that can't overcome the poor adaptation. It was over dramatized, over sensate, and over directed. Spielberg does the same to an extent. He ruins endings. Look at AI, Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan...all good films, with pisspoor final minutes. Kubrick does the same, only his films begin unraveling during the intro...
You are wrong to consider 2001 and Blade Runner to be 'light' in Philosophy . . . . I chalk this up to missunderstanding.
and
To read the Matrix as 'deep' philosphically speaking is to read its 'Gnosticism-for-the-masses" mixed with clever reality-within-reality gimmicks as somehow equating with a real exploration of the human condition . . .. I think that that is a shallow surface reading . . . sure its clever, and plays some intellectual tricks but it does not have the integrity of eaither of the three fims that I mentioned.
Matrix is trendy pseudo-gnosticism mixed with bad film-making . . . or rather, not 'bad' fim making, but merely good in terms of action and entertaining the video-game generation
By the way . . . in The Birth of Tragedy Nietszche has the Dionysian experience come as a result of 'Tragedy.': meaning teh overwhaelming realization that the self is ultimately crushed by the forces of nature and that the truth of the world is the truth of Suffering". It is NOT at all like the Matrix revelry . . . That revelry is closer to some of Nietszche's later ideas about the Dionysian . . . .
But really, these filmmakers are cut-and-paste philosophers, who cheapen any real ideas with their idiotic chase scene mentality . . .
And Powerdoc.... yes, I agree, I probably shouldn't relate these films (alien(1), Blade Runner, 2001) to the other Alien films or Predator because they are masterpieces whereas the others are simply movies . . . . some of them are even entertaining but they don't have the same depth.
IMO, One thing that many don't understand with those films is that the 'idea' of the piece is perfectly related to the Form of the film: the pacing, the mise-en-scene, the audio etc Form=content! The Philosophical intelligence of these films resides in more than simply the 'idea' that can be pulled from the movie . . it is in the form of the WHOLE
. . . to compare the Matrix with those films in that regards is a laugh . . .
some good clever scenes, but really . . just point to Keannu Reaves flying like Superman and compare that to the scene where Riddley struggles with the droid in Alien1 . . . one scene is Great the other is a video game!!!!!
In 30 years the Matrix will be so much bigger than 2001. 2001 was based on a very interesting story, and in many ways there's a lot of similarity between it and the matrix, especially regarding the placement of computers and the "evolution" of men. But the Matrix is much more tangible than is 2001. There are far too many meaningless, 5 minute sequences in 2001 that, really, are little more than eye candy. Perhaps they set the mood, but there are enough of those nuances in the Matrix as well. The Matrix has much, much more eye candy and manages to say a lot more than 2001 does. . . perhaps because there's only 40 minutes of dialog in 2001.
I have not doubt that The Matrix will be "bigger" in 30 years, but "bigger" does not make it better. 2001 was so much more in depth then The Matrix with respects to Man's need for tools. It is all about how Man lost what made him Human in the first place. How Man was acting like Machine with a lack of emotions.
Most people don't like 2001 because it makes them THINK about it. There are no easy answers. Kubrick was a genius exactly for the reason you dislike it. It doesn't need dialogue to tell the story. The visuals do the narrating. It is more accomplished as a film for that reason.
Now, I love the Matrix, it was a a great movie, but it can't hold a candle to 2001.
To read the Matrix as 'deep' philosphically speaking is to read its 'Gnosticism-for-the-masses" mixed with clever reality-within-reality gimmicks as somehow equating with a real exploration of the human condition ...
But really, these filmmakers are cut-and-paste philosophers, who cheapen any real ideas with their idiotic chase scene mentality
Bingo.
Just put it next to Hiroshima mon amour and see the difference.
And I think the MTV parody said everything that needed to be said about the rave scene.
2001 is an icon for a reason.
Alien was amazing. Aliens was totally different but extremely good. The rest are just excuses to get a better look at the aliens, and I like them because of that.
Most people don't like 2001 because it makes them THINK about it. There are no easy answers. Kubrick was a genius exactly for the reason you dislike it. It doesn't need dialogue to tell the story. The visuals do the narrating. It is more accomplished as a film for that reason.
Now, I love the Matrix, it was a a great movie, but it can't hold a candle to 2001.
Talk about slapping Arthur C. Clarke in the face. 2001 the film doesn't provoke any more cud-chewing than the original novel. Kubrick just embellishes it with his typical flair... I think Kubrick just assumed every one of films would be instant classics.
To me, his only two great films were FMJ and The Shining. I don't think it's a coincidence they were directed later in his career.
EDIT: I'll give you Spartacus since I've yet see more than 20 minutes of it.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
....." the predator should win agaisnt the Alien easily due to his huge technical equipment. For equality the predator should have only a sword ..."
So how come that No brainer....Arnie won... ?
Originally posted by Aquafire
So how come that No brainer....Arnie won... ?
Well with classic lines such as "Stick around" how could one lose even against Predator???
Originally posted by Aquafire
So how come that No brainer....Arnie won... ?
That's Holywood
Originally posted by Powerdoc
That's Holywood
NO NO..that's California for you....OMG what am I saying ....ooops too late...
Better idea. Go watch the rerelease of Alien right now. See what a real Sci-Fi thriller is supposed to be like. Then go watch the Aliens rerelease in 2004, and see how a sequel should be done.
Basically Cameron knew the sheer horror of the first couldn't be reproduced, so he decided to add guns...lots of guns. It worked splendidly.
Unfortunately the franchise was ruined after that...Game Over. GAME OVER MAAAAN!
AvP has the same director as Resident Evil...
Originally posted by pfflam
I cringe when I think of any of the alien films being related to the first great movie . . . . they don't even compare . . Alien one was a master piece of Film Noir . .
Predator was a good summer action film but doesn't compare to the serious depth and, as the NYtimes said recently, the "existential anxiety" of the first Alien movie
The combination of the two is just another cheap marketing gimmick probably inspired by Jason vs Halloween --or whatever that was called-- and will be forgotten before you get in your cars . . . you'll be more satisfied by the popcorn which at least will have a little nutrients . .
I think that Sci-Fi is a wasted genre . . . there are, unfortunately, very rarely decent Sci Fi films . . . .Alien 1, Blade Runner, 2001 . . . and even truly good Sci Fi novels are few and far between
Alien was an ok horror flick. The first sequel, Aliens, was a very good science fiction movie. It is the perfect example of the rare occurrence of a sequel being better then the original.
Originally posted by Res
Alien was an ok horror flick. The first sequel, Aliens, was a very good science fiction movie. It is the perfect example of the rare occurrence of a sequel being better then the original.
That's true of the Mad Max "Road Warrior" film..
& maybe even for " The Empire Strikes Back "
but as for the rest......i can't think of any others off hand..
Originally posted by pfflam
I think that Sci-Fi is a wasted genre . . . there are, unfortunately, very rarely decent Sci Fi films . . . .Alien 1, Blade Runner, 2001 . . . and even truly good Sci Fi novels are few and far between
It was an intentional 90 degree turn on Cameron's part to make Aliens the way it was. He didn't want to make Alien all over again. That would have been pointless. You can't really compare the first two Alien films, let alone rank them.
As for 2001, typical Kubrick. I hated it. It was visually stunning, but that was about it.
Originally posted by Eugene
It was an intentional 90 degree turn on Cameron's part to make Aliens they way it was. He didn't want to make Alien all over again. That would have been pointless. You can't really compare the first two Alien films, let alone rank them.
As for 2001, typical Kubrick. I hated it. It was visually stunning, but that was about it.
I agree fot this first point.
For the second, the fact you hated it, let me think that you are not very found of metaphysical stuff
Are you, like , 11 years old?
I probably was when the first AvP film script was written. Does anyone know the plot's outline (without spoilers, naturally) ?
"Stick around"
KNOCK KNOCK...
as mentioned in the behind the scenes deal, there's an alien skull on the predator ship in predator 2.
went and watched alien last night, great movie but it's funny to see what they thought computers would be.
illysillysillysillys...
Originally posted by Splinemodel
And seriously, I'd put the matrix series ahead of 2001 and Blade Runner as far as sci fi. All have generally lightweight philosophical underpinnings and good visuals. I'd say that the visuals in 2001 and The Matrix are better than those in Blade Runner, but unlike 2001, the matrix manages to have extremely fitting visual tones while maintaining a constant level of astonishment and stunning sequence.
Are you on crack? Matrix ahead of 2001? Don't get me wrong, The Matrix is a amazing movie, but 2001 is perhaps the greatest piece of cinema ever. What Kubrick was able to do FX wise blows away movies today. But it was not about FX. If you actually watch it and try and think about it, it truly is amazing.
Oh, on topic, I can't wait for AVP. It looks like a great pop corn flick that will be good for turning off the mind for a few hours. LIke I said, I can't wait.
Originally posted by HOM
Are you on crack? Matrix ahead of 2001? Don't get me wrong, The Matrix is a amazing movie, but 2001 is perhaps the greatest piece of cinema ever. What Kubrick was able to do FX wise blows away movies today. But it was not about FX. If you actually watch it and try and think about it, it truly is amazing.
Oh, on topic, I can't wait for AVP. It looks like a great pop corn flick that will be good for turning off the mind for a few hours. LIke I said, I can't wait.
Considering 2001 to be the best movie ever (at least best Sci Fi movie ever) is a symptom of a disease that I don't like: namely the sydrone of considering all that is old before all that is new.
In 30 years the Matrix will be so much bigger than 2001. 2001 was based on a very interesting story, and in many ways there's a lot of similarity between it and the matrix, especially regarding the placement of computers and the "evolution" of men. But the Matrix is much more tangible than is 2001. There are far too many meaningless, 5 minute sequences in 2001 that, really, are little more than eye candy. Perhaps they set the mood, but there are enough of those nuances in the Matrix as well. The Matrix has much, much more eye candy and manages to say a lot more than 2001 does. . . perhaps because there's only 40 minutes of dialog in 2001.
and
To read the Matrix as 'deep' philosphically speaking is to read its 'Gnosticism-for-the-masses" mixed with clever reality-within-reality gimmicks as somehow equating with a real exploration of the human condition . . .. I think that that is a shallow surface reading . . . sure its clever, and plays some intellectual tricks but it does not have the integrity of eaither of the three fims that I mentioned.
Matrix is trendy pseudo-gnosticism mixed with bad film-making . . . or rather, not 'bad' fim making, but merely good in terms of action and entertaining the video-game generation
By the way . . . in The Birth of Tragedy Nietszche has the Dionysian experience come as a result of 'Tragedy.': meaning teh overwhaelming realization that the self is ultimately crushed by the forces of nature and that the truth of the world is the truth of Suffering". It is NOT at all like the Matrix revelry . . . That revelry is closer to some of Nietszche's later ideas about the Dionysian . . . .
But really, these filmmakers are cut-and-paste philosophers, who cheapen any real ideas with their idiotic chase scene mentality . . .
And Powerdoc.... yes, I agree, I probably shouldn't relate these films (alien(1), Blade Runner, 2001) to the other Alien films or Predator because they are masterpieces whereas the others are simply movies . . . . some of them are even entertaining but they don't have the same depth.
IMO, One thing that many don't understand with those films is that the 'idea' of the piece is perfectly related to the Form of the film: the pacing, the mise-en-scene, the audio etc Form=content! The Philosophical intelligence of these films resides in more than simply the 'idea' that can be pulled from the movie . . it is in the form of the WHOLE
. . . to compare the Matrix with those films in that regards is a laugh . . .
some good clever scenes, but really . . just point to Keannu Reaves flying like Superman and compare that to the scene where Riddley struggles with the droid in Alien1 . . . one scene is Great the other is a video game!!!!!
Originally posted by Splinemodel
In 30 years the Matrix will be so much bigger than 2001. 2001 was based on a very interesting story, and in many ways there's a lot of similarity between it and the matrix, especially regarding the placement of computers and the "evolution" of men. But the Matrix is much more tangible than is 2001. There are far too many meaningless, 5 minute sequences in 2001 that, really, are little more than eye candy. Perhaps they set the mood, but there are enough of those nuances in the Matrix as well. The Matrix has much, much more eye candy and manages to say a lot more than 2001 does. . . perhaps because there's only 40 minutes of dialog in 2001.
I have not doubt that The Matrix will be "bigger" in 30 years, but "bigger" does not make it better. 2001 was so much more in depth then The Matrix with respects to Man's need for tools. It is all about how Man lost what made him Human in the first place. How Man was acting like Machine with a lack of emotions.
Most people don't like 2001 because it makes them THINK about it. There are no easy answers. Kubrick was a genius exactly for the reason you dislike it. It doesn't need dialogue to tell the story. The visuals do the narrating. It is more accomplished as a film for that reason.
Now, I love the Matrix, it was a a great movie, but it can't hold a candle to 2001.
Originally posted by pfflam
To read the Matrix as 'deep' philosphically speaking is to read its 'Gnosticism-for-the-masses" mixed with clever reality-within-reality gimmicks as somehow equating with a real exploration of the human condition ...
But really, these filmmakers are cut-and-paste philosophers, who cheapen any real ideas with their idiotic chase scene mentality
Bingo.
Just put it next to Hiroshima mon amour and see the difference.
And I think the MTV parody said everything that needed to be said about the rave scene.
2001 is an icon for a reason.
Alien was amazing. Aliens was totally different but extremely good. The rest are just excuses to get a better look at the aliens, and I like them because of that.
Originally posted by HOM
Most people don't like 2001 because it makes them THINK about it. There are no easy answers. Kubrick was a genius exactly for the reason you dislike it. It doesn't need dialogue to tell the story. The visuals do the narrating. It is more accomplished as a film for that reason.
Now, I love the Matrix, it was a a great movie, but it can't hold a candle to 2001.
Talk about slapping Arthur C. Clarke in the face. 2001 the film doesn't provoke any more cud-chewing than the original novel. Kubrick just embellishes it with his typical flair... I think Kubrick just assumed every one of films would be instant classics.
To me, his only two great films were FMJ and The Shining. I don't think it's a coincidence they were directed later in his career.
EDIT: I'll give you Spartacus since I've yet see more than 20 minutes of it.
The article that talks of the films brilliance . . .