The Real 'alien' in Ridley Scotts 'Alien' (1979)

buried

This new Romulus trailer got me thinking, The only true Alien film for me is the first one from 1979. Everything else that came after her is just a cloud of rehash or just a complete and utter mess. The first film is one of the greatest films ever created in the modern age, circa late 20th Century/early 21st Century. The set design and the world building in the work is just spectacular, everybody knows this, that's what made what ultimately turned out to be the franchise of the entire thing, and what every other creator/director tried to emulate, including this new romulus effort. But there is a totally overlooked aspect IMO to what made the 1979 film truly spectacular which is the character of Ash played by Ian Holm. Ash is the corporation company human-like android, supposedly a beneficial tool sent by the corporation to help manage the activities on the spaceship piloted by the human crew. But Ash is nothing but the corporations digital Artificial Intelligence undercover agent, who only answers to the will and desire of the corporation that owns/controls the ship and also owns/controls Ash. Everything else to Ian Holms character is secondary, the ship, the crew "crew expendable", even itself, Holms character as the digital artificial android is the real 'Alien' in this work, looks human, supposedly beneficial to humans, but ultimately is only answerable to the will and desire of the corporation who controls it and wants to possess the xenomorph as a biological weapon, Ash is the real unhuman 'alien' that actually exists in our world and this is what makes this film so truly frightening and why the rest of the sequels IMO are unable to compete with the real, profound, subliminal and totally modern relevant horror of the 1979 original. None of the rest of the sequels and efforts after 1979 touch this subject, the second one has the Android as a free thinking good guy, which totally kills the thing. Only ones to touch it was the Prometheus/Covenant efforts, also created by Scott, but those films play out this dangerous AI narrative to such a loud degree it literally kills the mystery of the origin of the xenomorph, because those films try to portray AI as the creator of the xenomorph, which destroys the unknown void of space that is so brilliantly executed in the 1979 original.

NIMAN

I also thought Aliens was fantastic too, but more in an 80s action movie style.

buried

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122224598#Comment_122224598

Yeah the second one is a fantastic action film, has a great score that flows along with the film with some great orchestral hits to go with the action, but for me, it lacks the subliminal dread and the inherent mystic horror of the first film, which is what makes the whole thing seem truly believable.

NIMAN

I have always thought of the original as a horror film, and the 2nd as an action film

Both totally different.

geotrig

They are and i suppose the suspense/horror aspect of the the unkown alien and androids was near on impossible to replicate for the 2nd hence the direction it went , i love alien and enjoy aliens and think the choice to go to action was probably right. i dont think the films ignored it as such just the writing & stories were not as good as the 1st but more so holm played the character excellently.

the_amazing_raisin

The thing that always got me about the first film was the general lack of violence for a horror movie

Yeah there's the bit where Kane gets his chest burst, which is pretty **** gory. After that a lot of the deaths occur off screen up to Ash's death

There's a key thing here, showing a never ending string of gratuitous violence just normalises it to the audience so removes the shock value

Prometheus is a great example of this, felt more like a tech demo for how horrifying they could make CGI

With Alien, the comparative lack of violence made the moments where it was portrayed far more impactful IMO.

The scene where Ash is flailing about after having his head ripped halfway off is truly horrifying. Ian Holm's portrayal was spot on, he managed to get right into the uncanny valley and make Ash seem like an imitation of something human rather than human

I'm inclined to agree that Ash was as much of an alien in the film as the xenomorph

Combined with the films excellent pacing, dark and claustrophobic atmosphere and top notch acting from Sigourney Weaver makes it the best film in the franchise for me

Aliens was as good but belongs in a different genre, more of an action movie. It was the right move since they couldn't replicate the same horror as the original, the audience already knew about the aliens

The last few films have been truly dire. Prometheus was garbage, and I didn't even bother seeing Covenant. When Naomi Rapace decided to steer clear and the writers just abandoned the whole Engineers storyline it was obvious they had lost the plot

Romulus looks like a genuine attempt to recapture the old movie, but it's still got the same failing that the audience already knows 90% of the movie in advance

So it'll likely be reduced to just a load of jump scares and horror scenes

You know the franchise is screwed when I'm starting to look at Alien 3 and Resurrection in a positive light 😂

Theboinkmaster

Alien is one of the best horror films ever.

Aliens is one of the best action films ever.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122226624#Comment_122226624

I'm so thankful that they stopped at two. It's one of my favourite duologies.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122227389#Comment_122227389

….

bodhrandude

The tagline for the first I think grabbed a lot of people's attention placing it in the sci fi horror genre, 'In Space no one can hear you scream.'

MfMan

Ian Holm, great in everything, was typically excellent in Alien.

"Ash is a robot!"

"You still don't understand what you're dealing with do you…"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA8jv1M6Y2g

the_amazing_raisin

It's interesting to compare the differences between Ian Holm's portrayal of Ash and Michael Fassbender's portrayal of David in Prometheus

As usual Fassbender did an excellent job, and while he manages to get the sort of uncanny methodical perfection of an android over, he seemed to add too many human traits

It's obvious that David feels a lot of resentment towards his creators that he isn't considered their equal and also cares for Naomi Rapace's character. Both are very human characteristics and seem to go beyond programmed behaviour

In that way David seems closer to Bishop from Aliens than Ash

Bishop again was an android who had very human characteristics and seemed to genuinely care for the other characters beyond their programming

Ash on the other hand very much gives the impression that he doesn't care about the crew's survival. He isn't out to kill them but is for more in line with his directive of "crew expendable"

He'll perform his duties and help the crew insofar as it doesn't endager his mission to preserve the xenomorph. At that point he'll actively obstruct their efforts to save themselves

To me, this is a far more realistic depiction of a programmed life form and is much closer to what we're seeing with the supposed AIs of today. They don't hate you or have a grudge against you, they simply have a job they're programmed to do and will endeavour to complete that job without any consideration to the wider ramifications

jeremyr62

IMO what also made Alien so great was the believable industrial set design, and the pared down naturalistic script. None of the sequels have come close to matching this.

pixelburp

Anyone looking for the franchise returning to its sense of foreboding and bleakness, would do well to check out the Assembly Cut of Alien 3. It did such a fantastic job of fixing the theatrical cut's problems, while making the overall experience more cohesive - and as a result, deeply miserable.

It's a shame Fincher disowned Alien³ cos the unofficial Assembly version showed he had a real vision that the eventual iteration didn't quite match.

the_amazing_raisin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122233335#Comment_122233335

I remember watching a documentary about Alien and I think they used a lot of interior panels from aircraft to give it a more functional look

Apparently the original bridge was a lot bigger and before filming they dropped the ceiling down to barely head height to make it more claustrophobic

buried

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122233335#Comment_122233335

Yeah, the part where Harry Dean Staunton and Kotto are down in the bowels of the ship slagging off Weaver's character while the engines and steam billow all about them, you can't even make out what the two lads are even saying. Just believable realistic genius on the screen.

Tony EH

The Alien trilogy is damn near perfect, AFAIC. The third film gets some unwarranted flack, mostly from people that were disappointed because Newt and Hicks died. But, frankly, boo fucking hoo. People die.

The trilogy is Ripley's tragedy. We follow her through the cosmic events that conspire to eventually destroy her and it's done in a very satisfying way and each film is a well made advancement of her story, with the third being her demise obviously.

What I hated about where the series has gone (and I've mentioned this before) is that in the original three films, the alien is a creature that exists beyond mankind and is completely oblivious and uncaring about us. Man is not important to the universe and it exists with or without us. It was that Lovecraft vibe that Dan O'Bannon was going for in the 1979 film and Lovecraft heavily influences O'Bannon's story, which is essentially just a haunted house story in space with some cosmic entity that the protagonists have no understanding of. What was excellent, however, was the mystery that surrounds everything in 'Alien'. Who was the space jockey? Where did the eggs come from? Was the space jockey transporting the eggs? Where the eggs laid by some creature that lives on the planet where the space jockey crashed? Nothing was really answered and nothing had to be answered really.

Of course, we find out over the course of the trilogy that the Xenomorph is a functioning set of lifeforms, with their own hierarchy and system that have probably been existing for millennia, long before man made contact. Subsequent films after three have all but destroyed that mystery, with 'Prometheus' and 'Covenant' being particular offenders. Scott, in making those duds, has subtracted everything that was great about the first three films and has made man the centre of all things, thus smashing what made the original idea great in the first place.

Alien is now just a series that needs to die, like so many other once great Hollywood movie series.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122233408#Comment_122233408

I actually prefer the theatrical cut. The assembly cut is too overblown and it doesn't work in too many areas. The theatrical cut is snappier and says what it needs to say quicker. 'Alien 3' has its flaws, for sure, but I think some people are waaaay too unreasonable with their assessments of it. The worst aspect of 'Alien 3' is that it can get a touch repetitive.

Fincher is being a bit of a plonker about the whole thing though. It's ridiculous that he still doesn't want anything to do with what is really a damn good movie.

buried

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122243928#Comment_122243928

"Subsequent films after three have all but destroyed that mystery, with 'Prometheus' and 'Covenant' being particular offenders"

This has what me twigging about the AI characters in the three Alien films that Scott directed. In both 'Prometheus' and 'Covenant' Scott is hell bent on literally showcasing to the audience that it is the AI character, played by Fassbender, who is the demented, hostile creator of these lifeforms, and, as you say, this lame revelation completely destroys the fantastic mystery of the 1979 original. In the same original, the AI character played by Holm is also eventually shown to be demented and terrifyingly hostile. But we have no clue about Ash's origins, until his programming tries to violently murder Ripley once she twigs what the Wutani corporation is up to, and for me, its that scene that is the most overlooked and terrifying part of Alien (1979). I think Scott thought the same, but he went too far and loud showcasing it in the most recent two efforts, which ended up ruining them.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122247581#Comment_122247581

Well, Ash in the original film is just following his programming. I don't think there's anything much to him beyond that. His programming tells him that any potential lifeform is to be retained and that the crew's lives are expendable. He expresses an admiration for its "purity" at one point. But beyond that, he's merely following his programming robotically.

Where Ash differs from the likes of David is in his motivations. David goes out on his own to follow a destiny of sorts and engages in his own decision making, whereas Ash and Bishop are mechanically carrying out the duties assigned by their programmers. I agree that Ash is a different kettle of fish to both Bishop and David, but I think he's closer to Bishop. Bishop is also a more refined model, made 47 years after Ash. David is made many, many, years before either model and yet seems to be of a more advanced type. But that is an issue I've had with 'Prometheus' since I fist saw the film. It simply doesn't match up with the earlier trilogy from a technical POV and comes off as a Sci-fi story with an "Alien" vibe tacked on.