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.

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.

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.

Your rap is mighty, auskar. Yet I found ALIENS better written, better acted, better fx, better everything. In short, a better movie. (Oh, yeah!--even better foreshadowing--remember when Ripley learned to use the power-mover early in the flick?)

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Yeah, and I didn't like the Richard Donner cut of Supes 2, either. Take that, world!!!! :p

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

I mean merely that I think of it as a Horror movie predominantly with a SciFi setting. Not that it is "not SciFi" at all, though, yes, that is what I mistakenly said. It may be totally irrelevent in that genre classification is very subjective.

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?

Hey, as long as you don't think that Ghostbusters 2 is better than the original, we are cool. If you do, then we're gonna hafta throw down. :p

Seriously, though, I stand by my opinions of the superiority of the originals as stated.