What is James Cameron's best movie?
- Thread starter Bor Gullet
- Start date
Terminator and Terminator 2. One is a perfect thriller and the other is a perfect action film.
I always prefered Alien to Aliens, but after latest installments I think Scott himself has precisely zero clue about the direction of the franchise, if it ever see light of the day again.
I always prefered Alien to Aliens, but after latest installments I think Scott himself has precisely zero clue about the direction of the franchise, if it ever see light of the day again.
It makes no sense in regards to the first film. The Xenomorph in the first film was a smart, almost human-like creature who hunts down the entire crew, not some sort of big ant who is mindlessly devoted to the Queen of the hive.
If Aliens was a standalone movie I would've had no issues with the Queen and the way the aliens were portrayed, but as a sequel to Alien it's bull.
T1/T2, Aliens are bad ass, Avatar is straight forward but entertaining, Abyss is uneven but well done and packs a punch in certain moments ... but honestly Titanic is his best made film and most powerful.
It's tough for some people to admit that though because the film became stigmatized due to it becoming such a monstrous pop culture phenomenon.
It's tough for some people to admit that though because the film became stigmatized due to it becoming such a monstrous pop culture phenomenon.
Aliens is the correct answer, everyone knows this.
I can take T2 getting the sympathy votes, though.
Na, it's technically brilliant but nowhere near the form of his sci-fi masterpieces.
I can take T2 getting the sympathy votes, though.
Na, it's technically brilliant but nowhere near the form of his sci-fi masterpieces.
This. I respect everyone voting for T2, but I think The Terminator is even better. It's just so fucking raw.
The change in genre is what makes it brilliant.
Instead of aping the first, it actually has realistic escalation. And Ripley's character growth is just incredible, she's the best on screen hero in history.
It's such an awesome development of where Ripley goes after Alien. From being a victim who barely survives, to diving into the depths of Xeno-hell itself to rescue her lost connection to humanity and murder her nightmares.
Aces.
Aliens ... at least in my humble opinion, but T1/2 are also amazing, Abyss Director's Cut is good too
Terminator 2, followed by Aliens.
T2 has that squeaky kid who annoys me more every time I rewatch the movie, so actually maybe Aliens takes a narrow lead.
T2 has that squeaky kid who annoys me more every time I rewatch the movie, so actually maybe Aliens takes a narrow lead.
Eh, I think the genre switch hurts the creature a lot. Instead of being the relentless, unstoppable monster it is in Alien, the Xenomorphs in Aliens are pretty easily dispatched with ordinary weapons, only really posing issues for our main characters when they swarm them. The Xeno in Alien was this smart creature who used its surroundings and only attacked isolated targets. Meanwhile, in Alien they are literally an insect hive, even including a Hive Queen. I also have issues with Ripley returning honestly, because why would she ever voluntarily go back to the place that caused the death of all her friends and where she only barely escaped with her life earlier? And finally, why the hell would humans settle on LV-426? There's nothing there, it's just a dead rock.
Anyway, I still think it's a great action flick, but to me it just doesn't work as a sequel at all because of the things I mentioned earlier and the movie would actually be stronger if it just cut all ties with Alien and was its own thing.
The first film was a drone/soldier detached from the colony so it's going to behave differently. This isn't difficult.
That's a retcon though, the Alien in the first film was never meant to be a 'drone/soldier'-class beast. Your explanation is literally something made up by fans because Cameron decided to go for a 'sequel has to go BIGGER' approach for Aliens and added stuff that made no sense with the first film. But even then, the change in behaviour wouldn't be this drastic. The alien in Alien acts much smarter than any of the Xeno's in Aliens.
You don't know what that word means. The first film never established anything much about the alien's sociobiology. Cameron's sequel extrapolated from what was there and is cannon. Sorry what he did didn't match up with your singular head-cannon, but Cameron's sequel isn't what's suffering from contrived fan-fiction: you are.
Tie between The Terminator and Aliens Directors cut. They're his two best films overall in terms of narrative construction, thematic cohesion and pacing.
T2 is great fun and hugely popular but it has a saggy middle section and muddled thematic intentions (reclaiming his crown for action films doesn't count here!) so I have to dock it a point or two for those and other flaws. It's a great romp but it's not as perfectly constructed as T1 and Aliens.
Every other film is a mix of great and bad from Abyss being a terrific two thirds Cameron action thriller to one third C tier Close Encounters tip off or a Titanic having great direction and lousy script and so on.
He's always been great at pining down balance of populist themes and plots with decent thematic depth and great action but he's never matched the lean perfection of his first two proper films.
T2 is great fun and hugely popular but it has a saggy middle section and muddled thematic intentions (reclaiming his crown for action films doesn't count here!) so I have to dock it a point or two for those and other flaws. It's a great romp but it's not as perfectly constructed as T1 and Aliens.
Every other film is a mix of great and bad from Abyss being a terrific two thirds Cameron action thriller to one third C tier Close Encounters tip off or a Titanic having great direction and lousy script and so on.
He's always been great at pining down balance of populist themes and plots with decent thematic depth and great action but he's never matched the lean perfection of his first two proper films.
There was actually a scene in Alien that established the Alien could create its own eggs, but that was eventually deleted because Scott decided that it slowed down the climax. However, it was still included in the novelizations and was considered canon until Aliens came around, making the addition of the Queen a retcon. Though I do think it's a less harmful retcon than what Scott has done later, but that's its own set of problems.
Sure, and a drone/soldier can still exhibit reproductive qualities when a Queen is absent depending on the species. There's no retcon or contradiction here.
I honestly can't decide between Aliens, T1 and T2, All three are bonafide classics. Haven't seen Titanic and True Lies in years, Avatar is trash and haven't seen The Abyss yet.
Well, there's also the original concept for the aliens as described by Alien co-writer Dan O'Bannon, who described his and Scott's vision for the Aliens as being a society:
Further confirming that the Xeno was never meant to be this weird space ant/bee until Cameron rewrote them to be like that.
All this is known. Few people care. As someone already stated: part of what made Cameron's sequel compelling is that he was willing to re-contextualize the alien in the first place. Sorry you didn't want an action-sequel, but the films are what matter, and as far as the films are concerned; Cameron's approach is logically sound.
I appreciate your view, but cannot agree with any of this... it doesn't harm the creature at all because of context. And the sequel works so well absolutely because it takes what the first film did and creates a realistic outcome based on the world in the first. It's a perfect escalation which is why it's one of the very few perfect sequels that exists on screen.
First film they had no weapons, no combat training, etc... the creature is working independently of the hive, so therefore it would require more autonomy (yes this is retcon, but the point is it works under scrutiny). It's intelligent, but no more or less than the creaturs in the second.
Second film they had all the above and STILL got their arses kicked. The monsters are not any less terrifying just because their are more of them. The creatures are still very intelligent when they need to be ("What do you mean *they* cut the power? How could they cut the power, man? They're animals!"), but also a pure wave of gnashing terror when required (throwing themselves against the sentry guns to test the defense).
The Queen wasn't born in the first, so the single drone acted as it needed to. The monsters in the sequel are controlled by the Queen, which makes them stronger as one organism. The Queen is basically the drone from the first film in terms of autonomy and intelligence, and the drones are extensions of her jaws and claws.
The film literally spells out why she goes back, she has extreme PTSD and hopes to find some kind of closure. She also wants to potentially help the colonists suffer the same fate because she is naturally a hero (which is part of what makes her character so compelling).
And the film literally spells out why they went to LV426 too... terraforming "building better worlds". Corporations take rocks and turn them into habital planets for profit. It could also be that there was some more string pulling behind the scenes by knowing slimeballs (like Burke) to get that planet terraformed, but that part isn't important when it works without it.
Much like T2, Cameron makes a sequel that takes what the first did and builds on it in a realistic way instead of trying to re-create what the first did. you can probably count the number of perfect sequels that exist on screen on your hands... and Cameron has made two of them.
Original intent means very little and is certainly not a a reason to paint the sequel negatively.
Last edited:
Oh, you.
It's probably my favourite character arc ever on-screen.
I absolutely adore how, in the first film, she isn't painted as the hero from the start. I'd imagine audiences probably thought it was Ash, and how, as the film progresses, it becomes clearer and clearer why she's the only one who survives...
And this only gets enhanced with the sequel.
Not only this, but Weaver puts in an Oscar worthy turn in both films. Ripley is not only a complete and believable badd-ass, but incredibly human too.
I dunno, I think this is basically Cameron at his peak. Titanic oddly enough I think is his most epic "action" film in a way. The 2nd half of the film is basically Die Hard on a ship, but it's hard to also think of it just as that because it is a historical event and a terrifying one at that.
Yeah, I know my opinion on why I dislike Aliens as a sequel is a fairly rare opinion, but it's what it is. I'm not knocking on the movie as a whole though, since I still think it's a very strong action film and Sigourney Weaver is excellent in it (totally deserved the Oscar nom, too).
As I said, technically it's amazing.
Well, two of your points I don't get as the film literally spells them out (why Ripley returns, why LV426 had colonists), but I can appreciate your take on the rest even if I disagree.
Titanic is a remake of Terminator in a different context. Of course what worked in the former also worked for the latter
Technically yes it's a master work but emotionally too.
I didn't give one fart about the Titanic going into that film or that time period at all, but coming out of it ... you feel like you've been on that damn ship for 3 days.
I've also never been in a theater where people were just openly sobbing, I remember people in front and behind me crying. Never had that happen in a movie theater before. I love T2, Aliens, etc. but no chance in hell any of those films impacted an audience like *that*.
It is. True Lies was a somewhat funny film, but I was shocked how Cameron borked the pacing so mauch after perfect T2
Aliens has far, far better characterization with Ripley than any aspect of Titanic imo. Just because it didn't make people sob doesn't mean it's any less powerful in terms of creating a human character on screen.
I can understand what people like about Titanic, but for me it's where Cameron lost his spark. He'll always have his technical genius, but he lost his powerful characters here.