Amph The ALIEN SAGA: review & discussion: Now Disc. Prometheus sneak peak scene

I consider Anderson not having anything to do with Alien 5, a good thing. I heard rumors about a year or two ago about Cameron, Scott, and Weaver being very interested in working together to make the next Alien movie. In retrospect, this sounds like some fanboy's dream team attempt to start some smoke.

However, talk of Alien 5 makes me wonder where the series can go. I guess I would think that it would take place on earth since the A:R characters end up there. It could be interesting on earth, especially if it's as bad as Johnner makes it out to be. I always wanted them to explore the Alien home planet, but I guess that would make sense for a final movie.

There's also the possibility of a completely new story that doesn't involve Ripley and co. at all. I wonder how well an Alien movie can do without Ripley.

Top paragraph wouldn't happen. Cameron would want to erase 3 and Resurrection from existence, even though he's a hired hand but that's another debate, and Weaver is very proud of her work in 3 and Resurrection.

About Alien 5, I know Scott(who's word I take more than Cameron's) and Weaver would like to go to the Alien homeworld.

About no Ripley, No Ripley=kills almost any interest I have in the movie.

 

Alien (Theatrical Cut) 8/10
Alien (Director's Cut) 7.5/10
Aliens (Theatrical) 9/10
Alien (Special Edition) 10/10
Alien 3 (Theatrical) 6/10
Alien 3 (Special Edition) 8/10
Alien Resurrection (Theatrical) 6/10
Alien Resurrection (Special) 6/10
Alien vs Predator 7/10

I actually rather liked Alien vs Predator, I'm just disappointed at the swiftness of the violence. Wish it had been more drawn out with more predators and more aliens involved.

 

Bump.

 

Yeah, it was quite unnecessary to create a new thread and make the same opinion on the alien saga. It's not as if this thread was buried under too many pages of threads.

Hehe. I'm continuing this from the "newer" thread. I understand why they killed off Elgyn so soon in A:R (too many leader-types), but it doesn't mean that I was too happy about it. I was also psyched to learn that Micheal Wincott was in the cast.

 

Michael Wincott is the voice for the Prophet of Truth in the game 'Halo2', by the way. Ron Perlman (also from A:R) is the voice of Lord Hood in 'Halo2', as well.

 

Michael Wincott is the voice for the Prophet of Truth in the game 'Halo2'

I knew I recognized that voice!

 

I know I didn't. I recognize Michael Wincott for his super-gravelly voice, which the Prophet of Truth doesn't have.

 

I know I didn't. I recognize Michael Wincott for his super-gravelly voice, which the Prophet of Truth doesn't have

That's true, but there was just the faintest hint of familiarity to it that I just couldn't quite place. You really have to listen closely to hear it.

 

I liked all five of the Alien films, including Alien Vs. Predator. Below are my critiques:

* Alien - 1979 - a good sci-fi/horror flick. It was the first time anyone had seen anything like it; it moved a little slow, however, and the sound wasn't the best -I found myself straining to hear what the characters were saying at times. This is my least favorite film in the series.

* Aliens - 1986 - one of the best movies ever made, hands down. My favorite movie in the series. The human characters were what made this interesting; I liked how they showed different people react differently under pressure - the Bill Paxton character flipped out, then composed himself; the Marine Commander froze up, until Ripley took over, the rest of the Marines did their jobs - all in all, an excellent film.

* Alien 3 - 1993 - excellent movie. The whole idea of Ripley being stranded on the prison planet while having an Alien in her was a very original spin on the franchise; the shaved heads added to the strangeness of the film.

* Alien 4 - 1997 - this was a superb film; I liked this almost as much, if not more, than Alien 3. The Clone Ripley took some getting used to, but I thought the film was very well-done, and I liked the director, who put an art-house/European spin on the movie.

* Alien Vs. Predator - 2004 - a great film! I had been waiting for this for a long time. Seeing Aliens and Predators duke it out was something I'd been wanting to see since Predator 2, when you saw that the Predator ship had alien bones/skulls on the walls.

However, here's one question I have Re: Alien Vs. Predator, that I've never been able to figure out:

In Alien 3, you see the human Bishop (Lane Henrikson) at the end - the human Bishop was the template for the robot Bishop in Aliens. This film is set in the far future.
However, in Alien Vs. Predator, you see the human Bishop again, in current times?! This just doesn't make any sense. Does anyone have an explanation? Thanks in advance.

 

Yeah, Micheal Wincott has a very distinct grungy voice that I somehow find incredibly appealing to listen to. I'm usually pretty psyched when I hear that he's part of the cast of a movie that I've been waiting for.

As for the human Bishop being in Alien 3 and AvP, I couldn't tell you. My opinion of AvP was anything but positive.

 

In Alien 3, you see the human Bishop (Lane Henrikson) at the end - the human Bishop was the template for the robot Bishop in Aliens. This film is set in the far future.
However, in Alien Vs. Predator, you see the human Bishop again, in current times?! This just doesn't make any sense. Does anyone have an explanation? Thanks in advance.

They're two different characters.

In 'Alien3', that's Michael Bishop. Creator of the Bishop android. And yes, he's very human.
In 'AvP', that's Charles Weyland, one of the founders of Weyland-Yutani (the evil corporation from the first 3 Alien films).
They're two different people, who happen to share an uncanny resemblance. Otherwise, they're unrelated.

Another example is Det. Jerry Lambert, from 'Predator2', and PFC William Hudson, from 'Aliens'. Both are played by Bill Paxton.

I hope that clears it up.

 

In 'Alien3', that's Michael Bishop. Creator of the Bishop android. And yes, he's very human.
In 'AvP', that's Charles Weyland, one of the founders of Weyland-Yutani (the evil corporation from the first 3 Alien films).
They're two different people, who happen to share an uncanny resemblance. Otherwise, they're unrelated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn that Lance Henricksen's character in AvP was named Charles Bishop Weyland, which would be a pretty weird coincedence if they are in fact unrelated. I could be wrong, however. I was, afterall, drifting in and out of conciousness while watching that movie.

 

Yes, that is his complete name, but still, my point stands.

 

So, the Bishop android was not designed to resemble Weyland?

 

The Bishop android was designed to resemble its creator, Michael Bishop (whom we see in 'Alien3'). The fact that it also happens to look like Charles Weyland is merely a coincidence.

 

The Bishop android was designed to resemble its creator, Michael Bishop (whom we see in 'Alien3'). The fact that it also happens to look like Charles Weyland is merely a coincidence.


There isn't a clone theory?

 

Well, Michael Bishop flat-out says he designed the Bishop android, in 'Alien3'.

 

From Alien3: SE, I was under the impression that the Alien 3 Bishop was also an android (albeit, a more advanced version).

 

Actually, the Alien3 special edition offers the best proof that Michael Bishop is a human.
Aside from him bleeding real blood and wimpering in pain, he cries out "I am not a droid!". The movie's script has the following to say on the subject:

Aaron starts. Picks up a pipe from the debris --
AARON
You ***king Droid --!!

And smashes Bishop II in the head.
Bishop II writhes on the floor. The troops fire on Aaron, shoot him down.
Bishop II turns.
No wires.
No milk.
Real blood.
BISHOP II
I am not a DROIDDDDDDD!!!!

 

Maybe Michael Bishop came across an old picture of his ancestor, Charles Bishop Weyland, and thought to himself, Wow, I look exactly like this guy. Maybe I should take this as a sign to create an android that's modeled after us. That sure would be a good idea.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable theory explaining how Bishop was indeed modeled after Weyland.

So it is written.

 

Remember in Alien how the Nostromo crew did not want to kill the Alien onboard since its blood would likely melt all the way through to the hull? Well, why is it, in A:R, the various characters have no qualms with blasting the crap out of any aliens they come across? Surely there's quite a risk that the alien blood could create a hull breach, just as it was feared on the Nostromo?

 

The Auriga, the ship from 'Alien Resurrection', is THE largest ship featured in any of the Alien films. It's bigger than the Nostromo, and it's bigger than the Sulaco or Patna.
The Nostromo only had 3 decks (A deck, B deck, and C deck. I'd link to 'The Nostromo Files', a fan-made website of the deckplan for the Nostromo based on interpretations of footage from the movie, but the site seems to be defunct) and then the outer hulls. There was a serious possibility that the acid would breach the hull.
The Auriga, on the other hand, has at least 20 decks, AND the massive vertical airlock that the Betty docks with. Acid burning through the hull isn't a terribly big problem.

However, you'll notice that they actually only blow away a handful of Aliens:
- Ripley8 caps one in the mouth
- one dies underwater
- one dies on the ladder
- one dies via grenade in an escape pod
Other than that, there was just the one that died in the holding pen, and we see the extent of the acid damage.

All that aside, though, the Betty mercenaries totally didn't know what they were dealing with anyway.

Also on-topic, I just got "The Alien Saga" documentary DVD in the mail today. I'll be sitting around and watching it after my night class. I saw it back when it was on AMC, but that was 2 years ago.

 

I figured that'd be the answer. Wasn't the aliens' blood diluted a bit anyway, considering they had some human DNA running through them as a side effect of the cloning? Ripley 8's blood seemed to me, at least, to not be as acidic as those of aliens in previous films.

Is the Alien Saga documentary any different to what we've already got on the Quadrilogy box set?

 

The Alien Saga documentary is totally different from anything in the Quadrilogy set. It's a 2-hour documentary that was licensed by FOX and aired by the AMC channel 2 years ago. Here's the Amazon.com listing for it.

As for the Aliens in 'Alien Resurrection', while Ripley8's blood was diluted, I don't think the Aliens' was. The one that died in the holding cell burned through some 7-8 decks in a matter of seconds (I'd have to check the movie to be sure of the deck count).

 

Paul Anderson should step down from making movies not only does he suck but he causes way too many plotholes he did it in Resident Evil he is doing it again in Aliens. Burn Paul. Burn.

Ciao!