Don't remind me of this gossi, I'm still bitter about this subject.

Numfar PTB | July 28, 17:28 CET

It's funny, because I thinking about this last night as it happens, and I'm bitter about that one too. When you look at the figures, Serenity vastly outperformed Ultraviolet in nearly all countries, but they chose not to go after many markets with Serenity. Take Mexico as an example - Ultraviolet did $1m there. Serenity would have done more, according to the statistics. That's $1m+ the studio missed due to lack of faith. From one country.

I'm not normally a bitter person -- certainly not publicly -- but on that score I'll speak up. I believe UIP messed up, both for the fans and for themselves, by pulling out at the last minute. The fans were always going to buy the DVD release - even if they saw it at the cinema - so they just lost the extra cinema revenue.

I'm also slightly annoyed as I have reason to believe the only way certain people found out about the dropping of countries was via this website.

Although credits to the local UIP folks who went ahead used their own offices to screen the movie to fans, as I know a few of them did that, which is the kind of wacky thing that doesn't happen.

[ edited by gossi on 2006-07-28 15:57 ]

gossi | July 28, 17:47 CET

As a rabid Milla fan, not even I can watch 'Ultraviolet'. To list all of the faults of this waste would require more time than(shudder) watching it did. It doesn't even deserve to be in the same category as 'Serenity'.
If anyone would like to see a fantasy/scifi writer's view of 'Firefly/Serenity', cxheck out Mercedes Lackey's web site.

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2006-07-28 17:28 ]

Curlyshuffle | July 28, 18:46 CET

Interesting take on Firely and "Jos." I hated Ultraviolet and I thought it was one of the worst movies I had ever seen. I haven't found anything worse to date.

The Ninja Report | July 28, 21:19 CET

Veering slightly off-topic, but that article says something which I've heard before and still just astounds me:



Now don't get me wrong, I love Aliens, I really do. But Alien is a freakin' masterpiece. There is so much depth to that film -- it is not simply a terrifying psychological horror, and a groundbreaking sci-fi film, it is a seriously profound meditation on our embodiedness. The sexuality: John Hurt orally raped, and then giving birth to a monster which rips through his chest -- child birth as death; Lambert being raped to death by the Alien's tail. The focus on the body: the humans first appearing in all their fleshiness, born from a mechanical womb that they call "Mother"; ending with Ripley in her underwear, exposed but also sexualised; our softness surrounded by our technology compared to the "perfect organism" which apparently internalises its. And the way in which those themes are developed filmically (the opening scenes are just incredible) -- it would be impossible to write a novel of that film, all the themes are explored through the camera's movement. It's jaw-droppingly good. As much as I love Aliens it isn't a patch on Ridley Scott's masterpiece.

[ edited by dzr on 2006-07-29 11:11 ]

dzr | July 28, 21:37 CET

That's because Aliens was James Cameron. He makes a good blockbuster, but he ain't subtle. :) Not like our boy Ridley.

Mort | July 28, 23:37 CET

Man, Aliens is just as good as Alien if you ask me. It's not a sequel in a traditional sense - it's also a really, really good film in it's own right.

gossi | July 29, 17:16 CET

I dunno gossi. Like I said, I love James Cameron's Aliens too. If someone wanted to say that they're both great, but very different kinds of films so comparing them may be a little fruitless, then I could buy into that. But the original article, and I've heard many others say this too, states that Cameron's Aliens is better than Scott's Alien, and I'm sorry but I just find that an incredible statement.

dzr | July 29, 18:34 CET

Well I prefer Aliens to Alien but I don't know if that means I think it's a better film or just more to my taste. I think both are awesome btw, just Aliens has the edge in enjoyment terms at least.

Paul_Rocks | July 29, 21:12 CET

states that Cameron's Aliens is better than Scott's Alien, and I'm sorry but I just find that an incredible statement.

Uhm, why? It's about personal preference. I've chosen to watch Aliens over Alien many time, as I find Aliens to be a more enjoyable film. Certainly, Alien was well ahead of it's time in terms of concept and special effects - but dude, Aliens is dripping with cool, the concept is great and the special effects are also well ahead of their time.

gossi | July 29, 21:16 CET

Hi gossi. I find this a fun and interesting thing to discuss, but if I'm inadvertently rubbing anyone the wrong way then I'll stop.

I don't think this is just about personal preference, because ultimately that isn't a discussion at all. It always goes like this: "I like x." "Oh. I like y." End of discussion.

There are objective criteria one can strive for, no matter how imperfectly, in making such judgements. And I want to stress again that I am a big fan of Aliens. I too think it is indeed "dripping with cool". In a way in which Alien isn't at all. I also think Cameron's film is probably more enjoyable, and I suspect that like you I've watched it more often that Alien. Like Paul_Rocks says, enjoyment isn't necessarily a criterion for the greatness of a film. Boys Don't Cry is a great film, but I derived almost no enjoyment whatsoever from watching it. I believe that Alien (a) simply has more to it, it has more substance, it has a whole psyhcological level to it that Aliens doesn't, and (b) it's remarkable as a film because it realises those themes cinematically.

(Interesting, the fairly recent Director's Cut of Alien has the odd distinction of being the only Director's Cut I can recall that is actually a few seconds shorter than the original! Apparently Scott shaved off bits from nearly all the scenes in which the alien is present in order to make it even less visible.)

The philosopher Stephen Mulhall has a very slim little volume called On Film, the four chapters of which are close readings of the four Alien films. He takes all four seriously, and finds much depth in all of them. But for me his reading of the first is the most persuasive. I can't put my hands on my copy as I'm not at home at the moment, but I managed to find a couple of good quotes from it here:



Of course the other films in the series also have these themes, but they get them for free in virtue of being sequels. The first presents a uniquely disturbing meditation on our nature, our embodiment, our sexuality. That's why I think it is a truly great film in a way in which I don't believe Aliens is.

(After writing all that I'll probably discover that this has slipped off the front page and I'm talking to myself now.)

[ edited by dzr on 2006-07-29 21:38 ]

dzr | July 29, 23:38 CET

Interesting, the fairly recent Director's Cut of Alien has the odd distinction of being the only Director's Cut I can recall that is actually a few seconds shorter than the original!

Actually, the Coen brothers shortened their first film Blood Simple in a Director's cut. In fact, they may have done it twice, once for video and again for a second run in theatres in 2000. I think they added a phony introduction to the latter release and still made it shorter than the original version.

I do like the Coen brothers.

I haven't felt the need to see Ultraviolet and the comments from others above make it even less likely that I'll bother.

bigsofty | July 30, 01:28 CET