Peter T Chattaway

alien: the director's cut!

72 posts in this topic

Just noticed that this film is scheduled to open this coming Wednesday. Has anyone here seen it yet?

It occurs to me that, back in the days before I got my DVD player, I used to pine for the Alien boxed set (even though I only really liked the first two movies). But it has been nearly three years since I got my player, and I STILL haven't got the set; even though I have the first two Terminators and The Abyss, I still haven't even gotten around to picking up James Cameron's Aliens. I'm guessing I should probably just wait until they re-vamp the whole set now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it a couple of weeks ago. It's pretty much the same movie, with one notable addition and a few less significant edits. The big addition is a scene I remember from reading the comic book back in college, in which (SPOILERS) Ripley, negotiating the bowels of the ship after setting the auto-destruct, stumbles across a scenario now familiar from Aliens, with surviving crew members plastered up into the walls for future alien use, upon which Ripley torches them to put them out of their misery.

The interesting thing about this scene is that it throws off the timing of the countdown to the ship's destruction. Right after Ripley leaves the above scene of carnage, we hear Mother announcing the number of minutes left to destruction, and it's very clear that not enough time has elapsed for what we've seen onscreen, especially given the way the rest of the countdown is depicted. In other words, time stands still in that inserted scene... which makes sense from a redaction-criticism perspective of course, but perhaps the sound mix could have been reedited to reintegrate the scene more seamlessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: It's pretty much the same movie, with one notable addition and a few

: less significant edits.

Um, does this mean Scott has CUT footage out of the film, the way he did with Blade Runner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Dallas-in-the-cocoon-wall bit is on the existing DVD. I'd enjoy seeing this on a big screen-- it's one of my favorite horror films-- but I don't think I can justify the effort when there are so many other films I haven't yet seen playing on big screens.

And especially when the apocryphal man-in-alien-cocoon scene I want to see is Paul Reiser's Burke on the wall! It was shot, apparently, but it hasn't been a part of any video release to date. I dunno whether the forthcoming box will have it...

...and speaking of which, did I hear right that the new edition of movie #3 will have some of the additional Fincher footage inserted into a new cut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

I THINK Scott HAS cut footage, although I didn't see the original recently enough to catch specific instances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it this morning. It was nice to get a refresher, since I hadn't seen the film in years, but I was reminded again of how much I prefer the sequel. It really does improve on a number of the original film's themes. (E.g., the bit where the android says he admires the "purity" of the alien, because it does not have "delusions of morality" etc., is one of the hoariest sci-fi clich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alien does set up Aliens, but I am still very capable of enjoying the gem that is the second film without having seen the first. Seeing as I really did not at all enjoy Alien 3 and Resurrection, I say save your money for 28 Days later (which just came out last week) and pick up the director's cut of Aliens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, a link to the Alien vs. Aliens poll. And now ...

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

: I'm guessing I should probably just wait until they re-vamp the whole set now?

Whoa. A nine-disc set? With "45 hours of previously unseen material"? Yowzah.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it last night too. What I loved about Alien is its story, its' attention to detail, and the fine acting. I love the look of the Alien, but you never really get a good close up look of it, except when it is hanging off the side of the rocket thrusters. There were moments when the film is INTENSE, and you feel yourself unnerved until that BOO! GOTCHA! moment.

However, great as it was, it won't really go up there in the higher echelon of scariest movies of all time (and neither, alas, The Shining). What scares me is that bomb-is-under-the-table-and-you-know-it's-under-the-table kinda scare, and the grandmother and the baby are casually at the table unknowing of their impending doom. _Halloween_ had that.

Then again, I gotta say--Veronica Carwright's eyes. She oughta do a movie with Steve Buschemi and that bald guy in The Hills Have Eyes movies.

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it Halloween night smile.gif.

Man, since it was my 6th viewing, the whole build-up really didn't do much for me any more. I can appreciate its craft, but I can't really bite into its tension like I'd like to, and like I did at first.

At this point, the one part of the film that remains completely effective on me starts at the countdown and goes to the end.

Unfortunately... Scott's patching-in of the scene SDG mentioned not only throws off the logistics of the countdown, it very much destroys the urgent pace of the action. She's got 5 minutes before she can't stop the ship from blowing up, and she's wasting time (SPOILER) unconvincingly burning her friends to death instead of letting them die instantly with the explosion!

I'm also pretty sure that a few of the shots shortly before they land on LB429 (which isn't named in this film, IIRC) were different in perspective or added, and that was all fine with me. The one where they discuss the atmosphere of the planet (moon?) was definitely new.

The other changes that bothered me had to do with more of the alien being shown sooner. In the commentary on the original (or at least somewhere in the special features of the 20th anniversary disc), Scott explained how he didn't include most of that footage to purposefully keep the audience unsure of what the shape and nature of this alien really was. We didn't have a complete image of it until the very end, when it is bouncing at the end of the tether to Ripley's escape pod. But in this version, we see a murkey-but-complete shot of the alien hanging from the chains way back before Brett is killed. (And I think that, even by itself, that sequence works better in the original, when you know the alien is about to get him, but you haven't actually seen it.)

But, all griping aside, it was very nice to see this on the big screen.

And Aliens is good, but I do rank this film as just a bit better. I think that Aliens gives us more reasons (the pseudo-family established by the end) to care about the characters and their survival, but that sort of thing, which worked in Cameron's action film, would not have worked in Scott's horror film, which works well without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt,

I thought of that point about Ripley burning her friends to death instead of letting them die in the explosion too. I think you're absolutely right. The scene was better cut. It made more sense when revisited in Aliens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, remember the scene in Alien where Harry Dean Stanton says most animals are afraid of fire? I was reminded of one of the extras in the Indiana Jones boxed set, in which it is said that the snakes in the Well of Souls actually LIKED the fire because it was warm. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chief reason I don't think including Dallas in the cocoon adds anything to the narrative is because I think the scene in the ducts where he meets his demise is about the most suspenseful scene I've ever seen in a film. Part of what makes it extremely scary is that in the original cut you never see Dallas again, and so you're left to wonder at the horrible fate he suffered. Seeing him pasted up on the wall dulls that.

I don't really mind the inefficiency shown by Ripley taking the time to mercy-kill Dallas. I like Ripley's character more here than in the sequels, where she becomes one of Cameron's she-Rambos, a mirror image of the Alien Queen. She's vulnerable here in spite of her brusque exterior and not quite as calculating or canny as in the sequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Seeing him pasted up on the wall dulls that.

True, though I didn't mind it quite as much for that reason. I think this insertion could have worked well, if it had been placed just *before* Ripley starts the self-destruction sequence.

I like Ripley's character more here than in the sequels, where she becomes one of Cameron's she-Rambos, a mirror image of the Alien Queen.  She's vulnerable here in spite of her brusque exterior and not quite as calculating or canny as in the sequels.

I didn't mind the mother-hen type that she becomes in the second film.

In this sense and in general, I think Cameron's sequel takes the ball and runs with it in a sufficiently new and interesting direction to be a brilliant sequel to a brilliant film. He didn't copy Scott's movie, and he didn't hijack Scott's plot. Cameron's movie had interesting, consistent, new material, a new feel (action vs. horror), and a wholly new emotional center (note: I've never seen the theatrical release of Aliens).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yeah. I agree that a different direction was definitely the way to go, and Cameron's film brings a great angle to the series. Another "horror movie" entry would have been bland in all likelihood. I think Cameron deserves a lot of credit. I just don't think it's better than its predecessor.

Of course, I'm also one who prefers Star Wars and The Godfather to their sometimes more-loved sequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a few months old now, but I just found out about it. Personally, I don't think ANY of the four directors (or directing teams) that have worked on this franchise should get to do it a second time. It would disturb the balance. And besides, Jimbo, ANOTHER sequel? (Seriously, every movie Cameron has ever made has been a sequel or a remake, with the exception of Titanic, the main subject of which had of course been turned into quite a few films already, and The Abyss, parts of which feel like a re-hash of the Aliens plot anyway; I think even the original Terminator borrowed heavily from an old Outer Limits episode.)

- - -

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/427/427459p1.html

Arnold & Cameron for Alien 5?!

Straight from the horse's mouth

July 07, 2003 -- According to Dark Horizons, Oscar-winning filmmaker James Cameron advised the BBC that he may indeed helm a potential Alien 5 (a separate project from the upcoming Alien vs. Predator film). "We're looking at doing another one," reveals Cameron, who also helmed the 1986 smash Aliens. "Something similiar to what we did with Aliens. A bunch of great characters, and of course Sigourney [Weaver]. I've even discussed the possibility of putting him [Arnold Schwarzenegger] into the Alien movie."

Cameron and Schwarzenegger previously teamed for the first two Terminator films, as well as True Lies. The closest Arnold has come to fighting an alien was in 1987's Predator.

By the way, Cameron "couldn't stand Alien 3 -- how they could just go in there and kill off all these great characters we introduced in Aliens, and the correlation between mother and daughter. It stunk, but hopefully I'll get a chance to rectify all that [with Alien 5]."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally gave in and got the Quadrilogy set today (and hey, SDG, it turns out the 'Director's Cut' of Alien -- which Ridley Scott says is NOT his preferred version of the film -- DOES cut stuff out from the theatrical release, since it is one minute shorter!), and I had time to watch just one movie. So guess which one I watched? Yup. I watched the original version of Aliens repeatedly in my late teens, but it was not until today that I finally saw the "special edition" which has apparently been available on video for the past dozen years.

This was actually the first time I had seen ANY version of this film in quite some time, and all the things I liked and didn't like about it are just as I remember them. Of the things I dislike, there aren't that many -- mainly those moments when James Cameron indulges his near-Kubrickian fascination with machinery and military procedure. Plus I have never quite understood why the characters, and therefore the film, assume there has to be some sort of Queen Alien laying all the eggs -- Ripley herself says at the beginning of the film that Kane saw "thousands" of pods on the planet in the first film, so why would any MORE eggs be needed? (I assume Cameron simply wanted to introduce a Queen Alien because his film was inspired by the giant-ants movies of the 1950s, especially Them!, which also features a little girl who is the sole survivor of a giant bug attack -- and in the "special edition" of Aliens, there is even a scene where Hudson explicitly compares the aliens' nest to an "ant hive".)

But, those quibbles aside, this is still a fantastic movie.

First of all, Aliens is a fantastic SEQUEL -- it respects the original film enough to repeat some of its distinctive elements (the video display as the scouts check out the alien nest, the climactic explosion followed by the airlock fight, etc.; even the scene where the cocooned victim says "kill me" may have been borrowed from one of the first film's deleted scenes), yet it does so in a way that is different and new, and thus it feels like its own movie, and it also feels like a further development of the first film's ideas, and not like a pale retread of the first film. (I have not seen Alien3 in years, but that film, as I recall, was the worst kind of sequel -- a pale retread of the first film that totally disrespected the elements introduced to the series by the second film.)

Second, this film has CHARACTER in a way that the first film simply does not. (The Harry Dean Stanton and Yaphet Kotto characters in Alien provide comic relief, but not character.) I like the fact that the "special edition" includes the references to Ripley's daughter, who grew up and died of old age while Ripley was lost in space in suspended animation between the two movies; this was a detail that I knew about back in the '80s only because Time magazine's article on the film happened to mention this bit of back-story. While I could take or leave most of the extra footage in the "special edition", the one added moment that I REALLY liked was the scene where Ripley puts Newt to bed (which was in the theatrical version), and Newt compares the aliens that gestate inside their hosts to human fetuses (which was not in the theatrical version); I love Ripley's smile when she hears that and replies that human babies are different; I love the way Newt asks if Ripley has ever had babies, and Ripley says yes, once, but that daughter of hers is "gone" now, and Newt, reading between the lines, says, "You mean, 'dead'." That little moment gives Ripley some extra humanity, and it makes the bond between her and Newt that much stronger.

(Incidentally, it is interesting that we never hear anything about the father of Ripley's child. In Rational Fears: American horror in the 1950s, Mark Jancovich argues compellingly that one of the key concerns of the horror films of that decade was the IMPERSONALITY of modern life, and the Queen Ant in Them! and the alien pods in Invasion of the Body Snatchers were not meant to represent female sexuality, as some critics have argued, but rather, they were meant to represent ASEXUALITY -- i.e., the ability to reproduce without relationship. In Aliens, we do see the human characters develop various sorts of inter-personal bonds, but -- with the exception of Vasquez and Drake, the male half of which is killed early on -- there is nothing romantic or erotic about these bonds (Hicks even jokes that "it doesn't mean we're engaged" when he gives Ripley a device to help him keep track of her). So for all narrative intents and purposes, Ripley might very well have reproduced asexually -- perhaps she conceived her daughter with the help of a sperm bank? What this detail means, exactly, I'm not sure; I just noticed it now.)

Third, the effects are pretty cool. Okay, fine, in some ways, they look a little cheap -- there are some shots where the miniatures look very much like miniatures (e.g. the aerial surveillance shot of the colony reminds me of a video I made back in high school for a book report on Ice Station Zebra), and there are some obvious rear-projection shots, so in some ways the film doesn't look THAT much more believable than Cameron's previous film, The Terminator. But the aliens here are believably creepy in a way that the alien in the first film was not -- there is no point in the second film where I am distracted by the fact that the alien is obviously a man in a suit -- and you gotta love Lance Henriksen's severed torso.

I have sometimes said that Cameron only really has two stories in him -- Aliens and The Abyss are both about people stranded by an accident and facing a countdown to their certain death while dealing with extra-terrestrials, and Titanic and The Terminator are both basically apocalyptic love stories in which a misunderstood young man liberates a woman's soul while the world around them falls apart, etc. (I admit I don't know where to fit True Lies, since I have not seen that film since it first came out nine years ago, but hey, it was a re-make anyway.)

But I was surprised by how often Aliens reminded me of Terminator 2: Judgment Day -- both films are about surrogate parenthood, both films are about a woman who has to deal with her fear of robots (based, in both cases, on her past experience with them), both films feature wounded characters on "our" side who sit at the centre of an explosion while our heroes get away, both films have a scene in which a pair of creepy hands holds a couple of sliding doors apart and one of "our" people responds by sticking a gun in the evil creature's head and blowing it away, etc.

Aliens is definitely better, though. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spotted in the news...

----

Weaver Presents 'Aliens' Egg to Museum

Wed Dec 10, 6:04 PM ET

By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The egg that spawned the freaky facehugger creatures in the 1986 sci-fi movie "Aliens" has a new home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

: I finally gave in and got the Quadrilogy set today (and hey, SDG, it turns

: out the 'Director's Cut' of Alien -- which Ridley Scott says is NOT his

: preferred version of the film -- DOES cut stuff out from the theatrical

: release, since it is one minute shorter!), and I had time to watch just one

: movie. So guess which one I watched? Yup. I watched the original

: version of Aliens repeatedly in my late teens, but it was not until today

: that I finally saw the "special edition" which has apparently been

: available on video for the past dozen years.

Three months have passed since I wrote this, and believe it or not, I HAVE made my way through all the bonus features on the five bonus discs in the interim, but I have NOT gotten around to watching any of the other films yet. Of course, I saw the 'director's cut' of Alien on the big screen last year, so it's really only the 'special editions' of Alien3 and Alien Resurrection that I need to check out -- and I actually did watch the first half or so of Alien3 a couple months ago, but in segments, because I kept falling asleep.

Anyway, yesterday I finally got around to watching Aliens again, but this time with the audio commentary -- and it's pretty good! The director, producer, special-effects dudes (including robot expert Stan Winston) and several actors all provide a commentary that is at times informative, at times entertaining, and generally just an all-around treat. Just seeing the film's visuals and listening to these people talk, I was impressed all over again by how expertly made a film this is, and by how much respect James Cameron had for Ridley Scott's original vision while simultaneously making the sequel his own (contrast that with Alien3, which doesn't really fit with the first two films stylistically, and which kills off ALL the characters that survive Cameron's film -- something Cameron compares to a slap in the face, IIRC).

My favorite revelations: The woman in the photo of Ripley's daughter is actually NOT Sigourney Weaver in make-up, as I had assumed, but Weaver's real-life mom! And the nuclear explosion at the end was produced used a light bulb and lots of cotton. Cute!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to call in sick today, so I thought I'd take advantage of the extra free time and watch the original 1979 version of Alien with the audio commentary. (I gather this is not the same as the commentary on the earlier DVD?) I was struck by how obviously fake some of the effects could be when you didn't have sound effects modulating your response to the images.

Some of my favorite bits of audio-commentary banter:

John Hurt, commenting on how unusual it was back inthe '70s for Giger and his girlfriend to be wearing nothing but black, mentions that the only other people he knew who always wore black were Harold Pinter and his own father -- who was a clergyman. This I did not know.

Ridley Scott speculates that the "space jockey" ship may have been a "carrier" of some sort for the eggs -- like a car carrier or an aircraft carrier -- and that the space jockey's race was using the aliens for bio-military weaponry long before The Corporation thought of it. And now that I think about it, I wonder why this never seemed obvious to me. I had always thought the eggs were planted there by the aliens themselves after one of them burst out of the space jockey's chest, but now it occurs to me that, if that were the case, then we should have seen living adult aliens running around somewhere. If the eggs were all deliberately put there by the space jockey, then it makes sense that one of them might have let loose a face-hugger and attacked him, perhaps so long ago that the single alien which emerged from his chest died off long before this film begins. (I'm still not sure how any of this squares with James Cameron's assumption that there needed to be a Queen Alien laying these eggs -- was it already there when the first film took place? was it born after the humans colonized the planet? -- but anyhoo.)

Dan O'Bannon sure has a chip on his shoulder still about the fact that the film's producers added that android to his script. O'Bannon says this subplot adds nothing to the film, and indeed, he says the very notion that a film HAS to have a subplot is an "inferior" idea perpetrated by "inferior" writers, even if it was acted and directed perfectly. O'Bannon compares this subplot to the "Russian spy" subplot in Fantastic Voyage, which he also found annoying and gratuitous, and he thinks the whole idea of giving his story an anti-Corporation element reduces it to a "trite social statement".

Hadn't noticed before that the android tries to choke Ripley to death with a SEX magazine. Ridley Scott says the idea was that the android had the DESIRE for sex but not the equipment, so rolling up a magazine and sticking it down Ripley's throat (Sigourney Weaver recalls how she was told the android would stick a magazine "up your hooter", which apparently meant something very different in British slang than it would have meant in American) was apparently as close as he could get. Thus the film has TWO explicit oral-rape metaphors (the other being the alien creature that clamps onto John Hurt's face and sticks its ovipositor down his throat, of course). Scott also talks as though the alien might have been trying to breed through Veronica Cartwright's character -- or possibly even the cat! -- and Weaver recalls how they wanted there to be some sexual tension between Ripley and the alien in the shuttle at the end, but she never really got a chance to explore this until the 3rd and/or 4th films. (In his Aliens commentary, James Cameron recalls that there were three things Weaver wanted to do in that film -- make love to the alien, die, and one other thing that I forget -- and he, of course, ignored all of her requests, so she went ahead and did those things on the OTHER sequels, where, being officially credited as a co-producer, she had some more clout.)

So, some interesting stuff. Still like the second film better, though. smile.gif

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always seem to catch these movies when I'm fighting a cold or something ... anyway, tonight I watched the "special edition" of Alien Resurrection, a film that I had not seen since its initial theatrical release back in 1997, and interestingly enough, the director of this film says in an intro that this film is NOT a "director's cut", because he liked the first version better. So, between him and Ridley Scott, that makes two directors who produced these "special editions" only because the studio told them to. Add to that David Fincher, who had nothing to do with this DVD set at all; the "special edition" of HIS film, Alien3, is actually the original film he presented to the studio before they demanded massive reshoots. It would seem James Cameron is the only director of the bunch who WANTED a second version of his film.

Anyway, I remember thinking this was a pretty silly nothing of a movie back when I first saw it, and I came away from the film tonight thinking pretty much the same thing. The film's surreal visual obsession with blurring the line between human and beast does not appeal to me, and it is difficult to root for ANY of the characters; if they all died, I wouldn't care all that much, whereas I DO care very much when watching Aliens or even the original Alien. There is also something about the way everyone uses everyone -- humans genetically engineer humans, aliens kill an alien for its blood, etc. -- that I find very off-putting, to say nothing of the way everyone seems to turn against their parents or children.

Some of the scenes that were undeleted for the "special edition" are kind of interesting -- e.g., the film now begins with a tight close-up on alien teeth, then pulls back to reveal that the teeth belong to an insect of some sort, and then a finger comes down and squishes the insect. There are also some extra dialogue bits where Ripley tries to remember the name of the girl that she can't help remembering from her past life -- but all these scenes do is remind you how much better a film Aliens was. And you know how the film ended with Ripley entering the earth's atmosphere for the first time ever in the series, in the cargo hold on that ship? Turns out they actually filmed an ending in which the ship LANDS and Ripley sits on a hill overlooking ... the ruins of Paris. Yep, the Eiffel Tower is toast, and there's no explanation as to how it got that way. Since this was cut from the final theatrical version of the film, I wonder if anyone making a fifth film in this series would feel obliged to keep that detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter:

...the director of this film says in an intro that this film is NOT a "director's cut", because he liked the first version better.

Ah! Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amelie, City of the Lost Children, Delicatessen)! I have to watch this one again. I saw it before I knew who Jeunet was and had seen his other films.

The "new" scenes you describe sound very much like something I would expect from Jeunet. His films are so visually playful despite often being so dark. Actually, I find it odd that they made him the director here. He's got such a quirky style it's surprising they gave him a picture in such a big franchise.

But then again, the franchise was already ruined thanks to #3 (which I still like despite, apparently, everyone else's opinion). :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of resurrection (besides this thread), I watched Resurrection for the first time last night. Whereas the first film was fantastically frightening (and the only scary movie I've ever had to turn on the lights for), and the second and third movies slightly less creepy but still somewhat effective - what the heck happened in part four?

And what bothered me the most is that this movie stole a bunch of ideas from the original, mainly the events of the last 20-30 minutes of Alien. The ship's computer is called "Father", the, uh, perfection of the original "Mother", I guess. The idea of Ripley walking in and finding those clones of herself and then destroying them smacks of the deleted scene (from the theatrical, restored in the SE) of Alien where Ripley walks in a room and finds three members of the crew trapped in a "hive" of sorts. Then there's the obvious nod to Ripley running through the Nostrmo in the original movie as Ripley runs through the spaceship to the escape vessel in Resurrection. But the creme de la creme of how bad this movie became was an ending where

the rubbery man-alien has his insides sucked through a hole in the spaceship

was about as stupid as one could get. And yet, it's another event that's copied from the original, just remixed to look more fanciful. So the Alien franchise comes full circle with parallelisms in movies 1+4; although 1 is certainly a superior film to 4 by anyone's criteria.

I haven't poked through Whedon's original script yet, but part of me wonders how much of that was rewritten - and on who's behalf? (I still think Whedon's a better TV writer than a movie writer, but let's not open that can of worms). At least he's poked fun at Resurrection a couple of times on his shows - even going as far to name Weyland-Yutuli as a client of the law firm Wolfram + Hart (Angel). Cute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clint M wrote:

: So the Alien franchise comes full circle with parallelisms in movies 1+4 . . .

That's an intriguing argument, since I've always seen 3 as an attempt to get back to the scary-monster-picks-people-off-one-by-one approach of 1, whereas 4 brings back the quasi-military-team-fights-hordes-of-aliens-while-Ripley-does-the-surrogate-mother-thing approach of 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intriguing thing is that Whedon's script as presented on the DVDs is pretty much the same as what's in the film. The ending is significantly different in terms of the action (Whedon always bemoaned the loss of the super-gore) but otherwise the dialogue is pretty much as is.

What Whedon objected to (and this was the same problem he had with the feature version of Buffy and X-Men) was that the dialogue was directed in such a way as to make jokes where none existed and let the funny bits go flat... Personally I think it's just a weak script. Possibly due to studio pressure (Whedon, at this stage in his career, was better known as a script doctor than a script writer) but probably because this was Whedon's first really big solo franchise script (If I were being a Whedon apologist I might argue that you can see two movies in Ressurection: The really interesting Ripley movie and the cruddy Aliens rip-off which someone imposed on top of it. But I'm not convinced that there *was* much interference with the script on this one)

We briefly touched on Ressurection in the Alien vs. Aliens thread. I agree entirely with what Ben said back then: whenever I think of an Alien film I want to see again, it's Resurrection. Whatever its faults, Ripley's character and Weaver's performance are never better anywhere else in the series. And that alone makes it streets ahead of most other "bad" action films. If it hadn't have been an Alien film with the baggage of the license, it would have been a whole lot better.

Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now