Hex
Super Freak
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 834
- Reaction score
- 0
Here are the rest of the Jockey art pics...
The new film is going to be epic.
Here are the rest of the Jockey art pics...
The new film is going to be epic.
You must realize that those designs aren't even something being considered.
They're from a guy that is TRYING to get hired by a production company.
For me Alien just beats out Aliens as best movie. But, and yeah I know you'll all hate me, I really like the animal legs from the resurection alien (the skin color and texture suck though). They make it look so much more monsterish and beastly. And come on people, the original alien looked great in head shots, but anytime they show the body it's so rigid and guy-in-a-rubber-suit looking. How does everybody prefer that?
No, my friend.. That is the truth.I like it precisely because it's less "monster-ish".
The whole idea behind the design (and the concept) is that it was a perversion of the human form, a nightmare. And that is where ADI failed miserably after A3. They just didn't understand the whole concept of a creature that takes certain traits (and not just on a physical level) and just twists them and mixes them with things that seem mechanical. They made it into a "monster". They saw the sexual under and overtones, but didn't really understand the true horror and beauty behind all the imagery.
But that's just my opinion.
I love all the alien films because they are all scary and unique in different ways. I don't consider A:R to be bad like most people, i just think of it as being a more twisted, weird alien movie. I do love all the Alien designs almost equally (minus AvP: R). It's whatever my mind feels like at the moment.I don't know about that...I thought the A3 and A4 aliens were just as scary as the original, just in different ways.
I like it precisely because it's less "monster-ish".
The whole idea behind the design (and the concept) is that it was a perversion of the human form, a nightmare. And that is where ADI failed miserably after A3. They just didn't understand the whole concept of a creature that takes certain traits (and not just on a physical level) and just twists them and mixes them with things that seem mechanical. They made it into a "monster". They saw the sexual under and overtones, but didn't really understand the true horror and beauty behind all the imagery.
But that's just my opinion.
Well I don't think anyone would say his films stories are the most original but he knows how to make an entertaining and enjoyable film.
As for Aliens I just think any sequel to Alien that re-involved Ripley with the that creature was logically going to have guns and soldiers as theres no way the character would go back to LV-426 otherwise. And on LV426 there was inevitably going to be more than one alien. Thus Cameron simply took the story in its most obvious direction. And thankfully he succeeded in making a good film while doing that. Someone else might not have.
Yeah don't get me wrong, i LOVE aliens as a movie. But i just think cameron turned them into basiclaly giant bugs, as opposed to the much more "alien" type creature from the first film. Didnt like the queen too much and i dont really like the way the aliens behave in regards to the way the first alien behaved. If that makes sense. I find the original way they create eggs from the first film much more interesting and much more "alien". Each to their own really. Just my preference.
On second thought...guess I'll weigh in anyways.
That's my problem with "Aliens". Cameron took it in the most "obvious" direction. Yet nothing about ALIEN was "obvious". Still, I am torn because I believe Aliens is a very entertaining/great action-Sci-Fi movie.
Ditto!
The original "Egg creation method" is much better (IMO) given its incredibly creepy/alien feel. Sure it was a deleted scene and it doesn't count for much in the context of what was actually released...but several ideas/notions in the first movie were left unexplored on purpose to add to the "ALIEN" feel.
From the first movie we all know that the face-hugger bleeds acid. But do we ever see the chest-burster or mature Alien ever bleed? Even when it's hit smack in the chest with Ripley's grappling hook at the end of the film it still does not seem to bleed. (IMO the hook looks like it penetrates the exoskeleton and sticks.) So....If it doesn't bleed...we can't kill it???
Also, in ALIEN Ash believes the creature to be a "Perfect Organism". He tells Ripley/Lambert/Parker that the ALIEN can't be killed. Which potentially means the creature is an indestructible/unending life-form bordering on god-like abilities. And hence making it truly...ALIEN. (This is further supported by the fact that the creature appears to be alive while dangling from the escape ship in outer space and being able to survive direct exposure to the ship's plasma engines/afterburners.)
Yeah, yeah, I'm probably taking my interpretation of a few lines too far. But the point is the first ALIEN film let us do that, while the second spoon fed us....big bugs and action. Sure it was fun...but its no ALIEN.
And come on people, the original alien looked great in head shots, but anytime they show the body it's so rigid and guy-in-a-rubber-suit looking. How does everybody prefer that?
I think hes going to pretend like the other alien films never happened. I can't wait to see all the new alien stuff.. Like more on egg morphing, and the jockeys..etc.I'm very interested to see where Scott takes the prequel...will he use the mythology/ideas incorporated by Cameron in Aliens? Or will he scrap all that and say he's only using his part of the story?
I have high hopes for this...but I also hope it leaves a little mystery like the first.
My concept for the Jockey's spacecraft .. a barrage of eggs in a alien's pond!