Ostman:

I've never seen a version of the film without these 3 scenes, and the sentry gun scene is the only one that doesn't bring much to the table.

Ripley learning about her daughter seems a big driving force for her (seriously, why cut that?), and seeing the guy get facehugger'd gives fans of the first film a "shiat's about to go down!" feeling.

Even the guns show the aliens absorbing a thousand rounds of ammo and still keep coming, so not a complete waste.


the original theatrical version doesn't contain these scenes. For a while, the only DVD available of Aliens was the extended cut. This annoyed the hell out of me.


I would argue an early scene saying Burke was the one who sent them out is made redundant by the better paced later scene when Ripley confronts him. The is redundant and farks with the pacing down. Watch the original version, it's much better and more suspenseful.

FeedTheCollapse: Ostman:

I've never seen a version of the film without these 3 scenes, and the sentry gun scene is the only one that doesn't bring much to the table.

Ripley learning about her daughter seems a big driving force for her (seriously, why cut that?), and seeing the guy get facehugger'd gives fans of the first film a "shiat's about to go down!" feeling.

Even the guns show the aliens absorbing a thousand rounds of ammo and still keep coming, so not a complete waste.


the original theatrical version doesn't contain these scenes. For a while, the only DVD available of Aliens was the extended cut. This annoyed the hell out of me.


I would argue an early scene saying Burke was the one who sent them out is made redundant by the better paced later scene when Ripley confronts him. The is redundant and farks with the pacing down. Watch the original version, it's much better and more suspenseful.

I think most of the cuts were poor decisions, including that one. The extended version does a better job explaining Ripley and her motivations, including that scene.

Most of the cuts as I've heard it were the studio saying that it was too long. They had little to do with the pacing.

davidphogan: FeedTheCollapse: Ostman:

I've never seen a version of the film without these 3 scenes, and the sentry gun scene is the only one that doesn't bring much to the table.

Ripley learning about her daughter seems a big driving force for her (seriously, why cut that?), and seeing the guy get facehugger'd gives fans of the first film a "shiat's about to go down!" feeling.

Even the guns show the aliens absorbing a thousand rounds of ammo and still keep coming, so not a complete waste.


the original theatrical version doesn't contain these scenes. For a while, the only DVD available of Aliens was the extended cut. This annoyed the hell out of me.


I would argue an early scene saying Burke was the one who sent them out is made redundant by the better paced later scene when Ripley confronts him. The is redundant and farks with the pacing down. Watch the original version, it's much better and more suspenseful.

I think most of the cuts were poor decisions, including that one. The extended version does a better job explaining Ripley and her motivations, including that scene.

Most of the cuts as I've heard it were the studio saying that it was too long. They had little to do with the pacing.



the scenes with Ripley's daughter could've been kept, though I don't think it's really essential.


The other scenes were very obviously cut for redundancy and pacing; I'm pretty sure it was Cameron himself who stated as such. Either way, I fully agree with the decision: they add an additional 10 minutes before they arrive on LV-426 and bring up points that are otherwise better explained later on. Does it matter that Newt's family was the one who was sent to the derelict craft? It's interesting, but it's not important, kills the suspense later on, and is redundant because it is more or less implied that this is what happened later on; at best this is an over-explanation of a redundant plotpoint. Does it matter that Burke is revealed to be the one who sent them out 10 minutes into the film? No, this is explained later on and the earlier scene kills any suspense. Sentry guns? Interesting but inessential. etc. etc.

optional: I've heard about the wooden planet before. Honestly, I think it sounds pretty cool, but it's a bit too out there for the Alien universe. Alien obviously takes a lot of scientific liberties with biology and physics (though props to Scott for having space be silent in the first film), but a wooden planet stretches it.

This is not the first time I've heard this claim.

Space was not silent in Alien. We can hear the Nostromo flyby. We can hear the the Nostromo decouple with the ore processing plant. We can hear the Narcissus launch. We can hear the Nostromo explode from the Narcissus.

Strange why more than one person I've met swore up and down that space in Alien was like in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Ed Grubermann: therecksays: I highly doubt that when the human race sets out for the stars we will be bringing a device that strikes a primer in a cartridge that ignites powder that then uses gas to propell a lead slug for deadly effect. It wouldn't work in space anyway.

Yes it would. It would work better in space as there's no air resistance to slow the projectile. Modern cartridges contain both the fuel and the oxygen in the propellant mix. You don't think the gun sucks in air to fire, do you?

We played the "should have brought a Luger" drinking game in high school. Surprisingly often, the protagonist would have been better off with a WWII sidearm than with his 25th-century death-ray projector thingie.

Cabin in the woods had guns, right?

FeedTheCollapse: the scenes with Ripley's daughter could've been kept, though I don't think it's really essential.

Not much of the movie was really essential, but it explained a lot of why she was going back. It doesn't make much sense in the theatrical cut, with all that she had been through, why she'd go back or why she was so protective of Newt.

FeedTheCollapse: The other scenes were very obviously cut for redundancy and pacing; I'm pretty sure it was Cameron himself who stated as such.

I'm about 99% sure during the Special Edition's commentary he specifically blames 20th Century Fox thinking the movie was too long for audiences to be willing to attend, so they demanded he cut it down. There hadn't been many two and a half hour sci fi/action movies up to that point, so they thought it was just too long. I think he later mentioned on the T2 audio commentary that he was worried he'd have to cut it down the same way studio execs forced him to chop out whole scenes of Aliens.

FeedTheCollapse: Either way, I fully agree with the decision: they add an additional 10 minutes before they arrive on LV-426 and bring up points that are otherwise better explained later on. Does it matter that Newt's family was the one who was sent to the derelict craft? It's interesting, but it's not important, kills the suspense later on, and is redundant because it is more or less implied that this is what happened later on; at best this is an over-explanation of a redundant plotpoint.

What suspense does it kill later? Did you not expect Aliens in a movie called Aliens? It also ties the first movie directly to the second by showing more clearly that it's on the same planet as the first one. Yes, that's mentioned briefly in dialog later, but it helps flesh out the agenda of the company.

FeedTheCollapse: Does it matter that Burke is revealed to be the one who sent them out 10 minutes into the film? No, this is explained later on and the earlier scene kills any suspense. Sentry guns? Interesting but inessential. etc. etc.

The scene where it shows that Burke sent them helps explain Ripley's hatred for him and willingness to let him die a bit better. After his whole speech earlier in the movie it shows just how pathological he is and that he's not just a loyal company man, but a hardcore psychopath.

The sentry guns I thought helped the pacing, and also show just how powerful the swarm is. I'd say it adds a bit more suspense to the following scenes.

Teknowaffle: Acting is about make believe lady, you check your real life and inhibitions at the soundstage door.

How do you think they make movies like "Brokeback Mountain" with two straight actors?

Bad example.

davidphogan: What suspense does it kill later? Did you not expect Aliens in a movie called Aliens? It also ties the first movie directly to the second by showing more clearly that it's on the same planet as the first one. Yes, that's mentioned briefly in dialog later, but it helps flesh out the agenda of the company.



Suspense in that how utterly devastated the colony was once they arrived. I think it's much more effective if the audience does go in with any beforehand knowledge of the colony. Without that scene, it also moves the story towards the main plot at a quicker pace. I would also add that I think the colony/Newt's family scenes are fairly cheesy.


To me, The Extended Edition is not some grand reinstatement of the director's vision, it's basically a movie with its deleted scenes reinserted. My point is that almost every scene reinserted was cut for very obvious reasons: redundancy. Every scene that was cut generally had the gist of its narration told later on and better. When the deleted scene is intact, the later scene involving Ripley confronting Burke feels redundant because, well, we were told earlier that Burke was the one who sent them out. It's bad writing to leave both scenes in, especially from the perspective of someone who hasn't watched the movie previously, so the later scene was kept because it involved Ripley.

Some scenes, like the one addressing Ripley's daughter do add a bit more depth to Ripley, but by and large, nothing new is really gained from the scenes. Was the fact that it was Newt's family who brought back a facehugger/chestburster revelatory? Kinda, but it didn't really add much to the overall plot and it makes the following scene about losing contact with the colonists seem goofy, even if we knew it going to go that route anyway.


The extended version is an over-explanation of previously established plot points.

FeedTheCollapse: Alien 3's biggest problem is just that it's ultimately pointless.

I know the first two films pretty well, been a long time since I watched 3 or 4. Was planning on a refresher before checking out Prometheus. Someone else said this in another thread on here: what sticks in the head most about Alien 3 in the theatre was how bewildering it felt to have Hicks and Newt dead from the get-go. It basically rendered all the events and motivations of the second film meaningless. Even if 3's subsequent story had been better than it was, I don't think it could have risen above that particular elephant in the room.

Rev. Skarekroe: 45: Alien and Prometheus both heavily ripped off an old sci-fi film called "Planet Of The Vampires". Seriously, Prometheus in particular is almost a remake.

Other than the plot is completely different, sure, why not?

FeedTheCollapse: Suspense in that how utterly devastated the colony was once they arrived. I think it's much more effective if the audience does go in with any beforehand knowledge of the colony. Without that scene, it also moves the story towards the main plot at a quicker pace. I would also add that I think the colony/Newt's family scenes are fairly cheesy.

I think it helps to see a before and after, to realize how much has changed. Seeing what it looks like with colonists there makes it all the more surprising how much the Aliens have made it their own.

FeedTheCollapse: Some scenes, like the one addressing Ripley's daughter do add a bit more depth to Ripley, but by and large, nothing new is really gained from the scenes.

Her entire motivation for going back is a huge thing to tear out. Basically she does it for a job, which seems a bit bewildering. After what she had been through in the first one going back to keep a job seems kind of stupid. I remember wondering why she didn't want to just start a family or take an Earth based job. She was an unwilling hero in the first one, just out of self-preservation. The fact she was so close to her cat was kind of weird, but I had no idea that she had a family she left behind.

Her motivations change from someone who was greedy (like the corporation) to a sympathetic character whose connection to Newt makes a lot more sense. It really changes the entire message of the movie.

They weren't necessary at all, but a lot of scenes that were left in weren't necessary for the basic plot of company colonizes planet from first movie, colonists find aliens from first movie, colonists wiped out, send in the space marines, nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

davidphogan: The sentry guns I thought helped the pacing, and also show just how powerful the swarm is. I'd say it adds a bit more suspense to the following scenes.

That was my feeling as well. It hammers home the concept that Every. Single. Colonist. got a facehugger surprise and here are the results.

davidphogan: Her motivations change from someone who was greedy (like the corporation) to a sympathetic character whose connection to Newt makes a lot more sense. It really changes the entire message of the movie.

When I first saw that scene, with the picture of Ripley's daughter at age 65 before she died, I was like, "Why did nobody *tell* me this before?"

davidphogan: FeedTheCollapse: Suspense in that how utterly devastated the colony was once they arrived. I think it's much more effective if the audience does go in with any beforehand knowledge of the colony. Without that scene, it also moves the story towards the main plot at a quicker pace. I would also add that I think the colony/Newt's family scenes are fairly cheesy.

I think it helps to see a before and after, to realize how much has changed. Seeing what it looks like with colonists there makes it all the more surprising how much the Aliens have made it their own.


Eh, the colony just had more operational lights in the Before scene. I think it's much more effective when they showed the aftermath. Again, I also think that these scenes don't really work too well on their own also pulls down their overall effectiveness as well. I find the scene involving the 2 colonists discussing Burke to feel out of place in terms of the movie's overall tone. I thought Newt screaming at when she sees her father with a facehugger to be kind of goofy as well.

davidphogan: FeedTheCollapse: Some scenes, like the one addressing Ripley's daughter do add a bit more depth to Ripley, but by and large, nothing new is really gained from the scenes.

Her entire motivation for going back is a huge thing to tear out. Basically she does it for a job, which seems a bit bewildering. After what she had been through in the first one going back to keep a job seems kind of stupid. I remember wondering why she didn't want to just start a family or take an Earth based job. She was an unwilling hero in the first one, just out of self-preservation. The fact she was so close to her cat was kind of weird, but I had no idea that she had a family she left behind.

which is why I agree that the scenes with her daughter should've been kept, even though I thought they did fairly well establishing why she went back: they would've just ended up bringing an alien back with them, therefore any new family she tries to make would be inevitably wiped out. I'm not under any impression she went back for financial reasons. This scene does add depth to the original story.* The other scenes do not.


*though I can kind of see why they cut it out as revealing Ripley's (previously unmentioned) daughter being dead might come off as piling on Ripley's misfortunes to the detriment of moving the story forward. Maybe if they kept the later portion where she's putting Newt down to sleep?

therecksays: I highly doubt that when the human race sets out for the stars we will be bringing a device that strikes a primer in a cartridge that ignites powder that then uses gas to propell a lead slug for deadly effect. It wouldn't work in space anyway. Far more likely to have a mass propeller like a gauss gun or some type of laser weapon.

I'm late to the thread and haven't read past this, but if it was a gun nut troll:

IT WAS BEAUTIFUL. Best I've ever seen.

If not, well, guns work in space and although there isn't a lot more development to be done with them, they are cheap, reliable, and effective. They have been around 400 years, I wouldn't doubt they are around 400 more.

ko_kyi: therecksays: I highly doubt that when the human race sets out for the stars we will be bringing a device that strikes a primer in a cartridge that ignites powder that then uses gas to propell a lead slug for deadly effect. It wouldn't work in space anyway. Far more likely to have a mass propeller like a gauss gun or some type of laser weapon.

I'm late to the thread and haven't read past this, but if it was a gun nut troll:

IT WAS BEAUTIFUL. Best I've ever seen.

If not, well, guns work in space and although there isn't a lot more development to be done with them, they are cheap, reliable, and effective. They have been around 400 years, I wouldn't doubt they are around 400 more.

Read David Weber's Honor Harrington series. It's set far in the future but space combat still involves firing missiles.

FeedTheCollapse: *though I can kind of see why they cut it out as revealing Ripley's (previously unmentioned) daughter being dead might come off as piling on Ripley's misfortunes to the detriment of moving the story forward. Maybe if they kept the later portion where she's putting Newt down to sleep?

Mostly I agree with you on the cut scenes then. Mostly.

But, as I recall James Cameron telling it getting the movie (minus opening and closing credits) to 2 hours was just most easily done by chopping entire plot points. Unfortunately Ripley's history was chosen for reasons along those lines as requested by the executives, and not by some artistic choice by the director.

As for the scene with Newt's dad getting the facehugger on him, I get that James Cameron was trying to introduce us to Newt, but it would have been better without the kids in the scene and just the dad on a work crew or something passively mentioning his daughter Newt.

I just saw Prometheus today, and was kind of confused by the first scene and how exactly it related to the rest of the movie. At least that would have made a bit of sense for a setting up the plot early scene.

theorellior: That was my feeling as well. It hammers home the concept that Every. Single. Colonist. got a facehugger surprise and here are the results.

Yeah, that's a good way to expand on what I was thinking.

theorellior: When I first saw that scene, with the picture of Ripley's daughter at age 65 before she died, I was like, "Why did nobody *tell* me this before?"

I had heard about it before I saw it, but the picture really hammered it home.

Just saw Prometheus, and it friggin ROCKED. If you are a fan of the series, I think you will agree it kicks ass. And wide open for another installment.

FeedTheCollapse: the scene with Ripley's daughter is fine, but everything else about the extended cut is just redundant and throws off the pacing of the film, especially early on. Never understood why the sentry gun scenes are so beloved as they're not really important.

Why don't the aliens just attack the complex through the doors? Because they tried the doors and were shot by the sentry guns. They stopped attacking just before the guns ran out of ammo. Since the aliens had no way to know how much ammo was left, the second assault was via the ceiling.

The guns scene isn't very long and nicely establishes that the aliens aren't waging an unconventional attack just because it's scary.

mongbiohazard: Dwight_Yeast: Teknowaffle: Dear god, I am not a big gun person, but for farks sake, Sigourney Weaver has a serious psychological issue about them. Not healthy lady.

If her argument is "guns won't be used in the future" I have to agree with her.

/No problem with people owning guns


I'm pretty sure there will either be guns used in the future that are far more destructive then the ones we have now, or something much worse. You don't really think there will be no weapons in the future, do you?

And the NRA will be there, front and center, arguing that every idiotic loon should be able to get their paws on them.

Rev. Skarekroe: You mean the plot where a group of people on a spaceship lands on a mysterious rocky planet where they find a derelict craft controlled by strange sounds and inhabited by a giant alien corpse, and in which crew members become possessed by evil forces that threaten to destroy their world?

That doesn't sound like the movie I saw today.

Optimus Primate: Just saw Prometheus, and it friggin ROCKED. If you are a fan of the series, I think you will agree it kicks ass. And wide open for another installment.

I agree completely.

I actually enjoyed the first alien v predator movie. the second...not so much. i also liked the predator flick that had topher grace as the psycho killer doctor.

the first is one of two movies that kept me up the night i watched it. the other was the exorcist.

Spoiler:

Can someone explain the escape pod thing to me, from Prometheus? The captain said it had two years of life support, yet it just crashes into the ground and Charlize just jumps out to get crushed by the alien ship. Wtf?

We need to have a dedicated spoiler filled Prometheus thread, because I didn't like it but I can't pin down why.

The one thing I hated about the scene with Newt's family is that the derelict spaceship is still just siting there.

I had assumed it had fallen into a fissure or been covered by an avalanche in the years since Alien, but no it is just sitting there, within driving distance to a colony that obviously took years to build and apparently nobody bothered to look in that general direction in all those years.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Spoiler:

Can someone explain the escape pod thing to me, from Prometheus? The captain said it had two years of life support, yet it just crashes into the ground and Charlize just jumps out to get crushed by the alien ship. Wtf?

Her life boat (that had two years of life support) ejected first and was the place where the engineer got attacked by the giant facehugger. Her escape pod shot into the ground, and she was going to run from it to the life boat before she got crushed by the ship.

I'm in the "didnt care for it" camp. There are parts of it I loved (the visuals, and Idris Elba's portrayal of the captain) but the story was just so silly it sullied the whole thing for me.

DamnYankees: Psylent1: The one thing I hated about the scene with Newt's family is that the derelict spaceship is still just siting there.

I had assumed it had fallen into a fissure or been covered by an avalanche in the years since Alien, but no it is just sitting there, within driving distance to a colony that obviously took years to build and apparently nobody bothered to look in that general direction in all those years.

It's not the same ship as in Alien, because its not the same planet as in Alien. Both the movies themselves label the planets different, and Ridley Scott has confirmed they are not the same planets. Like he has said before, its not a prequel. Rather, it's meant to evoke certain things you already know, not precede them.

Aliens is set on the same planet as Alien: LV 426.

DamnYankees: theunblinkingeye: DamnYankees: Psylent1: The one thing I hated about the scene with Newt's family is that the derelict spaceship is still just siting there.

I had assumed it had fallen into a fissure or been covered by an avalanche in the years since Alien, but no it is just sitting there, within driving distance to a colony that obviously took years to build and apparently nobody bothered to look in that general direction in all those years.

It's not the same ship as in Alien, because its not the same planet as in Alien. Both the movies themselves label the planets different, and Ridley Scott has confirmed they are not the same planets. Like he has said before, its not a prequel. Rather, it's meant to evoke certain things you already know, not precede them.

Aliens is set on the same planet as Alien: LV 426.

Correct, but Prometheus is not set on that planet. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.

I don't see anyone saying Prometheus was.

DamnYankees: PanicMan: We need to have a dedicated spoiler filled Prometheus thread, because I didn't like it but I can't pin down why.

In lieu of a better place, lets just do it here. I feel like I liked it despite feeling like I should, so you and I really need to hammer this out.

Works for me. **spoilers**

I'm trying to think of where to start. The Alien biology just got a lot more complicated, for one. I'm still not sure what the small snake-like aliens did. Do they just eat your brain? Does the squid somehow become a facehugger?

And how did the dude who was turning into an Engineer impregnate her with a non-Engineeer? Shouldn't her baby be a muscle-ey pale dude?

DamnYankees: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I'm in the "didnt care for it" camp. There are parts of it I loved (the visuals, and Idris Elba's portrayal of the captain) but the story was just so silly it sullied the whole thing for me.

I dont understand this complaint. The story isn't silly so much as confusing. In the realm of sci-fi, what's silly about the idea of going to find aliens who we believe have visited earth, only to find we're wholly unprepared for what we find?

I agree certain scenes and certain decisions are silly, but the story as a whole? I dont get the complaint.

That part of the story was fine... What I didn't like is that the whole expedition was basically to find life-extending procedures for Weyland. Who is Weyland? Some old guy in a holographic corporate training video (until the third act reveal).

We have no reason to care about him, yet the the whole movie is essentially about him surviving. And then he basically gets backhanded to death by the giant albino humanoid.

And what a completely horrible backstory for the Space Jockey! He's just an oversized human albino?? That sucks!