From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: ALIEN question
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:33:48 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Aug26.112123.29258@engage.pko.dec.com>, by boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (Two days and a wake-up...):
> Are you so bent on proving that ALIENS is so bereft of any positive
> qualities whatsoever that even the pickiest little point gets jumped on
> so vehemently?

(1) No. I think that Alien is a good film.  It has too many holes to
be a masterpiece.  So be it - I would rate very few films as
masterpieces.  However, it also is a fairly weak sequel that ignores
parts of Alien, while watering down some that it reuses.  I realize
that it's very hard to make a really good sequel to any really
interesting film.  Cameron managed to do that with Terminator 2.  He
came close with Aliens, but still left lots of holes, probably because
he did not care that much for Alien, it not being his film.  (Pure
theory, I know.)  Also, I don't mind in jokes per se.  I do chuckle
when I see where George Lucas uses "THX 1138" in his films.  When in
jokes are waved in my face to the detriment of plausibility, I ask
myself why this has to be.  As for vehemently, ok, so I withdraw my
request that the guy be flogged (can't you guys take a joke? <sic> ),
but I still don't like the joke.  Less is sometimes better.


(2) I am not trying to show that Aliens is "bereft of any positive
qualities", and I have repeatedly pointed those qualities out.  But
the lengths to which people will go to explain away its *negative*
aspects (and I don't mean really controversial issues here, as the
hive stuff, no, we're down to simple plot holes now) do not cease to
amaze me.  It is as if the fact that it was made by James Cameron
(plus it has some *real action*) has made it sacrosanct in the eyes of
some.  

> The "whoever" was James Cameron. He specifically picked it as a deliberate 
> homage to O'Bannon's homage to Conrad.

It would have been a better homage if he had simply taken more care of
the film.  The question about the ship's crew, for example (a question
not brought up by me alone, btw).  Let's face it, this question could
have been dealt with in a scene or two.  The Marines were obnoxious
enough that whoever remained on the ship might not have cared for them
enough to look after them closely and might have slept during the
watch, or the damage caused to the reactor could have disturbed
communications channels, or whatever.  Any wimpy excuse would be
better than the "spare-me-the-details-I-want-to-go-on-with-my-plot"
philosophy, which instead leaves the Sulaco floating incongruously
alone in space in a manner quite reminiscent of the carelessness
displayed by the beginning of Alien 3.

> Gee, in each movie, during the meal scene, one character picks at something
> on his plate and says, "What is it?" and another responds "Cornbread, I
> think."  Are we expected to believe that 60 years apart, two pairs of
> people, one pair being freight handlers and the other being solidiers would
> have the exact same conversation? 

Yes, you are.  And it is a fairly good joke.




-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies