Quite a lot of words there from you, Spud, let's try and address them, though maybe in a moment or two Gotta gather my brains a bit



To which we can also ask (hell, simply first things that come to mind, probably a lot more):

Does it have spaceships? Yes.
Does it have artificial humans/robots? Yes.
Does it have alien life forms? Yes.
Does it have astronauts and unknown planets? Yes.
Does it happen in the future? Yes.

So what is it?

Alien? A horror, else your totally disregarding the film because of setting which is stupid. It has a robot in it? Big deal, thats lazy genre definition if you ask me. Scifi is a side note for a horror film, that's why people refer to them as "Sci-fright", etc. The main reason is that its a horror film, set in a scifi environment. Which makes it a horror movie.

I repeat, in my opinion saying its a scifi movie because its set in space is extremely wrong. The phrase cutting off your nose despite your face is what it is in essence, ignoring the film on base facets is bad categorisation if you ask me.

Its exactly like saying Frankenstein is a scifi. Whilst its scifi in nature and very much setting... its just a vehicle for delivering the real story, and the real nature of the story is horror. Likewise The Fly is a horror movie, teleportation is just a means to an end. The Thing is a horror movie too, the alien is just the monster they chose.

In each case, horror is more than dominant and labelling them otherwise is an unfair and inaccurate way of categorising them.

I mean just because West World has cowboys in it, does that mean its a western? Fuck no! It's a scifi movie, and an exceptionally good one at that.

Now I'm not saying its not a scifi too or anything, but its a horror film by defintion with scifi setting, not a scifi with a dash of horror. You wouldn't have a film then and its a misservice to Alien to say otherwise.

True blooded scifi and fantasy movies on the other hand, are all about the science fiction, setting, and describing a vision of space or the future (not exclusively of course, but its about the scifi, not consequently set against scifi).

You must really like to read your own words, spud. I'd be surprised if anyone else is going through your posts.
Anyway, Alien is abslutely horror. If you want to call it sci-fi, as well, that's fine. It can be both. Many films are. Its funny that there's so much debate going on over a series that, while populated with two near-classics, has more misses in it than hits.

Eh? Four films in the series, two near-classics, more misses than hits? Something doesn't add up

five films if you count AvP george.

Never thought of that one

Now I say, Spud, you do have a way with words, don't you?:) But so you'd know that I am at least reading it ... (unlike some non-believers would like you to believe )

Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this message are mine and do not necesserily reflect those of the owner of this board. Hell, in fact I can be quite certain they don't!


OK, with that out of the way, I've got to say that now we're getting somewhere - unlike after "Alien is not is not is not", I now see your point and understand it, though I still don't agree with it. Well, not completely at least.

You see Alien (let's talk about this one first) as a horror movie in an sf scenery, while I, on the other hand, see it as an sf movie (well, almost a space opera) with 'a bit of a horror twist' (much more than a bit actually, but still with much more of sf. Still, however, the afermonetioned 'horror' doesn't come from any mystical, magical, biblical, unnamable (ha ha! a pun! well, almost.... but gotta cut a guy some slack for at least trying:))) source, not even from a human ability to do the unthinkable, human cruelty/bestiality (heh... that was not intentional!) towards other human being (and sometimes animals or other intelligent beings) or from any other source we could think of. It's also not a demon nor a radioactive mutant/monster in any combination or even a human being mutated into a killer turd (here's looking at you, Monsturd!). No. Unlike in some of the other films, the source of danger is nothing else, but a xenomorphic organism - an alien life form from other planet. And if we go the comic-books way (which supposedly shows the Aliens the 'kosher' way, since they are licensed to do it), it is also a kind of bioorganic war mechanism, designed by another alien species to combat some other. And so the alien life form breaks out of control (if we go the comic-book way again, we have the classical "the monster that we/they created as a weapon is now out of control! what shall we do? run for the hills!) and starts killing people. And before anybody starts repeating how gruesome are those killings and how many of them and how scary the monster is, watch it once again. Out of 7 people and 1 cat present on Nostromo, 1 person (Ripley) and the cat get away, while one other turns out to be an android (not a robot actually) and tries to finish the alien moster's work and kill some of his mates, as they get too smart. So he gets deactivated (someone tried pushing the Power button, but since they couldn't find any, they had to unscrew his head). That leaves 5 people, out of which one dies almost straight away, when the bug comes out of his stomach (THIS is actually one of the parts that are closest to convincing me that it's more of a horror movie than a sci-fi one). As for the other killings, look closely - just how many gore there is and just how many suspense and danger - in fact, just how many times does it actually feel scary. That might be a moot point though, since today, after all those years watching this movie (which I too consider one of all times greats and have seen it dozens of time), I don't think neither of us can be scared or suprised by anything in it even if we really tried:).... But coming to my point, the story is as follows: in the future humans in a spaceship find an alien life form, which is very dangerous (or, if you prefer, was designed to be a bio-mech weapon) and starts killing them. And the horror...?

And the alien... the alien itself, the dreaded killer and the monstrous unknown that's the main focus of the point, isn't something definately out of this world (well, it is, but in a different manner), it isn't a boogeyman that lurks in the shadows, it's not something wholly unimaginable or terrible, something that can't be measured or understood. No. The monster, the danger, it comes from the outer space, but it's a part of this world. It's not an otherworldly thing or an unimaginable monstrosity - it's an alien life form, in this context not much different from a bengal tiger let loose in a submarine (that's a loose one, but you know what I mean). Although alien, it is still very, very much a part of this world.

Now you're saying a robot doesn't an sf made, which is definately true, just like some gore and a monster (an alien monster?) doesn't a horror make! Alien has gore? So does, let's say, Boondock Saints. And a ton of 80s action flicks. Anyway, you took my words out of context, while I think you know what I meant.

Now West World if I remember correctly, doesn't really have any cowboys - it has robots though and yes, it's an sf movie. But on the other hand, it also has gore (well, blood more likely) and the robots do kill quite a lot of people - so again, you could argue. Apollo 13 on the other hand, I simply know nothing about. The plot and all sounded dead boring to me, so I never got around to watch it and don't intend to.

And wholeheartedly do I agree with your comments about the pure SF, however I never would've tried putting neither of these movies in this category.

Another point that you make is that some sf gadgetary also don't an sf make. And while it's definately true in Frankenstein's case (well, I never even though of those two words together - Frankenstein sci-fi.... wait, isn't that three words?) and - to an extent - in one of my favourites (don't 'boo' me now, I really like this movie), Lifeforce (85), I wouldn't call it that way in Alien. In Frankie's story, the monster's brought to life in a way much more reminding that of a Golem with a Kaballistic spell, then through a machinery - the entirety of it actually plays so little of a role, that even calling it "a plot device" would make its role sound bigger than it really is. And even if/when it is shown (different movies vs. each other vs. the book), much, much more stress is put on the lightning itself than to any of the mechanical crap Frankie's got in that smelly lab of his. In Lifeforce it's similar - the space, the supposedly final frontier, the big unknown is in this case again, only something similar to "the nth pit of Hell", wherein the demons come from, an old cementery, where an ancient evil (which was supposed to eternally lie, as with long eons even death may die) was suppose to slumber uninterrupted or some other place, like an arabian desert, wherein the jar containing a vengeful Djinni is discovered and the creature set loose, while the space-ship and the space-men (astronauts) are nothing more than means of it to reach the Earth, when the real action begins (hehe)....

Not with Alien.... with Alien it's not as simple as that. While we can talk about it, argue about it, try to come up with what the directore, writer and Giger had in mind, we can't really be sure - maybe the Alien was really supposed to be something else, judging from Giger's earlier designs (man, those were some freaky ideas), maybe the bio-mechanical designs (luv them) were to inspire or suggest something completely different from what I got from the movie, and while certainly the way in which the alien transforms kindapped humans into 'eggs' (my favourite bit of a movie, a pity it didn't even make the Directors Cut, but by that time, the Aliens' life cycle was already established) is gruesome and disgusting, even these are still not enough to put a simple "horror" label on it.... Because basically what we have is a story about a group of people, who discover an alien life form that turns out to be dangerous and starts killing them (the 'slaughterhouse' that the alien makes is a bit exaggerated though usually), BUT not only that. The rest of the 'scenery', the spaceship, the android, the planet Earth, the crew's work, their interactions with themselves and with the WORLD AROUND THEM (yes, it's true that we don't really see much of it, but it does look like a piece of something real, not just a decoration), makes this world - the world in which the story takes place, much, much more than a simple scenery or a plot device. With this movie we don't get a 15 minute beginning with people landing on an unknown planet with a paper-mache built spaceship, where they wonder around a bit in latex with aqualungs, followed by an hour of them dying grissly death at the talons of an alien monster (followed in turn by the credits). No. We get an almost fully fledged world (and most of what we can't see, can with high probability ratio imagine), in which some of the poeple, regular working Joes and Janes, stumble upon a situation, in which something unexpected and horrible happens.... It is more than just a monster hunting people in a futuristic spaceship, more than a story about a horrible thing from space that's a danger to all humans (or all living beings) like The Thing, which I absolutely agree, is a horror movie, like Frankenstein is (specially with its lightning playing Deus Ex Machina, and the unknown space that plays, like oceans for many years before, the possible source of all kinds of bloodthirsty, morderous monsters in The Thing and Lifeforce)... A Horror in a Sci-Fi scenery you say -- a Sci-Fi movie with a horror, I say..... But does it change, even a bit, the fact that we both think it's a tremendous movie and watched it many times already? I don't think so. My classification of it (not that it matters much to me, what genre a film is, when I simply like it) being a misservice to it? Surely you jest!

Curiosly though, almost everywhere I see it mentioned, it's almost universally described as "Sci-Fi/Horror" (not necesserly in that order) and never one without the other.

So yes, a robot and a spaceship don't make an SF. But a monster (an alien life form in this case, mind you!) and gore don't make a horror. And in this particular movie, for me there is much more emphasis on sf than on horror.


Now you know, that actually made me think about the genre (of both), their subgenres and definitions. Because who actually ultimately decides which movie is which and what and where one genre begins and other ends, where it becomes a subgenre and where they meld into one. But that, I guess, is a subject for an entire different story... I mean, thread:)


And just of curiosity, I dug up a definition of a science-fiction film:
Science fiction film is "a film genre which emphasizes actual, extrapolative, or speculative science and the empirical method, interacting in a social context with the lesser emphasized, but still present, transcendentalism of magic and religion, in an attempt to reconcile man with the unknown" (Sobchak 63).

Now the Horror definitions, being more vague, usually come up with something like "a film in which strange and frightening things happen" or "a film or story that entertains people by shocking or frightening them". Now that's bullshit. How many films can you describe by that?


But still on top of it all, I do believe you missed my point:). I just wrote: "I'd never call any of them a horror", without claiming the ultimate knowledge of genres or trying to force any of my views on anyone:). Though I think I should rather write "I'd never call any of them a pure horror"!


And for those, who managed to rip through the entire text:

...to be or not to be....

My point is, in my opinion, calling it a scifi movie is like calling King Lear a play about the monarchy. It really isn't overly important, its a tradegy. So i'm just saying:

Is a harsh contrast with what i think. Its absolutely a horror film, that's the whole point of the movie!

Secondly there's no such thing as a pure genre film, or at least hardly ever, i'm just saying, its a horror film primarily, and as such should be classified as a horror movie, and more than perfectly suited to a top ten of horror movies.

Anyways, in frankensteins case, if you've studied your text, its a piece about man abusing science. Thats the moral message, be careful what your doing in the persuit of scientific knowledge, there maybe places man should go. That's why its very much a science fiction tale, the abuse of medical and scientific knowledge to make God redundant, and how it all goes horribly wrong when man has no idea what he's done. Frankenstein's monster has no soul. It is easily categorised as science fiction for this reason. However, science fiction is a weaker and subscient genre decription, given that it was written as a horror story (in a competition for best horror stories no less ). Its classification lies only on abstract concepts rather than emotional or actual content, which are what all the other genres actually are (beyond subfields).

Science Fiction is a weaker genre, in isolation it is barely able to describe a movie beyond a vague topic. Space Opera, Sci-Fright, Cyper Punk on the other hand go beyond a lame and extremely overused genre definition to actually describe real content, not just a wide net of "catch all describe nothing" checklist items like "does it have a robot in it?".

Horror on the other hand actually descibes a real genre. It is a genre that describes the type of movie, that being the mood, purpose, and ultimately the point of the movie. The point of alien is to scare. It is a horror movie, plain and simple. Its point isn't to show space, a vision of the future or anything else, those are artifact points.

This is why sci-fi descriptor shouldn't in my view be promoted beyond genre films (catch all).



That's actually why i'm critising and totally the opposite of the point I made. All that does is it a b-movie, it does not make it a horror, and indeed that is my point about scifi genre description. What makes it a horror is that Ridley Scott very skillfully crafted a movie to scare the shit out of people. He used tone and atmosphere to compel and disgust the audience (probably why he refers to it as a 'Terror' movie), coupled with HR Giger's art work, this is the purpose of the movie. The sci-fi nature makes everything alien, its unknown and its harder to relate to. It makes it visually more appealing, but it is largely not as important as its aim to disgust, its just a vehicle for delivering that disgust and a damn good horror movie, a b-movie at that.

Its should not be called a horror just because it has blood in it, and the genre definition for scifi says it is described as a scifi because it has robots, and spaceships, and other bits of onscreen content (as you said in your previous post with your checklist, although that genre description you quotes tries to lessen this weak [or strong is you think genre shouldn't describe what the movie is, given that it says 'scifi if it has a robot in it', etc.] genre). That is why the scifi genre is a weak genre descriptor if you analyse it, that is why horror, in my opinion and in an analysis sense, takes prescedent of scifi, because that is the true nature of the film.

It maybe a scifi horror, but its a horror set in a scifi environment, not a scifi with horror in it Then dark scifis would be horrors, like Brazil or anything else of that nature, and they most certainly are not horror movies.

I bitterly refute the fact that horror is a weak genre description, the point is scifi isn't an actual genre description, but a content desciption.

Take a look at the real genres:
Action, Adventure, Drama, Horror, etc.
They are all the same description of the movies/stories/plays. But scifi doesn't do this, Scifi isn't really in the same league and as such doesn't tell you anything of consequence beyond its got implausable, impossible, unattainable or unproven scientific content. My arguement is that such a wide net fails to describe the movie to any respectable degree, calling it a horror on the other hand tells you immediately what its point and content is whatever description of horror you describe (and if you consult a dictionary you will find a solid one to go along side your scifi one ).

And then scifi horror just extends to tell you that the horror is acheived by exploiting a fictional scientific background.

of course its fine to disagree, i don't aim to do anything beyond say why i quite clearly disagree (as with all my posts cos its fun )

Just don't start calling it a "Terror movie" like Ridley Scott does... he says its not a horror movie, its a terror movie.
/me throws a slipper at Ridley

Just to say, though this has nothing to do with Alien being a horror movie or not (though it is). Picturing Corky saying all of uncle simon's post has me laughing for hours. Just wanted to share that....

Did anyone pay homage to Blood Simple?

No, do your 80's list and include. Just be ready for everyone to say, "That's not hoirror!"

I watched Poltergeist last night, I'd forgotten just how good a film it is, I'm suprised it hasn't made any list yet (including mine )

its not good enough to survive an 80s list in my opinion, speilberg or not (since there's very strong claims he directed most of it).

It was a very successful film and a very popular one, but in my opinion it wasn't quite as good as a significant number of other movies in the 80s to make a top ten list

Although both in my top 30 or so I just HAVE to say :

poltergeist 2 > poltergeist

Now lets see how many toes I stepped on this time

lol, some people really want to be ignored.

The only thing better about number 2 was Giger's involvement, everything else was sooooooooo lame. I mean the guy with the hat on and that bit about the cave, so lame.

Yup. The first had several classic moments in it (tree, clown, face tearing) and the second had nothing memorable for me. Poltergeist is in my top twenty for the 80's probably.

it would be quite high there's just too much other stuff...


hey btw, did you guys know David Cunningham did some sfx on alien 3 and 4? That dude gets my vote for directing an alien film! He should have directed alien 4 instead of the french dude imo.... would have been way better.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0192260/

The link you provided is a Chris Cunningham. And I have no idea who he is.

oops. yeah that's his name, was talking to someone called david at the same time as typing lol.

You've never seen/heard of the aphex twin music videos then by the sounds of it.
Do a mule search and grab them (infact i'd be surprised if they weren't posted here somewhere) to take a look.
His latest is called Rubber Johnny latest vid:
http://www.director-file.com/cunningham/rubber.html
http://www.rubberjohnny.tv/