😳
I knew I made this for a reason
You .mixed up the movies
Brown face? That’s just a tan
Its almost like the people who come up with this batty shit never actually leave the basement, so they don’t understand suntans.
The american obsession with melanin levels is insane. Why cant they be normal and be racist to people who live over the next hill, like us enlightened europeans.
That’s offensive. Those over the hill have bushier eyebrows. They are totally different and meant to be hated.
Nah you guys just claim the brown ppl are “culturally different” because they’re Muslim so they should leave
I think the point is that if it was important for the character to be Hispanic, they could have hired a Hispanic actor for it. Her being Hispanic didn’t have any meaningful impact to the story, so why not just let her character be white? If they did it to make the film more appealing to Hispanic viewers, then surely an actually Hispanic actor would have been a better fit. White actors have historically been given distinctly non-white roles just because Hollywood is afraid of melanin.
The history of it goes all the way back to old black and white films, with movies like Dragon Seed or The Teahouse of August Moon, which both had major asian roles filled by popular white actors. The unfortunate part is that they often aren’t respectful when they do it; It often ends up being a caricature of the race instead. Anyone who has seen Breakfast at Tiffany’s will know what I’m talking about. Or hell, there are even cases of outright blackface, like a white actor playing Othello in the 1965 movie. Many people have criticized Al Pacino’s accent in The Godfather as offensive, bordering on caricature.
If you want more recent examples, we could point at Jake Gyllenhaal playing a middle-eastern prince in Prince of Persia. Or Johnny Depp playing a Comanche caricature in The Lone Ranger. Another good example is Scarlett Johansson being given the role of Matoko Kusanagi, in Ghost in the Shell. The movie is based on a Japanese anime, and is based in Japan. But Hollywood refused to hire a Japanese actor to play the role, and instead gave it to the whitest white woman who has ever whited.
To Be Fair
Johnny Depp’s character was considered insane by the other native americans in the film, who were played by actual native americans like Saginaw Grant. It’s not much better but the film still doesn’t pretend he represents them.
Didn’t Gods of Egypt have an all white cast and 1 black guy playing as… the gods of egypt…?
To Be Fair
In case the link doesn't work -
fair [4]: of a light hue; not dark:
fair skin.
Synonyms: blond, paleThanks for pointing out that there’s always more than one lens to look at the world through.
Masamune Shirow himself confirmed that Kusanagi was a mass production model on the outside to blend in and not have her harvested for parts, like a custom body would be.
Also the whole fucking theme of the franchise is “what is a soul (ghost)”. Kusanagi has canonically swapped “shells” multiple times, is it a ship of Theseus thing or is she still the same person?
But this is an argument I can’t win, so I’ll leave this here and disappear 🫠
Yet in the original Anime the shell is still Asian, cause they are in Japan, why change that, you can pretend it was done to make a statement about soul vs body, but everyone knows why they actually hired a white actor. Also they treated that subject matter only at the surface level, a better example of this theme is in the movie The Creator.
SJ in Ghost seemed particularly fucked up given that all the original content was Japanese
Brown nose? That’s just business.
Brown finger, that’s just play time.
I wrote an article about how Jim Carrey used greenface (very offensively too) during the filming of “The Mask”, but hardly anyone cared.
He’s not even an amphibian!
-
Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?
-
No, have you?
She was bad ass
That movie is one of the best sources for quotes.
“This little girl survived … with no weapons and no training. Right?”
“That’s great! WHY DON’T WE PUT HER IN CHARGE?!?”
-
Didn’t Schwarzenegger wear mudface in Predator?
I think the groundbreaking part was Dan O’Bannon’s note in the Alien script that gave us more amazing characters in Aliens.
“At the start of Dan O’Bannon’s script for Alien, there’s a note that few other screenplays contain: “The crew is unisex and all parts are interchangeable for men or women.” It’s a line that fundamentally altered the nature of the film, affecting everything from the presentation of its characters to the way Ridley Scott and his team approached casting, and it was certainly for the best.”
Haha I read that originally as “they be robots and have removable arms and legs that fit erybody else.”
That’s fascinating though. I must say I like Aliens much better. I rarely revisit Alien but I might do in the near future.
Imho, they are different genres altogether.
Alien is a real horror-movie, while Aliens leans more towards the action-movie genre, of course retaining horror elements, but it doesn’t quite play on the body-horror and fear of the unknown as much as the first part does.
So you’re saying that one’s a bug-hunt, and the other’s a stand-up fight?
Alien is art. Aliens is a schlocky action movie (nothing wrong with schlocky action movies, but it’s just a completely different thing)
I’ve watched Alien in the background dozens of times, had forgotten how it really went. My wife had never seen it, no clue.
She sat like this, edge of the couch, glued to the screen the whole time. And I came away with my view of the movie totally refreshed. A work of art indeed!
Cheers to your wife.
Looks like she enjoyed herself. 😆
I feel the same way about the first and second Terminators, and the first Rambo and its sequels.
Yes. As a child Alien was too scarey for me but I was able to watch Aliens. As an adult I don’t usually wade into horror, except on a Super Eyepatch Wolf tangent, but still love action sci-fi.
I find it interesting how a trilogy (then… However many there are now…) can wander from one genre to the other. It’s risky because you make a sequel partly because the the financial security you get from your fan base. Not sticking to that fanbases tastes is risky but also introduces people to new things in a more comfortable way.
I think it’s kind of a natural evolution. The fear of the unknown effect of Alien wears off for the viewer, once the creature has been revealed and defeated in the first part. So a sequel in the same vein woulndn’t really work, but recycling the creature as a fearsome enemy in an action flick surely does.
I also don’t really gravitate towards horror movies as I find most of them to be pretty cheesy or tryhard edgy. Alien is the exception. This one is a work of art.
It might not seem like it now but Vasquez was a groundbreaking character at the time.
Expand on that
Badass female grunt soldier treated by her fellow soldiers as a soldier first and foremost.
She has the most iconic line from my youth.
Some soldier, saying to Vasquez who’s doing pull-ups: hey Vasquez, you ever been mistaken for a man To which she replies: no, have you?
Also the way
she
dies is bad ass.
I mean next to Ripley, the android and the little girl, she’s the most memorable character in that movie.
I definitely found the alien the most memorable character. She visitied me in my nightmares…
She has the most iconic line from my youth.
I got gifted a 4K Blu-ray player for Christmas. Immediately bought Aliens (my favourite movie of all time) then sat down with my older kids to watch it with popcorn etc.
There was such a buzz in the room when she delivered that line.
Have to recommend the 4K Blu-ray experience if you’re a fan. The detail honestly shocked me.
Edit:
I mean next to Ripley, the android and the little girl, she’s the most memorable character in that movie.
The casting is great.
I think Paul Riser did a great job as the slimy company man Burke. He was very believable.
Michael Bien was great as
HudsonHicks too. The exchange between himself, Ripley and Burke about nuking the site was great.Fuckin’ A.
Bill Paxton played Hudson. Michael Bien played Hicks. Game over man.
Yes! My mistake!
Can’t believe I pulled a Gorman. Edited previous post.
I recall an interview in which Paul Reiser said his mom was cheering his on screen death at the premier
Hahaha. That’s a great little nugget.
Aliens in my favorite movie of all time too. (⌐■_■)
My friends think I’m crazy that I still buy blu-rays sometimes (including 4k), but for some movies, on an OLED screen… it’s just next level.
The new Dune films, for example…
I honestly have been blown away by how cinematic the 4K Blu-ray experience is. The new Dune ones are on the list to get. I’d say they’re great. Lord of the rings too.
I’m up to 7 in my collection now and definitely will be continuing to add to it.
No OLED here yet but next TV I will definitely pony up the extra for it.
No OLED here yet but next TV I will definitely pony up the extra for it.
Do it… I might even say that I’d rather watch a regular blu-ray on OLED, than a 4k on LCD… but that might be a stretch. Once you get OLED though, it’s hard to go back.
I only have a few 4k, most of my blu-rays are regular (I’ve been collecting Criterion Collection films. Criterion blu-rays used to go on sale regularly for under $20 on Amazon until recently).
I do have the Criterion Collection Citizen Kane 4k blu-ray (sounds kind of silly, I know, but it was on sale and man it looks outstanding).
“Game over man!” makes Bill Paxton as memorable.
Both Paxton and Rodriguez were the highlights of the rest of the cast. Paxton is the guy showing us how we ought to feel, that this is indeed terrifying and fucked up. “Game over man!” is definitely one of the most memorable lines from the film, but a film having two absolutely badass women in Ripley and Vasquez that stood out because they were badasses, and not because they were specifically planted as women to have women be badasses, was great writing - probably thanks to the script being written for “unisex” characters.
“You always were an asshole, Gorman.”
Seriously? Spoiler tags?
The movie is just shy of 40 years old. lol
So? Just because it’s old doesn’t mean that everyone has seen it, nor that people don’t deserve to experience the movie the way we did.
Anyone reading a movie trivia thread regarding a 40-yo movie should expect spoilers. C’mon.
How dare you be considerate of people!
Michelle Rodriguez wouldn’t have a career without this woman
Badass strong female character with more depth than what was normally portrayed in Hollywood. Ripley being another.
Ripley and Vasquez are antithetical. Vasquez’s strength comes from enbracing masculinity. She’s in a traditionally male profession, she’s stereotypically, “butch,” (short hair, muscular, etc.), she’s aggressive, and she belittles Ripley with her male peers. The film even calls attention to this early on (“Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?”…“No. Have you?”). Meanwhile, Ripley is similarly a strong woman, but she doesn’t need to reject femininity to show strength. She weeps when she learns that her daughter died and later develops a maternal connection with Newt, but she’s more than capable of picking up a gun and giving orders when needed. She’s also in a traditionally male profession (which she demonstrates when she uses the power loader), but she doesn’t let that define her. She never seeks the approval of the male characters or behaves like them to achieve her goals.
I’ve heard it argued that Vasquez is a sort of queer coded sheild for Ripley, allowing audiences to enjoy Ripley as a strong female character without worrying about her sexuality (“No, Ripley’s not a lesbian; that’s a lesbian.”), but I don’t think that’s fair to either character. Vasquez is a heroic character in her own right, not wanting abandon teammates and ultimately sacrificing herself so that others can escape. But the film is about motherhood, and Vasquez, just like all the other marines, isn’t capable of maternal behavior. I think in the end, Vasquez’s character is meant to demonstrate that Ripley is a bad-ass because of her femininity, not in spite of it.
Putting aside the conversation about sexuality, I think viewing Vasquez as emphasis for Ripley’s femininity downplays the importance they both have. You’re totally right that Ripley shows a strong woman that embraces feminine traits, but there’s a lot to say about a character that breaks gender norms. I think the line you brought up shows that Vasquez doesn’t reject femininity outright, she just chooses to present that differently.
Yeah, I’m definitely not trying to diminish her as a character. Her sexuality is never explicitly stated, and the film doesn’t seem particularly interested in addressing it, allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusions. The fact that she’s a Marine at all is notable, since women weren’t allowed to hold combat roles when the film was made, and it’s awesome that Vasquez breaks gender norms without being demonized or treated like a punchline. All in all, she was an especially progressive character for 1986.
But there is definitely a theme of the film that masculinity (or what we would now call toxic masculinity) is inferior to femininity, specifically maternal femininity. All of these brash, hotshot marines spend the first act of the film belittling Ripley, despite her first hand knowledge of the threat. Ripley is also the only one to take the time to develop a relationship with Newt, despite the fact that she’s the only colonist to survive the Aliens, while the Marines see her as unimportant. They are then immediately massacred in their first encounter with aliens and crumble (especially Hudson) when their big guns and big talk are ineffective.
Besides Ripley and Newt, the only survivors are Bishop and Hicks. Bishop is a male presenting android, but he’s not like the Marines, being much more quiet, thoughtful, and diplomatic, stereotypically feminine attributes. Hicks is a much more traditionally masculine character, but despite becoming the ranking officer during the mission, he’s willing to be deferential to Ripley and allow her to lead.
The film is about Ripley, a grieving mother, finding a surrogate daughter and protecting her, and it is the characteristics of her role as a mother that allow her to overcome the threat of the Aliens. Meanwhile, the tough, masculine characters she’s paired with proved to be no match for that same threat, which in the third act is revealed to be another mother in the form of the Xenomorph Queen. It’s awesome that Vasquez represents a non-gender confirming character, especially one made 40 years ago, but that fact that she’s a masculine-coded character means she’s part of the gender spectrum being critiqued in the film.
Aliens didn’t exactly break new ground in strong female characters (except perhaps with Ripley as lead), but it was an early very popular movie that had strong female characters who weren’t dependent upon men to save them so it was pretty good for representing women as something other than Hollywood’s standard of the time. Not great mind you because the only way either of them managed to achieve that is by making both of them (especially Vasquez, Ripley at least had some nuance) act like traditional male characters, but it was a big step.
Have you seen the movie?
(Edit: apparently not.)
I see from the comments that apparently it was makeup. I wonder to what extent this is makeup, since after all, ALL actors on set wear make up. I have a similar skin complexion and if I sunbathe for a week I’ll look like Vasquez too.
The fact that they tanned her is not the issue. The fact that they tanned her to play an ethnicity she is not, is the problem. Especially during an era where people of that ethnicity were lucky to be typecast in something.
I know it’s before this time, but Martin Sheen had to change his name to get work in Hollywood because nobody would hire someone with a Hispanic sounding name.
James Roday Rodriguez did the same before he got his role in Psych.
Charlie
That’s his son. And his other son is Emilio Estevez which is Sheen’s real last name. Technically it’s Charlie’s last name too, but he kept his father’s stage name for the stage.
And none of the above are my favorite Estavez. Shout out to Joe, Soultaker rules.
Well, to be fair, blackface is also a type of makeup
If an actor loses weight or works out to be more muscular, that’s commitment to their craft.
If they lay out in the sun, that’s cheating!
[jk]
Small correction: she was John Connor’s foster mother in Terminator 2 not step mother
Correction: his foster parents are dead.
Damn, they really shoulda gone with Arnie if they wanted to live
I think shes got a company now that is making extra comfy bras.
She’s also in Titanic, but in a very small role as an Irish mother.
SMH my head, so now she’s doing irish face? Potato face? No wait, now I’m being racist
Just curious, is it offense that she dyed her hair reddish and has Hollywood freckles for the Irish role?
Irish. Trying to muster one fuck to give but just can’t manage it unfortunately.
Side note: She’s a great actress.
The Irish don’t care, they’re too busy secretly taking over the world.
Good thing god created alcohol to slow them down.
Hasn’t worked, those bastards are everywhere!
It wouldn’t surprise me if we finally make contact with that uncontacted tribe off the coast of India and there was already a bunch of Irish dudes chilling out with them already.
Bit weird. Irish people tend to have dark hair and pale skin.
And Lethal Weapon
Didn’t she play tough hispanic space marine in another movie too?
nvm: I’m thinking of Michele Rodriguez from Fast and Furious, and a fair bit of other movies I thought was same actress.
Im pretty sure thats just a tan, but its interesting that her imdb page says “Jenette Goldstein is a true chameleon”
Was it makeup? Lighting can do a lot too…
It was, even though apparently one of her parents is of Brazilian and Moroccan descent.
This is mildly racist in two different directions. There was clearly an assumption of what a “private Vasquez” should look like they were shooting for. She was allegedly cast partially because she was in the right shape for the character already. These days they would have gotten an actor in shape that looked like the ethnic stereotype they had in mind, probably.
Which is still kinda more messed up than just having cast her, kept the character and just not spray tan her. Didn’t even have to change her name. I don’t speak for American latinos, but from where I stand the visual design of the character seems like a much bigger issue than the casting.
A lot of ppl were saying if you need a disabled role, hire a disabled person, if you need this and that hire someone with that exact trait. That’s not the point of acting. The point of a good actor is that they can change for every role.
IMO, it’s all good if their pick isn’t just who ever is the hot item that year, and if the pick actually does a good job.
okay but another point of acting is authentically bringing the experience of the character portrayed so that the audience can empathize with that character, so stuffing someone without that lived experience into the role deceives the audience into thinking that they’re empathizing with people like that character when they’re actually just getting what the actor thinks it’s like instead
You just described acting.
ah, so hiring a white actor to play a Black person in blackface would be okay, then
I mean, Kirk Lazarus was a great character that used blackface in the 2000s… So, I’d say yes, depending on the purpose of the character.
If black people can play a white person, then absolutely. White Chicks, best white face ever. Tropical Thunder, best black face ever. I’ll see my way out.
In both of those examples, the actors played characters of their own race, pretending to be another race as the plot of the respective movies.
If I recall, she also thought “Aliens” was about illegal aliens or some shit.
