Man oh man does this movie look good!!!

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/av...te3/large.html

im gonna watch that.. after i watched troy and van helsing (spelling?), spiderman 2 which is also in my list right now :D

[ 05-01-2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Harkoliar ]

Which remind me of the arcade game alien vs predator which I like so much. I hope the movie turn out to be as enjoyable as that.

They're also running a poll on who we think will win.
Currently, the Predator are winning by 65000.

I like that trailer a lot. [img]smile.gif[/img] I voted for Aliens.

I just voted for the Predator. Current score:
Predator -- 116,000
Alien -- 95,000

Ooops... Edited to say
POTENTIAL SPOILER WARNING
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, there are supposed to be three predators and hundreds of aliens, so the aliens have the numerical advantage, but one pic I saw identified the "predator hero", so I figure 2 will die, but one will live and form an alliance with the humans, eventually showing them grudging respect, so that one predator and one human will survive.
Lance Henrickson is supposed to be in it, reprising his role as the scientist upon whom the Bishop android was based.

[ 05-01-2004, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Arnabas ]

I had gotten the impression that Paul Anderson was merely theorizing that idea. I never knew they had decided on having said number of aliens.

edited: Also, they mentioned 5 Predators in the featurette. They're supposedly teenagers trying to prove themselves in their final test for manhood.

[ 05-02-2004, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Nanobyte ]

Well, the latest I read was 3 preds...
As for the # of aliens, I admit that I may be wrong. So much theorizing, it is hard to know what to believe.

Is this movie set before, after or around the same time as the original Aliens movies? I only ask becasue the Bishop Human is alive and well in Alien 3, and if this is set centuries before or after that time then he must have some wicked secret to long life [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think the one in Alien 3 is an android as well Hierophant - 85 clocks him on the head with a wrench rather hard and he doesn't even feel it. Large amounts of skin and flesh are hanging off his head and he doesn't particularly mind...

While we're on the subject of Alien 3 I'd just like to say: its a bad, bad, film. It has good actors and a good director but its somehow just very bad.

Really? Again, I may need my eyes checked as I never noticed the flesh hanging off. But then again, I havn't seen it since I was about 13 [img]smile.gif[/img]
But personally I quite liked Alien3. Can't really put my finger on why. I guess I just like bleak, hopeless films.

hmm, lets just hope there aren't any "alien-predator" hybrids, I recall one of the alien vs predator comics where that occured (aliens take select genetic material from their "hosts" resulting in some very interesting brids - ie one crossover where superman was infected he coughed the little bastard up into the sun to prevent it from emerging with some of his capabilitiese)

Having just watched the scene in question again I'm undecided on whether or not he's an android. His ear appears to be half off, along with a large bit of the skin around it, and he doesn't exactly look in pain, let alone the kind of agony you'd expect. But then again the blood is red, not white like the normal androidy stuff.

I don't mind hopeless and dark films, but theres no way you can get round the awful dialogue of Alien 3. Plus I could never get over expecting 85 to say in a flat northern voice: "...of course the shopkeeper and his son were another matter entirely. I had to beat them to death with their own shoelaces.". It horribly under-uses Pete Postlethwaite as well, and thats a crime deserving of the death penalty in some cultures. :D

I always assumed that it was just another trick and that this Bishop was another cyborg.

I assumed he was human because of the contrast he demonstrates with the android Bishop. As if David Fincher was trying to point out the greed and exploitation that 'condemns' humanity. The android Bishop was selfless and faithful to Ripley, risking his 'life' to save her from the Queen, whereas the human Bishop merely wants to use her to gain access to the alien. I thought where he says 'I'm very human', Fincher was intending him to personify all of humanity's negative qualities. And in comparison to his (and the company's) calculating exploitation, the alien's savage destructivness, yet utter devotion to its species, seems less 'evil'. Bishop becomes the 'Burke' of Alien 3.

And yeah Barry, I'm a fan of Pete Postlethwaite too [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

First off, ever seen The Lost World; Jurassic Park 2? Talk about Pete Postlethwaite having a good role. He gets eaten by two T-Rexes ;)

And about the android Bishop being faithful and all: yeah that's true. But maybe David Fincher isn't pointing out that Mr Weiland himself (assuming the Bishop in Alien 3 is in fact human) is a total opposite of his own androids and that he is greedy, self-centered and all those negative qualities, but that even androids, while properly programmed, can have their nasty sides as well (and here I assume that Bishop in Alien 3 is indeed an android).

Note that there is an immense difference in time between the movies. While Ripley may be in cryosleep, that doesn't mean other people don't age.

Burke is slimy and Machiavellian, but the Bishop android/maker (whichever) seems much mroe sincere. He is obviously trying to get some kind of personal (or company) gain, but he just comes out and says it, unlike Burke. With Burke its all about the money, whereas with Bishop he practically pleads with Ripley to let him examine the Alien - he seems much more trustworthy than Burke, they're not really the same in my opinion. I know you're not saying they were the same, but I mean that they don't play the same role. Burke shows how humans will climb over each others dead bodies for a bit of money, but Bishop (in Alien 3 at least) shows how raw ambition and desire (he embodies the company effectively - whether he's human or not) cause us to make our greatest mistakes. Burke doesn't care what he does to anyone, as long as he's okay. Bishop is just overconfident and feels he can handle anything. Aliens is a very 80s film - about the greed of man, Alien 3 is much more 90s - with a message that we shouldn't get too confident in ourselves. Thats my take on it anyway.

But it still doesn't help answer the question of whether he's human or not!

Pete Postlethwaite is very good, but does he actually get eaten in Jurassic Park 2? I thought he had an epiphany halfway through and vows not to hunt anymore, therefore making him untouchable as far as the film script goes... I could have sworn it was Richard Schiff who gets eaten by two T Rex's. But either way Postlethwaite is one of the only good things about that film.

That's a good way of looking at it Barry. Puts a new perspecive on things [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

No you're right. It wasn't Pete who got eaten after all [img]smile.gif[/img] Maybe by the raptors though..

Burke wasn't just slimy and Machiavellian, he was Paul Reiser, and as anyone who saw the suicide cult episode of Family Guy knows, Paul Reiser is not good.

Joking aside, I felt that Alien 3 was limited by the director's own style, which worked well in other downbeat-edged films like Fight Club.

There were two master shots, the first where Hicks and Newt are dropped into the massive furnace, the second when Ripley sends herself down, and the prison is locked up forever. It seems almost like something was after her, and when she finally dies, it's like a sense of overwhelming closure is just leaping from the film. The combination of the music and low-angled cinematography gave the whole scene a layer of emotion that's hard to understand unless you see.

The ending is what really amplifies the downbeat edge, with no victory and no good guy or happy ending, with the whole film building up. Alien: Resurrection was just a plain failure by comparison. At least Alien 3 succeeded artistically, if not so much in terms of entertainment.

Also, whoever likes bleak and hopeless films, try Alan J. Pakula's The Parallax View, a film with the kind of overwhelming hopelessness absolutely timely in the post-investigation failure of Jim Garrison...

[ 05-31-2004, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

I like Alien Resurrection. It has a certain goofy charm about it. And every character actor in Hollywood is in it - Ron Perlman, Brad Dourif, Dan Hedeya, that Duvall chap whose first name I can never remember...

Okay so its not high art like the first two were and the third tried to be, but its worth it for bizzarre exchanges like:

-Jeez... do you put battery acid in this or something?!?
-Only for flavour.

:D

I thought he said, "nah man, just for color."

There was him, and Dan Hedaya, between them was every good moment in the film. Effective comic timing, however, doesn't suit a film of horror dress.

You may be right about the quote. Its been a few months since I last saw it.

And I don't know about the comedy, I think it works pretty well in horror films often (and no, I don't mean in stuff like "Scary Movie"). And in Alien Resurrection the comedy is quite surreal, yet also quite understated at the same time as its all done so dead pan. Its a really peculiar film when all is said and done. I'm not so sure that it can be dismissed as a franchise misfire, its more of a misguided attempt at a new style for an old theme. Well intentioned, but ultimately flawed.

*bump*

The movies coming up in a little over a month.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/av...er/medium.html
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/av...ive/large.html
http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avp/featurette2/

[ 06-29-2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Looks great! I`m looking forward to see the film.