Spoilers Alien: Questions

[MGibster]

Everything is relative. Somebody in the 70s encountering a 2024 movie would no doubt ask why it's so frenetic and rushed. Like most things in life, it's just about what you're used to. Like when you switch from full fat to skimmed milk.

It really is. One of my favorite ghost stories is The Changeling (1980) starring George C. Scott. I watched it a few years ago to see if it held up, it does, but the pacing was so much slower than what we're used to. And it's not like there's a lot of filler in the movie, just about every scene either advances the plot or provides us with a better understanding of a character. The director just takes his time getting the job done.

 

[MGibster]

Yeah I rewatched it pretty recently too and I don't know how one can say the cinematography and lighting are bad. It holds up great and it is the best film in the franchise IMO. It is an amazing movie

I rewatched it during COVID lockdown and found it still holds up fairly well. I generally think practical effects age better than CGI though.

 

[pukunui]

I rewatched it during COVID lockdown and found it still holds up fairly well. I generally think practical effects age better than CGI though.

Meh. The Nostromo's explosion effects at the end are pretty goofy looking and very dated. I would argue even more so than the original effects for the Death Star exploding in the 1977 Star Wars (which George Lucas wisely replaced in the special edition edit). Maybe I am more forgiving of Star Wars because I first saw it as a child in the 80s?

The Empire Strikes Back is my favorite of the Star Wars films, and it came out only a year after Alien. I have watched it many times. To my eyes, it looks and feels nowhere near as tired and dated as Alien does.

I'm sorry for raining on everybody's parade. I'm an elder millennial with Gen X siblings, but I'd much rather watch Alien: Covenant again than the OG Alien.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I rewatched it during COVID lockdown and found it still holds up fairly well. I generally think practical effects age better than CGI though.

I agree. I have trouble with newer movies these days. The CGI often doesn't look like it has weight and the coloration of the CGI is often murky and not terribly aesthetically pleasing (not in all cases but I just often find this). When I go back to movies like Alien I really appreciate the look and feel of these films. I don't mind CGI when it is done well. But I do think I prefer practical effects most of the time.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Meh. The Nostromo's explosion effects at the end are pretty goofy looking and very dated. I would argue even more so than the original effects for the Death Star exploding in the 1977 Star Wars (which George Lucas wisely replaced in the special edition edit). Maybe I am more forgiving of Star Wars because I first saw it as a child in the 80s?

I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't look like it was made in an earlier time. It is definitely a film made in an earlier style, though for its time it was pretty forward looking, and I think the visual composition of the film really holds up.

(which George Lucas wisely replaced in the special edition edit).

I just think we have very different tastes here. I feel like George's edits in many instances ruined the shot composition and made the films look sloppy. Not saying you or others ought to agree, I just think he took this too far. That new death star explosion in particular I find off-putting. The thing about the edits they started making in the 90s is when it first came out in the theaters to fanfare it was pretty cool because it felt novel. But i didnt' realize they were basically replacing the original films with the changes. The worse change of course is what they did to Sy Snootles. That will not stand

I'm sorry for raining on everybody's parade. I'm an elder millennial with Gen X siblings, but I'd much rather watch Alien: Covenant again than the OG Alien.

I don't take any offense at all. I'd rather you say how you feel than try to not rain on our parade. I don't agree with your viewpoint on these movies but if it is your honest opinion, better to share it than to lie about how you feel

 

[MGibster]

Meh. The Nostromo's explosion effects at the end are pretty goofy looking and very dated. I would argue even more so than the original effects for the Death Star exploding in the 1977 Star Wars (which George Lucas wisely replaced in the special edition edit). Maybe I am more forgiving of Star Wars because I first saw it as a child in the 80s?

At this point, Alien is a 45 year old movie, so I'm going to concede that it's dated. Everything from the special effects, to acting style, pacing, costumes, haircuts, etc., etc. mark it as a product of the 1970s. Other movies that are dated include Casablanca, Rosemary's Baby, and Clash of the Titans.

I'm sorry for raining on everybody's parade. I'm an elder millennial with Gen X siblings, but I'd much rather watch Alien: Covenant again than the OG Alien.

I remember in the 1990s talking to a friend about Star Wars and he argued the special effects still held up today (then around 1992-1993). I argued they didn't. They looked dated just 15 years after the first movie was released. I could still enjoy Star Wars, it still looked good, but even by 1992 special effects had improved. The Empire Strikes Back looks dated to me but it's a product of the 1970s so it doesn't bother me. (I know it was released in 1980.)

You like what you like and that's cool. I thought Covenant was a bad movie and I'd rather not watch it ever again.

I agree. I have trouble with newer movies these days. The CGI often doesn't look like it has weight and the coloration of the CGI is often murky and not terribly aesthetically pleasing (not in all cases but I just often find this). When I go back to movies like Alien I really appreciate the look and feel of these films. I don't mind CGI when it is done well. But I do think I prefer practical effects most of the time.

Very often CGI looks cartoonish because it feels like nothing has any weight behind it. i.e. Everything looks like its operating outside the bounds of normal physical laws like gravity and momentum. Compare the tank chase scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to the awful CGI Jeep(?) chasing scene in the jungle of Crystal Skull. When used correctly you can get great results with CGI though. No shade on the use of CGI in general.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Very often CGI looks cartoonish because it feels like nothing has any weight behind it. i.e. Everything looks like its operating outside the bounds of normal physical laws like gravity and momentum. Compare the tank chase scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to the awful CGI Jeep(?) chasing scene in the jungle of Crystal Skull. When used correctly you can get great results with CGI though. No shade on the use of CGI in general.

My two chief complaints with CGI when I notice it in a movie (I think if I don't notice it often it means the movie is doing it well) is the weightlessness and the color schemes. I have noticed that the bad coloration seems to largely be an American film industry issue (a lot of movies I have seen from outside the US use much more pleasing color pallets with CGI----it might not be the best CGI but at least it looks good compositionally).

 

[Bedrockgames]

At this point, Alien is a 45 year old movie, so I'm going to concede that it's dated. Everything from the special effects, to acting style, pacing, costumes, haircuts, etc., etc. mark it as a product of the 1970s. Other movies that are dated include Casablanca, Rosemary's Baby, and Clash of the Titans.



I remember in the 1990s talking to a friend about Star Wars and he argued the special effects still held up today (then around 1992-1993). I argued they didn't. They looked dated just 15 years after the first movie was released. I could still enjoy Star Wars, it still looked good, but even by 1992 special effects had improved. The Empire Strikes Back looks dated to me but it's a product of the 1970s so it doesn't bother me. (I know it was released in 1980.)

You like what you like and that's cool. I thought Covenant was a bad movie and I'd rather not watch it ever again.

I think one of the chief differences is Star Wars is very much about the effects. It is also about the music and the grandness, but the Special Effects are what everyone talked about. In Alien the effects matter but it is really more about the direction, the pacing, building tension, the cinematography, etc. A well made horror movie can benefit from special effects but doesn't need them (Rosemary's Baby is a perfect example of that).

In terms of datedness, I agree you can see the time period. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. I would say films like Alien, The Godfather, Rosemary's Baby, Dirty Harry, etc, these all can stand toe to toe and, at least for me, usually exceed most of the recent films I have seen in the last few years. Nosferatu, the silent original, is clearly a product of its time. There is no getting around it being dated. But I still say it is the scariest movie ever made.

 

[Older Beholder]

You know what, nevermind

 

[pukunui]

I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't look like it was made in an earlier time. It is definitely a film made in an earlier style, though for its time it was pretty forward looking, and I think the visual composition of the film really holds up.

I guess the other thing is I just don't find old horror movies scary in the slightest. The first time I watched Jaws, the only time I felt any tension was during a scene when the shark never actually showed up. Watching Alien, I'm too distracted by the datedness of it to feel any tension or scariness. Not even the odd jump scare, like the cat.

I feel like I will enjoy Aliens more because it leans more into the sci-fi action movie vibe with all the space marines and such. I have no idea what I'll think of Alien 3 because I've never seen it before.

I just think we have very different tastes here. I feel like George's edits in many instances ruined the shot composition and made the films look sloppy. Not saying you or others ought to agree, I just think he took this too far. That new death star explosion in particular I find off-putting. The thing about the edits they started making in the 90s is when it first came out in the theaters to fanfare it was pretty cool because it felt novel. But i didnt' realize they were basically replacing the original films with the changes. The worse change of course is what they did to Sy Snootles. That will not stand

Oh, don't get me wrong. I dislike most of George's edits. In fact, the special edition of ESB is the only one of those I will actually willingly watch, since most of the edits are relatively minor background things.

I don't take any offense at all. I'd rather you say how you feel than try to not rain on our parade. I don't agree with your viewpoint on these movies but if it is your honest opinion, better to share it than to lie about how you feel

Thanks!

You like what you like and that's cool. I thought Covenant was a bad movie and I'd rather not watch it ever again.

Oh, I don't think Covenant is a good movie. But if I had to choose between Alien and Alien: Covenant, I would choose the latter.

I mean, at least the CGI xenos in Covenant don't look like men in rubber suits.

The xeno in Alien is creepy because you never see the whole thing in full light. But then when Ripley blows it out the shuttle airlock at the end, it just looks like what it is: a man in a rubber suit.

It's the same problem that Signs had when they showed the aliens in full daylight at the end. It's that whole horror movie maxim: "never let them see the whole monster because that ruins the suspense / mystery / scariness / etc".