Alien vs. Predator

[Christian Appelt]

I found AVP's cinematography dull and unimaginative compared to the first three Alien films, the whole movie has the faceless, uninspired look of many international coproductions. Some nice set design, but most of the movie has that flat, big-closeup look which transfers nicely to DVD but makes little sense on a big screen.

 

Very little dramatic lighting and the usual Super-35 trouble, in the release print I saw closeups were sharp, but anything beyond a MCU had no definition and detail.

The predator characters were fun, of course, but with human cardboard characters, boring images and droning music my mind drifted off, fondly remembering Roger Corman's GALAXY OF TERROR (1981) that had better scares and visual values for about 2% of AVP's budget. :rolleyes:

[Morgan Peline]

Yeah, I wasn't too impressed either. They did a very mediocre job. Really, really bad writing as far as I could tell. It's a real pity because I have always been a big fan of the comics, which are very well written and hoped they would adapt the story more closely for the big screen.

 

Who produced it?

[Jon Allen]

Even the previews reminded me of Jason X.

 

kind of like this "Oh crap, I'm gonna die" even the characters calling their own deaths.

[Filip Plesha]

I find the whole idea of alien vs. predator a bit immature. I's like some kids talking "oh, wouldn't it be cool if alien and predator were in the same movie"

 

I love the cinematography of the first film, it's just eye candy, and I love the style and the dark "british" feeling of the third film.

[Morgan Peline]

It's like some kids talking "oh, wouldn't it be cool if alien and predator were in the same movie"

 

But that's the point! I used to love movies like that when I was a kid - like the original Predator - that was such a fun film when I went to see it with a bunch of friends. For me, the only proviso, if you're going to do a popcorn, action movie is:

 

'If you're going to do it, do it properly!'

[Filip Plesha]

Well I know that is the point about this movie, that is why I don't like the idea.

It's a popcorn seller, nothing that will be run in cinemateque in 40 years.

Edited November 5, 2004 by Filip Plesha

[Jon Allen]

But that's the point! I used to love movies like that when I was a kid - like the original Predator - that was such a fun film when I went to see it with a bunch of friends. For me, the only proviso, if you're going to do a popcorn, action movie is:

 

'If you're going to do it, do it properly!'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't the point of a "fine art" to be actually serious about your craft? I mean, what kind of actor would lower themselves to that level? Gore-fest movies are all alike, if you star in them you're either a has-been or a never-will-be.

Maybe this isn't so true, remember Eva LaRue in Ghoulies? Of course, she never landed any roles outside of soaps- so I think it's true.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Haven't seen it, but I'm the biggest Alien fan there is. Just finished watching all the 9 discs in the Quadrilogy box and I'm terrified that A v. P is going to be regarded as an Alien movie, i.e. Alien 5. That would be the absolute worst end for the series ever. I mean, we still have to go back to the planet the Aliens came from!! I still want to see Vincent Ward's wooden planet vision!

[Morgan Peline]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that not all movies have to be really deep and meaningful all the time - sometimes it's nice just to see a bit of spectacle - but if a studio decides to make them they should do them properly. Just because you are working in a genre doesn't mean you can't make a classic film.

 

I think that the problem these days is that most 'genre' filmmakers don't seem to want to make the effort or maybe their hands are tied because of 'decision-making by commitee'. Many of these types of production just seem to want to make a fast buck and ultimately just go through the motions.

 

Look at the difference in writing in Terminator 3 compared to T2 - there is just no comparison.

 

Look at the difference in writing and cinematic quality between the first Matrix and the subsequent two. I felt that the original Matrix had some important things to say about life disguised under an action film. The sequals just wanted to blow things up and make money out the franchise disguised under a cheesy, pseudo philosophical re-working of that Hollywood mythic structure thing.

 

Look at the original Star Wars trilogy; they were very well written, modern day Greek tragedies. Then look at the new films; they are badly written cartoons; literally!

 

I consider that Aliens is a classic action film. Very well written and plotted, all the characters are fully fleshed out and the action sequences are very well crafted. Alien3 and Alien Resurrection just don't seem to match up to the first two (though of course they are very different genres) - I feel like they were just going through the motions. On reflection, I do think that one of the main culprits always seems to be really bad, boring, simplistic scriptwriting.

Edited November 5, 2004 by MorganPeline

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

It's Paul Anderson. I liked Resident Evil but possibly only because they kept it simple, and I'm a sucker for action movies with nice visuals. I think perhaps he needs to not be allowed to write the damn things, or at least have a Lucas Effect consultant (No, George, you can't do that - that's just rubbish).

 

Phil

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Speaking of Lucas - has anyone seen the Star Wars trailer? Horribly edited, and with some very strange angles and choices. When Darth Vader rises it looks like som old cheesy Hammer horror..

[Matt Pacini]

A vs P was so horribly directed (and written).

It was lit beautifully, the FX were flawless, set design terrific, but the composition was as if they hired a video game designer to set up all the shots.

It wasn't done well, even for a no-brainer popcorn movie.

Let's face it, the original Predator was a simple bonehead story, not deep at all, but the execution was excellent. Best monster movie ever (Ok, maybe top 5).

 

And as far as Lucas and the whole Star Wars thing goes, sorry, I just don't get it.

Not since 1982 or so anyway.

Yeah, the original Star Wars was good, the next two were good, but what's with the Star Wars obsession anyway?

Frankly, I find the whole concept dated.

To make good SciFi/Space stories in this day and age, you have to have sophisticated stories that make the audience think (X-Files, for instance, or some of the Star Trek shows in the last 10 years).

This good guy/bad guy shoot-em'-up thing is just too predictable to be possibly entertaining anymore.

Lucas' only technique to make anything "more cerebral" is to make up increasingly sillier new words for his cardboard characters to spew out.

Sorry George, nobody thinks the whole R2D2/CP3O thing is cute anymore.

It worked in 1975, it doesn't work anymore.

There's simply no way to keep milking stories out of it, even it they WERE done right, yet he keeps making sequels.

Oh, I'm sorry, "prequels", that's apparently a whole different thing!

 

Lucas is only good when he hires Speilberg to direct, then gets out of the way.

 

Matt Pacini

[Jon Allen]

No matter how cerebrally deep (or not) Lucas gets into episodes 1-3, we're still not looking at Predator and Clones with the same set of eyes.

Besides a story that we already know the ending to and writing that seems to pander to the sub 10 year old crowd, Lucas' execution is very good.

The angles seem strange because the editing isn't very good (how many movies have a full-blown teaser trailer 6 months before a movie is released?), but then again, very few of us have seen the complete movie so we can contexualize the angles.

Besides all of this, I think Lucas does a great job.

IMHO He is one of the few directors/producers that can actually drive his special fx guys to match the lighting and gammas between the CG and live-action characters.

But maybe this conversation is best reserved until the movie actually comes out.

SEE YOU NEXT YEAR!!!

[Morgan Peline]

When Darth Vader rises it looks like some old cheesy Hammer horror..

 

I remember hearing that Lucas was always been inspired by movies made in the 1950s so he was trying to emulate this style in the new Star Wars films.

 

Lucas' only technique to make anything "more cerebral" is to make up increasingly sillier new words for his cardboard characters to spew out.

 

I also heard that Lucas has always preferred animation, so to me it would make sense that his characters would turn out so plastic.

 

However, after having said that, I just watched the new Pixar flic; The Incredibles -

It was a lot of fun! And I have to admit that it's true; it's so well made and written that the characters just come alive. The lighting, composition and set design were fantastic. Weirdly enough, I think you can learn a lot about good live-action cinematography from watching good animation especially the Pixar movies. Also the Iron Giant.

 

Funny how fake people can seem so real whilst on the other hand real people can seem so fake.

Edited November 6, 2004 by MorganPeline

[mark leuchter]

Oh Matt, ye of little faith!

 

:-)

 

Mark

[Matt Pacini]

I'm sorry, I just have no idea why you guys keep expecting the next Star Wars movie to finally be good.

The first 3 were good films, the rest are crap.

And you don't change angles in editing, so no, it's the shooting that's the problem.

 

To not be able to get a good performance out of Liam Neesom shows absolutely that you're not directing the movie properly.

You could probably leave the set and get a brilliant performance out of that guy, and Natalie Portman and everyone else in these films are directed so poorly that it seems like they're non-actors he pulled off the street.

Everyone is stiff, monotone, and hardly anyone moves, nor does the camera, and it's all to make the CG easier, and Liam Neesom said as much in an interview I read.

The guy was thinking about quitting the business, it was such a bad experience.

 

Just astoundingly bad directing, I'm sorry, it's just the way it is.

Why you guys keep coming back for more, is beyond me.

Lucas has ALL the tools, and access to the most talented people in the business, and look what he makes with it?

He needs to stop writing, stop directing, and stick to producing.

 

Matt Pacini

[K Borowski]

I heartily agree. Not only should Lucas stick to producing, he should stick to models. The work he does now looks just plain fake. I honestly think that the pinnacle of his career was Return of the Jedi (can't beat that space battle matte boxes and all) and that it's been down hill ever since. Love you to death George, but the poop you've been doing lately is attrocious. Even Anthony Daniels (C-3PO) was disappointed in Episode III. He said something about his final shot as the character being him standing against a blue screen talking to someone who wasn't even there. What a shame. One more thought: has any prequel ever been really good? I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head, which makes the making of not one but three prequels all the more foolish.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[Filip Plesha]

I find that episode1 looked quite realistic in terms of effects.

CG somehow looked more realistic than the one in episode2.

I don't know why.

[K Borowski]

I find that episode1 looked quite realistic in terms of effects.

CG somehow looked more realistic than the one in episode2.

I don't know why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe it's because at least the live-action components of Episode I were shot on film, whereas now the whole of production is done digitally. I believe there were still some sets being used in Episode I whereas now nearly everything is generated in a computer or tweaked in a computer.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[Matt Pacini]

The thing I find the most lacking, is the absence of story.

Just a bunch of scenes strung together, that you don't care about while watching, and it seems the characters don't care what happens either.

It's as if Lucas' priorities for his films have reversed completely;

The real, live action characters are there to serve the effects, not the other way around.

You can just "feel" that the actors have no idea what the hell is going on, what they're supposed feel, (if anything) and there isn't anything that happens that you give a damn about.

It's just a bunch of whirring objects and laser blasts...

Boring as hell.

If this is Luca's idea of "changing the way we make films" then God help us all if he's right. (which I don't believe).

A poor evangelist for the so-called digital revolution, if you ask me.

 

Matt Pacini

[Jo Laurits Aksdal]

I thought A vs P was a disaster. The writing was just nothing. And the freezing temperatures in Antartica, what happened to those?

And there were only some sound effects that partly frightened me. The visuals were just not working for me. It's often what you don't see that's interesting. Like the first Alien and Predator.

[Jonas]

Isn't the point of a "fine art" to be actually serious about your craft? I mean, what kind of actor would lower themselves to that level? Gore-fest movies are all alike, if you star in them you're either a has-been or a never-will-be.

Maybe this isn't so true, remember Eva LaRue in Ghoulies? Of course, she never landed any roles outside of soaps- so I think it's true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Remember Kevin Bacon? He started out in Friday the 13th. And what about Johnny Depp in Nightmare on Elm Street? Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween. It's nice with some change IMHO. There's nothing wrong with a popcorn-flick as long as it's done right.