Looks at thread...
Damn it, this is what I was afraid of - everyone voted either Alien or Aliens. I mean, I can't fault either of those choices, but it does mean there's less variety in results. Also, who the heck voted for Requiem? I mean, to each their own, but please anonymous person, I'd love you to explain your choice.
Also, speaking of Alien and Aliens:
Casual Shinji said:
First of all they turned the Alien from a terrifying creature into a space bug that you just blast away. The movie is supposed to show that all these high tech marines are no match against the Aliens, but... they kinda are. All they had was just a couple of unlucky moments resulting in them basically being crippled from then on. Had they not been taken by surprise and been relieved of most of their ammo they would've cleaned that place up. Heck, Ripley is able to gun down a horde of them by her lonesome later on. In this respect Predator is a better Aliens than Aliens.
Drawing a line here, because I absolutely disagree.
Cutting to the point where they reach the atmospheric processor, the marines have already gone from overconfident dude-bros (Sulaco, the dropship), to unease (entering the colony) to dread (the processor). That aside, the scene still has two smartguns and a shotgun, and does show how deadly the xenomorphs are in close quarters. They might have done better with more firepower, but the results would still be the same. After that, the entire film is a series of retreats/delaying actions. Aliens can be called an action film, but it doesn't glorify its action, nor is it militaristic. It undercuts the idea of "superior firepower = victory," and shows how quickly the marines can fall apart when thrust into a situation they're not prepared for. Cameron has stated that the film is commentary on the Vietnam War, and while I feel Predator is a better analogy, I can see the parallels. Just because the marines take out xenomorphs, it doesn't make them any less intimidating. After all, one xenomorph impregnated one colonist, and from there, they overran the entire colony.
Casual Shinji said:
Than we have Burke who is stupidly greedy in the face of almost certain death, because evil captitalism. In the first movie the message of big corporations not giving a shit about who they have to step on to get what they want worked, because the corporation in question was a faceless entity that was lightyears away on Earth. And who's only "loyal" employee was an android with a distain for its own masters. I don't care how much of a corporate shil you are, when faced with countless alien monsters coming to rip you apart/impregnate you with its alien spawn you don't get dollar signs in your eyes and proceed to screw over the only people standing between you and said aliens. Unless ofcourse you're written by James Cameron.
I don't disagree with your assessment on Alien's take on "the Company," but I do disagree that Aliens doesn't do effective commentary as well. Aliens is more a role reversal, in that Weyland-Yutani has a face, but it's Bishop who turns out to be the more humane one, Burke the greedy one (Burke knew they'd either be off the planet in a few hours or dead, so his actions are understandable), and the question of which is the worse species? It's not as eloquent a commentary as Alien, but it's not trying to provide identical commentary.
Casual Shinji said:
It also copies the first movie beat for beat, but then that's seemingly the only way Cameron knows how to make a sequel. He did the same with Terminator 2.
I wouldn't go that far either in either case. Far as Terminator goes, Terminator 3 absolutely copies T2 (which is part of why it's my least favorite Terminator movie), but Terminator 2 well and truly goes down its own path by the aftermath of breaking out Sarah, and prior to that, it still establishes itself with a new identity, especially as far as tone and characters go.
President Bagel said:
I'll factor in the Predator movies as I've always liked the idea of the two franchises sharing the same universe.
Thaluikhain said:
If we count the AVP movies, should not the Predator films be counted as well?
I considered this, but a) there wouldn't be enough spots for every movie in the poll, and b) the keyword is "Alien" movies. If I was doing a Predator list for, say, The Predator, it would include the first three Predator movies and both AvP movies as well.
But as far as ranking the Predator films alongside the Alien ones (haven't seen Predator 2 mind you), they'd go:
9) Requiem
8) Prometheus
7) Resurrection
6) Alien vs. Predator
5) Predators
4) Alien 3
3) Predator
2) Alien
1) Aliens
That's the short version. If I'm still around, I'll save detailed thoughts on Predators and Predator for when Shane Black's project nears completion. But basically, I like both.
Exley97 said:
Two things: first, I don't think you can call it retconning because it's unfair to expect expanded universe content to be honored by the movies, and the Mala'kaks never appeared in any capacity in any movie, only novels and comic books.
Like I said, the Xenopedia universe has always been iffy in regards to consistency, hence why Prometheus overturning established Space Jockey lore is a very minor gripe for me.
Exley97 said:
Second, I hear you about the bone-headed decisions. But I always felt that was part of the point of the movie, for better or worse. In both the Jon Spaihts script (which is good but reads like an Alien reboot, BTW) and more so in Damon Lindelof's rewrite, there's a theme of the major characters (Shaw/Watts, Halloway, Weyland, and even Vickers, etc.) being so hellbent on on finding the Engineers, that they risk everything to obtain the power of knowledge, leading them to make incredibly foolish decisions. Hollaway even says it himself when David asks what he'll do for answers: anything and everything. I mean...the movie is called "Prometheus." They play with fire, and before they realize they're making the same mistakes the Engineers themselves made, they get burned.
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how well it works as an analogy. The story of Prometheus from Greek mythology is, to put it in short terms, that the titan Prometheus steals fire from the gods to give to mankind. Prometheus himself suffers terribly for this fate (bound to a rock, vulture tears out his liver every day), but his actions do save mankind. Prometheus himself was reckless in that he insulted Zeus, which caused him to hide fire from mankind, and mankind does get punished further via Pandora/Pandora's Box, but humanity itself are the victims in the myth, not the reckless ones. I see the film's title referring to the origins of humanity more than being an analogy on human recklessness. Likewise, there's Weyland's TED talk that was released prior to the film, which shows fire as being a good thing for humanity, kickstarting their development. Said promotional short being excellent, IMO.