"What's wrong with these films..?" Topic

Some of my favourite films are

Battlefield Earth.

Starship troopers 2.

Alien 3.

Yet, they seem to be unluked by the general public.

Just watched a video of the writer of battlefield Earth calling it a bad film several times.

I can't think whats wrong with it. Action, special effects, interesting story.

I suspect it's the link to a particular religion?

It doesn't seem out of place, Godzilla, ID4 and such.

Godzilla gets a bad wrap, but I think it's on par with battlefield Earth and most big SciFi films around the time.

Starship troopers 2, was a low budget, but very well done directorial debut for Phil Tippett.

Top notch. Again, not sure what people's problem with it was? Not a carbon copy of the original?

Oddly, Alien 3, is a similar confined horror to ST2, and is very similar to the original, yet apparently it's a bad film.

I think logic escapes some people.

I guess David Fincher wanted to do more, wasn't happy with the production behind the scenes?

But he still pulled off one of the best SciFi films.

Certainly better then the more run of the mill, wants to be some euro comic but can't make it 4th installment. Although some of the alien and clone stuff was good.

Aliens just dumbed the whole thing down, even Sigourney Weaver commenting on the short burly stuntmen in alien costumes, or such words.

Oh, but thats a good film. I forgot.

Yet Starship Troopers changes genres and apparently that makes it bad?!

Take Cameron's money away and Tippett wins. If he didn't already.

Actually I think both were shooting model effects on handy cans, certainly Cameron was for pre vis.

If anyone has any actual reasons why these are "bad" movies, outside of behind the scenes production issues, let me know.

Alien 3 was my first, but I don't think I'm biased. It's more like the original than the other 2 instalments, takes the alien on a better twist, not just more or bigger. Delves into another used environment and people, without the tired military aspect of the second. Good acting, without going too over the top like the fourth. Perhaps the most famous Alien image, with its head besides Ripley's, at least equal to the poster egg, or Ripley and Newt.

I think it gets grief for killing off Hicks and Newt. But, it has been said that they wouldn't be of use in the next film. I think they served a better purpose dead, than alive.

Perhaps they just didn't make enough money?

Beats me.

As I thought.

Battlefield Earth does have a strong Planet of the apes vibe.

May have to watch those at some point. Likely "you blew it up!" coincides with the destruction of the dome, or planet.

Interesting the Tyrell was locked in a cage surrounded by gold, I'm pretty sure apes had a sparkly radiation zone?

Any way, so it can't be that bad.

The alien trilogy did workers, military, then out casts, before trying to modernize and do people with disabilities.

The fourth film had Ripley and all her personalities, a robot with issues, a disabled guy in a wheelchair, and let's not even start with what was going through the mind of that scientist. Even junior had mother issues.

From truckers in space, to army in space, to prison in space, to the looney bin in space. And it's the prison in space that's singled out?

Actually, Alien 3 is the only alien film, or even AVP? Perhaps any?

That doesn't have eggs.

Just a face hugger, then the alien.

Perfect simplicity.

It just takes from the other what is absolutely necessary and discards the rest.

The other films keep trying to out do themselves with more and bigger and crazy stuff.

All the while Alien 3 just took what worked best, the core of the idea, impregnation and birth, and ran with it (literally).

In fact the dog alien is perhaps the best and most inspired change that any of the films had done.

It's not bigger, more, a sitcom family, mashing IPs, prequels.

It's something actually different, not just from the original, but any film.