this was actually quite decent. what did you guys think?
>>64097560
Better than the 1982 version, especially thanks to the well written female characters and beautiful CGI.
Said no one ever.
I liked it. Elizabeth was gorgeous in it.
>>64097782
can I like both remakes?
A total waste of time. Well meaning filmmakers misunderstanding the basic motivations of the alien and trying way too hard to answer ambiguities established by the first movie. For as bad as the cg was I wonder how awful those puppets ended up being that the studio panicked and drew over the original footage.
Winstead is cute and does her best but is essentially stranded in genre garbage.
>>64097866
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb5yHj5xfOs
they looked quite amazing actually.
>>64097927
I want one
>>64097927
Forgot that amalgamated worked on that movie. They are capable of really good work and this looks no different. Now I am wondering what the dailies looked like then. Its possible that they fucked up its look while filming and made it look worse than it did. I just dont see why a movie studio would push for redoing the effects if it didnt come out looking like ass. You dont spend more money unless you had a real good reason.
All speculation really. Probably thinking too hard about a movie so mediocre.
>>64098110
in a Q&A they said the studio execs thought animatronics was outdated and that CGI was in that is what people wanted to see. Exec's do not care about what actually looks betetr, they care about what they think will make them money because of current trends. Big Budget CGI films were the craze and what was making money so they figured CGI would have that effect where animatronics wouldnt.
Judging by how good the effects look with a shitty handycam without proper aperture or post production and editing it looked amazing. I can only imagine how good the finished footage looked.
>>64097841
>>64097782
>version
>remakes
Its a prequel, and they make that super obvious. I mean if anything its a "soft reboot" thats treated as a prequel.
>>64097560
saw it in theatres blown as hell and laughed at about 65%.
>>64098442
It's a premake -- and quite an unnecessary one, at that.
You don't show the mystery or else it ruins the aura.
If it was a sequel, fine, whatever; but, going BACK through what can be assumed to have happened is just a waste of time.
>Oh, wow, THAT'S how the axe got there!
Yawn.
