AsMoral Wrote:I agree with all but Aliens. I loved Aliens, it was awesome, but it lacked that certain something that terrified me. It was more sci-fi than horror whereas Alien was just plain frightening.

Auskar Wrote:To understand why Alien actually was the better movie, you would have had to see it when it first came out and understand its place in movie-making history. It came out in 1979 and was a very different movie for the time.

First -- Up to that point in time, in every single outer space science fiction movie period -- the Captain of the Ship was the hero. If there was a bad alien, the Captain would save them. You knew the Captain would not die. He was the hero. Even in horror movies, if there was a guy -- he was going to be the hero.

Alien changed all that. In Alien, the Captain died early in the movie. From that point on, you didn't know who the hero was going to be. Women as the "hero" in movies and television, like Ripley, were not commonplace as they are today. It was a different world.

Because you grew up in a different era, when women could be the hero of a movie -- you probably never feel the same shock that a 1979 audience would feel when Dallas (the captain) was one of the first to die.

Second -- Alien was early in the era of science fiction movies that didn't look totally hokey. Before that movie, there was only Star Wars (1977). Then Alien (1979) Later that same year, Star Trek (the motion picture) came out. The world of making science fiction movies had changed dramatically. Before then, you were practically embarrassed to go see a science fiction show at the theater. It was probably going to be terrible.

Alien is the forerunner of what makes a lot of science fiction good today.

Aliens didn't come out until 1986, seven years after Alien. Those weren't the years of the automatic sequel yet, either.

Note: I do give credit to 2001 and Silent Running for making the two earlier non-hokey science fiction FX movies, but it took a long time before anyone else really made an effort.

Bluesman Mike Lindner Wrote:Thanks for the heads-up, asmoral. But I can think of 3 flicks where the sequel was better than the first:

FRANKENSTEIN--BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN
THE GODFATHER--GODFATHER 2
ALIEN--ALIENS

jimbow8 Wrote:Sorry, but I don't agree with any of those being better than the original. Next you're going to tell me T2 was better than Terminator, or Ghostbusters 2 ..... no, NO ONE would claim that .... sorry.

Auskar Wrote:To understand why Alien actually was the better movie, you would have had to see it when it first came out and understand its place in movie-making history. It came out in 1979 and was a very different movie for the time.

First -- Up to that point in time, in every single outer space science fiction movie period -- the Captain of the Ship was the hero. If there was a bad alien, the Captain would save them. You knew the Captain would not die. He was the hero. Even in horror movies, if there was a guy -- he was going to be the hero.

Alien changed all that. In Alien, the Captain died early in the movie. From that point on, you didn't know who the hero was going to be. Women as the "hero" in movies and television, like Ripley, were not commonplace as they are today. It was a different world.

Because you grew up in a different era, when women could be the hero of a movie -- you probably never feel the same shock that a 1979 audience would feel when Dallas (the captain) was one of the first to die.

Second -- Alien was early in the era of science fiction movies that didn't look totally hokey. Before that movie, there was only Star Wars (1977). Then Alien (1979) Later that same year, Star Trek (the motion picture) came out. The world of making science fiction movies had changed dramatically. Before then, you were practically embarrassed to go see a science fiction show at the theater. It was probably going to be terrible.

Alien is the forerunner of what makes a lot of science fiction good today.

Aliens didn't come out until 1986, seven years after Alien. Those weren't the years of the automatic sequel yet, either.

Note: I do give credit to 2001 and Silent Running for making the two earlier non-hokey science fiction FX movies, but it took a long time before anyone else really made an effort.

Maggers Wrote:Yea! Jimbow's back and questioning a post! All's right with the world.

jimbow8 Wrote:Very nice, Auskar. I would only add that (imo) Alien is not SciFi but rather Horror (set in a scifi environ).

jimbow8 Wrote:Sorry, but I don't agree with any of those being better than the original. Next you're going to tell me T2 was better than Terminator, or Ghostbusters 2 ..... no, NO ONE would claim that .... sorry.

Maggers Wrote:Jim, you've got an alien - a thing not from Earth, a non-human, a being from another planet - tearing it's way out of the stomach of an Earthling. How could a story about non-earthlings not be considered science fiction, though drenched in horror, for sure.

Bluesman Mike Lindner Wrote:No, Jim, I didn't say T2 was better than the original or Ghostbusters 2 was finer. That was you putting words in my mouth. I stand by my opinions:
BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN was a superior film, as were GODFATHER 2 and ALIENS. And I analyzed these flicks as a post-modern phenomenological existentialist. Get my drift?