I’m dimly remembering a thread we did here years ago. Subject: which movie villain really, *really *needed killing? IIRC, it was tied between Paul Reiser’s Burke character and Dwight Yoakam’s “Doyle” character from Sling Blade. I think I came down on the side of Burke.
The only thing that bothers me on Aliens rewatches is how Ripley wastes all her ammo on the eggs and the ovipositor. I don’t think the queen’s face is grenade launcher proof.
Then I’m confused about what your point is. I thought it was that no one who saw the move older than 20 liked the movie?
Always with the negative waves, Hudson. Always with the negative waves!
It wasn’t a point so much as a theory. But as I said, I could be wrong. (And who ever says that on these boards?)
Well, at least neither of us thinks one of them has a topless scene.
At the risk of getting my head bitten off again, I have to ask: why do you need a theory to explain why people like this movie? What’s wrong with, “Some people have different tastes than I do?”
Because I find it baffling that what I view as another over-the-top 80s action movie has such an avid following.
Ripley has mommy issues from the beginning when she finds out her daughter died of old age, then Newt, then confronted with the dark mirror version of motherhood of the queen. Makes sense.
i think it more baffling that you’d continue to label it so when it’s explained to you that it’s not. to illustrate - why would you prefer the over-the-top 80s horror movie? it’s just Friday the 13th in space; the formula is almost the same.
The thing that annoys me is when the Marines give up their ammo right before the first encounter with the xenomorphs. I understand why they did that from the point of view of the plot but realistically, it’s silly. I can accept that they underestimate the creatures (they don’t seem to take Ripley very seriously aboard the Sulaco) but going in there practically without weapons? Silly. Back off and try to find a better plan.
And by the way, how come one of them gets to keep his pump-action rifle and even worse, Vasquez and Dietrich keep their huge machine guns? Too much of a hassle to take off? Well, that’s another good reason to try to come up with another plan, especially given the risks related to the processing plant.
They not only underestimate the creatures, they’re not even convinced that Ripley is sane or truthful in her description of them or that they exist at all. And, at the time, it appeared that the colonists were all still alive, just sheltered in the one area.
They did get to keep their flame units. And, of course, the actual grunts “in the field” think that Gorman (who is safely back in the APC) is insane and keep some ammo hidden.
He doesn’t “get to” keep the shotgun, he keeps it hidden in his bag when they’re collecting magazines. Vasquez and Dietrich keep their guns because it’s easier to have one guy collect magazines and put them in a bag than to have one guy carry everyone’s rifles.
But, yes, it was a poorly executed mission which was sort of the point – novice commander Lt. Gorman and a Company flack were running the show and making a cock-up of it.
Yeah, that and the fact that the whole place was going to go up in a fireball the size of Nebraska in a few minutes anyway.
Still, one of my all-time favorite flicks and Cameron’s overall best film, IMO.
Not that it matters, but it was Drake who had the other “smart rifle”, not Dietrich. According to movie lore, the guns weigh 40 pounds each (supported in part by the harness) so having one guy take them would be a bit unwieldy – not to mention their cumbersome design.
I figure that Ripley blew her grenades into the ovipositor and eggs because she assumed the Queen was stationary (tearing herself free came as a surprise when I saw it) and that the eggs were more of a threat from the facehuggers. Plus she probably wasn’t thinking very rationally at that point.
Except that it is. Big guns, explosions, militarism, throbbing soundtrack. 80s action movie. Look at this scene and then lie to me and tell me otherwise.
But thanks, though, for trying to “explain” it to me.
.
Well, that scene is missing explosions and action so… 
As mentioned, someone could come up with three or four one-word descriptors and say that Alien is the same category film as Hobgoblins and it would be just as meaningful as what you’re trying to prove.
She was thinking very rationally.
relevant part from 4:35 to 5:40Stand off between xenos and Ripley, adult xenos are creeping their way toward Ripley. Ripley threatens eggs, queen tells adult xenos to back off.
Egg opens. Ripley seems to figure that she has to take out the facehugger that’s about to come out. She realizes that once she does that, the queen and adults will attack her. So she has to attack the egg, the queen and the adults and she might as well attack the other eggs too. If you pay attention, you see adult xenos being killed as well.
I agree with Spoke here. Aliens is definitely an 80s action movie. It strays from the formula in some respects which makes it very interesting but yeah, as he said big guns, explosions, militarism, throbbing soundtrack.
Makes sense.
Still, the 12-year-old in me wishes that there had been a fair fight. I understand the necessity to end up with only 5-6 characters for the third act (easier to identify with them and more stressful) but this could have been achieved in a more balanced way. Say the Marines keep their ammo but are overwhelmed by the number of xenomorphs. Or their speed. Or their relentlessness. It’d have achieved the same thing but in a much more spectacular way.
You mean it would have been closer to an 80s action movie? 
How does that description not apply to action movies from the '90s? Or the turn of the century? Or the 2010s? Isn’t that just the basic descriptor for “action movie?”