Badmovies.org Forum

I know ASHTHECAT’s got a whole  thread  (http://www.badmovies.org/bbs/read.php?f=2&i=24021&t=24021) on the subject.  This'll be totally diffrent, and worth it's own thread.  Count on it.

Dan Kretzer’s review really p---ed me off.  I’m not talking angry, I’m talking white hot rage.  I’m talking Wrath of God style rage.

And in this state I started writing a response.  Y’know, your typical anonymous Web stuff.  Like an  Ain’t It Cool News  (http://aintitcool.com) Talk Back, only literate, in my case.

Now the funny thing is, I could care less about Alien: Resurrection .  It’s a Bad Movie.  It’s crap.

But here I was, compelled to write this little reply in ASHTHECAT’s topic on why I thought Mr. Krezer’s review was too harsh.  I listed points and everything.  I would not let go, I would not let go.

At first I thought it was because I was a Josh Whedon fan.  Through out Mr. Kretzer’s  review  (http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies/alienres/) he keeps hammering left and right on Whedon.  Justified, I admitted.  But way over done.*

The problem is, is that while I like Whedon’s stuff, I don’t watch it regularly.  I don’t have the investment in it.  If Mr. Kretzer went after Doctor Who or Godzilla, then I could understand the ire.

It took all night to realize the reason, but when I did, it was a killer.

It’s the first sentence of the review proper: “That Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece ‘Alien’ is one of the greatest horror films (and THE greatest horror/scifi film) ever made only makes this vile and offensive third sequel all the more painful.”  Actually, it’s even simpler than that.

It’s the “Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece.”

Go through the review.  All through it is  Josh Whedon this, Josh Whedon that.

Not once, not one damn time, is the director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet mentioned.  Not even in passing.

Not.

Once.

I could give a damn about Jean-Pierre Jeunet, one way or the other.  He can sail away back to France or go to the Moon for the life of me.

It’s the “Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece” that sends me trembling with rage.  Still.  Still, damn it.

The movie Alien didn’t pop from Scott’s pea brain like Athena did from Zeus’s brow.  A small group of WRITERS helped him make the film.  Their names are Dan O'Bannon, Ronald Shusett, David Giler, and Walter Hill.  These men are the source of your classic.**

True, Scott had “vision.”  He did a tremendous job with the film, as did the actors , the set designers, and the F/X people.   But they didn't do it alone.  They had a script to work from.  For God's sake, have at least the common courtesy of giving credit where credit is do.

God, does that irritate me.  And it’s not just Mr. Krezter who does it; the mentality is constant.

If the movie's a hit, it's the director's film all the way.  Look at Duel.  It's always Steven Spielburg's Duel.  Screw Richard Matheson, he only wrote the damn thing.  Twice.

But if it fails, it's the scriptwriter's fault.

It's bulls----

Can anyone tell that I’m a writer?  Anyone?

Sorry about that.  Just needed to vent
_______________________________________________________________________________________

*Here’s a little hint for better reviews.  Comments like “Arrrrrrgh!! Damn you Joss Whedon! ROT IN HELL!!" are not funny.  They’re childish as hell.  I hate seeing this crap in any review.  Especially since you’ve been b***hing about him throughout the whole thing anyway.  It’s redundant.

Also, the last comment, “Screenwriter Joss Whedon is now raking in millions for his 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' TV series, which is evidence enough for me that there really is a Satan,” was a tactical blunder.  The show has last seven years and has had one spin-off that’s lasted four.  All of this sprouting from a crap film.  It is a show of the man’s skill, if not genius, to have pulled this off, and not diabolic influence.  Not merely on the writing side, but on the producer side as well.

If you doubt this, I’d like to point you the great success the TV series Turner and Hooch and Blue Thunder had, both of which sprung from hit movies.

Oh wait.  Both were cancelled before their seasons finished.  Never mind.

It takes talent to assemble a crew and to maintain a series in this day and age.  You'd have been better off wondering how he got the gig for writing Resurrection after the movie stinker Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

** I also thought the whole “greatest horror/scifi film ever” wasn’t that well thought out at all.  It’s a good movie and all, scary as hell, but The Thing from Another World is a far better film, and that puppy no longer has that much scary left in it.  Let me tell you why: The characters in The Thing behave in a rational manner.

In Alien Ripley goes back into danger for her cat.

Her cat.

All the WRITERS (and Scott, mustn’t forget our genius) had to do is spare one human character and they could have a legitimate reason for Ripley going back.  One character.

That part of the movie was damn lazy, and should have been rethought or dropped.  It’s first draft stuff.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, who has been watching the personal attacks on fellow Boarder Squishy with much amusement.  He knows the direct approach will never work.

First you beat him to an IMDb reference.

Then you usurp him as Cranky Old Man on the Board.

That’s the way to take him out.   :-)

Damn Cullen, you said a mouthful!  I have to agree with you on this one.  As you know I am a writer also.  This was a VERY NEGATIVE REVIEW.  When I noticed that it was given a skull and no slime drops that immediately got my bells ringing. The first thought that sprang into my head was "WHAT!!??"  It is my opinion that a great review should be decidedly neutral.  Even if the reviewer has an extremely bad view of a film I think the wise thing to do would be to look at it from both the positive and negative angles.  Only one small positive thing was mentioned.  (the part about when everyone is trying to escape).  Ripping on this person and that person for what they did or shouldn't have done was I agree, a very childish thing to do.  I've read the entire review and in my previous independent post I admitted that I like this film and I'll continue to stick to my guns on this one.  I do indeed like it and own it as well.  Throughout the read I constantly kept thinking NEGATIVE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE REVIEWER and not of the movie in and of itself, thus defeating the purpose of the entire evaluation process.  Especially for someone who has not seen it yet (though I bet most of you have).  There are lots of movies that have been reviewed on this site that I have sought out and watched simply based on the good or decent and IMPARTIAL review they have received.  I can tell you that my upcoming "Ice Pirates" tribute review to the late Robert Urich will be much better than this one.

When I started writing this post (my first draft, as it were), I made a comment about Mr. Krezter being too close to the films, that he was taking it too personally (pot calling kettle, as it turns out.)  It colors the whole review, and casts him, as you point out, in a negative light.  Which I know wasn't his intent.

(I also made a comment about how the review made me want to run out and by the movie out of spite, just to show you how petty I COULD have been.)

Here's something I learned while writing that post: Do not post angry.  I spent a half hour afterwards correcting various grammatical points, as well as clarifying here and there.  I'm still not certain I got them all.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, who would like to thank Andrew again for putting in the Edit Post Function.  Keeps Cullen from looking like a complete idiot.

Now if Cullen could only stop talking in the third person.  That might make him look smarter, too...

Oh, thanks, Cullen. I thought ya was my friend. But now I know YOU'RE ALL AGAINST MEEEEEE!!

" :) "

You'll never usurp me as Crany Old Man on the Board, sonny. You don't have nearly a big enough corncob up yer hatch.

Anyway...

I haven't even read ANY of the reviews involved, but as an aside:

In a particularly enraged review of "Alien 3," someone went on--endlessly--about the fate of the "junkyard" dog, who winds up doomed host to a facehugger's implant.

Screw all the human victims. Screw Newt. Screw Ripley. This guy was flipped out over the dog.

He would've gone back for Jones.

(As for me, I liked "Alien 3" for having the stones to take the happy end of "Aliens"--which, whether you like it or not and I do like it, is, in the end, a Disney film* with swearing and a gory body count--and smash it into a pulp right in our faces. "Alien Resurrection" had its moments, but its script was so horrendously directionless that it becomes nothing BUT moments strung together. And some of those moments are howlers. Look, ma! No bones!

So confused the movie becomes that many people I've discussed it with didn't realize what was going on when Ripley II was trapped in that pile of "warriors." They were gettin' it on--so Ripley II could keep the franchise alive with a bun in the oven. Hopefully, this will never come to pass.)

*...complete with the orphaned kid regularly endangered yet miraculously emerging without a scratch to become part of a psuedonuclear "family." I'm not saying it's a Disney film, but its resolution follows the usual pattern.

Squishy writes:

"You'll never usurp me as Crany Old Man on the Board, sonny. You don't have nearly a big enough corncob up yer hatch."

Damn it!  I knew I should have stuck with the first draft.  The "Ridley 'the Christ' Scott" comment alone would have sent me to the top for sure.

The guy-upset-over-the-dog review I can believe happening.  In fact, if they bothered to set it up better in Alien , I might have been able to buy that, too.*

I didn't care for Alien 3 .  The killing off every character save Ripley smacked too much of a Slasher flick to me.  Now, if 3 had been the second movie, and not the third, I would have liked it a lot more.
_____________________________________________________________________
* However, I will never accept James Brolin going back in after the dog in The Amityville Horror .  Ever.  I'm sorry.  

I had a dog once.  He was a good dog.  He was.  But if my dog wasn't smart enough to get out of the demonically possessed house... hey, that's Darwin calling.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen

My biggest thought on the review was that I thought the 'anti-military propaganda' was a bit over stated consider that the whole series has had the same stance agains corporations, the government, etc...  Since the first movie, the thread has been consistant that some big organization was willing to sacrifice any and all  for the sake of gettinh ahold of an Alien for research and explanation.  As such Alien: Resurrection really didn't stand out to me as being outside the norm for the series.

A lot of people wonder why the cat was there at all.  Well, I believe it was to A) get us (the audience) to say, "Aw, cute," B) to give us a false scare jumping out of the locker, C) to give Ripley some excuse to be seperated from the others so she wouldn't die yet, D) to make us say a knee-jerk "Oh, no!" when the alien contemplates the pet carrier with the cat in it.

The spring loaded cat.Just once, i'd like to see that cat get 'et...but, thats just me...
.... Never watched 3, never will. I understand Squishy's P.O.V, but hey, after all the mayhem, somebody should have had a break. More realistic, given the universe postulated, true. But, the entertainment factor goes down, when everybody "Goes down" in flames.If i want endless pessamisim, i'll watch the news......

I just don't understand why you'd review a movie if you hated it so much

As a warning to others, perhaps?

I agree with you that it isn't fair to only credit or blame one person for a film failing.

I agree a warning is nice but the review just seems out of place on this site imo

no offense but that's skull should have an asterik next to it ;-) for "only a skull if your an alien series fanboy" and 2-3 slimes for the casual b-movie viewer

again just my opinion,no offense to the reviewer

Dan Kretzer’s review really p---ed me off. I’m not talking angry, I’m talking white hot rage. I’m talking Wrath of God style rage.
*****  Glad I'm not listed.  :)

The problem is, is that while I like Whedon’s stuff, I don’t watch it regularly. I don’t have the investment in it. If Mr. Kretzer went after Doctor Who or Godzilla, then I could understand the ire.
*****  I like Whedon's stuff (or most of it except Alien IV) too, which is why this movie baffled and infuriated me.  And wouldn't going after Dr. Who or Godzilla be kind of missing the point of Dr. Who and Godzilla?  That stuff didn't take itself nearly as seriously as this (or if it did, you'd never know it).

It’s the “Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece.”
Go through the review. All through it is Josh Whedon this, Josh Whedon that.
Not once, not one damn time, is the director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet mentioned. Not even in passing.
*****  This is a fair point, and you can chalk it up to me not being familiar with anything that director had done to use as a frame of reference.  However, I don't care who the director is, it's tough to imagine a good 1:45 minute horror movie in which the monster is hunting the humans for a total of less than 30 minutes of screen time.  I felt the writer was culprit numero uno here, and to say I belabored that is, again, a fair point I guess.  Still, all the great directing, acting, and effects (2 of which this movie also lacked) in the world weren't saving this screenplay.

It’s the “Ridley Scott's 1979 masterpiece” that sends me trembling with rage. Still. Still, damn it.  The movie Alien didn’t pop from Scott’s pea brain like Athena did from Zeus’s brow. A small group of WRITERS helped him make the film. Their names are Dan O'Bannon, Ronald Shusett, David Giler, and Walter Hill. These men are the source of your classic.**
*****  True, but this is a wider issue.  It's a convention to refer to movies in this sense as "the director's."  I was merely following this convention without giving it much thought.  While I think Scott deserves much credit for Alien, I certainly don't think he acted alone to create it.  I am sorry that this offended you, or any other writers out there.  I bet this kind of thing drives Hollywood writers to madness.

*Here’s a little hint for better reviews. Comments like “Arrrrrrgh!! Damn you Joss Whedon! ROT IN HELL!!" are not funny. They’re childish as hell. I hate seeing this crap in any review. Especially since you’ve been b***hing about him throughout the whole thing anyway. It’s redundant.
*****  That's a matter of taste I guess.  In writing out this movie's plot, it struck me just how awful it was.  You can say Ripley going back for her cat was bad, but it wasn't any kind of bad compared to this movie's plot.  As a matter of personal catharsis I typed out that line (read the paragraph that precedes it again!), and decided to leave it in.  In retrospect, I wish I had just left it at "Arrrgh!", but Andrew doesn't have an edit Review function like the edit post function, so I'll have to live with it.  

It takes talent to assemble a crew and to maintain a series in this day and age. You'd have been better off wondering how he got the gig for writing Resurrection after the movie stinker Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
*****  I know - and Whedon certainly HAS talent, which is why I have to ask three questions:  1) Why did he write such an awful screenplay?  2) How did it ever get accepted?  and 3) Why didn't he exercise his option to take his name off this film?  

** I also thought the whole “greatest horror/scifi film ever” wasn’t that well thought out at all. It’s a good movie and all, scary as hell, but The Thing from Another World is a far better film, and that puppy no longer has that much scary left in it. Let me tell you why: The characters in The Thing behave in a rational manner.
*****  Comparing the Thing to Alien is tough because they're from such different eras.  I suppose I could have thrown "modern" in there, meaning post 1950s.  It's an opinion, but one I'll stand behind having seen most in the genre and observed that a whole lot of them borrow heavily from Alien.  

***** I guess the characters in the Thing behave in a rational manner  - I don't know if I'd bring a frozen extra-terrestrial inside my arctic station when you could just as easily leave it out front until the weather cleared to fly it somewhere to thaw out more safely.  I also don't know if I'd fall asleep while guarding it.  As for Ripley and her cat, there have been cases of people risking their lives for their pets.  You can say that no sensible person would take that LEVEL of risk for a pet, and you may be right, but if that's the extent of people acting senselessly in Alien, I think the screen writers can rest assured of a job well done -- especially when compared to Resurrection.
***** Regarding the depiction of the military - Resurrection was not in line with the other movies.  The second movie (the only other one in which the military played a part), had very realistic soldiers in it.  They were all different people who struggled in different ways with the stress of combat and tried to do what they were trained to do, following orders insofar as they felt was reasonable.  This movie has the military painted as a bunch of sceming criminals and cardboard cutout cannon fodder.  Not the worst such characterization in Bad Movie history, but it looks like campus-radical kid's stuff compared to Aliens.
*****As for my skull for this movie, I reiterate that it was a 1:45 minute horror movie with less than 30 minutes of action; the science was horrendous; the acting was wooden; and it was completely and utterly humorless.  For me, that's a skull (even with - as Andrew mentioned - the very good underwater effects).

I'm out of town this week, I'll catch your response when I get back.
Dano

> one I'll stand behind having seen most in the genre and
> observed that a whole lot of them borrow heavily from Alien.

Just thought I'd point out that Alien borrows heavily from other movies, most notably It! The Terror From Beyond Space and Queen of Blood. Watch them and you'll see the obvious similarities.

Genre movies are like a snake eating its tail.

Still I HATED Alien: Resurrection (and LOVED Alien 3) so I can understand the feeling.

AndyC wrote:
>
> Just thought I'd point out that Alien borrows heavily from
> other movies, most notably It! The Terror From Beyond Space
> and Queen of Blood. Watch them and you'll see the obvious
> similarities.

And don't forget Bava's PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES.

Well...

I think that Dan wrote the review with a lot of his feelings, which usually means that some points come across very strongly.

"Alien: Resurrection" is not a film I hate (in fact, I dislike number three more) and would probably give it a two slime rating.  Let me explain.

Seeing Jeunet's name in the credits when it was in production gave me some hope, but the finished product is definitely flawed.  I have thought about it and there were a couple of factors:

1.  The script is, as Dan pointed out, not the best.  I am reminded of "Wing Commander," in which the script was so bad as to prevent me from gauging other parts of the film, like direction and acting.  This one is not as bad as WC, but still.

2.  The "Alien" movies work best on almost a Lovecraft level of horror.  Some things have to be left to the imagination.  If you are going to put it on the screen, it has to equal or surpass what the audience has in their minds.  Jeunet's other films have almost a magic feel to them - and I don't mean black magic.  Maybe a true horror film is not his cup of tea.

3.  Another maybe is that the producers could have insisted on any number of things.  I have heard stories and producers can ruin a movie in a heartbeat.

It is really hard to tell someone that their opinion about a film is wrong, because that is one of the great things about movies - someone could like "Sextette" and think it is the best movie ever made.  They would not be wrong in their opinion.

However, I would still try to get that person committed.

Look, the review hit me in the wrong place at the wrong time.  If I was out of line on any of my responses, I apologize.  I was mad.  I tried to be reasonable (and in good humor!)  If this didn't come across (and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't) it was due to extreme tiredness on my part.

Most of the time when I flare up like that I delete the post once I'm finished.  WRTINING IT was what was important.

(Also, I don't send out raging E-mails.  Like ever.  So y'all are safe on that score.)

Like I said, the funny thing was me getting worked up on a review I basically agreed with.

________________________________________________________________________
And now for something completely different -- replies!

Dano's comments in bold, mine in regular, dull font.

I like Whedon's stuff (or most of it except Alien IV) too, which is why this movie baffled and infuriated me.  And wouldn't going after Dr. Who or Godzilla be kind of missing the point of Dr. Who and Godzilla?  That stuff didn't take itself nearly as seriously as this (or if it did, you'd never know it).

That wasn't my point.  I was trying to give some of my thought process.

HA!

- I made a funny.  Cullen, thought process?  Hehehe.

(And if you liked Whedon's stuff, the last sentence of your review makes no sense to me at all.)

This is a fair point, and you can chalk it up to me not being familiar with anything that director had done to use as a frame of reference.  However, I don't care who the director is, it's tough to imagine a good 1:45 minute horror movie in which the monster is hunting the humans for a total of less than 30 minutes of screen time.  I felt the writer was culprit numero uno here, and to say I belabored that is, again, a fair point I guess.  Still, all the great directing, acting, and effects (2 of which this movie also lacked) in the world weren't saving this screenplay.

I agree with what your saying.  I think, fundamentally, what bothered me wasn't the attacks on Whedon (all though it might well have come across that way) but that first sentence again.  And it might not even be that.  Like I said, it hit me at the wrong place at the wrong time.

True, but this is a wider issue.  It's a convention to refer to movies in this sense as "the director's." I was merely following this convention without giving it much thought.  While I think Scott deserves much credit for Alien, I certainly don't think he acted alone to create it.  I am sorry that this offended you, or any other writers out there.  I bet this kind of thing drives Hollywood writers to madness.

I think Hollywood writers, by now, probably just accept and move on.  This is why I will NEVER EVER be a Hollywood writer.  It's pure crap.

That's a matter of taste I guess.  In writing out this movie's plot, it struck me just how awful it was.  You can say Ripley going back for her cat was bad, but it wasn't any kind of bad compared to this movie's plot.  As a matter of personal catharsis I typed out that line (read the paragraph that precedes it again!), and decided to leave it in. In retrospect, I wish I had just left it at "Arrrgh!", but Andrew doesn't have an edit Review function like the edit post function, so I'll have to live with it.

I can understand that.  My original post was, in many ways, the same thing.

Problem is, is that I don't think the comments adds anything.  Personal opinion, of course.  Ignore it if you wish.

The whole Scott thing got me in a cranky form of mind.  Normally seeing stuff like that barely bothers me.

(The Edit Function on the posts is now my best friend.  While the second draft is far tamer than my first draft, I did step out of line on several instances, and I felt very fortunate.)

I know - and Whedon certainly HAS talent, which is why I have to ask three questions: 1) Why did he write such an awful screenplay? 2) How did it ever get accepted? and 3) Why didn't he exercise his option to take his name off this film?

1.) Ignoring possible Tampering By Other Hands, Whedon's lack of belief in extraterrestrial life (as he mentions in interviews for Firefly ) was probably a factor.  It's hard to take something seriously when you can't make yourself believe in it.  That sounds funny, considering Whedon's other works, but it happens.  Richard Matheson once wrote that while he admired the more Gothic stories, he couldn't write one himself.  

I think it's a case of Whedon trying to do something his mind wasn't wired for.  Instead of classic, we get crap.

2.) As to how it got accepted, well that's easy .  It got accepted for the same reason Batman and Robin got accepted.  Namely, the Suits in Hollywood assumed that people who liked Science Fiction liked it for the effects alone.  Or that people are morons.  Or both.

3.) I'd say Hollywood politics.  The movie and Buffy the series were released around the same time.  It might have been that he didn't want to make waves while his baby was being born (remember, one of the companies involved in Buffy is 20th Century Fox, the same ones who produced Aliens: Resurrection )

_____________________________________________________________________
I thank you for the reply, and like I said at the start, if I was out of line, I apologize.
_____________________________________________________________________

Edit - 10/09/02 - I spent a good day walking through dull, empty countryside before reaching Quinlen’s home.  I didn’t mind it much; the weather was as fine as Spring got around these parts

Having give this further thought, I would like to AGAIN apologize.  I should have done a THIRD draft and scrapped the second.  When I wrote my posts (all of them) I spoke as honestly as I could.  (Not including ill attempts at humor.)  While I will not take back what I said, I will say that I was speaking from a position of anger, not at you specifically, but at a condition I find offense and that I have no power to change.

This should have been made clear with the first post, and on that I failed.  Miserably.

It should have been the only topic I stuck with.  That, too, I failed at.

Writing about personal opinion/ giving reviews is not my field of expertise, see.  I'm learning, I wouldn't mind dabbling, but when I screw up, I do it big time.

I reiterate that I agree with most everything you said about the film.  I think that if you had simply put it, say, "classic movie, Alien," I would not have flaked out.

Now, if we can both agree that I'm just a Cranky Baka (Idiot) Boy...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I would like to point out one incredibly important detail when discussing Jeunet:, the immensely fabulous director of Alien: Resurrection:

THE MAN DIDN'T SPEAK A SINGLE WORD OF ENGLISH WHEN HE MADE THIS ALIEN MOVIE!!

That's right. Not one word. Who in his/her right mind would hire a talented yet communicatively challenged director to spearhead one of the largest movie franchises in American history (our money)? A buffoon, obviously.

Jeunet had translators dictating to the cast and crew. And he said even at the time his hands were tied -- he had more say in the visual look than the story, pacing, etc. That was all handed to him by the studio.

Jeunet is terrifically gifted, but leave him out of the argument. Like Aliens 3 (which I disliked more than the fourth), this was a committee movie. Its crappiness was predetermined by studio nitwits who didn't realize that singular vision fueled the magic of the first two films.  I saw Alien: Resurrection in a theater because of Jeunet (OK, I REALLY hated Aliens 3 and swore I'd never see another Aliens flick again after that) and I was disappointed, but it's not his fault. He should never have been given the assignment. He's produced much better work before and since.

I  don't ENTIRELY blame the writer (s) either, because like Aliens 3, this installment felt like too many people paying the bills were hovering around yelling "change this; fix that." It's what happens to franchises abandoned by their creators. But the story is pretty stupid, you gotta admit.

The review is merely a review -- it made me consider how the military angle can be perceived by some folks, and I hadn't really given that much thought before (and yeah, the first two films paint corporations as the bad guys; not the military. In fact, the opposite is true in the second). I didn't agree with the review, but  it's not the sort of thing that would send me into a blind rage ... like, say, dissing The Monkees HEAD! Now THAT is call for a war!

Okay, so I picked on an innocent director.  So what?

That bit of idiocy aside, my point wasn't so much that Jeunet should have been blamed more.  It was the whole dump on the writer thing.  Now thanks to your post, Abby, I've seen that, I was WAY too close to the issue.

I should have been blaming the suits, I guess.

Argh.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, who has come to believe that the >>Faulty Brain at Work<< part of his signature isn't quite strong enough.

It's all about you you you, huh?

Hate to rain on your parade, but I wasn't entirely directing that post at you, nor are you the only person who has mentioned Jeunet on this board. However, no one has brought up the fact he spoke not a word of English. And I think it's relevant.

Plus, seeing how Jeunet couldn't read English, he wouldn't have been aware of how bad the dialogue was before translation, so the topic connects in that way, too.

I think Jeunet was merely a cheap hire for the studio. He was known for making very big LOOKING, stylish pictures for very little money (in big-budget US terms).  And like a lot of Euro directors, he was hungry for a shot at a Hollywood production. Sadly, the production he got a shot at, well, blew.

Jeunet can speak English now, by the by. Perhaps he'd know better now.

I don't even dislike the fourth Aliens that badly. Like I said, my biggest gripes are with Aliens 3, which I try to pretend didn't happen. Alien: Resurrection was stupid, but Aliens 3 had no heart or soul in my opinion. The last two films both bear the brand of "cash cow," thus neither rank very highly in my book. Neither would earn a skull either (I'd probably give Aliens 3 one -- *maybe* two slimes -- Res would get two).

I remember when Alien: Resurrection came out, Whedon made a song and dance in interviews about how he was the only writer to work on the script during the production.  I remember sitting watching and thinking that script doctors might not be a bad thing.  All I can say is that solo writers can create the same kind of lack of focus and meandering whatever the hell story that dozens on left hand script doctors not telling the right hand script doctors what they are adding to the mix can create.

Also, William Goldman (one of my favorite writers) warns that, if you want to keep any kind of soul in your work, DO NOT WRITE SCRIPTS FOR HOLLYWOOD!!!

That's why you NEVER listen to the advice of other writers. Writers are a selfish, petty, backstabbing lot who will lead each other astray and will bring down an industry in the process.

To be honest, I don't think many writers with a heart get work in Hollywood (not to mention the fact that Hollywood is pretty inbred). Which is why I have no qualms pointing out when a script blows cows.

Actually, I find the whole "ew, don't blame the writers" theme here sad. When a writer's work sucks, it sucks. You know it. There's no missing it. FEAR.com is a perfect recent example. That's a film with a deplorable script. No two ways about it. The director might not have been so hot either, but the script was the real problem there.

Abby wrote:
>
> That's why you NEVER listen to the advice of other writers.
> Writers are a selfish, petty, backstabbing lot who will lead
> each other astray and will bring down an industry in the
> process.
>
>

Hey!  I'm a writer and I resemble that comment!!!

Goldman's comment was in regards to always having to tailor scripts to particular stars (i.e. Robert Redford's characters are never BAD), the writing scripts is more about buffing egos (i.e. NO ONE CAN TALK BACK AT ERIN ,er, JULIA ROBERTS!!!).  If you want your writing to reflect your personal world view/soul whatever, don't write scripts in Hollywood.

That being said, I think misfire movies happen for a variety of reasons involving a large group of people.  Movies are team efforts, the director simply the coach (a weak coach will have the players - i.e. actors - stomping all over, each getting in the way of the other so that their great plays will win the game or the managers - i.e. producers/studio - calling the plays.  Very rarely are there really strong coaches (i.e. auteurs).

In his book I Am Spock (not to be confused with the earlier I Am Not Spock)Leonard Nimoy talked about William Shatner's disasterous Star Trek 5.  In it he recalls warning Shatner to work out all the story issues BEFORE anything else.  Shatner didn't and, as filming progresses and other problems presented themselves to the fledging (and quite overwhelmed) director it became clear that the production was "riding a bad script", something Nimoy was sympathetic to because it had happened to him (he uses "Holy Matrimony" his notorious bomb that starred Patricia Arquette as an example).

Oft times movies are written and rewritten countless times prior to filming.  The script Tommy Lee Wallace wrote for Amityville II: The Possession does not resemble the complete product very much, but he kept his name on the movie for professional reasons.  Steven Spielberg's script for Close Encounters was worked and reworked by countless script doctors, but he fought tooth and nail to not share credit (a sole writer evidently carries much weight).  Jaws had dozens of writers on it, only Peter Bencheley and Carl Gottlieb got the credit - John Milius, Howard Sackler, and Robert Shaw all got left out in the cold.  As did Dorothy Tristan's work on Jaws 2.  Who was responsible for Jaws 3, Richard Matheson or Carl Gottlieb?  A rumore fifty plus screenwriters toiled on The Flintstones for chrissakes!  The botching of his script for Waterworld led David Twohy to start directing, so for that we can at least be thankful.

But scripts are the blue print upon which a movie is constructed, so, in more ways than one, a writer shares just as much blame as anyone else.  Joss Whedon's proud chest puffing about being the only writer to toil on Alien: Resurrection was just hot air, it showed that one writer was just as capable of delivering a sloppy, messy, pointless series of events passed off as a script as something hammered out by typists told to "add a shower scene" or "we need the place to blow up at the end".  So yeah, writers can be blamed (Stirling Silliphant's work on The Swarm?  Peter Bencheley's script for The Island?  King's Maximum Overdrive?  Loughery's Star Trek 5?  Emmerich/Devlin's Deanzilla?).

"If you want your writing to reflect your personal world view/soul whatever, don't write scripts in Hollywood."

That line of thinking is the enemy. And that's what I mean by ignoring writers.

I didn't say MY personal world view or soul. I said heart. All written works need a heart -- be it ad copy or poetry. As a writer, you give it its own heart or soul. That's what it's all about.

Of course, don't listen to me. I'm full of crap.

Just because most tinsel town writers typically pen sloppy vehicles doesn't mean all vehicles need or should be dreck. I'm sure there's a "Requiem for a Dream" out there for Julia Roberts in someone's mind. Not in the minds of the incestuous elitist scum normally hired for such tasks. And maybe not one she'd be willing to accept. But it's out there.

Regardless, I've actually said that Aliens 4 (I'm tired out typing out the silly title) had more heart than 3, which had like what, 103 writers? Aliens 4 (similar to part 3) was a Sigorney vehicle; she was the most expensive thing about the film. The studio declared in advance she would star -- which assured a cloning angle; I'm pretty sure it pushed other stars; it hired the writer; it hired the director. A studio assembled Aliens 4.

BUT I did feel as if someone involved in the project was vaguely thinking about the audience -- in a creative sense, not just in dollars and cents. It was faint but there. It wholly absent in Aliens 3. For me.

You're right -- if he wrote it all himself, it's nothing to be proud of. The script is stupid. However, the film didn't feel like the cheap shot Aliens 3 did. To me. But then, haven't you and I playfully sparred over these two films before, Chadzilla, or am I recalling someone else?

Yeah, we did spar, over at williamgirdler.com a fews months back (or was it last year, has it been THAT long?).  It's kind of like arguing over what side of the coin is best Heads or Tails?

If I had screenwriter idol, it would have to be John Sayles.  I just like his work.

Sad fact is that most writing in Hollywood is without soul.  I guess that's why so many writers get around to writing bitter/anti-Hollywood rants.  I watched Flashdance (my wife MADE me) and Tourist Trap last night, man you could taste the difference in the storytelling.  Like Stephen King said, It's all about the story, man.  Then again he wrote Maximum Overdrive (uh...story?), so why listen to that ass fart out Pearls of Wisdom?  Sometimes the name calling ATMs are right on the money.

Then again, I'm a writer, sensitive and full of s**t at the same time, that would rather waste time writing short stories and the every now and then novel than anything else.  Scripts are just not a format that I like, too fluid and subject to change.

Speaking of writing....how's the Girdler book coming along?  I'm looking forward to putting it on the shelf with The Zombies that Ate Pittsburg, Nightmare of Ectasy, and The Ghastly One.  If it ever comes out, that is.

I should also add that, while Bradbury (who I referenced elsewhere) is a beautiful writer, his screenwriting leaves me cold.  Matheson is much better at it (just don't mention Jaws 3-D).

The Girdler book is chugging away. You'll have to settle for the 13,000+ word, two-part Fangoria article (currently available at newsstands everywhere) or the Asylum of Satan DVD  if you want Girdler on your shelves for the time being.

Researching a high-quality biographical book is a totally different writing animal. One that requires patience. I am not patient, which is why I have a website. Actually, I always saw the site as the way to generate interest in the subject to warrant a decently distributed book. Though there's a book's worth of content up there now. (More like a smaller incomplete Re/Search volume.) I could have put out a piece of crap a year ago with a crap genre company. But then, I wouldn't have learned that Girdler actually worked on another movie that isn't documented anywhere. I would have had facts wrong because people who aren't listed in credits or who were forgotten hadn't surfaced. I'm still hazy on filming dates for three flicks because word of mouth conflicts and the titles/copyrights were all filed or produced wrong. I could write a book about the drama surrounding one movie alone. Three years down (the site's been up two); probably another year of research to go. Likely two. The best bios are years -- usually five or more -- in the making. And I've had a few diversions.

Back to screenwriting, I do tend to prefer writer/director types. It's like singing/songwriting.

But I really do see horsecrud like Fear.com, and think to myself that the guy who slices my ham at my local deli comes up with better ideas when he flosses his teeth in the morning than anything that made it onscreen during that film. The only thing separating the guy who slices my ham and the dimwits who wrote Fear.com are who they know and where they went to school ... that's gotta be it. Because no one who has ever sliced my ham has ever managed to p**s me off for two straight hours like the people who wrote Fear.com. And he's a funny, bright guy. If it was up to me I'd give the guy who slices my ham a couple million bucks to come up with something better.

FEAR.COM 2: SCREENPLAY BY THE GUY WHO SLICES PATTY'S HAM

In that sense, I understand the Aliens 4 review author's rage. And it's brutal, and it's base. But it's the root of heartless crud.

I don't think I, or anyone on this thread, said writers were perfect, that Whedon was above blame, or that Jean-Pierre Jeunet was the sole problem on the film (or even that he should be held accountable for every little thing that went wrong).  What was being said (at least by me, and at least first) was that writers do not get enough credit when the movies are good.  In fact. I did say (eventually - I admit it should have been first thing) that  I agreed with most everything else in Dano's review  (http://www.badmovies.org/bbs/read.php?f=2&i=24131&t=24035).

[Edit - and maybe I did blame Jeunet.  Who knows.  I sure as hell don't]

In fact, now that I've had time to cool off a little (over a point I readily admit was probably not as well expressed as I should have made it), I can admit that Dano's review was a success by any definition.

It saw print, after all.  After a fashion.

That's the point that matters, in the end.  Not what I think or anyone else thinks.  It's what the guy whose going to publish the work thinks.  You can write hundreds of stories, plays, and the like, but it doesn't matter if no one ever sees them.

But then again, what do I know?  I'm just petty.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Edit - This was another ill thought out attempt at humor.  I'll spare y'all the hassle of looking at it.

Forgive me for wasting this space.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

>Whedon made a song and dance in interviews about how he was the only writer
>to work on the script during the production

I can't swear to this, but I have a vague memory of this being discussed on the Buffy forum and Whedon saying that the studio rewrote his script.

One quickie word search on google revealed this link:

http://members.tripod.com/~Skiles/alienfaq2.txt

It basically says the first script was totally different (no Ripley); had a different proposed director; different story; the studio nipped and tucked; Weaver was allowed a say; directors were lined up; the script was tweaked more; stuff was cut; endings were changed. It does look like the writer was in charge of most of it, but it doesn't seem as if he was completely in control of where it was going. At least, according to that one link.

I used to slice ham at my local grocery store deli........... "What can I get for you sir?"  
"I'll take a pound of the Virginia baked ham."..............No kidding...I really did work there.  ASH

Look, the review hit me in the wrong place at the wrong time. If I was out of line on any of my responses, I apologize. I was mad. I tried to be reasonable (and in good humor!) If this didn't come across (and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't) it was due to extreme tiredness on my part.

*****  Not at all, Cullen!  I thought most of your criticisms were on the nose and well-presented, and will keep them in mind the next time I write something.  I have no illusions about being a perfect writer (or of knowing anywhere NEAR as much about bad movies as some of the folks on this board), so I took it as constructive criticism.  I just had a few points about what you said that I thought I'd raise, that's all.  I assumed your exasperated tone was mostly in fun.

It was probably ME who came across wrong.  The pitfalls of communicating in writing I guess.

On a final note:  Maybe Whedon's real gift is as a producer, not a writer.  Just a thought.

THE MAN DIDN'T SPEAK A SINGLE WORD OF ENGLISH WHEN HE MADE THIS ALIEN MOVIE!!

*****  That's the funniest thing I have heard all week!  That poor man must have thought someone slipped him a hit of acid or something!

I bet if Peter Sellers were alive to play the lead, you could make a pretty hysterical movie based on Jeunet's involvement with this film.  The interactions with Ron Perlman alone must have been priceless.

...the first two movies, and even the third one sort of, had a sense of humor.  This isn't to say they were comedies or tried at times to be deliberately funny (although Aliens did with some success I thought).  But there was just a sense of fun to the horror and the satire - the baby alien in Alien especially.

The one time I laughed with (not at) Alien 4 was when Johnner chucked his knife into Vriess's leg and started laughing like a goon.  Bam!  Right there Winona steps in with her 90's style PC indignation and scolds Johnner (and by extension the audience) for this insensitive digression into dark humor.  No fun.

Jeunet worked with Ron Perlman on City of Lost Children, which was shot in France. Perlman had only an elementary understanding of the language at best, so the situation was reversed. Of anyone, Perlman would have been comfortable with Jeunet during the Aliens movie, and would have been sensitive to the language barrier.

Cullen, I take it you never had a cat, because trust me, pal, if there was some big monster that would kill my cat, I'd go back to save it.

Cullen, I take it you never had a cat, because trust me, pal, if there was some big monster that would kill my cat, I'd go back to save it.

I've had cats.   In the decision were up to me, the cat's a goner.

Seems kind of pointless to write a review for a b-movie and then lambast it for being a b-movie. The review read something like what I would expect to see at "And you call yourself a scientist!" but she tends to have more tact in her writting style.