Spoilers Alien: Questions

[Bedrockgames]

These days everyone is expecting it, so it can’t have the same impact.

I wasn't talking about the surprise impact. That only works once in a movie. The shower scene in Psycho isn't a surprise to anyone now, but it still has impact because they build to it. Same here, I saw Aliens before I saw Alien, because I was ten when Aliens came out and saw it on video. Then I saw Alien and had already heard about the mess hall scene. Why it works for me is that scene has emotional weight because they have spent time getting to know the characters, and you know it is coming so there is this dreadful build up where you don't want it to happen

 

[Bedrockgames]

Someone who doesn't like slow burn movies should absolutely stay away from things like "GATTACA." Sometimes you just need world building and if you don't know the characters, intimately, then you can't feel what you need to for the end of the story.

The lethargic, almost dreamy pace of GATTACA is also what gives it its atmosphere. If if you stripped out the getting to know the characters, which I agree is crucial to the film, I would still love it for how this movie makes me feel as a viewer. One of the reasons I love movies is how that combination of sound and visuals can almost put you in an altered state of mind

 

[Clint_L]

I recently rewatched the original Rocky with some students as part of a unit on screenwriting, and was struck by how slowly paced it is by today's standards. But I think it is absolutely necessary; I don't think the final fight has anything like the same impact without all that time spent immersed in Rocky's sad sack life. I also very much enjoyed Creed, but I don't know that it creates as iconic a character, despite having a brilliant actor in the lead.

There's something to be said for slower paced films. And, as pointed out by others, horror films, as opposed to violent thrillers, demand a more deliberate pace. Alien has a small bodycount but each death means something, and by the time Ripley is the only one left standing (aside from Jones) I am fully invested in the desperate horror of her situation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I recently rewatched the original Rocky with some students as part of a unit on screenwriting, and was struck by how slowly paced it is by today's standards. But I think it is absolutely necessary; I don't think the final fight has anything like the same impact without all that time spent immersed in Rocky's sad sack life. I also very much enjoyed Creed, but I don't know that it creates as iconic a character, despite having a brilliant actor in the lead.

I very much agree here. It is a character study, you have to spend time getting to know the circumstances Rocky is living in for the end to have any emotional weight. You really want to have to spend time in Rocky's world and with him, Adrian and Paulie to enjoy it. I like all the Rocky movies (some a lot less than others) but the original Rocky is a proper movie with a really good script and acted very sincerely.

I liked Creed but felt the same way. It was very well done, the acting was all very good. But it didn't linger for me the way Rocky did. It might just come down to style I don't know. Rocky had a very gritty quality to it. Creed felt glossy. Rocky had significant character flaws that you overlooked because you understood him as a person (he was an enforcer for a local mafia guy if I remember correctly). I think with Creed, he had problems like Rocky had problems but something was missing. I do think though going with Apollo's son as the lead character was a smart idea. I enjoyed both Creed and Creed II (I kind of liked II better than I, if only because I thought they did something pretty impressive with the Ivan Drago character---even though the plot is essentially Rocky III)

There's something to be said for slower paced films. And, as pointed out by others, horror films, as opposed to violent thrillers, demand a more deliberate pace. Alien has a small bodycount but each death means something, and by the time she is the only one left standing (aside from Jones) I am fully invested in the desperate horror of her situation.

For me one of the most effective horror movies is Rosemary's Baby. It is also just a really good movie. That kind of creeping sense that something is wrong and the ambiguity it creates around the psychological horror of it, really required a slow pacing to work IMO. Or take the Exorcist. I mean that doesn't work if you aren't feeling like you are going through the slow and deliberate process she and her mother are going through as they try to eliminate medical causes before they ultimately settle on a supernatural explanation. IMO there is nothing more horrifying in life than being sick, being at the mercy of a cold medical institution and having test, after test. The exorcist uses slow pacing to perfectly capture that horror. Not saying every horror movie has to be that way. Lifeforce is a ton of fun and pretty fast paced, Evil Dead II was pretty fast paced and I loved that---also think for all its jokes, it is scarier than many other horror movies. Plenty of great 80s horror was fast paced and I loved that. But there is something about slower paced horror movies that sink into character and setting that I think is very valuable

 

[Ryujin]

I very much agree here. It is a character study, you have to spend time getting to know the circumstances Rocky is living in for the end to have any emotional weight. You really want to have to spend time in Rocky's world and with him, Adrian and Paulie to enjoy it. I like all the Rocky movies (some a lot less than others) but the original Rocky is a proper movie with a really good script and acted very sincerely.

I liked Creed but felt the same way. It was very well done, the acting was all very good. But it didn't linger for me the way Rocky did. It might just come down to style I don't know. Rocky had a very gritty quality to it. Creed felt glossy. Rocky had significant character flaws that you overlooked because you understood him as a person (he was an enforcer for a local mafia guy if I remember correctly). I think with Creed, he had problems like Rocky had problems but something was missing. I do think though going with Apollo's son as the lead character was a smart idea. I enjoyed both Creed and Creed II (I kind of liked II better than I, if only because I thought they did something pretty impressive with the Ivan Drago character---even though the plot is essentially Rocky III)



For me one of the most effective horror movies is Rosemary's Baby. It is also just a really good movie. That kind of creeping sense that something is wrong and the ambiguity it creates around the psychological horror of it, really required a slow pacing to work IMO. Or take the Exorcist. I mean that doesn't work if you aren't feeling like you are going through the slow and deliberate process she and her mother are going through as they try to eliminate medical causes before they ultimately settle on a supernatural explanation. IMO there is nothing more horrifying in life than being sick, being at the mercy of a cold medical institution and having test, after test. The exorcist uses slow pacing to perfectly capture that horror. Not saying every horror movie has to be that way. Lifeforce is a ton of fun and pretty fast paced, Evil Dead II was pretty fast paced and I loved that---also think for all its jokes, it is scarier than many other horror movies. Plenty of great 80s horror was fast paced and I loved that. But there is something about slower paced horror movies that sink into character and setting that I think is very valuable

Oh, poor possessed young Patrick Stewart. I suppose if you're going to be taken over, Mathilda May isn't a bad choice.

 

[Morrus]

I recently rewatched the original Rocky with some students as part of a unit on screenwriting, and was struck by how slowly paced it is by today's standards. But I think it is absolutely necessary; I don't think the final fight has anything like the same impact without all that time spent immersed in Rocky's sad sack life. I also very much enjoyed Creed, but I don't know that it creates as iconic a character, despite having a brilliant actor in the lead.

There's something to be said for slower paced films. And, as pointed out by others, horror films, as opposed to violent thrillers, demand a more deliberate pace. Alien has a small bodycount but each death means something, and by the time Ripley is the only one left standing (aside from Jones) I am fully invested in the desperate horror of her situation.

I agree. I think anybody who rates film quality based on how fast it is is missing the best of cinema. But each tomtjeir own. I know what I enjoy, and Rocky (I) is the best Rocky (and a seriously good film in its own right), and Alien is one of the best sci-fi movies ever.

Different people like different things, but “faster! faster! faster!” probably won’t ever be a metric which defines ‘good’ movie-making for me. Anybody can make fast stuff. It’s harder to let characters, scenes, and arcs breathe, let actors act, build an atmosphere or suspense, and I find the latter personally more rewarding.

But each to their own.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Never liked Rocky. Didn’t see the point.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I agree. I think anybody who rates film quality based on how fast it is is missing the best of cinema. But each tomtjeir own. I know what I enjoy, and Rocky (I) is the best Rocky (and a seriously good film in its own right), and Alien is one of the best sci-fi movies ever.

Different people like different things, but “faster! faster! faster!” probably won’t ever be a metric which defines ‘good’ movie-making for me. Anybody can make fast stuff. It’s harder to let characters, scenes, and arcs breathe, let actors act, build an atmosphere or suspense, and I find the latter personally more rewarding.

But each to their own.

I don't think slow is inherently bad or fast is inherently good. There's a lot of terrible fast-paced films out there.

I think the issue is appropriate pacing.

I think there was a tendency in the 1960s and 1970s to show that you were A Serious Filmmaker by having a lot of scenes of people doing smelled-a-fart faces and silently pondering the middle distance.

Today's filmmakers would be more likely to convey those deep thoughts and feelings either through action or dialogue.

Obviously, there was a ton of great work produced in that period, but not all of it necessarily benefitted from the stylistic tics of the time.

 

[Ryujin]

I don't think slow is inherently bad or fast is inherently good. There's a lot of terrible fast-paced films out there.

I think the issue is appropriate pacing.

I think there was a tendency in the 1960s and 1970s to show that you were A Serious Filmmaker by having a lot of scenes of people doing smelled-a-fart faces and silently pondering the middle distance.

Today's filmmakers would be more likely to convey those deep thoughts and feelings either through action or dialogue.

Obviously, there was a ton of great work produced in that period, but not all of it necessarily benefitted from the stylistic tics of the time.

Some filmmakers do not understand the concept of subtext. Instead of implying things, they just data dump them in exposition. The most egregious example of this, that I can recall, was in the Star Trek fan film "Renegades" that featured people like Walter Koenig, Corin Nemic, and Tim Russ (who also directed). Manu Intiraymi, who played Icheb in "Voyager", starts of his little diatribe with, "I am Borg..." No crap, Mycroft. The metal sticking out of your face would never have given that little tidbit away.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Different people like different things, but “faster! faster! faster!” probably won’t ever be a metric which defines ‘good’ movie-making for me. Anybody can make fast stuff. It’s harder to let characters, scenes, and arcs breathe, let actors act, build an atmosphere or suspense, and I find the latter personally more rewarding.

Yeah I don't think there is ever going to be one metric on pacing. These things come in cycles too. So while faster faster might be popular at a given moment, that doesn't mean it is the end stage of things. People will grow bored with faster, faster and go back to slowing things down (and they might get bored with that and speed things up again). I remember that 80s tended to be hyper efficient (at least certain mainstream ones did). Especially around dialogue. But in the 90s I feel like that changed a lot with movies like Pulp Fiction getting huge.