Alien (1979) vs. Aliens
(1986):
which one is better?
Alien and Aliens are two
of the greatest films ever to feature extraterrestrial creatures (as well as
two of my favourite films of all-time). Though Aliens is a direct sequel, it was helmed by someone completely
uninvolved with the original (James Cameron, who wrote and directed), and as a
result, ended up being quite different from the first film. In fact, Aliens is more of sci-fi-action-thriller,
as opposed to Alien, which is both
sci-fi and horror. But, despite being fairly different from the original, Aliens is also considered one of the
best sequel films of all-time.
Fans of the series
and general movie-goers agree, Alien
is a classic film, and Aliens is the
only other entry in the franchise to come close to being as good or better than
it. But is it better? Which film is the best?
I’ve gone back and
forth on this question many times over the years, but now it’s time to fully
analyze both movies and determine which one is superior, the sequel or the
original. Step aside, Predator, it’s
time for Alien vs. Aliens!
Plot:
For a long time, I always thought of Aliens as having a totally different sort of story than Alien, but really, if you break down some
of the big plot points, the stories for both movies are quite similar.
Alien is a
straight-forward story about seven crew members aboard the commercial
spacecraft Nostromo, who are instructed by the company they work for to
investigate an S.O.S on a desolate planetoid (later named LV-426 or Acheron).
There, they find a strange derelict ship filled with alien eggs, one of which
hatches a facehugger that attaches itself to crew-member Kane. The android science
officer, Ash (they don’t know he’s an android yet, spoilers!), lets them back
on board, and Kane spawns a chestburster, which quickly grows into a full-sized
alien (the species has become known as the xenomorph, thanks to a quick line of
dialogue from Aliens) and hides in
the ship.
The crew try to hunt it down and kill it, but they’re no
match for the superior creature. It comes down to just Flight Officer Ripley,
who self-destructs the ship in an effort to terminate the xenomorph and gets
away on the shuttle (along with Jones, the cat that lives onboard), but the
creature stows away on the shuttle with her. She manages to get rid of it using
the airlock and a spear gun (for what reason is a spear gun on board? Don’t
question it), then goes into hyper sleep. That’s basically the entire movie
boiled down to 203 words.
Aliens is quite a
bit more complex. I won’t even try to give a full summary, but essentially it’s
about Ripley joining a team of marines on a mission to investigate why the
company (now called Weyland Yutani) lost contact with a human colony that had
been established on LV-426 during the intervening years between the Nostromo’s
investigation of the planetoid and Ripley’s rescue from the shuttle 57 years
later. What the marines find is not just one xenomorph, but a whole hive of
them. The team becomes trapped in the colony and have to escape, and it comes
down to just Ripley once again, only this time instead of having to rescue a
cat and reach a shuttle before a ship explodes, she has to rescue Newt, the only
survivor from the original colony population, and reach the drop ship (piloted
by the android Bishop, who isn’t evil like the first movie’s android) before
the reactor in the colony explodes. And instead of fighting a single Alien like
in the first movie, she fights a Queen Alien in a power loader suit, to the
same results as before.
What makes Aliens
seem so different from Alien is not
so much the story content but more to do with the differences in scale and
character dynamics. Aliens is Alien but on steroids. More aliens! More
people! More action! And that last one is the other major difference, the
action element.
This is why it makes it hard to compare the two movies. Alien isn’t an action movie, so it can’t
be faulted for having less-impressive action compared to the sequel. In
contrast, can’t Aliens therefore not be faulted for being less scary than Alien? This is where it gets tricky, because no, Aliens is not as scary as Alien overall,
despite having the same horrific creature in greater numbers.
Let me break down a key scene to show how Aliens is absolutely on par or better
than Alien (in terms of being scary
and exciting), purely on a scene-to-scene basis. A scene that stands out to me
as being exceptionally terrifying is when Newt and Ripley are trapped in the
room with two facehuggers, and Ripley has to figure out a way to get help
before the facehuggers implant them with chestbursters. We, as audience
members, perfectly understand the stakes here, the sense of urgency and fright.
Then, to add to the tension, the room is full of shadows and random clutter, so
the facehuggers have lots of places to hide. And then, to top it all off,
Ripley sets off the sprinklers, so there’s falling water and a red emergency
light, which makes the scene look about as scary as possible.
In the first movie, the facehugger just jumped straight into
Kane’s helmet, then held on to him for a while, then dropped off. It was creepy
looking and disgusting, but that was it. This time, the facehuggers are a real
known threat, and they end up being way scarier for a longer time than the
single one ever was in the first movie. But let’s consider the scene where Kane
is attacked by the facehugger more carefully. The first time we see it, we
don’t know what’s going to happen when that egg opens up, and the whole scene
plays out very slowly, we’re peeking into the egg along with Kane…then BAM. It
leaps out so fast we don’t even see it clearly and it makes for one of the best
jump scares of all-time. But is this scene scarier than the one from Aliens? It could be argued either way.
What’s better about the facehugger scene in Alien
is how simple it is, and that’s the key factor here: simplicity.
The idea of being trapped on a ship with no weapons and
knowing just one horrific creature is
trapped there with you is really scary. I get where James Cameron’s mindset was
with the sequel. Okay, one was scary,
imagine if there were even more, and
the humans did have guns this time,
but it still didn’t help! It’s a
great concept, and it worked extremely well. But it didn’t make for a scarier
or even equally scary concept to the first movie. It was exciting, yes, and
still scary, of course, but speaking of the overall plot, no, it wasn’t as
ground-breaking or terrifying.
It’s a tough call, especially because I absolutely love the
plots of both movies, but there’s just something so satisfyingly simple about
the plot of Alien, that I have to
slightly favour it. James Cameron had a tough task in trying to live up to the
sheer genius of the first movie, and he did a great job. But bigger isn’t
always better, in terms of story.
One point to Alien.
Characters:
This is where I think Aliens
has a leg up on Alien. Both movies
have great characters, but let’s break down the casts a bit, starting with Alien.
One of the greatest strengths of Alien is depicting a working-class group of individuals who are
meant to be just like everyday people. These aren’t super-intelligent
highly-trained astronauts on a daring space mission, they’re just truck drivers
in space, a phrase that’s been thrown around a lot when talking about the characters
in Alien, but it’s true. They just
work for the company and want to get paid, that’s all.
When everyone first wakes up at the start of the movie and
sits around for breakfast, the feeling that these people are co-workers
instantly comes across, largely thanks to Ridley Scott allowing the actors to
improvise their dialogue. They talk over one another and joke and comment on
each other and it all feels real.
Brett and Parker talking about the bonus situation, Dallas explaining why they
woke up early, and Ripley and Kane asking questions about their new
side-mission sets up the movie really skilfully, and from there, we see these
folks in their working environment, before things take a turn for the worst and
witness them switch from work-mode to survival-mode.
In Aliens, the
same sort of switch happens, but there are a few key differences in terms of
characterization. The first and biggest one is the advantage of Ripley’s story already
having been told. If you saw Alien,
then you already know what Ripley has gone through when she’s introduce at the
beginning of Aliens, so there is
built-in sympathy for her. But even if you haven’t
seen Alien, she’s still
introduced in a way that new viewers can feel sympathy for her, because as she
explains to the board members what happened on the Nostromo and they quickly
disbelieve her, Sigourney Weaver’s acting is so strong she makes you buy that
this really did happen and they should believe her, so when they don’t,
you feel bad for her.
After Ripley’s reintroduction, we meet the marines along for
the journey with her, and get strong impressions of them right away. In Alien there were only seven people, and
one of them turned out to be a robot. In Aliens,
there’s a robot (but that’s no secret this time), plus Ripley, plus sleazy
company worker Burke, plus Lieutenant Gorman, plus the whole squad of marines,
and then they find Newt…my point being there are way more characters this time,
which means making them interesting and worth caring about it a much greater
task. And yet, James Cameron did it.
In Alien, we don’t
get a lot of backstory about any of the characters. It’s more about the
immediate threat and them trying to survive, but what’s so brilliant about Aliens is it brings back that immediacy
and need for survival while also infusing it with excellent characterization
and backstory. We find out Ripley had a daughter, Newt is the only survivor of
the colony invasion, the marines have hunted other extraterrestrials before, the
lieutenant is inexperienced, private Hudson acts like a badass until shit hits
the fan, and so on and so forth.
What it comes down to, for me, is Aliens has a greater number of memorable characters (Hudson, Hicks,
Newt, Bishop, Ripley, Gorman, Vasquez, Burke) compared to Alien. Though both movies have great characters, it’s the wider
range offered in Aliens that appeals
more to me.
One point to Aliens.
Setting:
Even though Alien
seems much smaller in scale than Aliens (which it is), both movies
actually take place in about the same number of locations. Alien is mainly set on the planetoid/derelict ship and the
Nostromo, and Aliens takes place
mainly within the colony, but also has Ripley and the marines on the ship Sulaco,
as well as the planet’s surface, and the colony is a little more varied than
the Nostromo.
Though Aliens has
more variety in locations, I don’t find the settings as memorable, overall. The
one that really sticks out is the Alien hive, with its absolutely massive scale
and intricate details. Everything is wet and shadowy and where one wall ends
and a xenomorph begins is impossible to tell. But, the colony and processing
station all kind of blends together into an industrial backdrop, which might have
been an attempt to replicate the same feeling the setting of Alien evokes, but it didn’t quite work
as well as it did in the first film.
The two main settings in
Alien are extremely distinct. Beginning with the derelict, it’s perhaps the
most alien environment in any movie, and I mean alien in the sense that it
truly looks otherworldly. H.R. Giger’s designs are stunning, and that vast room
with all the eggs, like a gigantic metallic tunnel, is terrifying. As for the
Nostromo, the design is so detailed, I feel like I notice a new point of
interest every time I watch the movie. Yes, it often looks all the same
throughout like the main setting in Aliens,
but that works better to evoke the feeling of being completely trapped and
claustrophobic, more so than in Aliens.
Both movies have great settings, but Alien
has the more memorable, distinct, and effective look.
One point to Alien.
Creatures and
Effects:
This is another tough category, because once again it’s not
really a fair comparison. In Alien,
there are many eggs, but only one opens up, then there’s one facehugger, one
chestburster, and one adult xenomorph. In Aliens
(if going by the special edition) there are several facehuggers, two chestbursters
(one real, one in Ripley’s dream), dozens of xenomorph drones, and the queen.
For quantity, Aliens obviously wins,
but which movie has the more convincing creatures, and what about the other
visual effects?
Alien had to live
up to the high special-effects standards set by Star Wars two years prior to its release, and it certainly did. The
shots of the Nostromo moving through space still look convincing to this day.
By comparison, the shots of the Sulaco in Aliens
look just as good (though there are fewer shots of it compared to the number of
shots of the Nostromo) but for whatever reason, the effects for the dropships
entering the planet’s atmosphere and landing on the surface have no aged well
in either movie, though I would say it looks slightly better in Alien.
Now for the creature comparisons. The eggs in Aliens look better than the eggs from Alien. In Alien, the one egg’s “petals” open extremely robotically, which I’m
guessing was sort of the point, but it looks very stiff, and in Aliens, the eggs open more naturally,
plus there are many of them and they all are to the same standard of quality.
The facehugger in Alien
looks pretty damn real. It’s wet, scaly, and breathing, and I think it still
holds up today. In Aliens, when the
facehugger is shown emerging from an egg in front of Newt in the hive, it’s
slow and inferior to its reveal in Alien.
But when the facehugger in Alien
leapt out of the egg, it was scary because of the way it was rapidly edited and
shot. The facehugger itself does very little except sit on Kane’s face and
tighten its tail. In Aliens, the
facehuggers have much greater movement and, like Stan Winston said in an
interview, “it’s a character now.” But I can’t really say one facehugger looked
and performed better than the other in this case, because the facehuggers aptly
performed their roles in both movies and were equally convincing. 
The chestburster scene was, effects-wise, more advanced in Aliens compared to Alien. There was an equal amount of blood gushing in both, but it
was in a darker setting in Aliens, so
it wasn’t quite as easy to see, and it was a more violent eruption from the
body, like a fist punching its way out. The bursting also happens quicker. But Alien still has the best chestburster
scene of all, and not just because it was the first. The scene is perfectly
edited (as evidenced by an alternate re-edited version which doesn’t feel as
convincing), it occurs in full-light so you see it in all its horrific glory,
and I think it still looks pretty believable today. Yeah, it’s kind of funny
when the chestburster looks around and screeches then scurries over the table
on a very obvious track, but it’s still a little better than the chestbursting
scene in Aliens. 
As for the adult xenomorph, this is a big point of contention
for fans. Some prefer Stan Winston’s design, with the ribbed cranium and empty
eye sockets over H.R. Giger’s smooth dome, but others prefer Giger’s look.
Instead of comparing looks, I’ll compare performance. If I’m being honest, half
of the shots of the xenomorph in Alien
look goofy to me. The ones that stand out badly: when it leaps out at Dallas,
when it moves in front of the camera as it’s about to attack Lambert, when it
whips around to knock over Parker, and when it tumbles around outside the
escape shuttle.
There are fewer goofy shots in Aliens, though still a few. In general, the xenos in Aliens perform more confidently, and,
like the facehuggers, are capable of greater movement. Unlike the facehugger
comparison, though, the xenomorph in Alien
should have been able to perform its
role better, but Ridley Scott chose to cut around it for a reason: it looked
like a guy in a suit. James Cameron showed his creatures more because they were
simply more convincing.
Beyond just the xenomorph in Alien, there’s the Space Jockey, which doesn’t do anything, but
looks incredible and is forever tied to the Alien
legacy thanks to novels and comic books and the movie Prometheus. However, it’s the Queen Alien that really makes Aliens rise above Alien in the creature and effects category. She alone, on a
technical level, far surpasses anything from the first Alien. Again, it’s an unfair comparison, especially because the
second film was a much bigger movie than the first and movie-making technology
had progressed nearly a decade since it was made, but overall, Aliens has the greater number of effects
that hold up today.
Point to Aliens.
Tone/Genre:
Some film buffs who are more critical of Aliens see its roots as an action movie
rather than a horror movie as an argument for why it isn’t as good as the first
movie and isn’t as scary, but to me, it’s a flawed argument. These movies
master two different hybrid genres: Alien
is a great sci-fi-horror movie, and Aliens
is a great sci-fi-action movie. Sure, there are other genre elements thrown in
to both, but when you boil them down, that’s what they are, so for that, I
can’t say one is better than the other in this way. Just because Alien was distinctly sci-fi-horror
didn’t mean Aliens had to be, as
well. They both accomplish many of the same things, but Aliens also accomplishes the action aspect well, too, despite not
accomplishing the horror aspect as well as Alien.
One point to each.
Music:
Because Aliens has
a different tone and pace than Alien,
the music of course sounds quite different. The score for Alien by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting and slow, especially in its
opening chords as the title slowly fades in over shots of space. It doesn’t
have as many big moments as James Horner’s score for Aliens, but the Aliens soundtrack
underscores the action parts with its big moments, using sounds like the
marching drums as they are getting ready to leave the Sulaco and land on
LV-426, or the loud percussion when the creatures attack them in the hive. In contrast,
Horner’s score has less-effective haunting/slow pieces of music compared to
Goldsmith’s.
Both scores have become iconic, but in different ways. Parts
of the Alien score were recycled in Alien Resurrection and Prometheus, while the only other movie
to re-use distinct parts of the Aliens
score was AVP: Requiem, though the
signature part of the score has been used in many movie trailers. I love both
scores, and think they are perfect for their respective films, but in the end,
I have to side with the score that elevates the visuals more effectively, and
that would be Jerry Goldsmith’s. Without the aid of his music, the movie
wouldn’t have had quite as many unnerving scenes. Scenes like the power loader
fight and the marines initially investigating the colony are still great
without music.
Point to Alien.
Legacy:
I don’t award points in this section, but I almost wonder if
I should deduct a point from both movies, simply for spawning an inconsistent,
often confusing, and usually sub-par franchise. Ridley Scott wanted to end Alien with the creature killing Ripley,
then imitating her voice into the ship’s recorder, which would’ve either ended
the franchise right then and there, or set up a drastically different
storyline. But, without Alien as we
know it, we wouldn’t have had Aliens,
which did a pretty neat job of exterminating the xenomorphs at the end and
sending our characters off on a happy trip through space, leaving it open for
more potential adventures, but not so wide-open that people would be groping
for part three.
And yet, everyone was
groping for part three because Aliens
was so awesome. Then Alien 3 did come along, and it took a seriously
dark path that officially ended the franchise by killing the last xenomorph and
Ripley herself. But no, Alien
Resurrection brought it all back for one more far-flung adventure. Okay, that had to be the end. Nope, the first Alien
prequel came in the form of the crossover Alien
vs. Predator, which was followed up by Aliens
vs. Predator: Requiem. Then Ridley Scott took the reigns of the franchise
back in his own hands and did another prequel (which may or may not make the AVP movies canon), but this time, he
explored the origins of the space jockey, with the stand-alone sci-fi adventure
Prometheus. Now, we get a sequel to
that prequel, Alien: Covenant, which
finally reunites Ridley Scott with the creature he originally brought to the
big screen all those years ago. Hopefully it’s the best movie in the franchise
to have Alien in the title since Aliens.
No points awarded.
Conclusion:
This was a tough one. Normally with these “movie vs. movie”
articles, I come to a strong conclusion, but not this time. I’m as big of a fan
of Alien as I am of Aliens. Aliens used to be my clear favourite of the two when I was younger,
then it was Alien for a while, now I
can’t pick which one is my favourite. They both are. But if I’m going to pick
one as being the better movie, I have to go back to the scoreboard. Alien scored one point more than Aliens, and here’s why.
When you break down both movies, the answer to why Alien comes out on top is clear, and it
might sound like a cop-out-answer, but it’s just a fact: Alien came first. Alien
launched the entire franchise—the iconic female heroine Ripley, the entire
mythology of the xenomorph creature, the expansive futuristic world—and Aliens, while it did build on that
mythology in creative and fantastic ways (the colonial marines, the terraforming,
the Alien Queen), it didn’t produce as
much original and iconic content as Alien.
I completely understand both sides of the argument. In many
ways, Aliens is better than Alien, and vice versa, and like I said,
I’m not picking a favourite here, I love both. But I’m also not saying Alien is objectively better than Aliens, necessarily. What I will say: Alien is a more important film than Aliens, simply because without one, you
couldn’t have possibly had the other.
Alien wins.
Thanks for reading,
and be sure to stay tuned for my upcoming Alien:
Covenant review!
