Aliens : From Star Wars To Predator

From Star Wars To Predator

MEMORABLE FILMS INVOLVING INTERPLANETARY TRAVEL. 1977-1987.

1977 STAR WARS
1977 CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND
1978 SUPERMAN
1979 ALIEN
1980 THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
1981 SUPERMAN II
1982 STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN
1982 E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL
1983 RETURN OF THE JEDI
1984 STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK
1986 ALIENS
1986 STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME
1987 PREDATOR

Re: From Star Wars To Predator

What about the Thing?

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

The Thing, Starman, and Cocoon


What about the Thing?


Excellent question! The smartest thing you've said to me thus far. I have my reasons for not mentioning The Thing, Starman, and Cocoon. They're all fine films that would otherwise deserve to be on the list.

One reason I have not mentioned those three films is that there aren't that many interesting facts that I know of to list about those three films. I have already created this list on each of the movies at their respective imdb sites, followed by a number of interesting facts. But that was about a year ago or so, and many of the posts have disappeared because of inactivity. Oh well.

As far as Aliens is concerned, I plan on reposting the information within the next week, with at least one new interesting fact concerning gogoschka-1.

Back to The Thing...there are some vile and disgusting scenes from that movie. That's another reason why I have not mentioned it here on this list. But otherwise, an excellent film.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: From Star Wars To Predator


The smartest thing you've said to me thus far.


lol.

Who is this idiot?

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

Re: From Star Wars To Predator

Oh I'm sure you'll have the pleasure soon enough CG

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

Discussions from another thread


The smartest thing you've said to me thus far.


I was referring to a conversation that we had at the thread created by gogoschka-1 called "Why Hollywood stopped making films like 'Aliens'." Our discussion was about whether or not Alien 3 was a failed sequel.

Wears-alan argued that since Alien 3 broke even at the box-office by doing well in some overseas markets, that Alien 3 was not a failed sequel. I argued that overseas markets had expanded between 1986 and 1992, and so the domestic box office was the constant variable in the equation and that most box-office experts look at the domestic box office to determine a movie's success within its own franchise...

...Alien 3's ticket sales after opening weekend was less than half of what Aliens sold after its opening weekend in 1986. And so I wasn't the only person who didn't like Alien 3. Also, Alien 3 was a forgettable and unpopular film with forgettable characters and performances, laughable special effects, a tired & depressing story, and so much more. So Alien 3 was well-qualified to be called a failure.

My opponents have falsely accused me of telling out and out lies and that I have written things that are pure fantasy. You're welcome to read our discussions there at gogoschka-1's thread.

Re: Discussions from another thread


Wears-alan argued that since Alien 3 broke even at the box-office by doing well in some overseas markets, that Alien 3 was not a failed sequel.

I said nothing of the sort. I said it was successful overseas. It made a profit, not broke even.
You talk about intelligence yet can't even get that right.

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

Wears-alan getting smart.

I stand corrected...Wears-alan argued that since Alien 3 was successful overseas and that it made a profit, that Alien 3 was not a failed sequel.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl

*Ripley mentions the aliens as "one of those things" more than once. The first time she mentions "one of those things", it would have made more sense if she were talking about a nuclear bomb instead of an alien.

*features a nuclear explosion near the end of the film...much of the second half of the film centers around the characters trying to escape the nuclear explosion

*was released in 1986, the year of the accident at the nuclear generating plant at Chernobyl. Aliens is a sequel to Alien, which was released in 1979, the year of the accident at the nuclear generating plant at Three Mile Island.

*was the 2nd of five consecutive James Cameron films that deal with a nuclear war, a nuclear explosion, or a nuclear bomb

NASA in 1986….and a dog named Max

*Aliens features a scene where an attempted warning is ignored with deadly consequences. 1986 was the year NASA had ignored warnings with deadly consequences.

Two other Oscar-winning blockbusters from James Cameron also featured scenes where a warning is ignored with deadly consequences as well. ...a dog named Max in Terminator 2: Judgment Day and those iceberg warnings in Titanic.

An Unusually Successful Sequel

*was mentioned in the World Book Yearbook for 1987 as an "unusually successful sequel" and that it was a "popular 1986 sequel"

*written and directed by James Cameron, writer and director of Titanic and Avatar, two of the biggest money-makers of all time

*was the last James Cameron film to be made on a tight budget

*the movie studio considered that the film was originally too long for its theatrical release, so it was edited to acquire a quicker running time

*a longer and more complete version with 17 minutes of restored footage was released on DVD many years later

*made the cover of Time magazine in 1986. Alien had made the cover of Newsweek in 1979.

*was nominated for seven Oscars

*Sigourney Weaver received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress, despite the fact that she had an aversion to all the weapons that her character used in the movie

*James Cameron came into dispute with the film's composer James Horner. Cameron had not given James Horner enough time to compose the film's score. Somehow, Horner was able to get the job done on time, and his score was nominated for an Oscar. However, the two vowed to never work with each other again. A decade later, upon hearing James Horner's score for Braveheart, Cameron realized that Horner was the right composer for his new film Titanic. The two worked together again, and both men won their first Oscars for the film in 1998. James Horner was killed last year in a plane crash.

*won Oscars for Best Sound Effects Editing and Best Visual Effects

Re: An Unusually Successful Sequel

2010 (1984).

Not that I enjoyed it anywhere near as much as 2001.

2010 not very memorable

2010 involved interplanetary travel and was released between 1977 and 1987. And it's a sequel to one of the greatest interplanetary travel movies ever made, but 2010 lacked the quality of the films that I have listed in the Star Wars To Predator list. But thanks for your input.

It's interesting to see what other movies that other people would consider for the list. The most common movie that others have suggested that I don't have on the list is John Carpenter's The Thing.

Other Sequels. 1986. After 1986.

*Aliens sold at least 20 million tickets after its opening weekend. The first Alien movie sold at least 28 million tickets after its opening weekend. So the first two Alien movies sold a combined 48.2 million tickets after their opening weekends, surpassing the 36.3 million tickets sold after the opening weekends of the last five Alien movies made since 1986.

*a 1986 sequel that sold 20 million tickets after its opening weekend...the 1986 sequels Psycho III and Poltergeist II didn't do so well

*was immediately followed by a sequel that didn't so well either. It only sold 8 million tickets after its opening weekend in 1992. The same thing happened with the successful 1986 sequel Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

*the dreadful sequel that immediately followed was co-produced by Sigourney Weaver, who was unhappy about all of the weapons used in Aliens. There were no weapons used in that 1992 sequel.

*Sigourney Weaver plays Ripley, who risks her life to rescue a character that co-producer Sigourney Weaver kills off in the opening credits of the dreadful 1992 sequel Alien 3 that immediately followed.

*entire movie is referred to briefly (along with the 1979 original movie) in the dreadful 1992 sequel that attacks God before Ripley asks a question that begins with the words "What makes you think..." The question mentions people "who found God".

Re: Other Sequels. 1986. After 1986.

Of memorable quality is subjective.

For example, I find Star Trek 3 to be quite forgetable (or whatever you consider the opposite of memorable to be) and I'm a big fan of ST-TOS, ST-TNG and ST-ENT.

You make a valid argument

You make a valid argument about Star Trek III. Star Trek III is the weakest movie on the list.

And yes, of memorable quality is subjective. Very true.

For each of the movies, I have listed several facts (with at least one opinion among all 13 films) about those movies at their respective sites here at imdb. And so at the imdb site for Star Trek III, I'm pretty sure I mentioned that Star Trek III was not exactly the best movie on this list, but was good enough that the movie studio allowed Leonard Nimoy to direct Star Trek IV.

Anyway, I loved James Horner's score for Star Trek III, and the destruction of the Enterprise is Star Trek at its finest.

Also, Star Trek III was probably the best of all the odd-numbered Star Trek movies and was a crucial link in the Star Trek trilogy, three of the most profitable of the first ten Star Trek movies.

I realize there is some subjectivity to my Star Wars To Predator list, but I believe there are more than enough interesting facts about most of those 13 films that give merit to the list. I posted all the lists with their facts over a year ago and I know a few of the lists have been bumped off the imdb site due to inactivity.

If you want to know more, feel free to ask. You seem like a civilized person, unlike some folks that I've encountered here at imdb.

Re: You make a valid argument


I realize there is some subjectivity to my Star Wars To Predator list, but I believe there are more than enough enough interesting facts about most of those 13 films that give merit to the list.

'Interesting' is as subjective as your idea of 'memorable', through which you seem to want an argument over regarding the equally subjective qualifer of 'good'...

I remember it, so it's memorable. That's as far as it goes.

You don't even mention the likes of Outland, Blade Runner or Dune, all of which 'involve' and, in many cases actually feature, interplanetary travel.

If regurgitating random facts under the pretext of them being 'interesting', I could chuck up pages of facts about Spacehunter: Adventures In The Forbidden Zone (1983), which would make it the greatest film of the whole list.... which it is anyway, but that's by the by.

"Compelling" might be the better word

Perhaps "compelling" might be the better word.

I had never heard of Outland. I'm not sure about Spacehunter. I was never compelled to see Dune. And Blade Runner is over-rated as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, none of these films you have mentioned sold enough tickets after opening weekend that is worth mentioning, and except for Blade Runner, none received enough general acclaim from either general audiences at large and with a majority of film critics. Blade Runner has received a lot of acclaim, but I saw it and was not impressed.

You're welcome to chuck up all the facts about any of these movies, but I seriously doubt if they would be as compelling as the facts connected to the first two Alien films, Star Trek IV, E.T., Star Wars, or probably to most of the films on my list.

Re: "Compelling" might be the better word


Perhaps "compelling" might be the better word.

Equally subjective...


I had never heard of Outland.

It's on a number of Top Ten Space Travel Films lists... I Googled.
It's also on many other lists that start 'Top Ten Sci-Fi'...


I'm not sure about Spacehunter.

It's a low-ish budget flick, but a lot of people have seen it, it's a favourite of mine and I can make it seem like the best thing since sliced bread, especially if your criteria is subjective.


I was never compelled to see Dune.

I think it's utter crap, but it still hits highly on the same lists above.


And Blade Runner is over-rated as far as I'm concerned.

Regardless of which of the seven different versions you personally disliked, to underestimate the value of this film is to play with fallacy with wanton abandonment at best... and suicide at the worst.


Anyway, none of these films you have mentioned sold enough tickets after opening weekend that is worth mentioning,

So why haven't you mentioned Moonraker, since that was the joint highest grossing film of 1979 (alongside Rocky II) and beating Alien, as well as featuring space travel?


Blade Runner has received a lot of acclaim, but I saw it and was not impressed.

So a highly subjective list serving only to justify your lone opinion to yourself and no other purpose, or something?
Still wondering what you're posting about....


I seriously doubt if they would be as compelling as the facts connected to the first two Alien films, Star Trek IV, E.T., Star Wars, or probably to most of the films on my list.

I've yet to find any of your facts in any way compelling and in many cases are just the most tenuous of random connections, rather than groundbreaking features of the film itself - For example:

"the movie studio considered that the film was originally too long for its theatrical release, so it was edited to acquire a quicker running time"
REALLY??
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW.... not like ANY other film has had *that* happen before!!!!!!!

"a longer and more complete version with 17 minutes of restored footage was released on DVD many years later"
Actually, it was released on videocassette beforehand and again isn't the first time someone has done that, with either medium.

"Ripley mentions the aliens as "one of those things" more than once. The first time she mentions "one of those things", it would have made more sense if she were talking about a nuclear bomb instead of an alien"
How is this in anyway a compelling fact... or even a fact, rather than an opinion on your interpretation of the dialogue?

"was the 2nd of five consecutive James Cameron films that deal with a nuclear war, a nuclear explosion, or a nuclear bomb"
Count the number of films in which each of the top 100 directors employ their various trademarks (including Cameron) and you'll utterly eclipse this little factoid.
Hell count the number of consecutive Arnie films where someone dies and then see if anyone died in the years those films were released... AMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY-zing, eh!!!!!!


Aliens features a scene where an attempted warning is ignored with deadly consequences. 1986 was the year NASA had ignored warnings with deadly consequences.

So? Many films feature this, including some in 1986...


Two other Oscar-winning blockbusters from James Cameron also featured scenes where a warning is ignored with deadly consequences as well. ...a dog named Max in Terminator 2: Judgment Day and those iceberg warnings in Titanic.

The warning given by the dog named Max was NOT ignored and in fact potentially saved John Connor's life.
The warning in Titanic is an historic fact, not something Cameron devised, so I don't see your point...

So much, so soon

Wow! You'e a fast typist.

Re: So much, so soon

35wpm, roughly.
Not fast in the slightest....

Warnings ignored. James Cameron.

The warning given by the dog named Max WAS ignored...by John Conner's foster dad.
The warning in Titanic is featured in James Cameron's film, so how can you not see my point?

Re: Warnings ignored. James Cameron.


The warning given by the dog named Max WAS ignored...by John Conner's foster dad.

See - Tenuous.


The warning in Titanic is featured in James Cameron's film, so how can you not see my point?

It's as much of a relevant movie connection as 'people drive cars in it'...
Hey, people eat food in both films too - WOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW, what a coincidink, eh!!

People getting killed.

You're response to people getting killed, whether fictional or real, is disturbing.

Re: People getting killed.


You quoted me 10 times from three different messages in 39 minutes with thorough responses. Wow! I must be hitting the nail right on the head for you to have so much to say so soon.

Or more likely you're THAT far off the mark and I have nothing better to do while sitting around transferring files at work...


I was never compelled to see Moonraker, which probably doesn't feature interplanetary travel.

I don't care... because what you think is subjective and irrelevant when you're dealing in and defining by the hard facts of movie finances... and because you are commenting when you haven't even seen it!


Anyway, it's a James Bond film from an era of awful James Bond films.

It made more money than any other film that year, as well as beating several other (and better) Bond films, being the 9th highest in straight numbers and the 5th highest when those numbers are adjusted to reflect inflation.
Whichever way you look at it, Moonraker beats Alien.


I haven't heard anything from anybody that it was exceptional for a James Bond film during that era.

They were all pretty Bond-like.


I saw a lot of it, and it was even worse than Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

So what?
I hate several of the films on your list, but that doesn't make them any less important or memorable... This is the problem with trying to be subjective.


You're response to people getting killed, whether fictional or real, is disturbing.

How so?
People die all the time. The same thing happening in films is no reflection on my attitudes toward them.
You're the one tenuously linking fictional deaths in films with real life events and calling it "compeling trivia"...


10 quotes…39 minutes

You quoted me 10 times from three different messages in 39 minutes with thorough responses. Wow! I must be hitting the nail right on the head for you to have so much to say so soon.

Era of awful James Bond films

I was never compelled to see Moonraker, which probably doesn't feature interplanetary travel. Anyway, it's a James Bond film from an era of awful James Bond films. I haven't heard anything from anybody that it was exceptional for a James Bond film during that era.

Also, Star Trek: The Motion Picture sold a lot of tickets in 1979, but was despised by millions, critics, and those involved in the making of the Star Trek trilogy. I saw a lot of it, and it was even worse than Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. That's pretty bad.

Re: Other Sequels. 1986. After 1986.


There were no weapons used in that 1992 sequel.

What did the company guys shoot Morse with then?

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

Wears-alan getting smart. Part 2.

I stand corrected by wears-alan, again.

Until the end of the movie, there were no weapons used in that 1992 sequel.

Two honest mistakes I made that I've corrected after wears-alan pointed them out. Not out and out lies or talking pure fantasy though, like you claimed in the other thread.

Still, I've engaged in a lot of discussion over the past week, displaying a lot of facts about Aliens and Alien 3. Very few mistakes.

Re: Wears-alan getting smart. Part 2.

You were ripped to shreds by taskmaster with your 'facts'. How did that feel?

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

Thanks for asking

I'm sure you WISH I was ripped to shreds by ttaskmaster, but in truth I have yet to respond to much of what he said. Doesn't mean he's won the debate. The dude has no empathy for people getting killed, whether it be on The Challenger or on the Titanic. The dude has issues.

I feel secure and confident. Thanks for asking.

Re: Thanks for asking

Then you're kidding yourself!

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

Re: Wears-alan getting smart. Part 2.


Until the end of the movie, there were no weapons used in that 1992 sequel.

No *FIREARMS*... there were plenty of weapons.


That's pretty scary. You can't distinguish between tenuous, random connections...

Compelling: "evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way".
Hey, you just used the word 'Scary', on a film database, where there's a film actually called Scary movie...!!!
How weird is THAT!!!

That's about as substantial a link as everything else you've put up there.
Hey, your name has 'Daniel' in it and Daniel Kash played Spunkmeyer - By the connections logic you're using, that makes you a bona fide member of the Aliens cast, right?


Apparently, you didn't have a family member aboard the Challenger and you weren't near Chernobyl in 1986.

And by your raising of yet another insignificant remark, I assume your entire family was wiped out by these events, yes?
By that same reasoning, presumably one has to have been directly affected by a disaster in order to have compassion for anyone else affected?

Troll me more about compelling facts and compassion...



First of all, it is a fact, not an opinion on my interpretation of the dialogue.

You said it would make more sense if she was talking about a bomb.... IF.
But she wasn't talking about a bomb and you know it.
You don't get to witter about dialogue that doesn't even exist and then try to reinterpret it in order to shoehorn in invented connections.


First of all, Cameron is in the top three of Hollywood's directors, which is more distinguished than the top 100 directors.

Top 5, actually and the list is subjective. He's only 3rd on the highest grossing list.
He isn't even in the top 10 for IMDB's official Top 250 Movies list.
But he is still a director and still a human. That doesn't make him better or more relevant than any other director.


Second, the subject matter of a nuclear war, bomb, or explosion is a little more serious than some various trademark of a director.

Anything a director frequently features in their film, from style or shot, to cast, to subject matters, is a trademark of that director.


It's no little factoid. You can't seem to appreciate the weight of that, or you simply refuse to. That's on you, not me.

Making a film that mentions it has ZERO bearing on the real world implications of it.


Third, you're making light of the unlikely connection to one of Hollywood's top three directors with the grave subject matter of nuclear weapons or the like.

Then you explain it, for all of us in the cheap seats - What is the real world connection and relevance of a director frequently featuring a particular subject matter in some of their films, then?
How is this any more important than, say, Ang Lee featuring martial arts and violence in a lot more films than Cam does nuclear explosions?
How is this more important than Spielberg featuring war in his?
How is it more relevant than Tarantino featuring snappy dialogue and people being shot?


So? Is that your response to six astronauts and a teacher getting killed because of an ignored warning? So?

That's the response to you trying to make some sort of weak connection to it and your imagined significance of this imagined connection in terms of the film's documented success.


Are you saying that many films feature a spacecraft taking off after a warning is ignored resulting in the deaths of the crew members?

Actually many do, yes...


How does the fact that the warning in Titanic is an historic fact take away from the truth that an ignored warning resulting in death is featured in three Oscar-winning blockbuster hit movies from James Cameron?

Hey, we had World War 2, in which people died.... and in many Speilberg films about that very war - PEOPLE DIED!!!
ZOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How weird a coincidink, right? A film about a war where people died, that actually shows people dying........


How does that blind you to the point being made?

You don't even have a point.



Re: Other Sequels. 1986. After 1986.

Some consider the Xeno to be a biological WMD.

Just saying.

Sigourney Weaver vs. Newt

Sigourney Weaver plays Ripley, who risks her life to rescue a character who gets killed off in the opening credits of the dreadful 1992 sequel Alien 3 that immediately followed. Sigourney Weaver co-produced Alien 3.



Adapted from the last scene in Aliens...


NEWT: Are we going to sleep all the way home?

SIGOURNEY: I wouldn't count on it, kiddo.

(a long silence)

SIGOURNEY: Sweet dreams, honey.

(Newt starts crying.)

Quoting wears-alan and gogoschka-1. Aliens & Alien 3.


Why Hollywood stopped making films like 'Aliens'

I had been wondering for some time why pretty much all of the big budget studio tentpoles have stopped to provide a thrilling experience for me.

...and that in fact we DON'T GET films like 'Aliens' anymore


--gogoschka-1




Alien 3 has a massive plot hole...The director has completely disowned the movie. It was not received well in the USA.


--wears-alan

Re: Quoting wears-alan and gogoschka-1. Aliens & Alien 3.

Where do I say Alien 3 is like Aliens?
That's right I don't. I simply point out it wasn't a failure.
You have a habit of pulling rabbits out of your arse that you think proves your point. They don't, they simply prove that you are a buffoon. Though I'm probably being unfair as you come across as an adolescent, so maybe it's your raging hormones and the fact that your balls are about to drop. Going through puberty can be hard for people like yourself, but hey, I'm sure you'll get there.

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

wears-alan getting confused


Where do I say Alien3 is like Aliens?


???

I never accused you of saying any such thing. I was simply quoting both you and gogoschka-1 in the same message with quotes that help support my case that Aliens was a success and that Alien 3 was not a success. How did you get so easily confused about that?

It's interesting to see an opponent get confused, or act like he's confused, and then take something that isn't there and run with it to make an unwarranted attack against me.

Your debating skills are as sharp as a pillow.

Re: wears-alan getting confused

Your post proved nothing other than Aliens is/was more popular (and more successful in the USA) than Alien 3. That I am not disputing. It does not however prove that Alien 3 was a failure.
You putting both quotes in the same post appears as if you are saying I am comparing Alien 3 to Aliens. Hence the confusion.
Your debating skills are simply non-existent.

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

Sorry that you get easily confused

Just because you get easily confused, doesn't mean that my debating skills are non-existent. It just means you get easily confused, and that you are quick to assume the wrong things, and that you take wrong assumptions to make unwarranted and immature attacks against your opponents. Which says a lot about your debating skills.

Re: Sorry that you get easily confused

It would appear that you are the one who is confused.

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

One of us getting confused.

One of us has admitted to getting confused within the past few hours. It wasn't me. But yet you said the following...


It would appear that you are the one who is confused.


This is getting to be funny.

Re: One of us getting confused.

It is, keep going.

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

100% confident

I'm 100% confident and secure with what I've said in this little discussion between me and you. No need to keep going.

Re: 100% confident


I'm 100% confident and secure with what I've said in this little discussion between me and you.

Disillusioned people usually are. Keep digging.

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

A response to ttaskmaster

The facts I listed about Challenger and the nuclear power plant accidents...


I've yet to find any of your facts in any way compelling and in many cases are just the most tenuous of random connections



That's pretty scary. You can't distinguish between tenuous, random connections...to unlikely links to the Challenger disaster and to two accidents at nuclear power plants. Apparently, you didn't have a family member aboard the Challenger and you weren't near Chernobyl in 1986.


Another response to ttaskmaster

"one of those things" / a nuclear bomb instead of an alien


How is this in anyway a compelling fact...or even a fact, rather than an opinion on you interpretation of the dialogue?


First of all, it is a fact, not an opinion on my interpretation of the dialogue. Just one nuclear bomb detonated in an American city would mean kissing things that our society thinks are so important good-bye. That's a fact. And a very compelling fact. Apparently, nothing is compelling to you, not even the threat of a nuclear explosion.

Response #3 to ttaskmaster

2nd of five consecutive movies / James Cameron / nuclear bomb or explosion or war


Count the number of films in which each of the top 100 directors employ their various trademarks (including Cameron) and you'll utterly eclipse this little factoid...count the number of consecutive Arnie films where someone dies, and then see if anyone died in the years those film were released...


First of all, Cameron is in the top three of Hollywood's directors, which is more distinguished than the top 100 directors.

Second, the subject matter of a nuclear war, bomb, or explosion is a little more serious than some various trademark of a director. It's no little factoid. You can't seem to appreciate the weight of that, or you simply refuse to. That's on you, not me.

Third, you're making light of the unlikely connection to one of Hollywood's top three directors with the grave subject matter of nuclear weapons or the like.
Top