Reebok Alien Stompers (Ripley's sneakers from Aliens) re-release

I've just been told that every now & again the Reebok UK site shows a size 11 & 12 as available. Probably just a glitch but maybe it's worth keeping an eye on.
 
Got the OK from the owner to post these. Pretty cool. As I mentioned, this guy is a die hard sneaker head and he missed out at retail to own these, so has had to pay way more for them.

attachment.php

attachment.php
attachment.php


Both shoes have parts I really like and it be freaking amazing to see a crossover version that incorporates the best of both.
The two things I would have liked to see on the STOMPERS is a clean toe like the MAGs (has more of a future look) and a wider single strap instead of the dual straps. I've noticed in both the film and stills, that the fronts gape when Ripley bends or kneels and I think a single strap would be more secure. Reebok made motorcycle boots years ago with the single wide strap and they looked cool. I really like the wider single elastic strap over the MAGs 4 thin straps (I know that was part of the power lace thing) and lace cover.

The Jordan XX have a similar pattern to the MAGs with this strap. They are just not very high and have a very open design.
 

Attachments

  • MAG Stomper 1.jpg
    MAG Stomper 1.jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 780
  • MAG Stomper 2.jpg
    MAG Stomper 2.jpg
    61.2 KB · Views: 840
  • MAG Stomper 3.jpg
    MAG Stomper 3.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 708
On target here. List them at $426 a pair, but make a crap load. These would sell because people like collecting things from movies - look at all of us.

On a side note, I saw YouTube video where a guy states he would do anything to own these, then complains about the $800 listing on eBay. Hang on, didn't he say he'd "do anything"? Hmmm, clearly not.

I have an online friend in France that is a die hard sneaker head. His collection is amazing. He has the real NIKE MAG, original 1989 and 2016 re-issue NIKE AIR PRESSURE (probably one of the most sort after sneakers ever released) and yet he missed out on the STOMPERS due to the limited release numbers.

He had to buy them "re-sold" for a much higher price. Does he care? I don't think so, because now he has them. I'm sure he would have preferred to pay the listed retail, but he accepts that 426 pair world wide wasn't going to be enough to even scratch the surface of the fan base here. He is a collector, and he would do what ever it took to get them. Good on him. I asked him to post a photo of them next to the MAG to show how tall they are. Pretty neat and I am happy for him and every one that got them.

Are you talking about Jordan? He's on the forum too X) @Martin Jr
 
Last edited:
I've noticed in both the film and stills, that the fronts gape when Ripley bends or kneels and I think a single strap would be more secure.

So during production Sigourney really OVER tightened those upper two straps to keep her pants cuffed in and to keep the shoes extremely secure (if you look closely in those shots and stills you can see the the upper straps were actually trimmed with scissors, as there would have been a lot of extra strap hanging off the end). They really deformed when she moved because they were so tight. I have a template for where the strap should be cut if any of you die-hards feel like taking scissors to your new babies to be more "Screen accurate". : p
 
Dear Kristen,

Firstly, allow me to congratulate you on the editing of your last post, in which you called me a "jerk" – Much appreciated.

I don't really have the time or inclination to engage in a public slagging match with you, this was not my intention so please receive this in the context in which it is meant. I will however, run through the comments you have made & attempt to set the record straight, as you have already an opinion of me that I would like to alter.

I initially commented on this thread, when one member in particular, decided it was acceptable behaviour to contact an eBay seller of the Stompers, then call him & I quote, a "piece of ******" & "cancer of humanity". I'm not certain if these posts still exist, but this was the state of affairs at the time.
Now, I understand that many of you are up in arms due to the fact that you didn't manage to secure a pair & are true 'Alien' fans, however, if anyone sees this type of abuse as acceptable, then there is something drastically wrong. Whilst I'm fairly sure most of you would agree with this, it seemed to go unnoticed, which is when I decided to comment.

Apparently, it is the general consensus on this thread, that nearly everyone who buys to make a profit at re-sale, is the lowest form of humanity. I was merely pointing out this is not the case & is an unfair & narrow-minded assumption to make.

I don't disagree that more effort should have been made for the true fans to be able to obtain a pair, but this is the fault of Reebok, not those lucky, savvy or wealthy enough to be in the position of ownership.

As I’ve mentioned in a few posts, I was fortunate enough to obtain both 'Ripley's' & 'Bishop's' versions, which are two very different shoes as you know. I was repeatedly asked the question, did you buy two pairs to sell one at profit? Paraphrased, I answered - No, because they're two different pairs, a set if you like, so why sell one?
This wasn't understood by some, yet the complexity of the answer is hardly mind-boggling.

I did also say that at some point, I may decide to put them on eBay. Some of you might not like the fact that I may do this, yet, that still wouldn't give you the right to abuse me for doing so, which is the point in question & the whole basis of this conversation.

Some sellers may have more important uses for the money & buying to sell is a means of survival. It is their right & should suffer no abuse as a consequence.

You stated that I have implied my education level is higher than that of some members posting on this thread.
Not at any point have I suggested anything of the sort.
The original comment which has triggered your incorrect statement, was the explanation of 'analogy', conveyed in a condescending manner to me, in which I replied that I didn't require the 'remedial education'. I am not deficient in the understanding of this word, therefore, I do not require an explanation. Nowhere however, have I suggested that I am more educated than anyone else.

You stated that you have not used an "inflamatory" tone in anything you have said to me. I beg to differ.
Your first post had the words "Look... don't say you didn't if you did. It's that simple", followed by an immediate second post, stating that you're raising the level of education by highlighting the error in my spelling of the word 'absurd'. - If that's not set to incite conflict, then what is?

I could point out your error in spelling 'inflammatory' without a double 'M' or criticise your lack of punctuation, but what's the point? I'm sure any of us could pick holes in each other's posts, but why bother? It's child's play. You don't know me & I don't know you, yet we have an assumption of each other based on a few choice words.

Bottom line is, we all have one thing in common & that's a love of film & props. We should all be getting along & sharing knowledge, not abusing perfect strangers because they have something that you want, but don't or can't have.

Finally, I'm sorry that you don't like what I have said, after all, you can't please everybody.
However, I do think it is quite obvious, that the tone & content of your messages which has initiated this conversation between two perfect strangers, was set to incite conflict. So, please, let's not be so self righteous to pretend that this was not the intention.

Let's just all be fans of 'Alien', not call people "pieces of ******" or "jerks" & just chill out & get along.

Peace to everyone & may you all be fortunate enough for Reebok to re-release these *****r's!

That's a WHOOOOOLE lotta words to say let's all just be fans of Aliens together! :lol

I don't disagree with your "original" intent. What I disagree with is your tendency to point a flaming arrow at everyone else's perceived missed steps or cruel intentions, while trying with a zillion words to convince us that yours are completely justified.

Reading the edit history of a post doesn't make you a Grand Wizard. It's simple to do. What WOULD show wisdom on your part would be for you to realize the reason that the edit button is there in the first place, and reason out for yourself that it's very bloody likely that i'd edited that word out on purpose, because upon re reading my post i had decided use of that word was inappropriate...so i edited it. That is why that feature exists...and going back and highlighting what I had decided to edit out because it was too inflammatory (There's your two M's, professor!) is the finest example of intent to continue a conflict i have ever seen! Ending your diatribe with "Let's just all be fans of "Alien" doesn't mitigate all that came before.

In short, if you really were only interested in that--as opposed to "setting the record straight"--there would have been a whole lot less time wasted reading all of the words that you chose to write.

You are correct... we don't know each other. And our impressions of one another are in fact based upon this exchange we've had. And from that, I get the impression that you are the sort who has to prove to everyone that you are right and they are wrong...period. And you don't have an easy time tolerating others disagreeing with you. Also you are quick to temper, and even quicker to accuse others of being quick to temper...because you make a habit of projecting your own feelings onto others. You seem to fancy yourself a good judge of character. You make assumptions about others' "tone and intent" and then argue on that basis, rather than asking if your assumption is even correct. You appear to revel in telling others that they are only interested in "abusing you" and "inciting conflict", while at the same time doing both of those yourself and expecting us to believe that you don't realize you're doing it.

And YES... I edited my post to add these thoughts. There' I've saved you the tedium of reading the edit history and mentioning that I've done it.

I DON'T know you. But what you've displayed thusfar makes me think it's probably best that i don't.

There... now we've both had our say. This should be the end of it.
 
Last edited:
I spent several hours trying to get a pair on release day but haven't had time to think about them since. Such a screw up by Reebok, there should have been enough made to fulfil demand.

Surprised to see people trying to justify shady behaviour on here, but oh well.
 
So during production Sigourney really OVER tightened those upper two straps to keep her pants cuffed in and to keep the shoes extremely secure (if you look closely in those shots and stills you can see the the upper straps were actually trimmed with scissors, as there would have been a lot of extra strap hanging off the end). They really deformed when she moved because they were so tight. I have a template for where the strap should be cut if any of you die-hards feel like taking scissors to your new babies to be more "Screen accurate". : p

Never noticed that before, but I think you're dead right! If you compare screencaps to the production shoes, Ripley's top straps are substantially shorter, and they're not rounded or sewn on that edge, which really suggests it was a mod done on set with a pair of scissors.


-MJ
 

Attachments

  • Aliens1986SpecialEdition1080pBluRayx264DTS-WiKimkv_snapshot_021127_20120621_212746.jpg
    Aliens1986SpecialEdition1080pBluRayx264DTS-WiKimkv_snapshot_021127_20120621_212746.jpg
    410.2 KB · Views: 122
  • tumblr_a.jpg
    tumblr_a.jpg
    747.4 KB · Views: 163
most likely.

I'd bet Cameron didn't like the look of the extra strap on the sides after they were tightened down....probably thought it looked too sloppy. So they hacked them off.
 
Everytime I see someone cursing Reebok, I can't help but to think of Cuba Gooding Jr's line from JERRY MCQUIRE :$
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top