How James Cameron Changed Ripley 

Aliens all the wayyyy

They’re completely equal. Edit: but, if I actually had to chose one, it would be Alien.

Alien. The further the films get from the grotesque sexual horror and mystery of Giger’s masterpiece, the less interesting they are. I didn’t need to know more about the aliens’ biology, and they didn’t need to behave as something so knowable as eusocial insects. Prometheus at least attempted something different and more akin to the cosmic horror theme of the first. Plus, James Cameron is an asshole and shafted Giger when he asked if he could be part of Aliens.

Alien. I prefer it and rewatch it more because as a film it's more interesting and entertaining. Moments shock you more in it, and how it builds up to the final third. Aliens is great, but you are never shocked at the action, and towards the end you are just drained, which kills off the end of the movie, it isn't satisfying, despite how good the middle part of the movie is.

Alien for sure

I agree with you.

Exactly how I interpreted Ripley’s character evolution. To me, it’s an understandable and natural progression of her personality.

It's a combination of many elements, including the ones you mentioned. But I see it more as anger against the lack of sympathy towards the horrors that the colonists must be facing. As a victim who experienced what just one Xenomorph was capable of, she could only imagine what was happening to those colonists. I think it's partly why she connected so easily with Newt on top of the loss of her daughter. Newt was the only other person alive who experienced a Xenomorph attack first hand.

Honestly, that's how I took it, as a "oh they think this is a joke"

@@themaster408 Pretty much ... Especially when she's giving the whole platoon the briefing about what she'd experienced while they screw around, joking and acting tough. Her reaction when she speaks directly to Vasquez just puts more emphasis on her initial reaction to these guys. I didn't feel like she was offended so much by the specifics of the joke in the mess hall , just their attitudes about the seriousness of the situation. Everyone now days always looking for identity politics in EVERYTHING .. it's so tired.

@@windowsVD Cameron was evoking the hubris and arrogance of America in the Vietnam conflict, and like in Vietnam, once the new recruits encounter the enemy they are shitting their pants. It's an excellent humbling, that could be taken from any historical period.

Right, and not just that, it's a bit of a double standard because if it was a guy in boxers with his crack showing, no matter how they filmed it, people wouldn't see it as gratuitous because we're the ones projecting the vulnerability and objectification, when maybe with a guy it would just show them being too comfortable and unguarded; not that the filming didn't totally aid that projection in how it shot...

lol. how the movie is filmed says a lot.

Avoid any interpretation of femininity that takes active denial of the female body, it is by virtue inherently incomplete

@@Ben-rz9cf is having a more gender neutral Riply an 'active denial of the female body'? not all women/females are feminine first of all and the idea that the female body has to be in focus is problematic as well...

Alien is forever one of my favorites and while the sequels have their own qualities, they were never nearly as good as the original in my eyes.

Oh no

@@matthewhinspeter4247 Oh, yes. 😈

😳 no comment

You mean the studio?

@@NowYouSeeIt None needed. 😂 The emoji tells me everything.

Yeah, I liked the ending of the whole Aliens series where they escaped and there were no face huggers on board.

Yeah, I'm so glad they didn't try to resurrect the series

I see you are taking the Battlestar approach to coping with the series. I am with you stranger.

Alien³ was imperfect, but an infinitely better sequel than the crass 80's cheese that was Aliens.

David Fincher agrees.

Come now. The place was about to blow up in two minutes. She could've jumped ship and left the place to destruction. She stayed to get revenge.

Yup I’ve got the same nitpick. I’ve also seen several YT reactors mistake the intentions in this scene. Queen shows off her teeth and drones. Ripley shows she can torch the queens eggs if she tries to use those teeth or drones on her or Newt and they reach a tentative cease fire. The egg opening was a hostile act, the cease fire was broken so Ripley lights them up. It’s only after the queen broke the cease fire that Ripley goes entirely into anger and revenge.

@@KajiCarson You're assuming that she's allowed to leave in the first place. Perhaps it's a combination of both interpretations since if it's solely about revenge then the clip where the egg opens wouldn't have been added.

It is funny how feminists and the progressive ilk forget about motherhood and just plain deal making. All need to be on hostile emotions.. revenge.. give me a break

A wonderful moment without any need for dialogue. How rare is that?

*Ridley

The only thing I found distracting about the panties was that utilitarian clothes would never be so small, so it seemed incongruent. Even as a teen I was like: "is this some kind of passive-aggressive corporation thing?" Could've made the top smaller instead to maintain the vulnerability aspect.

Men and women are biologically different. Motherhood is a major reason why human beings have survived for this long and should be celebrated for those who choose that lifepath. I don't see why a character who is a mother and driven by those instincts should be dismissed as being somehow against the altar of progressivism. No wonder why so many people think progressivism is trending backwards.

@djfakt Unfortunately I think our words are wasted on these so-called "progressives". These people are seriously making the case that Ripley being a mother and possessing both traditionally masculine and feminine traits makes her less "timeless" and progressive. As if motherhood and gendered traits are somehow antiquated conservative ideas that must be subverted in their progressive utopia. Trying to convince these people that men and women are different yields about the same result as trying to convince a Flat-Earther that the Earth is round.

That's not a female character though. That's a castrato. No joke.

Implying trans characters only exist to push an "agenda." Nah, I just want to be represented in the world like literally everyone else.

@@lilaclunablossom You clearly misunderstood the comment, it has nothing to do with transgender characters. The criticism that modern "strong female characters" are essentially "men in women's bodies" is referring to the fact that many female characters in action films today are written to behave like men and retain no traditionally feminine qualities as if they are inherently less favorable compared to traditionally male behavioral traits. The message of this criticism is to point out that you can write a strong female character that still retains traditionally feminine qualities like Ripley in Aliens. It's not a comment about transgender characters.

Alien definitely LOOKS like the 70s, but I agree with the video that the characters and the movie as a whole is a lot more timeless, partly due to the genderless framing.

@@BambiTrout I'm not sure why being written as genderless inherently makes the characters more timeless. Are we really buying into the notion that in the future, men and women will behave exactly the same way? Why does Ripley being driven by motherly instincts in this film make this portrayal less timeless? As if motherhood will be a thing of the past eventually or that the nuclear family is some antiquated lifestyle that will have outlived its purpose?

@@windowsVD I meant genderless in the sense in which it is used in the video, in that all of the writing and character planning of the movie was gender agnostic, and the gendered portrayals of the characters came from the performances and interpretations of the actors. This fits very nicely with the fact that gender does not define personality, and men and women can behave the same way and say the same things, as well as the fact that men and women can behave entirely differently from others of their same gender. Gender is not personality, so unless it is relevant to a plot point or a thematic issue, gender does not need to be preassigned. In Alien, a) the crew of the Nostromo are a group of work colleagues on a job, and they have no specified sexual or romantic relationships, and b) they are all being hunted by a homicidal alien which can impregnate and kill any of them in a heartbeat, regardless of gender. Ripley is not "strong, intelligent, determined woman" in Alien; she is strong, intelligent and determined, and she also happens to be a woman. Her character traits are independent of her gender. In Aliens on the other hand, almost all of her character traits and actions are tied directly to her gender and her status as a mother. This is not an issue in itself, and this aspect of her gendering in Aliens is not the dated part. The dated part of Aliens is the fact that while all female characters are portrayed positively and are very empowered, most of their empowerment comes from their display of stereotypically masculine traits, with Vasquez being even more excessively macho than most of the men in her squad - this is stated in the video. This, combined with the precise nature of the sexist comments and attitudes of several of the men in the movie, really cements the film in the 80s, because it is simultaneously trying to be genuinely gender positive but while still reinforcing sterotypical gender roles and highlighting masculinity as the ideal. It still treats all male characters as essentially either jocks or nerds, and all female characters as either tomboys or mothers. Gender is treated as two binary monoliths, which is just not how we now know gender to be. Also, the idea of the nuclear family as the singular ideal is long gone. It is still a perfectly valid and common way to live, but children having a single parent, or gay parents, or trans parents, or even polyamorous parents, are now beginning to be seen as equally valid familial structures. In summary, Alien being genderless is timeless because the story does not require gender to work, so the characters are treated as individual people with their own wants, needs, and quirks. Aliens is NOT timeless because it frames gender with a very 1980s lens, focusing on masculinity and motherhood as ideals, while still making clear that women are just as badass as men. That being said, it is still a great movie, and it is definitely still very gender positive for the time. Also, separate from gender, the very obvious references to the Vietnam War in both the styling and behaviours of the soldiers also clearly date the movie, while Alien carries very few clear signifiers of the 70s beyond just the aesthetic and computer graphics.

​@@BambiTrout I know what you meant, I'm saying that I disagree with it and the author of this video. Gender and sex do necessarily not define personality per say, but there are strong behavioral correlations between biological sexes. Our brains are literally biologically and chemically different. Even as toddlers without exposure to societal norms, studies have shown that male and female toddlers will on average behave differently and have different preferences to even basic things such as toys. Men and women are on average different(not better or worse), that's simply an unavoidable fact. Again, I don't see why Ripley being a "strong, intelligent, determined woman" inherently makes her less timeless. If the standard of writing that you're pushing for is for all characters to be written as gender blank slates before the casting process like the original Alien, that's simply not a realistic goal and I don't believe people will react favorably to it either because people simply do not naturally view each other as gender vacuums. That kind of writing does not inherently produce better characters, which let's face it, the reason why Ripley became such an icon is because of Aliens, not Alien. Studios had no interest in pursuing an Alien sequel with the character of Ripley probably because they knew that audience reactions to Ripley at the time were mostly lukewarm. But James Cameron and producer Gale Anne Hurd insisted that the sequel focus on Ripley and the franchise has since then struggled to move forward without the character, similar to Arnold and the Terminator franchise. Sigourney Weaver herself just recently said in an interview that Aliens was the superior film in regards to the way her character was handled. I'm not saying that writing characters with gendered traits is the superior method either, as obviously there are instances when forcing stereotypically male or female traits can come as a disservice to the characters. At the end of the day, I think it all comes down to the execution and the overall quality of the characterization. You may say that Ripley's status as a mother isn't the issue, but your attitude throughout speaks differently. *"Ripley is not 'strong, intelligent, determined woman' in Alien; she is strong, intelligent and determined, and she also happens to be a woman. Her character traits are independent of her gender."* Ripley's traditionally "womanly" characteristics in Aliens are rooted in her motherhood as you pointed out, so clearly this is a point of contention for you in regards to the way the film handled Ripley as far as its "timelessness" is concerned. I don't think the film idealizes stereotypically masculine traits either. Vasquez is more or less a cool one off character. She's tough as nails, but also hot-headed, impulsive and lacks any commanding leadership skills. She's a great character and has her place on the team but I don't think Vasquez was meant to be idealized. I almost get the impression that Vasquez was meant to appeal more to men than to women, which if that was case, the desired result may have been achieved, since from my experience she seems to be a bit more popular among the male fanbase. As for Ripley, since I was younger I don't really think I've ever admired Ripley as a character because I thought she became "manly" in Aliens. It was her characteristics as a person that made her stand out. Both James Cameron and Sigourney Weaver highlighted in behind the scenes interviews that it was important that Ripley never fully became a marine or "one of the guys" so to speak, but rather it's her own qualities such as her courage, strength and determination that saved the day. While I do think the film is trying to celebrate womanhood to an extent, narratively Ripley's motherhood is there to give her motivation in which she would go hell and back for, which is represented quite literally in the climax in which she goes to save Newt. For that purpose, parenthood is simply the best motivation that people naturally connect with in films with intense situations, rather than suggesting that it's one of only two ideal ways of positive female expression. Honestly, I can't help but feel that you're projecting a bit by reducing all of the characters to just gender archetypes. Aside from Hudson, Drake and I guess maybe Apone, which of the male marines were particularly jockey? Hicks is certainly not jockey, he's understated and keeps a relatively low profile until he has to take up command. Gorman himself is a inexperienced leader who was tasked with a job, and has no particular jockey qualities. Same goes for the other marines who seem to be just doing their jobs. For that matter, which of the male characters were portrayed as nerdy? I suppose Bishop, who is the android science officer. Burke is slimy and has no extensive expertise in any particular field outside of just being a company employee, so no particularly nerdy qualities. Again, it kind of seems to me like you're projecting a bit based on the reductive way in which you seem to classify characters on a whim rather than focusing on how the film itself treats its characters in regards to gender. You may say that the nuclear family is still equally valid, but again your attitude again speaks a little differently. My point being that claiming a scene featuring a nuclear family sets Aliens in the 80's specifically is bizarre to say the least. Newt's parents are onscreen for about a minute. The fact that anyone would look at the one minute image of Newt having a mother and father and thought, "well that's clearly based on 80's culture" is just...puzzling. I mean do you really not see how odd that sounds? Claiming that it plays a part in the making the film in anyway less timeless is silly, again, as if to suggest the nuclear family itself isn't inherently timeless when guess what? It still takes a man and a woman to produce a child, therefore a family unit made up of a man, woman and children will always be part of the norm. Unless you really want artificial wombs/insemination to play the prominent role in human reproduction in the future. Not to mention the film largely implies that Ripley herself was a single mother prior to the events of the film, as there was no mention of her having a husband, only a daughter. Plus for all we know(ignoring Alien 3), Ripley could have still remained a single mother with Newt. Hicks certainly has some potential to fill in as a fatherly role, but the movie never officially sets up that up in any concrete manner since his chemistry with Ripley was never really portrayed as romantic. I'm not really seeing where this film portrays the nuclear family as the singular ideal here. You do realize that the Vietnam War is an area that still being explored in movies to this day, right? The same way that films taking place during WWII are still being made. We had Kong: Skull Island, Danger Close and Da 5 Bloods within the last few years to name a few. All these films draw inspiration from the topic thematically and aesthetically. Just because Aliens also draws from the Vietnam War does not inherently make it an 80's flick. Heck, most regular folks who watched Aliens aren't even aware that the movie is an allegory for the Vietnam War to begin with, so I don't think that point holds much ground. Although I do agree that Alien holds up better visually overall.

@@windowsVD You are straw-manning my arguments, and treating them in complete isolation from each other. Aliens is an 80s movie because of the combination of ALL of the things that I have said. The aesthetic, the subtext rooted in second-wave feminism, the emphasis on the nuclear family, the macho behaviour of the marines, the sexist attitudes of several male characters, etc. I am not saying that those things are inherently bad - I am saying that it dates it. It's like how a movie filled with grunge and techno music all about an apathetic loser sticking it to "the man" is fairly safely dated to the 90s. As I stressed MULTIPLE times, Aliens is undoubtedly a very positive and feminist film for the time. However, the way we view feminism is very different nowadays to the way we viewed it back in the 80s, which is another factor which dates the film. There have been two more waves of feminism since Aliens, both of which have focused more on the idea that motherhood and parenthood are not the only relationships that matter. Platonic love and chosen family have become much more relevant themes to a generation which places more value in our chosen relationships. Family is still very important, but it is not always the universal experience that you seem to suggest it is. The nuclear family in particular - communicated in the film both literally through Newt's biological parents, and subtextually through Ripley and Hicks, is not a universal experience. For example, the majority of my team at work are children of divorce, and I know a lot of people whose parents are still happily married, but have never been particularly supportive or protective of their children. As I stated above: it is not that any of the individual aspects of Aliens date it. It is the perfect storm of ALL of its moving parts that dates it so precisely to the 80s. Alien on the other hand, beyond the visuals, is quite difficult to pin down to a specific era, because the themes it explores and the way it presents them ARE fairly universal. Part of this is because it is a much simpler movie, and therefore both the characters and plot require less framework - which would undoubtedly be coloured by the culture of the time. But also, as I stated and as has been scientifically proven, male and female characters do not have to abide by the average presentation of their genders. Each character was given a clear and simple characterisation, and any gender presentation was brought by the appearance and performance of the actor. I am NOT saying that gender neutral characterisation is always the best route to take, or that it requires you to write every character as a genderless blob, because men and women OBVIOUSLY have some unique life experiences. However, by focusing on writing character first, you can get a clear identity without relying on gender stereotypes, and it also allows for more inclusive casting without relying on racial stereotypes either. You might start writing a jumpy scientist character, and in your head they might initially be a short white male character, but then during casting you might find a tall black woman who brings something unique that makes the character click more than your initial idea. In most everyday workplace/life-threatening situations, a male and female reaction will be pretty similar. A male scientist and a female scientist will investigate acidic blood in the same ways using the same terminology. A man and a woman hiding in a closet in their underwear will both remain perfectly silent. Nothing any character says or does in Alien is uniquely male or female, but the characters are still clearly gendered because of the performance of the actors. I am not saying that this approach will work for all films, and there will always be some stories that are uniquely female or uniquely male, or some characters that would be illogical if played by a female actor and vice versa. I am saying that this leads to a more timeless movie crucially because it avoids overlaying the gender politics and stereotypes of its era onto the characters and the movie itself. Alien is a story about characters being hunted - gender neutral. Aliens is a story about motherhood and strong women, which are both concepts that are defined and viewed differently now from how they were defined in the 80s. Ripley's protectiveness over Newt IS a timeless storyline. Her empowered nature is timeless. But look at the gender balance of the film and how it is always men in the positions of power, and how a lot of Ripley's storyline at the beginning revolves around her being treated as a hysterical liar that has to prove herself to the men who disbelieve her - it directly reflects the gender politics of the time. It does so in a feminist and positive way, but it still is a product of its time in a way that Alien isn't. I think this whole discussion has come from you interpreting me as saying "Aliens is dated and therefore bad", whereas all I am trying to say is that it is a product of its time in a way that Alien isn't. Both are still excellent movies which just happen to approach feminism and gender inclusivity in two very different ways which directly impacts the portrayal of the main female character. You do not need to defend Aliens from me, because I am not saying that it is wrong.

Resuming Aliens' Ripley into a protective mother is an oversimplification of the character. Ripley's ark in the first movie is from a generic, bland character into a strong heroine. Ripley in Aliens starts as a survivor with PTSD, on the second act she manages to overcome her fears through her brains and only on the third act becomes a protective mother.

And that's why I like Aliens more. I liked seeing the mother side of Ripley. I also liked seeing her traditional romance where the man is teaching her how to use a gun.

By any chance, do you watch Critical Drinker? 😂 He's great

Gender does not impact the workplace. I'm not sure where you are working...

Can't she be both?

@@LaddRusso91 I think you can have a strong female protagonist who is still sexy, like harley quinn in birds of prey, but by reducing someone to nothing but a sex object they cease to be a character and just become and object of desire

somebody jelly they don't have abs like that

How did you find her more badass in Alien? lmao. Dude, in Aliens she went toe to toe with the queen alien.

@@yokaigypsy because she was more like a superhero then and it was less interesting to me than someone standing up to their shipmates. Alien Ripley is infinitely cooler than Aliens Ripley.

@@thegoodgeneral You people keep grasping at straws. But I have news for you. Aliens is what's keeping the Alien legacy alive, no matter what. Cameron's craftsmanship keeps people coming back to this series for more. And his craftsmanship was centered around making Ellen Ripley as real to audiences as he possibly could. Turning the screen into a window... as if Sigourney literally was Ripley

@@LukeLovesRose Disney Star Wars is keeping the legacy alive, doesn’t mean The Empire Strikes Back still isn’t the best Star Wars movie ever made. Ripley is less real in Aliens, not more-she’s comparatively a comic book character in that film, especially the second half. Still a good movie though.

@@thegoodgeneral You're right about Empire. But you're way off about Aliens. James Cameron is a master filmmaker and it shows in every scene, every shot, every line of dialogue in Aliens.

Finally somebody gets it

Pretty much.

GAME OVER, MAN!

@Fencepost Turtle yes

No true Scotsman fallacy.

I honestly can't decide which one I like better personally.

Yeah going by his old work. His newer stuff is boring af.

Same, but we gotta talk about it now to get to that point

The main character is a castrato. Now you see it

An I thought it was Brian may

yo really? where in canon does it say that? genuinely curious that’s super cool

@@DragonFromAnotherWorld During the briefing scene in Aliens, if you pause and read her file it says she had gender reassignment surgery. However, it was probably a retcon from Cameron and I don't know how much it should be taken into account while talking about how she was portrayyed in the first film.

martianmanhunter37 thats still so cool either way!

She was a pilot before, a truck driver in space. She just recently learned how to work a power loader... and maybe the loader was a new technology. She was a civilian next to the military guys. So yeah, they were wowed by that alone

​@@LukeLovesRose I don't fully buy it :) It literally is her new job and she say she is qualified... and then she picks up a crate and everybody is super impressed? New or not it doesn't see to be that complex of a machine.. *edit* And also, as you mentioned she was a pilot before! If you can pilot a ship then you should probably be able to learn to drive a forklift? I stand by my viewpoint that there's some "inverse sexism" in there: "wow a woman can operate machinery"... I'm probably overreacting a little though ;)

@@rogerwennstrom6677 But they just showed the medic, a female using another Power Loader and no one batted an eyelash

@@LukeLovesRose Yeah, but they probably showed the same wonder the first time the medic showed them she could handle it ;)

congrats nobody cares

So special

Jelly

Omg ur so cool

My hero

Untrue. “It takes a village to raise a child” - African proverb. In previous history, child rearing was a much more communal effort. There are tribes on Pacific islands where polygamy is practiced and the kids have a mum, but will call all male members of their tribe dad, since who the father is matters or in their culture. In many European countries, such as Portugal, there remains a much larger family unit, where grandparents will often live with/very near parents and participate much more in child rearing (as such the happiness of Portuguese parents rises on average after the birth of children, as opposed to falling as it does in much of the developed world).

Now someone taking care of another is exploitative? That's a natural human thing to do - and an excellent parallel to the 'mother' that is the head alien. There's a reason why many good movies have this trope (children of men, jurassic Park, etc) - it's because most humans relate to parenthood

@@errhka What I meant by exploitative is that Cameron turned her into a Mom, which is a female role. Cameron put her into more of a female role than Scott did.

@Tom Ffrench True, but just picture a man and a child. You might think parent, you might think danger. You need context for that. Picture a woman and a child and you immediately think mother. It's a perception that Cameron took advantage of.

Implying only men being able to be masculine is "realistic."

Also, you have no clue what social justice is, child.

@@jacobvarney23 I did. And I agree with most of the analysis, this was just one area I felt didn't get explored.

@Shika Yep totally get that. It made the xenomorphs less powerful and Les mysterious

@Shika Except for the improvised flamethrower and cattle prod, there were no weapons aboard the Nostromo. No guns at all, only one xenomorph. Aliens expanded on that by asking “What if we plotted a squad of battle-hardened marines with over the top firepower against a whole colony of xenomorphs?”

Typical 80s action movie? Commando is a "typical 80s action movie" Aliens is so much more.

What are you on about?

Whose role?