Let it be settled once and for all : Alien 3 or Alien 4 ?

[O.G.N.A.N.O.]

Awwright let's settle this right here and now !

Since yet another thread was derailed by this argument , I want your vote hear and now with a it better be good argument or you'll sound like a farting banana...

You may notice the missing "they're both crap!" option ....
That's becoz it's not what i am asking - If I'd really twist your arm , wich do you prefer ?

Rodents not allowed to vote , that would be all thank you

[El Mariachi]

after Aliens I was tired to see alien3, it was well made, well acted etc etc
But I prefer watching Alien 4 since it has more entertainment value. Screw story, screw alien facts. Ron Perlman is cool in that movie.

and I'm not saying Alien3 is a movie I'd never watch, I love to watch it, but it's very very slow paced.

never saw the extended cut though, I might change my opinion then

[dinky]

after Aliens I was tired to see alien3, it was well made, well acted etc etc
But I prefer watching Alien 4 since it has more entertainment value. Screw story, screw alien facts. Ron Perlman is cool in that movie.

kinda took the words right outta my mouth; unfortunately for the rest of the English speaking world, I have more: I think of Resurrection as an attempt to repeat the success of Aliens. Alien 3 was an attempt to basically do the same with Alien but in the wake of the monkey wrench Cameron threw into the mythology. iunno, I also get this Star Wars vs. Star Trek idea in my head with this comparison, for the same reason, I think: SW is all plot-action and emintenly rewatchable. Star Trek, I never really warmed up to in quite the same way - certainly more philosophical, however (series - too man different movies to delve into).

I always liked</i> Aliens more than Alien, but then again, I like action or mystery sci-fi, followed by the far more difficult to pull off philosophical stuff, and terror/horror/scary pulls up the caboose. Alien was, imo, the scariest mo-fuckin' movie ever made (next to Showgirls and Pearl Harbor). Problem is, you can't scare quite the same a second, third, or fiftieth time around. So that's my rationalization as to why Resurrection is more watchable than Alien 3. I can't watch any horror over again unless there's something new or it's campy - in which case it isn't scary to begin with and the dog continues chasing his tail....

And despite how much I do or don't bash the last two Alien flicks, they really are better than at least half the stuff I go see in theaters. So I suppose it's all relative. I mean, it's not like watching ID4 and screaming bloody murder with a copy of V in one hand and War of the Worlds in another.

[d0c]

[dinky]

:-o OMG!

is that a willow tree in the background???

[maxpayne2409]

while thats a nice pic d0c i fail to see how it supports an argument

while im not gonna go into which alien movie i prefer overall as i said in another thread i cant be arsed it, i do think alien resurrection is better then 3, as said before alien 3 is too slow paced, and in this case i dont think the slow pace adds anything to the film except to make it drawn out and imho boring hence y ive seen the rest numerous times and alien3 once coz i couldnt be bothered sitting through it again as it didnt appeal to me on any level (save for teh fact a dog dies and i hate dogs coz theyre dumb mutha fuckers) infact alien3 reminded me a lot of M*A*S*H* in teh sense that M*A*S*H* wanted to be a comedy, and it wanted to be serious and failed on both counts and jsut ended up being boring watched by retards crap, whereas alien3 wanted to be scary and it wasnt, it wanted action but it just didnt muster up enough courage to make it, it wanted to be scifi and to be fair that one it managed, you know penal camp on another planet, an alien yep that makes u think scifi (kinda like how with resident evil u dont think "oooh a supercomputer whoopy fuckadoodle doo" you think "woah flesh-eating ravenous zombies...oh oh this could be horror", but back to alien, alien ressurection had space ships, space stations, hitech space weaponry, lots of aliens, it had lots of action and set pieces, lots of fighting and explosions, and lots of adrenaline, which lets it drop into the scifi/action department quite nicely making ti an ejoyable film to watch and jsut drift off for 90minutes ish

anyway ive had my say and expressed my opinions, if anyone think im a retard for liking alien resurrection over alien 3 i quite frankly couldnt give a big fat cocka fucking doodledoo its my opinions im entitled to them

[dinky]

but how do you feel about...willow trees?

[maxpayne2409]

willow trees rock :banana: i long for those lazy days under the willow trees with a few beers

[mw2merc]

OK, boobs that big are just sick.

I take it that's d0c in the red circle???

PS - 3 over 4

[spudthedestroyer]

Alien3 was far superior in every conceivable way to Alien4 in my view.

Interestingly, I want to know how many people haven't seen Alien3: Extended who voted if so I'd call their votes null/unfair, since A3:E is soooooo much better than the original We're talking Brazil: Raped vs. Brazil: Director's Cut scale

[maxpayne2409]

Interestingly, I want to know how many people haven't seen Alien3: Extended who voted if so I'd call their votes null/unfair

*COUGH* cant handle admitting the proof is more ppl like resurrection *COUGH*

[dinky]

Interestingly, I want to know how many people haven't seen Alien3: Extended who voted if so I'd call their votes null/unfair, since A3:E is soooooo much better than the original We're talking Brazil: Raped vs. Brazil: Director's Cut scale

let's look at this dinky-like:
1) Alien 3 makes a travesty of the franchise. quick, let's go spend $30 for a DC DVD or $70+ for the "Quadrilogy." umm...no.


2) what screen did you ever see the DC on? oh...right. made-for-tv anyone? that's like Lucas saying, "umm...I don't like the way Star Wars turned out. Here, let me throw in Jabba talking with Han. There. That's the movie I *really* wanted to make." wtf? that ain't the Star Wars I</i> saw - at least SE got a theatrical release though. IMO, the definitive edition of the movie, that which gets held up to the fickle frown of time and internet geeks the world over, can only be what actually...you know...screens</i> in theaters. Geez. every idiot from Freddy Got Fingered to Godzilla (Em. & Dev. style) would be screaming "mulligan! mulligan! that's not the *real* movie. that's not what *I* wanted. here. count this instead." Hell no beotch! you took the job. eat your shit film and it's shit legacy.

[spudthedestroyer]

@dinky wtf.. got a bit lost on relevance there The extended cuts is revoking about 30mins of cuts Fox made after Fincher left if that's what you mean? As in unlike the theatrical version the black guy and the dragon guy don't just dissappear (I take it you noticed this, about 5 prisoners just disssappear due to about a third the film being cut). I'm not sure what the silloquay is about but...erm.. nice! If it was about special/extended cuts, I agree. It does nothing more than degrade any claim of artistic vision in cinema when using examples like Underworld, Pitch Black, Night of the Living Dead, etc. and even Platoon. However, this is only "with 10 mins of extra footage" films, with real strife in the creation of films, I think alternate cuts are very valid to take as intent. Take Brazil, Gilliams film was hijacked flat out, and they wouldn't let him have his film released, only their edit. If it didn't win cannes and Gilliam wasn't so vocal about it, one of the greatest films ever made would be mediocre. With Alien:DC I think it does degrade somewhat from Ridley's movie, that he isn't secure with the movie enough, however, Ridley says it was removing the ropey sfx and replace them with horror and I agree, I probably prefer the DC, but most of the film, apart from one scene is the same anyway (and put back in it only seems to be continuity with the latter sequels). In Alien:DC, everything is cuts, so even though one notorious scene is added, everything else are cut sfx scenes, which may seem bad, but the horror was in what you heard more than what you saw... this DC works better even with its shorter running time. With Aliens, I once again prefer the DC. The theatrical, to be honest, is no where near as good, because of the lack of depth of character on Ripley's part. The theatrical doesn't hold a candle. With Alien3, well... its the biggest improvement, and with it it falls back on previous cut material (some are restore with sfx). In essence the theatrical was just a severly cut version of this, none of the cuts are director's cuts though. I'd kill to get a hold of the first cut of Alien3 that had to be sent back due to the excessive amounts of blood and gore in it . Sounds right up my alley
Alien4 is the only film in the series where the director's cut is the theatrical version, which is actually very disturbing given how terrible it is There's an alternate cut with a different begining and end but this is even worse (seriously, on earth at the end... omg it makes you want to wretch [more]). That's the 8 different versions available anyway, and in every case bar one, the alternate cut is probably best, with the other its far worse.

what screen did you ever see the DC on?

Brazil? Neither, but DC was released Theatrically too. Alien 3? There's no such thing, only a heavily cut theatrical version (which is crap) and less cut version.

Alien3 vs. Alien:resurrection = both shit but I'd go for Alien3 because I found the fourth unbarable. Both are valid, but I can't help but laugh when people make out as though the fourth "is so much better"

Alien3e vs Alien: resturrection = one very good, one terrible. Alien3 easily in my book.

@max, so that's a no you haven't then is it?

---
Anyway obviously:
Alien > Aliens > Alien3: Extended > Predator > Predator 2 = Alien3 > Alien 4
(alien3e and predator interchangeable, they are so different it depends on mood)

Ranging from undoubted king to despicably awful. If you want a detailed reason why I think this do a hhah search on Aliens. No point repeating everything again. I added Predator movies in too. The first is an awesome movie, if flawed. I think its far better than Alien3, but not the one from the legacy. Predator 2 is a cheese fest, but its extremely enjoyable, a fun movie and, well its cool. Alien 4 I can't watch, for any reason. I mean Alien 1-3 have great characters, and the andriods in em can't be flawed.... but wtf in 4, that's just sad. Pure sadness. Brad Douriff is the only cool thing about the fourth movie

[dinky]

gah! shoulda known you'd jump on my terminology, double-layer boy!

DC...re-edited...same result: that which has been done cannot be undone. What I was trying to get at was this: grading a film based on material in the dvd (shit that never made it in...you know...the movie...in theaters...where movies...like...are shown) is just wrong.

That don't mean the DC/re-edited version isn't better. But comparing a "fix" to its theatrical release is one thing; trying to put it alongside another movie altogether...that's just wrong. that's not what the movie was - which is why I think invalidating opinions of people who haven't seen the material on the DVD is (1) wrong and (2) just another excuse that directors, writers, and actors make for the stuff they're embarrassed to be associated with. So in sum: you're wrong because you're wrong. oh! and right...wrong - I'm the guy with the guns

To me, it's like...ok: director's commentary on Can't Hardly Wait. Now hey, I liked the movie, so my opinion is moot right from the start. But this other guy who's pretty heady got talked into renting it (by me). He thought it was ungood. But he's a real film buff, so he listens to the commentary (I told him it was great - c'mmon, you know I like to explore the boundaries of truth) and says the commentary was disappointing, "it makes you realize how good the movie could have been."

so which is the real movie: (a) the one people actually watched? or (b) the one that could have been after watching it with commentaries? There's no question: door number (a), Bob. So tell me you liked Alien 3 more than Resurrection. I'll buy that, but please...don't cite some 're-edit' on the back of some special edition DVD that exists only in its relation to the actual movie that it 'comments on' as even justifiably comparable to another movie that exists as-is. and I know you know there was a lot of bitching about the production and end result of Resurrection too. As in Ripley was never supposed to be in it. The whole cloning thing got tossed in. The movie was as much Weaver's vision as Jeunet's or Whedon's - not even addressing studio concerns that dominate every movie and weighed so heavily on Fincher's train wreck.

[mw2merc]

Interestingly, I want to know how many people haven't seen Alien3: Extended who voted if so I'd call their votes null/unfair, since A3:E is soooooo much better than the original We're talking Brazil: Raped vs. Brazil: Director's Cut scale

So since I voted for 3 & HAVEN'T seen the DC version, my vote doesn't count???

let's look at this dinky-like:
1) Alien 3 makes a travesty of the franchise. quick, let's go spend $30 for a DC DVD or $70+ for the "Quadrilogy." umm...no.

OK, WTF does that have to do with anything? ALL the Alien/s movies here are $20 each or $70 for the Quad.

2) what screen did you ever see the DC on? oh...right. made-for-tv anyone? that's like Lucas saying, "umm...I don't like the way Star Wars turned out. Here, let me throw in Jabba talking with Han. There. That's the movie I *really* wanted to make." wtf? that ain't the Star Wars I</i> saw - at least SE got a theatrical release though. IMO, the definitive edition of the movie, that which gets held up to the fickle frown of time and internet geeks the world over, can only be what actually...you know...screens</i> in theaters. Geez. every idiot from Freddy Got Fingered to Godzilla (Em. & Dev. style) would be screaming "mulligan! mulligan! that's not the *real* movie. that's not what *I* wanted. here. count this instead." Hell no beotch! you took the job. eat your shit film and it's shit legacy.

OK, WTF are you comparing a THEATRICAL RELEASE to the ORIGINAL filmed version which should ALWAYS come before as it's what SHOULD HAVE been shown in theaters. But no, a bunch of Hollywood FUCKS always have to screw something up. Which is also why SOO many comicbook based movies are so lame to what they could've been to those of us who ACTUALLY READ them.

@dinky wtf.. got a bit lost on relevance there The extended cuts is revoking about 30mins of cuts Fox made after Fincher left if that's what you mean? As in unlike the theatrical version the black guy and the dragon guy don't just dissappear (I take it you noticed this, about 5 prisoners just disssappear due to about a third the film being cut).

Exactly! These dumbasses in HW add these cuts & alot of time create TONS of inconsistancies.

It does nothing more than degrade any claim of artistic vision in cinema when using examples like Underworld, Pitch Black, Night of the Living Dead, etc. and even Platoon.

I have 1 word for that, HollyCrap!

With Aliens, I once again prefer the DC. The theatrical, to be honest, is no where near as good, because of the lack of depth of character on Ripley's part. The theatrical doesn't hold a candle.

Absofuckingloutly!!!

With Alien3, well... its the biggest improvement, and with it it falls back on previous cut material (some are restore with sfx). In essence the theatrical was just a severly cut version of this, none of the cuts are director's cuts though.

More Hollywood edits. Sad, so sad.

Alien4 is the only film in the series where the director's cut is the theatrical version, which is actually very disturbing given how terrible it is

OK, this is just MORE sad.

That's the 8 different versions available anyway, and in every case bar one, the alternate cut is probably best, with the other its far worse.

Only 8? Sounds like Alien: Indecision!!!

Alien3 vs. Alien:resurrection = both shit but I'd go for Alien3 because I found the fourth unbarable. Both are valid, but I can't help but laugh when people make out as though the fourth "is so much better"

Alien3e vs Alien: resturrection = one very good, one terrible. Alien3 easily in my book.

One very good shit? I wouldn't say the 4th was unbearable for me. It had things I did like. The pirate ship mostly. Did I mention my favorite word in the alphabet is R?

Anyway obviously:
Alien > Aliens > Alien3: Extended > Predator > Predator 2 = Alien3 > Alien 4
(alien3e and predator interchangeable, they are so different it depends on mood)

Ranging from undoubted king to despicably awful. If you want a detailed reason why I think this do a hhah search on Aliens. No point repeating everything again. I added Predator movies in too. The first is an awesome movie, if flawed. I think its far better than Alien3, but not the one from the legacy. Predator 2 is a cheese fest, but its extremely enjoyable, a fun movie and, well its cool. Alien 4 I can't watch, for any reason. I mean Alien 1-3 have great characters, and the andriods in em can't be flawed.... but wtf in 4, that's just sad. Pure sadness. Brad Douriff is the only cool thing about the fourth movie

In this case, mine goes as this:

Aliens > Predator > Predator 2 > Alien > Alien 3 > Alien 4

The biggest reason Alien slips so much for me is watchability. Alien can just be boring at times. P1&2 hold my attention better and are definately one I rewatch. 2 more than 1 actually. I think Aliens/Predator1/2 may be because they're more the action side, not including 4, unlike Alien/3 which is more the horror side. Only Brad Douriff? He's OK. I agree w/ El Mariachi on Ron Perlman.

What I was trying to get at was this: grading a film based on material in the dvd (shit that never made it in...you know...the movie...in theaters...where movies...like...are shown) is just wrong.

That don't mean the DC/re-edited version isn't better. But comparing a "fix" to its theatrical release is one thing; trying to put it alongside another movie altogether...that's just wrong.

Um, dinky, read the thread title: Let it be settled once and for all : Alien 3 or Alien 4 ?
Does it say THEATRICAL RELEASE anywhere??? Don't expect anyone to listen to you if there's a thread comparing Starship Troopers 1 & 2, or any other when there's been NO THEATRICAL RELEASE or a DC/Extended version released.

that's not what the movie was - which is why I think invalidating opinions of people who haven't seen the material on the DVD is (1) wrong and (2) just another excuse that directors, writers, and actors make for the stuff they're embarrassed to be associated with. So in sum: you're wrong because you're wrong. oh! and right...wrong - I'm the guy with the guns

Um, NO. Telling people their OPINIONS are wrong, flat out wrong. People's opinions are just that, thier view on something. It's not right or wrong, that's why it's an OPINION!!!

so which is the real movie: (a) the one people actually watched? or (b) the one that could have been after watching it with commentaries? There's no question: door number (a), Bob. So tell me you liked Alien 3 more than Resurrection. I'll buy that, but please...don't cite some 're-edit' on the back of some special edition DVD that exists only in its relation to the actual movie that it 'comments on' as even justifiably comparable to another movie that exists as-is. and I know you know there was a lot of bitching about the production and end result of Resurrection too. As in Ripley was never supposed to be in it. The whole cloning thing got tossed in. The movie was as much Weaver's vision as Jeunet's or Whedon's - not even addressing studio concerns that dominate every movie and weighed so heavily on Fincher's train wreck.

OK, comparing 'what could have been' to a DC is just plain stupid. Also, saying a THEATRICAL RELEASE can't be compared to a DVD/Video is also plain stupid. If it's not, go out and watch Alien4 in the theater. Oh wait, you CAN'T!!! It's only available on video & DVD.

Hmm... You present a poor arguement. You're also basing a DVD release, which can easily be checked at any time, VS a memory, which most of us will agree on, can all fool us on what we remembered something as. Like a dumbass friend of mine who claimed for years he bought a rocket firing Boba Fett action figure when it was ONLY a prototype that was NEVER released, let alone painted.

not even addressing studio concerns that dominate every movie

Yes, this for me is the biggest repulsion about Hollywood that pisses me off to no end.

PS - So dinky, which IS the real Alien & Excorcist? The first one shown in the theaters, or the DC versions, ALSO shown in the theaters???

[dinky]

let's look at this dinky-like:
1) Alien 3 makes a travesty of the franchise. quick, let's go spend $30 for a DC DVD or $70+ for the "Quadrilogy." umm...no.

OK, WTF does that have to do with anything? ALL the Alien/s movies here are $20 each or $70 for the Quad.

point was why would anyone buy the movie if they didn't like it the first time around. I don't care what they do to ID4, I ain't touching that disc.

2) what screen did you ever see the DC on? oh...right. made-for-tv anyone? that's like Lucas saying, "umm...I don't like the way Star Wars turned out. Here, let me throw in Jabba talking with Han. There. That's the movie I *really* wanted to make." wtf? that ain't the Star Wars I</i> saw - at least SE got a theatrical release though. IMO, the definitive edition of the movie, that which gets held up to the fickle frown of time and internet geeks the world over, can only be what actually...you know...screens</i> in theaters. Geez. every idiot from Freddy Got Fingered to Godzilla (Em. & Dev. style) would be screaming "mulligan! mulligan! that's not the *real* movie. that's not what *I* wanted. here. count this instead." Hell no beotch! you took the job. eat your shit film and it's shit legacy.

OK, WTF are you comparing a THEATRICAL RELEASE to the ORIGINAL filmed version which should ALWAYS come before as it's what SHOULD HAVE been shown in theaters. But no, a bunch of Hollywood FUCKS always have to screw something up. Which is also why SOO many comicbook based movies are so lame to what they could've been to those of us who ACTUALLY READ them.

clearly we gonna have to agree to disagree. but imo, the movie is what it is when I see it, not how it gets manipulated to all Special Edition Hell. They're different movies at that point. sometimes better, other times worse - sure. but not the same movie. and, imo, should not be use 'in place of' what was the original release.

@dinky wtf.. got a bit lost on relevance there The extended cuts is revoking about 30mins of cuts Fox made after Fincher left if that's what you mean? As in unlike the theatrical version the black guy and the dragon guy don't just dissappear (I take it you noticed this, about 5 prisoners just disssappear due to about a third the film being cut).

Exactly! These dumbasses in HW add these cuts & alot of time create TONS of inconsistancies.

didn't say the changes in 'extended cuts' are wrong, just not</i> what stands behind the moniker.

What I was trying to get at was this: grading a film based on material in the dvd (shit that never made it in...you know...the movie...in theaters...where movies...like...are shown) is just wrong.

That don't mean the DC/re-edited version isn't better. But comparing a "fix" to its theatrical release is one thing; trying to put it alongside another movie altogether...that's just wrong.

Um, dinky, read the thread title: Let it be settled once and for all : Alien 3 or Alien 4 ?
Does it say THEATRICAL RELEASE anywhere??? Don't expect anyone to listen to you if there's a thread comparing Starship Troopers 1 & 2, or any other when there's been NO THEATRICAL RELEASE or a DC/Extended version released.

are you purposely misrepresenting me? I feel so...so...oppressed! by the merc!

naw man. if the original was a theatrical release</i>. I guess that wasn't implied. if the original is stv - i.e., it doesn't 'fix' or 'replace' an original, then sure. and I didn't mean to say you couldn't compare an extended/dc/whatever version to any other movie, but I think it's a travesty to do that and consider it, for example, Alien 3 when, in fact, it's Alien 3: Fincher's Edition before FOX Editing, etc.

that's not what the movie was - which is why I think invalidating opinions of people who haven't seen the material on the DVD is (1) wrong and (2) just another excuse that directors, writers, and actors make for the stuff they're embarrassed to be associated with. So in sum: you're wrong because you're wrong. oh! and right...wrong - I'm the guy with the guns

Um, NO. Telling people their OPINIONS are wrong, flat out wrong. People's opinions are just that, thier view on something. It's not right or wrong, that's why it's an OPINION!!!

well...I was half-joking. but are you really suggesting that everything in my own post needs to be prefaced with "I think..."? OK, I think it's wrong to think it's wrong to vote on these movies without having seen the extended cut of 3. we good?

so which is the real movie: (a) the one people actually watched? or (b) the one that could have been after watching it with commentaries? There's no question: door number (a), Bob. So tell me you liked Alien 3 more than Resurrection. I'll buy that, but please...don't cite some 're-edit' on the back of some special edition DVD that exists only in its relation to the actual movie that it 'comments on' as even justifiably comparable to another movie that exists as-is. and I know you know there was a lot of bitching about the production and end result of Resurrection too. As in Ripley was never supposed to be in it. The whole cloning thing got tossed in. The movie was as much Weaver's vision as Jeunet's or Whedon's - not even addressing studio concerns that dominate every movie and weighed so heavily on Fincher's train wreck.

OK, comparing 'what could have been' to a DC is just plain stupid.

I think you mean an extended-cut. (JOKE - I used the same term three posts ago). Anyway...that's how I view the DC - what could have been. just like deleted scenes - what could have been. it's not Alien 3. it's Alien 3 fixed, un/re/whatever-edited. umm...I think.

Also, saying a THEATRICAL RELEASE can't be compared to a DVD/Video is also plain stupid. If it's not, go out and watch Alien4 in the theater. Oh wait, you CAN'T!!! It's only available on video & DVD.

if above comments don't respond to that then I'm content to leave well enough alone. except you must mean you think</i> it's just plain stupid...being an opinion and all.

Hmm... You present a poor arguement.

I'm sure what you meant to say was "I think</i> you present a poor argument.

You're also basing a DVD release, which can easily be checked at any time, VS a memory, which most of us will agree on, can all fool us on what we remembered something as.

true dat. I'm not about to shell out $70+ for 4 movies when I really only care about 2. I saw some PAL releases of the collection, but...well...PAL. and I sure as hell ain't buying dvds of the latter two separately (unless I see them really really cheap - I haven't). So I guess I'll just be content with the butchered FS VHS versions of the originals. besides, I think the quadrilogy is a ripoff anyway. it's better than $90 for a season of Sopranos or $115 for X-Files, but screw that. That price is so frickin' inflated, it's revulting.

PS - So dinky, which IS the real Alien & Excorcist? The first one shown in the theaters, or the DC versions, ALSO shown in the theaters???

two different movies. first one is Exorcist. Other is Exorcist: Whatever Cut

[Blade Runner]

FFF...Fuck..sake.... Can't you just except you all have different Ideas of what you think is good....

[maxpayne2409]

well said blade runner, i would also like to ask...does anybody actually just watch films for enjoyment anymore? or do u all have to watch them then spend the next 30years breaking down every little nitty gritty in every scene, ffs just enojy the movies thats what its all about

[Blade Runner]

I would like to add, it changes, depending on what mood i'm in.....

[mw2merc]

OMFG!!!! This thread is making me laugh so hard.

point was why would anyone buy the movie if they didn't like it the first time around. I don't care what they do to ID4, I ain't touching that disc.

Ah, true that.

clearly we gonna have to agree to disagree. but imo, the movie is what it is when I see it, not how it gets manipulated to all Special Edition Hell. They're different movies at that point. sometimes better, other times worse - sure. but not the same movie. and, imo, should not be use 'in place of' what was the original release.

No prob. I can deal w/ that. But expect the unexpected. So at some point, we're going to agree on something.

didn't say the changes in 'extended cuts' are wrong, just not</i> what stands behind the moniker.

OK. What do you mean?

are you purposely misrepresenting me? I feel so...so...oppressed! by the merc!

No, not on purpose.

naw man. if the original was a theatrical release</i>. I guess that wasn't implied. if the original is stv - i.e., it doesn't 'fix' or 'replace' an original, then sure. and I didn't mean to say you couldn't compare an extended/dc/whatever version to any other movie, but I think it's a travesty to do that and consider it, for example, Alien 3 when, in fact, it's Alien 3: Fincher's Edition before FOX Editing, etc.

stv? Yeah, I also think 'edits' should be referd to as such. That way people don't get the wrong idea that you're talking about the original theatrical version. DC, SE, EE, etc ...

well...I was half-joking. but are you really suggesting that everything in my own post needs to be prefaced with "I think..."? OK, I think it's wrong to think it's wrong to vote on these movies without having seen the extended cut of 3. we good?

No, not everything, but you can't say someone's opinion is wrong. That's like me telling someone that liking the taste of something is wrong.

I think you mean an extended-cut. (JOKE - I used the same term three posts ago). Anyway...that's how I view the DC - what could have been. just like deleted scenes - what could have been. it's not Alien 3. it's Alien 3 fixed, un/re/whatever-edited. umm...I think.

Ah, OK. Not the same to me. 'What could have been' is a version to me, that's never been made. Like if they had done this or that which would've made it better or more accurate or something like that.

except you must mean you think</i> it's just plain stupid...being an opinion and all.

OK, yeah, I THINK it's stupid that one can't compare an edit VS an original theatrical release.

I'm sure what you meant to say was "I think</i> you present a poor argument.

Yes yes. I THINK.

true dat. I'm not about to shell out $70+ for 4 movies when I really only care about 2. I saw some PAL releases of the collection, but...well...PAL. and I sure as hell ain't buying dvds of the latter two separately (unless I see them really really cheap - I haven't). So I guess I'll just be content with the butchered FS VHS versions of the originals. besides, I think the quadrilogy is a ripoff anyway. it's better than $90 for a season of Sopranos or $115 for X-Files, but screw that. That price is so frickin' inflated, it's revulting.

Oh HELL yeah DVDs are way overpriced. They're following the CD route of bloated pricing. Even if I DIDN'T want the Quad, I'd rent it to see all the versions, even the ones I DIDN'T like, but at some point I'm going to. just not soon.

two different movies. first one is Exorcist. Other is Exorcist: Whatever Cut

Excorcist (The Version You've Never Seen). So what about Alien?

FFF...Fuck..sake.... Can't you just except you all have different Ideas of what you think is good....

Of course we can. But does that mean we can't have a friendly arguement of them???

well said blade runner, i would also like to ask...does anybody actually just watch films for enjoyment anymore? or do u all have to watch them then spend the next 30years breaking down every little nitty gritty in every scene, ffs just enojy the movies thats what its all about

I expect a movie to entertain me. I don't like to nit pick, but when someone else starts it ..... If we didn't enjoy them, we wouldn't be here.