MovieChat Forums > Branais > Replies
Branais's Replies
I always thought Margaret was quite beautiful, for the style of her time. She was certainly more elegant, glamorous and photogenic than her sister.
But as time went on, and she realised more and more that her life had never been within her own grasp. a certain light went out of her eyes, and her looks went with it. I suspect she died of sadness as much as anything else.
I've just rewatched it, and got a chuckle from Bedford's comment that he had shown scientists his film footage from the Moon, but "They told me I'd faked it in a movie studio!" ;-)
>> "David was way up in his ship"
An Engineer ship, which would have contained all the information he needed on this colony. And I don't remember the exact words, but I'm pretty sure the dialogue makes it clear David didn't just end up at this planet by happenstance -- he had an intention.
David makes it clear he thinks he's the inheritor of the Engineer legacy, and he intends to experiment with what that legacy makes available. He does say that by wiping the planet clear of the lifeforms that were there when he arrived, he has been able to create a new and connected ecosystem of life.
But I don't think we can be surprised such issues aren't more clearly explained. One of the recurring complaints about these most recent Alien films is that they don't indulge in a lot of wordy exposition.
"Lol" ?! Don't be a jerk.
Well put, AtomicReturns.
Also, David said he'd learnt from the Engineers that sometimes, in order to create, you must first be willing to destroy. As you say, the people David killed were another seeding by the Engineers -- not Engineers themselves -- and as such they were in the way of David's plans. He wiped the ecosystem of the planet, to clear the decks for the new order of life he was developing. From that first conversation with Weyland, David was driven by exploring the role of Creator.
The crew wasn't there to propagate, though. They were there to get the colonists safely to their destination, by working as a stable, loyal team. It was mentioned in the dialogue, I think -- and certainly was in Ridley Scott's commentary -- that the crew was made up of people in committed relationships as stable personalities and to foster loyalty among the crew without love rivalries starting up.
The colonists were a different matter, since as well as needing world-building skills, they *were* there to reproduce.
Also, it was inevitable, once the colony was established, that some kids would be born gay themselves. It made sense for there to be some older gay people in the colony as role models for these kids too.
I agree, Daisy_Mabel. I think people often assume such concepts are recent because they themselves have only heard of them recently.
Agreed, aliholly. I've read that the studio felt the novel (both of them, since there are actually two slightly different versions) was too "European" in tone for American audiences. So they tried to make it American-friendly, as they saw it, but based it in Edinburgh as something exotic that Americans might still relate to.
In thoughts of what-might-have-been, the 2008 remake with Brendan Fraser was originally intended to be a faithful version of Verne's novel, done in a Victorian-era steampunk style. I would so much have liked to see that!! But the studio got nervous and decided there wasn't a market for it, and wanted it to be a kids' movie instead; it had the script rewritten, and when the bloke who had originated the project couldn't agree with the changes, he was forced off the project. The end result made money at the box office, but to my mind it was boilerplate crap.
In an interview he did for "Death on the Nile", he was asked why he gave Poirot a French accent rather than a Belgian one, and his answer was that, in his experience, most Belgians liked to think they sound French, though they get annoyed if someone actually mistakes them as such. ;-)
There's a new, restored version just been released by StudioCanal on Blu-ray, and it looks great. It's currently only available on Region B, in the UK and Australia.
They wouldn't have had the budget to build a ship's deck just for this film; no doubt they had to use whatever stock sets were available to them.
The ship even changes a few times; in the opening sequence, with the close-ups of Sinbad at the wheel, it even looks like he's on a 1930s tramp steamer.
t__cruise, I think the success of Diana Rigg's performance shows the blame for other performances can't solely be laid at Harold Prince's feet. Sadly, Elizabeth Taylor was awful in this because she was totally out of her depth, and didn't have either musical-theatre or film-comedy skills to fall back on. And the truth is she was at heart a dreadful ham, who if she couldn't be chewing on scenery had simply no idea what to do.
Since you posted, I believe there has been a full Broadway revival, with Angela Lansbury in the Hermione Gingold role and Catherine Zeta-Jones as Desirée. I don't think it ran for very long.
Absolutely agree, bryanac625. She was a better dancer, a better actress, better looking and in fact a far more interesting character. In some respects for me she stole the movie.
mmsbk, you're being n idiot, and totally missing the point.
Stephanie was supposed *in the film* to be a total knockout that made Tony stop in his tracks, and an exceptional dancer that made him want to drop everything else so he could dance with her. The actress cast in the role was neither of those things, which seriously weakened the movie. The comment had bearing on the movie, not the poster's own private fantasies.
Maybe that *was* Jesus.
Neither of those, MovieMan. The shuttle was pre-programmed to return to Earth. By attacking Jake, it prevented him from steering the shuttle away from the planet and out into space, though Calvin didn't know that. It just saw him as another lifeform to assimilate.
I've just watched this on Netflix.
I was confused at first, because it made no sense to me -- I still think the line is clumsy writing -- but now I wonder if he _was_ talking about living in a car, but all of the windows except one (and the windshield) were busted out?
[quote]I'm not sure if Steven Avery is innocent or guilty (it's a very compelling case) but I will say that the fact Avery didn't testify in his own defense is a pretty good sign that he's guilty.[/quote]
I don't see that at all. It's pretty standard for people not to testify on their own behalf, largely because it opens them up to all sorts of projection from onlookers based on their own preconceptions anyway. Those who already think someone is guilty will "see" all sorts of things in the person's demeanour or expressions or turns of phrase to "prove" their guilt. In no way does someone not taking the stand prove anything either way about their guilt or innocence.
Completely agreed. I'll watch anything by Herzog, because he's not afraid to say, "Here's what interests me about that" (and doesn't go chasing "likes" as many other filmmakers do) -- and I invariably find that he's right, it *is* the interesting aspect. He does come in for a fair bit of flak on forums like this, but I think that's because, firstly, he's curious and fiercely intelligent, and then he's not afraid to acknowledge his own presence and expects those watching to evaluate and negotiate their own position. Viewers generally have become very accustomed to being told, "Yours is the only opinion that matters", and Herzog doesn't play it that way. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer filmmakers like him, as media becomes more and more of a teat to be suckled at.
This exhibit was here in Sydney, Australia a few months back. I'm definitely glad I made the effort to get to see it -- I found it fascinating, evocative and well-designed.
I was initially disappointed to realise that there was nothing there from the actual Titanic itself -- even just a panel of hull plating, or wood panelling, to show the state of the wreck as it is now, would have been a fantastic inclusion -- and the replica of the grand staircase was made of plastic! -- but the whole thing did what it was designed to do. The dinner service and glassware, cabin fittings and furnishings were originals from the White Star Line fleet, so were identical to the ones that would have been on-board the Titanic itself. It did help to bring such a world alive, at least for a short time.
One clever addition, I thought, was that everyone was given a replica boarding card as we entered, each one representing a real-life Titanic passenger. At the end of the exhibit, there was a massive board showing every known person aboard the ship, and whether they survived the sinking or not. As soon as I saw from my card I was a male Presbyterian minister from Scotland, I knew my prospects were pretty grim. And sure enough ...
Anyway, for me it was definitely worth the money and effort. My interest level was pretty high, though.