Now I want to know why some people rank this movie as low as ressurection, or even think it's worst than AVP. People seem to compare this film to Aliens thinking it should be just like Aliens, and nothing like the original film witch the entire series started off on. This also brings me to the fact some people actually belive Aliens should be the first film witch beyond infuriates me to no bounds.
Principal reason I've seen during my boards experience would be one, and everyone certainly is aware of it: Alien3 killed off Hicks and Newt at the start of the film. To that, you can add the plot-hole firing opening titles and the fact Ripley dies at the end. Some fans, in addition, don't like the Runner design, and its (intentionally dumb) behaviour.
It's also hard to identify with many of the characters -- they're all bald, indistinguishable British guys who happen to be murders and rapists and whatnot. You don't really care if they live or die, as opposed to the first two movies where the characters were likeable and had some degree of personality distinguishing them.
And as you said, a lot of people wanted another action-fest like 'Aliens' - it didn't help that the initial teaser trailer for 'Alien3' promised a movie set on Earth, and then the actual film didn't deliver. :P
Quote from: Basher917 on Oct 30, 2011, 05:06:06 PM
People seem to compare this film to Aliens thinking it should be just like Aliens, and nothing like the original film witch the entire series started off on.
It didn't have to be like Aliens. It just had to be good. It wasn't. It was a clusterf**k of plot holes and silly character choices. It's not scary like Alien, and it doesn't thrill like Aliens. Even viewed on its own, it's terribly hard to appreciate beyond its aesthetics (those sets look good! Music is awesome!)
I actually like Alien3 quite a bit, I think it was plenty "good".
Uh huh. Quite a few people like it. A lot don't tend to, hence OP's frustration.
I tend not to worry about whether other people like someone, unless they're telling me I shouldn't like it, or that the fact I like it is invalidated because the matter in question is "obviously crap" or some such euphemism. Then I get pissy.
Well, I personally have no hatred to A^3 any more, because - and this may sound harsh - I re-discovered it to myself as a ... some sort of comedy. I incline to follow Morse, as it goes, and his lines and behavior make me normaly smile ("We have a teeny-weeny problem", scene with scissors, "How did I get there?", prominent "F*ck" after warden is dragged up into ceilling with the puddle of blood on the floor...)
I suspect, the main reason about putting Alien^3 so far aside from first two films isn't the protagonists' demise at all.
In my opinion, "cubed" sequel extremely differs from the set in Alien/Aliens aura by its blatancy (mostly over the religious-like ranting and Ripley's Christ-like and Antichrist symbolism - two within one!) and tautology (there is a lot of repetitive lines and actions). Just compare this to subtle sexual Alien's (Alien as Creature here, not the film's name) undertones, entertaining plot turns and characters, you want to associate yourself with (they are ordinary people, with their jokes and worries, just want to live their lives and at least have one - common for both films - goal, namely to get home!)
Despite some good aspects in this movie, it is ultimately very shallow. I agree with Valaquen; it's mainly the film's aesthetics that are its redeeming quality. However, I don't think Alien 3 is as hated as it was back in the day, a lot of fans look pretty deeply and excuse this film's flaws.
Quotekilled off Hicks and Newt at the start of the film.
Now you have to give the movie a break there, the new charecters need more screen time so they could develop themselfs and not just be random
Quotemurders and rapists and whatnot
see if, lets say if Dallas, Bret, Lambert, or Parker had survived the first film
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi43.tinypic.com%2F2qmlu0x.jpg&hash=7666995654fef451d5a0bd0c20fda5ef35a6bd85)
now I'm not an expert but i know we would care more about one of these charecters and Ripley more than Newt, Hicks, Hudson, Bishop,Vasquez, or Gorman
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi43.tinypic.com%2F66i79j.jpg&hash=4ffebdb388a426514bf23fac78d37c0ffd13db59)
You only care about these charecters because you've grown to know and love them as charecters, and without that,
they'd be nothing bet you don't remember Lydecker and his personality, do you? ( don't bullshit me with some "oh i remember him!")
Quotethe fact Ripley dies at the end
The Only reason i've seen people hating this is Because of ressurection ( witch unfortunetly bullshited it's way into production)
this scene adds depth to the charecter of ripley, instead of going with the human Bishop she sacrifices herself to keep the Alien queen out of the company's hands, and by doing this she saved the galaxy, it's sad but at the same time
heart-warming, you see the triumph over the xenomorphs and more importantly the company, the people who started the nightmare in the firs place
because it's not very interesting. it's a nice movie with beautiful visuals and the best score of all movies, but its more of the same. they had the balls to kill off two main characters but not to do much else of what the original draft ambitioned.
...and i might be the only one that kinda likes the murder/rapist bald guys. they're funny.
Quote from: Basher917 on Oct 30, 2011, 09:44:28 PM
...You only care about these charecters because you've grown to know and love them as charecters, and without that, they'd be nothing
bet you don't remember Lydecker and his personality, do you? ( don't bullshit me with some "oh i remember him!")
...
Thus, I presume, you have answered your title question on your own: Alien/Aliens are so "people's" movies, opposed to Alien^3, which is obviously not and looks like a slasher story shoved into the Alien universe's frames.
I really do not want to aggravate you, but I do remember who's Lydecker, I memorized him by name, when the second, fat guy called him and pointed out at the kids, rollicking down in the corridor. Though, I can't say anything about his personality, as he was on-screen merely a couple of minutes or somewhat (director's cut).
And in my opinion, Ripley's death doesn't impart a lot of depth there. It's weirdly, but she feels like already being dead (figuratively) from the very beginning. On Morse's cry-out to thrust her head through the wall, she just whispers: "It sounds good to me". Touche!
Nice pictures! Love this scene from Alien, so real one!
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Oct 30, 2011, 10:05:33 PM
...and i might be the only one that kinda likes the murder/rapist bald guys. they're funny.
I personally root for Morse here :-)
I love the Assembly Cut but hate the Theatrical cut. So BOOM!
Alien 3 kicks ass! I dont understand why people hate it. Yes, Hicks and Newt died but at least they had an
awesome funeral. I want to be buried like that
Many of the producers have said in interviews that Alien 3 initially got such bad reviews because after Aliens, audiences were expecting a much different kind of movie; probably more like Aliens and less of a regression to the original Alien style. A lot of the characters were also very hard to identify being as they were practically all bald. The reason I'm not fond of this film is because it killed off all the characters from the 2nd film.
Because it sucked compared to ALIENS.
It also killed off our favourite characters. At the end of ALIENS we all feel glad knowing that Ripley, Newt and Hicks are ok. Then all of a sudden in A3, BAM! Hicks and Newt die. Now that made me start disliking the movie before it had barely gotten started.
The quality of the movie was not up to scratch with ALIENS and it had nowhere near the same amount of horror value in regards to the alien.
I must say though, any sequel to ALIENS was going to be hard to make.
People dislike it because it's just not that good a movie. It's flawed to hell.
People hate it because they can't get Cameron's dick out of their mouth.
Yeah, I went there.
Well 'Aliens' was a legitimately good movie and all, there's a reason why it's an enduring classic. :P
Sure. But the hatred A³ gets because people get stuck on it is retarded.
There's plenty in the movie to dislike on its own merits.
I didn't care about the prisoners. I did like the idea of fighting the perfect organism without any guns. But it just lacked the emotion of the previous films.
Alien 3 isn't a bad movie, it just doesn't hold up to the first two.
The cast consisted of a bunch of generic bald English guys with no real defining characteristics, the creature effects were pathetic & the whole story, aside from giving (unnecessary) closure to Ripley's saga, was completely pointless.
Quote from: Stalker on Oct 31, 2011, 07:44:15 AM
... (unnecessary) closure to Ripley's saga...
Yet, I surmise, was it filmed like a standalone film (not connected to Alien series, named another way and having different actress playing some female surviver), it could be more surprising in a good way and less predictable.
That's not the way it panned out though.
Quote from: aliennaire on Oct 31, 2011, 07:55:38 AM
Quote from: Stalker on Oct 31, 2011, 07:44:15 AM
... closure to Ripley's saga, was completely pointless.
Yet, I surmise, was it filmed like a standalone film (not connected to Alien series, named another way and having different actress playing some female surviver), it could be more surprising in a good way and less predictable.
Then it wouldn't even be
Alien, & we wouldn't be talking about it in the first place.
People tend to hate the theatrical cut because of how choppy it's cut, whereas the assembly cut (especially the blu-ray version) has been considered a worthy sequel too the first two.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 31, 2011, 04:39:31 AM
People hate it because they can't get Cameron's dick out of their mouth.
Yeah, I went there.
I agree.
Quote from: Stalker on Oct 31, 2011, 07:59:36 AM
Then it wouldn't even be Alien, & we wouldn't be talking about it in the first place.
...And that's what I meant!
:-)
(However, I seem to go off topic here with a such statement *sighs, leaves this thread*)
PS. Also as I said, I don't hate Alien^3.
Particularily, I just can't tether it to the two previous movies. My main issue isn't death of the Aliens survivers (including Ripley), nor similarity of the prisoners or whatever else - it's Ripley herself, who doesn't look now the strong, resolute, resourceful heroine, which I admired before. And that is my personal take on it. :-)
Quote from: aliennaire on Oct 31, 2011, 08:44:10 AM
it's Ripley herself, who doesn't look now the strong, resolute, resourceful heroine, which I admired before. And that is my personal take on it. :-)
The fact that she doesn't kill herself right after she's discovered everyone is dead shows how strong she is. Ripley, despite all the hellish things she goes through in alien 3 manages to hold on to some hope that all can be saved. And she was right until 200 years later.
I DISLIKE Alien3 (not hate) pretty much because of the reasons people have already stated.
I did like the movie as a kid, but now it just doesn't hold up. I'm finding it incredibly boring and irrelevant. It really doesn't add anything to the Alien biology itself.... while ALIEN and ALIENS did. People wanted to see more of the Xenomorph in this movie like they did in ALIENS, but they didn't get that. Instead Alien3 tries too hard to be a character-study with the Alien just as a sub-plot or something. With that in mind, I do think Alien3 is a good, stand-alone movie, but not as an Alien movie.
I kind of think Resurrection AND AVP as Alien flicks are better than Alien3. I would perhaps even LIKE Resurrection if it wasn't for the fact it depends on Alien3 as a prior history.
The plot-holes in Alien3 like how the egg got on board are just too many. I could even mention how strange it is that Ripley KNOWS she has a Queen inside of her. Some of the movies, especially Alien3 seem to give Ripley way too much credit for what she knows about the Alien.... she knows things that some people in her position would simply just not know.
QuoteIt really doesn't add anything to the Alien biology itself.... while ALIEN and ALIENS did.
Well, other than doing interesting things with the "traits from the host" idea, that is. :P
Always loved the movie and it got me into the franchise back in 93. Loved and still love the eerie vibe and feel. Its very unlike the first and the second and follows a different plot structure, yet it shares whats most important with the first 2 - treating the subject as serious as a heart attack, and like in the second one, the monster is just a background for a human character drama and centers around Ripleys personal emotional journey
I've always disliked (not hated however) this movie for a variety of reason:
- Hicks & Newt are killed off. Looking back, this makes a lot of the events in Aliens now just pointless.
- Alien is just odd and bad looking (effects-wise)
- I guess I just expected something different. More like a movie where were learn MORE about the xeno.
- Plot-holes (after I grew up and watched in more)
I love the movie. It's a major part of the Aliens franchise, though not the most liked.
I just did not like the look and tone of the film. Maybe i am still hating it, because Alien and Aliens were a big thing for me when i was a kid. then when A3 came out i was gutted that it never lived up to the success of the first 2 films. It was one of them films, were i was trying to force myself to like it, but deep down i hated most things about it. I know it is not a bad film, but the damage was done for me back in 92 and everytime i try to watch A3 i just hate it. :( However A3 does have one of my all time favorite movie moments, and that is when the Alien puts its head next to Ripleys.
Most people simply hate it, because it's the first film in the series that was rather mediocre and nothing outstanding like it's predecessors.
I for myself found that it ruined a great potential plot with Newt and Hicks by just killing them off and having Ripley run through corridor after corridor. There was nothing special about it and all the subtle things that made the movies before so special were just gone. There's never the feeling of a "Threat" in the film. Why? Because most of the victims are just low life criminal scum. How can you ask a viewer to identify with that bunch of people? When the Runner kills those prisoners it's never really intense... it just happens. In Aliens you really felt for each and every marine as they were about to die... there's not one scene in "Aliens" or "Alien" were you go... uh well... that's just another death... whereas in alien 3, you have plenty of those killings which you simply don't give a shit...
Quote from: Alien³ on Oct 31, 2011, 08:54:24 AM
The fact that she doesn't kill herself right after she's discovered everyone is dead shows how strong she is. Ripley, despite all the hellish things she goes through in alien 3 manages to hold on to some hope that all can be saved. And she was right until 200 years later.
The fact that she doesn't kill herself straight away in A^3 means nothing to me, because she endured loss of her biological daughter, relatives, contemporaries, everyone who she had known
all her life before wake-up in the beginning of Aliens. Then why should she commit suicide for the orphan girl and the marine, whom she was acquainted with only 24 and something hours? Instead she grows numb, though.
Also it doesn't seem to me, that Ripley has a firm hope about salvage, she just drifts through the movie, automatically performing what she is programmed to do, i. e. to kill alien, what she was doing twice before.
Alien³, I think it's quite interesting topic to discuss various Ripley's behaviour in each film for a separate thread, lest to divert the current one, what will you say? ;-)
Over time people grow to love this movie, I've seen it happen, and it definitely happened with me. Hell, I can't even remember why i hated it in the first place.
I don't hate Alien3. I just find the film very mediocre and generic.
First of all, I have nothing against Newt and Hicks dying off-screen. Sure, it's a slap in the face, but in a way it just shows how bleak and hopeless the whole "Alien universe" is supposed to be. Come on, this is - in essence - a horror movie franchise we're talking about here! Everything's not supposed to be rosy, and even the nice guys get killed.
Secondly, I think the concept of the film is solid and interesting. The idea of bringing religion and some very archaic elements such as oxes into a science fiction film is certainly intriguing. Unfortunately, at least for me, the film never develops anywhere from the promising beginning. Most of the characters seem like caricatures, and the actors don't do a very convincing job either. The only exception might be Charles Dance, whose performance in the film I've always admired. The religious themes are ultimately just bad dialogue and thus shallow, and I've never felt there's any kind of believable interaction between the characters (with, again, the exception of Clemens and Ripley). Two scenes come to my mind in particular. The rape scene, where one the inmates screams in an utterly ridiculous matter. The other scene is the one where some inmate threatens to "bash Ripley's head through a wall" or something of that matter, which is acted and directed in a very mediocre way, never making me feel there's any actual threat to Ripley at all.
Another bad element in the film is the alien itself. The poor thing just seems like a generic movie monster, hissing and grunting and so on. It completely lacks the "majestic strangeness" of the original one. Of course, one could argue that after Aliens it would have been pointless to try and turn the direction Cameron went with the monster(s). However, when there's just one alien involved, it think it would have been very important to present it in a genuinely terrifying way, and this is not done.
I have spoken.
I find this to be a fresh response over all the posts I have read on this topic over the years. At least to me. Mostly because it's been so long since I've even read anything.
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Oct 31, 2011, 07:51:38 PM
The other scene is the one where some inmate threatens to "bash Ripley's head through a wall" or something of that matter,
::)
Quote from: Alien³ on Oct 31, 2011, 08:02:24 PM
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Oct 31, 2011, 07:51:38 PM
The other scene is the one where some inmate threatens to "bash Ripley's head through a wall" or something of that matter,
::)
that's what i do whenever i see some of the exuses people make to hate this film
People don't "make excuses" to hate the film; they simply don't like it. If you can't comprehend that, it's only because you don't understand their perspective. No eye-rolling necessary.
My reasons are much like everyone else's.
The premise for the film is a premise that James Cameron said was something HE didn't want to do when he was doing aliens. He said he could have just had Ripley at the end of Alien float back to the planet or something to have a sequel but Cameron needed depth - he added the emotional depth to Ripley's character and gave her a REASON to tangle with the alien again.
So the premise that "Oh no there's an alien on board" is terrible.
Ripley at the end of Aliens had expunged her "nightmare". "Can I dream" "Yes honey, I think we both can" was a very fitting finish which is completely destroyed by Alien 3 - Hicks and Newt killed and Ripley dieing at the end.
I also hate the theme of self sacrifice in terms of her death. It's like the Alien won. At the end of Aliens, Ripley had won but that is all turned on its head.
They should of at least kept Newt alive in A3, because the would of been soo much more suspense and terror. because it would of been more horror for Ripley to try and fight the Alien with afew sane people but also try and protect newt from peadofiles.
Originally in the Alan Dean Foster novelization, the author was going to have Newt survive but be trapped in cryosleep in her tube. Apparently waking her would be too dangerous and she would have to stay asleep until technology advanced enough for her to be safely released; this would have given Ripley more purpose to fight the Alien. Unfortunately, the people behind the film forced him to stick to the script. :(
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Oct 31, 2011, 07:51:38 PM
Another bad element in the film is the alien itself. The poor thing just seems like a generic movie monster, hissing and grunting and so on. It completely lacks the "majestic strangeness" of the original one. Of course, one could argue that after Aliens it would have been pointless to try and turn the direction Cameron went with the monster(s). However, when there's just one alien involved, it think it would have been very important to present it in a genuinely terrifying way, and this is not done
I think that despite the cannon fodder image that
ALIENS has, it still keeps more in line with the horror and intimidation that the xeno's should bring to the screen, which
Alien 3 failed to bring to the table. Sure,
Alien 3's chestbursting scene is horrific, but from there on it's just another slasher monster. Disappointing.
What about the disturbing shot of it hiding away in the dark hole beneath Murphy's feet in the air shaft?
I like Alien 3, but my experience with it varies from others. Alien 3 was the first Alien film I saw. I knew right away that it was special and enjoyed it immensely. When Newt and Hicks died in the intro it had no effect on me. Of course after re-watching the crap out of Alien 3 I watched 1 and 2. I then realized that 3 was a weaker film but I still loved it, in particular I love Ripley's sacrifice. My only problem with 3 is the egg on the Sulaco. The series with Ripley should have ended with 3; I don't know why they felt an Alien film had to have Sigourney Weaver. Resurrection was a travesty.
I actually break the Aliens and Predators universe up into three trilogies. The Predator trilogy Predator, Predator 2 (an under rated film) and Predators. The Alien Trilogy Alien, Aliens and Alien 3 (another under rated film). The so freaking awful it makes my eyes bleed trilogy Alien Resurrection, AVP and AVPR.
Quote from: DemonicD13 on Nov 01, 2011, 09:55:37 PM
I actually break the Aliens and Predators universe up into three trilogies. The Predator trilogy Predator, Predator 2 (an under rated film) and Predators. The Alien Trilogy Alien, Aliens and Alien 3 (another under rated film). The so freaking awful it makes my eyes bleed trilogy Alien Resurrection, AVP and AVPR.
Great Scott! I think you just hit the nail on the head!
I like Alien 3, but I find it frustrating.
It really was so close to being a masterpiece. It had everything going for it. A great cast, nice sets, a promising new director, great animatronics and so much more.
The first two films hit the nail on the head as the finest in science fiction horror, but this one just missed it, and only came out pretty decent. It is not nearly as bad as it could have been, otherwise I wouldn't like it.
It still makes me wonder what could have been if the same fate of the first two films awaited this one. There is a masterpiece in here. You can see it every now and then, but it never fully takes hold.
QuoteIt really was so close to being a masterpiece. It had everything going for it. A great cast, nice sets, a promising new director, great animatronics and so much more.
Shows the importance of having something approximating a coherent script.
Alien 3 suffers from a very rare and odd film condition.
It starts out great, looses steam, gets muddied down in the middle, but finishes up on a high note.
I have only seen it happen twice.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Nov 02, 2011, 02:26:46 AM
Alien 3 suffers from a very rare and odd film condition.
It starts out great, looses steam, gets muddied down in the middle, but finishes up on a high note.
I have only seen it happen twice.
What was the other time?
Halloween H20.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Nov 02, 2011, 02:17:35 AM
I like Alien 3, but I find it frustrating.
It really was so close to being a masterpiece. It had everything going for it. A great cast, nice sets, a promising new director, great animatronics and so much more.
The first two films hit the nail on the head as the finest in science fiction horror, but this one just missed it, and only came out pretty decent. It is not nearly as bad as it could have been, otherwise I wouldn't like it.
It still makes me wonder what could have been if the same fate of the first two films awaited this one. There is a masterpiece in here. You can see it every now and then, but it never fully takes hold.
Totally agree. I trully think that if they had Fincher do exactly what he wanted, the movie would be amazing. (dont know if the shitty Alien fx where his fault too tho....)
I liked Alien 3, I was unsure when I first saw it, but I know I like it now. I didn't really like that Newt and Hicks were killed off, especially at the beginning. I was confused how an egg was onboard and how the other facehugger didn't die in the crash. But I found the new characters ok and Dillon was quite an interesting character. Ripley wasn't bad in the movie but she was just acting like anybody else would if others were in the same position. The Runner was pretty cool, though not as stocky and big as it's predesecors, was nice.
I love Alien 3 more so the Assembly Cut. The religious subtext of the film I find fascinating. It's just to bad the film never had a script to film because no one could make up there minds. And I thought killing off Newt and Hicks at the beginning was a brilliant move. Set the tone perfectly for the movie.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 31, 2011, 04:39:31 AM
People dislike it because it's just not that good a movie. It's flawed to hell.
Pretty much! And it doesn't help any would-be 'hidden masterpiece' mystique that its own director called it "shit" a long time ago. Not just the interference, but the finished product.
Were people looking forward to something which upped the stakes as much as '
Aliens' had, in terms of threat? Absolutely. That amazing teaser for "On Earth, everyone can hear you scream..." It speaks volumes that it's still iconic, today - and for a film which never even ultimately came to be!
What we ended up
getting were incredibly generic characters and a supposed monster which never, not even once, came across as the least bit horrifying or scary. This last bit could've potentially been its saving grace, since people were going to see it on the premise of basically seeing Ripley having to face one of the scariest movie monsters in history, but there isn't a scene where it actually comes across like that. This really injured its chances, since it was (rightly) hyped as a horror film, but failed to have any real horror in it.
And no, I don't regard the 'dogburster' as horror. Vile and a bit gratuitously sickening, yes (I genuinely feel it was portrayed way over the top), but not
horrifying.
This extended to the prisoners, too. Not only because of the nonsensical decision to make them all bald (I know the story gave it a reason, but why even have the 'lice infestation' thing as a plot point, in the first place?), but because, aside from Dillon, 85 and the Superintendent, none of them really had memorable personalities. It wasn't just that we had no emotional incentive to care about them, it was just that they were fairly interchangeable. There was a real sense that the production's idea of giving them characteristics was the same as that for '
Predator 2' - have them swear so much, that eventually, the swearing, itself, lost any value/impact.
And yes, I know it was set in a prison, but there's a saturation point for cursing, where it just gets...
Boring and you can tell the script is using it as a time-filler. Even the verbal threats against Ripley lost any real dramatic weight because of that.
Also, while the merits of killing Hicks/Newt off can be debated (I'm betting if they could've got ahold of Hicks' actor, they would've seriously considered using him), their
deaths came across as pointless. Killing a main character off is perfectly acceptable when there's a dramatic meaning behind it, but it was the equivelant of Spiderman saving the day, only to get run over by a bus on the way home. An anti-climax.
And with the over all depressing atmosphere of the film (note, it's always considered depressing, as opposed to tension-building, as per '
Alien'), that anti-climactic feel just... Hangs in the air. It doesn't go anywhere and the rest of the film's content feels stagnant as a result.
As for why it's often compared to '
Alien Resurrection', I'd say it's done so for similar reason as '
Terminator 3' is compared to '
Terminator Salvation': They're both two last entries in a quadrilogy of films, where the first two are seen as excellent.
'
Alien 3'/'
Terminator 3' had some good points (in the former's case, the music and starting/ending credit sequences are fantastic), but also a lot of bad ones. The successors to both ended up coming up with remedies to what the third instalments did bad, but wound up having flaws of their own.
And let's not forget the biggest annoyance of all... THAT f**kING UNEXPLAINED EGG! Just by including it at the very start of the film without explanation, the viewer is basically being given the signal of, "You're not
meant to question this film and it's going to be really surreal and strange. Enjoy!" And most of the audience mentally reacts with a very justifiable WTF.
'
Alien 3' is depressing, non-scary and also suffers from killing off most of its
own best characters early on (the Doctor/the Superintendent), without giving a balance of the deaths having much of an emotional consequence. The Alien, itself, commits the cardinal sin of being neither scary, mysterious or enigmatic. It manages to become the
opposite of what the Alien's portrayal had high expectations of being: A generic space monster interested only in random and senseless body counts.
Only once does this show signs of resulting in something different: When Ripley goes to face it alone. But all we see is it moving
to face her and then the camera cuts away.
'
Alien Resurrection' tried to improve on various parts of those angles... Having more than one creature, giving a time-critical ticking time-bomb effect (ship automatically heads to Earth), introducing a fascinating question about the psychology of mixing human and Alien DNA in the same creatures. Yet, managed to handle those aspects in the most ridiculously superficial ways, for the most part and made the Newborn something nobody the audience feared, but just wanted a normal Alien to come along and kill.
That's not to say the third and fourth films don't have its merits (Sigourney's portrayal of an Alien-influenced Ripley, in particular, is great). They do. But it's hard to feel sympathetic with a product where the flaws vastly outweigh (in most peoples' minds) the otherwise positive traits. Especially when those flaws affect the very foundations of the characters, setting and stories.
It's like the two '
Alien Versus Predator' films: There are positive points for both (although, arguably, far more for the first than second). But you find yourself either simply disliking them or, as I did, simply feeling apathetic and unable to emotionally engage with them.
With that said, I have seen the extended edition of '
Alien 3', but still didn't find myself caring very much for it as a film.
There's just something about Alien 3, maybe it's that it's unnecessarily depressing. Killing off Newt and Hicks was a BIG mistake, and honestly Alien 3 wasn't so much scary or horror as it was just sad and had this very somber tone about it. Alien was about atomsphere, Aliens was about exciting action, and Alien 3 was about depression and futility.
QuoteI'm betting if they could've got ahold of Hicks' actor, they would've seriously considered using him
Why would they not been able to get a hold of Biehn? He was expecting the call for Alien 3.
Quote from: Gunflyer on Nov 30, 2011, 03:26:35 AM
There's just something about Alien 3, maybe it's that it's unnecessarily depressing. Killing off Newt and Hicks was a BIG mistake, and honestly Alien 3 wasn't so much scary or horror as it was just sad and had this very somber tone about it. Alien was about atomsphere, Aliens was about exciting action, and Alien 3 was about depression and futility.
Which is why I loved it. I'm not an emo guy but for that movie it just worked.
in fact he charged more for using his likeness than he planned to charge for acting out of spite.
Quote from: SM on Nov 30, 2011, 03:29:53 AM
Why would they not been able to get a hold of Biehn? He was expecting the call for Alien 3.
Hmm, I could be mistaken... Thought there was something about a Fox executive or one of the producers decreeing not to because of presuming he'd demand a higher fee or something.
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Nov 30, 2011, 03:33:19 AM
in fact he charged more for using his likeness than he planned to charge for acting out of spite.
Which is why I have a weird sense of irony associated with remembering it... I might have it completely wrong.
There's no doubt he would've demanded a higher fee. He certainly wouldn't have taken less than he did for Aliens. He was the star of the Gibson script till they decided to ditch that story.
He says in the Quad interviews that he expected after Aliens he'd team up with Ripley in some way and fight the Aliens (which is what a lot of people would've expected).
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Nov 30, 2011, 03:33:19 AM
in fact he charged more for using his likeness than he planned to charge for acting out of spite.
Biehn got paid more for his picture in
A³ than he did for his role in
Aliens.
Xenomorphine, you got my reverence on how accurately and impartially you have enumerated Alien^3's flaws and disappointments. I think your succinct analysis is one of the best accounts on the matter I've read before, trying to compare my own vision on this film to anothers'. You did a good job! :-)
Yes, MB was never asked to reprise his role of Hicks at the third installlment, and as it happened, he merely accidentally came to know about his character death in A^3. Surely, the cheque wouldn't be the reason of his expelling out of the cast (considering all the sums wasted on built, but never used decorations and the pile of scripts). But personally for me, Hicks' and Newt's deaths weren't so shock-inducing, when I saw A^3 the first time, Ripley's gradual debasing and losing her iconic heroine's charm "killed" this movie to me.
But apart of that, if to examine A^3 from the point of what character is the average viewer meant to follow and associate himself/herself with, I even fing this film ...insulting. We have Lambert in the Alien, who expresses feelings and emotions and conveys realistic line of behaviour for generic public, have they ever met Xeno face-to-face in the real life; Aliens give us Hudson. Whom should we potray ourselves with in the A^3 before Ripley performs her final deed and eliminates all monsters?.. Seeing as the only survived to the last scene "positive" character is Aaron, I guess, we were supposed to ascribe ourselves to him.
And now tell me, what reason on Earth for should I highten my opinion of this film, if it treats me as a guy with 85 points of intelligence quotient? :)
Seems most people hate it for two reasons. One, they killed off all the survivors from the best movie ever and second, people said it was just a bunch of guys running around screaming their heads off.
I thought it was a good movie, however I still hate the fact that they just offed newt and hicks like that. Really poor taste.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Nov 29, 2011, 10:11:44 PM
It's like the two 'Alien Versus Predator' films
Ouch man. Ouch.
To tell you the truth I'd rather watch AVP 1 and 2 than Alien 3.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa278%2FJakeLucy%2Fbaby-gtfo.gif&hash=0e38b4daf064807dff363f50369abd9605a8117d)
The only reason there is even a debate over whether alien 3 or avpr is worst is because there has never been a alien Christmas special. I mean wtf is up with that. Star wars got one.
...
There's never been a debate about Alien3 being better or worse than AvP:Poo.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Nov 30, 2011, 10:50:21 PM
The only reason there is even a debate over whether alien 3 or avpr is worst is because there has never been a alien Christmas special. I mean wtf is up with that. Star wars got one.
...
Yeah we all want to know what Xenos do during Christmas.
Well in space thank God it's them instead of yoooooouuuuuuuuu
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falternativeclassix.blogs.com%2Fphotos%2Funcategorized%2Fbandaid.jpg&hash=3e75a3a79dbf982fa33f8681240df4701da628f6)
And there won't be snow on Acheron this Christmas time...
Quote from: SM on Nov 30, 2011, 10:52:31 PM
There's never been a debate about Alien3 being better or worse than AvP:Poo.
Yeah, I've never seen the comparison made ???
Quote from: Valaquen on Nov 30, 2011, 11:00:52 PM
Quote from: SM on Nov 30, 2011, 10:52:31 PM
There's never been a debate about Alien3 being better or worse than AvP:Poo.
Yeah, I've never seen the comparison made ???
There is no comparison to be made between art and shit.
Yeah I didnt care for Alien3 as much as the first two. It was pretty good though. Especially the version I saw. ;D
AVP:R ectum on the other hand.....I wanted to chop down innocent children.
Quote from: The Runner on Nov 30, 2011, 11:04:47 PM
There is no comparison to be made between art and shit
Though I am quite fond of Dan O'Bannon's quote that "there is such a thing as bad art," I have to agree that there is no 'competition' between these two movies. Alien 3 may be a mess but it ticked the boxes for visuals, music, and acting.
Just for the record... alien 3 is better than avp and avpr. Now ar vs avp...
A:R was meh.
AVP the same.
AVP did have pretty visuals though you had to hand it that.
And f**k all else.
Which puts it behind Resurrection in every respect.
The characters all looked the same, so it was hard to identify with them or tell them apart.
Most of all though they killed off Hicks and Newt in the beginning. It basically made Aliens seem pointless.
I can handle that they killed Ripley at the end. It was a very emotional thing and, even though I do not like it, it IS a fitting end for Ripley's story. She died taking out the alien. That ending took guts.
Quote from: Gunflyer on Nov 30, 2011, 09:52:32 PM
To tell you the truth I'd rather watch AVP 1 and 2 than Alien 3.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2Fvdk9kj.jpg&hash=455a64a63a56e764a11e7174f947ab8da168104f)
More an opinion than an argument.
Quote from: SM on Dec 01, 2011, 12:18:19 AM
More an opinion than an argument.
He was arguing I saw him do it.
Quote from: Gunflyer on Nov 30, 2011, 09:52:32 PM
To tell you the truth I'd rather watch AVP 1 and 2 than Alien 3.
BLASPHEMY!
A family has 4 kids, the 1st Discovers lost treasures, the 2nd uncovers the theory of evolution, the 3rd goes to prison, the 4th creates a new species.
Now I know a families all about the love but if you were the parents being held at gun point forced to say which one you think is the f**k up, who would you pick?
:D
Life takes unexpected turns and so does the storyline for Alien3. It's unusual. While we plan our lives based on our expectations for it, Alien3 stands as an example of the life taking an unexpected turn...for the worse. Seeing the unexpected makes people uncomfortable. That's why people hate Alien3.
I don't mind Ripley dying; it somehow fits IMO, however I think that the movie was horribly written. I never understood how they could think it a good idea to kill Newt and Hicks. If the movie had been somehow about saving them it would have drawn us in more and made Ridpley's sacrifice that much more affecting. Instead, they opted for the darkest road, hoping it would increase the sense of danger, and then filled the movie with unlikeable nobodies. Suddenly the characters we know and love are thrown away (literally) and replaced by rapists and murderers... and we are suddenly meant to give a shit when they get gutted?
That's also why people hate Alien3.
-Chris.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Dec 01, 2011, 07:28:15 AM
I don't mind Ripley dying; it somehow fits IMO, however I think that the movie was horribly written. I never understood how they could think it a good idea to kill Newt and Hicks. If the movie had been somehow about saving them it would have drawn us in more and made Ridpley's sacrifice that much more affecting. Instead, they opted for the darkest road, hoping it would increase the sense of danger, and then filled the movie with unlikeable nobodies. Suddenly the characters we know and love are thrown away (literally) and replaced by rapists and murderers... and we are suddenly meant to give a shit when they get gutted?
That's also why people hate Alien3.
-Chris.
I loved Hicks and Newt in Aliens, but I am pretty sure I won´t like em in another Alien movie. Maybe they should been used offscreen and not killing em or whatever, but I wasn´t expecting or wanting to see them again. have a non anoying kid in aliens was a big achievement. It would be hard to keep it in another movie. For me, not having this two is not a problem of Alien 3, and I guess this helps a lot if you wanna like it...
Quote from: Tough little S.O.B. on Dec 01, 2011, 07:33:34 AMFor me, not having this two is not a problem of Alien 3
I agree that they shouldn't of been in it, at least not as onscreen characters, but killing them at the start of the film twisted the whole feel of the movie towards bland, grinding hopelessness. Ripley suddenly became Mad Max without the GT Falcon Coupe, or (more importantly) a dog! I personally might of cared a bit more if she had had a cattle dog. ;)
-Chris.
Quote from: Ash 937 on Dec 01, 2011, 04:12:08 AM
Life takes unexpected turns and so does the storyline for Alien3. It's unusual. While we plan our lives based on our expectations for it, Alien3 stands as an example of the life taking an unexpected turn...for the worse. Seeing the unexpected makes people uncomfortable. That's why people hate Alien3.
People hate Alien^3 not for the turn to the worse (first two installment weren't all the beer and skittles, too), but for the statement, that there is no escape off the quagmire, once you get in it, which is actually depressing and conveying the idea of fatalism. Which is far out of the line for the science fiction content, the genre, deepening into our psychology and trying to allude some scientific foundation to fenomena (real or notional) around us.
Quote from: Ash 937 on Dec 01, 2011, 04:12:08 AM
Life takes unexpected turns and so does the storyline for Alien3. It's unusual. While we plan our lives based on our expectations for it, Alien3 stands as an example of the life taking an unexpected turn...for the worse. Seeing the unexpected makes people uncomfortable. That's why people hate Alien3.
You got that right! I used to hate Alien³ after watching it for the first time, but now, I don't.
Quote from: aliennaire on Dec 01, 2011, 08:54:59 AM...that there is no escape off the quagmire... depressing
That's exactly it. Is poor Ripley doomed to relive the same tropes over and over again? Is everything she ever had to be repeatedly taken from her? Even her luscious dark curls!?
This is science
fiction. We need to care about the story and identify with the people in it. We don't have to like them, we just need to be able to make some parallel between them and ourselves or our loved ones. I am all for our movie heroes going through dark times, but Alien 3 was just way off the mark. So off the mark that I was actually relieved when Ripley plummeted into the smelter. Finally, some peace.
-Chris.
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Dec 01, 2011, 10:25:44 AM
Quote from: aliennaire on Dec 01, 2011, 08:54:59 AM...that there is no escape off the quagmire... depressing
That's exactly it. Is poor Ripley doomed to relive the same tropes over and over again? Is everything she ever had to be repeatedly taken from her? Even her luscious dark curls!?
If so, there might have been an explanation for all this, you know :D Which the third installment never tried to elucidate, whether she was punished for something to end up such ignominous and horrendous way, as A^3 offered it. The idea to plunge in the molten metal just for the sake of eye-pleasing picture never worked for me, sorry, nor gave the feeling of ease either. If those greedy company guys and semi-demented ex-prisoner were meant to represent the average streak of Earth's population in that time, than I'm not sure was it worth to save them from Alien plague at all ;)
I'm not sure if alien 3 even qualifies as sci-fi. It's more so just plain horror.
When i was growing up and watched Alien 3 for the first time i was a bit lost for words. In the respect that the movie had clear plot holes , it was all over the place and was clearly not as well thought out as the previous two films. When i watched the making of it as i am sure a lot of you did, a lot of my questions were then answered.
The simple fact they never at one point had a finished script says it all. As a director or even a bloody producer you will find it almost impossible to do your job if you don't have a finished script.It's just madness. Also watching the making of it was clear to see he did not even have the backing of the studio. That on top of having no script and it being your first feature film i just feel sorry for David Fincher. It was destined for this film not to be a success, who ever the director. i take my hat of to Mr Fincher because something like this would ruin your career and put you of on working on features all together. The fact this didn't effect him and he's gone on to become one of the most successful directors of the past decade is just amazing and very inspirational.
Alien 3 is full of plot holes and mistakes. But it's shot and lit exceptionally well. I would think it's shot better than Aliens and Resurrection. The mood and sets are pretty good as well. The cast is overall the most talented of all the alien films. I am not saying the previous films haven't had good actors in but they have never all been on point. I feel alien 3 which probably has the biggest cast out of all the films has the most talented group of actors. it's a real shame the movie turned out the way it did, because it does have heart and soul but just a very poorly put together script....unfinished script even ;)
Quote from: Hicks101 on Dec 01, 2011, 11:15:55 AMThe cast is overall the most talented of all the alien films
RIP Pete Postlethwaite.
-Chris.
Quote from: Hicks101 on Dec 01, 2011, 11:15:55 AMThe cast is overall the most talented of all the alien films
I agree however whether they give it all they've got is another kettle of fish. And that's me talking!
Quote from: Alien³ on Dec 01, 2011, 01:06:35 PM
Quote from: Hicks101 on Dec 01, 2011, 11:15:55 AMThe cast is overall the most talented of all the alien films
I agree however whether they give it all they've got is another kettle of fish. And that's me talking!
Perhaps if the director had a finished script he could of given them better direction. I agree some of them could of done better and because of it, they kinda merge all together and don't have that much individual character. Why are all the criminals english?
Weird
Quote from: Hicks101 on Dec 01, 2011, 01:10:37 PM
Perhaps if the director had a finished script he could of given them better direction. I agree some of them could of done better and because of it, they kinda merge all together and don't have that much individual character. Why are all the criminals english?
Weird
Because it was filmed at Pinewood Studios in England. Not all of them were English ;)
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Dec 01, 2011, 01:30:54 PM
Quote from: Hicks101 on Dec 01, 2011, 01:10:37 PM
Perhaps if the director had a finished script he could of given them better direction. I agree some of them could of done better and because of it, they kinda merge all together and don't have that much individual character. Why are all the criminals english?
Weird
Because it was filmed at Pinewood Studios in England. Not all of them were English ;)
I think there was one non english inmate.
Quote from: Hicks101 on Dec 01, 2011, 02:24:26 PM
I think there was one non english inmate.
Junior (Holt McCallany) American.
Dillon (Charles S. Dutton) American.
Thats two...and i believe a few more.
Boggs and Rains are played as Americans.
I remember the biggest thing people nit pick about Alien 3 was the pod on the ship and people talk about how it was a huge plot hole. It's most likely that the Queen made a extra egg before the end of Aliens.
Hix and Noot were murdered, I say!
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Dec 01, 2011, 11:56:07 PM
I remember the biggest thing people nit pick about Alien 3 was the pod on the ship and people talk about how it was a huge plot hole. It's most likely that the Queen made a extra egg before the end of Aliens.
The plot hole is more its position than its existance.
I used to hate Alien3, but then they made Alien: Resurrection, which i hate even more.
Alien 3 is'nt that bad, the assembly cut version is a little better too.
I liked it. Who cares if they killed off the characters in the second film.
Did I or someone else already post this?
http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2011/05/10-screenwriting-mistakes-to-avoid.html (http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2011/05/10-screenwriting-mistakes-to-avoid.html)
I watched the Assembly Cut again the other day. The ADR improves it, but it's still inferior to the theatrcial cut in almost every respect.
Gotta disagree there, if nothing else the extended cut's added scenes help make a lot of the prisoners be more than (literally) nameless nobodies.
I much prefer the assembly cut.
Still, it just doesn't work for me nearly as well as the first two movies. It feels less engaging, maybe because there's really no reason for our main character to go on from the onset, and nobody else is all the interesting.
Boggs and Rains get one whole scene where they reinforce their dislike of Golic. Big whoop. The abbatoir scene doesn't add anything to Frank and Murphy beyond the bleeding obvious. Especially considering three of these four characters are dead before the halfway point and the fourth shortly after. The extended prayer scenes add nothing, and are generally redundant. Ripley trying to convince Aaron/ Dillon about the Company's intentions only needs to be said once, and not three times (or was it four?). And the scene where they stand around and Dillon tells them what's they're going to do, only for them to run off somewhere else is possibly the most pointless scene in the film, which was wisely cut even from the workprint.
They're still faceless nobodies.
And add to that it's poorly edited. Clemens death is so slow and altogether sloppy it's not funny. And the extended dinner scene introduces a continuity error with a shot of Aaron and Andrews and Ripley walking past in the background, only for her not to appear on screen for another couple of minutes.
Plus the ox-burster doesn't even have a fraction of the impact of the dog.
The only bit really worth keeping is the extended fire sequence, however this is double edged as it provides a great look between Ripley and her would be rapist - who eventually sacrifices himself. But ends with the Alien being trapped - and Landau was correct in that it stops the Alien being a threat and the manner of it's release isn't convinving (despite a great scene where Golic clobbers Morse). We spend the first half of the film being ahead of the characters anyway - and then the Alien is taken out of the picture?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 22, 2011, 04:22:46 AM
Gotta disagree there, if nothing else the extended cut's added scenes help make a lot of the prisoners be more than (literally) nameless nobodies.
Agreed. When we get to the keystone cops in space bit when they are all running about tunnels getting chased, you actually care more about the prisoners. In the theatrical cut, it was just oh some bald bloke just died, now another bald bloke has died, oh look the alien is walking on the ceiling, and yet another bald bloke has died.
The best possible cut of Alien³ exists between the theatrical and extended editions, and even that's going to be a shonky mess of a film.
The theatrical version had some really great scenes wich i really miss in the assembly cut. I think the dog burster was way more effective. Also explains the scene before the guy falls into the fan. When he asks "Spike is that you ?". In the assembly cut there is no spike. Also the theatrical chestbursting was great. Such a shame that one is cut :'(
I never much liked the assembly cut for reasons already said.
Plus, the super facehugger... Cool design and all, but it felt superfluous to me. A bit too video-gamey perhaps.
I do have to agree that the Dog Burster scene was much more powerful then a burster coming out of a giant piece of beef.
It is my opinion that after Aliens' success, the audience was expecting another action movie, so they were disappointed.
It became the tradition of an Alien movie to have at most 2 characters alive in the next movie (Jonesy, then Bishop), but just for a brief screentime.
Not bad, if you ask me, and A3 was a sci-fi drama, well put together, with several comical (mostly due to the accents) moments.
It was more (yes, more) claustrophobic and dark than Aliens, but it had less action, it killed two characters (very good idea) and killed the main character to end the trilogy. It was a good movie, people back then, just like today (but less than today) expect everything to be a popcorn action movie.
If A3 was to be just Aliens2, then in my opinion it would have jumped on a dangerous bandwagon.
This film seemed almost an intentional sabotaging of the franchise. It's terrible for all the reasons mentioned here and more. The studio had ample opportunity to make a worthy third film, it was going to make money no matter what. Yet they seemed to make every move possible to ensure it would be terrible. The whole prison planet story and themes seem like a completely unrelated and uninteresting story that happened to be pushed into a script with elements from Alien. There seems little point for the movie to exist. About the only redeeming thing is seeing more Ripley. I can understand why David Fincher hates it, it is horrible and destroyed a good franchise and characters.
I personally think Alien 3 has aged the best out of the intial four movies aside from Alien. To me personally it feels significantly more real world than Aliens (whose physics blessed Ripley with godlike powers and whose Marines are cliche 80's shoot from the hip I don't need to aim stereotypes) and Alien Res (I don't even need to bother here). It's got a depressive tone which I think people need to experience as much as an uplifting one, and it successfully finished off an arc. The Aliens are no more, Ripley goes down in cinematic sainthood, and the Company comes away empty handed.
My main gripe with the film is still the opening sequence. It requires a definate amount of looking the other way or using things not shown on film to make it work.
I put the first film on a significantly higher pedestal than either the second or third, but rate the second and third as solid genre standards in the 8/10 range together. They are both equal to me.
QuoteAgreed. When we get to the keystone cops in space bit when they are all running about tunnels getting chased, you actually care more about the prisoners. In the theatrical cut, it was just oh some bald bloke just died, now another bald bloke has died, oh look the alien is walking on the ceiling, and yet another bald bloke has died.
The Assembly Cut doesn't change any of this. Beyond Morse the guys who survive to the end only get that one extra pointless scene where they say what they're going to do and then do something else - and even then only David and William get a little bit more dialogue. Overall they're still "some bald bloke". The most ironic thing is Vincent actually gets mentioned in this cut - and he's still literally faceless.
Similar to what SiL said, the best cut is probably closest to the Workprint, which has elements of both cuts.
QuoteIt's got a depressive tone which I think people need to experience as much as an uplifting one, and it successfully finished off an arc.
If only they hadn't forgotten the uplifting bit to balance it.
I mean film in general. You don't always have to have a happy ending in movies. I appreciate Alien 3 for trying something different.
One could argue Ripley's death was uplifting however.
The makers of ALIEN referred to it as a happy, "lyrical" ending, funnily enough. Some compared it to a serene "Sleeping Beauty" thing.
I like the idea of the dog/ox alien but some parts of the movie that I don't like. Eg Ripleys final message from the nostromo how did that get on the escape craft :-\. The ending was good the sacrafice of one life to save many more.
I just figured the Company dumped everything involving Ripley on to Fury because the prison was to be sold as scrap. They did have the original shuttle after all.
Quote from: Terx2 on Dec 23, 2011, 03:54:30 AM
I like the idea of the dog/ox alien but some parts of the movie that I don't like. Eg Ripleys final message from the nostromo how did that get on the escape craft :-\. The ending was good the sacrafice of one life to save many more.
The playing of Ripley's Nostromo recording was meant to be a nostalgic touch since the character had died and the franchise had come to an 'end', that time.
I respect Alien3 but I must admit, I still have to look for the names of the bald guys because they weren't really that memorable.
My favorite film of the trilogy. I like the atmosphere of Fiorina, the mysticism behind the beast. I found Goldenthal score amazing. I really consider the movie has the final act of the saga. The message of Rip and the "END OF TRANSMISSION" screen are for me a great final. I've watch those last seconds so many times since so long and I'm still absolutely fan of this ending.
The atmosphere of Alien 3 is possibly one of the strongest points that the film has. However, as Elliot Goldenthal explained when composing the score for the film he explained that he used "Agnus Dei" because it was lambs to the slaughter and that you were "f**ked from the beginning."
The first five minutes of the film made my heart sink when I first saw the film when I was an adult. The connections with the main characters are severed almost immdeiatly. It makes for a depressing and downbeat atmosphere. For many this may be too much to take. Fans of the previous film may have a downer on the film before it really has begun.
I must admit I have always been a fan of the third film. The atmosphere and tone of the film are appropriate for the theme of the film. The harsh browns and greys are perfectly placed in an atmosphere of death.
I understand that certain people have a problem with not knowing or caring for the prisoners and that they are hard to distinquish. I for one feel that the characters of the film are secondary to that of the overall theme of the film and of course Ripley. This is Ripley's film.
This is Ripley's film. Its not even really an alien film. Its about the ultimate sacrifice of the main character, that there is no escape from the alien.
I accept that there are numerous plot holes in the film. The first five minutes for example is inexplicable (the egg etc.) I actually like the Bristish accents in the film. They add to the dour atmosphere. I like the design of the creature although some special effects were not that great. I like the idea of the alien taking on characteristics of its host.
The final five minutes of the film are upsetting. The manipulation of Ripley by the company and her almost giving in are heart breaking. Its ironic that her death is the most uplifting part of the film.
Overall I would say that some themes of this film are better than the first two. The art direction of the film is fantastic. The special effects and plot holes are what hold it back.
I don't hate it. I just don't like it as much as the first two movies.
Quote from: Alien Jockey on Dec 25, 2011, 01:57:10 AM
I don't hate it. I just don't like it as much as the first two movies.
I'd say I've grown to feel the same. It looks and sounds real pretty but I'm ambivalent about the entire meandering plot and the characters.
Quote from: Kimarhi on Dec 23, 2011, 06:24:30 PM
I just figured the Company dumped everything involving Ripley on to Fury because the prison was to be sold as scrap. They did have the original shuttle after all.
If you meant, that WY brought down the Narcissus to burry it on the Fury with other related to Ripley's trip indications, then no, it rather was EEV, which she crash-landed here in... but you know, I would't be surprised, if one day someone from production unit declare, that yes, that piece of scrap, broadcasting distorted Ripley's last account, was meant to be her escape pod from the Nostromo, seeing how freely Sulaco's interior design has been changed ;)
I love Alien 3, it being my favourite out of the four movies, simply down to its tone and bleak settings, the grittiness and immense soundtrack, its a dark, dirty movie and I love it, very similar to the original Alien, which i do also love, but if I had to choose, Alien 3 it would be.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Oct 30, 2011, 05:11:21 PM
Principal reason I've seen during my boards experience would be one, and everyone certainly is aware of it: Alien3 killed off Hicks and Newt at the start of the film. To that, you can add the plot-hole firing opening titles and the fact Ripley dies at the end. Some fans, in addition, don't like the Runner design, and its (intentionally dumb) behaviour.
None of those things bother me. It's the loss of Clemens and Andrews that take out two major points of interest and leave the second half of the film floundering for any empathetic characters. Not concerned that the characters are convicts and I think it's well cast, it's the script being trimmed to nothing more than a runaround that takes the wind out of its sails. However, compared to modern sci-fi films it's a pretty good film despite all this - particularly the assembly cut - and the only one of the sequel 'franchise' that I own on DVD.
It was difficult for me to care for most of the prisoners. The only characters I really cared about was ripley, clemons, dillon, and morse.
Quote from: Gash on Dec 26, 2011, 12:25:06 AM
None of those things bother me. It's the loss of Clemens and Andrews that take out two major points of interest and leave the second half of the film floundering for any empathetic characters. Not concerned that the characters are convicts and I think it's well cast, it's the script being trimmed to nothing more than a runaround that takes the wind out of its sails. However, compared to modern sci-fi films it's a pretty good film despite all this - particularly the assembly cut - and the only one of the sequel 'franchise' that I own on DVD.
This. The distrust between Clemens and Andrews is a rare case of something reminiscent of character interaction in Alien3, and probably could have been used to great effect during the second half of the film. But what do you know, both are killed in a span of just a couple of minutes. Oh well, we're still left with an dramatic preacher and a bunch of bald guys we know nothing about.
I think Alien and Aliens were effective (each in their own way), because they showed how people - both as individuals and also as a group - reacted when being confronted with the alien. We get a brief look of what they do before the encounter, and then we see some start to panic, others get macho, some stay cool, etc... In Alien3, not only do we NOT know what the prison life is like before the alien appears, but there's basically no reaction whatsoever from the inhabitants. Nothing seems to change in their behavior.
It's not enough to have a monster kill people, you have to a)make the audience feel something for the character being killed and/or b)make the kills scary, thrilling or something to that extent. The guy who trips into the fan in Alien3 is singing 'In the year 2525' with a voice so annoying that I'm basically begging for the guy to shut up. Well, eventually he does, of course. And when the three guys are checking the tunnels (why, I might ask?), the first guy who gets killed just turns around with his torch, and the alien just...IS there. No glory, no grand introduction of the monster. He just turns around and stumbles upon the beast.
To me, nobody in the film seems genuinely terrified when they see the beast (ok, Clemens is an exception!). Even the death of Burke, the bad guy in Aliens evokes more sympathy than any of the kills in Alien3!
Ugh.
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Dec 26, 2011, 12:28:36 PM
...the first guy who gets killed just turns around with his torch, and the alien just...IS there. No glory, no grand introduction of the monster.
Was the monster introduced and portrayed here in a more favourable, artistic and dramatic way (if its design, execution and behaviour at least equated with the same of original
Alien), I'm afraid to admit, it would be the only being of the whole
A^3 movie to follow. Alas (or fortunately) it didn't happened so.
8thPassenger, nice remark on that the point of encounter of Alien serves as a character's stimulus to evolve (or degrade, otherwise). In light of this
A^3's tenants look to be estranged from the story (or so is the critter?), they just run around on their own, and in the points of intersection with the monster, get ripped off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vic6bO14CZg#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vic6bO14CZg#ws)
I just love Alien 3...especially its opening.
This opening alerts you...
It´s not going to be a fun ride,a spectacular and rewarding adventure...
This is a journey into the depths of hell.
Amen.
I'm not going to say I don't know why Alien 3 is hated, or disliked, as many people have provided countless reasons. I certainly see there points, even if i don't agree. I however never disliked Alien 3. Going in i was aware that the perception of fans, and the general public, was that Alien 3 was a far cry from Alien & Aliens. After i watched it i immediately wondered why. Sure, it wasn't as good as Alien or Aliens, but it was still very good.
As for the Assembly cut, i do prefer it on the whole, though there's not a drastic difference in quality. If you hate the theatrical cut of Alien 3, then the Assembly cut isn't going to change your mind. I do wish however that it remained a dog, and not an Ox, as it has more of an emotional impact. Additionally, while some frown upon it, i love the chestburster scene at the end, which is removed from the Assembly cut.
I never hated that Hicks & Newt died. It opened the door to a whole new world of opportunities and emotions to be explored by Ripley. Sure, i probably would have enjoyed an Aliens II, but I'm extremely happy with the direction they took the series in. This film represented the culmination of Ripley's nightmare. It's not meant happy. All that she loves, all that ties her to the world, is being stripped away from her.
Alien 3 represents a near perfect end to Ripley's trilogy. Yes, it's flawed, but i've never had any issues looking past that. I really love this film. It's not as good as 1 & 2, at least not in my own opinion, but it's still very good.
I hate it because it killed characters that I cared about.
I hate it because it killed a dream of what I thought(read: wanted) an "aliens" sequel would be.
I hate it because it's depressing.
I hate it because it meant the last(when it came out) in one of the few movie series' I loved.
I hate it because it moved me.
I hate that when it comes on, I can't help but watch it.
I hate that no matter how many hundreds of times I've seen it, I want it end differently each time.
I hate it, that I love it - and that makes it great.
YMMV
Reading all of this positivity, I tried to watch the special edition again.
I just couldn't get invested in it. I can watch Alien and Aliens over and over again, and I hadn't seen A3 in ages, so I didn't remember all the details. But there was nothing at stake in this movie that I cared about.
I no longer cared if Ripley lived, despite the fact that Weaver's acting is top notch here. Here, she's already lost everything. She might as well be dead.
I didn't care for any of the other inmates, either. They all come together in a homogenous blend, and they're all more or less the same. The only ones that stick out are the preacher guy, the inmate guy, and Clemens. Clemens dies a third of the way in.
The alien attacks exactly when you assume it would, and its victims are faceless cannon fodder.
Credit where credit is due: Weaver is top notch, the cinematography and editing is great, the music is fantastic, and the creature is almost well executed. Almost. The puppet is too obvious, and takes you out of it.
Fincher's directing is almost heroic in the way it combats the script, but it's not enough.
This movie could have been so much better, and it's disappointing that it had to fail so hard.
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Dec 26, 2011, 08:28:44 PM
I'm not going to say I don't know why Alien 3 is hated, or disliked, as many people have provided countless reasons. I certainly see there points, even if i don't agree. I however never disliked Alien 3. Going in i was aware that the perception of fans, and the general public, was that Alien 3 was a far cry from Alien & Aliens. After i watched it i immediately wondered why. Sure, it wasn't as good as Alien or Aliens, but it was still very good.
As for the Assembly cut, i do prefer it on the whole, though there's not a drastic difference in quality. If you hate the theatrical cut of Alien 3, then the Assembly cut isn't going to change your mind. I do wish however that it remained a dog, and not an Ox, as it has more of an emotional impact. Additionally, while some frown upon it, i love the chestburster scene at the end, which is removed from the Assembly cut.
I never hated that Hicks & Newt died. It opened the door to a whole new world of opportunities and emotions to be explored by Ripley. Sure, i probably would have enjoyed an Aliens II, but I'm extremely happy with the direction they took the series in. This film represented the culmination of Ripley's nightmare. It's not meant happy. All that she loves, all that ties her to the world, is being stripped away from her.
Alien 3 represents a near perfect end to Ripley's trilogy. Yes, it's flawed, but i've never had any issues looking past that. I really love this film. It's not as good as 1 & 2, at least not in my own opinion, but it's still very good.
I agree completely. I would love it more if
Alien:R never happened, that way Ripley's death would be more powerful. The last time the franchise would have seen Ripley would have been her suicide to prevent the capture of the species that ruined her life. A very emotional & moving ending.
Quote from: Dirty Harry on Dec 26, 2011, 03:33:42 PM
I just love Alien 3...especially its opening.
This opening alerts you...
It´s not going to be a fun ride,a spectacular and rewarding adventure...
This is a journey into the depths of hell.
And Goldenthal's score simply does magic with that scene. I remember first seeing it and being spooked once the first show of space came in because of that musical opening. And then it gets only creepier and creepier from there
The movie is a descent into hell. I think at least that's something David Fincher got across perfectly. I love the religious subtext of the film. The alien represents the devil and Ripley is the last savior of the earth. As some people have stated before its a flawed classic.
QuoteThe guy who trips into the fan in Alien3 is singing 'In the year 2525' with a voice so annoying that I'm basically begging for the guy to shut up.
Be thankful. He sang Paint It Black a lot worse.
I LOVE Alien 3. It may be my favorite of the Alien films.
The scene where the guys are lighting the candles and the Alien grabs the one black guy and his blood sprays all over the other guys face is IMO the best scene of all the Alien movies. The music during this scene is great and the facial expression of the guy when when he looks up after the blood hits his face is just amazing.
And sorry I do not know their character names off the top of my head.
Quote from: echobbase79 on Dec 27, 2011, 04:37:05 AM
I love the religious subtext of the film.
To me, religious connotations just erased the science fiction facet of the film (where it possibly should have been), but maybe it's simply my strong sci fi fan's nature is speaking here. Anyway, mixing into the same pot sci fi and religion notions is always a ticklish matter, I can't remember any decent film which would congruently embrace both entities (perhaps, except for the
Das Jesus Video - one German movie)
Quote from: echobbase79 on Dec 27, 2011, 04:37:05 AM
The alien represents the devil and Ripley is the last savior of the earth.
Problem there lies in that niether Alien, nor Ripley are overtly confirmed to be good or bad in the end of the day. Their roles are smeared out and ambiguous. Alien is a Universe Evil, but the same time it appears to be the Angel of redemption to the former prisoners (as Dillon depicted and expected it to occur). On the other hand, Ripley is a sinner (she brought the Evil to the miserable planet, yes? Remember the shot of sundown when EEV crashes down on Fiorina - opposed to another one sequence of the dawn of clear light, when she committed suicide?). Therefore she is also a saint, and a ...Virgin Maria to boot. Bearing the Evil inside her, which gives the negative touch to her character, again.
Quote from: Eighty_Five on Dec 27, 2011, 07:24:42 PM
And sorry I do not know their character names off the top of my head.
I guess, you just summarized the one of the reasons for disliking the movie :D
Quote from: aliennaire on Dec 27, 2011, 10:09:12 PM
Quote from: Eighty_Five on Dec 27, 2011, 07:24:42 PM
And sorry I do not know their character names off the top of my head.
I guess, you just summarized the one of the reasons for disliking the movie :D
Count me too!
I always find it odd that many who profess to love Alien3 can't tell the characters apart.
many don't even have names
It's a like a video game where they use the same NPC's over and over again. :D
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Dec 28, 2011, 07:34:52 AM
many don't even have names
They were just there. Staring at us.
They didn't have names because they weren't developed properly. Somethings happened
so fast in the movie, I lost track of it mid-way, when I first saw it.
I disagree. I think even tho we didnt know names the characters were being very distinctive which is quite a fit with people who look the same and for so little screentime
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Dec 28, 2011, 07:34:52 AM
many don't even have names
The extras or 'Stunt players' as they were known seemed nameless in the film but they did have names. If you look in some of the early drafts of Alien 3 and the novel you'll find the names of these nameless prisoners. Although due to rewrites you'll also find a few extra and altered names in previous drafts.
ARTHUR
BOGGS
DAVID
DILLON
ERIC
FRANK
JUNIOR
GOLIC
GREGOR
JUDE
KEVIN
MORSE
MURPHY
RAINS
TROY
WILLIAM
The above are the prisoners we know of and can put i face to the name (most of us can anyways). Heres there list of stunt prisoners names:
CHRISTOPHER
ED
LAWRENCE
MARTIN
JANNI
VINCENT
These are the prisoners we only see glimpses of but don't know which one is which. I won't go into the whole Vincent enigma thing as i can't be botherd.
Janni is uncredited.
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Dec 28, 2011, 07:34:52 AM
many don't even have names
Yeah but it's more a long the lines of "ZOIMG Aliens3 is teh awesome! wait which one is Clemens? lol"
Quote from: SM on Dec 29, 2011, 03:01:31 AM
Janni is uncredited.
Yeah, i forgot to move him.
But none of them had any LAST NAMES. So naturally they all, moestly, had to die.
Many of them had last names - Boggs, Rains, Morse, Golic, Murphy, Dillon, for starters.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Dec 29, 2011, 04:14:35 AM
But none of them had any LAST NAMES. So naturally they all, moestly, had to die.
As SM said:
Thomas Murhy
Edward Boggs
Ted 'Junior' Gillas
Walter Golic
Alan Jude
Daniel Rains
Johnathan Clemens
Leonard Dillon
Harold Andrews
Oh my mistake. I thought those were their first names. :P
Most people in the series are referred to by their surname :P
Alien 3 was a good film that could've been great but for the studio interference.
Fans who wanted another Aliens deserved to be disappointed. Aliens was not much like its predecessor, it was foolish to imagine that Alien 3 would not be equally different.
There have been plenty of criticisms leveled at Alien³ other than "It wasn't Aliens ".
People expected it to be like Aliens but they couldn't accept a dark-toned sad story thingy.
Also, the plot holes.
QuoteAlso, the plot holes.
Alien 3 isn't the only alien film with plot holes. It just had a lot more than the others.
It had more plotholes and very severe ones, that too.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Dec 30, 2011, 02:57:00 PM
[qoute]Also, the plot holes.[/qoute]
Alien 3 isn't the only alien film with plot holes. It just had a lot more than the others.
Quote.
Quote from: The Xenoborg on Dec 30, 2011, 02:58:56 PM
It had more plotholes and very severe ones, that too.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Dec 30, 2011, 02:57:00 PM
[qoute]Also, the plot holes.[/qoute]
Alien 3 isn't the only alien film with plot holes. It just had a lot more than the others.
Quote.
Thanks...
Yeah, the theatrical cut is filmed with plot holes. Of course you have the opening with the egg. But I always wondered what the hell happened to Golic and some of the other characters like Junior. I guess Fox wanted you to assume they died in the fire when they were trying to catch the alien. They failed miserably on that front.
Thankfully the Assembly Cut fixed a lot of these problems.
...And made its own with the mysterious Facehugger Murphy (or whoever it was) pulls out after they've brought the ox inside, which isn't the one we've seen in the opening credits.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Dec 30, 2011, 04:42:06 PM
...And made its own with the mysterious Facehugger Murphy (or whoever it was) pulls out after they've brought the ox inside, which isn't the one we've seen in the opening credits.
It's not? I thought that was the Queen facehugger that laid two embryos?
In the opening credits, we see a facehugger that resembles a regular one, but the one that (yes) Murphy holds is a huge Super Queen Facehugger.
Quote from: echobbase79 on Dec 30, 2011, 04:45:34 PM
It's not? I thought that was the Queen facehugger that laid two embryos?
The one we see in the opening credits is a normal facehugger...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2F118ejd5.jpg&hash=bea35237e8107c7ab37c4b4f47261ebb6655d54b)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.tinypic.com%2F315ikv7.jpg&hash=328b231bb80251825c90d463d47566c5709b20b9)
...as opposed to the Queen facehugger Murphy picks up, characterized by the webbing on its limbs and a widely different color scheme.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.tinypic.com%2F24vs8cl.jpg&hash=8677d22882ef0c5426572d34fd9668593f846401)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi848.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab43%2FOmegaZilla95%2FAlien%2520and%2520Predator%2FAlien3%2FAlienqueenhugger.jpg&hash=755e7f7bb94d6ed8a77e5c21e88ba306ed502d89)
Aware that you can't make out much from the DvD capture but, if you have the Blu-Ray, there's a much clearer view.
This is more like a continuity goof more than anything.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthesmartmarks.com%2Fartman%2Fuploads%2Fmurphy_buster_2.jpg&hash=7c01b4cc11e14cb5ba613c2cb36ecf8457808a53)
You can still see the webbed legs.
QuoteThankfully the Assembly Cut fixed a lot of these problems.
It added new ones and made others worse.
Oh, I always thought in those opening shots that the facehugger was the super facehugger after watching the AC. I thought the theatrical cut made it seem like a normal facehugger by adding in that shot where the dog is about to get hugged.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Dec 30, 2011, 05:37:51 PM
QuoteThankfully the Assembly Cut fixed a lot of these problems.
It added new ones and made others worse.
How so? I always thought it fixed a lot of the character stuff. What are you referring too?
Ill never get tired of saying how much I love the superfacehugger design
Quote from: StrangeShape on Dec 30, 2011, 05:58:27 PM
Ill never get tired of saying how much I love the superfacehugger design
Same here :) They should of used that design from the start IMO.
I agree. The design is awesome.
It's a shame the resin kit you can buy online (the painted model shot above) isn't a complete kit :( But still worth getting none the less.
Damn, I thought it was the actual prop.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Dec 30, 2011, 06:43:20 PM
Damn, I thought it was the actual prop.
If memory serves it's a resin reproduction made from an original mold. The guy who originally sold this told me many years ago. Another store sells it now.
http://resin-movie-reproductions.com/aliens-2/alien-3-special-edition-queen-face-hugger-movie-prop-1-1.html (http://resin-movie-reproductions.com/aliens-2/alien-3-special-edition-queen-face-hugger-movie-prop-1-1.html)
Oooh man. Gotta delete it from the folder now hahaha.
EDIT: There, put an actual prop from the film in my precedent post. Thanks for the heads up!
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Dec 30, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Dec 30, 2011, 06:43:20 PM
Damn, I thought it was the actual prop.
If memory serves it's a resin reproduction made from an original mold. The guy who originally sold this told me many years ago. Another store sells it now.
http://resin-movie-reproductions.com/aliens-2/alien-3-special-edition-queen-face-hugger-movie-prop-1-1.html (http://resin-movie-reproductions.com/aliens-2/alien-3-special-edition-queen-face-hugger-movie-prop-1-1.html)
Even the resin reproduction looks great
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Dec 30, 2011, 06:06:46 PM
It's a shame the resin kit you can buy online (the painted model shot above) isn't a complete kit :(
What's missing?
The tail is incomplete, The webbing is missing...the webbing wasn't just etween the creatures fingers it also covered parts of it's body. A mistake most people make when adding webbing to the kit. And some final detaling, etc is also absent. As i said this kit was made from an original sculpure mold so it's understandable.
I like Alien3 it's just a disappointment after the first two amazing films
That's the thing with the last 2 Alien films in my opinion, they're not bad films by any means, it's just that the former 2 motion pictures are on a whole other league.
Could someone list some of the plot holes from Alien 3?
I'm sure there are some, but unlike Alien 4 they didn't jump out of the screen and threw shit in your face... :)
Quote from: RezSucks on Jan 02, 2012, 02:32:15 AM
Could someone list some of the plot holes from Alien 3?
I'm sure there are some, but unlike Alien 4 they didn't jump out of the screen and threw shit in your face... :)
I thought the autonomous egg aboard the Sulaco at the start would've been throwing shit in your face. :P Then there's the facehugger that seems to be able to go all night long and implant two victims (this is sort of explained by the "super facehugger" in the assembly cut version though, but only fans would probably know of it).
It's mainly the opening credits that are glaringly bad flaws. The rest of the film honestly isn't that bad, apart from Golic who just vanishes into thin air, but you see what happens to him in the assembly cut version.
Maybe someone else with more hardcore knowledge could list more.
QuoteCould someone list some of the plot holes from Alien 3?
lol, it would be a rather large list ;)
QuoteThankfully the Assembly Cut fixed a lot of these problems.
Like what?
Alien3's opening credits are a bigger mess than anything Resurrection gave us, unless I'm missing something.
The only thing you might be missing was directorial intent. It's it meant to be a fragmentary dream of Ripley's - it works. Taken literally - yes it's a mess.
I effectively didn't consider how some parts of the opening credits could be part of a dream - at this point, in reality, the famous egg could be anywhere. Always took it literally because it directly connects to the EEV detaching from the Sulaco, then again we couldn't know when this hypothetical dream sequence ends.
Was there any word from the authors on the matter?
They said the audience isn't supposed to ask that question.
Fincher said "The beginning was supposed to be a lot more elliptical that what it was, we had to make a lot more sense out of it and I wanted it to be a lot more extreme in its dreamlikeness."
I dont really like the movie too much, overall it just felt boring and not very suspenseful.I feel your pain in a way as i wonder why Predator 2 gets so much hate.
Oh so the egg we see was meant to just be a dream ripley had... well shit. Then maybe there was never an egg to begin with. Just a couple of facehuggers that caught a ride on the queen. Hence cameron's face hugger waddling across the sulaco at the end of aliens.
Plus the sound of the egg opening.
Pretty convenient how only that shot would be part of a dream, however, as everything else is effectively what happened.
Quote from: SM on Jan 02, 2012, 11:46:41 AM
QuoteThankfully the Assembly Cut fixed a lot of these problems.
Like what?
A lot of the character stuff mostly. Giving us an explanation for what happened to Golic and some of the other characters. As far as the opening, not at all. I always thought that in the AC the audience is supposed to think it's the superfacehugger at the beginning and not the a normal one. But I guess it's a normal one according to what some other members have said. So in the AC we have two facehuggers?
But mainly I was referring to character stuff and subplots with them.
For me, it wasn't that the movie was terrible, it was what it represented - The stupid ass off-screen death of Newt and Hicks.
Quote from: Spartan113 on Jan 03, 2012, 12:20:46 AM
For me, it wasn't that the movie was terrible, it was what it represented - The stupid ass off-screen death of Newt and Hicks.
Hey it could have been a lot worse. Say something along the lines of The Mist. :P
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jan 02, 2012, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: SM on Jan 02, 2012, 11:46:41 AM
QuoteThankfully the Assembly Cut fixed a lot of these problems.
Like what?
A lot of the character stuff mostly. Giving us an explanation for what happened to Golic and some of the other characters. As far as the opening, not at all. I always thought that in the AC the audience is supposed to think it's the superfacehugger at the beginning and not the a normal one. But I guess it's a normal one according to what some other members have said. So in the AC we have two facehuggers?
But mainly I was referring to character stuff and subplots with them.
But none of the character stuff is solved. No one missed Golic and Junior enough, because they looked just like every other bald murderer and rapist who was running around in dark senseless twisty turny tunnels shouting "f**k!" at each other. So their absence can be explained by them dying in the fire.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Jan 02, 2012, 12:38:37 PM
Plus the sound of the egg opening.
Pretty convenient how only that shot would be part of a dream, however, as everything else is effectively what happened.
No, the way to look at it is it's Ripley's subconscious making sense of what's happening in reality.
So Alien3 did happen but the beginning sequence was half-dream/half-reality?
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2012, 05:57:57 AM
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jan 02, 2012, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: SM on Jan 02, 2012, 11:46:41 AM
QuoteThankfully the Assembly Cut fixed a lot of these problems.
Like what?
A lot of the character stuff mostly. Giving us an explanation for what happened to Golic and some of the other characters. As far as the opening, not at all. I always thought that in the AC the audience is supposed to think it's the superfacehugger at the beginning and not the a normal one. But I guess it's a normal one according to what some other members have said. So in the AC we have two facehuggers?
But mainly I was referring to character stuff and subplots with them.
But none of the character stuff is solved. No one missed Golic and Junior enough, because they looked just like every other bald murderer and rapist who was running around in dark senseless twisty turny tunnels shouting "f**k!" at each other. So their absence can be explained by them dying in the fire.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Jan 02, 2012, 12:38:37 PM
Plus the sound of the egg opening.
Pretty convenient how only that shot would be part of a dream, however, as everything else is effectively what happened.
No, the way to look at it is it's Ripley's subconscious making sense of what's happening in reality.
I guess it comes down to what the viewer wants to think on the matter. I know when I saw the film for the first time I wanted to know what happened to Golic and some of the other prisoners. I probably used the wrong words by saying "solved problems". What I should have said was gave the characters more depth.
I've came to actually quite enjoy Alien 3. Okay, there are some things that don't make much sense, but Fincher's style is all over it and it's great. But only "enjoy" this film - where as Alien is my third favourite film of all time, and Aliens is one of the best sequels of all time. At least it's a trillion times better than Alien Regurgitation. :)
Is there an explanation (maybe someone can come up with one ;)) for why you only ever see ~20 prisoners at most, when there are thousands supposedly on this planet? ???
Quote from: Terx2 on Oct 31, 2011, 05:24:15 AM
I didn't care about the prisoners. I did like the idea of fighting the perfect organism without any guns. But it just lacked the emotion of the previous films.
What he said. Alien held up to be my favourite sci-fi film, even to this day. Im currently rewatching A3 because i think it deserves one last kick around from me before i even judge it. The opening credits definitely get me going because ever since Aliens ive felt a connection with the characters, and it struck me hard to see that Hicks and Newt died in the most horrible ways possible. Plus i like to think that resurrection never happened, UNLESS there is proof of a forwarding Aliens film, and im not talking prometheus, im talking about sigourney weaver being somewhere in this universe. If they carry on from, say, the one ending of resurrection where they end up on earth/paris and begin a new film based off the earth war comic, then i may give it a go.
P.S: how did hicks die exactly? i know he got impaled from a structure support but it doesnt clearly show it. to me it shows it crushed his head, leaving his jaw somewhat intact and that it landed dead on his chest at an angle and and left some form of an opening.
"Re: Why do people hate Alien3?"
I love that movie. In fact I actually loved it the first time I saw it even though the deaths of Newt and Hicks bummed me out (in a good way) and the lack of guns really hurt my testosterone ridden teenage boy feelings. To me Alien and Alien 3 are without contest the best two movies out of the whole quadrology. Interested to see if Prometheus will make it up there. I hope so.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 04, 2012, 07:25:46 PM
"Re: Why do people hate Alien3?"
I love that movie. In fact I actually loved it the first time I saw it even though the deaths of Newt and Hicks bummed me out (in a good way) and the lack of guns really hurt my testosterone ridden teenage boy feelings. To me Alien and Alien 3 are without contest the best two movies out of the whole quadrology. Interested to see if Prometheus will make it up there. I hope so.
Prometheus will have guns so I guess itll be appealing to teenage boys only since the mere presence and use of guns is for testosterone ridden teenage boys
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 04, 2012, 09:16:45 PM
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 04, 2012, 07:25:46 PM
"Re: Why do people hate Alien3?"
I love that movie. In fact I actually loved it the first time I saw it even though the deaths of Newt and Hicks bummed me out (in a good way) and the lack of guns really hurt my testosterone ridden teenage boy feelings. To me Alien and Alien 3 are without contest the best two movies out of the whole quadrology. Interested to see if Prometheus will make it up there. I hope so.
Prometheus will have guns so I guess itll be appealing to teenage boys only since the mere presence and use of guns is for testosterone ridden teenage boys
I wish I was a testosterone ridden teenage boy again... or maybe not.
Yeah, the amount of explosions, huge ships crashing and poser gunfights seen in the trailer kind of worries me.
Quote from: RezSucks on Jan 04, 2012, 06:21:23 PM
Is there an explanation (maybe someone can come up with one ;)) for why you only ever see ~20 prisoners at most, when there are thousands supposedly on this planet? ???
"This used to be a 5000 convict facility, but it's been reduced to a custodial staff of 25" after the company has shut down the massive production of lead sheets (I guess) at that refinery plant. This foundry is/was meant to be the only facility which the whole planet would be proud with.
Quote from: RabidNinja on Jan 04, 2012, 06:50:05 PM
P.S: how did hicks die exactly? i know he got impaled from a structure support but it doesnt clearly show it. to me it shows it crushed his head, leaving his jaw somewhat intact and that it landed dead on his chest at an angle and and left some form of an opening.
Don't forget, that EEV crashed down on the Fury, so this unlucky landing (impact itself and collapsed equipment) may have caused minced meat effect upon him in addition to impaling by the capsule's safety beam.
Quote from: aliennaire on Jan 05, 2012, 12:07:07 AM
Quote from: RezSucks on Jan 04, 2012, 06:21:23 PM
Is there an explanation (maybe someone can come up with one ;)) for why you only ever see ~20 prisoners at most, when there are thousands supposedly on this planet? ???
"This used to be a 5000 convict facility, but it's been reduced to a custodial staff of 25" after the company has shut down the massive production of lead sheets (I guess) at that refinery plant. This foundry is/was meant to be the only facility which the whole planet would be proud with.
Ah thanks. Probably forgot about it. ;)
The prisoners were more caretakers than anything else.
'Keeping the pilot light lit.'
Also, they were given the chance to transfer but chose to stay.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 04, 2012, 09:56:15 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 04, 2012, 09:16:45 PM
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 04, 2012, 07:25:46 PM
"Re: Why do people hate Alien3?"
I love that movie. In fact I actually loved it the first time I saw it even though the deaths of Newt and Hicks bummed me out (in a good way) and the lack of guns really hurt my testosterone ridden teenage boy feelings. To me Alien and Alien 3 are without contest the best two movies out of the whole quadrology. Interested to see if Prometheus will make it up there. I hope so.
Prometheus will have guns so I guess itll be appealing to teenage boys only since the mere presence and use of guns is for testosterone ridden teenage boys
I wish I was a testosterone ridden teenage boy again... or maybe not.
Yeah, the amount of explosions, huge ships crashing and poser gunfights seen in the trailer kind of worries me.
I tend to tihnk of guns as tools and focus on characters, story structures etc. I dont judge movies by the presence of guns or scope of action sequences
If a movie has action scenes, they're not necessarily meant for teenagers.
Quote
Don't forget, that EEV crashed down on the Fury, so this unlucky landing (impact itself and collapsed equipment) may have caused minced meat effect upon him in addition to impaling by the capsule's safety beam.
The crash definately caused the damage to the EEV. It was all intact bfore making planetfall (literally - something else that was never adequately explained).
I love Alien 3 and it converted me from thinking the Predator franchise was superior to believing the alien one is. I know, there are some bad moments, but the ending scene was my favorite scene in any Alien, Predator or AVP movie. Just my two cents.
I didnt like the setting, it was an extremely forced claustrophobic setup.
In both the first and second film the claustrophobic feeling slowly sinks in, we slowly see the people getting into a worst and wost situation. In 3 they just basically tell you from the start that they are in a prison with no weapons or defenses and a ship isnt coming for some time. Any sort of build up in suspense is none existent with this sort of setup.
Edit- watching Alien 3 on BBC America now and just remembered that Ripley never tells them about the Alien even after being asked numerous times. Which was sort of stupid move.
I love A3. "Flawed masterpiece," indeed. :)
Quote from: DaddyYautja on Jan 08, 2012, 01:58:29 AM
I didnt like the setting, it was an extremely forced claustrophobic setup.
In both the first and second film the claustrophobic feeling slowly sinks in, we slowly see the people getting into a worst and wost situation. In 3 they just basically tell you from the start that they are in a prison with no weapons or defenses and a ship isnt coming for some time. Any sort of build up in suspense is none existent with this sort of setup.
Edit- watching Alien 3 on BBC America now and just remembered that Ripley never tells them about the Alien even after being asked numerous times. Which was sort of stupid move.
Who would believe her?
When she tells the director he just laughs afaik and after the scene where her bf is killed there's no real need anymore.
It's sort of incoherent, how she'd tell Andres but not Clemens. Never bought that.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Jan 08, 2012, 01:31:54 PM
It's sort of incoherent, how she'd tell Andres but not Clemens. Never bought that.
Same, the thing that annoyed me somewhat was that the first half of the film is Clemens investigating the Alien, and Ripley dodging the subject of it, yet both she and the audience know it's around. There's not even room for, "gee, maybe Ripley
is paranoid?" on behalf of the audience. Lovely looking/sounding film, but coherence isn't its forte.
1. Ripley decides to talk to Andrews about the alien, who then thinks shes crazy and wants her to stay in one place away from others. That way she accomplishes nothing but a distrust, and no one does anything about the alien or ptoecting themselves and her. Now, the thing that bothers me is that she had a very good proof - she could just tell them that she can prove that and plug Bishop in again and make him explain it to them and confirm her story
2. Clemens asks Ripley what kind of infection are they looking for and she says cholera. Since hes not a complete idiot, he knows that what Ripley wanted to do to Newt's body wasnt how one checked for the presence of cholera. Now, she could just say that its a new virus or parasite that she and marines discovered in a colony they examined or just say they discovered a new organism of some sort which caused a quarantine situation on LV426, and thats what her classified mission was about
1. Dey kild Hix n' Noot!
Quote from: maledoro on Jan 08, 2012, 10:35:41 PM
1. Dey kild Hix n' Noot!
You forgot this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft2.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSYi09BCg_1OfR29MCrLELyrLUjM1fg8m6c00dqeUs0z-R_g6tGE3SUF1b0&hash=60b3bf586cd56735f43c9e9ac70c38020f1e8e0c)
Nah. Didn't forget it. I just use it when I'm arguing with someone who sounds like that.
I remember that I didn't like it at first until someone wrote a slightly humorous review about it being like an opium fueled Tarkovsky hallucination and then I loved it.
Quote from: SM on Jan 06, 2012, 07:44:03 AM
The crash definately caused the damage to the EEV. It was all intact bfore making planetfall (literally - something else that was never adequately explained).
Yes, however propelling of crew's cryo pods into the EEV wasn't the gentle and elegant delivery as well (Ripley's lid cracked meanwhile, there was explosions of the savety bolts - or whatever was it...)
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Jan 08, 2012, 01:31:54 PM
It's sort of incoherent, how she'd tell Andres but not Clemens. Never bought that.
Maybe, with concealing the valuable info about possible Alien on Fury, they were trying to prove how Ripley appreciated her relationship with Clemens and didn't want to look discredited in his eyes? Devised this way or another, I've never liked this subterfuge too.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 08, 2012, 03:25:33 PM
1. Ripley decides to talk to Andrews about the alien, who then thinks shes crazy and wants her to stay in one place away from others. That way she accomplishes nothing but a distrust, and no one does anything about the alien or ptoecting themselves and her. Now, the thing that bothers me is that she had a very good proof - she could just tell them that she can prove that and plug Bishop in again and make him explain it to them and confirm her story
2. Clemens asks Ripley what kind of infection are they looking for and she says cholera. Since hes not a complete idiot, he knows that what Ripley wanted to do to Newt's body wasnt how one checked for the presence of cholera. Now, she could just say that its a new virus or parasite that she and marines discovered in a colony they examined or just say they discovered a new organism of some sort which caused a quarantine situation on LV426, and thats what her classified mission was about
Yes, following the common sence she obviously ought to report her previous experience of encounting Alien species and new finds on the prison planet and inside the EEV even against the fear of being accused in madness again (like she was at hearing in
Aliens). Because this time she wasn't on the safe Gateway station far away from evil species, but at the same place and time, where the monster is going to announce its feast...
QuoteYes, however propelling of crew's cryo pods into the EEV wasn't the gentle and elegant delivery as well (Ripley's lid cracked meanwhile, there was explosions of the savety bolts - or whatever was it...)
Her lid was cracked before loading. Based on the intact cryotube Ripley uses later, the jolting during loading is within acceptable limits.
I'd like to know how her cryotube changed shape between Aliens and Alien 3 :P
Quote from: SM on Jan 16, 2012, 12:19:26 AM
Her lid was cracked before loading. Based on the intact cryotube Ripley uses later, the jolting during loading is within acceptable limits.
I take it then, that her lid was broken by the scrap after that bolt's outburst during the preparatoty procedure to embark the EEV.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 16, 2012, 08:14:32 AM
I'd like to know how her cryotube changed shape between Aliens and Alien 3 :P
I'd also like to know, who has cleaned her cryo capsule, before Ripley's third visit to EEV for neuroscanner ;D
QuoteI'd also like to know, who has cleaned her cryo capsule, before Ripley's third visit to EEV for neuroscanner
The cryo-tube Ripley used for her bio-scan was the 5th empty one. If you you watch the emergency evac one cryo-tube loaded into the EEV is empty.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Jan 16, 2012, 01:58:07 PM
The cryo-tube Ripley used for her bio-scan was the 5th empty one. If you you watch the emergency evac one cryo-tube loaded into the EEV is empty.
Even if to presume that 5th cryocapsule was hermetically sealed all the time, compare these two looks of EEV's interior:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1123.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl546%2Faliennaire%2Fcapsule2.jpg&hash=fdcfb5975acc1799e5676ccd1ac995280dca9a7b)
after EEVs was dragged to the prison facility
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1123.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl546%2Faliennaire%2Fcapsule.jpg&hash=6513932da3278f6241aa586a69788f4365c3251f)
during the Ripley's scanning
;D
Top image, is a shot from 'inside' the EEV (hence 4 cryo-tubes). Bottom image is taken from the outside. Plus, if you look the top image, the EEV's lights are switched off unlike in the bottom image. Ripley switches the EEV's lights on before the bio-scan.
Interior shot before crash, main lights are off.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_CcjaNCJXX34%2FTUMOMgmvKhI%2FAAAAAAAABx4%2FjSz07wFZadI%2Fs1600%2FEEV%2BInterior.jpg&hash=90c30e2cb3a50ff706c6b0c26a0b84744684f8a8)
You see what i'm getting at?
Yes, I see, you want to say that the lights are an answer, but...
My both pictures are taken from the same POV, just look at the shape of capsules' lids, the lid becomes smaller towards the feet (there is a curve on its side), so unless the capsules are placed in EEV in zigzag position (your photo demonstrates they do not), my pics show the interior from the same side of EEV.
Moreover, there is another one:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1123.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl546%2Faliennaire%2Fcapsule3.jpg&hash=e3f6c567b48c7ae343ca050e8a66966db3622980)
Tube, which is next to Hicks', is very muddy, broken and teems with beetles/worms...
Quoteyes, I see, you want to say that the lights are an answer, but...
The picture of the cryo-tube covered with lice is from the Assembly cut. My response was refering the Theatrical cut (which i first thought you were) In any case both cuts still had 5 cryo-tubes. But i do see what you mean going from the Assembly cut image. My explanation for that is the scene was jettisoned before we see the EEV brought into the complex. So the images you posted fit more with the theatrical cut.
QuoteMy both pictures are taken from the same POV, just look at the shape of capsules' lids, the lid becomes smaller towards the feet (there is a curve on its side), so unless the capsules are placed in EEV in zigzag position (your photo demonstrates they do not), my pics show the interior from the same side of EEV
You mean your first two images you posted? same POV yes, but the first image is a shot from 'inside' the EEV, the second isn't. The image i posted was really to show the lights issue i was talking about :)
Yes, my three screencaps are from Assemly Cut (people praise it more, so I use it), but I'm sure Theatrical Version can boast with no less pleasant close shots separately of Hicks', Bishop's and Newt's cryotubes and the overall sight of EEV's internal structures. Ripley is completely smeared with oily ocean water in both versions, however in the TC she's found inside her pod, and thus so should look her cryo place, regardless whether it's lit or not. ;)
QuoteRipley is completely smeared with oily ocean water in both versions, however in the TC she's found inside her pod, and thus so should look her cryo place, regardless whether it's lit or not.
Yes, but the 5th cryo-tube she uses for the bio-scan isn't. Ripley is found covered in 'oily' water in the theatrical cut yes...in that version we see Newts cryo-tube filled with water with her still inside. The glass domes on both Newt and Ripleys cryo-tube in the Theatrical cut are still clear enough to see through them....which we also see later on in the film. We don't see 'inside' Ripleys cryotube for the rest of both cuts with the exception of the one shot in the Assembly cut which you posted.
When you originally said:
QuoteI'd also like to know, who has cleaned her cryo capsule, before Ripley's third visit to EEV for neuroscanner.
I assumed you were refering to the cryo-tube she uses for the bio-scan. In both screen shots you posted of the interiors of the cryro-tubes you don't 'see' inside them from that POV just the broken class domes and Newts cryo-tube. As to the rest of the EEV interior it looks the same from when Frank enters to Spike being inside and so on.
When watching Alien 3 it's no were near the AVP movies, it's way better.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Jan 16, 2012, 08:52:03 PM
When you originally said:
QuoteI'd also like to know, who has cleaned her cryo capsule, before Ripley's third visit to EEV for neuroscanner.
I assumed you were refering to the cryo-tube she uses for the bio-scan. In both screen shots you posted of the interiors of the cryro-tubes you don't 'see' inside them from that POV just the broken class domes and Newts cryo-tube. As to the rest of the EEV interior it looks the same from when Frank enters to Spike being inside and so on.
Well, actually I should have defined it more accurately, because I was referencing the entire inner EEV's space, maybe it's just me, but later in the film it looks more cleaner to me, than in the beginning ;) :-\
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 16, 2012, 08:14:32 AM
I'd like to know how her cryotube changed shape between Aliens and Alien 3 :P
Same way the table Scar was laid on changed from AVP to AVPR; it's a plot hole, just ignore it.
Contuinuity goof.
Intentional, but still a continuity goof.
There are lots of reasons to hate ALIEN³, I suppose--but I think there are far more reasons to love it. As one critic pointed out, it's more of a "brooding art film" than a sequel to ALIENS, which instantly makes it fanboy kryptonite. Its photography and editing are just as accomplished as the original film, it features the best performances of the entire series (Weaver is at her most powerful, Charles S. Dutton and Charles Dance keeping pace), its score is one of the most influential of the past two decades (seriously, post-ALIEN³, it is seemingly a requirement that every horror score plagiarize Elliot Goldenthal's work here), the script by Walter Hill and David Giler (who really wrote the original ALIEN, let us not forget) is very good, with excellent dialogue and realistic, hard-lived characters that harkens back to the first film, and on top of it all is the tone--so bleak and steeped in despair that it sends the average moviegoer fleeing, confused and angry. It's almost like Lars von Trier directed an ALIEN movie, and I love it.
Granted, all this refers to the Assembly Cut. It's okay to hate the theatrical cut, though I think some reshot scenes are stronger (the dog burster, first and foremost). Between the two cuts, however, lies something close to a masterpiece--it's just not a very good sequel to ALIENS in any conceivable sense, which does not bother me in the slightest.
^
^
Amém.
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 06:40:14 PM
There are lots of reasons to hate ALIEN³, I suppose--but I think there are far more reasons to love it. As one critic pointed out, it's more of a "brooding art film" than a sequel to ALIENS, which instantly makes it fanboy kryptonite. Its photography and editing are just as accomplished as the original film, it features the best performances of the entire series (Weaver is at her most powerful, Charles S. Dutton and Charles Dance keeping pace), its score is one of the most influential of the past two decades (seriously, post-ALIEN³, it is seemingly a requirement that every horror score plagiarize Elliot Goldenthal's work here), the script by Walter Hill and David Giler (who really wrote the original ALIEN, let us not forget) is very good, with excellent dialogue and realistic, hard-lived characters that harkens back to the first film, and on top of it all is the tone--so bleak and steeped in despair that it sends the average moviegoer fleeing, confused and angry. It's almost like Lars von Trier directed an ALIEN movie, and I love it.
Granted, all this refers to the Assembly Cut. It's okay to hate the theatrical cut, though I think some reshot scenes are stronger (the dog burster, first and foremost). Between the two cuts, however, lies something close to a masterpiece--it's just not a very good sequel to ALIENS in any conceivable sense, which does not bother me in the slightest.
Thank you.
I feel the reason there is a lot of disslike for Alien 3 is it is quite a shell shock of a movie.
Aliens was a safe and fun action thriller, much safer than the original film which was filled with great suspense and fear.
Alien 3 comes and slaps you upside the head and takes you out of that safe spot.
I first saw the film at the age of 12 and loved it. Was I sad that hicks and Newt died? Yes, but it worked for the story. Did I feel the Runner was effective a setup as a swarm with a Queen? Well...yes and no. It felt kind of like falling action but it went back to the formula of the original film and became a space slasher again, which I really like.
The music is fantastic and the final 40 or so minutes and astounding in every sense. The only real setback in the film is it takes a little while to get going, but that final climactic frenzy is really rewarding.
Another thing I forgot to mention is the fact that ALIEN³ is the only sequel that does not simply rehash the original film's last act, plot point by plot point. There isn't any "Oh noez, it stowed away on the escape craft AGAIN and we have to blow it out into space AGAIN" here--the method of dispatch for the Runner is pretty ingenious, actually.
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 06:40:14 PM
the script by Walter Hill and David Giler (who really wrote the original ALIEN, let us not forget)
Uh, sure they didn't.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 08:16:08 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 06:40:14 PM
the script by Walter Hill and David Giler (who really wrote the original ALIEN, let us not forget)
Uh, sure they didn't.
The shooting script is in their name, and for damned good reason. Had Dan O'Bannon's original script been filmed, this website would not exist and no one would be talking about ALIEN today.
(Except creature feature enthusiasts like this aberrant being right here, I suppose)
Just because O'Bannon's first draft needed some fixing, which he admitted, doesn't mean his writing should be forgotten.
He came up with all the basics, from the facehugger, to the chestburster to it being confined to a ship. He laid all the elements into place. Hill and Giler polished an already good concept and made it epic.
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 08:16:08 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 06:40:14 PM
the script by Walter Hill and David Giler (who really wrote the original ALIEN, let us not forget)
Uh, sure they didn't.
The shooting script is in their name, and for damned good reason. Had Dan O'Bannon's original script been filmed, this website would not exist and no one would be talking about ALIEN today.
And the film credits Dan O'Bannon. Had they filmed Giler and Hill's intended draft, I assure you we wouldn't be talking about the film. G&H wanted the derelict to be a human vessel; for the space jockey to be a human being; for the silo to be an off-world government construct known as the Cylinder; and for the Alien to be a man-made weapon. In the end, Shusett showed Scott O'Bannon's draft -which included real alien elements, such as the Jockey and his ship- and Ridley wanted to go with O'Bannon's angle [
"Ronnie Shusett had feverishly rushed up to him and shoved a copy of the original draft of the script into his hands because Hill and Giler had begun to rewrite it. We were disturbed by the content of the rewrite. Ridley read it and went, "Oh yes. We have to go back to the first way. Definitely."]. Entire swathes of G&H's script are simple revisions of O'Bannon's. Example [G&H's script italicised and interspersed with O'Bannon's]:
Ripley watching the final destiny of her ship and crew mates. A very long moment. Then, behind her, the lethal hand emerges from deep shadow. The Alien has been in the shuttle-craft all along. The cat yowls.Roby's expression is mournful as he watches the final obliteration of his ship and friends. BEHIND HIM, THE CREATURE EMERGES FROM SOME HIDING PLACE -- IT HAS BEEN INSIDE THE LIFEBOAT ALL ALONG. The cat SCREECHES.
Ripley whirls. Finding herself facing the Creature. Roby whirls, and finds himself facing the thing across the length of the boat.
Ripley's first thought is for the flamethrower. It lies on the deck next to the Alien. Next she glances around for a place to hide. Her eye falls on a small locker containing a pressure suit. The door standing open. His first thought is for the flamethrower -- unfortunately, it lies on the floor right next to the monster. Next he glances around for any place to hide. His eye falls on a tiny locker containing a space suit, with the door standing open.
As for creating Ripley, even Giler said all they did was:
We really just had the secretary change 'he' to 'she' from the original draft. Additionally, G&H didn't even want Giger on the film; O'Bannon had to lobby for his involvement.
More: http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2010/09/making-alien-part-i-script-i-wrote.html (http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2010/09/making-alien-part-i-script-i-wrote.html)
Quote from: TheMonolith on Jan 19, 2012, 08:25:12 PM
Just because O'Bannon's first draft needed some fixing, which he admitted, doesn't mean his writing should be forgotten.
He came up with all the basics, from the facehugger, to the chestburster to it being confined to a ship. He laid all the elements into place. Hill and Giler polished an already good concept and made it epic.
Yes, O'Bannon laid out the whole foundation, which is excellent--even Giler admitted as much. The problem was that everything around it--dialogue, characters, plot--was effing
terrible, we're talking "Oh my God, it's only the first page and I'm already cringing" terrible. Seriously, go back and read O'Bannon's original script and try and make it past "D-d-d-Dracula!" without managing to dry heave.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 08:27:01 PM
And the film credits Dan O'Bannon. Had they filmed Giler and Hill's intended draft, I assure you we wouldn't be talking about the film.
Your post is mistaken. What you are referring to is a VERY early Giler/Hill rewrite. They did something like twenty different rewrites before coming to the final shooting script--which is all them, no O'Bannon. The only reason O'Bannon got sole screenplay credit was because of WGA arbitrations.
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 07:58:25 PM
Another thing I forgot to mention is the fact that ALIEN³ is the only sequel that does not simply rehash the original film's last act, plot point by plot point. There isn't any "Oh noez, it stowed away on the escape craft AGAIN and we have to blow it out into space AGAIN" here--the method of dispatch for the Runner is pretty ingenious, actually.
Depends on what you reckon to be the last act. In the very last sequence (well, before the
transmision is ended) you see a cryo tubes, like they were in concluding scenes of both previous films, however empty and shattered this time.
As about the false happy end, which perportedly should have taken place right away after critter's death, A^3 doesn't differ from its predecessors again, though this time the finale is quite predictable: we all know, that Alien queen chestbuster is about to hatch out of Ripley (what exactly happens in Theatrical version).
Quote from: aliennaire on Jan 19, 2012, 08:46:47 PM
Depends on what you reckon to be thet he last act. In the very last sequence (well, before the transmision is ended) you see a cryo tubes, like they were in concluding scenes of both previous films, however empty and shattered this time.
As about the false happy end, which perportedly should have taken place right away after critter's death, A^3 doesn't differ from its predecessors again, though this time the finale is quite predictable: we all know, that Alien queen chestbuster is about to hatch out of Ripley (what exactly happens in Theatrical version).
That's not quite what I was getting at.
ALIEN: Ripley escapes after a massive explosion destroys the spaceship. Music swells, tension released. Just as she's starting to relax, the alien drops a limb out of the escape craft machinery. Ripley runs and hides behind a door, where she gets suited up and goes back out to face the beast. She opens the airlock and blows it into space.
ALIENS: Ripley escapes after a massive explosion destroys the colony. Music swells, tension released. Just as she's starting to relax, the alien drops a limb out of the escape craft machinery. Ripley runs and hides behind a door, where she gets suited up and goes back out to face the beast. She opens the airlock and blows it into space.
ALIEN RESURRECTION: Ripley escapes after a massive explosion destroys the spaceship. Just as she's starting to relax, the Newborn emerges from the escape craft machinery. Ripley confronts the beast (and by confronts, I mean gets all sicky-nasty-makey-outy). She opens a hole in the window and blows the alien into space.
The third film is the only sequel that bucks this trend and dispatches the alien in a clever way.
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 08:27:47 PM
Your post is mistaken. What you are referring to is a VERY early Giler/Hill rewrite. They did something like twenty different rewrites before coming to the final shooting script--which is all them, no O'Bannon. The only reason O'Bannon got sole screenplay credit was because of WGA arbitrations.
They did further rewrites because the one they supplied wasn't good enough; then Scott asked for a return to O'Bannons 'alien' ideas. They did not do twenty rewrites; and the final shooting script (which you can buy in stores or peruse online) was actually cobbled together in Dec 1978 -
after shooting had taken place. O'Bannon got credit because the final film most reflected his script which he came up with; from concept, to characters, and so on. G&H's contributions were not minimal but they weren't completely revisionary either. They also have a strange habit of outright lying about their contributions (Giler claimed they came up with the ship's cat, despite the cat already being in O'Bannon's script.) Since when did changing character names and punctuating differently constitute
really writing the film? The space crew; alien SOS; mysterious spore; gestating alien; alien-amok-on-a-ship; one survivor armed with a flamethrower; the cat; the "fourth act" etc, are all from O'Bannon's script -- that's why he was credited. G&H added Ash, changed the names, and changed the dialogue (how it's spoken, but not the content). Later, Ridley added his own touches, like writing crew bios and allowing the actors to ad lib, as well as allowing O'Bannon to have Giger on the film and to get rid of G&H's government-alien angle.
I disagree with your assertion that G&H
really wrote Alien. They certainly helped, but the film is a collaborative effort between many creative chefs, and O'Bannon shouldn't be overlooked simply because his script reads 'B' [and especially considering that G&H merely
rephrased entire sections of the script, rather than altering it]. Even the space trucker element was borrowed from O'Bannon's Dark Star [check the film out for many Alien-esque cues, such as cramped working spaces, malfunctioning machinery, disaffected crew-men, jumpsuit uniforms, porno posters in workspaces, and even a rogue albeit tongue-in-cheek alien on the loose]. Ridley himself name checked Dark Star along with Star Wars and 2001 for influencing Alien. Anyway, as I said: many creative chefs an' all.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 09:00:07 PM
They did further rewrites because the one they supplied wasn't good enough; then Scott asked for a return to O'Bannons 'alien' ideas. They did not do twenty rewrites; and the final shooting script (which you can buy in stores or peruse online) was actually cobbled together in Dec 1978 - after shooting had taken place.
I actually
own an original copy of the final draft of the shooting script, the one amended with visual effects inserts.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi891.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac115%2Fminarhodes%2FDSCF1200.jpg&hash=55696edaad357bb1f5c0931b803ee159cc37c5f2)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi891.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac115%2Fminarhodes%2FDSCF1201.jpg&hash=a208b9085465dccc77757ea22bb3c93d5399429c)
Despite having the same basic plot structure, the differences between O'Bannon's original script and what Hill & Giler finally ended up with is the difference between a crappy rehash of It! The Terror From Beyond Space with a mildly interesting twist, to a full-blown masterpiece. Have you actually read the different scripts in their entirety? Giler & Hill's changes are MASSIVE, it's an entirely different film because of them.
I have several of the scripts, from O'Bannon's through to G&H's first revisions [including the version featuring the human Jockey, Cylinder, etc]. The script you have there is the December 1978 draft - it was pieced together after shooting had finished and reflected what the actors said and did in Scott's cut - not what they had on hand. For example, Ash's "perfect organism" speech was written on the day and wasn't scripted at all. What you hold there is the final stew between Scott, O'Bannon, and G&H's collaboration. The film is not massively different at all. Besides, even if G&H never touched O'Bannon's script, you'd still have Giger designing everything alien [something G&H were actively against] and Cobb and Foss designing the human elements. Likely, with Ridley directing, you'd still get a damn fine film out of O'Bannon's script.
To clarify, I'm not dissing G&H at all [how can you diss Ash or his fabulous speech?], I'm only contesting that they really wrote Alien, which they absolutely did not do. Every plot point in the film is from O'Bannon - G&H refined it into something that certainly reads better, and they added the brilliant Company subtext, but they are not massively different plots, and most of what G&H actually wanted in the movie, they didn't get, because Scott preferred O'Bannon's idea [actual aliens an' all]. Elements like the pyramid weren't cut because G&H didn't like them, they were cut because of the budget. And on and on. I provided a link above, if you read that and still don't think differently in any [minor] way, then we'll just continue to disagree. Not that there's anything wrong with that :)
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 09:33:09 PM
I have several of the scripts, from O'Bannon's through to G&H's first revisions [including the version featuring the human Jockey, Cylinder, etc]. The script you have there is the December 1978 draft - it was pieced together after shooting had finished and reflected what the actors said and did in Scott's cut - not what they had on hand. For example, Ash's "perfect organism" speech was written on the day and wasn't scripted at all. What you hold there is the final stew between Scott, O'Bannon, and G&H's collaboration. The film is not massively different at all. Besides, even if G&H never touched O'Bannon's script, you'd still have Giger designing everything alien [something G&H were actively against] and Cobb and Foss designing the human elements. Likely, with Ridley directing, you'd still get a damn fine film out of O'Bannon's script.
Not exactly true. Substantial portions of the dialogue in my draft differ from what is onscreen. The revised final draft is simply a polished version of the original shooting script--the dialogue changes mentioned in the opening paragraph page are most likely ADR lines. The same is true for the ALIEN 3 final draft script, which I also own an original copy of. I own multiple copies of the scripts for all four films, multiple drafts each, and with ALIEN it is readily apparent between O'Bannon's terrible original draft and Hill & Giler's spectacular end product that most of the script success goes to them, not O'Bannon. Yes, Hill & Giler can come off sounding like major assholes when they talk about O'Bannon's original script, and I originally thought they were being jerks--until I actually got a copy and read it. It's
bad. The only thing notable is the chestburster. That is
all. So on this count, we are definitely going to have to agree to disagree. ;)
No, but the final script was pieced together after shooting, and whatever was different substantially [ie, Ash's speech or cut content] was revised. The shooting script was dated July '78, and features different lines for different speakers, etc. After shooting, Giler and Hill revised the script to reflect whatever they had seen onset [mostly Giler, as Hill didn't step foot in England]. This script still doesn't reflect the final movie, as you say, because the film was still being cut. As it stands, it's the closest to the final film, though it differs.
As for O'Bannon's script, as said, the content is all there: from ship waking its crew due to an alien SOS, to motion tracking devices and a flamethrower weapon, from hunting the Alien with electrical prods only to get jumped by the full grown creature, an airduct sequence, the Alien jumping two of the crewmen whilst another can only listen, an airlock sequence [that found itself in Giler and Hill's script but not in the movie], Broussard/Kane's body drifting outside the ship [also scrapped in the final movie, though it was storyboarded by Ridley Scott], a self-detonation countdown that is unable to be aborted despite an attempt, the lone survivor dashing through the halls of the imminently exploding ship whilst clutching a flamethrower, saving the cat and taking the lifeboat, the Alien stowing away on the lifeboat, the lone survivor hides in a locker and pulls on a space suit as the Alien is distracted by the cat, the hero shoots the Alien with a speargun and ejects the Alien, which grabs onto his foot, the hero managing to shake off the Alien's grasp and trapping it outside, igniting the Alien with the jets, and then finally, cryo-sleep with the cat.
^ That is why O'Bannon got his credit, and why Giler and Hill really writing Alien isn't true. None of those things -the story itself- were theirs. They simply refined something they were given. I've said it before: collaboration.
Re; disagreeing. That's fine, because we're wildly off-topic. Let's return to it.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 09:52:30 PM
^ That is why O'Bannon got his credit, and why Giler and Hill really writing Alien isn't true. None of those things -the story itself- were theirs. They simply refined something they were given. I've said it before: collaboration.
Re; disagreeing. That's fine, because we're wildly off-topic. Let's return to it.
I didn't so much as mean they completely wrote ALIEN as in what ended up onscreen reflects their vision rather than O'Bannon's. As stated earlier, O'Bannon came up with the basic plot, but the difference between his interpretation of it and Giler & Hill's is so massively divergent in terms of quality that Hill & Giler's original claim to the screenplay are justified, in my opinion.
But anyway, back to the topic at hand... ;)
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 10:01:47 PM
I didn't so much as mean they completely wrote ALIEN as in what ended up onscreen reflects their vision rather than O'Bannon's.
Then I misinterpreted you. Sorry.
QuoteAs stated earlier, O'Bannon came up with the basic plot, but the difference between his interpretation of it and Giler & Hill's is so massively divergent in terms of quality that Hill & Giler's original claim to the screenplay are justified, in my opinion.
I can only argue that Giler and Hill didn't get their interpretation across - O'Bannon did. Giler and Hill wanted
no alien elements in the film - the derelict was a human craft called an L-52; the Jockey was a dead human pilot; the egg silo was a government building ['
government model 503' according to Dallas] and the alien itself was a
human bioweapon. Ridley Scott insisted that Giler and Hill return to O'Bannon's ideas, which they did.
QuoteBut anyway, back to the topic at hand... ;)
Yeah, my bad :P So why do people hate Alien 3? :laugh:
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 08:57:14 PM
The third film is the only sequel that bucks this trend and dispatches the alien in a clever way.
Yes, both times they just bury monsters under the tonnes of hot lead. Repetitiousness it's not what this film is flawed with...
As far as I can judge, stereotypes and cliches in scriptwriting are not so bad, because what matters is a filling for each algorithm's step of the screenplay, e. g. characters and their personalities, scenery, ambience, minor events (which are talking without words), etc. :)
ALIEN^3: Ripley escapes the fate of being poured over with boiling metal, but the monster escapes straight away after her and explosion takes place. Music swells, tension released, partially though, due to we all know there is still the Alien inside her.. Just as she catches her breath, the company roll in. Ripley confronts them verbally and blows herself down (with a chestburster) into the inner space of (so-called) blast furnace.
Quote from: aliennaire on Jan 19, 2012, 11:06:39 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 08:57:14 PM
The third film is the only sequel that bucks this trend and dispatches the alien in a clever way.
Yes, both times they just bury monsters under the tonnes of hot lead. Repetitiousness it's not what this film is flawed with...
Actually, the alien is dispatched via the wonders of thermal shock, not being drowned in lead. It's infinitely more clever than simply blasting the alien out of an airlock
again, like ALIENS did.
Quote
ALIEN^3: Ripley escapes the fate of being poured over with boiling metal, but the monster escapes straight away after her and explosion takes place. Music swells, tension released, partially though, due to we all know there is still the Alien inside her.. Just as she catches her breath, the company roll in. Ripley confronts them verbally and blows herself down (with a chestburster) into the inner space of (so-called) blast furnace.
I don't see how this is in any way analogous to my point that the ending of ALIENS and RESURRECTION simply repeats the ending of ALIEN wholesale. If you are seriously trying to say that Ripley committing suicide in a leadworks is the same as Ripley dispatching an alien through a hatch in a spaceship, I don't think you're doing a very good job at convincing :/
I really liked how they dispatched the Alien in Alien 3. It felt good to see that sucker explode. Saying that, I loved the tussle between the Queen and the powerloader. That was some relief when it was over.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 11:18:54 PM
I really liked how they dispatched the Alien in Alien 3. It felt good to see that sucker explode. Saying that, I loved the tussle between the Queen and the powerloader. That was some relief when it was over.
I didn't like the final battle. Throughout the entire film I was able to convince myself that even though it was mostly action taking place, there was constantly some amount of horror.
That sorta flew out of the window for me when Ripley confronted the Queen. I loved the final confrontation in 'Alien' and 'Alien 3', though. Both times Ripley was on the verge of panicking, and barely mustering enough courage to take out the beast, and it felt so much more horrific.
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 11:17:07 PM
I don't see how this is in any way analogous to my point that the ending of ALIENS and RESURRECTION simply repeats the ending of ALIEN wholesale. If you are seriously trying to say that Ripley committing suicide in a leadworks is the same as Ripley dispatching an alien through a hatch in a spaceship, I don't think you're doing a very good job at convincing :/
Ripley, killing herself, disposes of the beast simultaneously.
I just tried to say, that the film follows the same general algorithm, as the other franchise's series do. On that level I even like the recurrence. But overall set and means, available (or rather unavailable) for the film's characters define the succession of events, which the movie unveils. I was speaking in general, as you were, comparing three other films between themselves. Nobody can say, that
Aliens is a totall retreading to original film, as nobody insists that A:R is a buck blueprint of any off previous series.
Quote from: The Golden Fox on Jan 19, 2012, 11:40:02 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 11:18:54 PM
I really liked how they dispatched the Alien in Alien 3. It felt good to see that sucker explode. Saying that, I loved the tussle between the Queen and the powerloader. That was some relief when it was over.
I didn't like the final battle. Throughout the entire film I was able to convince myself that even though it was mostly action taking place, there was constantly some amount of horror.
That sorta flew out of the window for me when Ripley confronted the Queen. I loved the final confrontation in 'Alien' and 'Alien 3', though. Both times Ripley was on the verge of panicking, and barely mustering enough courage to take out the beast, and it felt so much more horrific.
Diff'rent strokes an' all. I let my girlfriend watch the films this week actually and she screamed and jumped and was more frightened by Aliens than Alien [she explained the stakes were higher in Aliens for her, because there was more than just Ripley and the cat in danger]. She'd never seen them before. I had the same reaction as a kid. It was great when the Alien came to snatch Brett actually, because she went, "Oh f**k, it's
HUGE" :laugh:
Quote from: aliennaire on Jan 19, 2012, 11:48:46 PM
Ripley, killing herself, disposes of the beast simultaneously.
You're still missing the point. :-\
Quote
I just tried to say, that the film follows the same general algorithm, as the other franchise's series do. On that level I even like the recurrence. But overall set and means, available (or rather unavailable) for the film's characters define the succession of events, which the movie unveils. I was speaking in general, as you were, comparing three other films between themselves. Nobody can say, that Aliens is a totall retreading to original film, as nobody insists that A:R is a buck blueprint of any off previous series.
I didn't say that ALIENS was a total retread of ALIEN--I simply said its ending is, pretty much note for note. Hell, even Newt just plays like a human child substitute for Jones.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Jan 19, 2012, 07:52:04 PM
Aliens was a safe and fun action thriller,
Safe? In what way? As for fun, all 3 Alien movies are fun. Anyway, I disagree Alien 3 shared tension with Alien and Aliens . It didnt have it. Actaully, Alien 3 was the one who didnt share that bond with other films
ALien 3 is much further removed from Alien than its first sequel, the only thing in common they have is that theres one alien and that the finale isnt on such grand scale. Otherwise, its a completely different animal in both structure, design and cinematography (No Cobb this time and Giger's biomechanics are taken out almost completely, no use of Scott's blue or backlighting silhouette style etc), and its not a horror monster movie in space with very long buildup relying on mystery and tension, like the first 2 movies were (both movies had a buildup with tension lasting for 70% of the movie and ion both the audience knew only as much as the characters, never seeing the creature separately or what it was doing or leaving the characters at all). It also focuses much more on Ripley's character, more than even its predecessor, and even if alien would be out of the movie, most of the story and themes would still be relevant and would still work. And thats one of the reasons why I love this movie so much, and why, if I really had to chose, I would perhaps even pick it above original. And also, one of many reasons why I love the original trilogy so much is because each movie is so completely different from each other, so we get Alien stories in very different flavors
I don't like alien 3 for these reasons:
It has no characters apart from Ripley and Clemens... even then I don't consider him a very interesting character!
It has no character development, all the so called characters in the film are just interchangeable and bland; when they all died I didn't care!
The story just seems like a bad continuation of aliens with the horror of alien, and action scenes of aliens combined.
Religion in an alien film?!
The plot is very weak!
I don't like the fact they killed off hicks and newt like some throwaway extras only to replace them with boring nobodies. Cameron went to the trouble of building these characters up and making you care about them only for the next film to just have them conveniently die in a retarded way; I felt like i'd been shot in the face!
The ending felt a bit too Terminator 2ish.. for me anyway; Ripley jumping into lava to kill the queen/the t800 descending into molten steel to save the future... hmmmm
You talk of no character development in Alien3, and yet talk of Cameron's characters who were killed off - and they had zero development too.
Wierzbowski's unforgettable tale of getting dragged away before he uttered a single line.
Say for
"Ah...uh...uuuaaaaaaaaaAAAH!"
Twas a day that shook the oscars.
how about the hard hitting and thougth provoking YEAAAARGGHH by Frost? that was such an unrecognized work of art.
Quote from: SM on Jan 21, 2012, 01:51:12 AM
You talk of no character development in Alien3, and yet talk of Cameron's characters who were killed off - and they had zero development too.
I don't really consider most of the marines important characters. But unlike the prisoners, they aren't all interchangeable! Apone, hudson and vasquez are the 3 standout solders. Whereas the prisoners to me are all the same really; none of them standout as characters.
Ripley, newt, hicks, bishop are who I meant in terms of the characters in Aliens, but even then I wouldn't exactly say Bishop's character develops very much. Alien 3 on the other hand doesn't really have any characters nor do they develop. We are introduced to a prison full of prisoners that I didn't care about, save for maybe Clemens simply because he's the closest thing to a character besides Ripley!
Now I have given you my reasons, either accept it or don't but either way I don't like this film!
Quote from: CSM101 on Jan 21, 2012, 01:39:48 AM
I don't like alien 3 for these reasons:
It has no characters apart from Ripley and Clemens... even then I don't consider him a very interesting character!
Just because Clemens doesn't run around spouting one liners and posing with his oversized rifle doesn't mean he's an uninteresting character. In fact, I'd say he's one of the best characters in the whole franchise, likewise Dillon. Andrews, Aaron and Morse are also excellent supporting characters.
Quote
The ending felt a bit too Terminator 2ish.. for me anyway; Ripley jumping into lava to kill the queen/the t800 descending into molten steel to save the future... hmmmm
This was unintentional, as both films were in production at the same time. Ripley was originally supposed to simply fall into the lead, but when Giler & Hill found out about T2's ending, they rewrote so that the queen came out of Ripley before she falls into the lead. Either way, combined with Elliot Goldenthal's incredible finale cue, its still a powerful scene that more than holds its own against T2.
Ripley is the only one who really develops (ie. undergoes a change) in Aliens.
Gorman does too but it's on a par with Aaron. ie. Ineffectual and naive but ultimately redeemed.
Hicks is exactly the same at the end as he is at the start. Ditto Bishop. Burke's true character is revealed to the audience, but he doesn't develop. Newt ends up pretty much how she started.
Clemens doesn't get much time to do much of anything, but does make the most of it. Dillon's arc isn't terribly convincing, and he seems to be easily lead by Ripley. Still an interesting character though.
The other marines are ultimately stereotypes. The other prisoners aren't even that.
is "brittish" a stereotype?
Quote from: SM on Jan 21, 2012, 03:13:00 AM
Clemens doesn't get much time to do much of anything, but does make the most of it. Dillon's arc isn't terribly convincing, and he seems to be easily lead by Ripley. Still an interesting character though.
I've always thought that Dillon's "arc" (ugh, I hate that word) is that he's a reformed murderer, and when the time comes for him to kill Ripley he can't, as he's a changed man and considers her to be, if not a friend, than something close. One of the most unfortunate casualties of ALIEN 3's troubled filming is that Dillon's death as originally scripted didn't get shot for whatever reason: after they pour the lead on the alien, Ripley tells him to make good on his earlier promise to kill her. He puts his hands around her neck, but can't go through with it--naturally, the alien then erupts from the lead behind him and drags him under.
That made it into the comic from memory.
As for the rest - he's reformed prior to Ripley's arrival. ADF I think added some bits to the novelisation about Dillon musing that Ripley really could've made a difference to his life if only he'd met her earlier.
A lot of his "You don't wanna know me lady" ends up being bluster.
Quote from: SM on Jan 21, 2012, 03:37:39 AM
A lot of his "You don't wanna know me lady" ends up being bluster.
Which is one of the reasons I love his character so much. After Ripley doesn't flinch at his "murderer and rapist" line and refuses to judge him for it, he quickly extends her his respect. He's a really good character, and despite what a lot of its detractors say, ALIEN 3 is a very humanist film underneath all the gloom and doom.
Quote from: SM on Jan 21, 2012, 03:13:00 AM
Hicks is exactly the same at the end as he is at the start. Ditto Bishop.
Concerning Bishop I would only argue that the audience's perception of the character is what changes. At first we're mislead to believe he could be another Ash-kinda-thing.
Our perception is skewed because it's viewed through the prism of Ripley.
To be honest, I've always felt that Dillon's character isn't very realistic, really. It's waaay too melodramatic and pushed for my taste. Charles S Dutton is a wonderful actor, and I've seen him do some great roles, but for me... Dillon is pretty much the medium through which the movie is supposed to be given a "religious" undertone. But it isn' really an undertone, it's an obvious and underlined effort to try to make the film much grander than it really is. You know, we're supposed to think that Alien3 is not just a space monster movie, but actually a deep and meaningful religious film. All ending up with Ripley "sacrificing herself", like Jesus on the cross. Which again, is way too melodramatic for my taste. The reference is just too obvious.
What was really great about Alien and Aliens, is that they really didn't try to be "deep" or "intellectual". Not to say they were dumb, of course not. They're clever films much because of their simplicity.
This is, of course, just my opinion.
All this talk about character development... I don't think fair to expect that from Alien3, because like others have already mentioned, there wasn't much of that in Alien or Aliens, either. Sci-fi horror films just don't seem to have much room for character development, apart from maybe the lead role.
But I still think that some characters in the franchise, backed up by solid performances from the actors, manage to achieve at least something reminiscent of character development. Maybe "arc" is a better word for that. Take Hudson for example. He starts of as a loud-mouthed quasi-badass, only to lose his nerve and start to panic, before finally dying with his boots on. Of course it's a stereotype character, but in my opinion it works great in the film. Same with Gorman, who at first drops the ball completely, but ultimately tries to save Vasquez. Even though these are relatively small things if you think about the whole film and the plot, I think they make the characters more interesting and likable. And therefore we might actually feel something when one such character dies..
Quote from: SM on Jan 21, 2012, 04:37:38 AM
Our perception is skewed because it's viewed through the prism of Ripley.
Yes, on commentaries Cameron said when you watch the film the second time (bearing in mind that Bishop isn't a bad guy), you'll notice how innocently he acts all the time. :)
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 21, 2012, 03:09:38 AM
Just because Clemens doesn't run around spouting one liners and posing with his oversized rifle doesn't mean he's an uninteresting character. In fact, I'd say he's one of the best characters in the whole franchise, likewise Dillon. Andrews, Aaron and Morse are also excellent supporting characters.
Morse is my favourite character in A^3, I don't know, whether was his behaviour stipulated by script/director or was it a slight touch from the actor himself, but to me, he looks like a single one with a
personality here on the background of others (unfortunately, including Ripley into this dull crowd too). He's the only guy who's trying to add a bit of humour, and seems to be a way more smarter and live.
I consider Clemens uninteresting not for what he doesn't do, but for what he's doing all his screentime, namely for his constant whining - about the place, about his deteriorating relashionship with the superintendent, about his past, about he can't get the better job... I find it annoying, but again, it's my personal perception and attitude, that I'd not rather like to associate myself with the such people as Clemens is.
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 21, 2012, 03:09:38 AM
Either way, combined with Elliot Goldenthal's incredible finale cue, its still a powerful scene that more than holds its own against T2.
Though it doesn't look so deep and dramatic to me, as the similar episode in T2. We know that Ripley's supposed to die (it's her wish from the midway of the film), while in the T2 the decision occurs right before it's accomplished (what is shocking enough); none of those around the pit, observing Ripley's drop into the the flame, really cares about her as a person/woman/mother/whater, while the scene in 2nd Terminator is very emotionally-filled (Sarah was about to accept the machine as her partner and substitute father for her son).
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 21, 2012, 03:47:41 AM
...ALIEN 3 is a very humanist film underneath all the gloom and doom.
If to forget about the finale, which leads to nowhere, and to think in terms, that everybody deserves a second chance and forgiveness, then maybe, however...
Quote from: CSM101 on Jan 21, 2012, 01:39:48 AM
Religion in an alien film?!
PS.
CSM101, nice avatar, Captain!
8thPassenger, I agree with everything you said before!
the most frustrating thing about the hate for me is that new fans seem to just go along and repeat what they hear from older fans that (not saying new fans are stupid) know more about the alien franchise and have seen these films many times. this also brings me to aliens, in which i've unfortunately grown a disliking for due to it being overrated. people seem to watch the films so they can "agree" with other fans on how awesome/terrible they are. Now let's say a new fan watches AVP and likes it, and so he jumps on AVPGalaxy and posts on how he likes it. However after seeing how everyone disagrees with him on it ( they do not insult him, due to that being against site rules), he "changes" his opinion on how he "hates" it. I most confess that this happened to me when i first joined.
Quotethe most frustrating thing about the hate for me is that new fans seem to just go along and repeat what they hear from older fans that (not saying new fans are stupid) know more about the alien franchise and have seen these films many times.
How does this apply to Alien3, which over the years on review, has gone up in many people's estimations.
Quote from: SM on Jan 30, 2012, 07:42:21 PM
Quotethe most frustrating thing about the hate for me is that new fans seem to just go along and repeat what they hear from older fans that (not saying new fans are stupid) know more about the alien franchise and have seen these films many times.
How does this apply to Alien3, which over the years on review, has gone up in many people's estimations.
some fans that dislike alien3 (in which i don't mind) seem to draw the attention of new fans who want to agree with the "veteran" fans, so instead of forming their own opinions on the film they throw it away without a moment of hesitation and jump on the bandwagon of hate.
The reason I like the first alien and alien 3 is because they have a dark tone to it, as if the world they come from is not so good. Aliens, to me, while I still love it, is too optimistic. I like the fact that Newt and Hicks are killed off because it gives a sense of the cold hard reality of this world. If they live, well than that just defeats the purpose. Alien movies are not supposed to give too much hope, or the atmosphere is ruined.
I never saw ALIEN as being completely dark: the ending was very much Sleeping Beauty, which David Giler name checked - there's an idea of peace at last. ALIENS was pretty rough until the end [including offscreen fatalities, it probably has the highest body count in the first three movies, including men, women, and children]. I like Stanley Kubrick's quote on the harsh universe: 'The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent - but if we can come to terms with the indifference, then our existence as a species can have genuine meaning. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.' I think the ending of ALIENS perfectly applies here, and you'd be hard pressed to find somehow who thinks that ALIENS' ending contravened the first two hours of the movie. Additionally, there wasn't a single ALIENS continuation in either script or comic that developed Newt, Hicks, Bishop and Ripley as a buccaneering Space family Robinson - it really seems to have been invented by the fanbase.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts.
Quote from: WeylandCorp on Feb 01, 2012, 07:05:20 AM
The reason I like the first alien and alien 3 is because they have a dark tone to it, as if the world they come from is not so good. Aliens, to me, while I still love it, is too optimistic. I like the fact that Newt and Hicks are killed off because it gives a sense of the cold hard reality of this world. If they live, well than that just defeats the purpose. Alien movies are not supposed to give too much hope, or the atmosphere is ruined.
That's exactly why I don't like Alien 3. The dark self sacrifice theme was no good for me.
Im actully quite fond of Alien 3. i found the setting and xenomorph design to be very good. i mean for the hell it went through it could have been alot worse than what we got honestly.
I don't hate alien 3 at all, its most certainly inferior to the first to and superior to the later films. Production hell is what made it the way it is which is why i can forgive it.
On the contrary, I love Alien 3. While it isn't as spooky and Alien or an action flick like Aliens, it's more of a movie about Redemption and Depression. I love the design of the Alien and while the characters are a bit under-developed, some of them are quite memorable. Such as Morse and Dillon. Alien 3 was the last really good Alien film, the disaters afterwards, forget about them. They are just throw-aways.
I think the production hell it went through can only account for so much.
Certainly it is surprising that the film turned out the way it did considering what it went through so credits must be paid to Fincher and those involved that actually got it there.
BUT
The self sacrifice theme did not go down well with me at all.
Quote from: Basher917 on Jan 30, 2012, 07:47:30 PM
some fans that dislike alien3 (in which i don't mind) seem to draw the attention of new fans who want to agree with the "veteran" fans, so instead of forming their own opinions on the film they throw it away without a moment of hesitation and jump on the bandwagon of hate.
Why would you comply with someone's opinion, if you have your own on the discussed matter? You just bring forward your personal argumentation and facts (quotes off filmmakers, stills, etc.) to substanciate it :)
Quote from: stephen on Feb 03, 2012, 12:28:18 AM
The self sacrifice theme did not go down well with me at all.
The same with me, and even more than that I can't reconcile to new Ripley's path, which the third film is dicovering. It causes some sort of cognitive dissonance effect on me :D On the one hand she is strong and smart female hero (as I remebered from the first two series), and now I espy all depressive, suicidal damsel in distress :-\ Therefore every time I try to put 2 and 2 together I get either 3 (Ripley's chestburster Queen should have escaped demise, reach the Earth and play havoc with avid for money and deceitful human race) or 5 (Ripley should have survived at any cost to secure extinction of any Alien, as she seems to be the only efficient person struggling them ;D)
Self-sacrificing is better than letting oneself get killed by the chestburster and allowing to make a new hive.
hmm that would have made a new line of films just without the ripley character which the later series heavily relied upon.
0k the beginning of this film is bungled, but Alien3 is visually beautiful ... The story line , the characters , the dark tone , THE S0UNDTRACK ... The D. Fincher work is amazing but ( again ) bungled by a chaotic production ( Fox ) . Alien3 is my favorite of all time , don't ask me why . I really like the others from the saga , but this one has something very special ...
It a miracle it turned out how it did considering.
Fox is the real life Weyland-Yutani.
QuoteThe story line , the characters
...are pretty average.
and its very lucky to be just average, it could have been far worse although it would take a bad miracle to make a film with an alien in it worse than AVP-R
Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2012, 03:35:32 AM
QuoteThe story line , the characters
...are pretty average.
That's your point of view and I repeat again , this movie was bungled by Fox ...
It's funny when I read some comments on the death of Hicks and Newt. You think what? The universe of Alien is not the world of Care Bears !
Quote from: Bamozore on Feb 04, 2012, 03:49:44 AM
Hicks and Newt ... Care Bears !
That's quite the leap.
Quote from: Bamozore on Feb 04, 2012, 03:49:44 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 04, 2012, 03:35:32 AM
QuoteThe story line , the characters
...are pretty average.
That's your point of view and I repeat again , this movie was bungled by Fox ...
It's funny when I read some comments on the death of Hicks and Newt. You think what? The universe of Alien is not the world of Care Bears !
Repeat it all you want. Many more people were involved in Alien3 being average than just Fox execs. Just blaming them is lazy and ignorant.
yep, the writers who kept changing the scripts for example.
Death of Hicks and Newt. With a bit of clever writing they easily could of still made a Ripley movie without killing off
those two. Easy. You just have their cryotubes going to some other life boat while ripley goes to the one that eventually crash lands. Ripley jumps off. Alien3 still stands. But without the death of Hicks and Newt. Allowing for a possible fourth movie free of Ripley though exploring the lives of Hicks and Newt.
Later movies relied on ripley and her character type too much, yes she was cool and awesome but the alien franchise shouldn't revolve around her or her character type.
In my opinion, the deaths of Hicks and Newt were the worst things to happen in the Alien movie series.
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 05, 2012, 12:41:50 AM
In my opinion, the deaths of Hicks and Newt were the worst things to happen in the Alien movie series.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lrmt4ezmTk1r2m1spo1_r1_500.gif&hash=fa33d29e7e5e3aadb74cc21ffe3e7c732048cb40)
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 05, 2012, 12:41:50 AM
In my opinion, the deaths of Hicks and Newt were the worst things to happen in the Alien movie series.
QuoteYou just have their cryotubes going to some other life boat while ripley goes to the one that eventually crash lands. Ripley jumps off.
I cringe every time i read this:
QuoteFox is the real life Weyland-Yutani.
QuoteAliens was a safe and fun action thriller
QuoteHicks & Newt are killed off. Looking back, this makes a lot of the events in Aliens now just pointless.
Quoteit ruined a great potential plot with Newt and Hicks by just killing them off
QuoteIt also killed off our favourite characters. At the end of ALIENS we all feel glad knowing that Ripley, Newt and Hicks are ok. Then all of a sudden in A3, BAM! Hicks and Newt die. Now that made me start disliking the movie before it had barely gotten started.
QuoteThe cast consisted of a bunch of generic bald English guys with no real defining characteristics
I almost felt a tear going down my face after reading this:
Quoteaside from giving (unnecessary) closure to Ripley's saga, was completely pointless.
and worst of all:
QuoteInstead Alien3 tries too hard to be a character-study with the Alien just as a sub-plot or something
Response:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fjarssecretbase%2Fimages%2Ff%2Ff8%2FKeyboard-smash-o.gif&hash=42f761abd29d0229efa2c4cf98ba1ac2838a2538)
I'm not going to say it:
QuotePeople hate it because they can't get Cameron's dick out of their mouth.
Again i say alien 3 was not bad but it had flaws but people rely too much on the main character which was ripley. I will say killing off newt and hicks was a slap in the face to fans everywhere, ripley went through all that trouble to rescue newt and hicks got showered in acid after killing an alien that tried to attack him and ripley. I guess fox or the other film makers were trying to tie up loose ends as soon as possible.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 05, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
Again i say alien 3 was not bad but it had flaws but people rely too much on the main character which was ripley. I will say killing off newt and hicks was a slap in the face to fans everywhere, ripley went through all that trouble to rescue newt and hicks got showered in acid after killing an alien that tried to attack him and ripley. I guess fox or the other film makers were trying to tie up loose ends as soon as possible.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-BcsYJfQluO8%2FThr6aBNHWFI%2FAAAAAAAAAXM%2F32_75xWEDl8%2Fs1600%2Ff%255Dail%2Btrain.jpg&hash=e9f73418399383e030bcbc3b5c1733a8eb85a26d)
Let's act a little more adult and cease the spamming.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 05, 2012, 12:49:28 AM
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 05, 2012, 12:41:50 AM
In my opinion, the deaths of Hicks and Newt were the worst things to happen in the Alien movie series.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrmt4ezmTk1r2m1spo1_r1_500.gif
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.cheezburger.com%2Fcompletestore%2F2011%2F3%2F30%2F784c93ad-be29-4a92-b6ed-9a6bb366f75a.jpg&hash=1bc457d401c6b3517cbbbbdd7140ed9730cdd02a)
Quote from: DJ Pu$$yface on Feb 05, 2012, 04:04:24 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 05, 2012, 12:49:28 AM
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 05, 2012, 12:41:50 AM
In my opinion, the deaths of Hicks and Newt were the worst things to happen in the Alien movie series.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrmt4ezmTk1r2m1spo1_r1_500.gif
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/3/30/784c93ad-be29-4a92-b6ed-9a6bb366f75a.jpg
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi891.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac115%2Fminarhodes%2Ftumblr_lvv6si5VtN1qkjqtzo1_500.gif&hash=82b7f67dcaab2e5be905a2746089aa4b6b6347b6)
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 05, 2012, 02:47:32 AM
Let's act a little more adult and cease the spamming.
You do know where you are right?
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 05, 2012, 12:40:49 AM
Later movies relied on ripley and her character type too much, yes she was cool and awesome but the alien franchise shouldn't revolve around her or her character type.
Agree with this.
It seems kinda ridiculous that the same person should bump into these creatures time and time again. In 'Aliens' Cameron gave her a believable reason to face them again, but I think her saga should have ended with that film.
And one more thing: I'm not buying the whole "if the company gets the alien everybody on earth will be killed" excuse. I mean, a bunch on prisoners with no weapons were able to capture the alien (until one lunatic let her out), so what's the problem? The rational thing would have been to wait for the rescue team and let the company handle it.
The only film that lacked a believable reason was Alien3.
Quote from: SM on Feb 05, 2012, 09:23:59 AM
The only film that lacked a believable reason was Alien3.
I agree with this as well.
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Feb 05, 2012, 09:21:55 AM
And one more thing: I'm not buying the whole "if the company gets the alien everybody on earth will be killed" excuse.
I interpret this as she was getting mentally deranged with the fixed idea of Aliens extermination. As for the plot excuse, yes, it doesn't feel essentially solid.
Quote from: SM on Feb 05, 2012, 09:23:59 AM
The only film that lacked a believable reason was Alien3.
For what, for bumping into aliens for the third time? I thought it was actually done well. It wasnt a coincidence - she brought it with her, it was a leftover of the last stories battle. If she landed somewhere and suddenly out of nowhere there was an alien again THAT would be a big stretch. So I think it was done very well, no problems here. The miraculous coincidence is in another spot - that Sulaco ejects EEVs just when passing Fury, and worse yet - out of ENTIRE huge planet the EEV lands in front of the penitentiary. And then the only survivor is Ripley. Thoe really are unbelievable stretches, even for movies, but I let it slip
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Feb 05, 2012, 09:21:55 AM
And one more thing: I'm not buying the whole "if the company gets the alien everybody on earth will be killed" excuse.
yet the entire saga revolves around Ripley keeping it out of the companies hands
*sigh* i need something to drink
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 05, 2012, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 05, 2012, 09:23:59 AM
The only film that lacked a believable reason was Alien3.
The miraculous coincidence is in another spot - that Sulaco ejects EEVs just when passing Fury, and worse yet - out of ENTIRE huge planet the EEV lands in front of the penitentiary. And then the only survivor is Ripley. Thoe really are unbelievable stretches, even for movies, but I let it slip
Well, for me it's actually pretty logical that the penitentiary would have some sort of a beacon, towards which the EEV would navigate. Your other points I could agree on.
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 05, 2012, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Feb 05, 2012, 09:21:55 AM
And one more thing: I'm not buying the whole "if the company gets the alien everybody on earth will be killed" excuse.
yet the entire saga revolves around Ripley keeping it out of the companies hands
*sigh* i need something to drink
I would say that the main theme of the whole saga is people trying to survive the alien(s).
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Feb 05, 2012, 02:39:30 PM
I would say that the main theme of the whole saga is people trying to survive the alien(s).
Id say this is true for the first movie, and pretty much Obannon and Ridley said the same thing about their movie, but as far as Aliens and Alien 3, its about Ripley's "internal" fight for surviving and about her character and drama with the creature being more of a backdrop to her personal journey. Especially Alien 3 in which case the movie would even work without the alien in it
To be fair i don't think that aliens wiping out earth is entirely an excuse, xenomorphs are a species which infests areas pretty quick, while earth would not be overtaken instantly nor would all life die since they probably have shuttles to go to other colonies but an out of control infestation could ruin most of earth. LV-426 was wiped out because just one man was facehugged though its possible others checked out the derelict afterwards, point is everyone except newt was dead.
The company might be careful when handling an alien but should containment fail then all hell will break loose.
I guess the excuse part of it is that Ripley assumes that the company would take it to earth but if they were smart and know what they are dealing with then they would keep it on a space station similar to gateway.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 05, 2012, 04:11:06 PM
To be fair i don't think that aliens wiping out earth is entirely an excuse, xenomorphs are a species which infests areas pretty quick, while earth would not be overtaken instantly nor would all life die since they probably have shuttles to go to other colonies but an out of control infestation could ruin most of earth. LV-426 was wiped out because just one man was facehugged though its possible others checked out the derelict afterwards, point is everyone except newt was dead.
The company might be careful when handling an alien but should containment fail then all hell will break loose.
I guess the excuse part of it is that Ripley assumes that the company would take it to earth but if they were smart and know what they are dealing with then they would keep it on a space station similar to gateway.
the company would take the Xenomorphs to more than one planet
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 05, 2012, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Feb 05, 2012, 02:39:30 PM
I would say that the main theme of the whole saga is people trying to survive the alien(s).
Id say this is true for the first movie, and pretty much Obannon and Ridley said the same thing about their movie, but as far as Aliens and Alien 3, its about Ripley's "internal" fight for surviving and about her character and drama with the creature being more of a backdrop to her personal journey. Especially Alien 3 in which case the movie would even work without the alien in it
Actually in Aliens it was about Ripley being able to "dream" again. She survived the first film physically but not mentally. At the end of aliens she survived both physically and mentally. That was the point of her going back.
Yes it was to destroy them, not to study, not to bring back but to wipe them out but her catylist for going was for her "survival".
The protection of Earth etc was a by product.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 05, 2012, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 05, 2012, 09:23:59 AM
The only film that lacked a believable reason was Alien3.
For what, for bumping into aliens for the third time?
No, for everything else you listed. The miraculous egg has everyone going "Waaaiiit a minute!", then this leads to rather cheaply killing off 3/4 of the survivors of the previous film.
Lot of people didn't buy it and therefore didn't dig the film.
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 05, 2012, 02:30:53 AM
QuoteAliens was a safe and fun action thriller
You neglected to mention that I like Alien 3.
A lot.
Just a fun fact: Everyone blames the writers for the "magic egg", but it should be noted that there is no egg in the shooting script, merely a facehugger. The egg was added in during the Los Angeles pickups in March 1992 by the studio. It's a shame they didn't remove it from the Assembly Cut, as that would remove much of the plothole problem that opens the film. A Queen facehugger hitching a ride on the queen is a lot more plausible than an egg randomly stowed away on the ship.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 06, 2012, 02:22:43 AM
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 05, 2012, 02:30:53 AM
QuoteAliens was a safe and fun action thriller
You neglected to mention that I like Alien 3.
A lot.
I used it as an example of a reason why people hate Alien 3's characters because Alien 3 differs so much from Aliens mood wise.
if you took it as an offense against your opinion i'm sorry, i was using it as an example for contrast between the two films.
People can't get into Alien3's characters for a variety of reasons but essentially it boils down to the fact that even if you could tell apart a bunch of grubby bald Poms, it's unlikely you're going to root for a bunch of murderers and rapists.
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 06, 2012, 02:32:18 AM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 06, 2012, 02:22:43 AM
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 05, 2012, 02:30:53 AM
QuoteAliens was a safe and fun action thriller
You neglected to mention that I like Alien 3.
A lot.
I used it as an example of a reason why people hate Alien 3's characters because Alien 3 differs so much from Aliens mood wise.
if you took it as an offense against your opinion i'm sorry, i was using it as an example for contrast between the two films.
It appeared that the quote was taken out of context. No offense taken.
But damn it all, I love Alien 3.
I was sad that Hicks and Newt died, but I think it is a good thing for a movie to generate a real emotional response.
It bugs me how people keep talking as if it is bad for the movie to do that.
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2012, 02:35:47 AM
People can't get into Alien3's characters for a variety of reasons but essentially it boils down to the fact that even if you could tell apart a bunch of grubby bald Poms, it's unlikely you're going to root for a bunch of murderers and rapists.
You delve into a character in the right way, you can get an audience to root for just about anyone. I don't like murderers and rapists, but I really liked Dillon.
Dillon was the only one who really ascribed to the whole religion thing, which set him apart from the others.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 06, 2012, 02:45:20 AM
But damn it all, I love Alien 3.
I was sad that Hicks and Newt died, but I think it is a good thing for a movie to generate a real emotional response.
It bugs me how people keep talking as if it is bad for the movie to do that.
Call us old fashioned, but I hate it when my favorite characters are killed off, especially when they're children.
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2012, 02:48:52 AM
Dillon was the only one who really ascribed to the whole religion thing, which set him apart from the others.
Agreed. I always was a modest fan of Dutton, and this film is my favorite of his thus far.
I don't think the problem is so much that they are murderers and rapists, or the fact they all look similar.
As a fan of this film, one of my complaints is that they were not given a lot of focus and not many of them were fleshed out. They were just sort of there and then they died.
Hearing more about what they were convicted of, finding out of some of them felt remorse, delving deeper into their personalities and behaviors and so on. This would have had the added effect of giving their deaths some weight.
The film had a fantastic cast and I would have loved to see how the cast would have been used in this regard.
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 06, 2012, 02:51:53 AM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 06, 2012, 02:45:20 AM
But damn it all, I love Alien 3.
I was sad that Hicks and Newt died, but I think it is a good thing for a movie to generate a real emotional response.
It bugs me how people keep talking as if it is bad for the movie to do that.
Call us old fashioned, but I hate it when my favorite characters are killed off, especially when they're children.
I don't like it when my favorite characters die either, but that doesn't make me hate the movie where they kick it.
QuoteAs a fan of this film, one of my complaints is that they were not given a lot of focus and not many of them were fleshed out. They were just sort of there and then they died.
Secondary characters rarely get fleshed out - especially in films like this - and these guys were less than secondary for the most part. The ones who got the most screen time (Boggs, Rains, Murphy, Frank, etc.) were the first ones bumped off.
Cameron at least resroted to stereotypes to make his characters stand out and it worked a treat. Vasquez, Hudson, Frost, Apone - none were fleshed out in the slightest - but they were memorable and people cared when they carked it.
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 06, 2012, 02:51:53 AM
Call us old fashioned, but I hate it when my favorite characters are killed off, especially when they're children.
I heard once that Alien3 had a lot of balls for killing off Hicks and Newt.
I love how Alien3 did that
I'm a huge prick.
when i post i get a sense of Narcissism while explaining in detail how illogical people have illogical things to say/ opinions
so this must mean i'm a:
balls loving narcissistic asshole of a prick
and i can take that to the grave happily
(edited)
"self narcissism" is redundant.
I didn't care much for Newt and Hicks deaths, simply because neither character really interested me. It doesn't help when Hicks was nothing but a grunt (with leadership pressed upon him...how original) and Newt was the typical "little girl in distress".
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 05, 2012, 02:26:23 PM
*sigh* i need something to drink
*several posts later*
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 06, 2012, 03:22:50 AM
...so this must mean i'm a:
balls loving narcissistic asshole of a prick
I take it you've finally got drunk? ;D
Well, back to the serious groove.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 06, 2012, 03:05:06 AM
As a fan of this film, one of my complaints is that they were not given a lot of focus and not many of them were fleshed out. They were just sort of there and then they died.
Hearing more about what they were convicted of, finding out of some of them felt remorse, delving deeper into their personalities and behaviors and so on. This would have had the added effect of giving their deaths some weight.
The film had a fantastic cast and I would have loved to see how the cast would have been used in this regard.
That would make movie into a maudlin tale (and Clemens' confession looks so to me), whereas short Golic's line about girls, who loved him ...for a very brief time, enhanced with his excentric demeanour, outlines the character perfectly, s I can see it. It's a movie, not a radio broadcasting: you don't need a dilated ranting to arrange the emotional response from the viewer. Curiously, a few days ago I've found myself shedding tears at merely one-minute serious speach among the whole 110 minutes of rampant comedy.
The first is a Horror.
The second is an Action film
The third is an Art film
The forth is the Comic Book
Its not hard to see why people who LOVED a Sci fi action shoot-em up, would dislike a Steam Punk Expressionist painting. But I swear to you anyone with a real understanding of expressionism and christian myth would love Alien 3. Of all the films in the series, its the most hard-sci-fi story.
Quote from: CainsSon on Feb 15, 2012, 06:17:47 AM
Its not hard to see why people who LOVED a Sci fi action shoot-em up, would dislike a Steam Punk Expressionist painting.
I dont like shootem ups and I love Alien 3. I think by shootem up youre referring to Aliens, but I always fail to see how people see Aliens as this "action packed shooter" when for 2/3 of the movie its all tension and buildup and for an action movie theres relatively very little action. Actually its the same amount of action as in the first, just in a grander scale of course. For me aliens is a character centered journey and first and foremost a marathon of suspense. Also, usually people love the first and second movie together. For me what makes me prefer Aliens and Alien 3 slightly more than original is that theyre all about Ripley's character
As far as the art film, Im one of the biggest Alien 3 fans you can find and theres no denial its a great piece of art work, but I think youre overestimating it a little. For me the Alien wouldve been by far the most artistic of the three, and many elements of the first also transition to th second (frame composition, blue backlighting, use of smoke and silhouettes etc)
In short, I love all 3 movies equally
Alien for me is also THE artistic film of these three.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Feb 15, 2012, 05:55:46 PM
Alien for me is also THE artistic film of these three.
well, one could start perceiving Alien 3 as an art film if one were to compare it to an opium fueled Tarkovsky hallucination that one critic did and then watch Element of Crime by Lars Von Trier which was made almost a decade before Alien 3
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 06, 2012, 02:51:53 AM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 06, 2012, 02:45:20 AM
But damn it all, I love Alien 3.
I was sad that Hicks and Newt died, but I think it is a good thing for a movie to generate a real emotional response.
It bugs me how people keep talking as if it is bad for the movie to do that.
Call us old fashioned, but I hate it when my favorite characters are killed off, especially when they're children.
This. Plus I felt there was little/no emtion for the prisoners. They killed, stealed and raped. They diserved to be killed. There criminals. Where as on LV 426 there where familiys and on the nostromo there were workers doing there job.
Quote from: Terx2 on Feb 17, 2012, 05:04:24 AM
This. Plus I felt there was little/no emtion for the prisoners. They killed, stealed and raped. They diserved to be killed. There criminals.
With that reasoning, why bother having prisons at all? Why not just send every criminal to death row and not give them a chance to reform? I guess every prisoner on Fury 161 was still an evil, unrepentant monster, despite the fact that most of them
had reformed to some extent, and even tolerated and eventually looked to Ripley for leadership. ::)
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 17, 2012, 05:08:23 AM
Quote from: Terx2 on Feb 17, 2012, 05:04:24 AM
This. Plus I felt there was little/no emtion for the prisoners. They killed, stealed and raped. They diserved to be killed. There criminals.
With that reasoning, why bother having prisons at all? Why not just send every criminal to death row and not give them a chance to reform? I guess every prisoner on Fury 161 was still an evil, unrepentant monster, despite the fact that most of them had reformed to some extent, and even tolerated and eventually looked to Ripley for leadership. ::)
I think he was talking more about being able to connect with the characters - it's a hell of a lot easier connecting with "good" characters as opposed to characters that are rapists and murderers.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 17, 2012, 05:14:06 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 17, 2012, 05:08:23 AM
Quote from: Terx2 on Feb 17, 2012, 05:04:24 AM
This. Plus I felt there was little/no emtion for the prisoners. They killed, stealed and raped. They diserved to be killed. There criminals.
With that reasoning, why bother having prisons at all? Why not just send every criminal to death row and not give them a chance to reform? I guess every prisoner on Fury 161 was still an evil, unrepentant monster, despite the fact that most of them had reformed to some extent, and even tolerated and eventually looked to Ripley for leadership. ::)
I think he was talking more about being able to connect with the characters - it's a hell of a lot easier connecting with "good" characters as opposed to characters that are rapists and murderers.
That's what I meant ;D
Quote from: stephen on Feb 17, 2012, 05:14:06 AM
I think he was talking more about being able to connect with the characters - it's a hell of a lot easier connecting with "good" characters as opposed to characters that are rapists and murderers.
I don't think it's hard to connect with Clemens or Dillon, for starters. They may be criminals, but they're still likeable human beings who feel horrible about the things they've done. Of course, it also helps that the actors playing them deliver some of the most impassioned, nuanced performances in the entire franchise.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 17, 2012, 05:18:58 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 17, 2012, 05:14:06 AM
I think he was talking more about being able to connect with the characters - it's a hell of a lot easier connecting with "good" characters as opposed to characters that are rapists and murderers.
I don't think it's hard to connect with Clemens or Dillon, for starters. They may be criminals, but they're still likeable human beings who feel horrible about the things they've done. Of course, it also helps that the actors playing them deliver some of the most impassioned, nuanced performances in the entire franchise.
Clemens yes - simply because we get to hear his story. Dillon because he's a natural type leader and he saves Ripley from being raped by some of the others. But ultimately they're all bland and cookie-cutter characters.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 17, 2012, 11:27:33 PMBut ultimately they're all bland and cookie-cutter characters.
The same could be said about any character in ALIENS aside from Ripley.
Not really.
Cameron may hav used stereotypes, but they stood out and were largely memorable and therefore not "bland".
Quote from: SM on Feb 18, 2012, 03:23:04 AM
Not really.
Cameron may hav used stereotypes, but they stood out and were largely memorable and therefore not "bland".
Most of them are just kill fodder with barely two lines--hardly memorable. Bishop is memorable, as is Vasquez (but she of course is herself a walking cliche, so much so that TVTropes has a trope named after her called "Vasquez Always Dies"). Hicks is dreamy, but that's about it. Newt is really just a human stand in for Jones, and the daughter conceit arc is so screenwriterly and obvious it hurts (another reason the theatrical cut bests the special edition).
The principal characters in Alien³ -- Dillon, Clemens, Aaron, Morse, Andrews -- are all much more nuanced, with subtle characterization backed up by top class acting. Not to say the acting in Aliens is bad--far from it--but it's definitely not in the same league (even Sigourney occasionally overacts, which she noticeably does
not do in the third film).
Essentially, there is a difference between bland and subtle. The characters in ALIEN are subtle--which, oddly enough, led to critics at the time to dismiss them as bland. The real problem with Alien³'s characters is simply that there are
too many of them, the majority of which are not developed anywhere near the level the principals are.
Nor should they be. Guys like David, Gregor, Kevin, Jude, William don't need to be fleshed out - there's simply no time to do so.
Nor were they memorable. People might wax lyrical about the late, great Pete Postlethwaite, but no one knew who he was in 1992.
Even the characters they did attempt to flesh out early like Boggs, Rains, Murphy, Golic and Frank either had their scenes cut or were killed so early it didn't matter - the average punter still couldn't tell them apart.
With Aliens, now you're talking about development, whereas previously you were talking about "bland". Of course there's no development in Aliens (except Gorman - a bit). But Vasquez, Hudson, Hicks, Frost, Drake, Apone all stood out. And if they stood out and people missed them when they died I don't know how they could be called "bland".
Quote from: SM on Feb 18, 2012, 03:53:09 AM
With Aliens, now you're talking about development, whereas previously you were talking about "bland". Of course there's no development in Aliens (except Gorman - a bit). But Vasquez, Hudson, Hicks, Frost, Drake, Apone all stood out. And if they stood out and people missed them when they died I don't know how they could be called "bland".
I didn't miss any of them when they died (except maybe Vasquez)--especially Frost and Drake who are the definition of bland because they make no impression whatsoever. They're all too cartoonish to take seriously. On the contrary, I was even
relieved when some of them died (I'm looking at you, Hudson).
QuoteI didn't miss any of them when they died
That's one person. The fact that Vasquez, Hudson, Hicks, Apone etc still get talked about 25 years later and no one in Alien3 does might indicate you're in a minority.
Quote from: SM on Feb 18, 2012, 04:07:14 AM
That's one person. The fact that Vasquez, Hudson, Hicks, Apone etc still get talked about 25 years later and no one in Alien3 does might indicate you're in a minority.
Just because something is the minority doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong ;)
But sometimes it does. ;D
Quote from: SM on Feb 18, 2012, 06:06:14 AM
But sometimes it does. ;D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tumblr.com%2Fv4vvd40%2Fm75lmpfhe%2Ftumblr_llgaeahjah1qiyqyfo1_500.gif&hash=a14e5ff69484f678e6c39dbd4f1726d24e40db1b)
I like Alien 3 more than Aliens, and I have my reasons. As Cvalda was saying, many of the characters in Aliens were just not memorable (who was Private Spunkmeyer again?) In Alien 3, especially the Assembly Cut, I find some of the main characters, such as Dillon, Clemens, Aaron and Morse considerably more memorable. In actual fact, I have difficulty remembering some of the marines from Aliens and the fact that most of them die so soon in the film doesn't help (wasn't Private Wierzbowski's character defining line an off-screen "Aaaaaargh!"?) That and their overall cartoonish nature, portraying them as complete idiots rather than trained marines. If these are the best marines, I'd hate to see the worst (they're probably busy shooting each other more often than the enemy). They don't seem to think that their 2D motion trackers may be picking up aliens that are above or below them, only realizing this at the last second when hicks pokes his head through a grating in the ceiling. I didn't particularly care much for Hicks either, so his death in Alien 3 did not bother me at all.
Ahh, but you've just shown that Cameron even gave his real non-entities like Spunkmeyer and Wierzbowski memorable names.
Some guys in Alien3 didn't even get names.
Dillon, Clemens, Golic, Andrew, Aaron (the main ones)
Boggs (got killed in front of Golic by the alien, along with Rains), Rains, Junior (lead the alien into the vault, knowing it would kill him but did it anyway, presumably as an act of redemption after his attempted rape of Ripley), Jude, David (Pete Postlethwaite's character) and a few others, such as William and Troy who were more or less there to be fodder, much like Wierzbowski and Spunkmeyer. An uncommon name does not make a character and in films like this there are always going to be people there as fodder. However, I still believe there were far more memorable and nuanced characters in Alien 3, namely the "main ones" listed above. I suppose we could argue about it all day, but this is just my opinion. Just like most of the marines got killed off during their first trip into the hive, most of the prisoners get killed in the explosion in the tunnel. They wouldn't be terribly exciting films if there weren't characters around to get offed by the aliens in question.
Well said, QuantumSheep. :)
Quote from: CainsSon on Feb 15, 2012, 06:17:47 AMBut I swear to you anyone with a real understanding of expressionism and christian myth would love Alien 3. Of all the films in the series, its the most hard-sci-fi story.
Agreed with the first, but I would't go along with calling
A3 hard-sci-fi (definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction)), as it violates even modern principles of operating blast furnace (you can't turn it off and on upon your caprice) and, to the certain extent, contradicts with set before WY's image as an evil corporation (why would they be so generous to waste resources on attending to prisoners on Fury instead of relocating them to the functioning penitentiary, where they belong?)
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 17, 2012, 05:08:23 AMI guess every prisoner on Fury 161 was still an evil, unrepentant monster, despite the fact that most of them had reformed to some extent, and even tolerated and eventually looked to Ripley for leadership. ::)
If the reason of introducing Alien to the prisoner was to hasten their reformation (so they finally accept Ripley on a par with themselves or even consider her to be a leader!), then, to me, this ploy was executed poorly in the flick. After the moment of sudden Andrew's death, all the prisoners at once turn from bald and self-conceit to scared and useless.
Quote from: Terx2 on Feb 17, 2012, 05:04:24 AMThis. Plus I felt there was little/no emtion for the prisoners. They killed, stealed and raped. They diserved to be killed. There criminals.
Well, if to count this interpretation... This makes
A3 a film with a happy ending, doesn't it? ;D
Quote from: SM on Feb 18, 2012, 09:28:18 AMAhh, but you've just shown that Cameron even gave his real non-entities like Spunkmeyer and Wierzbowski memorable names.
I find the juxstaposing of
Aliens' charactes of secondary importance to the ones, who were (purported) to make the main roles in
Alien 3, flattering to Cameron's film ;)
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 18, 2012, 07:09:38 AMThat and their overall cartoonish nature, portraying them as complete idiots rather than trained marines. If these are the best marines, I'd hate to see the worst (they're probably busy shooting each other more often than the enemy). They don't seem to think that their 2D motion trackers may be picking up aliens that are above or below them, only realizing this at the last second when hicks pokes his head through a grating in the ceiling. I didn't particularly care much for Hicks either, so his death in Alien 3 did not bother me at all.
What you call
cartoonish nature was a retainment of Alien characters' feature, namely, to show experienced in their field group of people (there is also personalized outfit, manner of chattering out of "numbers", arguing to the formal leader). When Gorman gives instruction about preparing weaponry and dropship, Ferro disapprovingly says "Come on!", likely, she has a better idea of her dropship's preparation time.
And the scene with Aliens scrambling along the pipes above the ceiling was here to show how dexterious and nimble the creatures could be,making their way to detour firing automatic sentinels.
So, one or two of the marines might have had brains, but the rest didn't. The Aliens might have been nimble, but they seemed to take their time getting by those sentry guns. There were four of these guns, each packing 500 rounds. All four have practically emptied by the time the power is cut. Couple this with the sounds of their screeching and the shots on the monitors showing aliens getting shot to pieces and it seems that the aliens are losing quite a lot of their own on some pointless charge down the hallway. Its odd how they suddenly decide to find an alternate route AFTER all four guns have emptied. Nimbleness doesn't make cleverness, so you almost say the aliens were as dumb as the marines. Then again, the Alien in Alien 3 wasn't all that clever, but it did get spawned form an ox/dog so it probably didn't inherit the same level of intelligence as the one in the first film. That would explain its animalistic tendencies and the sheer ferocious nature of its attacks. On this subject, the Alien in Alien may or may not have been clever, it's sometimes hard to tell (it almost seems to enjoy the look of fear on Brett's face when he turns around and sees it. That and it almost toys with Dallas in the vents. Oh, and let's not forget its implied rape of Lambert. Those noises she makes when it may be happening are very unnerving).
The evolution of the alien across these films, in my view, goes like this: In Alien, it's a slasher movie villain. In Aliens, its a dumb bug. In Alien 3, it's a ferocious animal. I don't know which is better.
Granted, I like the first three films to varying degrees. I do, however, know they all have their problems. I still like Alien 3 over Aliens, though. One reason is that some of the dialogue in Aliens makes me cringe and roll my eyes (like just about everything Hudson says). The dialogue in Alien 3, however, is often effective and, in the case of Dillon, can be quite powerful. I especially like Morse's line here:
"What 85 is trying...to tell you is that we ain't got no entertainment center, no climate control, no video system, no surveillance, no freezers, no f**king ice cream, no rubbers, no women, no guns. All we got here is *shit*! Oh, what the hell are we even talkin' to her for? She's the one that brought the f**ker. Why don't we just get her head and shove it through the F**KING WALL!"
Most of Dillon's stuff is quite memorable, especially what he says at the funeral: "Why? Why are the innocent punished? Why the sacrifice? Why the pain? There aren't any promises. Nothing certain. Only that some get called, some get saved. She won't ever know the hardship and grief for those of us left behind. We commit these bodies to the void with a glad heart. For within each seed, there is a promise of a flower, and within each death, no matter how small, there's always a new life. A new beginning. Amen."
And another favourite of mine: "This is Rumor Control. Here are the facts!"
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 18, 2012, 12:15:40 PM
Its odd how they suddenly decide to find an alternate route AFTER all four guns have emptied.
Wait, what makes you think that the Aliens
knew the guns were running low? The Aliens flee the scene whilst the guns are holding their last few bullets. It was lucky for the Marines that they opted for another tact at that point, otherwise they would have flooded Operations there and then. That was the point of the scene. The Marines are hanging by a thread and their survival is practically serendipitous by this point.
I think I recall the first two running out completely, firing on empty. That's when one of the marines (or was it Ripley) comments: "Now all they have to do is knock." Of course, that doesn't happen. And then the Aliens run into another two sentry guns, these ones almost run out and then they finally decide that they should stay away from those awful things that shoot bullets, because then they might stop dying. Some may say this is suspenseful, I think it just makes the aliens look stupid. But hey, that's just what I think. Even when I watched this movie as a kid, I always used to think about this scene: why don't the aliens stop charging at the guns?
And now I'm off to bed, since I live down in Australia and it's bloody late.
Fair enough, I think the scene is meant to suggest that the Aliens move from one set of guns to another because they're trying to swarm the corridors and realise that there's no way that this will work. I can't see how they'd know the guns were empty. Like I said, luck. If they kept at it then the Marines would be overrun. Tension and all. Personally I don't like the turret scene anyway, because I think it's overkill, but I understand what Cameron was trying to do. I just don't find it a particularly interesting scene.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 18, 2012, 12:15:40 PM
Most of Dillon's stuff is quite memorable, especially what he says at the funeral: "Why? Why are the innocent punished? Why the sacrifice? Why the pain? There aren't any promises. Nothing certain. Only that some get called, some get saved. She won't ever know the hardship and grief for those of us left behind. We commit these bodies to the void with a glad heart. For within each seed, there is a promise of a flower, and within each death, no matter how small, there's always a new life. A new beginning. Amen."
I know we're talking taste here, so I'm not trying to start a fight or anything. But if some of the lines in 'Aliens' made you cringe, Dillon's funeral speech does the same for me. I know they're supposed to be super religious and so on, but for me it's just too melodramatic. Comparing the scene with Kane's funeral in the first one pretty much sums up the different moods, tones, whatever word you wanna use, between the first and third films. Alien, at least for me, is a very minimalist and realistic film, also in it's dialogue, while Alien3 goes for big drama and such. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I personally prefer the feel of the first movie.
By the way, I agree that some of the dialogue in 'Aliens' is very corny. I blame the 80's and Cameron for this.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 18, 2012, 12:15:40 PMThere were four of these guns, each packing 500 rounds. All four have practically emptied by the time the power is cut. Couple this with the sounds of their screeching and the shots on the monitors showing aliens getting shot to pieces and it seems that the aliens are losing quite a lot of their own on some pointless charge down the hallway. Its odd how they suddenly decide to find an alternate route AFTER all four guns have emptied. Nimbleness doesn't make cleverness, so you almost say the aliens were as dumb as the marines.
I've never dubbed the marines dumb, they were good in what they were here for (fighting and shooting), to me all their squad is a reverberation of bellicose Parker's character. Just in a greater quantity and quality.
There was not a shortage of power, that stopped sentury guns. Aliens ceased their assault right before the last of guns went out of rounds... Seeing, that no one actually knows what makes those creatures tick (we don't know what they were designed for, if they were artificially created at all), there is no doubt they
think differently from humans and loss of dozen or score isn't a big tragedy for their community... Anyway, trial and error method is one of the expedients to gain experience for those who can't afford themselfeves the luxury to get taught in the unis. ;)
Quote from: aliennaire on Feb 18, 2012, 11:39:24 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 17, 2012, 05:08:23 AMI guess every prisoner on Fury 161 was still an evil, unrepentant monster, despite the fact that most of them had reformed to some extent, and even tolerated and eventually looked to Ripley for leadership. ::)
If the reason of introducing Alien to the prisoner was to hasten their reformation (so they finally accept Ripley on a par with themselves or even consider her to be a leader!), then, to me, this ploy was executed poorly in the flick. After the moment of sudden Andrew's death, all the prisoners at once turn from bald and self-conceit to scared and useless.
I never said the Alien was introduced to "hasten their reformation". Considering they've all been there for god knows how long, it's pretty safe to assume that most of them are already reformed long before Ripley arrives--minus the ones who try and rape her and quickly get a beatdown from Dillon, of course.
QuoteAfter the moment of sudden Andrew's death, all the prisoners at once turn from bald and self-conceit to scared and useless.
Uh, what? :-\
Aliennaire, I didn't say you said the marines were dumb (I think I meant to say "you can almost say the aliens are as dumb as the marines", as a sort of general statement rather than referring to you directly). It's just that most of them strike me as stupid. James Cameron downgrading the aliens from slasher movie villains to bugs doesn't help the case for the aliens either. How many aliens in the second film were there? About two hundred? That's assuming every colonist was cocooned and were used to birth aliens, which is unlikely as some probably died fighting (and I'd assume the lack of dead bodies around the colony implies the bodies were used as food by the aliens). It just seems an awful waste to send so many to their deaths, charging heavily armed marines and charging sentry guns.
On the topic of the thread, I think that one reason people seem to hate Alien 3 so much has to do with the fact most people were expecting "Aliens 2" and not "Alien 3". They were expecting more space marines, more shooting, more corny one-liners and more to do with Hicks and Newt. They probably weren't expecting a deep human drama about redemption and faith, one that kills off almost everybody by the end of its running time.
Another reason its hated it because of how it turned out, there were so many scripts and storylines and fox interfering didn't help. I'm just glad that the wooden planet idea got thrown out. I actually like alien 3 but i prefer the first two anyday.
The so called corny quips of of marines might have been intentional, these guys and especially hudson were cocky and overconfident.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 18, 2012, 09:16:53 PMOn the topic of the thread, I think that one reason people seem to hate Alien 3 so much has to do with the fact most people were expecting "Aliens 2" and not "Alien 3". They were expecting more space marines, more shooting, more corny one-liners and more to do with Hicks and Newt. They probably weren't expecting a deep human drama about redemption and faith, one that kills off almost everybody by the end of its running time.
THIS.
More than any other reason people have given, the vast majority of people I know who hate A3 is because they wanted more of Aliens and really don't like the fact that A3 went in a different direction.
I didn't care that there was only one adult alien in the film. It was a runner something new for the series. I just hated how they killed of Hicks and Newt. If they survived it would have made the film slightly better. eg Ripley protecting Newt for the prisoners and Hicks starting fights with them. The runner idea was cool on how that aliens can infect different species other than human and take on there characterists.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 18, 2012, 12:15:40 PM
On this subject, the Alien in Alien may or may not have been clever, it's sometimes hard to tell (it almost seems to enjoy the look of fear on Brett's face when he turns around and sees it.
Thats a very weird and personal interpretation. The original alien has been pretty much confirmed by writers and scott to be a space insect/animal who wants to survive and lives to reproduce.(and it doesnt need to be said, the creature reproduces like an insect, the hive and coccooning, eggs, larval fetus, attraction to ducts and wet/cold places) Alien "enjoying" Brett's fear? Thats weird. Hes just hissing at him like a snake or like a lion releasing a growl or a dog whose about to attack.
The alien does that in every movie featuring aliens
QuoteThat and it almost toys with Dallas in the vents.
What? Lol, cmon. toying how? he sensed movement in the tunnel and Dallas walked into him because of the faulty equipment.
QuoteOh, and let's not forget its implied rape of Lambert. Those noises she makes when it may be happening are very unnerving).
It wasnt a rape. If youll read Valaquen's excellent, FACT and QUOTE filled blog youll see she died of heart attack and/or trying to hid in the locker.
QuoteThe evolution of the alien across these films, in my view, goes like this: In Alien, it's a slasher movie villain. In Aliens, its a dumb bug. In Alien 3, it's a ferocious animal. I don't know which is better.
Bull. In original its a selfless animal/insect that wants to reproduce and survive. In Aliens they act like guerilla team and tactical squad.
"teh minldess bug" ::) I see we guys got ourselves another hater wo thinks Kanes Son is some divine Hannibal Lecter space rapist and aliens are teh bugs
The aliens in Aliens are way more intelligent. Cameron said in 87 that took the dropship down to simply destroy the extra weapons for marines and cut their way out ("These decisions have a tactical basis. For example, Ferro was a greater threat, piloting the heavily armed dropship, than she was a desirable host for reproduction"). Of course more examples of their intelligence can be shown when the queen can operate an elevator, the warrior can open the door to the dropship's cockpit and most importantly, when they act like trained, human army or special ops.The aliens in Aliens are like a human army and act like soldiers taking tactical decisions and maneuvers. They do what any enemy army would do and perform the well known warfare operations and ambushing attacks. After cutting their way out by killing Ferro, later on in the movie we see the aliens successfully sneaking up on the marines from all directions, and meshing in with the environment making themselves invisible, like the camouflaged commandos. We see their efforts to exhaust the ammo of the sentry guns and then aliens retreating to make new plans. Typically for warfare operations, they cut the power to blind their enemy, split into groups/squads and quietly sneak in on them from above, below and the back - the lone alien that Burke encounters was a part of the ambushing team, trying to cut the marines off from the other side.
It's also worth noting that aliens behaved like military/special forces in hostage situation with Ripley and the Queen - They started moving in slowly because Ripley had a gun almost aimed at the Queen, they didn't want to risk it so they moved like all the other aliens in Aliens - like special forces, trying to get to the person holding a hostage by walking up very slowly, so they wont startle him. They did so until the Queen ordered them to back off.
In addition to all that the novelization points out that the aliens built a hive in a place where we coulnt destroy them without destroying ourselves
You may not be around for long here so before you proclaim me some Alien 3 hater or Aliens minion, Aliens and Alien 3 are my favorites (hence my avatar) and Im a big supporter of Alien 3 and a huge fan since 93. It got me into the franchise. But I dont blindly defend it, especially with wrong arguments. At the same time Im a huge supporter of facts and nothing but facts (all available in Val's blog which was praised by Giger and Obannon's wife) and I despise unfair criticism that goes against the facts and along with the popular innacurate myths spread by Alien purists. For example, Alien was always a space insect referred to as such by Scott. No body "turned them into bugz!!", and Alien 3 was the first movie that purposely wanted the creature to be "dumb" (the description of the runner Fincher used) and much more insect like.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 18, 2012, 09:16:53 PM
On the topic of the thread, I think that one reason people seem to hate Alien 3 so much has to do with the fact most people were expecting "Aliens 2" and not "Alien 3". They were expecting more space marines, more shooting, more corny one-liners and more to do with Hicks and Newt. They probably weren't expecting a deep human drama about redemption and faith, one that kills off almost everybody by the end of its running time.
I disagree. I dont think people expected more shooting, especially if they liked Aliens in which theres relatively very little action and which is a movie which is basically 2/3 buildup and tension till the very end. One of the reasons I love Alien 3 the way I do is because it followed Aliens footsteps and centered around the drama of Ripleys character and her personal inner journey., making the alien very much a backdrop. Thus continuing the Aliens tradition of adding emotional depth.
I dont really know or understand why people dislike Alien 3, but I think it might have something to do with the fact that it wasnt an infestation movie (every single novel and comic book between Aliens and Alien 3 dealt with infestation). Or perhaps people just didnt like the flirtation with the drama genre, or perhaps they were taken aback by its different structure than the other two (a conventional one as oppose to the structure shared by the first two). idk
QuoteIt just seems an awful waste to send so many to their deaths, charging heavily armed marines and charging sentry guns.
Again, facts, facts , facts. "So many"? In the entire movie there are about 30 alien deaths on screen which leaves around 120 more aliens - the motion tracker when Hicks and Ripley are about to head to the elevator shows a swarm of them coming. Charging at sentry guns was another military technique. Its the kamikaze route. That was the only way to at least try to get through this way. Retreat and do nothing was not an option. They knew those survivors can endanger the colony. It was necessary to take the objective otherwise the marines could do even more serious damage to the hive. In history, especially during the fall of Rome, this proved to be the best tactic to just charge at the armed opponent en masse without any regards for your own life. Also, it's visible in the video monitors the aliens are moving from cover to cover trying to exhaust the ammo supply and not get hit. A fraction of aliens had to have been sacrificed to try two get through and/or exhaust the ammo.And they succeeded and got to the pressure door but realized they wont break through. So then they retreated to find a different solution, which they eventually did. They retreated, cut the power, and eventually weaseled their way past the Marines other defenses.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 19, 2012, 05:16:46 AM
I dont really know or understand why people dislike Alien 3, but I think it might have something to do with the fact that it wasnt an infestation movie (every single novel and comic book between Aliens and Alien 3 dealt with infestation). Or perhaps people just didnt like the flirtation with the drama genre, or perhaps they were taken aback by its different structure than the other two (a conventional one as oppose to the structure shared by the first two). idk
Well, I can only speak for myself, but here goes:
-It's not scary (at all, in my opinion)
-It doesn't have much suspense (many of the people the alien kills do not even know what hit them, stark contrast to the claustrophobic "something scary is coming to get me" of the first 2 films)
-The characters aren't memorable (which only makes it less scary)
-It tries to be too dramatic (see below)
Note that I have nothing against Newt and Hicks being killed off-screen. I think the movie could have been a lot worse if the "happy family" -theme would have been carried on.
About the drama... In order for it to work, I suppose the viewer ought to be emotionally invested in Ripley's character. People who are seem to like Alien3 a lot. Well, I'm not. She was someone who happened to survive in the first film and then came back to face the monster again. That's fine. But for me it's hard to appreciate the way she's supposed to be this mythical heroine who sacrifices herself in order to save mankind. I guess it's really about the whole setting of the franchise, which to me is very much FICTION. You know, the whole series is really about slimy black monsters with 2 mouths and so on. That's not real, so I just can't see the drama and "personal suffering" in the way she has to face these monsters over and over again. Let's face it, the only reason she is haunted by the alien(s) is because the studio wanted to make a new film!
I have nothing against a good drama film. 'Million Dollar Baby', for example, is one the most emotionally crushing films I have ever seen, and also one of my favorites as well. Much because the euthanasia theme is something very real, and I can relate to her suffering. That could happen to anybody, and the moral issues raised by the film are actual problems from this world.
Initially I despised Alien 3, I hated the fact they killed off my favorite character, Corporal Hicks. In the years that passed I started to study film at college, films like Blade Runner and the original Alien film. When I look back at Alien 3 I can't help but see how underated it is. The dark themes that run through the film were great, the use of low angled camera shots were really effective also. If you looked at some of the scripts pitched at 20th Century Fox, f**k am I glad that they gave the job to David Fincher. I hate Alien Ressurection, with a f**king passion, if anybody should be upset at anyone "Ruining" the franchise, look at them. AR sucked massive cocks.
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Feb 19, 2012, 11:37:07 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 19, 2012, 05:16:46 AM
I dont really know or understand why people dislike Alien 3, but I think it might have something to do with the fact that it wasnt an infestation movie (every single novel and comic book between Aliens and Alien 3 dealt with infestation). Or perhaps people just didnt like the flirtation with the drama genre, or perhaps they were taken aback by its different structure than the other two (a conventional one as oppose to the structure shared by the first two). idk
Well, I can only speak for myself, but here goes:
-It's not scary (at all, in my opinion)
-It doesn't have much suspense (many of the people the alien kills do not even know what hit them, stark contrast to the claustrophobic "something scary is coming to get me" of the first 2 films)
Well, this is very much in vein with one of my suspicions. As I said,
or perhaps they were taken aback by its different structure than the other two (a conventional one as oppose to the structure shared by the first two).As Giler says, no, Alien 3 isnt scary and isnt tense unlike the first two and also doesnt feature buildup (ex. the audience is ahead of the characters as oppose to the first two movies when we only know and see what the characters do). But I dont see it as a bad thing. As I mentioned, Alien 3 is basically a drama thriller and it focuses on the dark dramatic situation of Ripley and her emotional "fall" and how she deals with it. I often say that if you take out the alien out of the movie, it would still work. I like how A3 is different than the other 2 and puts even more focus on Ripley, giving her even more and bigger emotional challenges. plus, theres only so many times you can have a claustrophobic movie filled with tension and danger of the thing breaking through door anytime
Quote-The characters aren't memorable (which only makes it less scary)
Not scary doesnt equal bad at all. Its just a different type of a story, different approach. I think A3 did great with the characters in that they all look the same yet their personalities are distinctive. Thats a very hard feat to accomplish
QuoteAbout the drama... In order for it to work, I suppose the viewer ought to be emotionally invested in Ripley's character. People who are seem to like Alien3 a lot. Well, I'm not. She was someone who happened to survive in the first film and then came back to face the monster again. That's fine. But for me it's hard to appreciate the way she's supposed to be this mythical heroine who sacrifices herself in order to save mankind.
Well, I didnt see it that way. I was feeling like Im watching a drama about a poor woman who has a cancer and her time is running out. Either way shed die and that had a strong emotional impact and made the story that much deeper than other movies
QuoteI guess it's really about the whole setting of the franchise, which to me is very much FICTION. You know, the whole series is really about slimy black monsters with 2 mouths and so on. That's not real, so I just can't see the drama and "personal suffering" in the way she has to face these monsters over and over again. Let's face it, the only reason she is haunted by the alien(s) is because the studio wanted to make a new film!
Well the reason why doesnt really matter, but I think the execution is nice. I know its scifi but what makes Alien trilogy different is that its treating itself like a very serious movies and the scifi aspect is a backdrop to that
StrangeShape, thanks for your civilized reply. Your arguments are very much valid and appreciated. It just goes to show that two people can watch the same movie and interpret in in very different ways, resulting in very different emotional reactions.
But I must admit that even though I put Alien3 down quite often, I also have this slight love/hate relationship with the film. :)
Quote from: Sierra on Feb 19, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
Initially I despised Alien 3, I hated the fact they killed off my favorite character, Corporal Hicks. In the years that passed I started to study film at college, films like Blade Runner and the original Alien film. When I look back at Alien 3 I can't help but see how underated it is. The dark themes that run through the film were great, the use of low angled camera shots were really effective also. If you looked at some of the scripts pitched at 20th Century Fox, f**k am I glad that they gave the job to David Fincher. I hate Alien Ressurection, with a f**king passion, if anybody should be upset at anyone "Ruining" the franchise, look at them. AR sucked massive cocks.
This here....except the college part.
It's a shame how many people on Youtube say...."Only Alien and Aliens happened" and their comments get top with 70+ likes.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 18, 2012, 07:54:04 PMAfter the moment of sudden Andrew's death, all the prisoners at once turn from bald and self-conceit to scared and useless.
Uh, what? :-\
That it the way it seems to me. That their conversion from being evil to more or less repentant men happens too fast and without substantial personal reasoning. First and foremost we are inrtoduced to Fiorina's inmates at the meeting, held by superintendant, to inform convicts about the woman survivor. They resent at this news and Dillon suspects she could break their tight brethren. Murph and Frank speak of her in a words far away from nice, Andrews looks down at Ripley, Junior and David exchange salacious glance, sitting at the same table with her in the mess hall, etc. Once they witness superintendant got murdered by Alien, former rapists suddenly offer her to take the leadership, because they aren't able to organize themselves...
StrangeShape, thank you for taking your time to give detailed and convincing answer, I guess, I couldn't express it better, than you did. I do like Valaquen's
Strange shapes blog, and have been its frequent visitor a while before joined this forum (actually, the fact, that I noticed him among the AVP Galaxy members gave me an impetus to register here myself, him and Locusta, whose Alien art I appreciate a lot). Ever since and still, I'm happy to meet
Alien films goers and read their opinions. :)
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Feb 19, 2012, 11:37:07 AM
About the drama... In order for it to work, I suppose the viewer ought to be emotionally invested in Ripley's character. People who are seem to like Alien3 a lot.
Probably, though, it worked quite the opposite way in my case. Being a teen, I almost worshipped her, but Ripley's behaviour in
A^3 completely destroyed the strong heroine's image for me. For the start, it sent me shivers when she replied "no" to Clemense's question about Newt, whether Newt was Ripley's daughter. I assume, that it perhaps was meant to say, it was not Clemense's business, but to me it sounded like she renounced the little girl and all her risky journey to save Newt. Next was the bed scene, which puzzled me, to say the least. And so on. I remember, till the very end of the film I was hoping, that Ripley would at last wake up, buck up and become again the heroine, as she was in former two films... Alas, the ending you know! :-X That pitiful ending appeared to me like the statement - Look, dear, that is the way female hero should wind up!.. So, as many, I prefer to reckon third (and thusly fourth) film Ripley's nightmare. In that slant both A^3 is just perfect film, so haunting, monotonous, impassable, endlessly long, as a bad dream can be. ;)
I personally love Alien 3 for its look, atmosphere, cinematography, etc. But the story's plotholes and elimination of Newt/Hicks makes me a little too perturbed to say I love the film as a whole, whereas I love love LOVE Alien and Aliens. At least it's better than Resurrection, as many have stated.
EDIT: I wouldn't have minded Newt's or Hicks' death if it took place during the main plot itself rather than semi-offscreen during the credits. If all three characters had to die to service the story, tie it up, that's fine. But the way they were handled in Alien 3... it's like they were just thrown away.
Quote from: The Runner on Feb 19, 2012, 04:48:57 PM
Quote from: Sierra on Feb 19, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
Initially I despised Alien 3, I hated the fact they killed off my favorite character, Corporal Hicks. In the years that passed I started to study film at college, films like Blade Runner and the original Alien film. When I look back at Alien 3 I can't help but see how underated it is. The dark themes that run through the film were great, the use of low angled camera shots were really effective also. If you looked at some of the scripts pitched at 20th Century Fox, f**k am I glad that they gave the job to David Fincher. I hate Alien Ressurection, with a f**king passion, if anybody should be upset at anyone "Ruining" the franchise, look at them. AR sucked massive cocks.
This here....except the college part.
It's a shame how many people on Youtube say...."Only Alien and Aliens happened" and their comments get top with 70+ likes.
Yes, alien 3 was underrated and i think the reason why some dislike it is because of the deaths of newt and hicks. Other reasons may be because after aliens, they were expecting a film to either match it or surpass it. I reckon is does have some unforgettable characters, Dillon easily stands out and is practically the de facto leader of the prisoners.
Pleasure to have agreeing and disagreeing respectable newcomers like 8th passenger and allienaire
Quote from: Company Man on Feb 19, 2012, 04:50:42 PM
I personally love Alien 3 for its look, atmosphere, cinematography, etc. But the story's plotholes and elimination of Newt/Hicks makes me a little too perturbed to say I love the film as a whole, whereas I love love LOVE Alien and Aliens. At least it's better than Resurrection, as many have stated.
EDIT: I wouldn't have minded Newt's or Hicks' death if it took place during the main plot itself rather than semi-offscreen during the credits. If all three characters had to die to service the story, tie it up, that's fine. But the way they were handled in Alien 3... it's like they were just thrown away.
I agree with this. We're on the same page. Alien 3 is a masterclass in look and sound. Storytelling, not so much.
Quote from: aliennaire on Feb 19, 2012, 04:49:58 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 18, 2012, 07:54:04 PMAfter the moment of sudden Andrew's death, all the prisoners at once turn from bald and self-conceit to scared and useless.
Uh, what? :-\
That it the way it seems to me. That their conversion from being evil to more or less repentant men happens too fast and without substantial personal reasoning. First and foremost we are inrtoduced to Fiorina's inmates at the meeting, held by superintendant, to inform convicts about the woman survivor. They resent at this news and Dillon suspects she could break their tight brethren. Murph and Frank speak of her in a words far away from nice, Andrews looks down at Ripley, Junior and David exchange salacious glance, sitting at the same table with her in the mess hall, etc. Once they witness superintendant got murdered by Alien, former rapists suddenly offer her to take the leadership, because they aren't able to organize themselves...
Rubbish. None of the prisoners are ever depicted as "evil" or "unreformed", aside for the latter case with Junior and his band who try to rape Ripley. Everyone else respects Ripley's space, and the one's who do talk trash do it when she's not around. David and Junior do not exchange any glances whatsoever. You misinterpreted the editing of the scene. If anything, David's reactions to Ripley entering the mess hall are ones of nervousness. Note how he is also one of the most level-headed and friendly to her throughout the entire film.
Quote"teh minldess bug" ::) I see we guys got ourselves another hater wo thinks Kanes Son is some divine Hannibal Lecter space rapist and aliens are teh bugs
No need to be so condescending. This is just what I saw in the films, alright? When Cameron portrays the Aliens as expendable minions, it kind of takes away from their overall threat level, doesn't it? And those "inaccurate myths" you mentioned aren't something I've actually paid any attention to, as what I've written so far is what I'VE SEEN from the films, it may not be right or wrong but it's what I took out of them. I'm no Alien purist and Aliens hater, it's just that Aliens is one film I find some issues with. Besides, that whole sentry gun business was sort of overkill, anyway. That's why I said the Alien in the first film may or may not have been intelligent, as the way it acts seems somewhat more malicious than those in any subsequent films. I mean, if the Alien in the first film was like the ones in the second, it probably wouldn't have wasted so much time taking out a bunch of space truckers. But then there wouldn't have been much of a movie after that.
If there's one thing I didn't really like about Aliens, it was the whole "custesy" factor with the kid. That sort of took me out of the film.
Besides, if "Kane's Son" had been a Hannibal Lecter-style rapist in space, wouldn't that have made it more interesting? :-\
So, maybe next time be a bit less condescending (maybe less of a "know-it-all" tone hmm?), alright? I was just saying what I saw from the films and then all of a sudden I'm a "hater". I can find problems with all of the films, so I don't think I'm a hater. Certainly not one of those people who only count one film out of four as "canon". Aliens just happens to be the one I find more criticisms with (that and Alien: Resurrection).
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 19, 2012, 09:52:47 PM
David's reactions to Ripley entering the mess hall are ones of nervousness. Note how he is also one of the most level-headed and friendly to her throughout the entire film.
I noticed the former, not the latter. The characters all melted into one another at a point (Morse makes himself stand out more in the final half of the film. Funny lines.) David to me is just Petey P, from retrospect. Does he get a line in the film aside from his dying scream? I'm going to watch it again soon.
Petey P gets a few, especially in that exchange when they find the dead ox (in the Assembly Cut version) where he's explaining how he'd hit on Ripley if he got the chance.
"I'd give her the look, you know." When the other guy tells him that Ripley would simply tell him to kiss her ass, Petey P gives a smirk and goes, "I'd be willing to kiss her anywhere she wants." That is one exchange I remember, for the most part.
"treat the queen like a whore and the whore like a queen"
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 20, 2012, 06:55:28 AM
Petey P gets a few, especially in that exchange when they find the dead ox (in the Assembly Cut version) where he's explaining how he'd hit on Ripley if he got the chance.
"I'd give her the look, you know." When the other guy tells him that Ripley would simply tell him to kiss her ass, Petey P gives a smirk and goes, "I'd be willing to kiss her anywhere she wants." That is one exchange I remember, for the most part.
That's him? I have never, ever realised. How stupid I feel. Kind of goes against the supposed character of him being quiet and intelligent (not that being a little filthy denotes stupidity), I guess. Maybe that's how I never quite noticed. That, and the long shots and low angles.
Valaquen: "Derp!" :P
It's been a few weeks since I've watched the fillm, but I'm sure it was him in that scene.
Uh, noooooooooooooo. That is NOT Pete Postlethwaite in the the abattoir scene with the Ox. David's biggest scene comes when he's telling Ripley why they call Aaron "85" and also about the explosive they're going to use--"great stuff!"
Now I'm getting confused. I've watched too many movies since I last watched Alien 3, so it's like some of the characters from all of these films are beginning to blend together.
Yeah, so Valaquen, don't feel like such a "derp". In fact, I feel like that right now.
Neatly illustrating how the movie's cast is largely made up of nigh-indistinguishable bald middle-aged British men.
Quote from: SiL on Feb 20, 2012, 08:49:23 AM
Neatly illustrating how the movie's cast is largely made up of nigh-indistinguishable bald middle-aged British men.
A complaint that is purely YMMV. I never had any trouble telling who was who in the main ensemble.
The main ensemble consisting of less than half the characters in the film.
Which is par for the course, but it becomes a pain when we're expected to know who the hell people are talking about during the final chase sequence.
Quote from: SiL on Feb 20, 2012, 08:58:39 AM
The main ensemble consisting of less than half the characters in the film.
Which is par for the course, but it becomes a pain when we're expected to know who the hell people are talking about during the final chase sequence.
Eh, the complaints about the Bait & Chase sequence have never really stuck with me. In the Assembly Cut at least, you have a basic sense of who most of them are by way of remembering their faces (most every character gets at least one closeup throughout the film), and the whole thing is so visually interesting that I think it works--there's some amazing camera work in that sequence.
I had little trouble distinguishing characters during the film, it's just that thinking about it now after watching a bunch of other films is a tad difficult. It's not like this is unique to Alien 3: I watched Aliens about a month ago and some of the lesser characters I've completely forgotten about.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 19, 2012, 09:52:47 PMRubbish. None of the prisoners are ever depicted as "evil" or "unreformed", aside for the latter case with Junior and his band who try to rape Ripley. Everyone else respects Ripley's space, and the one's who do talk trash do it when she's not around. David and Junior do not exchange any glances whatsoever. You misinterpreted the editing of the scene. If anything, David's reactions to Ripley entering the mess hall are ones of nervousness. Note how he is also one of the most level-headed and friendly to her throughout the entire film.
His friendliness restricts to explanation the 85 thingy about Aaron. The rest of his time he acts the same way as others. The scene in the mess hall looks ambiguous to me, since the non-verbal communication conveys more than 80% (or so) information people impart each other. Dillon pronounces "...we've got a good place to wait here, and untill now no temptation", and Ripley asks right after that "What are you waiting for?", Gregor looks at David, David looks at Dillon, Dillon chuckles, turns his head to David, both smile. From the very first time, I saw this film, I had a strong conviction, that all the men at the table understood her question as concerning temptation, maybe just for a second...
But probably it's just me trying to dig deeper and searching for sense where actually there is nothing between the lines. Either way, you can't deny the obvious facts:
Andrews to Ripley: "We've 25 prisoners in this facility... All thieves, rapists, murderers, child molesters. All scum. Just because they've taken on religion doesn't make them any less dangerous... I don't want woman waking around, giving them ideas."
Dillon to Ripley: "...you don't wanna know me, lady. I'm a murderer and rapist of women."
Golic to Rpley: "Pretty girl. I used to know lots of them back home. They used to like me. For a while. You're gonna die too..?"
Quote from: aliennaire on Feb 20, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
His friendliness restricts to explanation the 85 thingy about Aaron. The rest of his time he acts the same way as others. The scene in the mess hall looks ambiguous to me, since the non-verbal communication conveys more than 80% (or so) information people impart each other. Dillon pronounces "...we've got a good place to wait here, and untill now no temptation", and Ripley asks right after that "What are you waiting for?", Gregor looks at David, David looks at Dillon, Dillon chuckles, turns his head to David, both smile. From the very first time, I saw this film, I had a strong conviction, that all the men at the table understood her question as concerning temptation, maybe just for a second...
She doesn't ask a question about temptation, she asks about their religious beliefs. The bemused reactions to her question from the men at the table can be taken many ways. Dillon laughs because he genuinely believes in it and takes hope from it, and also probably hasn't had to fill in anyone about it for a long time. David's reaction possibly indicated he doesn't really believe the religious stuff, but has an affection for it. The only one giving genuinely bad vibes in that scene is Junior, which of course comes into play later. Dillon's "you don't wanna know me, lady" shtick is just a bluff.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 20, 2012, 10:06:44 AMShe doesn't ask a question about temptation, she asks about their religious beliefs.
It's clear she addressed to the first part of Dillon's line, about "good place to wait", but followed pause, filled with close-ups on prisoners' faces, just gives the hint of its second meaning. At least to me, it works so.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 20, 2012, 10:06:44 AMThe only one giving genuinely bad vibes in that scene is Junior, which of course comes into play later.
And Gregor too, as he was at the rape scene as well.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 20, 2012, 10:06:44 AMDillon's "you don't wanna know me, lady" shtick is just a bluff.
Bluff it or not, intimidation was never a norm of interacting on the Nostromo and Sulaco. Yes, she was bitchslapped by Lambert, superseded by Dallas, met the indifferent attitude from Hearing board on the Gateway and the squad of marines, but still nobody threatened her. Sorry, I can see how you consider this to be the instance of amity and respect of her personal space...
Quote from: aliennaire on Feb 20, 2012, 10:39:26 AM
Bluff it or not, intimidation was never a norm of interacting on the Nostromo and Sulaco. Yes, she was bitchslapped by Lambert, superseded by Dallas, met the indifferent attitude from Hearing board on the Gateway and the squad of marines, but still nobody threatened her. Sorry, I can see how you consider this to be the instance of amity and respect of her personal space...
It becomes a show of respect the instance Ripley respects
him. He confronts her with his horrible past, and Ripley sits down with him anyway--which surprises and pleases him, as he quickly extends Ripley a welcome, "We've got a lot of faith here--enough even for you." It's good character interaction.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 19, 2012, 09:57:20 PM
Besides, if "Kane's Son" had been a Hannibal Lecter-style rapist in space, wouldn't that have made it more interesting? :-\
Not really, at least not for me. A creature whos selfless and guided by animalistic instincts is more terrifying for me, you cant bargain with it or reason with it. Id be more afraid of meeting a hungry lion than a mugger
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 20, 2012, 05:08:00 PM
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 19, 2012, 09:57:20 PM
Besides, if "Kane's Son" had been a Hannibal Lecter-style rapist in space, wouldn't that have made it more interesting? :-\
Not really, at least not for me. A creature whos selfless and guided by animalistic instincts is more terrifying for me, you cant bargain with it or reason with it. Id be more afraid of meeting a hungry lion than a mugger
I agree, humans and predators are less scary because they can be rational and be reasoned with, Aliens do not care about anything except killing and getting hosts.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 20, 2012, 05:51:46 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 20, 2012, 05:08:00 PM
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 19, 2012, 09:57:20 PM
Besides, if "Kane's Son" had been a Hannibal Lecter-style rapist in space, wouldn't that have made it more interesting? :-\
Not really, at least not for me. A creature whos selfless and guided by animalistic instincts is more terrifying for me, you cant bargain with it or reason with it. Id be more afraid of meeting a hungry lion than a mugger
I agree, humans and predators are less scary because they can be rational and be reasoned with, Aliens do not care about anything except killing and getting hosts.
They don't "care" about anything. They gather hosts on instinct and they feed on other organisms, not just blindly kill them.
I didn't say they blindly kill things, its based on survival such getting rid of threats etc but mostly they attempt to gather potential hosts.
QuoteAn uncommon name does not make a character and in films like this there are always going to be people there as fodder.
The issue was whether the names were memorable or not. In Aliens, they were and many Alien3 supposed "fans" still can't tell the grubby bald Poms apart, let alone know their names.
QuoteEh, the complaints about the Bait & Chase sequence have never really stuck with me. In the Assembly Cut at least, you have a basic sense of who most of them are by way of remembering their faces (most every character gets at least one closeup throughout the film), and the whole thing is so visually interesting that I think it works--there's some amazing camera work in that sequence.
Maybe so, but the whole premise for those twisty turny tunnels never really makes much sense either. They seem to soley exist for grubby bald Poms to run down shouting at each other.
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 03:53:12 AM
QuoteAn uncommon name does not make a character and in films like this there are always going to be people there as fodder.
The issue was whether the names were memorable or not. In Aliens, they were and many Alien3 supposed "fans" still can't tell the grubby bald Poms apart, let alone know their names.
To be fair, the fact that some of their names are never mentioned in the movie or mentioned once plays a big role in it
Hence my use of the word "fans". I wouldn't expect the average punter to know. I sure didn't when I walked out of the cinmea at the end. However I would expect a fan to be able to identify the main and secondary players.
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 04:14:29 AM
Hence my use of the word "fans". I wouldn't expect the average punter to know. I sure didn't when I walked out of the cinmea at the end. However I would expect a fan to be able to identify the main and secondary players.
So it comes down to who's opinion we should value more: ours, or the average "punter"'s.
It doesn't have to be either/ or. The title of the thread is "Why do people hate Alien3?" which demands an objective response. If it was "Why do YOU hate Alien3?" it would require a subjective response.
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 04:21:47 AM
It doesn't have to be either/ or. The title of the thread is "Why do people hate Alien3?" which demands an objective response. If it was "Why do YOU hate Alien3?" it would require a subjective response.
You're right, when i made this thread i was extremely frustrated with how so many fans were jumping on the hate-Alien3 bandwagon, I wanted sympathy on the matter due to most of my friends and even some of my fellow fans disliking Alien3 due to it not having any action and killing of Hicks and Newt.
I always disliked the film's plot holes, not the damn killing of characters or not being some stupid action bullshit that allow f**king Kenner to market the film toward mindless children with irresponsible parents.
Now I've grown respect for the film, past the plot holes- it's a great film. Hicks and Newt were great characters and had the best character development I've seen in a sequel (the only exception being Terminator 2). Their deaths represented something- that something is called Life. It shows no matter how much you love something, it will at some point vanish.
James Cameron liquefied our hearts and poured them into these characters and then proceeded to shove the goddamn drug called Aliens right up our fanboy asses. So when we watch Alien3 something suddenly hits us- this movie is an Alien movie.
AN ALIEN MOVIE GODDAMMIT. Shit will get rough, people will f**kin die because guess what? That's life. Life happens at a rapid pace, not stopping for the human emotions that hold us back. People we care about die without a second's thought. Alien 3 however, delivers this perfectly.
Before we can even settle into the theater- we are treated with the brutal deaths of Hicks and Newt .
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com%2F35f4275e5d58ce8923f00a0c6544a7aa%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee46%2Fnipshanks%2Forson-welles-applause-gif.gif&hash=fbae12cf8edb0ba98ca407b2e626d99a8a5cea9a)
As tragic and subtle it may be, it gets you immediately and emotionally involved with the film.
After my first viewing of the scene in the theater I could feel the shock of my fellow audience members mixing with the hope that Ripley prevails over whatever opposition she shall face on the planet she's on. This is extremely important to the film since it builds up tension and lets the audience show more sympathy with Ripley.
The deaths of Hicks and Newt are only one of the reasons I don't like the film.
I also didn't like the ending where Ripley sacrifices her self. That goes to my very core philosophically and is the main reason I am not a fan of the film - the deaths of Hicks and Newt play into that on some level.
BUT:
While I don't like it and wouldn't do it if I was at the helm - For me, the impact of those characters dieing was cheapened by having them killed in the opening credits. Those characters deaths would have had more meaning in my opinion if they were killed at a later stage in the film.
Ripley's sacrifice was the best bit.
QuoteI always disliked the film's plot holes, not the damn killing of characters or not being some stupid action bullshit that allow f**king Kenner to market the film toward mindless children with irresponsible parents.
You were saying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKSv85mJEmY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKSv85mJEmY#)
QuoteHicks and Newt were great characters and had the best character development I've seen in a sequel
What character development? Both solely exist to act as agents for Ripley's development - not to develop themselves.
QuoteAs tragic and subtle it may be, it gets you immediately and emotionally involved with the film.
If that emotion is being pissed off - then it's not a good thing.
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 05:58:36 AM
Ripley's sacrifice was the best bit.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 05:58:36 AM
QuoteAs tragic and subtle it may be, it gets you immediately and emotionally involved with the film.
If that emotion is being pissed off - then it's not a good thing.
If that's your position on how films should or shouldn't emotionally engage an audience, then stay far,
far away from any Lars von Trier film :P
My position doesn't come into it.
But it's something to keep in mind when spending $65m on a franchise film.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 21, 2012, 05:59:50 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 05:58:36 AM
Ripley's sacrifice was the best bit.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Sacrificing yourself for the greater good is something you have a philosophical problem with?
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 05:58:36 AM
Ripley's sacrifice was the best bit.
QuoteI always disliked the film's plot holes, not the damn killing of characters or not being some stupid action bullshit that allow f**king Kenner to market the film toward mindless children with irresponsible parents.
You were saying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKSv85mJEmY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKSv85mJEmY#)
QuoteHicks and Newt were great characters and had the best character development I've seen in a sequel
http://www.bugeyedmonster.com/toys/alien/ (http://www.bugeyedmonster.com/toys/alien/)
now as far as I know parents weren't against the
Aliens toys as much as the Alien toy.
It's also interesting to note that the
Aliens toys came out on the same year of Alien 3, yet the toys are based of the
action film Aliens
They were also based on the premise of host influencing the look of the Alien, which was to the fore of Alien3. Without Alien3 we wouldn't have have the KILLER CRAB ALIEN!!! (TM)
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 06:15:25 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 21, 2012, 05:59:50 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 05:58:36 AM
Ripley's sacrifice was the best bit.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Sacrificing yourself for the greater good is something you have a philosophical problem with?
It is by far a topic best discussed elsewhere but in short - yes.
Ripley's sacrifice was a well shot, well edited, incredibly well scored, and beautifully done sequence that not only serves as the artistic high point of the film, it was proper for Ripley's character.
Seeing the film at the age of 12, I was struck by how well made the sequence was. It is only made stronger after studying film and being able to notice the superb artistry that went into it. As a film scholar, I find little fault in this sequence.
It is one of Ellen Ripley's most triumphant moments.
And most of it was slapped together several weeks before the film's release.
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 21, 2012, 06:31:55 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 05:58:36 AM
Ripley's sacrifice was the best bit.
QuoteI always disliked the film's plot holes, not the damn killing of characters or not being some stupid action bullshit that allow f**king Kenner to market the film toward mindless children with irresponsible parents.
You were saying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKSv85mJEmY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKSv85mJEmY#)
QuoteHicks and Newt were great characters and had the best character development I've seen in a sequel
http://www.bugeyedmonster.com/toys/alien/ (http://www.bugeyedmonster.com/toys/alien/)
Those are kinda surreal too. Gotta love the 70s and 80s for marketing R rated movies to kids
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Fkidsalien.jpg&hash=4011072a5cdde8429cef0affe65e4cd04507adb4)
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 21, 2012, 04:44:52 PMThose are kinda surreal too. Gotta love the 70s and 80s for marketing R rated movies to kids
Kids will grow with a passage of time, that's why they were premeditatedly aiming at young audience, lol
Quote from: aliennaire on Feb 21, 2012, 06:16:41 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 21, 2012, 04:44:52 PMThose are kinda surreal too. Gotta love the 70s and 80s for marketing R rated movies to kids
Kids will grow with a passage of time, that's why they were premeditatedly aiming at young audience, lol
These days, kids can't even play with small parts due to a "choking hazard".
Puss-ass companies are too afraid of damn lawsuits made by soccer moms of
various sizes.
Quote from: SM on Feb 21, 2012, 02:36:47 PM
And most of it was slapped together several weeks before the film's release.
I was about to say that it felt like an "add-on".
While it might have been shot well, thematically it feels off (in my opinion). But that aside, it doesn't feel like Ripley to me. I don't think it was fitting for Ripley's character at all. The whole thing just feels contrived - what with the way the sequel is set up in the first place (the damn mysterious egg on the sulaco). It's like there's no reason for it.
Cameron at least gave a reason for the sequel. At least for Ripley. Because it was ripely's movie. Ripley survived the first film physically, but not mentally. By giving her a reason to go back, instead of just having her "stumble" across them again like what happened in the third film, it sets up the movie in a more "reasonable" light.
Alien 3's "oh no the alien is back" set up deflates this.
Ripley's sacrifice, to me feels out of character and seemingly (to me anyway) comes out of nowhere. Leaving aside my philosophical objection to the self-sacrifice theme, I think the lead up was poorly done and not executed well.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 21, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
Ripley's sacrifice, to me feels out of character and seemingly (to me anyway) comes out of nowhere. Leaving aside my philosophical objection to the self-sacrifice theme, I think the lead up was poorly done and not executed well.
Seriously? You think Ripley, after an entire trilogy trying to wipe out the alien, is going to go "Oh, okay Bishop II, let's go back to your ship and you can have the last alien inside me. Whatevs." The ending is perfect and completely in-character.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 21, 2012, 10:50:26 PM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 21, 2012, 10:42:31 PM
Ripley's sacrifice, to me feels out of character and seemingly (to me anyway) comes out of nowhere. Leaving aside my philosophical objection to the self-sacrifice theme, I think the lead up was poorly done and not executed well.
Seriously? You think Ripley, after an entire trilogy trying to wipe out the alien, is going to go "Oh, okay Bishop II, let's go back to your ship and you can have the last alien inside me. Whatevs." The ending is perfect and completely in-character.
No I don't - which is why I spoke about the film as a whole. The way alien 3 was set up affects the ending. It's a nothing.
I spoke about Cameron giving Ripley a
reason to "go back". The film itself is flawed is my point.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 21, 2012, 10:56:45 PM
No I don't - which is why I spoke about the film as a whole. The way alien 3 was set up affects the ending. It's a nothing.
The setup of the film is that everyone she has ever loved is dead, everything she's fought for has been in vain, and now she is stranded in a hellish prison planet with an alien queen inside her. How such a horrifying, soul-crushing series of events would be somehow incongrous with her killing herself at the end is beyond me.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 21, 2012, 10:56:45 PM
No I don't - which is why I spoke about the film as a whole. The way alien 3 was set up affects the ending. It's a nothing.
I can't comprehend why you think that.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 21, 2012, 11:11:02 PM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 21, 2012, 10:56:45 PM
No I don't - which is why I spoke about the film as a whole. The way alien 3 was set up affects the ending. It's a nothing.
The setup of the film is that everyone she has ever loved is dead, everything she's fought for has been in vain, and now she is stranded in a hellish prison planet with an alien queen inside her. How such a horrifying, soul-crushing series of events would be somehow incongrous with her killing herself at the end is beyond me.
The set up of the film is the egg on the sulaco. There's no reason for it. Which is why I spoke about what Cameron did with Aliens. He gave her a reason to "go back" to the alien. There is an old interview with Cameron - it's on one of the earlier Aliens DVD's where he speaks about this. He says "I could have just had the ship float back to the planet...." - his point being is that that's just silly. Give the main character a reason to go back.
Alien 3 does the old hoky thing and just plops and egg on the ship - "oh no the alien". It's a cheap set up.
And the whole "everything she has fought for has been in vain" is a part of my point. What is the point if that is the case. Alien 3 is ultimately a depressing film. I don't like depressing films.
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 21, 2012, 11:14:18 PM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 21, 2012, 10:56:45 PM
No I don't - which is why I spoke about the film as a whole. The way alien 3 was set up affects the ending. It's a nothing.
I can't comprehend why you think that.
See above - but of course people will disagree with me.
[
The set up of the film is the egg on the sulaco. There's no reason for it. Which is why I spoke about what Cameron did with Aliens. He gave her a reason to "go back" to the alien. There is an old interview with Cameron - it's on one of the earlier Aliens DVD's where he speaks about this. He says "I could have just had the ship float back to the planet...." - his point being is that that's just silly. Give the main character a reason to go back.
Alien 3 does the old hoky thing and just plops and egg on the ship - "oh no the alien". It's a cheap set up.
And the whole "everything she has fought for has been in vain" is a part of my point. What is the point if that is the case. Alien 3 is ultimately a depressing film. I don't like depressing films.
[/quote]
She died destroying the Alien, I wouldn't call it in vain. Personally I despise some happy endings, and for me Alien 3 ended perfectly.
Plus the events of Aliens were not in vain because it allowed her character to grow.
Despite the fact that the people she fought for died, that growth has still occurred and she has become stronger.
If Ripley went straight from Alien to Alien 3, she would not have lasted long.
Despite her despair, she keeps fighting and seems legitimately horrified by the prospect of a queen inside her, an indication that she still desired to live.
She didn't kill herself out of depression or because she had nothing left. She did it to make sure it didn't spread. In fact, if Hicks and Newt were still alive, she would probably have MORE reason to throw herself into the furnace because then she would still have loved ones to protect.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 01:00:02 AM
And the whole "everything she has fought for has been in vain" is a part of my point. What is the point if that is the case. Alien 3 is ultimately a depressing film. I don't like depressing films.
Okay then--but being "depressing" is not an objective flaw by any measure. Many of the greatest films ever made are "depressing."
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 22, 2012, 01:39:54 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 01:00:02 AM
And the whole "everything she has fought for has been in vain" is a part of my point. What is the point if that is the case. Alien 3 is ultimately a depressing film. I don't like depressing films.
Okay then--but being "depressing" is not an objective flaw by any measure. Many of the greatest films ever made are "depressing."
Citizen Kane, anyone?
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 22, 2012, 01:39:54 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 01:00:02 AM
And the whole "everything she has fought for has been in vain" is a part of my point. What is the point if that is the case. Alien 3 is ultimately a depressing film. I don't like depressing films.
Okay then--but being "depressing" is not an objective flaw by any measure.
Quite right - but it might be a philosopical one.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 01:38:03 AM
In fact, if Hicks and Newt were still alive, she would probably have MORE reason to throw herself into the furnace because then she would still have loved ones to protect.
That is the only thing that would make more sense to me. Forget Hicks, Newt is the key.
IF Newt remained alive in the film AND the mother daughter motif was subtle continued AND the set up was done in such a way to show the relationship between "mother and daughter" and it was executed well AND the ending was not about the self-sacrifice - but the love and caring nature of Ripley for Newt and ripley kills her self to protect Newt, then I might like it.
Imagine the same scene, without Bishop II, without the company there, but with Newt, standing with Ripley above the furnace. That to me is much more powerful. And is why the Terminator 2 ending is far better then the Alien 3 ending (but we weren't talking about that ;) )
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 01:44:44 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 22, 2012, 01:39:54 AM
Okay then--but being "depressing" is not an objective flaw by any measure.
Quite right - but it might be a philosopical one.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fendlesspicdump.com%2Fresized%2Fwhat%2520the%2520hell%2520is%2520this%2520crap.jpg&hash=94746d2862e3074f413ffb3b40e0a0b768e5b962)
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 22, 2012, 02:43:44 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 01:44:44 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 22, 2012, 01:39:54 AM
Okay then--but being "depressing" is not an objective flaw by any measure.
Quite right - but it might be a philosopical one.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fendlesspicdump.com%2Fresized%2Fwhat%2520the%2520hell%2520is%2520this%2520crap.jpg&hash=94746d2862e3074f413ffb3b40e0a0b768e5b962)
Perhaps you could ask more politely.
I'm all for having a discussion - but lets leave the rudeness out of it please.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 02:53:56 AM
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 22, 2012, 02:43:44 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 01:44:44 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 22, 2012, 01:39:54 AM
Okay then--but being "depressing" is not an objective flaw by any measure.
Quite right - but it might be a philosopical one.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fendlesspicdump.com%2Fresized%2Fwhat%2520the%2520hell%2520is%2520this%2520crap.jpg&hash=94746d2862e3074f413ffb3b40e0a0b768e5b962)
Perhaps you could ask more politely.
I'm all for having a discussion - but lets leave the rudeness out of it please.
Well past my subtleness, I can't see how you think that:
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 22, 2012, 01:39:54 AM
but being "depressing" is not an objective flaw by any measure. Many of the greatest films ever made are "depressing."
could ever be a debate
Quote from: Basher917 on Feb 22, 2012, 03:07:46 AM
Well past my subtleness, I can't see how you think that: Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 22, 2012, 01:39:54 AM
but being "depressing" is not an objective flaw by any measure. Many of the greatest films ever made are "depressing."
could ever be a debate
I actually agreed with the first part of it in relation to a film. I did not respond to the second part of it as it's a subjective answer
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 01:38:03 AM
Plus the events of Aliens were not in vain because it allowed her character to grow.
Despite the fact that the people she fought for died, that growth has still occurred and she has become stronger.
If Ripley went straight from Alien to Alien 3, she would not have lasted long.
Very nice point, agree. Plus Ill add that the movie gave Ripley another challenge and this time a very different one, which kept it interesting and fresh. In Aliens, she had risen to the challenge, gritted her teeth, closed her eyes, equipped herself and went back to SubLevel 3, the heart of her nightmare, because she grew stronger emotionally and her motherhood instincts survive. That was fantastic and a nice counter "melody" to the Alien, where she was running away from the evil. Now in Alien 3 shes facing a different, but also emotional dillema - now we see if shes emotionally strong enough to survive a huge emotional hit where everyone she cared for dies in a horrible crash and she ended completely alone amongst obnoxious murderers and child rapists in a lice infested cellar-like facility with nothing to live for, and taking a hit in her spirit like never before. And she did prevail. She took leadership and while emotionally washed up and less energetic, she was still a heroine and conquered the biggest challenge of all - facing imminent death, in addition to the death of the close ones
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 03:24:21 AM
Very nice point, agree. Plus Ill add that the movie gave Ripley another challenge and this time a very different one, which kept it interesting and fresh. In Aliens, she had risen to the challenge, gritted her teeth, closed her eyes, equipped herself and went back to SubLevel 3, the heart of her nightmare, because she grew stronger emotionally and her motherhood instincts survive. That was fantastic and a nice counter "melody" to the Alien, where she was running away from the evil. Now in Alien 3 shes facing a different, but also emotional dillema - now we see if shes emotionally strong enough to survive a huge emotional hit where everyone she cared for dies in a horrible crash and she ended completely alone amongst obnoxious murderers and child rapists in a lice infested cellar-like facility with nothing to live for, and taking a hit in her spirit like never before. And she did prevail. She took leadership and while emotionally washed up and less energetic, she was still a heroine and conquered the biggest challenge of all - facing imminent death, in addition to the death of the close ones
Thats right the people in Alien and Aliens meant nothing to her. Granted it was her connection with Newt that tied it all together.
And I disagree that she did prevail.
She defeated the monster and destroyed the company's prospects of using it.
In her final act, she not only finally escapes her nightmare, she avenges all those lost to the company's greed. What other choice did she have? Her decision was the most ethical choice anyone could have made in that situation.
Just because you are dead, that doesn't mean you lose. As long as your end goal is met, you win.
If this was not the case, Kyle Reese of The Terminator, Frank Scott of The Poseidon Adventure, Johnny Smith of The Dead Zone etc would have been considered failures.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 04:00:18 AM
And I disagree that she did prevail.
Well, most likely anyone else in her situation in the beginning of Alien 3 would just cut her veins under the shower, yet she went on. Or would suffer from major emotional breakdown or shutdown, yet Ripley stayed level headed and focused
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 04:12:32 AM
She defeated the monster and destroyed the company's prospects of using it.
In her final act, she not only finally escapes her nightmare, she avenges all those lost to the company's greed. What other choice did she have? Her decision was the most ethical choice anyone could have made in that situation.
Just because you are dead, that doesn't mean you lose. As long as your end goal is met, you win.
If this was not the case, Kyle Reese of The Terminator, Frank Scott of The Poseidon Adventure, Johnny Smith of The Dead Zone etc would have been considered failures.
See my post in reply to you above - i said "That is the only thing that would make more sense to me. Forget Hicks, Newt is the key.
IF Newt remained alive in the film AND the mother daughter motif was subtle continued AND the set up was done in such a way to show the relationship between "mother and daughter" and it was executed well AND the ending was not about the self-sacrifice - but the love and caring nature of Ripley for Newt and ripley kills her self to protect Newt, then I might like it.
Imagine the same scene, without Bishop II, without the company there, but with Newt, standing with Ripley above the furnace. That to me is much more powerful. And is why the Terminator 2 ending is far better then the Alien 3 ending (but we weren't talking about that )".
There is a very big difference between that and what actually happened. I don't think she escaped the nightmare at all, the nightmare claimed her.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 04:16:41 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 04:00:18 AM
And I disagree that she did prevail.
Well, most likely anyone else in her situation in the beginning of Alien 3 would just cut her veins under the shower, yet she went on. Or would suffer from major emotional breakdown or shutdown, yet Ripley stayed level headed and focused
And yet she asked Dillion to kill her?
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 04:20:03 AM
And yet she asked Dillion to kill her?
To save human race, not because she was depressed and consumed by her grief
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 04:30:06 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 04:20:03 AM
And yet she asked Dillion to kill her?
To save human race, not because she was depressed and consumed by her grief
Again thats my issue - the "To save the human race" just doesn't do it for me. I just don't feel the threat to the human race at all. This is my point - if it was to save someone she knew as I said before someone like Newt, then it would have feeling for me. As it is, it is a sacrifice all for nought for me. It is all in vain.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 04:35:04 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 04:30:06 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 04:20:03 AM
And yet she asked Dillion to kill her?
To save human race, not because she was depressed and consumed by her grief
Again thats my issue - the "To save the human race" just doesn't do it for me. I just don't feel the threat to the human race at all. This is my point - if it was to save someone she knew as I said before someone like Newt, then it would have feeling for me. As it is, it is a sacrifice all for nought for me. It is all in vain.
Or to simply fasten the inevitable - without the horror of thinking about what will happen and having to go through such pain
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 22, 2012, 01:39:54 AM
Okay then--but being "depressing" is not an objective flaw by any measure. Many of the greatest films ever made are "depressing."
I'd also like to come back to this for a second - who said anything about "objective".
This is a thread about why people don't like Alien 3. The fact that it is depressing is a legitimate reason not to like it.
Now the film may or may not be a great film from a technical point of view - such as the cinematography, score, etc. And I can like those aspects of a film, but that doesn't mean that I can't NOT like it for other reasons.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 04:37:34 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 04:35:04 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 04:30:06 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 04:20:03 AM
And yet she asked Dillion to kill her?
To save human race, not because she was depressed and consumed by her grief
Again thats my issue - the "To save the human race" just doesn't do it for me. I just don't feel the threat to the human race at all. This is my point - if it was to save someone she knew as I said before someone like Newt, then it would have feeling for me. As it is, it is a sacrifice all for nought for me. It is all in vain.
Or to simply fasten the inevitable - without the horror of thinking about what will happen and having to go through such pain
There is that as well - but then she did go looking for the alien so it would kill her. I would think that cause of death in that instance would be pretty horrofic so that wasn't an issue for her - but certainly to fasten the inevitable may have been a factor - because really, who wants to think about the nightmare growing inside your chest that will come bursting out.
Isnt Alien and Aliens depressing too tho? Maybe Alien to a slightly lesser extent (the focus is on the horror of the situation, not on characters or their lives), but Aliens begins with basically wiping out Ripley's loved ones - her daughter and (presumably) family dies, shes alone, with license revoked, thought of as lunatic and having nightmares the entire time. And the movie ends with half of an android, brutally scarred barely alive marine, Ripley and orhpaned girl making it out alive out of entire colony of families and a whole squad marines - some of which gave their own lives to save others
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 04:41:43 AM
Isnt Alien and Aliens depressing too tho? Maybe Alien to a slightly lesser extent (the focus is on the horror of the situation, not on characters or their lives), but Aliens begins with basically wiping out Ripley's loved ones - her daughter and (presumably) family dies, shes alone, with license revoked, thought of as lunatic and having nightmares the entire time. And the movie ends with half of an android, brutally scarred barely alive marine, Ripley and orhpaned girl making it out alive out of entire colony of families and a whole squad marines - some of which gave their own lives to save others
But there was no sacrifice. It is Ripley's story and thats the character to focus on. The setup is rip's loosing her daughter but gaining one in Newt. By the end of the film, she has survived not only physically but mentally as well. "can I dream?" - "Yes honey, I think we both can."
What makes sacrificing yourself for strangers less noble than sacrificing yourself for someone you know?
We know what the company would have done. They would have taken it back to wherever, possibly Earth but certainly somewhere with a large number of people, it would have gotten lose, all involved suffer royal butt f**king. Ripley knows the company will do this by their disregard for people in the first two films. That is a credible threat perhaps not to the species as a whole, but to a large number of people, perhaps a larger number than Hadley's Hope and certainly larger than the Nostromo crew, and who knows how many Hickses and Newts will be among them?
If the nightmare claimed her as you say, she would have gone the way of the others, Kicking and screaming. She didn't. She defeated it. Defeated is the key term. The monster is dead at her hand. This is an indisputable fact. She claimed its life, not vice versa. She took it into the lead and destroyed it, not to run away, but to face it one last time.
If her sacrifice was in vain, the aforementioned people would have suffered the aforementioned butt f**king. The people Ripley fought to save have their asses intact thanks to her action, so where is the pointlessness? The fact that they were strangers does not change the motivations.
There is no defeat or pointlessness in this. She knew if it lived, people would die. People like all the other she lost, and someone else out there would be thrust into her nightmare. You speak of this as if she surrendered. If she surrendered, she would have fallen to her knees and wept while she gave birth to the queen, her last breaths spent on pathetic and pitiful sobs. THIS would have been a mental failure. THIS would have been a surrender.
Ellen Ripley surrendered to no one.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 05:07:02 AM
What makes sacrificing yourself for strangers less noble than sacrificing yourself for someone you know?
I'm talking about the emotional attachment.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 05:07:02 AMWe know what the company would have done. They would have taken it back to wherever, possibly Earth but certainly somewhere with a large number of people, it would have gotten lose, all involved suffer royal butt f**king. Ripley knows the company will do this by their disregard for people in the first two films. That is a credible threat perhaps not to the species as a whole, but to a large number of people, perhaps a larger number than Hadley's Hope and certainly larger than the Nostromo crew, and who knows how many Hickses and Newts will be among them?
It's obvious the company wanted it.
What I am saying is that the sacrifice Ripley made is pitiful - compared to that if there was an emotional connection to someone she knew. Seeing as they were all dead...
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 05:07:02 AMIf the nightmare claimed her as you say, she would have gone the way of the others, Kicking and screaming.
You mean like Hudson did? "f**k you?" I don't think he went kicking and screaming but certainly the "nightmare" claimed him.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 05:07:02 AMShe didn't. She defeated it.
How? She was impregnated at the start of alien 3. She didn't defeat it, she may have killed the single alien and she may have also destroyed the queen inside her, but at the expense of her life.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 05:07:02 AMDefeated is the key term. The monster is dead at her hand. This is an indisputable fact. She claimed its life, not vice versa. She took it into the lead and destroyed it, not to run away, but to face it one last time.
See above. She was dead anyway. The alien had already killed her.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 05:07:02 AMIf her sacrifice was in vain, the aforementioned people would have suffered the aforementioned butt f**king. The people Ripley fought to save have their asses intact thanks to her action, so where is the pointlessness? The fact that they were strangers does not change the motivations.
There is no defeat or pointlessness in this. She knew if it lived, people would die. People like all the other she lost, and someone else out there would be thrust into her nightmare. You speak of this as if she surrendered. If she surrendered, she would have fallen to her knees and wept while she gave birth to the queen, her last breaths spent on pathetic and pitiful sobs. THIS would have been a mental failure. THIS would have been a surrender.
Ellen Ripley surrendered to no one.
Very eloquent but ultimately something I disagree with.
I'm not saying that I disagree with Ripley's motivations in that I know a part of what she did was to save others. And I know that the company wanted the alien for very bad reasons.
What I am saying, and this goes to the film as a whole, is that the film set up Ripley to die, to sacrifice herself. That was it's purpose. The difference between Aliens and Alien 3 is that in Aliens, the film set up Ripley to survive physically AND mentally. There was ZERO sacrifice in Aliens in that no one killed themselves for someone else. I WANT to see survival. I WANT to see people overcome the odds.
You speak of Ripley "Saving mankind" and "Saving strangers" etc. While that may actually be true, it doesn't flow through for me. I don't really see it on the screen. Ripleys death would have meant SO MUCH MORE to me if there was an emotional connection with a surviving character eg Newt. The reason is because then that surviving character then becomes a metaphor for "mankind".
QuoteI WANT to see people overcome the odds.
Ripley did. She beat the Alien and Company.
Bishop 2: "You can still have a life..... children..."
You can see the conflict on Ripley's face after all she has been through, the nightmare and horror, all the people she has lost she could have just easily given in to the company's offer and allowed them to take the Queen. Why shouldn't she? She'd shouldered a burden she never asked for, for long enough and all she got in return was to lose everybody she loved. But let's face it, that's not Ripley, she knows the Company won't kill it and she couldn't allow them to take it, at the cost of having a normal life as well as her own life. Kane, Brett, Dallas, Lambert, Parker, her daughter Amanda, Hicks, Newt, Bishop, Drake, Vasquez, Wierzbowski, Dietrich, Frost, Crowe, Spunkmeyer, Ferro, Apone, Gorman, 156 colonists, David, Jude, Kevin, Andrews, Aaron, Clemens would have all died for nothing if she gave in to the company.
Her death was hardly in vain
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 04:41:43 AM
Isnt Alien and Aliens depressing too tho? Maybe Alien to a slightly lesser extent (the focus is on the horror of the situation, not on characters or their lives), but Aliens begins with basically wiping out Ripley's loved ones - her daughter and (presumably) family dies, shes alone, with license revoked, thought of as lunatic and having nightmares the entire time. And the movie ends with half of an android, brutally scarred barely alive marine, Ripley and orhpaned girl making it out alive out of entire colony of families and a whole squad marines - some of which gave their own lives to save others
Both two first films doesn't feel depressing to me, because they two end with a hope and belief everything's going to be all right, namely - Ripley saved the cat and is heading home, Bishop, probably, can be repaired, Hicks' wounds will heal, Newt will be adopted... However, during the stories there is a lot of shocking and hurting moments (I believe, you can name them yourself), but still they all are far from being depressing and disheartening. And even the film, where all its characters die or certainly will die -
The Thing - doesn't look depressing to me,
The Thing is just conspicuously
cold, literally (Antartica) and emotionally (whom to trust?). Depression is not about the number of deathes, it's about how the characters are treated, when they are alive.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 22, 2012, 06:46:53 AM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 05:07:02 AM
What makes sacrificing yourself for strangers less noble than sacrificing yourself for someone you know?
I'm talking about the emotional attachment.
True. All our personal desicions are tied emotionally. If the one has no emotional impulse to do something, especially if we are talking about comitting suicide, then they are acting out of free will, upon some ideology. Like kamikaze or those Asian clans, who bring up kids, instilling the idea of the main goal of their lives to expode something some day. Thus, for the start, Ripley jumps into the blazing pit to get rid of pain, arguable saving of mankind can come as a by-product of her deed. As it never was clearly stated in the films until
A:R, that Derelict was successfully annihilated in explosion, Bishop 2nd's team could happily turn their ship to LV 426 after visiting the Fury.
Quote from: SM on Feb 22, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
QuoteI WANT to see people overcome the odds.
Ripley did. She beat the Alien and Company.
SM, I have been saying that for the past several pages.
It's not gonna work.
By the way, I would like to voice my appreciation towards your well thought out and scholarly arguments about this film.
Of all this film's critics, your arguments are the most legitimate.
Well even the professional film critics have not panned alien 3, its got average reviews i think, it basically says more or less that with what went on behind the scenes and with the passing years, people have become more sympathetic to it.
Quote from: aliennaire on Feb 22, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 04:41:43 AM
Isnt Alien and Aliens depressing too tho? Maybe Alien to a slightly lesser extent (the focus is on the horror of the situation, not on characters or their lives), but Aliens begins with basically wiping out Ripley's loved ones - her daughter and (presumably) family dies, shes alone, with license revoked, thought of as lunatic and having nightmares the entire time. And the movie ends with half of an android, brutally scarred barely alive marine, Ripley and orhpaned girl making it out alive out of entire colony of families and a whole squad marines - some of which gave their own lives to save others
Both two first films doesn't feel depressing to me, because they two end with a hope and belief everything's going to be all right, namely - Ripley saved the cat and is heading home, Bishop, probably, can be repaired, Hicks' wounds will heal, Newt will be adopted... However, during the stories there is a lot of shocking and hurting moments (I believe, you can name them yourself), but still they all are far from being depressing and disheartening. And even the film, where all its characters die or certainly will die - The Thing - doesn't look depressing to me, The Thing is just conspicuously cold, literally (Antartica) and emotionally (whom to trust?). Depression is not about the number of deathes, it's about how the characters are treated, when they are alive.
Well, the definition of depressing is :
causing sad feelings of gloom and inadequacyIn Aliens we have an extremely dark environment, feel and visuals and entire colony of families and kids wiped out, soldiers dying without , sacrificing, Ripley's family being dead, world rejecting her, nightmares haunting her etc. Yes, they make it out alive but at what cost? The ship came filled with marines, came back basically empty with seriously wounded and scarred Hicks, leftovers of a robot and two survivors, both of which just experienced deaths of their entire families. Yes, they overcame their fears and nightmares and can dream again, but its just a tinker of light in the middle of a darkness
Ripley in Alien 3 isnt treated much differently. As in Aliens, everyone she loves is wiped out in the middle of a movie, but the trick here is that she has to go through this a second time and something like this takes a serisous toll on a human being. Te she faces a gloom of a certain and forthcoming death of herself
Ripley has lost so much by the third film and discovers she is host a queen, so naturally she is depressed cynical and has a death wish.
Anyone who says that taking their own live while having a xeno in them is wrong is a fool, one will die either way but choosing a less painful death while also saving many lives since the queen would no doubt kill once it got free or if the company used humans to breed the xenomorphs. So Ripley did a heroic thing, nothing wrong about that.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 05:40:31 PMWell, the definition of depressing is : causing sad feelings of gloom and inadequacy
Yes, also it means
lowering in spirits and weakening the vigour, energy, etc.Ripley is isolated at Gateway Station and tormented by incessant nightmares, she maybe acts franticly, but at debriefing she rises her voice to attract attention to her account about the Derelict and eggs and shows defiance to Van Leuwen in requirment to check out LV 426. She abrupts Burke shortly after he stutters about coming back to the planetoid as an advisor. She makes her mind quite quickly even if she is torn apart by grief and ignorance. Honestly, those scenes were easily my most admirable and inspiring ones of her, when I was teenager. And the
Aliens is pervaded with examples of that kind to me. That's why, I have never perceived it as depressing. Yes, the film has the most hight toll of deathes (and kids among them. One of my most nightmarish confusion through bad VHS copy was I thought the host was a boy, not a woman, in the hive). But still the film is a fiction, where the deathes serve to render it more dramatic, to make you feel something, to underscore another plotlines. Which, in this particular case, I understood as a hope for Ripley to gain her full life again.
And as for A^3, I just don't recognize my favourite heroine in
that Ripley after she says "no" to question about daughter. From that very moment till the end it's just a sloping down of the image, that I loved before.
Quote from: aliennaire on Feb 22, 2012, 11:46:48 PM
And as for A^3, I just don't recognize my favourite heroine in that Ripley after she says "no" to question about daughter. From that very moment till the end it's just a sloping down of the image, that I loved before.
But Newt
wasn't her daughter.
Everything Ripley does in Alien 3 is perfectly in character. It's Sigourney Weaver's character, and she threw out every other script for the film that came her way because the writers did not understand Ripley. That's why Giler & Hill ended up writing--Sigourney demanded they do it as they were the only writers who could get Ripley right, especially seeing as they
created the character in the first place.
Quote from: SM on Feb 22, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
QuoteI WANT to see people overcome the odds.
Ripley did. She beat the Alien and Company.
As I said before - I disagree.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 02:09:07 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 22, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
QuoteI WANT to see people overcome the odds.
Ripley did. She beat the Alien and Company.
SM, I have been saying that for the past several pages.
It's not gonna work.
By the way, I would like to voice my appriciation towards your well thought out and scholarly arguments about this film.
Of all this film's critics, your arguments are the most legitimate.
Like he said - I disagree that Ripley won.
And I thank you for the compliment. While we may have our disagreements about the film, it is nice to know that we can have a civil discussion about it.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 05:40:31 PM
Well, the definition of depressing is : causing sad feelings of gloom and inadequacy
In Aliens we have an extremely dark environment, feel and visuals and entire colony of families and kids wiped out, soldiers dying without , sacrificing, Ripley's family being dead, world rejecting her, nightmares haunting her etc. Yes, they make it out alive but at what cost? The ship came filled with marines, came back basically empty with seriously wounded and scarred Hicks, leftovers of a robot and two survivors, both of which just experienced deaths of their entire families. Yes, they overcame their fears and nightmares and can dream again, but its just a tinker of light in the middle of a darkness
Ripley in Alien 3 isnt treated much differently. As in Aliens, everyone she loves is wiped out in the middle of a movie, but the trick here is that she has to go through this a second time and something like this takes a serisous toll on a human being. Te she faces a gloom of a certain and forthcoming death of herself
There is a world of difference between the tone of Aliens and the tone of Alien 3.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 23, 2012, 12:02:09 AM
Quote from: aliennaire on Feb 22, 2012, 11:46:48 PM
And as for A^3, I just don't recognize my favourite heroine in that Ripley after she says "no" to question about daughter. From that very moment till the end it's just a sloping down of the image, that I loved before.
But Newt wasn't her daughter.
She was her surrogate daughter. There was the whole mother/daughter motif throughout aliens.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 23, 2012, 12:02:09 AMBut Newt wasn't her daughter.
But she
might be her adopted child, moreover Newt called her
mum in the end of
Aliens. Again, we have there this inexplicable pause. (I guess, I've said you before, I'm prone to search the sense for those pauses ;)). Clemens asks, Ripley falls into minute stupor, and then answers "no".
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 23, 2012, 12:02:09 AMEverything Ripley does in Alien 3 is perfectly in character. It's Sigourney Weaver's character, and she threw out every other script for the film that came her way because the writers did not understand Ripley. That's why Giler & Hill ended up writing--Sigourney demanded they do it as they were the only writers who could get Ripley right, especially seeing as they created the character in the first place.
Apart from several scripts didn't have Ripley's character in at all, I read Weaver wasn't so much against cameo appearance in the film. It was studio, who demanded "more Ripley" in the franchise. What initially Giler & Hill created was a lucky woman, who fortunately defeated the monster and stayed alive. Who gave her true development was Cameron with adaptation of his Mother script to Giler & Hill demands of battle story.
Cvalda, with all my respect to you and others, I'm not so fond of quarells and disputing, I can almost always find a common divisor in every discussion, it's just the case I never change my mind on. A^3 ruins Ripley's character to me. Just my humble girl's opinion :)
By David Giler's admission, the most they did for the character of Ripley was have Brandywine's secretary change all of the instances of "he" to "she" from the prior script. [By the actors admission, most of the character work was done on set as the script was so precisely bare]
Weaver has name checked G&H and Cameron as being the only ones to get Ripley. Ward's Ripley read badly.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:17:07 AM
By David Giler's admission, the most they did for the character of Ripley was have Brandywine's secretary change all of the instances of "he" to "she" from the prior script.
Weaver has name checked G&H and Cameron as being the only ones to get Ripley. Ward's Ripley read badly.
It's interesting then that Cameron is on record as having not liked Alien 3.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:17:07 AM
By David Giler's admission, the most they did for the character of Ripley was have Brandywine's secretary change all of the instances of "he" to "she" from the prior script.
Weaver has name checked G&H and Cameron as being the only ones to get Ripley. Ward's Ripley read badly.
It's interesting then that Cameron is on record as having not liked Alien 3.
He has been kind, having said that the photography and directing was beautiful and that Fincher showed his talent. He just didn't like the script.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:20:22 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:17:07 AM
By David Giler's admission, the most they did for the character of Ripley was have Brandywine's secretary change all of the instances of "he" to "she" from the prior script.
Weaver has name checked G&H and Cameron as being the only ones to get Ripley. Ward's Ripley read badly.
It's interesting then that Cameron is on record as having not liked Alien 3.
He has been kind, having said that the photography and directing was beautiful and that Fincher showed his talent. He just didn't like the script.
Quite right - and it was the script I was talking about. And it is the script that I have a problem with.
I agree with anyone who says that Alien 3 is beautifully shot. And certainly the score was great.
Much agreed. I love the score.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:17:07 AM
By David Giler's admission, the most they did for the character of Ripley was have Brandywine's secretary change all of the instances of "he" to "she" from the prior script.
Though I'm sure he was being a bit facetious when he said that, I think that's one of the reasons Giler & Hill's take on Ripley is so successful--she is simply written the same way as the male characters, and is not in any way defined by her gender in terms of behavior. Whether they wanted to or not, they created what is still the only true feminist hero in science fiction cinema, especially in the third film. One of the things that has always irked me a little about ALIENS is that James Cameron immediately defines Ripley in terms of her gender and then imposes motherhood upon her, not once but
twice. It works on a story level, but it's still a step backwards.
Quote
Weaver has name checked G&H and Cameron as being the only ones to get Ripley. Ward's Ripley read badly.
Not to mention the entire Ward script was ludicrous in itself. The basic plot points were sound (which is why they were carried over to Giler & Hill's version), but everything around them was either ridiculous or contrived. It always irks me when people say "Ward's version would have been so much more awesome!" No, it wouldn't have been, and neither would William Gibson's.
I read the Vincent Ward script and thought it was alright. In that one, the alien seems to enjoy tormenting Ripley and adds some extra menace to it. The actual idea of the "wooden planet" just comes across as silly, though. The place was supposed to have an atmosphere and everything, which is sort of hard to work out considering it was more or less a spherical shaped space station.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 23, 2012, 01:28:05 AM
Not to mention the entire Ward script was ludicrous in itself. The basic plot points were sound (which is why they were carried over to Giler & Hill's version), but everything around them was either ridiculous or contrived. It always irks me when people say "Ward's version would have been so much more awesome!" No, it wouldn't have been, and neither would William Gibson's.
I think that a lot of people who like it probably haven't read the script. A lot of their problems with the final Alien 3 emerged from Ward's pen. They wouldn't be happy. Maybe it's a contrarian view or maybe Ward's script has just had good marketing recently :P
Yeah, one script had a wooden planet! how insane is that!
I would've loved to have seen Ward's script realised - I just don't know how the wooden planet would've been explained.
QuoteSM, I have been saying that for the past several pages.
It's not gonna work.
By the way, I would like to voice my appriciation towards your well thought out and scholarly arguments about this film.
Of all this film's critics, your arguments are the most legitimate.
You're too kind.
RE: The sacrifice - it's probably already been said, but Ripley sacrificing herself for people she will never know means WAY more, than people she does know. The latter option makes things easier.
Quote from: SM on Feb 23, 2012, 02:11:36 AM
I would've loved to have seen Ward's script realised - I just don't know how the wooden planet would've been explained.
Exactly, it doesn't make sense at all, a metal planet would be more likely but it still sounds insane.
Sorry stephen, I was talking to SM. I hope this misunderstanding doesn't offend you.
Quote from: SM on Feb 23, 2012, 02:11:36 AM
I would've loved to have seen Ward's script realised - I just don't know how the wooden planet would've been explained.
QuoteSM, I have been saying that for the past several pages.
It's not gonna work.
By the way, I would like to voice my appriciation towards your well thought out and scholarly arguments about this film.
Of all this film's critics, your arguments are the most legitimate.
You're too kind.
RE: The sacrifice - it's probably already been said, but Ripley sacrificing herself for people she will never know means WAY more, than people she does know. The latter option makes things easier.
Yes. it is much more selfless to do this for strangers. For someone you know there is a personal reason and more insentive to do it. Since she had less insentive, her final decision is all the more heroic.
Stephen,
What I cannot understand about your argument is the entire point of it is Ripley's death, yet this blatantly disregards the conclusion, which was the death of the alien and the destruction of company prospects.
You bring up Hudson's death as an example, yet there is a huge difference.
Hudson didn't destroy the next generation of xenomorphs with his death. Ripley did. She didn't want to die until AFTER discovering she was carrying the next queen. Before then she fought just as hard to stay alive, and continued to fight as such afterwards. Upon discovering she was carrying the queen, she destroyed it just like she would have any other. Her death was just what was necessary to do so. Yes, she wanted to die with the runner in the led, but when it came up after her, she didn't sit still and let it kill her, she doused it in the water and destroyed it. She even considered Bishop II's offer for life when she asked for reassurance that it would be killed. When he dodged the answer, she said "Okay. Screw you. This little bitch is going down. This one is for my friends."
I cannot and do not understand your argument of it being in vain and her being defeated when you simply focus on the fact she died and disregard the very reason she died and the successful completion of her goal. Her goal was to destroy the queen and keep it out of company hands. She succeeded. This breaking down of facts goes against the very definition of something that is in vain.
As far as most of us are concerned, that is the end of the story and one of Ripley's crowning moments of heroism.
If it was her surrender, why was it scored with such triumphant music? Upon seeing this scene at the age of 12, it was my favorite part of the film. I stood up and cheered and said "Ripley, you are awesome. God speed and rest in peace."
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AM
Sorry stephen, I was talking to SM. I hope this misunderstanding doesn't offend you.
Well of course I'm offended - how dare you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMYes. it is much more selfless to do this for strangers. For someone you know there is a personal reason and more insentive to do it. Since she had less insentive, her final decision is all the more heroic.
This i will never agree with.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMStephen,
What I cannot understand about your argument is the entire point of it is Ripley's death, yet this blatantly disregards the conclusion, which was the death of the alien and the destruction of company prospects.
Yet Ripley dies.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMYou bring up Hudson's death as an example, yet there is a huge difference.
Hudson didn't destroy the next generation of xenomorphs with his death. Ripley did.
My only reference to Hudson was that he was killed by the alien and he didn't go down sobbing - he went fighting.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMShe didn't want to die until AFTER discovering she was carrying the next queen. Before then she fought just as hard to stay alive, and continued to fight as such afterwards. Upon discovering she was carrying the queen, she destroyed it just like she would have any other.
No she didn't destroy it like any other. She died. Killing Kane's son and killing the unborn queen are two very different things.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMHer death was just what was necessary to do so.
Which is my problem.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMYes, she wanted to die with the runner in the led, but when it came up after her, she didn't sit still and let it kill her, she doused it in the water and destroyed it.
True, but she did go "hunting" for it earlier on in the film with the hope that it would kill her. If it did, she would have died with the Runner still, well, running.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMShe even considered Bishop II's offer for life when she asked for reassurance that it would be killed. When he dodged the answer, she said "Okay. Screw you. This little bitch is going down. This one is for my friends."
Yep.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMI cannot and do not understand your argument of it being in vain and her being defeated when you simply focus on the fact she died and disregard the very reason she died and the successful completion of her goal. Her goal was to destroy the queen and keep it out of company hands. She succeeded. This breaking down of facts goes against the very definition of something that is in vain.
I never said that she did not succeed in her goal in keeping it out of company's hands.
I said the film set her up to die.
Put it this way - she succeeded in keeping the alien out of Company's hands in Aliens and yet she didn't die.
You're right in that I am focusing on the fact that she died - but thats because she did die. I didn't want her to die. I wanted her to live. I wanted her to overcome her nightmare and survive - but oh wait she did at the end of Aliens.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMAs far as most of us are concerned, that is the end of the story and one of Ripley's crowning moments of heroism.
And everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is the opposite.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMIf it was her surrender, why was it scored with such triumphant music?
Because the filmmakers had a different opinion on what was going on? Because I feel that they didn't execute the lead up well enough for the ending to emotionally affect me in the way they intended?
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 02:36:52 AMUpon seeing this scene at the age of 12, it was my favorite part of the film. I stood up and cheered and said "Ripley, you are awesome. God speed and rest in peace."
And when I first saw this film (around the same age probably a year or two older) I was disappointed that she had to die because of this alien. Because this creature that had plagued her (for now 3 films) had finally succeeded. That at the start of the film she was impregnated and thus sealed her fate. That she was put in that position. Where was my Ripley from Aliens who could now "dream"? I want that ending - call me cliched, but that's what I want to see.
I don't hate Alien 3. I enjoyed the director's cut because it made a little more sense, but I do believe that Alien 3 was a pointless movie and signalled the eventual downfall of the series. It didn't need to be made. Granted neither did Aliens but at least Aliens picked up in a way that made sense, with the Queen laying the eggs.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 04:06:00 AM
I enjoyed the director's cut because it made a little more sense,
How so exactly?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 04:06:00 AMbut I do believe that Alien 3 was a pointless movie and signalled the eventual downfall of the series.
Agreed. More so because of how it started - "oh no the alien is back"
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 04:06:00 AMGranted neither did Aliens but at least Aliens picked up in a way that made sense, with the Queen laying the eggs.
And also with giving Ripley a
reason to go back.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 04:09:03 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 04:06:00 AM
I enjoyed the director's cut because it made a little more sense,
How so exactly?
Mainly in terms of where the second facehugger came from because in the theatrical release we only see one egg, yet the Dog and Ripley are impregnated. It's not possible if there was only one egg.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 04:18:36 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 04:09:03 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 04:06:00 AM
I enjoyed the director's cut because it made a little more sense,
How so exactly?
Mainly in terms of where the second facehugger came from because in the theatrical release we only see one egg, yet the Dog and Ripley are impregnated. It's not possible if there was only one egg.
Ahhhh ok I thought you might have meant something else.
Though mind you I don't think that answers that question at all. I assume you're talking about the super facehugger thingymajig
Yes. The DC makes it clear there were two facehuggers, instead of one because in the theatrical cut we're left wondering how did two beings get impregnated when there was only one egg.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 05:08:30 AM
Yes. The DC makes it clear there were two facehuggers, instead of one because in the theatrical cut we're left wondering how did two beings get impregnated when there was only one egg.
I'm not overly familier with the Assembly Cut (which is what I assume you mean as there is no "director's" cut), as i've only watched it once or twice.
How exactly does it make it "clear" that there are two facehuggers? Do you mean the the facehugger we see on the EEV looking different to the "super" facehugger is what makes it clear that they're two different facehuggers?
And if it does so, doesn't it still only show one egg and therefore still leaves us wondering where the second facehugger came from?
Not that they look different. That part of it only works for fans who wonder if it's a specific type of hugger that carries a Queen embryo.
As for where it came from; my theory is that whenever the Queen is in a position where she might die, that super facehugger which carries the seed of a new Queen, detaches itself from her body somewhere (maybe her abdomen), so that when she does die, there's still a chance that the species may live on.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 05:17:30 AM
Not that they look different. That part of it only works for fans who wonder if it's a specific type of hugger that carries a Queen embryo.
Ok so how does the AC make it clear that there are two facehuggers?
QuoteAs for where it came from; my theory is that whenever the Queen is in a position where she might die, that super facehugger which carries the seed of a new Queen, detaches itself from her body somewhere (maybe her abdomen), so that when she does die, there's still a chance that the species may live on.
There's still the problem of the egg.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 05:19:09 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 05:17:30 AM
Not that they look different. That part of it only works for fans who wonder if it's a specific type of hugger that carries a Queen embryo.
Ok so how does the AC make it clear that there are two facehuggers?
QuoteAs for where it came from; my theory is that whenever the Queen is in a position where she might die, that super facehugger which carries the seed of a new Queen, detaches itself from her body somewhere (maybe her abdomen), so that when she does die, there's still a chance that the species may live on.
There's still the problem of the egg.
The Egg explanation is simple. Fox are idiots
Hm, my only problem with the Ripley sacrifice was that she already seemed backed into a wall, and that there was no way the audience was going to believe that WY was going to be honourable about removing the Alien and destroying it. There was no actual other option for her at hand. Ripley knows this of course, but so did the audience. All too aware. Just jump already and get it over with. Having some incentive to not die would've made it a little more difficult, but she really was battered to the point of no return by then. I also never liked the money shot of the chestburster. It fulfilled some need in the audience to see Ripley being torn apart by her enemy. I thought it incited some bloodlust in the viewers. Or maybe it's intended to.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 05:08:30 AM
Yes. The DC makes it clear there were two facehuggers, instead of one because in the theatrical cut we're left wondering how did two beings get impregnated when there was only one egg.
from what i saw the normal facehugger got attached to ripley and the super facehugger raped the ox. so how does the assembly cut makes it clear?
the movies got it plotholes and goofs no matter which version you are watching.
but i love the movie still.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 05:12:07 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 05:08:30 AM
Yes. The DC makes it clear there were two facehuggers, instead of one because in the theatrical cut we're left wondering how did two beings get impregnated when there was only one egg.
I'm not overly familier with the Assembly Cut (which is what I assume you mean as there is no "director's" cut), as i've only watched it once or twice.
How exactly does it make it "clear" that there are two facehuggers? Do you mean the the facehugger we see on the EEV looking different to the "super" facehugger is what makes it clear that they're two different facehuggers?
And if it does so, doesn't it still only show one egg and therefore still leaves us wondering where the second facehugger came from?
The Assembly Cut makes all the difference!
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 05:19:09 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 05:17:30 AM
Not that they look different. That part of it only works for fans who wonder if it's a specific type of hugger that carries a Queen embryo.
Ok so how does the AC make it clear that there are two facehuggers?
Explained below.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 05:19:09 AMQuote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 05:17:30 AMAs for where it came from; my theory is that whenever the Queen is in a position where she might die, that super facehugger which carries the seed of a new Queen, detaches itself from her body somewhere (maybe her abdomen), so that when she does die, there's still a chance that the species may live on.
There's still the problem of the egg.
The facehugger that impregnated the dog/ox was born out of the egg that we saw on the EEV. The super facehugger that impregnated Ripley came from the Queen's abdomen, if you want to believe my theory.
Quote from: Kol on Feb 23, 2012, 12:46:19 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 05:08:30 AM
Yes. The DC makes it clear there were two facehuggers, instead of one because in the theatrical cut we're left wondering how did two beings get impregnated when there was only one egg.
from what i saw the normal facehugger got attached to ripley and the super facehugger raped the ox. so how does the assembly cut makes it clear?
the movies got it plotholes and goofs no matter which version you are watching.
but i love the movie still.
I was thinking about that...it seems unlikely me. A normal facehugger would plant a regular Alien that will emerge like any other. Wouldn't the super hugger contain the Queen embryo?
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 12:06:07 PM
Hm, my only problem with the Ripley sacrifice was that she already seemed backed into a wall, and that there was no way the audience was going to believe that WY was going to be honourable about removing the Alien and destroying it. There was no actual other option for her at hand. Ripley knows this of course, but so did the audience. All too aware. Just jump already and get it over with. Having some incentive to not die would've made it a little more difficult, but she really was battered to the point of no return by then. I also never liked the money shot of the chestburster. It fulfilled some need in the audience to see Ripley being torn apart by her enemy. I thought it incited some bloodlust in the viewers. Or maybe it's intended to.
I agree with all of this except for the ending. To me, it was not Ripley being torn apart by the enemy but in her last moments of life she held on to it, making sure it went down with her. All a matter of perspective I suppose. Not bloodlust for me, but making sure the thing wasn't going to survive. Then again, didn't we watch the runner survive the lava earlier? Wouldn't the queen make it through also? Maybe I missed something.
I only say that because I've seen people around the net get really over-excited at the thought of the Alien ripping out of her chest. The chestburster would likely die; remember the chestburster in Aliens that was killed by the flamethrower. Their skins likely aren't very durable or tough until they mature.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 02:01:42 PM
Quote from: Kol on Feb 23, 2012, 12:46:19 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 05:08:30 AM
Yes. The DC makes it clear there were two facehuggers, instead of one because in the theatrical cut we're left wondering how did two beings get impregnated when there was only one egg.
from what i saw the normal facehugger got attached to ripley and the super facehugger raped the ox. so how does the assembly cut makes it clear?
the movies got it plotholes and goofs no matter which version you are watching.
but i love the movie still.
I was thinking about that...it seems unlikely me. A normal facehugger would plant a regular Alien that will emerge like any other. Wouldn't the super hugger contain the Queen embryo?
of course the super facehugger is the one who contain & seed the queen embryo, but what the hell does it in the near of the ox? ???
in the beggining of the movie we see a normal facehugger in the EEV, we see it's fingers, fingernails and a bit of it's "head" (so no super facehugger in that shot) which mpragnate's ripley.
later we see the pregnant dead ox, those two motherf**kers talking about ripley and then we see how one of 'em picks up, the super facehugger, which impragnated, with out a doubt, the ox.
so the assembly cut got it's super facehugger but it's contradicting.
Yeah, I can't explain that. Poor editing?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 23, 2012, 02:46:35 PM
Yeah, I can't explain that. Poor editing?
nah, wouldn't say that. terry rawlings is a master!
you know, if the super facehugger did what the intention of the assembly cut was, (to explain where the queen embryo is coming from) than it should have only rotten in the EEV in the first place.
but we know all the rough circumstances the director & crew had... so no wonder things were messed up.
but i love alien³.
Always thought the queen hugger left the EEV along with the regular one and died on the shore while the ox got killed. We know huggers survive for a little bit after implanting the embryo.
The regular one wandered off and died but the queen one, being dead, was found by the crew.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Always thought the queen hugger left the EEV along with the regular one and died on the shore while the ox got killed. We know huggers survive for a little bit after implanting the embryo.
The regular one wandered off and died but the queen one, being dead, was found by the crew.
Very nice explanation
The facehugger we see in the opening sequence and the Super Facehugger are one in the same. They look different due to a continuity error--the opening sequence was mostly reshot in LA after the studio decided to cut the film down--including the Super Facehugger. The script confirms there is only one facehugger. You just have to overlook the really-not-that-noticeable continuity error at the beginning between the two designs :P
In the script, the Super Facehugger impregnates both Newt (with the Queen) and the Ox (with a warrior, presumably to protect the queen) and then dies. This was what was originally planned until production got shut down. So there is no "two facehuggers"--just one brief continuity error in the Assembly Cut due to ill-thought out reshoots.
So the AC doesn't make it clear at all - just raises more questions.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 23, 2012, 06:51:09 PM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Always thought the queen hugger left the EEV along with the regular one and died on the shore while the ox got killed. We know huggers survive for a little bit after implanting the embryo.
The regular one wandered off and died but the queen one, being dead, was found by the crew.
Very nice explanation
The Queen-hugger was found inside the kitchen, most very likely after falling from the gurney or the ox's face after they wheel it in. The film's a clusterf**k of sloppy writing and editing. Just ignore it and enjoy if you can seems to be the best way. Beats apologism.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 10:57:44 PM
So the AC doesn't make it clear at all - just raises more questions.
No, it's just a brief continuity error because of the reshoots. There is one facehugger in the Assembly Cut--the Super Facehugger. The reason there is a quick glimpse of what looks like a regular facehugger is because the reshoots used a normal facehugger after the studio thought the super facehugger concept was too difficult for the audience to understand. Naturally, because no footage of the super facehugger was shot for the opening, the Assembly had to use the theatrical opening. It's not even something a non-fan would notice, in terms of the design difference.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 11:23:52 PM
The Queen-hugger was found inside the kitchen, most very likely after falling from the gurney or the ox's face after they wheel it in. The film's a clusterf**k of sloppy writing and editing. Just ignore it and enjoy if you can seems to be the best way. Beats apologism.
The writing and the editing are not the problem. The shooting script has a perfectly plausible setup with there being no eggs and one super facehugger. The studio is to blame for screwing everything up by shutting production down in Pinewood before everything could be shot, and then deciding to change things at the last minute and reshoot nonsensical stuff like "magical eggs". Unfortunately, whoever edited the Assembly Cut for home video left those in, even though those were reshot in March 1992 and were most definitely
not part of Fincher's original assembly cut presented to the studio.
Walter Hill himself called the entire script and process a "complete f**king mess." It's nigh-on undebatable. I'm not even going to bother. Hill had the class to admit that, regarding the script problems, "certainly some of that is our fault." Sensible guy.
EDIT: I like his quote about the film: "[we got] the blame. I think a lot of the ideas in the third one are actually the most interesting in the series, but the whole thing didn't quite come off." I agree with him; a lot of the ideas are far more interesting than the actual execution.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 11:49:30 PM
Walter Hill himself called the entire script and process a "complete f**king mess." It's nigh-on undebatable. I'm not even going to bother. Hill had the class to admit that, regarding the script problems, "certainly some of that is our fault." Sensible guy.
I didn't say the whole thing wasn't something of a mess--I said that the studio is responsible for crossing the event horizon line and almost completely destroying the film, making it a nigh-unsalvagable mess when they decided to overhaul everything in post. Because of them, the best version of the original shooting script is non-existent and we're left with something that is forever frustrating and incomplete. The assembly cut is still an amazing film, though, especially considering the massive problems involved.
I'm in agreeance with you. I do believe however that the project was doomed from the start to be muddled. Mostly because of FOX's overbearing and kitchen sink attitude to the film.
Fincher himself also is at least partly to blame for the problems in the opening sequence, because he couldn't figure out how to show the Queen exiting Newt and going into Ripley, which is quite mind-boggling considering the myriad of ways that could have been shown. ::) I guess the stress of shooting started getting to him. At least we have the script and comic to fill us in on the details :P
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 24, 2012, 12:30:57 AM
Fincher himself also is at least partly to blame for the problems in the opening sequence, because he couldn't figure out how to show the Queen exiting Newt and going into Ripley, which is quite mind-boggling considering the myriad of ways that could have been shown. ::) I guess the stress of shooting started getting to him. At least we have the script and comic to fill us in on the details :P
I read somewhere that Fincher thought showing the embryo jumping out of Newt and into Ripley was a bit too disturbing and so elected to leave it out. I could be wrong, though.
He thought the effect looked silly and unconvincing.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 24, 2012, 12:45:15 AM
He thought the effect looked silly and unconvincing.
It's not like he even needed to directly show it though, just like he didn't directly need to show the facehugger on Newt's face, just a shot of it cracking her cryotube. I'm amazed he didn't think of an alternative way of depicting it.
QuoteSo the AC doesn't make it clear at all - just raises more questions.
Correct.
In the TC we have one hugger that lays two embryos. In the AC we have two huggers from one egg. And still have the existing references to a single creature.
I always naturally assumed there were two eggs long before I came to this forum.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 11:23:52 PM
The film's a clusterf**k of sloppy writing and editing. Just ignore it and enjoy if you can seems to be the best way. Beats apologism.
I have seen culsterf**ks. I have seen sloppy. Alien 3 doesn't make the cut. Plus I am not being apologetic. I just find this explanation to be a reasonable one.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 24, 2012, 02:09:04 AM
I always naturally assumed there were two eggs long before I came to this forum.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 11:23:52 PM
The film's a clusterf**k of sloppy writing and editing. Just ignore it and enjoy if you can seems to be the best way. Beats apologism.
I have seen culsterf**ks. I have seen sloppy. Alien 3 doesn't make the cut. Plus I am not being apologetic.
That's your opinion and it's fair enough.
Alien3 IS sloppy in parts.
But clusterf**k is way too harsh a criticism.
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 01:44:27 AM
In the TC we have one hugger that lays two embryos. In the AC we have two huggers from one egg. And still have the existing references to a single creature.
No, in the AC there is just the Super Facehugger. The fact that it briefly looks like a normal hugger is a mild continuity error due to reshoots.
A "mild continuity error" that left us with two different huggers.
Thus making what stephen said, correct.
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 02:36:30 AM
A "mild continuity error" that left us with two different huggers.
Thus making what stephen said, correct.
It's not two different huggers--it's just a continuity error. It's the same reason why the cryotubes don't look like the ones in ALIENS--it doesn't mean that Ripley & co magically switched cryotubes between films, it's just an error. The Assembly Cut follows the shooting script--there is only one facehugger.
It's still not clear as stephen said.
Many like to think the AC fixes some of the TCs problems - but it doesn't.
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 02:45:16 AM
It's still not clear as stephen said.
Many like to think the AC fixes some of the TCs problems - but it doesn't.
The only reason you even notice that the facehugger in the opening looks a bit different than the Super Facehugger is because you've seen the film multiple times and are a fan of the series. The casual viewer would not know there are "different facehuggers" in the AC--it's just a quick continuity error and nothing more. By your logic, because the maquette runner alien and the suit look slightly different visually, it must mean that there are
two runners on Fury 161. ::)
Apart from the fact that there's no single piece of evidence that supports that assertion, and therefore completely different to the hugger situation - yeah, you're correct there....
And it's not a maquette.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 23, 2012, 06:51:09 PM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 23, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Always thought the queen hugger left the EEV along with the regular one and died on the shore while the ox got killed. We know huggers survive for a little bit after implanting the embryo.
The regular one wandered off and died but the queen one, being dead, was found by the crew.
Very nice explanation
The Queen-hugger was found inside the kitchen, most very likely after falling from the gurney or the ox's face after they wheel it in. The film's a clusterf**k of sloppy writing and editing. Just ignore it and enjoy if you can seems to be the best way. Beats apologism.
Well, theres no doubt its a plothole or continuity error, but I think some fan theories can work to fix them and Monolith's sounds pretty plausible
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 02:55:12 AM
Apart from the fact that there's no single piece of evidence that supports that assertion, and therefore completely different to the hugger situation - yeah, you're correct there....
There is no single piece of evidence that supports the assertion that we're supposed to believe there are two facehuggers in the AC. In fact, the shooting script refutes that. It is just a quick continuity error, and that is all there is to it. There's nothing else to discuss on the matter.
Quote
And it's not a maquette.
Close enough ;)
QuoteThere is no single piece of evidence that supports the assertion that we're supposed to believe there are two facehuggers in the AC.
Ah, no.
Two Aliens, using the previous films, means two huggers. Which caused confusion at the time and still does.
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 03:04:33 AM
QuoteThere is no single piece of evidence that supports the assertion that we're supposed to believe there are two facehuggers in the AC.
Ah, no.
Two Aliens, using the previous films, means two huggers.
:-\ You do know the Super Facehugger in the Assembly Cut carries multiple embryos, right? A Queen and at least one other warrior. That is why Amalgamated Dynamics went through the trouble of designing, building, and having filmed one, you know.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F210%2F119%2F%2B_2acc5a8841f8752904d37f90a8014829.png%3F1322693145&hash=aba2a0f6511d8f99e096820bd7fffee57901c53b)
Which is never even remotely addressed in any version of the film.
One version (well two really) has two embryos from one hugger, and the other has two huggers from one egg.
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 03:37:25 AM
Which is never even remotely addressed in any version of the film.
One version has two embryos from one hugger, and the other has two huggers from one egg.
And that version is the only one that matters. It doesn't need to be "directly" addressed, same as we don't need to know how the alien generated tons of biomass in just a few hours in all the films. The super facehugger impregnated Newt/Ripley with the queen--hence why it is
designed to look like the queen, and is then shown to have impregnated the ox and died. The end.
QuoteAnd that version is the only one that matters.
Based on?
QuoteIt doesn't need to be "directly" addressed
When you set up a rule in an earlier film, then yeah you do need to address it when you change it. Otherwise it confuses your audience - which is what happened.
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 03:51:15 AM
QuoteAnd that version is the only one that matters.
Based on?
Based on the fact that the theatrical cut is a botched hackjob that does not reflect the intent of the shooting script or the director.
Quote
When you set up a rule in an earlier film, then yeah you do need to address it when you change it.
And it is addressed in the Assembly Cut with this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_rzdB5a4kLAo%2FSUwCJsy-rOI%2FAAAAAAAAMI0%2F_AdmXkVzNt4%2Fs400%2Fqueenfacehugger3.jpg&hash=951e89997ad3f1354d19649822fe40d7c8d8b172)
The fact that the Super Facehugger looks mighty different than the standard issue should be the first tip off that it operates differently as well.
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 03:37:25 AM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/210/119/+_2acc5a8841f8752904d37f90a8014829.png?1322693145
Which is never even remotely addressed in any version of the film.
One version (well two really) has two embryos from one hugger, and the other has two huggers from one egg.
What about my theory that the Super Facehugger is part of the Queen and only detaches itself when it needs to?
No thanks.
QuoteBased on the fact that the theatrical cut is a botched hackjob that does not reflect the intent of the shooting script or the director.
Nor does the AC. The WP is probably closer and that lacks the ox and superhugger.
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 04:21:41 AM
QuoteBased on the fact that the theatrical cut is a botched hackjob that does not reflect the intent of the shooting script or the director.
Nor does the AC. The WP is probably closer and that lacks the ox and superhugger.
You're seriously going to argue that the Assembly Cut does not better reflect the actual shooting script? It hews remarkably close to the filmmakers' original vision, before the reshoots and dilution. 95% of everything in that script is up there on screen in the AC. :-\
Fincher's original vision was to start again from scratch.
Sticking that close to the script isn't automatically a good thing. Obviously since the ox isn't nearly as good as the dog, and there's a lot of redundant dragging in the AC. If one merely had to stick to the script, then we wouldn't need film editors.
There's a reason it's called an "Assembly Cut", and why Assembly Cuts aren't theatrical cuts. A lot happens between shooting and release.
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 05:11:11 AM
There's a reason it's called an "Assembly Cut", and why Assembly Cuts aren't theatrical cuts. A lot happens between shooting and release.
Uh-yeah. Then you should certainly already know that what's presented on the DVD/Blu-ray isn't actually
the Assembly Cut, but is instead a compromise between the original Assembly Cut and parts of the theatrical cut. ::) And the only redundant dragging in the home video "Assembly Cut" is the scene where the prisoners decide to move to the furnace. The rest works great and is infinitely better paced than the theatrical.
The AC tries to emulate what the original assembly would've looked like. But stuff changed between then and the TC. Same as any film. It's closer to the script, but everyone knows the script had a lot of issues.
Fortunately they made changes because as I said, a lot of it is slow and redundant. While the TC went too far with the cutting, it's infinitely tighter and more watchable.
Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2012, 05:38:54 AM
Fortunately they made changes because as I said, a lot of it is slow and redundant. While the TC went too far with the cutting, it's infinitely tighter and more watchable.
No, it's not. It's a clearly visible hatchet job that destroys most of the atmosphere, guts character development left and right, and robs the ending of much of its power. But of course, YMMV.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 24, 2012, 04:17:03 AM
What about my theory that the Super Facehugger is part of the Queen and only detaches itself when it needs to?
I like this a lot, and it's a lot more in line with the script, where there is no egg, just a facehugger that stowed away somehow.
I have to agree with everything SM has said.
I actually do not like the AC at all - if I watch A3 i will watch the TC.
Anything I say will be me simply restating what SM has said.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 24, 2012, 05:51:50 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 24, 2012, 04:17:03 AM
What about my theory that the Super Facehugger is part of the Queen and only detaches itself when it needs to?
I like this a lot, and it's a lot more in line with the script, where there is no egg, just a facehugger that stowed away somehow.
But in both cuts the egg is still shown. Regardless of the script/s the egg is shown.
My theory has there being two facehuggers but only one egg (since the egg was shown we have to deal with it). The queen lays the egg on the dropship while a facehugger has hitched a ride with the queen.
While Rips and the queen are going fisticuffs the facehugger that hitched the ride moves the egg (because in my mind the location of the egg is the biggest issue of all).
Once Rips and co are in hypersleep the egg hatches and we now have two facehuggers. One gets ripley the other the dog.
NOW having said all that,
Even if the egg wasn't shown, there is still a plot hole in that the facehuggers have appeared out of nowhere - whether it be one facehugger or just the super facehugger. If they just appear with no explanation for the audience then thats a cheap way to start the film.
So by showing the egg they go someway to explaining where they came from but they still botched it up.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 24, 2012, 09:25:21 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 24, 2012, 05:51:50 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 24, 2012, 04:17:03 AM
What about my theory that the Super Facehugger is part of the Queen and only detaches itself when it needs to?
I like this a lot, and it's a lot more in line with the script, where there is no egg, just a facehugger that stowed away somehow.
But in both cuts the egg is still shown. Regardless of the script/s the egg is shown.
I said I liked it (it's a cool idea), not that it's applicable :P
QuoteNo, it's not. It's a clearly visible hatchet job that destroys most of the atmosphere, guts character development left and right, and robs the ending of much of its power. But of course, YMMV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only character who got robbed in the TC was Golic. No one else had any real development to actually lose.
And the ending was butchered in the AC. The WP was better.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 24, 2012, 09:25:21 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 24, 2012, 05:51:50 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 24, 2012, 04:17:03 AM
What about my theory that the Super Facehugger is part of the Queen and only detaches itself when it needs to?
I like this a lot, and it's a lot more in line with the script, where there is no egg, just a facehugger that stowed away somehow.
But in both cuts the egg is still shown. Regardless of the script/s the egg is shown.
My theory has there being two facehuggers but only one egg (since the egg was shown we have to deal with it). The queen lays the egg on the dropship while a facehugger has hitched a ride with the queen.
Even that doesn't work. All the eggs were torched on LV-426 and the chances of a hugger getting out of that inferno were one in a million at best. Besides, how would Ripley not have noticed it?
I heard Bishop brought it on board through soome Company failsafe in his programming, but that just sounds stupid. It's such a shame people always focus on the negatives in Alien 3 like the eggs on the sulaco, overshadows for me what is an outstanding film in it's own right
Who said that ???
For the life of me I can't remember where I read it, it was only a theory by some fan
The reason people get hung up on the negatives such as the eggs is because its a head scratcher. I simply think queen was responsible but then how did the egg get on the ceiling and how did two facehuggers come out on one egg?
someone once said that the egg part was just a dream.
And how did that same person explain the chestbursters? Indigestion?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 24, 2012, 06:25:15 PM
And how did that same person explain the chestbursters? Indigestion?
read again where i said "egg part" not facehugger part.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 24, 2012, 06:08:41 PM
The reason people get hung up on the negatives such as the eggs is because its a head scratcher. I simply think queen was responsible but then how did the egg get on the ceiling and how did two facehuggers come out on one egg?
someone once said that the egg part was just a dream.
Nobody questioned Hypersleep for 57 years though.... ;)
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Feb 24, 2012, 06:47:59 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 24, 2012, 06:08:41 PM
The reason people get hung up on the negatives such as the eggs is because its a head scratcher. I simply think queen was responsible but then how did the egg get on the ceiling and how did two facehuggers come out on one egg?
someone once said that the egg part was just a dream.
Nobody questioned Hypersleep for 57 years though.... ;)
well she did have nightmares about chesburster although giving her previous experience its only natural, i personally don't know whether to believe the egg part being a dream or not but i believe queen was responsible for the aliens being on board.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 24, 2012, 06:50:36 PM
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Feb 24, 2012, 06:47:59 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 24, 2012, 06:08:41 PM
The reason people get hung up on the negatives such as the eggs is because its a head scratcher. I simply think queen was responsible but then how did the egg get on the ceiling and how did two facehuggers come out on one egg?
someone once said that the egg part was just a dream.
Nobody questioned Hypersleep for 57 years though.... ;)
well she did have nightmares about chesburster although giving her previous experience its only natural, i personally don't know whether to believe the egg part being a dream or not but i believe queen was responsible for the aliens being on board.
That's my belief too, survival instinct or something, I think in a previous post somebody mentioned if the longevity of the Nest/Queen was threatened
One thing I don't like about the film was that it constantly switched between CGI and a rubber suit. Though I appreciate that the film needed a CGI Alien in order to show off how it moved like a dog rather than a human, the appearances of the 2 Aliens didn't even look similar; the rubber suit was black and the CGI Alien often looked like it had a red glow to it. There also appeared to be a size difference; I don't know if it's just me but the rubber suit Alien looked a little bigger than its CGI coutnerpart.
For the Godzillionth time, the only bit of CGI in the TC is the cracks on the dome at the end -- and in the AC, there's a brief shot of the Chestburster that uses CGI.
The rest of the Runner shots use go-motion.
This is not particularly directed at you, I want to be clear -- but I wish people would watch making-of featurettes more. This confusion about the Runner being CGI is so frequent it's become annoying by now.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 24, 2012, 09:10:40 PM
For the Godzillionth time, the only bit of CGI in the TC is the cracks on the dome at the end -- and in the AC, there's a brief shot of the Chestburster that uses CGI.
The rest of the Runner shots use go-motion.
This is not particularly directed at you, I want to be clear -- but I wish people would watch making-of featurettes more. This confusion about the Runner being CGI is so frequent it's become annoying by now.
I am not sure but when the alien jumps out of the lead, i think that was cgi but yes the majority of the time it was a suit.
i prefer the suit to cgi to be honest.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 24, 2012, 09:15:42 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 24, 2012, 09:10:40 PM
For the Godzillionth time, the only bit of CGI in the TC is the cracks on the dome at the end -- and in the AC, there's a brief shot of the Chestburster that uses CGI.
The rest of the Runner shots use go-motion.
This is not particularly directed at you, I want to be clear -- but I wish people would watch making-of featurettes more. This confusion about the Runner being CGI is so frequent it's become annoying by now.
I am not sure but when the alien jumps out of the lead, i think that was cgi but yes the majority of the time it was a suit.
i prefer the suit to cgi to be honest.
Not a suit. For the majority of the film, they green-screened a very elaborate puppet and spliced it into shots.
You can see it in this vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYeoyC0QV1w#t=11m08s). Relevant info at around 11 minutes 8 seconds.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 24, 2012, 09:15:42 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Feb 24, 2012, 09:10:40 PM
For the Godzillionth time, the only bit of CGI in the TC is the cracks on the dome at the end -- and in the AC, there's a brief shot of the Chestburster that uses CGI.
The rest of the Runner shots use go-motion.
This is not particularly directed at you, I want to be clear -- but I wish people would watch making-of featurettes more. This confusion about the Runner being CGI is so frequent it's become annoying by now.
I am not sure but when the alien jumps out of the lead, i think that was cgi but yes the majority of the time it was a suit.
i prefer the suit to cgi to be honest.
To puppet you mean. Nah, not me. I think the suit is horrendous
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Fb.jpg&hash=04f98ac3c6ed71ba7d86b4037e4b7801377e0c12)
the puppet on the other hand is of a very nice design
That's the so much unfinished suit used in early scenes of the film where the Alien had not to be seen.
This is more like the final thing:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi848.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab43%2FOmegaZilla95%2FAlien%2520and%2520Predator%2FAlien3%2FAlien3fire.png&hash=df92e879f61f2a61f5f268110943b3cf1fdde245)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi848.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab43%2FOmegaZilla95%2FAlien%2520and%2520Predator%2FAlien3%2Falien3suit.png&hash=059d2c83a0478e065c70a6e49f627ec2aa9ed586)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi848.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fab43%2FOmegaZilla95%2FAlien%2520and%2520Predator%2FAlien3%2FAlienrunnerfullsuit.jpg&hash=1a7be1fa7174dc834335e4e9ad9a320e59721e3c)
I like the puppet a lot more myself, though.
Why did they have to mess up the compositing, dammmmit.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 24, 2012, 06:41:38 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 24, 2012, 06:25:15 PM
And how did that same person explain the chestbursters? Indigestion?
read again where i said "egg part" not facehugger part.
It was a joke, poking fun at the fact that that theory sounds absurd. Sorry you missed it.
Right, I momentarily forgot that the it was a puppet; but, it still looked as if CGI had a hand in it and the transition from puppet to ruberr suit in the movie seemed unrefined. :-\
No, the puppet was not CGI enhanced most of the time. The cracks on the dome at the end are CGI.
The problem is dual: the compositing did not take advantage of the photography of the film (unlike, say, the Dark Overlord in Howard the Duck -- in that film they managed to align lighting of the puppet and lighting of the scene, exempli gratia), and it was way less refined than it should have been. Too bad, as I always say, because the movements are really smooth.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 24, 2012, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 24, 2012, 06:41:38 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 24, 2012, 06:25:15 PM
And how did that same person explain the chestbursters? Indigestion?
read again where i said "egg part" not facehugger part.
It was a joke, poking fun at the fact that that theory sounds absurd. Sorry you missed it.
I agree its outlandish but the bishop theory is worse i reckon. I didn't miss the joke, i just thought it was misplaced sarcasm.
I assumed you knew the person who said since its either in this thread or one of the "egg on sulaco" threads
Quote
I am not sure but when the alien jumps out of the lead, i think that was cgi but yes the majority of the time it was a suit.
i prefer the suit to cgi to be honest.
Quote
To puppet you mean. Nah, not me. I think the suit is horrendous
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Fb.jpg&hash=04f98ac3c6ed71ba7d86b4037e4b7801377e0c12)
the puppet on the other hand is of a very nice design
I meant the suits in Aliens and Alien, i prefer them over the cgi used in later films, i mostly prefer practical effects over digital
I have a better theory: it was the Crawling Chaos that put the egg aboard the ship. Ok?
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 24, 2012, 09:08:11 PM
One thing I don't like about the film was that it constantly switched between CGI and a rubber suit. Though I appreciate that the film needed a CGI Alien in order to show off how it moved like a dog rather than a human, the appearances of the 2 Aliens didn't even look similar; the rubber suit was black and the CGI Alien often looked like it had a red glow to it. There also appeared to be a size difference; I don't know if it's just me but the rubber suit Alien looked a little bigger than its CGI coutnerpart.
It's a rod puppet
I thought the alien in this film looked good, even if the compositing was a bit iffy at times.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 24, 2012, 09:32:34 PM
To puppet you mean. Nah, not me. I think the suit is horrendous
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Fb.jpg&hash=04f98ac3c6ed71ba7d86b4037e4b7801377e0c12)
the puppet on the other hand is of a very nice design
To be fair
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1101.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg425%2Fmrmagoo6%2F01060_Alien_Sibthorp.jpg&hash=6a6be1210a6fcd87cf8ebadba701711b7362d189)
the suit in the first film could look daft if you photograph it by surprise :P
The puppet is lovely, though.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 24, 2012, 01:20:17 PM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 24, 2012, 09:25:21 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 24, 2012, 05:51:50 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 24, 2012, 04:17:03 AM
What about my theory that the Super Facehugger is part of the Queen and only detaches itself when it needs to?
I like this a lot, and it's a lot more in line with the script, where there is no egg, just a facehugger that stowed away somehow.
But in both cuts the egg is still shown. Regardless of the script/s the egg is shown.
My theory has there being two facehuggers but only one egg (since the egg was shown we have to deal with it). The queen lays the egg on the dropship while a facehugger has hitched a ride with the queen.
Even that doesn't work. All the eggs were torched on LV-426 and the chances of a hugger getting out of that inferno were one in a million at best. Besides, how would Ripley not have noticed it?
Says who? there were eggs all over the place.
What didn't ripley notice?
This supposed hugger following her back to the Sulaco. It's a facehugger, not a spider.
And says the script, way I see it. Everything went up in flames. How would a stationary egg survive that?
If a hugger hitched a ride, why didn't it attack Ripley or Newt when it had the chance?
That too. These aren't calculating creatures that wait for the right moment.
it was cramped
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 25, 2012, 05:35:20 AM
That too. These aren't calculating creatures that wait for the right moment.
Actually they can be patient enough to wait for the right moment to strike, certain predators hide and stalk before striking.
its proven in aliens in the medlab as the facehuggers were circling and hiding instead of outright attacking left and right.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 25, 2012, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 25, 2012, 05:35:20 AM
That too. These aren't calculating creatures that wait for the right moment.
Actually they can be patient enough to wait for the right moment to strike, certain predators hide and stalk before striking.
its proven in aliens in the medlab as the facehuggers were circling and hiding instead of outright attacking left and right.
totally agree.
but nonetheless they are more driven by instinct.
Quote from: Kol on Feb 25, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 25, 2012, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 25, 2012, 05:35:20 AM
That too. These aren't calculating creatures that wait for the right moment.
Actually they can be patient enough to wait for the right moment to strike, certain predators hide and stalk before striking.
its proven in aliens in the medlab as the facehuggers were circling and hiding instead of outright attacking left and right.
totally agree.
but nonetheless they are more driven by instinct.
Well the stalking and hiding is the instinct, a predatory instinct.
let me rephrase it: it's driven by it's only purpose; to impregnate & i don't think that it has much of intelligence to know when it's victim is scared or anything that goes in that direction.
just a walking penis who want to face-rape anyone and that effectively.
a facehugger would jump onto you even when you were firing at it. it calculates nothing, it reacts most of the time.
Quote from: Kol on Feb 25, 2012, 04:58:27 PM
let me rephrase it: it's driven by it's only purpose; to impregnate & i don't think that it has much of intelligence to know when it's victim is scared or anything that goes in that direction.
just a walking penis who want to face-rape anyone and that effectively.
a facehugger would jump onto you even when you were firing at it. it calculates nothing, it reacts most of the time.
That is not entirley true, while its only goal is indeed to impregnate a host, they are careful about it and will exercise caution and patience.
The only time i have a seen a facehugger jump on someone while firing a gun was avp-r and that was justified since it was the kid that warned his father in time other wise he would have been facehugged right then.
The games don't count as that is game mechanics and A.I
Unless you count the ones that you play as.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 25, 2012, 06:14:01 PM
Unless you count the ones that you play as.
Which also don't count since its a human mind controlling the alien.... :laugh:
unless the alien being controlled can only do things that they would do in films and thus limits the human playing as it.
Not true. Mission objectives are only based on the character you play, not the player. Plus the events are cannon with the plot, so they should be considered.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 25, 2012, 06:27:57 PM
Not true. Mission objectives are only based on the character you play, not the player. Plus the events are cannon with the plot, so they should be considered.
Not when situations requires you to think and strategise like a human then it breaks established alien lore.
in all games they have a single alien (the player) doing a lot of things that most aliens do not do.
I don't consider E.U as canon so the storyline is nothing to the continuity to the films but i did enjoy AVP2 immensely, shame the new one wasn't like it.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 25, 2012, 06:39:17 PM
in all games they have a single alien (the player) doing a lot of things that most aliens do not do.
Actually, I read or heard somewhere that if there is only 1 Alien, it would act differently than if there were multiple ones.
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 25, 2012, 06:42:35 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 25, 2012, 06:39:17 PM
in all games they have a single alien (the player) doing a lot of things that most aliens do not do.
Actually, I read or heard somewhere that if there is only 1 Alien, it would act differently than if there were multiple ones.
Its possible but that would not make them have Human intelligence.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 25, 2012, 06:46:35 PM
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 25, 2012, 06:42:35 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 25, 2012, 06:39:17 PM
in all games they have a single alien (the player) doing a lot of things that most aliens do not do.
Actually, I read or heard somewhere that if there is only 1 Alien, it would act differently than if there were multiple ones.
Its possible but that would not make them have Human intelligence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSIHQqobjXs# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSIHQqobjXs#)
.....No match for our people intelligence :laugh:
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 25, 2012, 06:46:35 PM
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 25, 2012, 06:42:35 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 25, 2012, 06:39:17 PM
in all games they have a single alien (the player) doing a lot of things that most aliens do not do.
Actually, I read or heard somewhere that if there is only 1 Alien, it would act differently than if there were multiple ones.
Its possible but that would not make them have Human intelligence.
According to the EU, Aliens can get smarter over time.
Quote from: predxeno on Feb 25, 2012, 08:03:18 PM
According to the EU, Aliens can get smarter over time.
Also common sense.
Aliens are good at observation learning and that adapt, that is why they seem more intelligent.
Xenomorphs born outside of hives must learn everything on their own, thus they have more individuality than others.
Plus the intelligence that player xenomorphs display does not go against established lore because xenomorph intelligence has never been established. It has always been subject to speculation.
Certain parts of the films actually support them being quite intelligent.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 25, 2012, 08:56:23 PM
Xenomorphs born outside of hives must learn everything on their own, thus they have more individuality than others.
Plus the intelligence that player xenomorphs display does not go against established lore because xenomorph intelligence has never been established. It has always been subject to speculation.
Certain parts of the films actually support them being quite intelligent.
But never as intelligent as a human.
Their ability to learn is form observation learning and from being adaptive.
You speak of observation as if it is a lowly form of intellect, yet it is the primary basis for our educational system. We learn how to do math, work technology, cook, drive, speak languages and a variety of other things due to this.
Keep in mind the xenomorphs we have seen in official cannon (the films) have all been very young. A month old at most. Plus, all we have seen them do is fight. We have never seen them do anything behind the scenes. How they construct a hive, how things work within a hive when there is no prey, etc. We have only seen a little of them, and to have this brief glimpse at this species serve as the basis for an argument of intelligence is a flawed statement.
At the very least, they are as smart as the raptors in the JP movies, but in all likelyhood, they are even smarter than that.
If Kane's Son were the benchmark, I'd agree. I maintain Cameron's Warriors were still mindless bugs.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 25, 2012, 11:34:37 PM
You speak of observation as if it is a lowly form of intellect, yet it is the primary basis for our educational system. We learn how to do math, work technology, cook, drive, speak languages and a variety of other things due to this.
Keep in mind the xenomorphs we have seen in official cannon (the films) have all been very young. A month old at most. Plus, all we have seen them do is fight. We have never seen them do anything behind the scenes. How they construct a hive, how things work within a hive when there is no prey, etc. We have only seen a little of them, and to have this brief glimpse at this species serve as the basis for an argument of intelligence is a flawed statement.
At the very least, they are as smart as the raptors in the JP movies, but in all likelyhood, they are even smarter than that.
Not at all, i believe learning by observing is quite clever and effective. I never implied otherwise, i just said the xenomorphs learn quickly by observation.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 25, 2012, 11:42:49 PM
If Kane's Son were the benchmark, I'd agree. I maintain Cameron's Warriors were still mindless bugs.
I actually use Alien and Aliens two of my primary sources for my argument. After all there is that...certain incident I keep bringing up which was the most heavy implication of their intelligence to date. That and there are a few other things that were done in the film that hint some sort of strategy on their part.
Alien behaviour doesn't seem terribly consistent between the films, the first two specifically. You can argue that the one in the first film was young and curious and those in the second film were older, but it doesn't help when Cameron's aliens are portrayed as expendable minions. It's almost like they get stupider when they get older.
Such arguments wouldn't be happening if there had been a scene in Aliens showing a bunch of them sitting around a table, smoking cigars and surveying battle-plans.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 12:06:19 AM
Alien behaviour doesn't seem terribly consistent between the films, the first two specifically. You can argue that the one in the first film was young and curious and those in the second film were older, but it doesn't help when Cameron's aliens are portrayed as expendable minions. It's almost like they get stupider when they get older.
Such arguments wouldn't be happening if there had been a scene in Aliens showing a bunch of them sitting around a table, smoking cigars and surveying battle-plans.
They were expendable that is why plus they were testing the defences. They are soldiiers/warriors of the hive so of course their lives will not much meaning. plus the film is the first time an alien has gone up against TRAINED MARINES WITH RIFLES, had the first alien attacked any one of the marines the result would be the same as any of the warriors...dead alien.
The aliens in the second film were quite dangerous and smart, they took out most of the marines, cut the power, destroyed the dropship and (accidentally) the apc which left the marines severely demoralised,less ammo and no escape.
If the Alien in the first film had been anything like those in the second, it probably wouldn't have wasted so much time killing a bunch of unarmed space truckers. Make of that what you will.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 25, 2012, 11:42:49 PM
If Kane's Son were the benchmark, I'd agree. I maintain Cameron's Warriors were still mindless bugs.
What does Kane's Son do that is specifically crafty [or at least craftier than mobilising and demoralising and then destroying a highly armed combat unit]? I've seen Ridley Scott shoot down any interviewer who suggested the Alien purposefully stalked Ripley aboard the Narcissus, for example. He outruns Dallas in the vents? Is that conclusive? The Alien outruns a man who can't even stand upright or see beyond his hands? The Alien in that film is also given free rein to roam the ship completely unimpeded by barriers or automatic weaponry, and is safe from any physical danger from the crew. The two contexts that the creatures from the first two movies find themselves in contrast incredibly. Cameron called Aliens a war film, and in war films there are casualties on both sides, and sometimes you have to be Machiavellian or even self-destructive in order to win or preserve your society as a whole. I always saw the Aliens in the film as
actually doing that. The Alien in the first film was likened to, by Dan O'Bannon, an inexperienced and curious child, albeit an extraterrestrial one. Ridley described it as a self-propagating machine; a "biomechanical insect." The Aliens of the second film probably see themselves as under siege by the Marines, funnily enough. They've been to war before with the colonists. They're essentially an army.
Well, these are just my thoughts anyway.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 12:06:19 AM
Alien behaviour doesn't seem terribly consistent between the films, the first two specifically. You can argue that the one in the first film was young and curious and those in the second film were older, but it doesn't help when Cameron's aliens are portrayed as expendable minions. It's almost like they get stupider when they get older.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi288.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll198%2Fevilash1990%2Ffacepalm.jpg&hash=f8a9c63f805109b70534b3e24744932e30ed1632)
And here we go again. Completely ignoring everything I previously said and whats been established in the movies
QuoteIf the Alien in the first film had been anything like those in the second, it probably wouldn't have wasted so much time killing a bunch of unarmed space truckers. Make of that what you will.
the aliens in every movie are different, I dont think theres much room for debating that. The first one acts like a pure animal, the second ones are basically vietnam soldiers, and the third one a ferocious lion. But as far as the first's ones behavior towards the truckers, I dont see any issue here. Once it grew full size, it gathered a host. When it had a chance , he snapped another one to the nest/hive he was building. Parker was killed cause he was a threat. Lambert died of a heart attack/trying to escape. I dont see how warriors were any different - threat:kill, viable hosts: save and use for reproduction
All of the differences can be explained in universe. The first alien was young and spooked, the ones in second older thus smarter and more lethal and the one in third came out of a much less intelligent creature AND was a baby
But hold on a second, youre right. Kanes Son is basically a calculating space god or a space Lecter, the ones in other films are just bugz who just pound the walls ::)
Granted the runner was not very intelligent, but it didnt took anything away from the creature, imo at least. I liked him the way he was
And I agree with valaqueen. It's hard to see how lethal the aliens really are that well when unarmed weaker opponents are facing the alien. If an adult person beats up a smaller, helpless child it doesn't really show how tough he is, but if he beats up a person who's armed with knives and sticks and baseball bat then it's a different story.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 26, 2012, 12:18:12 AM
had the first alien attacked any one of the marines the result would be the same as any of the warriors...dead alien.
And thats basically what Obannon said as well, it gets shot itll die, thats why he co-invented blood for acid to prevent truckers from shooting it and gave them limited range weapons
Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks such things about the aliens being different, as DoomRulz stated something about the "mindless bug" thing earlier. As I said in response to your belittling post the last time, this is what I saw in the films. You can go ahead and face-palm like you know everything, but it doesn't change what I saw in the films and what others see in them. You may have interpreted everything in the way you've described before, but take note that not everyone thinks the same way you do. If anything, it almost seems like you're antagonizing me. I didn't come here to start fights, but the know-it-all tone that you seem to so often take lends me to think you've got some kind of superiority complex going. I was just voicing what I thought and I wasn't trying to convince anyone to think the same, whereas you on the other hand have seemed to make it your imperative to shoot down everything I say with about as much subtlety as a claw hammer to the skull.
Quotethe aliens in every movie are different, I dont think theres much room for debating that. The first one acts like a pure animal, the second ones are basically vietnam soldiers, and the third one a ferocious lion. But as far as the first's ones behavior towards the truckers, I dont see any issue here. Once it grew full size, it gathered a host. When it had a chance , he snapped another one to the nest/hive he was building. Parker was killed cause he was a threat. Lambert died of a heart attack/trying to escape. I dont see how warriors were any different - threat:kill, viable hosts: save and use for reproduction
Again, that's what you saw. Not everyone sees things the way you do. Remember that.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 01:03:01 AM
As I said in response to your belittling post the last time, this is what I saw in the films.
I would have nothing against that except youre passing it as facts. Im not talking about interpretations. Things like the fact that alien did kamikaze in a dropship to cut off marines from escaping isnt interpretation. It has been stated in 87. I too thoughtall the aliens were "mindless" (never saw a jesus on a pancake like some fans when it came to the original even) - but that was when I was a teenager. Given, I had to have been pointed out or given a clue at first to realize that once you know it and think about it, its kinda obvious theyre acting like tactical marines. But since that was the intention behind the movie, and under better scrutinizing, thats how movie presents them, just because someone didnt caught on that doesnt suddenly revise history.
I have no issues with people not knowing some of the facts about the series, not everyone digs about them as much (and no, I dont think of myself as a know all - valaquen is cause he did most research about the series than probably any fan ever), but I just read facts and interviews before I hop on a hater party line or state something for a fact. So I have nothing against ppl who dont know some commentaries or directors/writers explanations, I have nothing against ppl not knowing that or making false assumptions by accident or misinterpretation, I have nothing against ppl completely disliking the movies I like (for example, Gash and SiL are awesome), not at all, or of course, nothing against those seeing things differently than I do. But I do have something against pompous ppl who even after being presented facts still ignore them COMPLETELY and continue with their own interpretation passing it as a fact - while their own interpretation is completely against the movies' creators themselves! Against published statements, explanations, insights and basically whats onscreen
And btw, DoomRulz will back ytou up cause he hates Aliens and Cameron
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 01:03:01 AM
Again, that's what you saw. Not everyone sees things the way you do. Remember that.
None of it is my POV or interpretation at all. I took it from Scott, Cameron and Fincher. THEY agree with me cause this is basically what they said about their creatures. I had slightly different views on some of the creatures before I actually read intentions and insights about them from their creators. And unlike some, I dont ignore them and pass my own non-matching aka incorrect interpretation of what I (thought I) saw
IMO Kanes son was very young and quite naive. He showed curiosity and played with his prey like a cub.
Camerons aliens knew the real deal and wasted no time. They knew how dangerous humans could be and tried to deal with them efficiently. Plus they were slaves to the queen. No time for themselves.
Thats me just trying to justify both Ridleys and Cameron's Aliens as the same species.
In an ideal world though, all ALIENS should be like Kanes Son. Well, In my opinion anyway.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 26, 2012, 01:22:33 AM
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 01:03:01 AM
As I said in response to your belittling post the last time, this is what I saw in the films.
I would have nothing against that except youre passing it as facts. Im not talking about interpretations. Things like the fact that alien did kamikaze in a dropship to cut off marines from escaping isnt interpretation. It has been stated in 87. I too thoughtall the aliens were "mindless" (never saw a jesus on a pancake like some fans when it came to the original even) - but that was when I was a teenager. Given, I had to have been pointed out or given a clue at first to realize that once you know it and think about it, its kinda obvious theyre acting like tactical marines. But since that was the intention behind the movie, and under better scrutinizing, thats how movie presents them, just because someone didnt caught on that doesnt suddenly revise history.
I have no issues with people not knowing some of the facts about the series, not everyone digs about them as much (and no, I dont think of myself as a know all - valaquen is cause he did most research about the series than probably any fan ever), but I just read facts and interviews before I hop on a hater party line or state something for a fact. So I have nothing against ppl who dont know some commentaries or directors/writers explanations, I have nothing against ppl not knowing that or making false assumptions by accident or misinterpretation, I have nothing against ppl completely disliking the movies I like (for example, Gash and SiL are awesome), not at all, or of course, nothing against those seeing things differently than I do. But I do have something against pompous ppl who even after being presented facts still ignore them COMPLETELY and continue with their own interpretation passing it as a fact - while their own interpretation is completely against the movies' creators themselves! Against published statements, explanations, insights and basically whats onscreen
And btw, DoomRulz will back ytou up cause he hates Aliens and Cameron
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 01:03:01 AM
Again, that's what you saw. Not everyone sees things the way you do. Remember that.
None of it is my POV or interpretation at all. I took it from Scott, Cameron and Fincher. THEY agree with me cause this is basically what they said about their creatures. I had slightly different views on some of the creatures before I actually read intentions and insights about them from their creators. And unlike some, I dont ignore them and pass my own non-matching aka incorrect interpretation of what I (thought I) saw
Interviews can count for only so much, as you see, a director/writer/actor can say "oh, that's what happened there really" but when you watch the film, what happened is portrayed quite differently to what the interviewee might state. I go by with what happened in the films, since any director can say any amount of BS to cover up the fact that they might have overlooked something. If I wrote a novel and someone pointed out a plothole to me that I hadn't noticed before I would naturally try and cook up some contrived explanation to cover it up, sort of like how Cameron cooked up that "lava damage" theory to cover up the fact that the Derelict remained untouched for over fifty years despite the Company knowing it was there (it might have been him or his fanbase, I can't remember exactly).
And I'm not pompous. I wasn't presenting anything as facts, from what I can recall. I was just stating what I thought. The difference between you and Valaquen, it seems, is that Valaquen hasn't jumped down my throat yet. You have. I was having a pleasant time on these forums until you came along, completely intent to make me out to be some kind of imbecile. Unsurprisingly, I don't appreciate that.
I don't hate Aliens. I do, however, find James Cameron's writing to be sufficiently lacking, especially in his later films. He may be able to direct, but his screenwriting is seriously in question. But that's just what I think, a phrase I've said quite a few times on this forum, I believe.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 01:33:51 AM
Interviews can count for only so much, as you see, a director/writer/actor can say
I happen to think diorectors know more about their movies than I do. Apprarently you think differently
Quote"oh, that's what happened there really" but when you watch the film, what happened is portrayed quite differently to what the interviewee might state.
Facts, facts, facts. Youre assuming all statemnts were made after the movie's release
QuoteI go by with what happened in the films,
Apparently you dont. Alien in the first movie takes hosts when theyre walking into him and kills the ones that are a threat. He walks into small and dark and moist areas and completely ignores Ripley in the shutle untill she forces him to get up. Thats just whats onscreen, not to mention all the quotes from Scott, Obannon and Schusset. And hes a space bug from day one. Even disregarding Giger, Schusset, Obannon and Scott saying so and referring to it as insect or termite ("incidentally" the queen was also based on a termite), you have a creature whose a parasite, gestating inside others, being born in larval form, getting out of an egg and making hives and nests and coccooning a victim. I dont know how much more one needs
Aliens we already touched up on. couple Aliens running into sentry guns successfully exhausted the ammo so that they coudl get to pressure door. Once realized it wont barge, they retreated and then found another way, blinding the marines first them sneaking upon them quietly holding to pipes and attacking at once from ceiling and the floor. I dont think anyone would do that by accident or without thinking. "mindless"...
And given that Cameron is into combat and was writing Rambo II at the same time just supports that the aliens were basically like the faceless enemy forces in Stallone's movie (also his statement, made in the 80s as well, maybe even before shooting Aliens)
In Alien 3 we have a runner who gets caught into an obvious trap chasing food TWICE in the same way. And one who is disregarding potential hosts or upcoming queen.
Which basically covers what I said. First one - animal, second ones - enemy forces, third one - unintelligent, hungry predator
Quotesort of like how Cameron cooked up that "lava damage" theory to cover up the fact that the Derelict remained untouched for over fifty years despite the Company knowing it was there
Again, facts facts facts. Even before Aliens was finished in Starlog you can see interviews with model makers who talk about Cameron wanting the derelict to look damage because of the lava flow. Not to mention the novelization, finished before the movie was released and based on the script says so as well
Quote from: samoht on Feb 26, 2012, 01:28:11 AM
IMO Kanes son was very young and quite naive ... In an ideal world though, all ALIENS should be like Kanes Son. Well, In my opinion anyway.
They should all be naive? :P Kidding, kidding!
Careful guys, the fanwank over the last couple pages is reaching dangerous levels ;) :P
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 26, 2012, 01:45:21 AM
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 01:33:51 AM
Interviews can count for only so much, as you see, a director/writer/actor can say
I happen to think diorectors know more about their movies than I do. Apprarently you think differently
Quote"oh, that's what happened there really" but when you watch the film, what happened is portrayed quite differently to what the interviewee might state.
Facts, facts, facts. Youre assuming all statemnts were made after the movie's release
QuoteI go by with what happened in the films,
Apparently you dont. Alien in the first movie takes hosts when theyre walking into him and kills the ones that are a threat. He walks into small and dark and moist areas and completely ignores Ripley in the shutle untill she forces him to get up. Thats just whats onscreen, not to mention all the quotes from Scott, Obannon and Schusset. And hes a space bug from day one. Even disregarding Giger, Schusset, Obannon and Scott saying so and referring to it as insect or termite ("incidentally" the queen was also based on a termite), you have a creature whose a parasite, gestating inside others, being born in larval form, getting out of an egg and making hives and nests and coccooning a victim. I dont know how much more one needs
Aliens we already touched up on. couple Aliens running into sentry guns successfully exhausted the ammo so that they coudl get to pressure door. Once realized it wont barge, they retreated and then found another way, blinding the marines first them sneaking upon them quietly holding to pipes and attacking at once from ceiling and the floor. I dont think anyone would do that by accident or without thinking. "mindless"...
In Alien 3 we have a runner who gets caught into an obvious trap chasing food TWICE in the same way. And one who is disregarding potential hosts or upcoming queen.
Which basically covers what I said. First one - animal, second ones - enemy forces, third one - unintelligent, hungry predator
Quotesort of like how Cameron cooked up that "lava damage" theory to cover up the fact that the Derelict remained untouched for over fifty years despite the Company knowing it was there
Again, facts facts facts. Even before Aliens was finished in Starlog you can see interviews with model makers who talk about Cameron wanting the derelict to look damage because of the lava flow. Not to mention the novelization, finished before the movie was released and based on the script says so as well
Something occurred to me. Much of what you've argued so far IS fanwank. Since you know so much, would you care to enlighten me as to why the Derelict was left alone for 57 years despite the fact the Company wanted what was in it so badly?
Directors can say and think one thing, but the film they make might not bring these ideas across in the way they think it does. That was what I was suggesting, since you put all your faith into interviews and such while I'm just stating what I saw in the films themselves. I do go by what happened in the films, although you've pretty much implied that I'm thick by saying that I clearly don't (there's that superiority complex I've mentioned). This argument stemmed from the belittling way you replied to me, and not really about the actual subject matter. I just don't understand why you deem it so important that you come along here, prancing about with your apparent cleverness in an attempt to make me look stupid. I get this very strong "I'm smarter than you are" vibe from your posts. You call me pompous, whereas if anything, YOU'RE the one being pompous.
I'm beginning to think it's just because I don't see things the way you do that you've kept up this back and forth, hoping to convince me, a nobody on the Internet, about just how "wrong" I am. You can argue about it all day, WE can argue about it all day but in the end, it comes down to WHAT WE WANT TO THINK. You can pretend you're being "fair" and "neutral" but, let's face it: everyone has a bias. It doesn't matter what we're talking about, we all have one. You just can't seem to accept the fact that I was voicing my opinion, however much you disagreed with it. You can see things your way, I can see them my way. You just can't seem to get over how I don't see them your way. I can accept that you don't think how I do, but when you try your damndest to make me look stupid, what am I supposed to do? I ain't taking that lying down.
Pompous: characterized by an ostentatious display of dignity or importance:
a pompous minor official.
I've said a few times that "this is what I think", not "this is what it is". That's not pompous, is it? You just have to keep coming along trying to convince me that you're completely, 100% right. We're arguing about a bunch of movies, people interpret films differently. Can't you just accept that?
It just occurred to me that this thread has been completely derailed. I apologize to anyone who was actually trying to state why pople hated Alien 3 so much.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg849.imageshack.us%2Fimg849%2F864%2Ftrainx.jpg&hash=8e1f398224259c0fe18e8aa04375405a29f4c498)
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 02:03:47 AM
Something occurred to me. Much of what you've argued so far IS fanwank. Since you know so much, would you care to enlighten me as to why the Derelict was left alone for 57 years despite the fact the Company wanted what was in it so badly?
Weve discussed it here multiple times, and the only thing that works for both Alien and Aliens together or separately is that it was a coverup work of individuals , not whole company
QuoteThat was what I was suggesting, since you put all your faith into interviews and such while I'm just stating what I saw in the films themselves.
And this is why we'll just never agree. I tend to tihnk what the movie IS actually about , and what its creators/filmmakers or scripts say, its the valid and canon pov. I dont put fan ideas or my ideas above the actual intentions of the movie. And it simply irks me when despite official statements coming from filmmakers mouth, a fan repeatedly says "no, I see it my way, its like that, not like that"
QuoteI'm beginning to think it's just because I don't see things the way you do that you've kept up this back and forth
No. Again, its not my way. Its directors' ways, and again I dont think my fanon or any other fan's fanon or ideas are more valid than theirs and movie's actual intentions, stated officially and publicly
Quote, hoping to convince me, a nobody on the Internet, about just how "wrong" I am.
Im not trying to convince anyone anything. Im just pointing out those who say they know better than actual directors and writers of the movie's. And even if you completely dont care what they said, want or think, in my previous posts I just gave examples IN THE MOVIES that support their own intentions. You still ignore it and say" this is how I think it is, therefore it is like this, I dont care what anyone says, even if its the guys who actually thought it up"
QuoteYou just can't seem to get over how I don't see them your way.
No, I cant seem to get over how despite official statements from guys who made the movies and the creatures you still say the opposite. Kanes son isnt sadistic, supersmart or characterized. Warriors are not brainless. Kanes son IS a space bug like the others. The runner ISNt intelligent.
QuoteWe're arguing about a bunch of movies, people interpret films differently. Can't you just accept that?
I would if it was open to interpretation. But if the filmmakers flat out say the opposite of a fan who interprets the movie his way, then I dont believe theres a room for interpretation when answers are given. Its like those fans of The Shining who claim Jack being in the old picture means he was absorbed into the hotel when Kubrick flat out said that it meant that Jack was a reincarnation of a character that worked in the hotel decades before
The point is, you were belittling me. Sure, we'll never agree but as I've said, I got some very strong "know-it-all" vibes coming from your posts. You might think it's jolly fun trying to make someone on the Internet look stupid and then accuse them of being "pompous", but I don't. I say what I think and you can tell me it's wrong as often as you want, it's simply the way in which you did so that irked me. No one else on this forum as been as condescending to me as you have, StrangeShape.
I like to leave my movies open to interpretation and as I've said, any directer/producer/whatever can say what they like about what they put in the film, it doesn't mean it's going to be seen that way by audiences. And I have never said "this is what it is" when I voiced my opinion. More often than not, I say something along the lines of "this is what I think". Unlike you, I don't go around clobbering people with "facts".
QuoteNo, I cant seem to get over how despite official statements from guys who made the movies and the creatures you still say the opposite. Kanes son isnt sadistic, supersmart or characterized. Warriors are not brainless. Kanes son IS a space bug like the others. The runner ISNt intelligent.
Now that right there is what started this whole mess. You think that, you say the designers/directors/writers/whatever say that but is that what was necessarily portrayed in the film? Maybe, maybe not. This has been debated too many times to begin with. You state it like its holy truth. People are going to disagree. When they do, you seem quite intent on making them look as stupid as possible (well, me at least). The way in which you seem intent on making a fool out of me is what irks me the most. What did I ever do to you? Did I kick your dog? Eat your cereal? What?
I dont know where youre getting that bullying stuff from me. You simply say "facts dont count, directors, wirters and designers dont count". "What they say doesnt matter, its what I think I see matters". Isnt it? Isnt that pompous? You really dont see how ignoring facts and passing your own view on it that is the opposite of the actual intentions can irk anyone?
Again,
f it was open to interpretation. But if the filmmakers flat out say the opposite of a fan who interprets the movie his way, then I dont believe theres a room for interpretation when answers are given. Its like those fans of The Shining who claim Jack being in the old picture means he was absorbed into the hotel when Kubrick flat out said that it meant that Jack was a reincarnation of a character that worked in the hotel decades beforeQuote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 02:28:03 AM
You state it like its holy truth.
Dont you do that with your "interpretation"?
QuoteIn Alien, it's a slasher movie villain. In Aliens, its a dumb bug. In Alien 3, it's a ferocious animal
At least Im standing for and defending the
actual intentions
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 26, 2012, 02:34:07 AM
I dont know where youre getting that bullying stuff from me. You simply say "facts dont count, directors, wirters and designers dont count". "What they say doesnt matter, its what I think I see matters". Isnt it? Isnt that pompous? You really dont see how ignoring facts and passing your own view on it that is the opposite of the actual intentions can irk anyone?
I never said "facts don't count". I just don't think that much of these interviews you seem to be in love with, because as I've stated, I'm going from what I saw in the films simply because that's the actual "canon", isn't it? You go ahead and face-palm like you know everything, mock the things I say with rolling eyes...and you're surprised I think you're bullying me? Maybe it's because no one on this forum has been as condescending to me as you have. I can accept you think differently. You, on the other hand, can't seem to accept the fact that I think differently to you.
It clearly hasn't irked all that many people, since you're the only one who's called me out on my apparent "fact passing". You act high and mighty (that's the vibe I get from your posts, anyway). I got enough of that crap on IMDb, thank you very much. The fact of the matter is, it feels like you're singling me out. I don't appreciate that. I don't think anyone would, really.
For example:
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Feb 26, 2012, 12:18:12 AM
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 12:06:19 AM
Alien behaviour doesn't seem terribly consistent between the films, the first two specifically. You can argue that the one in the first film was young and curious and those in the second film were older, but it doesn't help when Cameron's aliens are portrayed as expendable minions. It's almost like they get stupider when they get older.
Such arguments wouldn't be happening if there had been a scene in Aliens showing a bunch of them sitting around a table, smoking cigars and surveying battle-plans.
They were expendable that is why plus they were testing the defences. They are soldiiers/warriors of the hive so of course their lives will not much meaning. plus the film is the first time an alien has gone up against TRAINED MARINES WITH RIFLES, had the first alien attacked any one of the marines the result would be the same as any of the warriors...dead alien.
The aliens in the second film were quite dangerous and smart, they took out most of the marines, cut the power, destroyed the dropship and (accidentally) the apc which left the marines severely demoralised,less ammo and no escape.
That response to what I wrote doesn't reek of a knowing sense of superiority. Yours, on the other hand...Face-palm? Rolling eyes? Really?
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 02:43:03 AM
I'm going from what I saw in the films simply because that's the actual "canon", isn't it?
Sure is. And I already gave examples how the movies support director's intentions, which you ignored and kept saying how Kanes Son an intelligent character, warriors are mindless and runner I think we agree on:
Alien in the first movie takes hosts when theyre walking into him and kills the ones that are a threat. He walks into small and dark and moist areas and completely ignores Ripley in the shutle untill she forces him to get up. Thats just whats onscreen, not to mention all the quotes from Scott, Obannon and Schusset. And hes a space bug from day one. Even disregarding Giger, Schusset, Obannon and Scott saying so and referring to it as insect or termite ("incidentally" the queen was also based on a termite), you have a creature whose a parasite, gestating inside others, being born in larval form, getting out of an egg and making hives and nests and coccooning a victim. I dont know how much more one needs
Aliens we already touched up on. couple Aliens running into sentry guns successfully exhausted the ammo so that they coudl get to pressure door. Once realized it wont barge, they retreated and then found another way, blinding the marines first them sneaking upon them quietly holding to pipes and attacking at once from ceiling and the floor. I dont think anyone would do that by accident or without thinking. "mindless"...
And given that Cameron is into combat and was writing Rambo II at the same time just supports that the aliens were basically like the faceless enemy forces in Stallone's movie (also his statement, made in the 80s as well, maybe even before shooting Aliens)
In Alien 3 we have a runner who gets caught into an obvious trap chasing food TWICE in the same way. And one who is disregarding potential hosts or upcoming queen.
Which basically covers what I said. First one - animal, second ones - enemy forces, third one - unintelligent, hungry predatorQuoteI got enough of that crap on IMDb, thank you very much.
Stating facts and standing behind directors of the movies is acting superior? No, I just defend the actual intentions and the people who actually made those films. And not just because "they said so", once they explain it it seems more apparent in the movie. IMDB ironically is the place where I heard your statements the most (Kanes Son complex, intelligent, mysterious, sadistic rapist, mindless bugz in aliens, beast in Alien 3)
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but in the end, the creators of the films did things a certain way because that is what they wanted. Its a simple word of god trope with this franchise but in certain places, interpretation and opinions are welcome.
take for instance that i don't view the cut content such as the hosts in the first film as canon or the E.U for that matter.
I also only take the TC cut of alien 3 as canon but i never say its solid fact, its just an opinion but when it comes to creators or the studio then good or bad but what they say is canon although i guess one can still view it anyway they can but don't force those opinions anyone else.
The egg situation is still a hotly debated subject where everyone can voice they own opinions on....even crazy ones. :laugh:
So yeah both of you can think how you want but its the creators and studio who control the franchise and say what's what...not always a good thing but nothing we can do about it.
You keep backing up onto the subject matter, whereas last post you wanted to know why I thought you were bullying me. I explained that, didn't I?
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 26, 2012, 02:34:07 AM
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 02:28:03 AM
You state it like its holy truth.
Dont you do that with your "interpretation"?
Ah, so we're both opinionated asses, then? I can accept that.
QuoteStating facts and standing behind directors of the movies is acting superior? No, I just defend the actual intentions and the people who actually made those films. And not just because "they said so", once they explain it it seems more apparent in the movie. IMDB ironically is the place where I heard your statements the most (Kanes Son complex, intelligent, mysterious, sadistic rapist, mindless bugz in aliens, beast in Alien 3)
You can defend them all you like, not everyone is going to agree with you and people are going to see things differently in the film. That's what I've been getting at: you can't seem to accept how I don't think the same way you do. You can defend the filmmakers, but you don't have to be condescending about it. It's like you saw what I said and thought "I'm going to get to that guy" and now it's just blown up like this.
On IMDb, you run into an awful lot of trolls. People agree and disagree there about the subjects you've mentioned. There were just one or two people I've run into that seemed very abrasive. I wouldn't call you abrasive, but I would say you're acting a bit too high and mighty.
So in a pill, you say the directors are wrong?
And if so, dont you think the examples I gave from the movies would support their "wrong views on their own creations"?
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 26, 2012, 03:05:42 AM
So in a pill, you say the directors are wrong?
And if so, dont you think the examples I gave from the movies would support their "wrong views on their own creations"?
The directors are wrong? Going by what happens in the films, it's open to interpretation. Did they put across what they intended? Some people aren't going to think so. If you say the "Aliens" in the second film behaved like they should, then that's your prerogitive. The director might say that (but of course he's going to say that). Watching the film, is this what everyone is going to see? No, not at all. Do people think the "Alien" in the first film is much like a stalker from a slasher film? Sure they do. And I agree that the alien in Alien 3 is nothing but a fearsome animal, but that was blatantly obvious in the film. The other types of aliens...not so obvious unless you look at interviews and such, but even then do those interviews correctly relate to what you saw in the film? Just because a screenwriter says so, doesn't mean you should automatically agree. It's all open to interpretation. Isn't that part of the movie-going experience? I never passed off what I said as fact. I just said it was what I thought.
Of course, this back and forth stemmed from the way you seemed to be trying your hardest to make me look like a fool.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 03:12:50 AM
The other types of aliens...not so obvious unless you look at interviews and such,
I may agree on that, hence people not familiar with directors' explanations see it in different ways
Quotebut even then do those interviews correctly relate to what you saw in the film?
Once Im pointed in the right directions and rewatch the movies with that in mind, they actually do
QuoteJust because a screenwriter says so, doesn't mean you should automatically agree. It's all open to interpretation. Isn't that part of the movie-going experience? I never passed off what I said as fact. I just said it was what I thought.
Its open for interpretation if theres no answer. If one is given - well, its given
If I wrote a novel containing themes of redemption and faith (sort of like Alien 3, I guess), yet a lot of people started telling me such themes didn't exist in said novel and provided examples, who's in the right here? Me or the people?
There is no real answer to this sort of thing. I can say all I want about it containing such themes (both during writing it and after it has been written) but that still doesn't mean people are going to see it that way (maybe I failed in presenting such themes in the writing?). That's why people argue about films and such, since not everyone sees things the same way. And that's part of why discussing films can be an enlightening experience. The issue I have with you is the way in which you replied to my opinions. Not really the subject matter, but the way in which you seemed to single me out and belittle me. That's all.
I could argue the movie "Hobo With a Shotgun" is a biting social commentary with heart (and that was pretty much stated on a behind-the-scenes featurette, with the relationship between Hobo and Abby being the "heart" of the film) but does that mean everyone's going to see it that way?
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 26, 2012, 03:23:22 AM
If I wrote a novel containing themes of redemption and faith (sort of like Alien 3, I guess), yet a lot of people started telling me such themes didn't exist in said novel and provided examples, who's in the right here? Me or the people?
Thats not a good analogy tho. A better fitting would be if youd explain motivations behind a character and/or characterize him. If youd say Mary did that to her husband cause she was a mean, evil person. And someone would say "no, she did it cause she didnt know any better"
You knew what I was getting at.
Meaning of a story and actual motivations of the character are very different things
Maybe I did make a mistake with that analogy, but it was the first one that popped into my head.
Looks like I missed all the fun!
While I agree with StrangeShape (I never saw a "dumb bug" until the first AvP film), I feel both of you should take a look at what a frame of reference is, and maybe afterwards this will be a bit easier to settle.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 25, 2012, 04:31:29 AM
This supposed hugger following her back to the Sulaco. It's a facehugger, not a spider.
Sure, but she didn't notice the queen hopping on the dropship either.
There was a SHITLOAD going on.
QuoteAnd says the script, way I see it. Everything went up in flames. How would a stationary egg survive that?
It's only got to survive long enough for it to hatch a facehugger - perhaps one that wasn't in with the queen but outside that room.
Frankly I don't think it's such a leap of imagination. Having said that, I fully understand that it's just my theory that is unsupported by evidence in the film - but I don't think there is any evidence that could discount it as a possibility. My whole problem with the egg on the sulaco is it's location.
woah - now i've had a chance to read the thread - wowzers.
Anyway - Back on topic.
I was talking pages ago on sacrifice and Ripleys ending. There was a conversation about it being in vain and someone was saying "but she killed the alien and stopped the company from getting it" so it wasn't in vain.
Something I failed to bring up was that where was the justice? Ripley died but the company got away with all the deaths. They weren't brought to account. They got away with it. Sure they didn't get an alien but they didn't have to face justice for the deaths of a large number of people.
My only opinion on this is either the Queen carried an egg on her back before jumping on the elavator, because we don't see her back the entire time she is pursuing Ripley and Newt, or she laid one special egg that contained the super facehugger, although that doesn't explain how the hell the egg ended up in the corner, or unless it was inside the dropship.
Back on topic though, The only reason I think people hated the film was because Hicks was killed and people really wanted to see the relationship between Ripley, Hicks and Newt develop. All in all im just glad David Fincher got the job and not the arseholes that wanted to have Ripley in a f**king coma for the whole film. I loved the dark tones, camera angles, music, and also how it was just different compared to other sci-fi horror films in the industry at that time. It was a good finish to the series, Alien Ressurection was the biggest piece of shit I have ever seen. Ever. Of all time.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 26, 2012, 10:27:15 PM
Something I failed to bring up was that where was the justice? Ripley died but the company got away with all the deaths. They weren't brought to account. They got away with it. Sure they didn't get an alien but they didn't have to face justice for the deaths of a large number of people.
Where is the justice in real life whenever corporations do hideous, evil shit? There usually isn't any. What's your point?
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 26, 2012, 11:39:01 PM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 26, 2012, 10:27:15 PM
Something I failed to bring up was that where was the justice? Ripley died but the company got away with all the deaths. They weren't brought to account. They got away with it. Sure they didn't get an alien but they didn't have to face justice for the deaths of a large number of people.
Where is the justice in real life whenever corporations do hideous, evil shit? There usually isn't any. What's your point?
I think I've made my point very clear.
Don't think the Company were held to account in Alien or Aliens either.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 26, 2012, 11:46:59 PM
Don't think the Company were held to account in Alien or Aliens either.
Granted - but that wasn't necessarily the point of Alien.
The point of alien was simply survival.
In Aliens we got to see 'justice" with the death of Carter Burke, and Ripley's physical and mental survival at the end of the film.
In Alien 3, Ripley dies and there's these company men leaving (empty handed yes) but not going to face justice.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 26, 2012, 11:49:20 PM
In Alien 3, Ripley dies and there's these company men leaving (empty handed yes) but not going to face justice.
Again, what's your point? If it's that "Alien 3 refutes the hopeful message of the series!", then I'd like to know what franchise you've been watching, 'cause it sure as hell isn't ALIEN.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 26, 2012, 11:49:20 PM
In Alien 3, Ripley dies and there's these company men leaving (empty handed yes) but not going to face justice.
But they still lost, Ripley killed herself along with the Queen inside her. I am confused as to what you mean by 'justice' - what, they didn't die by the Alien or someone didn't show up and conveniently slap them on the wrist for their bad deeds?
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 12:01:17 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 26, 2012, 11:49:20 PM
In Alien 3, Ripley dies and there's these company men leaving (empty handed yes) but not going to face justice.
Again, what's your point? If it's that "Alien 3 refutes the hopeful message of the series!", then I'd like to know what franchise you've been watching, 'cause it sure as hell isn't ALIEN.
I've made my point. On numerous occoasions in fact.
Quote from: First Blood on Feb 27, 2012, 12:27:29 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 26, 2012, 11:49:20 PM
In Alien 3, Ripley dies and there's these company men leaving (empty handed yes) but not going to face justice.
But they still lost, Ripley killed herself along with the Queen inside her. I am confused as to what you mean by 'justice' - what, they didn't die by the Alien or someone or didn't show up and conveniently slap them on the wrist for their bad deeds?
Lost in that they don't have the alien.
Justice can be a lot of things. The audience saw justice in the death of Carter Burke, but that is just one form of justice.
I don't know what form justice would take, just that the way the film is, there is none.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 12:30:56 AM
I don't know what form justice would take, just that the way the film is, there is none.
And that's a problem,
why? Again, in the bleak, hostile ALIEN universe, the widespread evil of the Company and the dystopic civilization as a whole is so all-pervasive that the only way to defy it is in individual acts of rebellion. Ripley has hers, and it works.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 12:39:35 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 12:30:56 AM
I don't know what form justice would take, just that the way the film is, there is none.
And that's a problem, why? Again, in the bleak, hostile ALIEN universe, the widespread evil of the Company and the dystopic civilization as a whole is so all-pervasive that the only way to defy it is in individual acts of rebellion. Ripley has hers, and it works.
Because I want to see justice done. I said many pages ago that Alien 3 is a depressing film. I don't like depressing films. I said that I didn't want Ripley to die. I want to see the good guys win. In this film I don't think the good guys won. Sure the bad guys (the compan) didn't have a complete victory by any means, but there is simply no justice for Ripley and co.
You disagree, fine, I get that you disagree, but I've made my point.
As much as I despite Res, I believe it is mentioned at the start of the film that Weyland Yutani went down shortly after the events of Alien 3, so it can be guessed that they were indeed brought up on criminal charges and the company was liquidated afterwards.
At least Res has that, if nothing else.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 12:46:33 AM
Because I want to see justice done. I said many pages ago that Alien 3 is a depressing film. I don't like depressing films. I said that I didn't want Ripley to die. I want to see the good guys win. In this film I don't think the good guys won. Sure the bad guys (the compan) didn't have a complete victory by any means, but there is simply no justice for Ripley and co.
You disagree, fine, I get that you disagree, but I've made my point.
Okay then. Though I'm mystified as to why you are a fan of one of the most cynical, hard-bitten sci-fi franchises out there, if you like your morals black and white and your "justice" always swiftly and justly dealt out (apparently with "proportionate" death and suffering for the "villains"--which is hardly a moral position to take to your high horse on).
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 27, 2012, 12:48:46 AM
As much as I despite Res, I believe it is mentioned at the start of the film that Weyland Yutani went down shortly after the events of Alien 3, so it can be guessed that they were indeed brought up on criminal charges and the company was liquidated afterwards.
At least Res has that, if nothing else.
I would have to have another look at it to see if it was stated in Res what the reasons were but I don't think there were any - and ultimatley its a mighty long bow to draw that that would be the reason.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 27, 2012, 12:48:46 AM
As much as I despite Res, I believe it is mentioned at the start of the film that Weyland Yutani went down shortly after the events of Alien 3, so it can be guessed that they were indeed brought up on criminal charges and the company was liquidated afterwards.
At least Res has that, if nothing else.
Yeah apparently they were bought out by Wal-Mart...f**king stupid c**t of a film.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 12:51:52 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 12:46:33 AM
Because I want to see justice done. I said many pages ago that Alien 3 is a depressing film. I don't like depressing films. I said that I didn't want Ripley to die. I want to see the good guys win. In this film I don't think the good guys won. Sure the bad guys (the compan) didn't have a complete victory by any means, but there is simply no justice for Ripley and co.
You disagree, fine, I get that you disagree, but I've made my point.
Okay then. Though I'm mystified as to why you are a fan of one of the most cynical, hard-bitten sci-fi franchises out there, if you like your morals black and white and your "justice" always swiftly and justly dealt out (apparently with "proportionate" death and suffering for the "villains"--which is hardly a moral position to take to your high horse on).
I explained that in Aliens we got to see "justice" in the death of carter burke. Carter Burke was metaphorically "the company" in that film. A very slimy character. But in aliens it was more about Ripley then it was about the company - Ripley's survival in the film is what makes it great in my opinion. Aliens and Alien 3 are two very very different films.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "apparently with "proportionate" death and suffering for the "villains"--which is hardly a moral position to take to your high horse on" - perhaps you could elaborate so I can answer in full.
Quote from: Sierra on Feb 27, 2012, 12:58:25 AM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 27, 2012, 12:48:46 AM
As much as I despite Res, I believe it is mentioned at the start of the film that Weyland Yutani went down shortly after the events of Alien 3, so it can be guessed that they were indeed brought up on criminal charges and the company was liquidated afterwards.
At least Res has that, if nothing else.
Yeah apparently they were bought out by Wal-Mart...f**king stupid c**t of a film.
Really?? does it actually state that in the film (it's been ages since I've seen Res).
I believe so, though it might actually makes things worse because Wal Mart is even more evil.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 01:02:53 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 12:51:52 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 12:46:33 AM
Because I want to see justice done. I said many pages ago that Alien 3 is a depressing film. I don't like depressing films. I said that I didn't want Ripley to die. I want to see the good guys win. In this film I don't think the good guys won. Sure the bad guys (the compan) didn't have a complete victory by any means, but there is simply no justice for Ripley and co.
You disagree, fine, I get that you disagree, but I've made my point.
Okay then. Though I'm mystified as to why you are a fan of one of the most cynical, hard-bitten sci-fi franchises out there, if you like your morals black and white and your "justice" always swiftly and justly dealt out (apparently with "proportionate" death and suffering for the "villains"--which is hardly a moral position to take to your high horse on).
I explained that in Aliens we got to see "justice" in the death of carter burke. Carter Burke was metaphorically "the company" in that film. A very slimy character. But in aliens it was more about Ripley then it was about the company - Ripley's survival in the film is what makes it great in my opinion. Aliens and Alien 3 are two very very different films.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "apparently with "proportionate" death and suffering for the "villains"--which is hardly a moral position to take to your high horse on" - perhaps you could elaborate so I can answer in full.Quote from: Sierra on Feb 27, 2012, 12:58:25 AM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 27, 2012, 12:48:46 AM
As much as I despite Res, I believe it is mentioned at the start of the film that Weyland Yutani went down shortly after the events of Alien 3, so it can be guessed that they were indeed brought up on criminal charges and the company was liquidated afterwards.
At least Res has that, if nothing else.
Yeah apparently they were bought out by Wal-Mart...f**king stupid c**t of a film.
Really?? does it actually state that in the film (it's been ages since I've seen Res).
Yes, in the special edition of the film.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 01:02:53 AM
I explained that in Aliens we got to see "justice" in the death of carter burke. Carter Burke was metaphorically "the company" in that film. A very slimy character. But in aliens it was more about Ripley then it was about the company - Ripley's survival in the film is what makes it great in my opinion. Aliens and Alien 3 are two very very different films.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "apparently with "proportionate" death and suffering for the "villains"--which is hardly a moral position to take to your high horse on" - perhaps you could elaborate so I can answer in full.
I meant that you seem to think killing Carter Burke and seeing him suffer counts as "justice." How is killing someone else going to bring back or atone for all the deaths caused directly or indirectly by them? That seems a really dubious position for someone who gets on their moral high horse about Ripley's suicide to take.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 01:09:01 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 01:02:53 AM
I explained that in Aliens we got to see "justice" in the death of carter burke. Carter Burke was metaphorically "the company" in that film. A very slimy character. But in aliens it was more about Ripley then it was about the company - Ripley's survival in the film is what makes it great in my opinion. Aliens and Alien 3 are two very very different films.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "apparently with "proportionate" death and suffering for the "villains"--which is hardly a moral position to take to your high horse on" - perhaps you could elaborate so I can answer in full.
I meant that you seem to think killing Carter Burke and seeing him suffer counts as "justice." How is killing someone else going to bring back or atone for all the deaths caused directly or indirectly by them? That seems a really dubious position for someone who gets on their moral high horse about Ripley's suicide to take.
I said justice could be a lot of things. Given the type of film, Burke's death is seen as "justice". But that's not what the film is really about. Don't forget that Rip's wanted to take him back. She didn't want to kill him. The fact that he was killed by an alien is caused by the events in the film - but ultimately the audience is not meant to shed a tear for him.
As far as moral high horse's are concerned - You have no idea what my philosophical leanings are. I'm still not 100% sure on what you mean by this though. Do you think I'm opposed to death in general? or what? One doesn't really have to do with the other.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 01:25:14 AM
As far as moral high horse's are concerned - You have no idea what my philosophical leanings are. I'm still not 100% sure on what you mean by this though. Do you think I'm opposed to death in general? or what? One doesn't really have to do with the other.
It's just kinda funny that Ripley's sacrifice goes against your "philosophical beliefs", but that Burke dying goes down as "justice" in your view.
Burke gets raped figuratively and literally.
I would argue for an audience to be callous of this is morally wrong.
Burke had it coming.
QuoteAs much as I despite Res, I believe it is mentioned at the start of the film that Weyland Yutani went down shortly after the events of Alien 3, so it can be guessed that they were indeed brought up on criminal charges and the company was liquidated afterwards.
At least Res has that, if nothing else.
No.
Wren says the Company "went under decades ago. Way before your time, Gediman."
If Gediman was born in 2335, then put it in the early 24th century.
Isn't it mentioned in the Alien Resurrection Special Edition that Weyland-Yutani was bought out by Walmart? :P
(I remember one character saying that, anyway).
Wren's next line, as mentioned above. "Bought out by Wal-Mart"
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 01:32:41 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 01:25:14 AM
As far as moral high horse's are concerned - You have no idea what my philosophical leanings are. I'm still not 100% sure on what you mean by this though. Do you think I'm opposed to death in general? or what? One doesn't really have to do with the other.
It's just kinda funny that Ripley's sacrifice goes against your "philosophical beliefs", but that Burke dying goes down as "justice" in your view.
Whats funny about it?
I said before that Ripley didn't want to kill him, she wanted to take him back.
There are major differences in the two events morally speaking - and there a major differences in the way the respective films deal with it.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 27, 2012, 01:34:51 AM
Burke gets raped figuratively and literally.
I would argue for an audience to be callous of this is morally wrong.
It is a film by the way.
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 01:35:57 AM
Burke had it coming.
Very true.
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 01:46:24 AM
Wren's next line, as mentioned above. "Bought out by Wal-Mart"
ugh - makes me like the film even less.
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 01:46:24 AM
Wren's next line, as mentioned above. "Bought out by Wal-Mart"
One of the reasons why I don't really like Alien: Resurrection.
(Did it have to be Walmart? Why not Microsoft or something a bit more plausible?)
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 27, 2012, 01:55:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 01:46:24 AM
Wren's next line, as mentioned above. "Bought out by Wal-Mart"
One of the reasons why I don't really like Alien: Resurrection.
(Did it have to be Walmart? Why not Microsoft or something a bit more plausible?)
there's a reason why jeunet left it from the theatrical cut. so why be annoyed by something, that he cut out?
Quote from: Kol on Feb 27, 2012, 02:10:34 AM
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 27, 2012, 01:55:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 01:46:24 AM
Wren's next line, as mentioned above. "Bought out by Wal-Mart"
One of the reasons why I don't really like Alien: Resurrection.
(Did it have to be Walmart? Why not Microsoft or something a bit more plausible?)
there's a reason why jeunet left it from the theatrical cut. so why be annoyed by something, that he cut out?
Fair point - and for that I'm glad (but why reinsert it).
The film isn't bad for this, it is bad for many other reasons.
Quote from: Kol on Feb 27, 2012, 02:10:34 AM
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 27, 2012, 01:55:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 01:46:24 AM
Wren's next line, as mentioned above. "Bought out by Wal-Mart"
One of the reasons why I don't really like Alien: Resurrection.
(Did it have to be Walmart? Why not Microsoft or something a bit more plausible?)
there's a reason why jeunet left it from the theatrical cut. so why be annoyed by something, that he cut out?
Quite.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 27, 2012, 01:55:56 AM
(Did it have to be Walmart? Why not Microsoft or something a bit more plausible?)
The hilarious Joss Whedon.
It was likely just a shout out to the mega enterprise. And a lame one.
He stated his preferred cut is the one in theaters. The same with Ridley and Alien. It was just done to spice up the DVD set and get an excuse for re-releases. The only true director favored alternate cuts are Aliens and the assembly of Alien 3, and even the assembly falls short of Fincher's vision.
I feel Burke deserved punishment as well, and his death had a certain delicious irony to it, but isn't molestation by an alien species just a bit too much?
...
Nah. Screw him.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 01:55:25 AM
Whats funny about it?
What's funny about it is that your differing positions make no sense, especially from a "philosophical" point of view.
Quote
There are major differences in the two events morally speaking - and there a major differences in the way the respective films deal with it.
Right. Aliens overall has clean, easy, black and white moral resolutions, whereas Alien and Alien 3 have more ambiguous, troubling, adult concerns.
Burke deserved what he got, he was a slimy little f**k that would have backstabbed everyone just to (Not to be cheesy) "Earn a goddamn percentage."
Quote
Whats funny about it?
QuoteWhat's funny about it is that your differing positions make no sense, especially from a "philosophical" point of view.
Says who? You think that my philosophical points of view are internally inconsistent.
I disagree completely.
Burke was an evil evil human being. He was willing to dispense with Ripley's life, Newt's life, the marines lives, the colonist's lives. The man was a slimy individual and metaphorically he was "the company" in this film.
Ripley wanted to take him back so he could face justice and ripley could tell everyone back home what Burke was up too.
The events that took place lead to his death. Do I weep for Burke - HELL NO! Do I have any sympathy for Burke? HELL NO!
Is it justice? Well, it is a form of justice. Is it the best form of justice? Probably not.
Quote
There are major differences in the two events morally speaking - and there a major differences in the way the respective films deal with it.
QuoteRight. Aliens overall has clean, easy, black and white moral resolutions, whereas Alien and Alien 3 have more ambiguous, troubling, adult concerns.
What are the ambiguous, troubling and adult concerns in Alien that aren't in Aliens?
And in Alien 3 if you're talking about the Self-sacrifice theme - i've already explained my position.
Hell I even explained how it should have been done - at least in how I would like it more. The way it is currently done - I don't like.
Quote from: Kol on Feb 27, 2012, 02:10:34 AM
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Feb 27, 2012, 01:55:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 01:46:24 AM
Wren's next line, as mentioned above. "Bought out by Wal-Mart"
One of the reasons why I don't really like Alien: Resurrection.
(Did it have to be Walmart? Why not Microsoft or something a bit more plausible?)
there's a reason why jeunet left it from the theatrical cut. so why be annoyed by something, that he cut out?
As I said, it's just ONE of my reasons for not liking the film. There's plenty more I don't like that wasn't cut out.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 02:44:26 AM
What are the ambiguous, troubling and adult concerns in Alien that aren't in Aliens?
And in Alien 3 if you're talking about the Self-sacrifice theme - i've already explained my position.
Hell I even explained how it should have been done - at least in how I would like it more. The way it is currently done - I don't like.
Alien and Alien 3 both feature situations where the real villains are ourselves, our culture and society, and are virtually impossible to destroy. Ripley can destroy the alien--she cannot destroy the Company. Those films take it for granted that evil and greed rise to the top of human affairs, and that the only way to stand against them is on your own, in a lonely battle that will probably not end well. In Alien and Alien 3, there are no easy endings, there are no clear-cut "evil" characters (in the first film, the only "evil" character is a machine, and in the third film the majority of the "murderers and rapists" prove to be flawed people that have done terrible things in the past, but try and better themselves), and the human "villains" do not get audience pleasing retribution by death.
Aliens, on the other hand, is an exercise in Screenwriting 101 so transparent that it's often annoying: the character arcs are all telegraphed, the wrap ups are pat and go down easy, and Ripley gets to be re-conceptualized exclusively in terms of her gender (she gets to be a mommy again--
all is right with the world!), therefore eliminating one of the things that made her character so interesting and impactful in the first place: her busting of gender norms in film. Granted, all of this is typical Hollywood hokum done exceedingly well by James Cameron, and the film is less the disturbing thriller that ALIEN was and is more a straight Hollywood popcorn muncher (which is why, unlike Alien, it is a huge source of video games, comic books, and children's action figure lines--it's the least mature and challenging of the series, bar Resurrection).
Quotebut try and better themselves
Some by raping and murdering some more...
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 03:12:47 AM
Quotebut try and better themselves
Some by raping and murdering some more...
Note I said "the majority", not all. And the leader of the group that tries to rape Ripley eventually sacrifices himself to save her and the others after exchanging a look with her as they both help a fallen comrade.
Shame that was cut.
But it's pretty clear the prisoners care little for religion when Dillon's not in earshot.
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 03:12:47 AM
Quotebut try and better themselves
Some by raping and murdering some more...
And I never got the impression that most of the prisoners wanted to better themselves. None go back to Earth or another colony after their sentence in order to better themselves; instead they accept that they are 'cursed' and remain on Fury, enthralled by religion and beaten into sense by Dillion whenever they err. I especially don't see their redemption in taking on the Alien. It's very clear that for them it's do or die, and they don't wanna die (Ripley even tells them that the Company will kill them simply for having been privy to the Alien's existence). Their reasons for trusting and following Ripley are largely selfish.
And to be picky:
the real villains are ourselves, our culture and society, and are virtually impossible to destroy this is in Aliens also. The Company isn't destroyed, only civilians and grunts are, and the corporate system allows Burke to be the toad that he is, goddamn percentages an' all. Aliens is more about personal victory than overcoming any great evil, and I guess Alien 3 is too, (and Ripley overcoming her fear of the Alien is just as prominent as her mommy role - I concede that the latter does drive the former, though Newt is not the reason that Ripley returns to LV426 in the first place, so the imperative to overcome trauma was already there).
And to add to your point about selfishness...she went back for selfish reasons. Burke said he'd get her pilot's license (?) reinstated.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 03:10:32 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 02:44:26 AM
What are the ambiguous, troubling and adult concerns in Alien that aren't in Aliens?
And in Alien 3 if you're talking about the Self-sacrifice theme - i've already explained my position.
Hell I even explained how it should have been done - at least in how I would like it more. The way it is currently done - I don't like.
Alien and Alien 3 both feature situations where the real villains are ourselves, our culture and society, and are virtually impossible to destroy.
You got that from Alien?
QuoteRipley can destroy the alien--she cannot destroy the Company. Those films take it for granted that evil and greed rise to the top of human affairs, and that the only way to stand against them is on your own, in a lonely battle that will probably not end well. In Alien and Alien 3, there are no easy endings, there are no clear-cut "evil" characters (in the first film, the only "evil" character is a machine, and in the third film the majority of the "murderers and rapists" prove to be flawed people that have done terrible things in the past, but try and better themselves), and the human "villains" do not get audience pleasing retribution by death.
In the first film they set down there on company orders so the bad guy was Ash definately but there was the company who gave the order - Ash is the face of the company.
In the third film full of rapists - some of them actually tried to rape ripley - sure they're trying to better themselves.
Frankly we're going round and circles - I've given my reasons for not likeing Alien 3.
QuoteAliens, on the other hand, is an exercise in Screenwriting 101 so transparent that it's often annoying: the character arcs are all telegraphed, the wrap ups are pat and go down easy, and Ripley gets to be re-conceptualized exclusively in terms of her gender (she gets to be a mommy again--all is right with the world!), therefore eliminating one of the things that made her character so interesting and impactful in the first place: her busting of gender norms in film.
Yeah thats right - because Women usually take the lead in action films and are usually the gun toting hero.
The mother/daughter motif is one of the best parts of Aliens.
QuoteGranted, all of this is typical Hollywood hokum done exceedingly well by James Cameron, and the film is less the disturbing thriller that ALIEN was and is more a straight Hollywood popcorn muncher (which is why, unlike Alien, it is a huge source of video games, comic books, and children's action figure lines--it's the least mature and challenging of the series, bar Resurrection).
It is done extremely well.
As I said before - I like to see the good guys win.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 03:30:20 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 03:10:32 AM
Alien and Alien 3 both feature situations where the real villains are ourselves, our culture and society, and are virtually impossible to destroy.
You got that from Alien?
As I said before - I like to see the good guys win.
Well sure. "Crew expendable, ensure safe retrieval of Alien" sounds pretty villainous to me.
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 03:24:08 AM
Shame that was cut.
Good thing it was restored. But then again, the AC doesn't exist for you apparently, so there's no point debating it with you, is there?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 03:29:43 AM
And to add to your point about selfishness...she went back for selfish reasons. Burke said he'd get her pilot's license (?) reinstated.
And she turned him down. Later, when she awakens from more nightmares, she decides to return to get some closure or catharsis. That's her motivation.
Something tells me the nightmares wouldn't have made her go back if she didn't have something to gain.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 03:32:42 AM
Something tells me the nightmares wouldn't have made her go back if she didn't have something to gain.
Her mental wellbeing was the gain. If that's selfish, then so be it.
QuoteAnd to add to your point about selfishness...she went back for selfish reasons. Burke said he'd get her pilot's license (?) reinstated.
Close enough. ICC commercial flight license.
QuoteAnd I never got the impression that most of the prisoners wanted to better themselves.
When Dillon's not around, by and large, they aren't trying to better themselves.
QuoteGood thing it was restored. But then again, the AC doesn't exist for you apparently, so there's no point debating it with you, is there?
Whine much? Don't recall ever saying it doesn't exist. And what was the debate again?
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 03:30:20 AM
As I said before - I like to see the good guys win.
As long as it is good, I am not complaining.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 03:10:32 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 02:44:26 AM
What are the ambiguous, troubling and adult concerns in Alien that aren't in Aliens?
And in Alien 3 if you're talking about the Self-sacrifice theme - i've already explained my position.
Hell I even explained how it should have been done - at least in how I would like it more. The way it is currently done - I don't like.
Alien and Alien 3 both feature situations where the real villains are ourselves, our culture and society, and are virtually impossible to destroy. Ripley can destroy the alien--she cannot destroy the Company. Those films take it for granted that evil and greed rise to the top of human affairs, and that the only way to stand against them is on your own, in a lonely battle that will probably not end well. In Alien and Alien 3, there are no easy endings, there are no clear-cut "evil" characters (in the first film, the only "evil" character is a machine, and in the third film the majority of the "murderers and rapists" prove to be flawed people that have done terrible things in the past, but try and better themselves), and the human "villains" do not get audience pleasing retribution by death.
Aliens, on the other hand, is an exercise in Screenwriting 101 so transparent that it's often annoying: the character arcs are all telegraphed, the wrap ups are pat and go down easy, and Ripley gets to be re-conceptualized exclusively in terms of her gender (she gets to be a mommy again--all is right with the world!), therefore eliminating one of the things that made her character so interesting and impactful in the first place: her busting of gender norms in film. Granted, all of this is typical Hollywood hokum done exceedingly well by James Cameron, and the film is less the disturbing thriller that ALIEN was and is more a straight Hollywood popcorn muncher (which is why, unlike Alien, it is a huge source of video games, comic books, and children's action figure lines--it's the least mature and challenging of the series, bar Resurrection).
I felt Aliens actually added to the message of Alien 3 a great deal.
I wholly disagree with these statements in Aliens, but I can understand where you are coming from. It is the same reason I am critical and somewhat bitter towards Terminator 2.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 03:29:43 AM
And to add to your point about selfishness...she went back for selfish reasons. Burke said he'd get her pilot's license (?) reinstated.
No she didn't. She went back to purge her nightmare. The pilot's license had nothing to do with it.
"you're going out there to destroy them right? Not to study, not to bring back, but to wipe them out.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 03:10:32 AM
Well sure. "Crew expendable, ensure safe retrieval of Alien" sounds pretty villainous to me.
So the actions of one or a few automatically means that the real villans are ourselves?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 03:32:42 AM
Something tells me the nightmares wouldn't have made her go back if she didn't have something to gain.
Really - I thought it was pretty clear her reasons for going. Pilots license had nothing to do with it.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 27, 2012, 03:36:46 AM
It is the same reason I am critical and somewhat bitter towards Terminator 2.
How so - to keep it topic related - I thought the ending of T2 was better then A3
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 03:30:20 AM
You got that from Alien?
The real villain of Alien is the Company, not the creature itself.
Quote
In the third film full of rapists - some of them actually tried to rape ripley - sure they're trying to better themselves.
Yeah, because some means all, and when I said "the majority", I was obviously including those few. ::)
Quote
Frankly we're going round and circles - I've given my reasons for not likeing Alien 3.
Yeah thats right - because Women usually take the lead in action films and are usually the gun toting hero.
The mother/daughter motif is one of the best parts of Aliens.
It's also one of the most transparent and phony. Yes, Ripley gets to be the gun toting hero, but it must also be extensively hammered home that she is doing so to protect her "baby." It's a typical, accidental cliche, wherein the more "feminine, conventional" woman (i.e. the mommy figure) survives and is triumphant, whereas the less gender conforming female member of the team always dies (Vasquez). It's
hardly progressive.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 27, 2012, 03:33:19 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 03:32:42 AM
Something tells me the nightmares wouldn't have made her go back if she didn't have something to gain.
Her mental wellbeing was the gain. If that's selfish, then so be it.
Yes but, when she spoke to Burke the first time when Gorman was present, her tone clearly changes after he mentions the flight license. The nightmares were part of it, but it started with the possibility of getting back to what she was good at.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 03:37:30 AM
So the actions of one or a few automatically means that the real villans are ourselves?
Human greed isn't limited to a select few.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 03:40:33 AM
Yes but, when she spoke to Burke the first time when Gorman was present, her tone clearly changes after he mentions the flight license. The nightmares were part of it, but it started with the possibility of getting back to what she was good at.
You have it the wrong way around: the license
may have been part of it, but they didn't seal any deal. She pretty much kicks Burke out. Later, she has a nightmare (a nightly occurrence we're told) and calls Burke. She wants catharsis, and she wants the creatures destroyed. That's her imperative. The job is never, ever mentioned in the film again, not even hinted at. It's most certainly
not her motivation and I'm really confused that you would think it is.
If the nightmares were so bad that that was sole reason she agree to go back, why did she not say to Burke herself, "We need to get down there and kill these things, once and for all"?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 03:54:43 AM
If the nightmares were so bad that that was sole reason she agree to go back, why did she not say to Burke herself, "We need to get down there and kill these things, once and for all"?
She did.
"you're going out there to destroy them right?"
That was after she met with him and Gorman. I'm asking why didn't she do it before the initial meeting.
She did. Van Leuwen dismissed her.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 03:54:43 AM
If the nightmares were so bad that that was sole reason she agree to go back, why did she not say to Burke herself, "We need to get down there and kill these things, once and for all"?
She did: "you're going out there to
destroy them right?
Not to study, not to bring back, but to wipe them out. She refused at first because she was terrified. She later agrees because she'd end up blowing her brains out if she kept on living as she was (in an interview circa '86, Weaver even said that Ripley was almost the type to sleep with a gun by her bed at that point in her life:
'I play a character who, probably, if she stayed at home and the nightmares continued, she might end up with a loaded gun next to her bed...')
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 03:57:03 AM
That was after she met with him and Gorman. I'm asking why didn't she do it before the initial meeting.
How would she have been given the opportunity to do so, exactly? A cargo loader like her flying out to a colony to exterminate something that she's terrified of, with no resources? She initially didn't even want to go in with the bloody Marine Corps. And:
She did. Van Leuwen dismissed her.
I need to rewatch it :P
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 04:01:12 AM
I need to rewatch it :P
Haha :laugh: Well, enjoy if you do 8)
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 03:39:36 AM
It's also one of the most transparent and phony. Yes, Ripley gets to be the gun toting hero, but it must also be extensively hammered home that she is doing so to protect her "baby." It's a typical, accidental cliche, wherein the more "feminine, conventional" woman (i.e. the mommy figure) survives and is triumphant, whereas the less gender conforming female member of the team always dies (Vasquez). It's hardly progressive.
It wasn't Vasquez's film.
Why can't ripley be a mother again?
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 04:05:38 AM
It wasn't Vasquez's film.
I never said it was. Doesn't make her death any less cliche.
QuoteWhy can't ripley be a mother again?
:-\
I already spelled out why Ripley's "mommy"-ization is a step back from ALIEN's smashing of the glass ceiling. Whether or not she
can be a mommy is beside the point.
I can believe you. Cameron loves his strong female roles.
More like his female roles where the female can only become a fully developed character with the help of a man.
Sadly when he finally got over this with Avatar, the rest of the writing was completely uninspired and lazy.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 04:11:30 AM
I can believe you. Cameron loves his strong female roles.
Well, just as long as they're protecting their babies (Ripley, Sarah Connor) or tough, muscle-bound ladies who sacrifice themselves (Aliens, Avatar) :P
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 04:13:42 AM
Sadly when he finally got over this with Avatar, the rest of the writing was completely uninspired and lazy.
??? He did?
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 04:13:42 AM
More like his female roles where the female can only become a fully developed character with the help of a man.
Sadly when he finally got over this with Avatar, the rest of the writing was completely uninspired and lazy.
You're referring to Neytiri?
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 04:13:54 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 04:11:30 AM
I can believe you. Cameron loves his strong female roles.
Well, just as long as they're protecting their babies (Ripley, Sarah Connor) or tough, muscle-bound ladies who sacrifice themselves (Aliens, Avatar) :P
Who sacrificed herself in Avatar? Was it Rodriguez' character?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 04:15:16 AM
Who sacrificed herself in Avatar? Was it Rodriguez' character?
She certainly dies heroically, didn't she? :P Hell, even Sigourney goes out heroically. (Though she's apparently returning for the sequel--cliche avoided?)
QuoteWho sacrificed herself in Avatar? Was it Rodriguez' character?
Dunno if I'd call getting shot down sacrifice as such. Not paying attention more like.
QuoteYou're referring to Neytiri?
Yeah - blue Thundercat girl.
Sarah Connor needed Reese to get tough, Ripley needed Hicks to get tough, Lyndsey Brigman needed Bud to stop her being so tough, Sarah Connor needed John to stop her being so tough, Helen Tasker needed Arnie to get tough and sexay, Rose need Jack to get tough.
More or less.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 04:09:57 AM
I never said it was. Doesn't make her death any less cliche.
Well just about every death in Alien fell into the stalker-killer-cliche, but it's a staple of the genre, so why bother? Are there any prominent examples of the Vasquez Always Dies trope prior to Aliens? I don't recall many female marines/tough girls in movies beforehand.
Quote
:-\
I already spelled out why Ripley's "mommy"-ization is a step back from ALIEN's smashing of the glass ceiling. Whether or not she can be a mommy is beside the point.
I see this glass ceiling smashing as being quite serendipitous, since the script called for her to sleep around with Dallas and -possible, vaguely hinted in a deleted scene- other crew members as well. This material was cut for the sake of flow, as Ridley wanted the film to be lean and mean. Anyway, men like women, women like men, people like kids - I didn't see her being a mother figure as being detrimental to the character in any way.
Sleep with Dallas? That's news to me. Is this in the special features?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 04:23:51 AM
Sleep with Dallas? That's news to me. Is this in the special features?
Dude, aren't you an Alien fan?! :o :laugh:
Scripted and shot as a screen test.
Never shot with Skerritt though.
Quote from: SM on Feb 27, 2012, 04:25:20 AM
Scripted and shot as a screen test.
Never shot with Skerritt though.
And that's all I ever meant :) Ridley thought the film didn't need it so he never shot it.
The screen test is interesting though. But yeah, ultimately, the film was better off without it (Skerrit says in the Anthology that he acted the cocoon scene as though he and Weaver were lovers.)
They were all rooting each other off screen.
Alien Orgy - In Space No One Can Hear You CUM!
i always wondered why there is still no XXX parody depicting these... unseen events.
they made an Avatar one and not this?
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 27, 2012, 04:21:47 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 04:09:57 AM
I never said it was. Doesn't make her death any less cliche.
Well just about every death in Alien fell into the stalker-killer-cliche, but it's a staple of the genre, so why bother? Are there any prominent examples of the Vasquez Always Dies trope prior to Aliens? I don't recall many female marines/tough girls in movies beforehand.
The trope seems to have been born around that era in general. TVTropes lists the earliest ones as A View to Kill (1985), Aliens (1986), and Nightmare on Elm Street 3 (1987).
Quote
I see this glass ceiling smashing as being quite serendipitous, since the script called for her to sleep around with Dallas and -possible, vaguely hinted in a deleted scene- other crew members as well. This material was cut for the sake of flow, as Ridley wanted the film to be lean and mean. Anyway, men like women, women like men, people like kids - I didn't see her being a mother figure as being detrimental to the character in any way.
ALIEN was the first genre film to have a female protagonist who is not defined in any way by her relationships with either a man or a child. She was her own woman, and she was capable of making decisions and leading without being spurred on by her need to protect her child or her love for a man. In that capacity, ALIEN is still groundbreaking, sadly (ALIEN 3 luckily reverted back to this format, albeit
with a vengeance), and it's kind of unfortunate that Aliens imposed the usual Hollywood "feminine motivators" upon her character.
And it would have been awesome had Scott found a way to leave in the hinted at, matter-of-fact bisexuality. That wouldn't have shattered the glass ceiling, it would have
blown it the f**k into space :P
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 04:45:21 AM
The trope seems to have been born around that era in general. TVTropes lists the earliest ones as A View to Kill (1985), Aliens (1986), and Nightmare on Elm Street 3 (1987).
I see. Cheers :)
QuoteALIEN was the first genre film to have a female protagonist who is not defined in any way by her relationships with either a man or a child. She was her own woman, and she was capable of making decisions and leading without being spurred on by her need to protect her child or her love for a man.
Well, like I said, I find it to be serendipitous due to the Ripley-on-Dallas elements that were cut purely to save on time and necessity, and the fact that Ridley and co didn't actively set out to make Ripley a female power icon (Weaver's said this for years - the character was nigh-on a gag, she has said). David Giler also said they had their secretary change "he" to "she" in regards to Ripley and the script was bare to begin with in terms of characterisation. Of course, this doesn't lessen the character's impact at all. I just fail to see how Ripley is not her own woman because she relates to a child. The Ripley of Alien is almost sexless, bar the stripping down scene at the end (even that was quite casual and I don't think Ridley meant to tantalise male viewers). In Aliens I see Ripley as being spurred initially by the need for catharsis and then by the need to connect with a fellow survivor who has likewise survived hell - this person just so happens to be a young orphan, and the two complement one another very well due to their shared experiences. Ripley wanting to cradle a child is secondary to it all -- this is how I see it, anyway.
QuoteAnd it would have been awesome had Scott found a way to leave in the hinted at, matter-of-fact bisexuality. That wouldn't have shattered the glass ceiling, it would have blown it the f**k into space :P
Oh indeed! But the film works without any interpersonal relationships of any sort. It's very cold. Nobody can stand one another :P
Such was the level of realism.
I found the exact opposite in reading Aliens: Cauldron recently. Everyone had lengthy expository conversations with each other and were all so bloody nice to each other, I couldn't wait for the Aliens to show up and slaughter them.
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 27, 2012, 04:45:21 AM
ALIEN was the first genre film to have a female protagonist who is not defined in any way by her relationships with either a man or a child.
True or not, the reason reason for it is accidental - Ripley was written as a man. Either way, a strong female character who isnt just a decoration of a man or an object of desire is what I admire - and thats what Ripley is in all 3 movies .
And its not like she needed anyone in any of the 3 to have a purpose. In Alien, shes doing it for herself - shes trying to survive. No different than any other person in the world. In Aliens, she goes back to stop her nightmares and face her fears and get revenge. Then she encounters a child to who she can relate to. But its a "THEN". In Alien 3 she basically doesnt care if she dies at all and seems suicidal after all the shattering her personality took. and THEN she sees a new purpose, new object of saving - the mankind
Quoteis more a straight Hollywood popcorn muncher
? I see no resemblance to Commando. Its pretty harsh to call that a movie which is 80% buildup and tension and which focuses on character's arc and internal turmoil (just like Alien 3, hence I always think theyre both a great companion). Its also by far the darkest "action" movie out there
Quotenlike Alien, it is a huge source of video games, comic books, and children's action figure lines
There are two reasons for it, one is popularity and the second most apparent and important is that the times were different. You didnt have movie-based comic books in the 70s, and didnt have popular video games in the 70s. Yet you did have toys, which Alien spawned plenty of. Then theres the fact that 80s were famous for promoting R rated movies for children such as Robocop for example. Doesnt belittle the movie in any way
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Fkidsalien.jpg&hash=4011072a5cdde8429cef0affe65e4cd04507adb4)
That "aliens is a dumb movie, all explosions and guns for 12 yo" is getting kinda old. For me Aliens and Alien 3 were always a close companion cause unlike the first one, they were much deeper and more sophisticated in terms of character development and focus. They were about Ripley, her emotional journey and evolution. About her story arcs. And that doesnt belittle the first movie one bit, its by admission of its creators a straight forward simple horror movie, and one doesnt need to be anything else to be a masterpiece. As far as construction, visuals and designs, the first two are brothers, but emotionally and story-wise , I believe Aliens and Alien 3 are grouped together and that makes them my fave two.
Anyway, to address stephen's comments on justice and happy endings. In none of he (3) movies theres a happy ending. The one in the first two is basically the same - literally - ending with the same shot. A survivor and multiple lives lost behind. alien(s) is destroyed, but the Company never gets exposed and in both the future seems still problematic for the survivor(s). In the first, I already knew people would have problem believing Ripley's story. That and I was thinking that the company will try to get their revenge on Ripley. In the second one, she and Hick were facing serious problems as well. The third one is no different, just more literal and shown on screen in front of our eyes, and in the third one, as in the previous two, theres a survivor and many deaths behind, and the alien gets destroyed, company leaves empty handed but not exposed or brought to justice. Burke's death means nothing. He was even working outisde of anybody's knowledge, including company. he was a greedy individual and
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 27, 2012, 05:09:51 AM
Well, like I said, I find it to be serendipitous due to the Ripley-on-Dallas elements that were cut purely to save on time and necessity, and the fact that Ridley and co didn't actively set out to make Ripley a female power icon (Weaver's said this for years - the character was nigh-on a gag, she has said).
I realize this, but the film itself is a case of accidental genius and broken ground in general--most of it's important themes just happened to fall into place without the creative personnel at first realizing. Ripley's character is a part of that. In fact, while I don't think Scott was pursuing a feminist agenda in ALIEN, he definitely snapped to attention after he saw the reaction, realized what he had done, and then took it upon himself to make sure he carried on in a similar vein in his subsequent work. While I have trouble calling Scott an autuer (talented as he is, he is still a commercials director, and when he makes films he is clearly
selling the story instead of connecting with it and telling it his own way), there can be no doubt he is the only male blockbuster director who recognizes what his female audience members want--which is not to be marginalized, talked down to, or shafted into boring "girlfriend" or "slut" roles. Furthermore, he is even an equal opportunity objectifier, showing off the male physique for the ladies (and some of the men) just as often, if not more so, than showing scantily clad women. It may just be another selling technique, but it's at least a step in the right direction, and while I don't like most of Scott's work and kind of retch at his almost creepy levels of political-removal, I still think he's a valuable voice in cinema for simply treating his female characters with respect. Not even Cameron can claim to do so to the levels Scott has consistently maintained.
Good post Cvalda.
Re; equal opportunity objectifier, Ridley Scott once said: 'My film has strong women simply because I like strong women. It's a personal choice. I'm no male chauvinist, nor do I understand female chauvinism - I just believe in the equality of men and women. It's as simple as that.' :)
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 27, 2012, 05:12:41 AM
I see no resemblance to Commando. Its pretty harsh to call that a movie which is 80% buildup and tension and which focuses on character's arc and internal turmoil (just like Alien 3, hence I always think theyre both a great companion). Its also by far the darkest "action" movie out there
I didn't compare it to Commando, but since you bring it up... :P Just kidding. Though they do both share common action tropes typical of mid-80's action films. Not their fault, per se, it was the times.
QuoteYet you did have toys, which Alien spawned plenty of.
Only one, and that was swiftly recalled due to the outcry.
QuoteThat "aliens is a dumb movie, all explosions and guns for 12 yo" is getting kinda old.
I never said that either.
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 27, 2012, 05:26:16 AM
Good post Cvalda.
Re; equal opportunity objectifier, Ridley Scott once said: 'My film has strong women simply because I like strong women. It's a personal choice. I'm no male chauvinist, nor do I understand female chauvinism - I just believe in the equality of men and women. It's as simple as that.' :)
I've always loved that quote. Now if only his other politics were as straightforward and progressive. Sigh.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 27, 2012, 05:12:41 AM
Anyway, to address stephen's comments on justice and happy endings. In none of he (3) movies theres a happy ending. The one in the first two is basically the same - literally - ending with the same shot. A survivor and multiple lives lost behind. alien(s) is destroyed, but the Company never gets exposed and in both the future seems still problematic for the survivor(s).
The happy ending in Aliens is that Ripley can now "dream".
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 05:38:03 AM
The happy ending in Aliens is that Ripley can now "dream".
Gag. :P
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 05:38:03 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 27, 2012, 05:12:41 AM
Anyway, to address stephen's comments on justice and happy endings. In none of he (3) movies theres a happy ending. The one in the first two is basically the same - literally - ending with the same shot. A survivor and multiple lives lost behind. alien(s) is destroyed, but the Company never gets exposed and in both the future seems still problematic for the survivor(s).
The happy ending in Aliens is that Ripley can now "dream".
The happy ending in Alien is that she survived and calmly goes back en route to Earth. Both Aliens and Alien 3 retconned the "happy" ending of the predecessor by killing off everyone Ripley cared for
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 27, 2012, 05:56:41 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 05:38:03 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 27, 2012, 05:12:41 AM
Anyway, to address stephen's comments on justice and happy endings. In none of he (3) movies theres a happy ending. The one in the first two is basically the same - literally - ending with the same shot. A survivor and multiple lives lost behind. alien(s) is destroyed, but the Company never gets exposed and in both the future seems still problematic for the survivor(s).
The happy ending in Aliens is that Ripley can now "dream".
The happy ending in Alien is that she survived and calmly goes back en route to Earth. Both Aliens and Alien 3 retconned the "happy" ending of the predecessor by killing off everyone Ripley cared for
Yes but in Aliens she was able to "reconnect" with her mother side with Newt.
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 05:59:27 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 27, 2012, 05:56:41 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 27, 2012, 05:38:03 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 27, 2012, 05:12:41 AM
Anyway, to address stephen's comments on justice and happy endings. In none of he (3) movies theres a happy ending. The one in the first two is basically the same - literally - ending with the same shot. A survivor and multiple lives lost behind. alien(s) is destroyed, but the Company never gets exposed and in both the future seems still problematic for the survivor(s).
The happy ending in Aliens is that Ripley can now "dream".
The happy ending in Alien is that she survived and calmly goes back en route to Earth. Both Aliens and Alien 3 retconned the "happy" ending of the predecessor by killing off everyone Ripley cared for
Yes but in Aliens she was able to "reconnect" with her mother side with Newt.
And in Alien she got her kitty and safely and calmly went back to sleep to go back to Earth. In that regard endings to both movies are parallel, down to the same ending shot. But also both Aliens and Alien 3 killed of Ripley's family in the beginning, making
those two parallel in this area
I thin the trilogy is a one, united great series
Yes but the ending to aliens is far different to the ending in A3.
And it is the ending that we are talking about.
Well, getting the same ending for a third time would be quite boring by that point. Two times is fine, but the third one needed something fresh, and it delivered both fresh and shocking
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 27, 2012, 06:16:45 AM
Well, getting the same ending for a third time would be quite boring by that point. Two times is fine, but the third one needed something fresh, and it delivered both fresh and shocking
I would agree with that, and besides a happy ending wouldn't have fit with the tone of
Alien3 in the first place.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 27, 2012, 06:16:45 AM
Well, getting the same ending for a third time would be quite boring by that point. Two times is fine, but the third one needed something fresh, and it delivered both fresh and shocking
I can go along with that.
At the same time I simply don't think A3 was necessary at all. If they absolutly had to make A3, they could have gone in a completely different direction and just not have Ripley in it.
Quote from: First Blood on Feb 27, 2012, 06:17:50 AM
I would agree with that, and besides a happy ending wouldn't have fit with the tone of Alien3 in the first place.
Quite right - the tone of A3 is certainly a depressing one.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 27, 2012, 05:56:41 AMBoth Aliens and Alien 3 retconned the "happy" ending of the predecessor by killing off everyone Ripley cared for
Not everyone ;D Jonesy somehow managed to survive 57-years flight and hauling the Narcissus to the Gateway by salvage team. But jokes aside,
Aliens follows the first movie right upon the suggested hint: "With a liitle luck, the network will pick me up", and thus, Ripley is endowed with her piece of "little luck", namely she's saved, yes, but it occurs long time after she seals herself off in the cryo-pod. In this sense, second film harmionously continues
Alien par for the course. Yes, it kills off Ripley's family and daughter, but again, they are characters, that Cameron ascribed to heroine, never have been mentioned before (exept for the Ripley's bio, where from you could get some idea, that Ripley had a child, but it was never said in the
Alien). But I can't praise
A^3's beginning the same way, it just turns the legacy of predecessor upside down.
You could also make the argument that Rez had a happy ending. I mean, think about it. It's the only ending in the franchise that literally, has sunshine, lol.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 02:40:13 PM
You could also make the argument that Rez had a happy ending. I mean, think about it. It's the only ending in the franchise that literally, has sunshine, lol.
And in one version they landed in Paris! Very romantic! :laugh:
Paris, how romant--
*Sees destroyed Eiffel tower*
...aw fuq.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Feb 27, 2012, 02:40:13 PM
You could also make the argument that Rez had a happy ending. I mean, think about it. It's the only ending in the franchise that literally, has sunshine, lol.
Yes, dull-toned, orange-gorish boreboding sunshine! ;D
The ending is perfect (both cuts, but I prefer the one without the chestbursting). It's dark and somber, deeply poetic and really poignant, and yes, very depressing as well. But there is a spark of hope and beauty in it as well as Ripley denied the Company their oh so desired prize. I just love the ending of Alien 3. Gives me goosebumps every time.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 04, 2012, 09:40:48 PM
The ending is perfect (both cuts, but I prefer the one without the chestbursting). It's dark and somber, deeply poetic and really poignant, and yes, very depressing as well. But there is a spark of hope and beauty in it as well as Ripley denied the Company their oh so desired prize. I just love the ending of Alien 3. Gives me goosebumps every time.
the chestburster scene at the end 6 the dogburster scene are the reasons why i prefer the TC more.
the score of the last scene in the assembly cut don't fit like it does in the TC. :-\
it's a bit delayed, when you compare it with the original version, especially, when you know it that very well.
Overall, the AC is better, but those two scenes are missed.
I always felt the ending of both cuts was rushed. Like, "Yep, she's dead. Move along folks."
But she gets the last say with the cryo recording, and at one time it drew a tear from my eye. Her journey was over. Her fight was over. In Alien, she was an unwitting witness to horror. In Aliens, she woke from that horror, and immediately returned to face it. In Alien3, she had no choice. She was dead from the very start. She resolved to make sure that the beast ended with her.
And then Res happened.... >:(
Watched the assembly cut today with my fiance. It was very interesting to watch, the score's great (shades of Batman Forever in there - retroactively speaking, that is) but the only real difficulty -if you overlook plot holes and an unsatisfying bow out for Clemens- is the lack of emotional engagement. Emotions swell for the funeral, and at the climax, but the rest is a void. Additionally, it's not scary or tense. My missus leapt all over the living room for the first two movies, but was relaxed throughout the third. I was hoping for a scare but remembered that there wasn't any.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 04, 2012, 11:18:58 PM
Additionally, it's not scary or tense. My missus leapt all over the living room for the first two movies, but was relaxed throughout the third. I was hoping for a scare but remembered that there wasn't any.
Alien 3 is more of a mood piece than a shocker, which is one of the things I love about it. The atmosphere of quiet, impending doom is so beautifully developed.
Those are the elements I love about it.
Actually I think the scariest scene of all is in Alien 3 - when the alien comes up to Ripley and snarls in her face and TOUCHES HER EAR.
Excellent Scene.
Quote from: stephen on Mar 05, 2012, 12:42:52 AM
Actually I think the scariest scene of all is in Alien 3 - when the alien comes up to Ripley and snarls in her face and TOUCHES HER EAR.
Excellent Scene.
Indeed, those scenes makes you wonder if there is something wrong with ripley, which of course turns out to be true but the point in making new viewers wonder is there.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 04, 2012, 11:29:23 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 04, 2012, 11:18:58 PM
Additionally, it's not scary or tense. My missus leapt all over the living room for the first two movies, but was relaxed throughout the third. I was hoping for a scare but remembered that there wasn't any.
Alien 3 is more of a mood piece than a shocker, which is one of the things I love about it. The atmosphere of quiet, impending doom is so beautifully developed.
Right. I dont think the movie tried or aimed to be scary, its more of a thriller drama, as you said - mood piece. Its not and wasnt suppose to be a marathon of tension and suspense as the first two
A horror film that doesn't try to be scary?
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 05, 2012, 12:58:18 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 04, 2012, 11:29:23 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 04, 2012, 11:18:58 PM
Additionally, it's not scary or tense. My missus leapt all over the living room for the first two movies, but was relaxed throughout the third. I was hoping for a scare but remembered that there wasn't any.
Alien 3 is more of a mood piece than a shocker, which is one of the things I love about it. The atmosphere of quiet, impending doom is so beautifully developed.
Right. I dont think the movie tried or aimed to be scary, its more of a thriller drama, as you said - mood piece. Its not and wasnt suppose to be a marathon of tension and suspense as the first two
The film is meant to wrap up ripley's chapter in the xenoverse. Pity they relied too much on her.
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 12:59:41 AM
A horror film that doesn't try to be scary?
It's more than just a "horror" film--it's also a tragedy and a character driven Sci-Fi/drama, and it is certainly scary in more than a few scenes. It even has one of the most memorably frightening shots in the series, one that has gone on to be an iconic visual touchstone when people bring up the franchise.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb17%2Fthepestilence123%2Fvlcsnap-766638.png&hash=a3c4a082d5f0c71507e29e7919519c9f9f54666c)
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 05, 2012, 01:04:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 12:59:41 AM
A horror film that doesn't try to be scary?
It's more than just a "horror" film--it's also a tragedy and a character driven Sci-Fi/drama, and it is certainly scary in more than a few scenes. It even has one of the most memorably frightening shots in the series, one that has gone on to be an iconic visual touchstone when people bring up the franchise.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb17%2Fthepestilence123%2Fvlcsnap-766638.png&hash=a3c4a082d5f0c71507e29e7919519c9f9f54666c)
Alien did indeed start out as a horror/chiller but then it became an action/horror and then sequels tried to replicate it to no avail.
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 12:59:41 AM
A horror film that doesn't try to be scary?
It is called or referred to as horror movie only by default, for havin Alien in the title. The movie is basically a psychological drama with elements of a thriller in it. Perhaps this is also another reason why some dislike(d) the movie, because they expected to be scared or holding their breath on the edge of their seats like in the first two, instead of going deeper into Ripley's state of mind and tragedy
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 05, 2012, 01:00:05 AM
The film is meant to wrap up ripley's chapter in the xenoverse. Pity they relied too much on her.
For me thats what makes the movie more mature. Its Ripley and her drama first, slimy monster chasing others secondary. It makes the film that much more serious and complex
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 05, 2012, 01:08:16 AM
For me thats what makes the movie more mature. Its Ripley and her drama first, slimy monster chasing others secondary. It makes the film that much more serious and complex
Agreed. From a review of the film at
Moria, that just about sums it up:
Quote"The surprise is that Sigourney Weaver's input does benefit the project and that Alien3 works as a strongly character propelled film. In fact, it is the giving of substance to the central character that forms the best parts of the film. This allows Sigourney Weaver to deliver a tour-de-force performance, turning Ripley, previously a hardheaded pragmatist, into someone who has been left a burnt-out emotional wreck by her experiences. In one stunning moment, she confronts the alien in the dark and whispers, "You've been in my life so long, I can't remember anything else."
Weaver's performance in A3 really is the best of the series.
QuoteIt is called or referred to as horror movie only by default, for havin Alien in the title.
No it's called a horror movie because there's a monster going around killing people.
Many may be desensitised to that, but a lot of people aren't.
There may be more going on, in terms of character and subtext (though not a great deal), but it's still a horror movie at it's core.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 04, 2012, 11:29:23 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 04, 2012, 11:18:58 PM
Additionally, it's not scary or tense. My missus leapt all over the living room for the first two movies, but was relaxed throughout the third. I was hoping for a scare but remembered that there wasn't any.
Alien 3 is more of a mood piece than a shocker, which is one of the things I love about it. The atmosphere of quiet, impending doom is so beautifully developed.
Aye, and that's why I love it. Such a somber piece compared to the 'loudmouth' film that is
Aliens.
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 01:38:06 AM
QuoteIt is called or referred to as horror movie only by default, for havin Alien in the title.
No it's called a horror movie because there's a monster going around killing people.
Many may be desensitised to that, but a lot of people aren't.
There may be more going on, in terms of character and subtext (though not a great deal), but it's still a horror movie at it's core.
To add, even David Giler pointed this out on the DVD extras, saying that it had an obligation to be scary - and wasn't. The tagline "three times the terror" is also a bit of a giveaway.
Quite.
Sig weaver is legend no doubt about it, but the alien franchise must not rely upon her all the time.
I too will miss her presence but its for the best.
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 01:38:06 AM
No it's called a horror movie because there's a monster going around killing people.
Is ALIENS scary? Not really. Enthralling and suspenseful, but scary? Nah. It's also supposed to technically be a horror film. What exactly is your point? Genre expectations are largely irrelevant to the quality of a film.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 05, 2012, 01:59:51 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 01:38:06 AM
No it's called a horror movie because there's a monster going around killing people.
Is ALIENS scary? Not really. Enthralling and suspenseful, but scary? Nah. It's also supposed to technically be a horror film. What exactly is your point? Genre expectations are largely irrelevant to the quality of a film.
i was scared when i watched the first three alien movies for the first time. but in the case of aliens: i became scared when in the quite moments something loud happens & the appearance of the alien queen & the suspence of her chasing ripley & newt. but alien³ is the real real reason why i am sometimes afraid, even in my age, when i walk through my dark corridor from one room to another.
I've known people to fly all over the room watching Aliens. It's probably not scary to us hardcore fans. I've watched it several times with first-time viewers who were frightened at parts. S'far as I've experienced, I've never had a reaction out of the third movie. This isn't a diss on the film, but it was disappointing watching it after the first two and getting such a great reaction from them.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 05, 2012, 01:59:51 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 01:38:06 AM
No it's called a horror movie because there's a monster going around killing people.
Is ALIENS scary? Not really. Enthralling and suspenseful, but scary? Nah. It's also supposed to technically be a horror film. What exactly is your point? Genre expectations are largely irrelevant to the quality of a film.
Your take on it is largely irrelevant to the general populous and filmmakers intentions.
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 02:14:18 AM
Your take on it is largely irrelevant to the general populous and filmmakers intentions.
:laugh: And I suppose you're the gauge of both? ::)
Don't recall suggesting any such thing. Just stating a fact.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 05, 2012, 02:10:38 AM
I've known people to fly all over the room watching Aliens. It's probably not scary to us hardcore fans. I've watched it several times with first-time viewers who were frightened at parts.
Really? I never thought ALIENS was particularly scary. Whenever I've watched the trilogy with friends, they never particularly got frightened--what they responded to was the action and escalating intensity, which is what a lot of people seem to respond to. Hence the film's reputation as one of the greatest
action movies and not horror. Regardless, it has nothing on the original in terms of scare factor.
There are some great and terrifying moments to be found in Aliens. One that comes to mind is the chestburster sequence in the hive with the girl. Well, I found it terrifying at least.
Facehugger sequence right here.
A great suspensful highlight of the series making great usage of sound and suggestion as opposed to action.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 05, 2012, 02:21:07 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 05, 2012, 02:10:38 AM
I've known people to fly all over the room watching Aliens. It's probably not scary to us hardcore fans. I've watched it several times with first-time viewers who were frightened at parts.
Really? I never thought ALIENS was particularly scary. Whenever I've watched the trilogy with friends, they never particularly got frightened--what they responded to was the action and escalating intensity, which is what a lot of people seem to respond to. Hence the film's reputation as one of the greatest action movies and not horror. Regardless, it has nothing on the original in terms of scare factor.
Yup! I've had friends who were scared. My fiance in particular was climbing the walls and watching through her fingers during the Hive attack, when the Alien grabbed the APC doors, when the facehuggers were in the Medlab, and at the end. There's a good combination of suspense, excitement, and fear that was going on. It was a nice cocktail and it reminded me of my first viewing :)
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 05, 2012, 02:28:09 AM
Yup! I've had friends who were scared. My fiance in particular was climbing the walls and watching through her fingers during the Hive attack, when the Alien grabbed the APC doors, when the facehuggers were in the Medlab, and at the end. There's a good combination of suspense, excitement, and fear that was going on. It was a nice cocktail and it reminded me of my first viewing :)
Haha, fair enough. :) When I watched the Quadrilogy with my partner, the first and third got a much stronger scare reaction out of him--but then, he watched A3 when he was four and it traumatized him, so there may have been some lingering after-effects ;D
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 01:38:06 AM
QuoteIt is called or referred to as horror movie only by default, for havin Alien in the title.
No it's called a horror movie because there's a monster going around killing people.
That itself does not make a horror movie a horror movie. A mysterious women killer can be both in a thriller, drama and horror. Monsters running around killing people didnt make Resurection a horror movie
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 05, 2012, 02:36:17 AM
he watched A3 when he was four and it traumatized him, so there may have been some lingering after-effects ;D
:P I can imagine the denouement to Spike the Dog's life having quite the effect!
QuoteThat itself does not make a horror movie a horror movie. A mysterious women killer can be both in a thriller, drama and horror. Monsters running around killing people didnt make Resurection a horror movie
Just because you didn't find it scary, doesn't stop it being a horror film.
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 02:43:40 AM
QuoteThat itself does not make a horror movie a horror movie. A mysterious women killer can be both in a thriller, drama and horror. Monsters running around killing people didnt make Resurection a horror movie
Just because you didn't find it scary, doesn't stop it being a horror film.
Yeah the first one was a straight horror.
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 02:43:40 AM
QuoteThat itself does not make a horror movie a horror movie. A mysterious women killer can be both in a thriller, drama and horror. Monsters running around killing people didnt make Resurection a horror movie
Just because you didn't find it scary, doesn't stop it being a horror film.
Horror movies are scary by design, they dont just have few scary moments or scenes (which even thrillers and some action movies have). I believe Alien 3 was set out to be a piece about reflecting on life and character drama from the beginning, or at least when Fincher joined in. And it accomplishes in doing that. Its not about few people running out of supplies with big monster looming in the corner. Its not about few people barricaded hoping itll hold up the next attempt. It doesnt have elements like that, its all a gloomy drama with monster being more of a bonus rather than integral part like in the first two
Really, I think they intended to make a horror film and failed. They even admit this on the DVD's. Luckily, Alien 3 had other stuff going for it to make it interesting.
In spite of the other elements of genre, all the Alien films are horror films at their core. Whether they succeeded in scaring the audience or not.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 05, 2012, 03:05:10 AM
Really, I think they intended to make a horror film and failed. They even admit this on the DVD's. Luckily, Alien 3 had other stuff going for it to make it interesting.
To be fair, they did the best they could, and why they "failed" (YMMV) isn't largely their fault: let's face it, the alien just isn't that scary after you've been faced with it twice before--even though I think the runner is a beautiful design and would be more than scary enough if the film existed in a vacuum on its own. Our poor old xenomorph is the victim of sequel fatigue, hence it not appearing in PROMETHEUS. I just hope Ridley managed to tease something worthy to stand next to it in design terms--Carlos Huante sure ain't no H.R. Giger :-\
the old horror moves these days are cliched! it's not the horror films fault but the people's
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 05, 2012, 03:11:11 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 05, 2012, 03:05:10 AM
Really, I think they intended to make a horror film and failed. They even admit this on the DVD's. Luckily, Alien 3 had other stuff going for it to make it interesting.
To be fair, they did the best they could, and why they "failed" (YMMV) isn't largely their fault
Lets define what we mean by 'fail and succeed' here. They failed to make piles of cash with this movie. As did Blade Runner. So lets throw 'amount of cash made' defining success out the window. Blade Runner found it's legs long after it was released in theaters. It was such a departure from what audiences where expecting after Star Wars, Alien, and science fiction films in general at that time, that people didn't know what to make of it. Alien 3 suffers the same way. After Alien, Aliens, and a teaser trailer that promised us "ON EARTH ... everyone will here you scream" ... of course Alien 3 is going to be a disappointment.
I think Alien 3 has the biggest balls of all the Alien films and gets HUGE points for originality in terms of design and set up. It's a damn unapologetic, brutal film that oppresses you from the beginning. It's a nightmare. Ripley is in hell ... it's the worst possible situation she can be in ... and she still saves the day. So much more interesting than ALIENS all over again. More marines fighting more aliens would have been rehash.
So why do people hate Alien 3? Well, those that do probably hate it for being 'not what they were expecting.' For not being set on earth as promised. For not being Alien, or Aliens. For killing off beloved characters and sticking us on a prison planet with a bunch of bald, greasy, lice infested murderers and rapists. For having the Alien burst from a dog. (You should have heard the audience I saw the film with ... must have been largely made up of members of PETA!) And of course the biggest thing is Ripley dieing at the end. Most people consider that a HUGE downer. To have their hero die, regardless of whether they went out as a martyr or a savior.
I don't think the crew had any idea of what the hell kind of movie they were making. But all things considered I think they did a great job. Had a few elements been different, and more money entrusted to the production I think we'd be looking back at it with a little more solidarity as fans. But the rift remains.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 05, 2012, 03:11:11 AM
Our poor old xenomorph is the victim of sequel fatigue, hence it not appearing in PROMETHEUS. I just hope Ridley managed to tease something worthy to stand next to it in design terms--Carlos Huante sure ain't no H.R. Giger :-\
I blame the two truly embarrassing AVP films for the distancing in marketing Prometheus as an Alien film. And I could see Scott going into this whole thing with it being an Alien prequel in mind, and coming out of a massive brain storm and feeling that this is 'much bigger in scope' to be considered Alien zero, so to speak.
Prometheus wants to be a stand alone film that ultimately results in the Alien films being spin offs. To that end, I applaud it's intentions.
And your right. Carlos Huante ain't no H.R. Giger. But maybe it's good not to rehash Giger at this point. At least for whatever it is we'll be seeing that is not the alien we are expecting.
QuoteSo why do people hate Alien 3? Well, those that do probably hate it for being 'not what they were expecting.'
That's pretty much it. There's a difference between "That's not what I was expecting, but I was pleasantly surprised" and "The f**k did I just watch?" and Alien3 was the latter.
I was disappointed when I walked out at the end (I remember wincing at the effects). But I rationalised it as "This is Alien. Space is harsh." And I also admired it for taking the road less travelled - or like you said 'having balls'. It ended up being the first Alien film I actually bought (rather than taping off the telly).
QuoteHad a few elements been different, and more money entrusted to the production I think we'd be looking back at it with a little more solidarity as fans.
One of the main problems was they'd already spent over $50m on it. Too much f**king around from Giler and Hill early in the piece didn't do it any favours. Add to that Fincher shooting endless takes of really mundane stuff.
Getting money wasn't A3's problem - spending it was. They spent the equivalent of Alien's budget on Alien 3's script alone. The budget was incredible and I think it shows in the sets. What went wrong was FOX's overbearing attitude to the script. I'm amazed some of the film turned out as good as it is considering the script problems. Now I absolutely adore the first two movies, they have some great lines, but Alien 3 has some great dialogue peppered amongst the "f**k"s and "shit"s. However, I also think it's just as guilty as the previous movie of trying to inject some audience-friendly humour and excitement - it just fails. Specifically, look at Jude during the chase sequence at the end and try to tell me it's not an Alexei Sayle impersonation. "Yoo-hoo! Hey f**k face!" Oh dear. Speaking of the chase, it feels nigh-on inconsequential, because we (or I) don't really care for the sacks of meat being chased through the corridors. But I think that's been covered by many already.
These are just my personal observations :)
Problem was as well is that they had to compete with aliens, since people expected another brilliant film on par with aliens.
What do you expect when a production company sticks its nose into a project and pretends to be the director? Fox may have been the ones signing the cheques but that doesn't make them qualified to make a movie.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 05, 2012, 03:09:18 PM
What do you expect when a production company sticks its nose into a project and pretends to be the director? Fox may have been the ones signing the cheques but that doesn't make them qualified to make a movie.
Exactly!! this is the problem with studios, they interfere too much especially fox who think they are directors. What is stupid is that if they love money so much then why ruin a franchise by interfering which could cause money loss? dumbasses.
The reason why aliens was brilliant was because cameron basically said" f**k you, i'm doing this film my way" to the studio. (note, not his actual words)
I think it's more because Fox knows Jimbo is a world-class director and that he can deliver. Why interfere with someone who has rep?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 05, 2012, 03:27:21 PM
I think it's more because Fox knows Jimbo is a world-class director and that he can deliver. Why interfere with someone who has rep?
he did not have that rep then, it was only his second or third film he directed.
Maybe because no one expected Aliens to do that well? I find that if a sequel is very successful, only when a third film is made will the studio get involved. It happened with Spider-Man 3.
They tried to butt in on the second alien film as well, its just greedy studios do a lot.
yeah sony wanted venom to be in the third film.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 05, 2012, 03:41:45 PM
Maybe because no one expected Aliens to do that well?
Most likely. Ward even talks about it in Alien 3 extras. He says Alien was very well received and was a hit, but nothing really groundbreaking in terms of box office or popularity. He says they didnt have much to lose while doing the second one. But after the second one became such a giant hit and kickstarted the franchise to another level, now the next sequel was under a tight watch and was the most important movie for Fox at the time
To support Ward's statement lets see the box office performances of the first two
-Aliens was one of the top 10 highest grossing movies of the year, despite a very heavy competition. Alien wasnt even in the top 10 despite the weak competition it had
BOX OFFICE
1979
1.Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
2.The Amityville Horror (1979)
3.Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
4.The Muppet Movie (1979)
5.Moonraker (1979)
6.Manhattan (1979)
7.Love at First Bite (1979)
8.Meatballs (1979)
9.Escape from Alcatraz (1979)
10.The Rose (1979)
1986 - and damn, look at the freakin competition!!
1.Top Gun (1986)
2.Crocodile Dundee (1986)
3.Platoon (1986)
4.The Karate Kid, Part II (1986)
5.Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
6.Back to School (1986)
7.Aliens (1986)
8.The Golden Child (1986)
9.Ruthless People (1986)
10.Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)
Also, Aliens was #1 for 4 consecutive weeks and landed on Time magazine cover etc, etc
And naturally, box office is just a part of it. Dark horse launched the incredibly popular series, the fanclubs were born and the movie gathered and built a very strong following that was accumulating rapidly
So in short, yes, after the first one they didnt have that much at stake, after the second one a sequel to such popular series was extremely important. No wonder Fox was all over it
That list from '79 is pretty solid. A James Bond film, a Star Trek film, a Muppets film...those are well-established names so Alien had its money cut out for it. I wouldn't label them weak.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 05, 2012, 04:30:52 PM
That list from '79 is pretty solid. A James Bond film, a Star Trek film, a Muppets film...those are well-established names so Alien had its money cut out for it. I wouldn't label them weak.
Those 3 yeah. But the rest? Plsu those 3 cant compare to such successes as Top Gun, Platoon. Karate Kid or Buellers Day Off
A Woody Allen film, who was a well-established comedic master, Kramer vs. Kramer, Meatballs and Escape from Alcatraz all featured some of the most popular actors of the decade. This is not weak competition.
Alien had an unknown director, an unknown writer, and virtually unknown actors. The most popular actor in the film was Skerrit due to his role in MASH and the most experienced actor was Hurt.
By the time Aliens came out, Weaver was a well established actress due to her roles in Ghostbusters and Gorillas in the Mist.
But grosses are not everything. After all, TransFormers 2 was the highest grossing film of 09, but that does little to help its reputation.
Alien also made the cover of a magazine.
Yeah, a film can be box office hit and be panned by the critics or could extremely well-received but flopped at the box office.
What is sad about the latter is that even though it could be a brilliant film there will most likely be no sequel due to it not making enough money.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Mar 05, 2012, 04:43:51 PM
A Woody Allen film, who was a well-established comedic master, Kramer vs. Kramer, Meatballs and Escape from Alcatraz all featured some of the most popular actors of the decade. This is not weak competition.
True. but weak in comparison to megahits of 86 such as Top Gun or first follow up to Karate Kid
QuoteBy the time Aliens came out, Weaver was a well established actress due to her roles in Ghostbusters and Gorillas in the Mist.
I really dont tihnk in this instance star power played a role. I doubt it was Weaver's name that put people in seats
QuoteBut grosses are not everything. After all, TransFormers 2 was the highest grossing film of 09, but that does little to help its reputation.
Absolutely. Thats why I said the bo is just a part of it.
QuoteAlien also made the cover of a magazine.
Heh, well sure, but Time is a different thing.
But this is all besides the point completely anyway. The point is, as DoomRulz and Vincent Ward pointed out, the second movie was extremely popular, including box office success and overall popularity, starting EU and fanclubs all over the country. This time the stakes were very high before making another sequel. So therefore as Ward said, Alien 3 was THE most important movie for Fox at the time, it was to be their cash cow, a follow up to megahit. And this time the number of fans was so much larger and growing, and they knew they had to be careful with it, so thats why Fox had their noses in every aspect of the production of the movie
QuoteSo why do people hate Alien 3? Well, those that do probably hate it for being 'not what they were expecting.'
Quote
That's pretty much it. There's a difference between "That's not what I was expecting, but I was pleasantly surprised" and "The f**k did I just watch?" and Alien3 was the latter.
SM. That's a perfect illustration to the two sides of the Alien 3 fan coin. No matter who wins, at least you didn't see it coming. Too bad they couldn't advertise it that way.
QuoteHad a few elements been different, and more money entrusted to the production I think we'd be looking back at it with a little more solidarity as fans.
QuoteOne of the main problems was they'd already spent over $50m on it. Too much f**king around from Giler and Hill early in the piece didn't do it any favours. Add to that Fincher shooting endless takes of really mundane stuff.
My mind continuously glosses over that fact. I forgot that this production spent it's fair share before the the Alien effects were even produced. And of course Fincher was only 20 something at the time and considered 'artsy fartsy' compared to the established genius of Scott and the Man's Man technical abilities of Cameron. Yeah, just a bad mix.
QuoteI'm amazed some of the film turned out as good as it is considering the script problems. Now I absolutely adore the first two movies, they have some great lines, but Alien 3 has some great dialogue peppered amongst the "f**k"s and "shit"s. However, I also think it's just as guilty as the previous movie of trying to inject some audience-friendly humour and excitement - it just fails. Specifically, look at Jude during the chase sequence at the end and try to tell me it's not an Alexei Sayle impersonation. "Yoo-hoo! Hey f**k face!" Oh dear.
I always felt like (proportionally speaking mind you) it turned out like Jaws. A troubled production. Nothing worked. People fighting. Mind games. Studio threatening untested young filmmakers. Of course Jaws struck a cord on a massive level thanks mostly to it's back bone. It's characters, writing, editing. Alien 3 by all rights should have been shit canned before shooting began ... but aggressively stupid producers COULD NOT take that loss and bullied forward. It just sort of snow balled out of control. And to see what the creative team did with it, to steer it into something that is not only watchable, but also great on other less popular levels, is astounding.
Valaquen There was no excuse for the dialogue. I gave the abundant presence of the word 'f**k' as pass considering it's a film set on a prison planet full of men that have given up sex. Though there seemed to be at least some attempt in the script to show part of their religion frowned upon 'swearing.' Oh well ... lots of those guys fell off the wagon the second they brought Ripley in in her undies.
Did I read somewhere that as a joke, the crew had a bunch of Alien 3 shirts that said "ALIEN 3" on the front, and "f**k" on the back?
Yep.
f**k ain't against God.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 05, 2012, 03:27:21 PM
I think it's more because Fox knows Jimbo is a world-class director and that he can deliver. Why interfere with someone who has rep?
H didn't have rep then - hence Fox interfering and demanding 14 minutes get cut.
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 10:40:03 PM
Yep.
f**k ain't against God.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 05, 2012, 03:27:21 PM
I think it's more because Fox knows Jimbo is a world-class director and that he can deliver. Why interfere with someone who has rep?
H didn't have rep then - hence Fox interfering and demanding 14 minutes get cut.
Yep, i said that as well, Aliens was his second or third movie, the first being Piranha 2
I think fox wanted it to be without ripley as well when it wasn't confirmed whether or not Sigourney Weaver signed up.
Cameron planned for both eventualities, but he wrote based on the say so that Weaver had been approached and was interested.
Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 10:40:03 PM
Yep.
f**k ain't against God.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 05, 2012, 03:27:21 PM
I think it's more because Fox knows Jimbo is a world-class director and that he can deliver. Why interfere with someone who has rep?
H didn't have rep then - hence Fox interfering and demanding 14 minutes get cut.
14 minutes isn't so bad, considering what happened with Alien 3. I was more than content with the theatrical release of Aliens. The DC was good, but felt a bit too long.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 05, 2012, 03:21:34 PM
The reason why aliens was brilliant was because cameron basically said" f**k you, i'm doing this film my way" to the studio. (note, not his actual words)
There is a story, I don't know if it was Aliens or The Abyss, where an exec came down to dictate things and Jim told him to get the f**k off the set... might've been The Abyss, actually.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 06, 2012, 03:03:53 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 05, 2012, 03:21:34 PM
The reason why aliens was brilliant was because cameron basically said" f**k you, i'm doing this film my way" to the studio. (note, not his actual words)
There is a story, I don't know if it was Aliens or The Abyss, where an exec came down to dictate things and Jim told him to get the f**k off the set... might've been The Abyss, actually.
I know that Cameron got decked on the set of abyss by Ed Harris because he nearly drowned doing what cameron demanded.
Actually thats just a myth which Harris and Cameron denied
Really? huh well i wouldn't have been surprised if it was true, cameron is a great director but he is infamous for his on set behaviour, his dedication to making a film means he has to push the cast and crew to keep up with his style and demands a lot. Not a bad thing at all since it works, terminator and its sequel were all well received as was aliens, avatar, titanic and abyss, though i think the latter originally got mixed reviews until their released the special edition of it that made the plot more clear.
Actually Abyss and Avatar were the two that got very mixed reviews. Abyss much more so. Oh and True Lies, I actually forgot about that movie for a second, never liked it much
But going back to the topic, again, with Alien 3 there was much, much more at stake than when doing Aliens because Aliens was such a hit AND cultural success. And by that point, theres no way a first time director of a megafranchise would have power to say "get off my set" and not get fired. Ward was fired for not comprising with the board's demandfs
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 06, 2012, 07:35:10 PM
Really? huh well i wouldn't have been surprised if it was true, cameron is a great director but he is infamous for his on set behaviour, his dedication to making a film means he has to push the cast and crew to keep up with his style and demands a lot. Not a bad thing at all since it works, terminator and its sequel were all well received as was aliens, avatar, titanic and abyss, though i think the latter originally got mixed reviews until their released the special edition of it that made the plot more clear.
There wasn't a thing Cameron did on The Abyss that he didn't do first before his cast, and he usually did it for a more protracted period of time. Of course, the more interesting stories are about the people who complain, not the people who praise, so silly stories get thrown around, like the Harris one.
Yeah cameron is a diver as well as director and he actually did go down to the titanic in mini submarine fo a documentary....i think. I can't recall at the moment.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 06, 2012, 08:56:57 PM
Yeah cameron is a diver as well as director and he actually did go down to the titanic in mini submarine fo a documentary....i think. I can't recall at the moment.
You are correct! ;D
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 06, 2012, 08:56:57 PM
Yeah cameron is a diver as well as director and he actually did go down to the titanic in mini submarine fo a documentary....i think. I can't recall at the moment.
he went more times than any human in history actually, and he did other scientific dives with NASA scientists and discovered even some new species underwater, but again, thats just a bit of trivia and offtopic
My own experience with Alien 3 is a odd one. I had seen bits and pieces of it on TV as a kid, mainly the beginning and the end, so I knew about all of the character death that goes on. I vividly remembered the dog burster scene, but that was about it. When I was about 12, I rented the DVD and watched the Assembly Cut, since I usually prefer extended cuts. I remember thinking, "Huh, that was alright." Now, at 19, having pretty much forgotten everything I saw, I watched the theatrical cut,a and found myself experiencing mixed emotions towards it. I wanted to like it, seeing as I pretty much liked it before, but this time it was an uphill struggle, and I ended up feeling incredibly frustrated with it. Maybe I should check out the AC again to figure out why I liked it the first time.
Depends on what you didn't like about the theatrical cut. If you thought it was slow, then the assembly is lot slower, and possibly an even greater uphill battle.
Be interested to hear what you think if you get round to it.
Quote from: SM on Mar 08, 2012, 05:09:15 AM
Depends on what you didn't like about the theatrical cut. If you thought it was slow, then the assembly is lot slower, and possibly an even greater uphill battle.
Be interested to hear what you think if you get round to it.
Thing is, I remember not struggling so much with the AC when I watched it. I mean, i was confused as hell by the acid burns on newt's tube, but I wasn't as completely frustrated with it as I was with the TC. It wasn't slow acing exactly, but more that anything interesting was over and done with by the first hour.
Quote from: SM on Mar 08, 2012, 05:09:15 AM
Depends on what you didn't like about the theatrical cut. If you thought it was slow, then the assembly is lot slower, and possibly an even greater uphill battle.
Be interested to hear what you think if you get round to it.
Personally, I didn't think the AC was slow but too long. The theatrical cut was the right length but at the same time, left me thinking WTF.
As said multiple times, someone should make a hybrid of the TC and the AC.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 08, 2012, 04:08:49 PM
As said multiple times, someone should make a hybrid of the TC and the AC.
Approved!
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 08, 2012, 02:47:57 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 08, 2012, 05:09:15 AM
Depends on what you didn't like about the theatrical cut. If you thought it was slow, then the assembly is lot slower, and possibly an even greater uphill battle.
Be interested to hear what you think if you get round to it.
Personally, I didn't think the AC was slow but too long. The theatrical cut was the right length but at the same time, left me thinking WTF.
I agree, i prefer the TC as well and it made more sense, plus it has a better Ripley death as it shows the chestburster erupt from her while she is falling.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 08, 2012, 07:31:11 PM
I agree, i prefer the TC as well and it made more sense
Aside from the fact that there's no Super Facehugger to explain the two different impregnations, the fact that Golic just mysteriously disappears, and the near-total excisement of character development to the point that many of the characters just appear and disappear out of nowhere, with no context for their existence other than to be Alien fodder.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 08, 2012, 08:29:17 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 08, 2012, 07:31:11 PM
I agree, i prefer the TC as well and it made more sense
Aside from the fact that there's no Super Facehugger to explain the two different impregnations, the fact that Golic just mysteriously disappears, and the near-total excisement of character development to the point that many of the characters just appear and disappear out of nowhere, with no context for their existence other than to be Alien fodder.
Golic was dragged into a vent.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 08, 2012, 08:51:17 PM
Golic was dragged into a vent.
No, that was Clemens. Ripley runs out of the room with Golic still tied to the bed, and he is never brought up again in the TC.
I think you can probably assume that that's what the theatrical version is implying though. Safest assumption. I remember reading a long time ago on one of the Alien sites (I think the Encyclopedia) that the official death was that he was killed in the Quinitricetilyn (sp?) explosion.
...why in the hell would they let that psycho anywhere around explosives?? ???
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 08, 2012, 08:58:58 PM
I think you can probably assume that that's what the theatrical version is implying though.
No, it clearly grabs Clemens, seeing as Clemens' body is still wrapped in the bloody infirmary curtains that the Alien clearly grabs and drags up through the vent. TC is just a studio hatchet job.
No one's arguing that!
There's no reason to say the Alien didn't come back down and snatch Golic after Ripley ran out though. Why on earth would it just leave him there? That's food. That's more fuel for him to cocoon and turn into eggs, if that indeed was its goal.
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Mar 05, 2012, 05:54:16 PM
And of course Fincher was only 20 something at the time and considered 'artsy fartsy' compared to the established genius of Scott and the Man's Man technical abilities of Cameron. Yeah, just a bad mix.
Sorry, but when Scott made the Duelists he's then won the award for the best directorial debut at the Cannes Festival, that equals to being 'artsy fartsy' in an even more tangible way than whatever loose, vague association you just spat. BTW as I'm typing this I'm having a deja-vu sensation... ??? weird...
I thought Fincher was just considered to be young and inexperienced because he'd only directed music videos. :P
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 08, 2012, 09:25:07 PM
No one's arguing that!
There's no reason to say the Alien didn't come back down and snatch Golic after Ripley ran out though. Why on earth would it just leave him there? That's food. That's more fuel for him to cocoon and turn into eggs, if that indeed was its goal.
This alien never used anyone for hosts and never build a nest or coccoon or hive for some weird reason, only ate. As far as the food, he took the body of Clemens, so he was good with that for the time being.
I think Alien 3 is entirely watchable, but my opinion might be tainted by the fact that I watched it before I watched Aliens many, many years ago, sneaking into my big brothers movie night with his friends. So, the completely illogical placement of an alien aboard the ship, the pre-mature death of characters from Camerons film didn't bother me then.
From what I've watched of the documentary, it must have been a nightmare to get this film realized. Frankly, it's a wonder we got a 'finished' film at all.
Judging the film today and considering its place in the chronology, I agree that the writing and character work is somewhat troubled. But it gets an A for visuals and music.
If I could have my way, I'd wish they had centered the storyline around the survivors of Aliens clashing directly with the company on route back to Earth for various sinister reasons - and throw some alien activity into the mix to make things interesting. I would like the company to finally emerge from the shadows and proxy-agents and take on Ripley and her agenda directly. Oh, one can dream... :D
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 08, 2012, 08:58:58 PM
I think you can probably assume that that's what the theatrical version is implying though. Safest assumption. I remember reading a long time ago on one of the Alien sites (I think the Encyclopedia) that the official death was that he was killed in the Quinitricetilyn (sp?) explosion.
...why in the hell would they let that psycho anywhere around explosives?? ???
Same reason they let any of the others near explosives.
TC assumes Golic was killed in the QTC fire.
Quote from: Eva on Mar 08, 2012, 10:31:39 PM
I think Alien 3 is entirely watchable, but my opinion might be tainted by the fact that I watched it before I watched Aliens many, many years ago, sneaking into my big brothers movie night with his friends. So, the completely illogical placement of an alien aboard the ship, the pre-mature death of characters from Camerons film didn't bother me then.
From what I've watched of the documentary, it must have been a nightmare to get this film realized. Frankly, it's a wonder we got a 'finished' film at all.
Judging the film today and considering its place in the chronology, I agree that the writing and character work is somewhat troubled. But it gets an A for visuals and music.
If I could have my way, I'd wish they had centered the storyline around the survivors of Aliens clashing directly with the company on route back to Earth for various sinister reasons - and throw some alien activity into the mix to make things interesting. I would like the company to finally emerge from the shadows and proxy-agents and take on Ripley and her agenda directly. Oh, one can dream... :D
Eh. I would have had an entire film set inside a massive Pilot ship. Would have been an appropriate conclusion, taking it back to where it started.
Quote from: SM on Mar 08, 2012, 10:34:06 PM
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 08, 2012, 08:58:58 PM
I think you can probably assume that that's what the theatrical version is implying though. Safest assumption. I remember reading a long time ago on one of the Alien sites (I think the Encyclopedia) that the official death was that he was killed in the Quinitricetilyn (sp?) explosion.
...why in the hell would they let that psycho anywhere around explosives?? ???
Same reason they let any of the others near explosives.
TC assumes Golic was killed in the QTC fire.
Yeah, well I think it's safe to say he was viewed a bit differently than the other prisoners. Boggs and Rains clearly didn't like him and considered him to be "crazy" in comparison to the other inmates. Andrews also noted that his crimes were particularly more disturbing than the norm. Even when they went "foraging" or whatever the hell that was it seemed like all they did was make him the pack mule with that backpack. Not like they would have trusted him with more delicate tasks. I really can't see why anyone would have said "Ok, mate. We need one extra body to help us paint the walls with highly flammable toxic shit, you're free to go."
Guess they already knew he WASN'T the killer, but I still don't buy the Alien just leaving him. Even if it didn't take him right after Clemens, there was plenty of time for it to grab him after it killed Andrews while everyone was distracted.
So Aaron has to take smokes off inmates while they're preparing the trap - but Golic isn't allowed near it?
Quote from: SM on Mar 09, 2012, 03:01:31 AM
So Aaron has to take smokes off inmates while they're preparing the trap - but Golic isn't allowed near it?
There's a difference between them just being idiots and not thinking and a ranting maniac. Even if he wasn't a complete psychopath, he'd just witnessed two guys getting ripped apart and I can't see most people wanting someone unstable around unstable materials.
Kinda like...don't take medication and operate heavy equipment. Don't let the raving lunatic near the explosives.
They're all double Y chromos who are prone to antisocial behaviour. Dillon's a multiple rapist/ murderer. Junior, William and Gregor actually did something wrong (unlike Golic) and they were walking around free.
Sure they're all antisocial criminals, fine. The rape is a calculated and planned attack, "wrong" as you said. They were walking around free because Dillon kept it under wraps at his level so Andrews wouldn't find out about it. The guys who planned out and attacked Ripley knew they were wrong, Junior lured the Alien into the mold to redeem himself, not just coincidence. He was pretty much apologizing right there.
Golic comes off as the type of crazy guy who doesn't know he's crazy. I think the other prisoners would probably have admitted to their crimes at this point. Golic probably doesn't even belong in a prison. It doesn't really seem like he thinks he's done wrong. He slashes Arthur's throat and then seeing Arthur's blood spew out cries out in remorse. Moments later he doesn't really seem to care anymore.
I think it's hard to make a case that Golic either isn't more unstable, crazy (whatever word you want to use) than the other inmates. Or that the other inmates are just as crazy as him.
MOD:
Also, while we're on the subject of Double Y Chromosomes:
If they're really ALL violent and antisocial and everyone at that prison was a YY, then why was Clemens incarcerated there for simply getting drunk and making an error that resulted in manslaughter? Doesn't really fit the bill of rapists and murderers. I was also under the impression that Rains, Murphy, Morse, David, and Eric amongst others were not in prison for murder or rape.
Thing is, Golic was walking around free before the Alien attack and he was regarded as little more than a smelly annoyance. After Andrews is taken, it's proven that Golic didn't murder Boggs & Rains. So nothings really changed. No need to keep him locked up - making the scene of Morse letting him go necessary, but kinda silly. (But it would've denied us Morse's great mocking "Aw sorry!"response to Golic's whining ;D )
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 09, 2012, 02:56:55 AM
Guess they already knew he WASN'T the killer, but I still don't buy the Alien just leaving him. Even if it didn't take him right after Clemens, there was plenty of time for it to grab him after it killed Andrews while everyone was distracted.
By that point he had TWO bodies to feast on for some time. Clemens was enough, its just that Andrews had a bad fortune of standing right under the vent shaft when the runner was probably taking that route from infirmary to his place of rest
QuoteIf they're really ALL violent and antisocial and everyone at that prison was a YY, then why was Clemens incarcerated there for simply getting drunk and making an error that resulted in manslaughter? Doesn't really fit the bill of rapists and murderers. I was also under the impression that Rains, Murphy, Morse, David, and Eric amongst others were not in prison for murder or rape.
The research on XYY isn't settled. Some say they're automatically prone to antisocial behaviour, some say it's not that simple. Clemens may have been double Y - he did have a morphine addiction after all.
And no, they weren't all in for murder and rape. Morse was in for armed robbery, Murphy was in for grand theft space vehicle etc.
I just can't buy that after seeing the state he was in after witnessing those two deaths, Dillon would have wanted Golic to be released. Aaron certainly didn't want to but it's not like anyone would listen to him without Andrews or Clemens to back him up.
I don't really believe Dillon would have considered him to be an efficient worker after that type of trauma, at least not until he cooled off. I mean come on, Morse was guarding him all the way up UNTIL they captured the Alien, which means no one trusted him to be unshackled even after he'd been proved innocent. :P
Which doesn't really add up to be honest.
Well it's clear that Golic wasn't very popular around the prison, so I guess they all thought it was a convenient way of just keeping him segregated from the group. There's also the fact that he seemed to be psychologically disturbed by his incident with the Alien - perhaps they also deemed him to be too unstable and a hindrance/threat to their survival efforts.
I have to admit though, for the longest time I always assumed that it was Golic that was dragged up into the vent after Clemens bites it...
Well I think you can see that shower curtain go up can't you?
Yeah... observance fail on my behalf ::)
I will have to watch that scene again because i too assumed it was golic that got dragged up.
There's no time for the Alien to nab Golic in the TC. It backs away from Ripley and is away up the vent.
And the extended scene in the AC is just a horribly edited mess.
The AC was too messy, some scenes were ok but i prefer the TC anyday.
Overall, I prefer the AC. Character arks were more well rounded, some further character development, and more scenes with the Runner. The material with Golic also made his absence less confusing. Death kinda does that.
However, the dog burster and the final plunge into the lead are better in the TC.
Which character arcs - apart from Golic?
I doubt most people would recognise Junior as Ripley's would-be rapist in the fire sequence.
I did right away.
I was mainly referring to Golic's ark, Morse getting more scenes (your surviving cast member needs better exposure), and the scene where the prisoners decide to gather in the furnace. That scene offered just a little bit more character to them, helping you realize this place means a lot to them.
I know Morse was not fleshed out nearly enough in either cut of the film, but the AC offers a little bit more.
That 'gather in the furnace' scene was single most boring and redundant scene in the film, and rightfully one of the first to hit the cutting room floor.
And Morse is plenty fleshed out for a supporting character in both cuts. He's the most prominent prisoner after Dillon.
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 12:59:17 AM
That 'gather in the furnace' scene was single most boring and redundant scene in the film, and rightfully one of the first to hit the cutting room floor.
And Morse is plenty fleshed out for a supporting character in both cuts. He's the most prominent prisoner after Dillon.
Are you guys talking about the gathering in the assembly hall scene? Because if that's what you mean then I agree that it's a f**king piece of shit and is probably the only scene added that I hate with a passion. "Hey, let's go meet up here to realize that we need to meet up somewhere else." Yeah, you can tell the script was never finished.
QuoteI doubt most people would recognise Junior as Ripley's would-be rapist in the fire sequence.
And, the Assembly Cut isn't for "most people."
Well, I'm in the minority on a few things.
I was unaware this scene was so despised but that helped me give an unbiased view. Certainly not needed in the final cut, I will agree.
The scene I could have done without is the autospy scene.
I don't mind Newt being dead, but that whole scene seemed like a rather pointless attempt to hammer it in "Yep. She's dead." Plus the fact that they pitch the bodies into the furnace shortly after would have killed anything growing inside either one, so why not jump directly to that? Cut out the middle man and save some time.
I will give the scene this. It was handled tastefully, focusing not on the gore, but rather Ripley's grief and how hard it was for her to watch. I think the only issue with removing it would be pacing issues.
Couldn't see a problem with the autopsy.
Quote
And, the Assembly Cut isn't for "most people."
Which shows how easy it would've been to cut all that stuff out, since you can barely tell them apart anyway,
I think both the gathering scene and the autopsy scene are not needed.
Both establish a point that is either shortly resolved afterwards, or say something that is already evident.
The autospy scene was about Newt being dead and needing to make sure she wasn't a host, but she is thrown into the fornace shortly after, thus making this scene not entirely necessary. It is more of a character moment for Ripley.
The gathering scene is about how the prisoners are disorganized, but that is already evident as well.
I can understand the gathering scene to be considered reduntant. It has been around a year since I watched the AC, so I may change my viewpoint the next time I watch it.
I will agree that the autopsy scene is the much better done of the two, so I would have to chose it if my arm was being twisted.
The autopsy was needed to further develop Ripley, her relationship with Clemens, and Clemens relationship with Andrews.
Plus it helped with despatching Newt properly. It would've got some people back to see Ripley's grief after Hicks and Newt were unceremoniously killed off in the first 5 minutes.
The other scene served no purpose at all.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Mar 13, 2012, 01:14:22 AM
The scene I could have done without is the autospy scene.
I don't mind Newt being dead, but that whole scene seemed like a rather pointless attempt to hammer it in "Yep. She's dead." Plus the fact that they pitch the bodies into the furnace shortly after would have killed anything growing inside either one, so why not jump directly to that? Cut out the middle man and save some time.
I believe thats one of the few gripes I have with Alien 3. I think this scene is sick. It doesnt have to be there, and an autopsy of a child, or should I say, a very violent autopsy of a child is really not in place and very disturbing. Also comes to mind ADI's approach to this. They made it into a joke, they were thrilled to have a puppet of a dead body of a girl, making postcards with mutilated corpses of Hicks and Newt and just laughing about it and having great fun during production it seemed. Theyre like juvenile teenagers having great fun with gore, like "wow man, that was cool, look at his head exploding, that was awesome!". Which is a great contrast to adult, level headed people like Stan Winston, who, with a very serious and taken face, commented how he hated doing the scenes for T2 with blowing up burned corpses of children. He said it was very disturbing and hated working on it and one of the toughest moment of any production hed done
Quote from: TheMonolith on Mar 13, 2012, 01:27:55 AM
I think both the gathering scene and the autopsy scene are not needed.
Which gathering, the one in the beginning when Morse comments on taking a vow of celibacy?
The autopsy scene was Ripley trying to find out about the alien - sure it was there to develop the relationship Ripley and Clemens as well.
But the plot purpose of it was Ripley trying to work out if Newt had an alien inside of her. For that, I really don't get why Ripley was so insistent on cremating them. Once she was satisifed that Newt didn't have an alien, I don't see why the bodies needed to be cremated. It is that scene, plot wise, that doesn't make sense - not the the autopsy.
Granted the cremation scene is important thematically I suppose but plot wise it doesn't make sense.
The relationship with Clemens was already developed. he was the first one she met, he was giving her a tour, he was with her when she griefed over Newt's cryotube. All it would take would be Ripley insisting to cremate the bodies now and then, and then Clemens having an argument with Andrews trying to convince him to do that. Bam, sickening autopsy of a child is not needed. And especially not an autopsy where you rip her chest open with cracking sounds and cut it like a meat
Quote from: stephen on Mar 13, 2012, 03:31:02 AM
The autopsy scene was Ripley trying to find out about the alien - sure it was there to develop the relationship Ripley and Clemens as well.
But the plot purpose of it was Ripley trying to work out if Newt had an alien inside of her. For that, I really don't get why Ripley was so insistent on cremating them. Once she was satisifed that Newt didn't have an alien, I don't see why the bodies needed to be cremated. It is that scene, plot wise, that doesn't make sense - not the the autopsy.
Granted the cremation scene is important thematically I suppose but plot wise it doesn't make sense.
I'd put the cremation was 'the only way to be sure'. Making sure there was nothing left for the Company to prod and probe.
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 04:01:41 AM
Quote from: stephen on Mar 13, 2012, 03:31:02 AM
The autopsy scene was Ripley trying to find out about the alien - sure it was there to develop the relationship Ripley and Clemens as well.
But the plot purpose of it was Ripley trying to work out if Newt had an alien inside of her. For that, I really don't get why Ripley was so insistent on cremating them. Once she was satisifed that Newt didn't have an alien, I don't see why the bodies needed to be cremated. It is that scene, plot wise, that doesn't make sense - not the the autopsy.
Granted the cremation scene is important thematically I suppose but plot wise it doesn't make sense.
I'd put the cremation was 'the only way to be sure'. Making sure there was nothing left for the Company to prod and probe.
Perhaps but it doesn't really come across that way at all.
And also if it truely was "the only way to be sure" Ripley afterwards doesn't seem all that concerned with anything. She even screws the damn doctor. To go from the autopsy and cremation to that was just wierd.
I get the autopsy scene. I just don't buy the cremation scene or the need for it (plotwise). Just doesn't flow properly for me.
This is of course completely subjective, but I thought the autopsy scene was vital for the film. That scene (and the burial by cremation) brought emotional closure to Newts character and her pseudo mother-daughter relationship with Ripley. The character of Hicks and his violent demise on the other hand, got completely overlooked by the film - it is almost as if he never existed at all.
There's also the very unsettling aspect of watching an autopsy of a child, hearing the ribcage crack when Clemens opens her up etc. and imagining inside your mind the gory details we are not shown. It sort of sets the tone for the film right there.
That's a good point. Hicks was probably the closest Ripley got to any adult since the man she had her daughter with...or Dallas?
And that's another good point. I think if they actually would've kept the full autopsy scene, it would've just looked goofy and fake. Everyone makes it sound so scary and gross but it probably would've just been laughable.
I'm not against the scene at all, it fits perfectly within the film. Alien 3 is the most gory and violent of the first three films, so it fits right on.
QuoteAnd also if it truely was "the only way to be sure" Ripley afterwards doesn't seem all that concerned with anything. She even screws the damn doctor. To go from the autopsy and cremation to that was just wierd.
What does she have to be concerned about?
QuoteI just don't buy the cremation scene or the need for it (plotwise).
It sees off Newt and Hicks, while avoiding a deus ex machina at the end.
You guys frustrate me to no end! Nitpicking everything about Alien 3, portraying and interpreting everything in the most negative way possible. Turning things upside down and changing your set of rules just to bash the poor movie, whereas Aliens can do no wrong. Everything is excused with Cameron-friendly explanations - forgive and forget. It's so biased.
Just speak your minds: Your love for Aliens have "blinded" you enough not to recognize an ambitious, unique and great movie when you see it. You didn't get Aliens 2. You got a movie going the opposite direction of Aliens (thank god for that!). So what? Instead you got a bold (...and bald) movie going to places few sci-fi movies have gone before. A beautiful poetic (...yet very gritty) movie with one of the most poignant and emotionally heavy endings I've seen in the genre (honestly, can you ask for a better ending for the Alien trilogy?). Sure, the movie is flawed (like the infamous mysterious egg) and had a lot of problems, but you really can't tell that by watching the movie. I just don't understand the hatred you people have for Alien 3. Sure, it might not be your kind of film, and it offed Cameron's characters, but why going out on a limb to discredit it?
I just don't get it.
Because any alien film that isn't direct by scott or cameron is going to get hate ::)
Yesss, that is the reason certain people don't like Alien3.
Well i ain't blinded since i like alien 3 and i ain't obsessed with any of the alien films or movies in general but i am well aware of the alien 3 flaws and i know its mostly or completely down to the production problems and the studio, all in all its a salvageable and watch-able film and quite decent but inferior to the first two. Fans of aliens have more reasons to hate it as it killed off hicks and newt who the fans liked. Its better than A:R and the AVP films though in my opinion. People don't love aliens because it was directed by cameron, they love it for the story, action and the tense atmosphere, its a good film.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 13, 2012, 08:04:14 PM
Sure, the movie is flawed (like the infamous mysterious egg) and had a lot of problems, but you really can't tell that by watching the movie.
That I fully agree with, although I dont think it has A LOT of problems. I also agree its some nitpicking most of the time, then again I think any flaws or criticism regarding the first 3 movies is nitpicking because theyre such excellent stories. What I disagree with is that some people are blindly liking Aliens (I dont see it in this thread and their arguments deflecting criticism are pretty solid) and that anyone is really trying hard to discredit the movie. Im interested in this thread since personally i dont understand why people dislike the movie, as I myself dont see much to dislike it for and the issues are rather minor and unnoticeable if you go with the flow and focus on the story
Well Alien 3 is a damn good alien film really, and it's defently up there with Alien and Aliens. I pretty much can't find much to dislike about it. Hate is too stronger of a word. So i'm not going to say i hate things about Alien 3. Since i don't hate Alien 3. But for an example i dislike the fact that they killed off Hicks and Newt. But then again i heard a old rumor how sigourney weaver wanted the movie to herself.
Alien 3 has my favourite score, and some of the best scenes EVER in movies! The autopsy of Newt is so beautifully shot. Sigourney (with her bloodshot contact lens) gives her best performance in the entire series.
I love the fact both Newt and Hicks were killed off. The tragedy of this loss is perfectly congruent with the REAL tone of the series - impending doom and annihilation from something we're not meant to understand! Aliens is fun, don't get me wrong, a great episode - but for sheer horror, both Alien and Alien3 nail it.
Finally, what really fascinates me is WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN with Alien 3. Vincent Ward's vision would have been one of the incredible sci-fi films of all time, right up there with Bladerunner, 2001 and the original Alien...had the studio been courageous enough!
QuoteI just don't understand the hatred you people have for Alien 3. Sure, it might not be your kind of film, and it offed Cameron's characters, but why going out on a limb to discredit it?
I just don't get it.
56 pages of people saying why they don't like it - what's not to "get"?
It's writ large page after page.
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 07:48:51 PM
QuoteAnd also if it truely was "the only way to be sure" Ripley afterwards doesn't seem all that concerned with anything. She even screws the damn doctor. To go from the autopsy and cremation to that was just wierd.
What does she have to be concerned about?
Why did she do the autopsy again?
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 07:48:51 PMQuoteI just don't buy the cremation scene or the need for it (plotwise).
It sees off Newt and Hicks, while avoiding a deus ex machina at the end.
As I said, plotwise it doesn't make sense.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 13, 2012, 08:04:14 PM
You guys frustrate me to no end! Nitpicking everything about Alien 3, portraying and interpreting everything in the most negative way possible. Turning things upside down and changing your set of rules just to bash the poor movie, whereas Aliens can do no wrong. Everything is excused with Cameron-friendly explanations - forgive and forget. It's so biased.
Dude - GET OVER IT.
I and many other people here have explained there reasons for not liking the movie (or parts of it). It has nothing to do with Aliens - and I seem to recall that there is a thread criticising Aliens as well. And what about any post or thread that has ever criticised Alien Resurrection, AVP or AVPR?
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 13, 2012, 08:04:14 PMJust speak your minds: Your love for Aliens have "blinded" you
Your hatred of Aliens and Cameron have blinded you.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 13, 2012, 08:04:14 PMenough not to recognize an ambitious, unique and great movie when you see it.
Ambitious, perhaps.
Unique, maybe.
Great - in your opinion.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 13, 2012, 08:04:14 PMYou didn't get Aliens 2. You got a movie going the opposite direction of Aliens (thank god for that!). So what?
This thread is what 57 pages long with many detailed explainations as to why people didn't like the film - you don't have to agree with them, but please stop telling us why we don't like it. We've told you why we don't like it.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 13, 2012, 08:04:14 PMInstead you got a bold (...and bald) movie going to places few sci-fi movies have gone before.
Just because a movie is bold and just because a movie is doing or going places others haven't doesn't automatically make it a good film.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 13, 2012, 08:04:14 PMA beautiful poetic (...yet very gritty) movie with one of the most poignant and emotionally heavy endings I've seen in the genre
In your opinion - which your entitled too.
I and others disagree.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 13, 2012, 08:04:14 PM(honestly, can you ask for a better ending for the Alien trilogy?).
Yes.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 13, 2012, 08:04:14 PMSure, the movie is flawed (like the infamous mysterious egg) and had a lot of problems, but you really can't tell that by watching the movie.
Yes I can.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 13, 2012, 08:04:14 PMI just don't understand the hatred you people have for Alien 3. Sure, it might not be your kind of film, and it offed Cameron's characters, but why going out on a limb to discredit it?
I don't
hate the film. I can watch it and enjoy it on a certain level. I think it is beautifully shot - probably the most well shot movie in the series, and the score is fantastic. I also think it has the scariest scene in any of the films - where the alien comes up to her just after killing clemens and snarls in her face - sends a shiver down my spine every time.
I just think the movie is seriously flawed, in my opinion thematically, scriptwise, plotwise, characterwise. You don't have to agree with me but stop telling me why I don't like it.
QuoteI just don't get it.
If after 57 pages you still don't get it perhaps you never will. You like the film. Fine. I'm glad you like.
Quote from: stephen on Mar 13, 2012, 10:46:10 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 07:48:51 PM
QuoteAnd also if it truely was "the only way to be sure" Ripley afterwards doesn't seem all that concerned with anything. She even screws the damn doctor. To go from the autopsy and cremation to that was just wierd.
What does she have to be concerned about?
Why did she do the autopsy again?
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 07:48:51 PMQuoteI just don't buy the cremation scene or the need for it (plotwise).
It sees off Newt and Hicks, while avoiding a deus ex machina at the end.
As I said, plotwise it doesn't make sense.
1) She does the autopsy and finds nothing. The bodies are then destroyed. Ergo she's convinced there's no Alien infestation.
2) Simply repeating what you said before doesn't actually change or add anything. I explained why it fits plotwise. And you can add to that the juxtaposition of Newt and Hicks death with the birth of the Alien. It's all part of telling the story in a cinematic way.
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 10:56:43 PM
Quote from: stephen on Mar 13, 2012, 10:46:10 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 07:48:51 PM
QuoteAnd also if it truely was "the only way to be sure" Ripley afterwards doesn't seem all that concerned with anything. She even screws the damn doctor. To go from the autopsy and cremation to that was just wierd.
What does she have to be concerned about?
Why did she do the autopsy again?
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 07:48:51 PMQuoteI just don't buy the cremation scene or the need for it (plotwise).
It sees off Newt and Hicks, while avoiding a deus ex machina at the end.
As I said, plotwise it doesn't make sense.
1) She does the autopsy and finds nothing. The bodies are then destroyed. Ergo she's convinced there's no Alien infestation.
2) Simply repeating what you said before doesn't actually change or add anything. I explained why it fits plotwise. And you can add to that the juxtaposition of Newt and Hicks death with the birth of the Alien. It's all part of telling the story in a cinematic way.
1) But WHY cremate them? as I said - she did the autopsy on newt and found nothing - there's no reason (plotwise) to do the cremation - certainly no reason for Ripley to INSIST on the cremation the way she does. She seems awfully scared about there being an alien and thats why she does the autopsy (and finds nothing) and why she insists on a cremation?
2) I already said plotwise it doesn't make sense - but thematically (and to borrow your term cinematically) it kinda fits.
It's as simple as 'being sure'. Nothing more.
She found evidence of Alien interference, and while she's the resident living expert, her knowledge of the Aliens is limited and wanted nothing of them to spread (who knew what the acid might have continued to do to Hicks?) under the guise of the cholera story. So she made sure. That's all that's needed plotwise.
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 11:07:57 PM
It's as simple as 'being sure'. Nothing more.
She found evidence of Alien interference, and while she's the resident living expert, her knowledge of the Aliens is limited and wanted nothing of them to spread (who knew what the acid might have continued to do to Hicks?) under the guise of the cholera story. So she made sure. That's all that's needed plotwise.
I don't buy it.
Heres where I personally dont really know an answer as to why the movie is disliked. Here are the most common arguments:
1. They killed Hicks and Newt
Thats a part of the story but doesnt make the movie a bad one. Sure, we bonded with the characters and didnt like the sight of them dying in a horrible crash, but thats part of the story and mood setter for this installment in the series. Plus, it presented a new challenge for Ripley, who lost everything twice by then and became completely drained.
2. Its too depressing
Again, it doesnt make a movie good or bad, it just a type of story. Depressing does not equal bad, nor does it equal good, its personal preference
3. faceless characters
I believe the characters that actually contribute to the story are fleshed out very well, which is a great accomplishment because theyre all bald and dressed the same way, yet its their personality that makes them distinctive. Morse, David, Golic, Dillon and on and on. The alien meat is faceless, but with so many prisoners why would we want everyone fleshed out?
4. magic egg
Lets not kid ourselves, the egg is there cause the movie needed an alien. As to how it got there or why in such position or where it was, look- its a movie, I know the first two took a great care in details but its no crime at all to take some cinematic liberties for storytelling purposes
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 13, 2012, 11:11:00 PM
3. faceless characters
I believe the characters that actually contribute to the story are fleshed out very well, which is a great accomplishment because theyre all bald and dressed the same way, yet its their personality that makes them distinctive. Morse, David, Golic, Dillon and on and on. The alien meat is faceless, but with so many prisoners why would we want everyone fleshed out?
In a movie like this, there are always going to be characters there just to fill in the numbers and are more or less there to get killed off. Happens in a lot of films, good and bad.
The Lost World being another fine example.
It's rare that characters are as faceless as in Alien3. Making them all bald isn't going to make them recognisable, and making them criminals isn't going to endear them very much. Therefore we're not going to care when they inevitably get offed by the Alien.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 13, 2012, 11:11:00 PM
Heres where I personally dont really know an answer as to why the movie is disliked. Here are the most common arguments:
1. They killed Hicks and Newt
Thats a part of the story but doesnt make the movie a bad one. Sure, we bonded with the characters and didnt like the sight of them dying in a horrible crash, but thats part of the story and mood setter for this installment in the series. Plus, it presented a new challenge for Ripley, who lost everything twice by then and became completely drained.
2. Its too depressing
Again, it doesnt make a movie good or bad, it just a type of story. Depressing does not equal bad, nor does it equal good, its personal preference
3. faceless characters
I believe the characters that actually contribute to the story are fleshed out very well, which is a great accomplishment because theyre all bald and dressed the same way, yet its their personality that makes them distinctive. Morse, David, Golic, Dillon and on and on. The alien meat is faceless, but with so many prisoners why would we want everyone fleshed out?
4. magic egg
Lets not kid ourselves, the egg is there cause the movie needed an alien. As to how it got there or why in such position or where it was, look- its a movie, I know the first two took a great care in details but its no crime at all to take some cinematic liberties for storytelling purposes
You DO know the answer, because you've just provided them.
You might be able to rationalise/ ignore poor storytelling, but others can't or won't. Hence the reason they don't like it.
It's pretty simple.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Mar 13, 2012, 11:13:58 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 13, 2012, 11:11:00 PM
3. faceless characters
I believe the characters that actually contribute to the story are fleshed out very well, which is a great accomplishment because theyre all bald and dressed the same way, yet its their personality that makes them distinctive. Morse, David, Golic, Dillon and on and on. The alien meat is faceless, but with so many prisoners why would we want everyone fleshed out?
In a movie like this, there are always going to be characters there just to fill in the numbers and are more or less there to get killed off. Happens in a lot of films, good and bad.
Right, exactly. there has to be a canon fodder in every movie that features more than a few characters
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 11:19:07 PM
You DO know the answer, because you've just provided them.
You might be able to rationalise/ ignore poor storytelling, but others can't or won't. Hence the reason they don't like it.
It's pretty simple.
But none of them are an example of poor storytelling. perhaps the circumstances of the appearance of the eggs are, but all the other one are just a matter of taste or agreeing with decisions within the story, not poor storytelling
Well, trying to flesh out every prisoner would require a four hour film.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Mar 13, 2012, 11:25:40 PM
Well, trying to flesh out every prisoner would require a four hour film.
And would be pointless, considering that those were just story extras for alien to have someone to kill
I think they call them "Redshirts".
No one is suggesting you need to flesh out every prisoner. Alien3 did enough with the principal and supporting characters (Ripley, Clemens, Dillon, Andrews, Aaron, Morse and maybe throw in Golic depending on the version). Clemens and Andrews are dead by the half way point, and no one liked Andrews anyway. The others all survived until the climax. Meaning we have nearly 20 deaths of people we can't tell apart and wouldn't care for if we could and therefore they don't have any real emotional impact. They needed something to make them all different. Even if it's only very slightly. Can most people remember Wierzbowski? No - but at least they remember the name. Frost, Dietrich, Drake, Apone - all were just meatbags like the prisoners. But they each got a moment here and there to endear them to the audience.
Boggs and Rains had an early scene with Golic - next time we see them they die. Murphy gets a scene with Frank/ Spike - next scene he dies. None of these characters are especially likeable. Compare it to someone like Dillon - people cared when he bought it, and it wasn't just because his extra melanin set him apart.
QuoteBut none of them are an example of poor storytelling. perhaps the circumstances of the appearance of the eggs are, but all the other one are just a matter of taste or agreeing with decisions within the story, not poor storytelling
That's just one aspect.
If your whole premise is terribly contrived and has extremely big consequences - it's going to piss people off and you need to work hard to get them back. Instead Fincher went the other way and pissed them off even more. A lot of people hated it at the time, and still hate it today.
I don't why others pretend they can't understand this.
My head's in a whirlwind right now, only partly because I've had a few.
On these characters being faceless: Alien 3 is the closest to a slasher film that any of the Alien films are I think, and I can still distinguish all the bald British guys easier than anyone in any Jason, Freddy, or Michael movie.
On people hating Alien 3: Tell it to someone who's never heard anyone "preach it brother!" like you have. (and use parenthesis less in your posts, jesus!)
On Ripley demanding the cremation: Ripley doesn't know shit about Aliens. Yeah I'll type that again if you want. Ripley witnessed nothing but a little monster coming out of Kane in Alien. That's it. Other than that she got raped by a robot, saw a couple dead bodies, and blew the Alien out the airlock. After that she sat in a big car while a bunch of people got killed, fought off a facehugger which she was only scared of because one had dropped onto her shoulder 60 years ago, blew a bunch of Aliens away in MedLab, blew a bunch of Aliens away in the hive. First time she ever saw an Alien egg in person was when she was rescuing Newt, first time she new Facehuggers came out of them. Killed the Queen because it was giant and scary and was on the Sulaco.
f**king of course she wanted those bodies burned to ashes. She had no idea what the hell was going to happen next, much like audiences. :-X
The best way of killing something is to burn it...unless it's some kind of mystical fire demon.
Quote from: QuantumSheep on Mar 13, 2012, 11:43:49 PM
The best way of killing something is to burn it...unless it's some kind of mystical fire demon.
Or Mad Cow...
Alien 3s reputation is growing.
I believe SM said it best. Underrated by the general public but overrated by fans.
I like the cremation scene. It remains one of my favorite scenes in the series.
My argument was she should have just pitched them in right away without the autopsy.
In retropsect, perhaps this argument was made a bit hastily.
Yeah, I don't know. If she thought an Alien was going to pop out and kill the guy who was doing the autopsy...what did she think she was going to do in response? Relive the Nostromo tragedy again? Kind of weird.
Quote from: SM on Mar 13, 2012, 11:37:52 PM
No one is suggesting you need to flesh out every prisoner. Alien3 did enough with the principal and supporting characters (Ripley, Clemens, Dillon, Andrews, Aaron, Morse and maybe throw in Golic depending on the version). Clemens and Andrews are dead by the half way point,
people like Drake, Frost and Apone were dead very early on, despite being interesting and likeable characters too
QuoteNone of these characters are especially likeable.
I dont think theyre suppose to be, theyre rapists and murderers. I think only Dillon is the one who truly turned around. 85 and Clemens were also likeable, and 85's death is very dramatic
QuoteCan most people remember Wierzbowski? No - but at least they remember the name. Frost, Dietrich, Drake, Apone - all were just meatbags like the prisoners. But they each got a moment here and there to endear them to the audience.
There were more prisoners than marines. Marines also had meatbags like Crowe and Wierzbowski, and so the Prison had a bigger share of them because of the larger numbers of the characters. Its a colony basically, you cant (and why would you) make everyone memorable?
QuoteQuoteBut none of them are an example of poor storytelling. perhaps the circumstances of the appearance of the eggs are, but all the other one are just a matter of taste or agreeing with decisions within the story, not poor storytelling
That's just one aspect.
If your whole premise is terribly contrived and has extremely big consequences - it's going to piss people off and you need to work hard to get them back. Instead Fincher went the other way and pissed them off even more. A lot of people hated it at the time, and still hate it today.
In many sequels the circumstances are contrived in order for the sequel to have a story, thats just natural so in this regard I dont think its that much different than some sequels to other movies. I also dont think he wanted to piss people off, rather to take them on a route they didnt expect and take the story into a new territory
Quotepeople like Drake, Frost and Apone were dead very early on, despite being interesting and likeable characters too
They weren't interesting- we know next to nothing about them - just likeable. And that's all you need.
And I said as much myself.
QuoteI dont think theyre suppose to be, theyre rapists and murderers.
Thus illustrating the point that no one's going to give a shit when they die.
QuoteI think only Dillon is the one who truly turned around. 85 and Clemens were also likeable, and 85's death is very dramatic
Aaron only becomes likeable because of his death. Prior to that he's a fairly pathetic idiot.
QuoteThere were more prisoners than marines. Marines also had meatbags like Crowe and Wierzbowski, and so the Prison had a bigger share of them because of the larger numbers of the characters. Its a colony basically, you cant (and why would you) make everyone memorable?
And yet Wierzbowski had a prominent fansite dedicated to him. The problem isn't the numbers. You can't give them all equal screen time and nor should you. However, you needed to give a couple of the supporting characters a bit more to do (preferably ones who didn't attack Ripley - David and Kevin would do) in order to make the audience care. Frank would've been an ideal choice because he's essentially the first one with any real screen time.
Once again - having them all grubby bald Poms makes them difficult to tell apart on first viewing. And if you didn't like the first viewing, you're unlikely to go back and watch it again.
QuoteIn many sequels the circumstances are contrived in order for the sequel to have a story, thats just natural so in this regard I dont think its that much different than some sequels to other movies. I also dont think he wanted to piss people off, rather to take them on a route they didnt expect and take the story into a new territory
There's no black and white on contrivances. Some are easy to accept (Aliens) and others aren't (Alien3). They should be applauded for taking the road less travelled - but anyone who's surprised that a lot of people didn't like it, has their head in the sand.
Well said SM.
I've read all 58 pages of this thread and a lot of people made very good points in favor of Alien3. Unfortunately, I still hate it.
A lot of people also made some decent criticisms as well.
I kinds think the characters in Alien 3 are likable like the ones in Snatch, or in Predators. They're all horrible, reprehensible people, yet many are entertaining in some way. I've personally never had a problem with all the bald people, I'm good with faces, but I get where people come from.
Quote from: Ash 937 on Mar 14, 2012, 05:15:11 AMI've read all 58 pages of this thread and a lot of people made very good points in favor of Alien3.
You did a commendable job ;)
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2012, 05:17:35 AMQuote from: stephen on Mar 14, 2012, 03:59:04 AM
Well said SM.
I thought so. ;D
Yes, convincing arguments, as always! :)
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 14, 2012, 10:03:37 AMI kinds think the characters in Alien 3 are likable like the ones in Snatch, or in Predators. They're all horrible, reprehensible people, yet many are entertaining in some way.
In what way, if I may ask?
And, for the start, what was the necessity to have 25+extra bald heads in A^3, if they could have perfectly dealt with a less number of prisoners?.. Well, I have a conjecture, which is to deliberately made the film gorier, just want to gather others' opinions.
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2012, 03:56:56 AM
Quotepeople like Drake, Frost and Apone were dead very early on, despite being interesting and likeable characters too
They weren't interesting- we know next to nothing about them - just likeable. And that's all you need.
Making likeable characters out of high penalty prison would be very cheesy and movie cliche. Those people are garbage who raped or killed. Making one of them as the only one who truly changed is more natural. Plus we also like Clemens and 85 (whi plays the role of Lambert & Hudson), and Morse is funny
QuoteThus illustrating the point that no one's going to give a shit when they die.
Right, but theres plenty of characters in most horrors and movies that we dont know and are just meatbags
QuoteAaron only becomes likeable because of his death. Prior to that he's a fairly pathetic idiot.
he came off as that, but he wasnt a bad guy. And again, he played the same role as Lambert and Hudson - being the voice of the audience, the scared, panicking side
QuoteThere's no black and white on contrivances. Some are easy to accept (Aliens) and others aren't (Alien3). They should be applauded for taking the road less travelled
The script was written on the spot, there was no time for intricate explanations. The egg was there, audience assumes the Queen left it, thats it. The problems in details only
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 13, 2012, 11:41:43 PM
My head's in a whirlwind right now, only partly because I've had a few.
On these characters being faceless: Alien 3 is the closest to a slasher film that any of the Alien films are I think, and I can still distinguish all the bald British guys easier than anyone in any Jason, Freddy, or Michael movie.
I'd label Rez as the slasher film of the Alien films. It's the bloodiest of the four and contains dark humour.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 14, 2012, 03:11:35 PM
The script was written on the spot, there was no time for intricate explanations. The egg was there, audience assumes the Queen left it, thats it. The problems in details only
Those are some pretty huge details. But the writing on the spot wasn't the problem, as mystery eggs and magic Aliens appear in every iteration of the script, from Gibson-Hill/Giler, from 1987-1991. Four years to come up with a logical scenario.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 14, 2012, 03:56:43 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 14, 2012, 03:11:35 PM
The script was written on the spot, there was no time for intricate explanations. The egg was there, audience assumes the Queen left it, thats it. The problems in details only
Those are some pretty huge details. But the writing on the spot wasn't the problem, as mystery eggs and magic Aliens appear in every iteration of the script, from Gibson-Hill/Giler, from 1987-1991. Four years to come up with a logical scenario.
Nothing compared to why W&Y waited for 57 years to investigate the derelict.
I think Val explained it pretty thoroughly in his latest blog entry on Ash
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 14, 2012, 04:13:24 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 14, 2012, 03:56:43 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 14, 2012, 03:11:35 PM
The script was written on the spot, there was no time for intricate explanations. The egg was there, audience assumes the Queen left it, thats it. The problems in details only
Those are some pretty huge details. But the writing on the spot wasn't the problem, as mystery eggs and magic Aliens appear in every iteration of the script, from Gibson-Hill/Giler, from 1987-1991. Four years to come up with a logical scenario.
Nothing compared to why W&Y waited for 57 years to investigate the derelict.
Which is why everyone complains about it. Except they don't. Scott explained that WY didn't know about the Alien.
This particular corporation didn't have any preconceived notion that an alien would be found on this mission, much less the particular alien that is brought onto the ship. The idea of bringing it back would not have been on the minds of the corporation executives when they first received the alien transmission. They just had high expectations when they ordered the Nostromo to investigate - it was purely out of curiosity.Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 14, 2012, 04:23:15 PM
I think Val explained it pretty thoroughly in his latest blog entry on Ash
Still, he's deflecting and says nothing about A3's hole, which is the subject at hand.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 14, 2012, 03:11:50 PM
I'd label Rez as the slasher film of the Alien films. It's the bloodiest of the four and contains dark humour.
All of the Alien films follow the Monster-in-the-Basement formula;
Alien was inspired in some aspects by
Halloween (a slasher film).
Some?
The entire final act of Alien follows the final act of Halloween note for note. The only thing missing is a stand in for Pleasence.
Said 'some' to play it safe; I have never seen Halloween.
That, and Myers got 'blown out of the goddamn airlock'?
;D
Well, Alien was a a story that has been told numerous times before. spacehsip getting a signal on distance planet, landing to investigate, parasite getting onboard, killing them one after another, no weapons, ending with monster being blown into space. But its about HOW you tell the story that makes the difference
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 14, 2012, 06:45:41 PM
Said 'some' to play it safe; I have never seen Halloween.
That, and Myers got 'blown out of the goddamn airlock'?
;D
Both movies end with the monster getting shot by a projectile weapon and falling out of a door, and that is the last you see of them. At the end of Halloween, Michael gets shot by a revolver and falls out of a door and off a balcony. In Alien, the alien gets harpooned out the airlock door and out into space.
Even several of the shots in these scenes are virturally identical.
That is just the beginning of the similarities of the climax.
Alien's climax however was scripted before Halloween was written, filmed, or released. Serendipitous similarities, on that one.
Really?
Suprising. A point by point break down really shows how close the two endings are.
And when I say close. I mean really close.
1, male and female characters wander off alone
(Bob and Lynda in Halloween, Parker and Lambert in Alien)
2, the male is killed first when the monster picks them up and dispatches them
3, the female is killed second.
4, the main character hears the female killed over a speaker system
(a speaker phone in Halloween, the loud speaker in Alien)
5, goes to their location to see if they are okay
(across the street in Halloween and down the hall in Alien)
6, and finds their bodies positioned in a macabre manner.
(In a bedroom in Halloween, in the coolant room in Alien)
7, the character rushes to escape the carnage
(back across the street in Halloween and to the shuttle in Alien)
8, only for the monster to confront them
(hiding behind a couch in Halloween, standing at the airlock in Alien)
9, and suffer a false death.
(a sewing pin to the neck in Halloween, the Nostromo explosion in Alien)
10, thinking everything is over, the main character lets down their guard, only to be confronted by the monster who was hiding in plain sight.
(Walking up the stairs in Halloween, hiding in the pipes in Alien)
11, the main character hides in a closet
12, and uses the contents of the closet to defend herself
(a coat hanger in Halloween and a harpoon gun in Alien)
13, and the monster is shot out of a door, ending the film.
Hmm
Quote from: TheMonolith on Mar 14, 2012, 07:57:38 PM
Really?
Suprising. A point by point break down really shows how close the two endings are.
Really. It's an interesting coincidence. Alien's first draft was finished in 1975, and the ending didn't really change at all from there until its final draft and filming, except that in the final film Ripley isn't sucked out of the airlock with the Alien and made to do battle with it before climbing back inside the shuttle - and that sequence was dropped for time and budget reasons.
Another thing that caused me to make the connection was that O'Bannon and Carpenter had worked together before.
They were good friends in film school and made Dark Star as their big debut. Carpenter directed, O'Bannon wrote and starred in it.
I figured, being old pals, they may have met up and bounced ideas off of each other. Filmmakers do that all the time.
Given the close relationship of the two, I find it harder to believe that the similarities in the final acts of both films are coincidence.
Allegedly they didn't talk much post-Dark Star. There was a fall out of sorts. There's interview segments of O'Bannon dissing Carpenter to some degree.
Even if they did talk, which they apparently didn't do, correlation does not imply causation. It's better to find out if the writers/directors make the connection explicit themselves.
Had no idea about that.
Carpenter was very complimentary of Alien and spoke highly of it in the commentary for The Thing, and O'Bannon never gave an inkling of any ill will when mentioning Dark Star in the Alien docos I have seen.
But it is clear you have looked into this more than I have.
Despite the uncanny similarities to the final acts of these movies, it looks like you are right.
Would have loved to see that space suit scene.
Carpenter said in a DARK STAR interview that he didn't work with O'Bannon again because O'Bannon was too controlling and demanded too much control for Carpenter's taste.
There's also the fact that some major changes were made to Dan O'Bannons original script by Giler and Hill and then studio head Alan Ladd jr - changes that remained in the final film. I don't think O'Bannon had much influence with editing, pacing, framing, mood, design and other vital and memorable parts of the film experience that would eventually become Alien. That was basically Ridley and his crew etc. Not trying to diminish O'Bannons role and his fantastic original story... :)
I would love to see Carpenter back to his 80s abilities and sensibilities again. Pretty much every film I've seen of his from the last 2 decades, have been underwhelming to put it mildly. Such a shame....
Except for In the Mouth of Madness, easily his best film from the 90s and one of my personal favorite Carpenter films.
Quote from: Eva on Mar 14, 2012, 09:43:02 PM
There's also the fact that some major changes were made to Dan O'Bannons original script by Giler and Hill and then studio head Alan Ladd jr - changes that remained in the final film. I don't think O'Bannon had much influence with editing, pacing, framing, mood, design and other vital and memorable parts of the film experience that would eventually become Alien. That was basically Ridley and his crew etc. Not trying to diminish O'Bannons role and his fantastic original story... :)
I would love to see Carpenter back to his 80s abilities and sensibilities again. Pretty much every film I've seen of his from the last 2 decades, have been underwhelming to put it mildly. Such a shame....
[/quote
Actually Obannon was on the set all the time and was closely working with Ridley. Obannon was there through pre and production
Quote from: TheMonolith on Mar 14, 2012, 09:47:21 PM
Except for In the Mouth of Madness, easily his best film from the 90s and one of my personal favorite Carpenter films.
The 90s also brought about the return of Snake Plissken in a rather disappointing and long awaited sequel. Although I was always a fan of the rather short Bruce Campbell – Dr. Frankenstein subtext from that movie. :(
To me, In The Mouth of Madness was - ultimately - average. It had some individual clever ideas and the concept was nice, but there were also some cliches present there and the whole movie had B-movie feel to it. It ended up being a genre movie. And while I think They Live also had B-movie feel to it, it was better than it. I'd agree with Eva.
Quote from: Eva on Mar 14, 2012, 09:43:02 PM
There's also the fact that some major changes were made to Dan O'Bannons original script by Giler and Hill and then studio head Alan Ladd jr - changes that remained in the final film.
They didn't change the finale. The script of that sequence remained the same until shooting. At one point the producers wanted to drop the Alien appearing on the Narcissus altogether, but Ridley fought for it. He changed the mechanics of the showdown to allow for a lull in the action, as in O'Bannon and Giler/Hill's script the Alien appeared immediately after the Nostromo explodes. Ridley allowed for the little break that allows Ripley to undress. They couldn't shoot Ripley flying out of the shuttle with the Alien; that's the only real differences from when it was first written until release.
I thought the ending with the Alien on the Shuttle was Ridley's idea? didn't he say in the commentary that he wanted a "fourth act"?
Quote from: stephen on Mar 14, 2012, 10:05:46 PM
I thought the ending with the Alien on the Shuttle was Ridley's idea? didn't he say in the commentary that he wanted a "fourth act"?
The fourth act refers to the lull in action and the false sense of security, which originally wasn't there. The Alien just attacked outright. Then the producers said that Ridley couldn't film the scenes at all. He got his way both times. http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2011/11/fourth-act.html (http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2011/11/fourth-act.html)
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 14, 2012, 10:07:12 PM
Quote from: stephen on Mar 14, 2012, 10:05:46 PM
I thought the ending with the Alien on the Shuttle was Ridley's idea? didn't he say in the commentary that he wanted a "fourth act"?
The fourth act refers to the lull in action and the false sense of security, which originally wasn't there. The Alien just attacked outright. Then the producers said that Ridley couldn't film the scenes at all. He got his way both times. http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2011/11/fourth-act.html (http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2011/11/fourth-act.html)
Ahh fair enough then.
What was said in the commentary certainly implies that it was all Ridley's idea to have the alien on the shuttle in the first place.
Glad Ridley got his way.
PS Does anyone ever stuff up when they're typing (or speaking) and type or say Ripley/Ridley when they meant the other? I just did it then but caught it in time.
Quote from: stephen on Mar 14, 2012, 10:11:17 PM
What was said in the commentary certainly implies that it was all Ridley's idea to have the alien on the shuttle in the first place.
Glad Ridley got his way.
It was certainly his idea to fight for those elements, but the scenes appear in O'Bannon's script and in the numerous Giler/Hill drafts that are circulating the web.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Mar 14, 2012, 09:47:21 PM
Except for In the Mouth of Madness, easily his best film from the 90s and one of my personal favorite Carpenter films.
Although I haven't seen it for ages, that's one of the better films from his 'weak era', I would agree with that. :)
Come to think of it, the short called Cigarette Burns he made not long ago, also had some interesting ideas. It definately had mood and atmosphere right up until it became a gorefeast in the end. But he didn't write that story if memory serves me. But otherwise, his directing efforts of late is a boredom of B-movie material (in the bad sense) we've seen a 100 times before and often done much better.
@Valaquen - damn, you are very knowledgable. When Alien is re-released on dvd at it's 35th anniversary, you should team up with Ridley and make a brand new commentary track:
Scott:
"..and when we shot this scene, Giger couldn't figure out if the lighting ruined his setup and carefully placed - ...."Valaquen:
"...ahem no Ridley, that was actually the previous scene in the egg chamber, the third take and if you remember.... " ;)
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Mar 14, 2012, 04:13:24 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 14, 2012, 03:56:43 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 14, 2012, 03:11:35 PM
The script was written on the spot, there was no time for intricate explanations. The egg was there, audience assumes the Queen left it, thats it. The problems in details only
Those are some pretty huge details. But the writing on the spot wasn't the problem, as mystery eggs and magic Aliens appear in every iteration of the script, from Gibson-Hill/Giler, from 1987-1991. Four years to come up with a logical scenario.
Nothing compared to why W&Y waited for 57 years to investigate the derelict.
Nothing? No. Not even close.
QuoteThere's also the fact that some major changes were made to Dan O'Bannons original script by Giler and Hill and then studio head Alan Ladd jr - changes that remained in the final film.
What "major changes"?
They added Ash and the subplot of the company wanting the Alien.
Quote from: Eva on Mar 14, 2012, 10:26:11 PM
@Valaquen - damn, you are very knowledgable. When Alien is re-released on dvd at it's 35th anniversary, you should team up with Ridley and make a brand new commentary track:
Scott:
"..and when we shot this scene, Giger couldn't figure out if the lighting ruined his setup and carefully placed - ...."
Valaquen:
"...ahem no Ridley, that was actually the previous scene in the egg chamber, the third take and if you remember.... "
;)
Pick up the phone, Ridley. That's all you need to do :D
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2012, 10:27:04 PM
QuoteThere's also the fact that some major changes were made to Dan O'Bannons original script by Giler and Hill and then studio head Alan Ladd jr - changes that remained in the final film.
What "major changes"?
They added Ash and the subplot of the company wanting the Alien.
Ash seems like a major change to me.
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2012, 10:27:04 PM
What "major changes"?
They added Ash and the subplot of the company wanting the Alien.
They also made Ripley a woman. And they also rewrote 90% of the dialogue. And they also made it not suck.
Quote from: stephen on Mar 14, 2012, 10:45:27 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2012, 10:27:04 PM
QuoteThere's also the fact that some major changes were made to Dan O'Bannons original script by Giler and Hill and then studio head Alan Ladd jr - changes that remained in the final film.
What "major changes"?
They added Ash and the subplot of the company wanting the Alien.
Ash seems like a major change to me.
I definitely think that the addition of Ash and his subplot warrants a co-writing credit
QuoteAsh seems like a major change to me.
"Change" singular.
None of the other changes they made were "major". I wouldn't call the condensing of the Derelict and pyramid into just the Derelict particularly major. The plot essentially stayed the same from first draft to final film.
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2012, 10:27:04 PM
What "major changes"?
They added Ash and the subplot of the company wanting the Alien.
Well, this is of course a subjective observation, but to me, those exact changes were major and defining for the film and all the sequels as well, not to mention Prometheus. Some character deaths and all the names were changed. Then there's Ladds ingenious lightbulb moment with making Ripley a female character. Imo it completely changed the film. :)
Oh, I better leave it at this, since Valaquen will come down on my ass if I get some obscure detail wrong. :laugh:
Dan and Ron said the genders of roles were interchangeable on the first draft of Starbeast. It's not that big a revelation that someone decided to go with it during the films gestation.
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2012, 10:55:14 PM
Dan and Ron said the genders of roles were interchangeable on the first draft of Starbeast. It's not that big a revelation that someone decided to go with it during the films gestation.
But the decision to make the
main character in a scifi movie a woman was a big step
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2012, 10:55:14 PM
Dan and Ron said the genders of roles were interchangeable on the first draft of Starbeast. It's not that big a revelation that someone decided to go with it during the films gestation.
It is when it concerns making the hero female. Which Dan and Ron never would have done. Also, the original Dan O'Bannon script is crap. Hill and Giler polished that turd and spun it into gold.
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2012, 10:52:06 PM
None of the other changes they made were "major". I wouldn't call the condensing of the Derelict and pyramid into just the Derelict particularly major. The plot essentially stayed the same from first draft to final film.
They weren't even responsible for that. The budget made it a necessity. Giler and Hill wanted the pyramid and silo to be some government construct. Ridley saw O'Bannon's draft and said, "let's do it the original way," ie.
alien. Then the budget came down and it was all nixed anyway.
As for making Ripley a woman, most of the traits from Roby carry over, like fighting with the rest of the crew over the rules, and Da, Shusett, and Alan Ladd also had a go (Giler wanted Dallas to be the woman, not Ripley). Hill fought for it and the others gave their approval.
Quote from: Eva on Mar 14, 2012, 10:52:31 PM
Oh, I better leave it at this, since Valaquen will come down on my ass if I get some obscure detail wrong. :laugh:
:laugh:
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 14, 2012, 10:59:54 PM
Also, the original Dan O'Bannon script is crap. Hill and Giler polished that turd and spun it into gold.
The plot is the same. Most of the characters are the same. O'Bannon fought against Giler and Hill for Giger's involvement, and got Cobb etc on the project, so it would've
looked the same. Giler and Hill's script reads better but it's a movie, not a novel. Ridley also had an approach to ad libbing that helped the dialogue.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 14, 2012, 11:03:04 PM
The plot is the same. Most of the characters are the same. O'Bannon fought against Giler and Hill for Giger's involvement, and got Cobb etc on the project, so it would've looked the same. Giler and Hill's script reads better but it's a movie, not a novel. Ridley also had an approach to ad libbing that helped the dialogue.
Plot is the same (mostly), but the Hill/Giler changes, though subtle, are crucial. O'Bannon's original script is terrible--terrible dialogue (as in, oh my god it's only the second page and I cringe in horror-terrible), terrible writing, terrible tone. Just all of it. Giler was right when he slagged it off as being just a "remake of IT! The Terror From Beyond Space." It reads like just another crappy 50's B-movie.
Also, while O'Bannon said "how can you hate a name?", the answer is obvious: just look at the horrible, cheesy names in his script :laugh:
QuoteThey weren't even responsible for that. The budget made it a necessity. Giler and Hill wanted the pyramid and silo to be some government construct. Ridley saw O'Bannon's draft and said, "let's do it the original way," ie. alien. Then the budget came down and it was all nixed anyway.
Quite.
O'Bannon's early drafts still give me an eerie vibe towards the end when they're in the last stages of hunting the Alien. It may have been a B-movie, but it would've been the best God-damned sci-fi B movie you'd ever seen.
QuoteAlso, the original Dan O'Bannon script is crap. Hill and Giler polished that turd and spun it into gold.
Yyyyyyep.
I haven't watched the A3 extra materials but just reading through the last couple of pages...it's a f**king miracle this film was made. Why wasn't the project simply scrapped altogether?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 15, 2012, 01:22:07 PM
I haven't watched the A3 extra materials but just reading through the last couple of pages...it's a f**king miracle this film was made. Why wasn't the project simply scrapped altogether?
Money my friend, money. They spent a lot on the film already and so scrapping it would have been a waste.
its lucky that they did not add the wooden planet in because that was crazy on a whole new level.
The extra stuff on th quadrilogy doesn't show david's reaction to the interference but one of the blu ray dvd does. he wouldn't work with fox for years after that and disowned alien 3.
Plus the first two were such big hits. Alien had unexpectedly become one of Fox's cash cows and provided nominations and wins of major awards.
And fox proceeded to milk the cow until it was dry...well i guess they are still milking but now the cow is old and withered.
I wouldn't say that.
They just keep hiring people who always milk the cow from the wrong place.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Mar 15, 2012, 01:47:32 PM
They just keep hiring people who always milk the cow from the wrong place.
Lol I just had an instant throwback to Woody Harrelson just after helping himself to something to drink in Kingpin
"We don't have a cow. We have a bull" :laugh:
Bill Murray is a comedy God
Quote from: Eva on Mar 15, 2012, 06:01:21 PM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Mar 15, 2012, 01:47:32 PM
They just keep hiring people who always milk the cow from the wrong place.
Lol I just had an instant throwback to Woody Harrelson just after helping himself to something to drink in Kingpin
"We don't have a cow. We have a bull" :laugh:
Bill Murray is a comedy God
Same thing with City Slickers 2
"We don't have a cow. Norman is a bull. You were pulling on his dick"
Classic hilarious Billy Crystal
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 15, 2012, 01:22:07 PM
I haven't watched the A3 extra materials but just reading through the last couple of pages...it's a f**king miracle this film was made. Why wasn't the project simply scrapped altogether?
Well, according to Weaver, '
The impetus for the third film was primarily the huge success of Aliens.' It promised BIG bucks. Martin Asbury, Alien 3's storyboard artist said, '
I hesitate to say it, but I think that money men now seem to be in control of the studios, rather than filmmakers, the emphasis is much more on making profits. These people know that if they release a film called Alien 3 they're going to make millions of dollars, providing they don't exceed the initial budget. So, they don't actually care what the picture's like. That sounds very cynical, but that's the way things work in the industry at the moment.'
Finally, Fincher said, '
There are people, who shall remain nameless, that I was bumping into as I was trying to put this thing [Alien 3] together who put the whole experience into a really interesting perspective. They would say, "Look, you could have somebody piss against the wall for two hours and call it Alien 3 and it would still do 30 million dollars worth of business." That's the impetus to make these movies, you can't keep the people away.'
So the main impetus was money over everything else. The first two Alien films were not anticipated to be massive successes by the studios before their release. Alien and Aliens both had to fight to get greenlit. James Cameron revealed that '
[FOX] were putting all their guns on that [Space Camp]. I don't understand that. They were really pushing it ... And it's not because they felt they had to back a dog, because that's not the way FOX works. They had seen a rough cut of that picture long before it was done [or] before any of the effects were in it, and they honestly thought that they had a hit in that film [rather than in Aliens].'
When Aliens was a blowaway critical and commercial success, FOX
really turned their full attention to the series.
Fox should not have given it their full attention....
This is why independent film are sometimes far more better than studio films, they don't need to give up creative control to some jack-ass in a suit with $ in their eyes
Alien 3 was decent but the interference it certainly felt by all.
fox should give up the rights to the three franchises to someone more capable and caring of continuity and quality such as Scott or Cameron, hell finch is a good director too but his work was overshadowed by them and he came on late in production.
as you posted Val, its all about money.
Prometheus might be a turkey if Scott was unable to have good creative control though with his reputation he may be able to tell them to shove it if they tried to interfere.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 16, 2012, 11:32:32 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 15, 2012, 01:22:07 PM
I haven't watched the A3 extra materials but just reading through the last couple of pages...it's a f**king miracle this film was made. Why wasn't the project simply scrapped altogether?
Well, according to Weaver, 'The impetus for the third film was primarily the huge success of Aliens.' It promised BIG bucks. Martin Asbury, Alien 3's storyboard artist said, 'I hesitate to say it, but I think that money men now seem to be in control of the studios, rather than filmmakers, the emphasis is much more on making profits. These people know that if they release a film called Alien 3 they're going to make millions of dollars, providing they don't exceed the initial budget. So, they don't actually care what the picture's like. That sounds very cynical, but that's the way things work in the industry at the moment.'
Finally, Fincher said, 'There are people, who shall remain nameless, that I was bumping into as I was trying to put this thing [Alien 3] together who put the whole experience into a really interesting perspective. They would say, "Look, you could have somebody piss against the wall for two hours and call it Alien 3 and it would still do 30 million dollars worth of business." That's the impetus to make these movies, you can't keep the people away.'
So the main impetus was money over everything else. The first two Alien films were not anticipated to be massive successes by the studios before their release. Alien and Aliens both had to fight to get greenlit. James Cameron revealed that '[FOX] were putting all their guns on that [Space Camp]. I don't understand that. They were really pushing it ... And it's not because they felt they had to back a dog, because that's not the way FOX works. They had seen a rough cut of that picture long before it was done [or] before any of the effects were in it, and they honestly thought that they had a hit in that film [rather than in Aliens].'
When Aliens was a blowaway critical and commercial success, FOX really turned their full attention to the series.
Sounds like the main reason as to why AvP 2004 was made. Throw the two together and you're guaranteed to make money.
Quotefox should give up the rights to the three franchises
:laugh:
Yeah, like that will ever happen. :laugh:
I think the problem is also budget.
When budgets on these film reach hundreds of millions of dollars, the film makers themselves I think lose creativity. They start thinking about making the money back. So creativity is lost to doing what they know (or what they think they know) works in getting audiences to the movies.
In my opinion they'res only a few film makers where a studio can give them a couple of hundred million dollars and say "do whatever you want". James Cameron for example is in that league. I'd say spielburg is as well. Not to sure about Scott.
It's generally the producers job to worry about money to free the director up to do the actual creative stuff. Often doesn't work out that way. Plus a director SHOULD have a good idea of what is commercially viable if a shitload of other peoples money is involved.
The most expensive Alien movie was Resurrection with $70m (and a director who studied how Hollywood were cut together in order to achieve that commerical viability) - and that was after being hammered by endless budget cuts during production, partly due to Fox shovelling money to, ironically enough, James Cameron.
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2012, 10:31:05 PM
It's generally the producers job to worry about money to free the director up to do the actual creative stuff. Often doesn't work out that way. Plus a director SHOULD have a good idea of what is commercially viable if a shitload of other peoples money is involved.
Granted - except that directors are often co producers anyway. The point I was making is that creativity gives way to commercialism.
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2012, 10:31:05 PMThe most expensive Alien movie was Resurrection with $70m (and a director who studied how Hollywood were cut together in order to achieve that commerical viability) - and that was after being hammered by endless budget cuts during production, partly due to Fox shovelling money to, ironically enough, James Cameron.
Ha - that would have been for Titanic - which one paid off for Fox again?
How much money did resurrection end up making?
$161m.
All very well to say Titanic paid off in hindsight. At the time, Fox was quietly shitting themselves.
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2012, 10:52:44 PM
$161m.
All very well to say Titanic paid off in hindsight. At the time, Fox was quietly shitting themselves.
Sure - who wouldn't. If I recall correctly - Paramount was also involved at one point as a joint venture of some sorts.
Yeah they did. And handled US distribution.
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2012, 11:11:09 PM
Yeah they did. And handled US distribution.
A lot of bricks were being shat at the time no doubt.
Cameron also had to give up his director's fee to keep FOX involved with Titanic. A cool $20 mil, apparently. (Because of Titanic's eventual gross, FOX went ahead and gave him the money back. D'aww.)
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 18, 2012, 11:37:31 PM
Cameron also had to give up his director's fee to keep FOX involved with Titanic. A cool $20 mil, apparently. (Because of Titanic's eventual gross, FOX went ahead and gave him the money back. D'aww.)
Yes I did know that.
He also offered his fee and back end percentages on his NEXT film which he said he would make whatever they wanted him to make. Naturally they didn't hold him to it.
Quote from: stephen on Mar 18, 2012, 11:42:00 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 18, 2012, 11:37:31 PM
Cameron also had to give up his director's fee to keep FOX involved with Titanic. A cool $20 mil, apparently. (Because of Titanic's eventual gross, FOX went ahead and gave him the money back. D'aww.)
Yes I did know that.
He also offered his fee and back end percentages on his NEXT film which he said he would make whatever they wanted him to make. Naturally they didn't hold him to it.
Which has always been mind boggling, what other director would be so passionate about his mopvie to give up over $20 mil to pump it into the movie and do a movie for free?
But back to the topic, Alien 3's budget was very big for the time but most of it went into failed preproductions. As someone already mentioned, by the time Alien 3 started the shoot it was too late to just give up all the money that already went into the project, nevermind the fact a release date and a teaser was already out
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 19, 2012, 12:55:55 AM
Quote from: stephen on Mar 18, 2012, 11:42:00 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 18, 2012, 11:37:31 PM
Cameron also had to give up his director's fee to keep FOX involved with Titanic. A cool $20 mil, apparently. (Because of Titanic's eventual gross, FOX went ahead and gave him the money back. D'aww.)
Yes I did know that.
He also offered his fee and back end percentages on his NEXT film which he said he would make whatever they wanted him to make. Naturally they didn't hold him to it.
Which has always been mind boggling, what other director would be so passionate about his mopvie to give up over $20 mil to pump it into the movie and do a movie for free?
I guess then you can say what you like about Cameron - but what you can't say is that he isn't passionate.
Titanic was a film that was close to his heart. I'm glad he got it made.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 19, 2012, 12:55:55 AMBut back to the topic, Alien 3's budget was very big for the time but most of it went into failed preproductions. As someone already mentioned, by the time Alien 3 started the shoot it was too late to just give up all the money that already went into the project, nevermind the fact a release date and a teaser was already out
Too right. The whole thing was a clusterf**k. But they'd spent too much on it to pull the plug.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 16, 2012, 11:32:32 AM
Finally, Fincher said, 'There are people, who shall remain nameless, that I was bumping into as I was trying to put this thing [Alien 3] together who put the whole experience into a really interesting perspective. They would say, "Look, you could have somebody piss against the wall for two hours and call it Alien 3 and it would still do 30 million dollars worth of business." That's the impetus to make these movies, you can't keep the people away.'
:-X
Quote from: stephen on Mar 19, 2012, 12:59:05 AM
I guess then you can say what you like about Cameron - but what you can't say is that he isn't passionate.
One more and related to the shooting of
Aliens example to it is Cameron paid for robotic laser arm cutter, which opens Ripley's lifebout in the beginning of the film, from his pocket.
Lance also bought some expensive contact lenses for his character bishop but the idea was eventually scrapped but it shows there are people who try hard to make good films.
After watch Alien 3 maybe 10 times in my life, i start to like it. I'ts a cool end, i mean, WY never got the Xenos in your hands.
I'ts kind meh, how the movie starts but after some years i really put Alien 3 in my head. So the final list is Alien, Aliens and Alien 3.
Alien Ressurection = shit
Quote from: FUBAR1945 on Mar 20, 2012, 04:07:56 PM
Alien Ressurection = shit
I remember me chosing to watch this with some of my guy friends at the time, while my girl friends watched The Full Monty the same night in the same theater.
So... they got to watch a really funny film with some nude guys thrown in the mix - I got to see Dan Hedays hairy shoulders and a whiny pale alien running around Dark Helmets ridiculously huge star cruiser from Space Balls.
Guess who felt like a complete idiot that night lol :D
Quote from: FUBAR1945 on Mar 20, 2012, 04:07:56 PM
Alien Ressurection = shit
Dont be so harsh on shit
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 20, 2012, 02:49:40 PM
Lance also bought some expensive contact lenses for his character bishop but the idea was eventually scrapped but it shows there are people who try hard to make good films.
It's too bad he couldn't spend more money on creative writing and do something intelligent with the Alien instead of turning it into a screaming space bug.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 21, 2012, 03:30:11 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 20, 2012, 02:49:40 PM
Lance also bought some expensive contact lenses for his character bishop but the idea was eventually scrapped but it shows there are people who try hard to make good films.
It's too bad he couldn't spend more money on creative writing and do something intelligent with the Alien instead of turning it into a screaming space bug.
How many times we have to go through that? Nobody turned alien into some screaming space bug, it was it from the beginning. The first not so intelligent alien with more than usual bug characteristics was runner
If you say so. Though I recommend rewatching the first film if you truly believe that.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 21, 2012, 03:55:24 PM
If you say so. Though I recommend rewatching the first film if you truly believe that.
I believe what Scott and Obannon says, and its evident in the movie. The alien's called insect and animal by them. It behaves like one - sleeps, walks in the ducts, finds a warm and quiet place to rest, gathers hosts for cocooning and reacts when provoked. Not my fault some fans WANT to see much more in something simple and interpret simple things in some divine, philosophical way, something Obannon even found weird
As Scott said, its a simple horror story without any meaning other than terror, and for me a movie doestn have to be complex or complicated to be a masterpiece
Not to mention larvas, eggs and cocoons was already there in the first movie. Its all insectal stuff. And Scott says its guided by survival and reproductive instincts. And again, animal and insect at the same time. Very intelligent for an animal in the all the movies sans Alien 3 (and again, doesnt bother me one bit and doesnt change my opinion on Runner and Alien 3)
I say Alien 3 is a good movie, it's way better then AVP & AVPR.
Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 21, 2012, 04:13:18 PM
I say Alien 3 is a good movie, it's way better then AVP & AVPR.
The majority agree with that regardless of how they view alien 3 :laugh:
Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 21, 2012, 04:13:18 PM
I say Alien 3 is a good movie, it's way better then AVP & AVPR.
That still doesn't say anything good about A3.
QuoteHow many times we have to go through that?
And yet you keep trying to change an opinion.
Build a bridge...
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2012, 09:55:38 PM
QuoteHow many times we have to go through that?
And yet you keep trying to change an opinion.
Build a bridge...
Opinion? or fact? If an alien was based on an insect, has multiple insectal traces and lifecycle, and is referred to by its creators as insect and animal and even likened to animal in the movie, is saying they were somehow changed into insects in the second one an opinion? Or incorrect statement?
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2012, 09:55:38 PM
QuoteHow many times we have to go through that?
And yet you keep trying to change an opinion.
Build a bridge...
Well, to be fair to both of them, it's hard to build a bridge when you're dealing with two polarized opinions. :)
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 21, 2012, 10:13:52 PM
Opinion? or fact? If an alien was based on an insect, has multiple insectal traces and lifecycle, and is referred to by its creators as insect and animal and even likened to animal in the movie, is saying they were somehow changed into insects in the second one an opinion? Or incorrect statement?
Let's not forget that Ash was probably very likely purposely deceiving Dallas when he related the alien to an animal. His later speech on the table supports this even to a degree. Just listen to the way he says "Most animals are run from fire, yes?" There's something off about it.
The Alien is
more than an animal.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 21, 2012, 10:20:19 PM
The Alien is more than an animal.
Its more than any animal we knew, thats true. None of the animals as intelligent or as tactically thinking. But animal nevertheless. A selfless creature with no emotions other than anger and instinctive need to spread the species and ensure its survival. A virus of sort, which is a very unique and terrifying approach
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 21, 2012, 10:13:52 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2012, 09:55:38 PM
QuoteHow many times we have to go through that?
And yet you keep trying to change an opinion.
Build a bridge...
Opinion? or fact? If an alien was based on an insect, has multiple insectal traces and lifecycle, and is referred to by its creators as insect and animal and even likened to animal in the movie, is saying they were somehow changed into insects in the second one an opinion? Or incorrect statement?
The Alien never acted like a bug in the first one no matter what the filmmakers intentions.
A bunch skittering around the walls and ceiling in Aliens is much more buglike. As is the addition of a Queen.
QuoteWell, to be fair to both of them, it's hard to build a bridge when you're dealing with two polarized opinions.
Not build a bridge between the two opinions so much as build a bridge and get over it.
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2012, 10:25:52 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 21, 2012, 10:13:52 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2012, 09:55:38 PM
QuoteHow many times we have to go through that?
And yet you keep trying to change an opinion.
Build a bridge...
Opinion? or fact? If an alien was based on an insect, has multiple insectal traces and lifecycle, and is referred to by its creators as insect and animal and even likened to animal in the movie, is saying they were somehow changed into insects in the second one an opinion? Or incorrect statement?
The Alien never acted like a bug in the first one no matter what the filmmakers intentions.
How do bugs act? they gather food and hosts and coccoon them to feed on them or to plant seeds in them.
QuoteA bunch skittering around the walls and ceiling in Aliens is much more buglike.
Yes, which was suppose to be done in Alien as well just that they didnt know how to technically do it. Plus, they weren sticking to walls, they were jumping from one to other holding things. The only alien with truly insectal traits was, by desiogn, runner, who spit acid and stuck to walls and ceiling without holding
QuoteAs is the addition of a Queen.
One addition, whereas eggs, cocooning, larval fetus and hives were already developed in first
I though Valaquen did a great job on this subject
http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2010/08/bug-hunt.html (http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2010/08/bug-hunt.html)
None of that is going to change the fact that their portrayal is much more insectlike in the second than the first.
It's like if someone was moaning about the four legged design is the fault of Alien3. The concept was always there, but it was only brought to the forefront in Alien3. So while it's not really Alien3's fault - it's not suddenly going to make someone like it.
It's not a terribly difficult concept to wrap ones head around, I would've thought.
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2012, 10:39:04 PM
None of that is going to change the fact that their portrayal is much more insectlike in the second than the first.
yeah, but the second movie gets blamed by the haters like its a sacrilege while that was actually the intentions of the first film
Intentions that don't get on screen tend to be irrelevant. As Cambo showed in several instances.
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2012, 10:42:48 PM
Intentions that don't get on screen tend to be irrelevant. As Cambo showed in several instances.
Sure. But why not throw tomatoes at Ridley for even intending such sacrilege and being prevented only by limited technology? he wanted to show an alien leaping from wall to wall, he gave him all those insectal traits in his lifecycle, he wanted an ending where he grabs ripley falling out the airlock and he calls it an insect. Plus, theres plenty of evidence that warriors are not dumb as haters suggest
That bias tends to get old , especially when iots just thrown in out of context as a pesky comment
QuoteSure. But why not throw tomatoes at Ridley for even intending such sacrilege and being prevented only by limited technology?
Simple - it never made it on screen.
The constant and "bias" about Alien Resurrection from the "haters" got old a long time ago too, but you don't see me going on and on and on like a stuck record trying to change people's perception of it.
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2012, 10:55:28 PM
QuoteSure. But why not throw tomatoes at Ridley for even intending such sacrilege and being prevented only by limited technology?
Simple - it never made it on screen.
The constant and "bias" about Alien Resurrection from the "haters" got old a long time ago too, but you don't see me going on and on and on like a stuck record trying to change people's perception of it.
Heres the difference tho. I dislike the movie a whole lot, especially design of aliens. But theres no denial the aliens in it are the most intelligent in the series and just cause I dislike the movie Im not trying to take that away from the movie. Nor will I deny its nicely shot and scored well. Nor will I constantly throw remarks about it when not called for - I didnt post anything in "whats good about Resurrection" thread
Which is completely at odds with someone calling it "shit" and you responding that that's being "harsh on shit".
If you don't like it - you don't like it. You have your reasons, just the same as people have their reasons for seeing the Aliens as bugs in the second film.
Quote from: SM on Mar 22, 2012, 01:03:25 AM
Which is completely at odds with someone calling it "shit" and you responding that that's being "harsh on shit".
If you don't like it - you don't like it. You have your reasons, just the same as people have their reasons for seeing the Aliens as bugs in the second film.
Understand. But its blaming movie for faults it doesnt have, or rather for something other did but dont get crap for. Specifically if one is referred to, has characteristics of, and was suppose to have more of the insect abilities and if its supposedly such a big sacrilege, why the sequels are so attacked by purists for insectal traits in aliens when its something that was introduced by its inventors in the first? If breaking a window is a crime and two kids do it, why youre only giving hell to one of them? Answer, cause you dislike one for personal reasons, but unfair is unfair. Especially when theres clear record of you not liking one of the kids
Its like criticizing Alien 3 for runner taking the dogs characteristics when the idea of Alien taking traits of its host originated in Alien, yet praising Alien for the human-like alien
Quotewhy the sequels are so attacked by purists for insectal traits in aliens when its something that was introduced by its inventors in the first?
Because - yet again - they really weren't introduced by the inventors - that's the whole point. It was their inspiration - but largely didn't translate onto screen. Most insects don't use other living organisms as incubators. It's very specific to certain insects, and not something people are going to readily pick up on while watching an 8 foot monster eat people. Riddles 24 hour life cycle is definately insect like, but nowhere in the film is that made obvious.
No matter the intent of the creators, Cameron brought the hive, the Queen, and Aliens clambering around walls and stuff to a wide audience. Therefore his Aliens acted more buglike than the original.
And no amount of 'Leave James ALONE!' complaining is going to change people's perceptions.
Quote from: SM on Mar 22, 2012, 01:16:57 AM
And no amount of 'Leave James ALONE!' complaining is going to change people's perceptions.
No its not that. Its more like "Alien always had insectal traits and Aliens added one more, while all the other ones come from the first. Whats the crime of continuing original idea that was realized in 90% due to technical constraints?"
The hive was already in the first movie, Giger likened the cave under derelict to termites nests and the alien was making nest/hive on Nostromo where it coccooned host. It cant get more insectal than this. And again, crawling on walls was introduced in Alien 3, in Aliens, they held to pipes and grabbed things when jumped from one to another like monkeys rather than insects. The sequels just continued original's idea and vision which couldnt be fully realized because of limited FX, so I dont see why Scott isnt blamed for paving the way for it. Larvas, incubating, coccons, nest/hives, slime, walking in ducts, attraction to pipes - its all from the first movie
QuoteThe hive was already in the first movie, Giger likened the cave under derelict to termites nests and the alien was making nest/hive on Nostromo where it coccooned host.
It nest wasn't in most people's first exposure to the film though. And Giger likening the cave under the Derelict - which was indentical to the Derelict - to a termites nest, doesn't mean everyone is going to perceive it as such. Looked more like you were in a living organism with all the ribbing.
Quote. And again, crawling on walls was introduced in Alien 3, in Aliens, they held to pipes and grabbed things when jumped from one to another like monkeys rather than insects.
It had to crawl up a wall to leap from one to the other. This sort of thing differentiates it to the Alien standing in front of Brett and biting him in the head, or standing on two legs in front of Lambert. It's more humanoid than what Cameron presented in some of his scenes. And personally I'd liken the wall running in Alien3 to a lizard than an insect. But I can see insect influence in there too.
Quoteso I dont see why Scott isnt blamed for paving the way for it
Because, as I've explained more times than I care to mention, Scott wasn't obviously channelling insects. Cameron was more obvious.
But of course you do know it was because of the limitations of the suit, budget and simply no technical possibility to do more. So the next chance give, close to a decade later, this vision is realized. But it didnt originate from the sequel. The sequel just based the creatures of the same source, realized it onscreen since it was now possible. Thats my point. Some of Scott's original ideas could now be realized. Then blame technology for making it possible and Scott for thinking it up and intending it if its such a bad thing for you (by you I dont mean you in particular)
QuoteIt had to crawl up a wall to leap from one to the other
No, it was just jumping from one other catching itself on pipes and edges in every instance. It always had to hold and jumped like some mammals catching branches
QuoteIt nest wasn't in most people's first exposure to the film though
But it was there, scripted and shot well before the sequel. Again my point being the insect influence and those ideas did not originated in sequel
QuoteAnd personally I'd liken the wall running in Alien3 to a lizard than an insect
Upside down without holding and sideways on the wall? And Alien 3 did the bug thing intentionally. I always look at intentions and words of the people who made those movies, for me it counts much more than mine or any others' fanfics or interpretation
QuoteUpside down without holding and sideways on the wall?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn3.wn.com%2Fpd%2F4e%2Fcc%2F5ab6a67a00d449fb621d54f442fb_grande.jpg&hash=a8c22255ebfa340c1148fc409502e8a9b33fc7e0)
Exhibit A.
When is not "holding"? If it's hovering - then that's not insectlike unless it has wings...
QuoteBut it was there, scripted and shot well before the sequel. Again my point being the insect influence and those ideas did not originated in sequel
And yet again... if the ideas don't obviously end up on screen - your point is still meaningless.
QuoteI always look at intentions and words of the people who made those movies, for me it counts much more than mine or any others' fanfics or interpretation
How are people going to know the intentions of the people who made them if they don't end up on screen? Not everyone is going to read shitloads of behind the scenes info, and nor should they have to form an opinion.
The lizards hold with their nails.
And you keep missing the point. Scott and Obannon originated the idea, Cameron or Fincher shouldnt be blamed for it if they simply continued their vision and drew from same inspirations
No I got the point a couple of pages back - where this should've started and ended...
Quote from: SM on Mar 22, 2012, 02:12:57 AM
No I got the point a couple of pages back - where this should've started and ended...
So you agree that the sequels should be terrorized for drawing influence from insects, even if simply continuing original idea
woah
Ok - Personally I agree with Strangeshapes - I don't get the hate levelled at aliens for making the aliens "bugs" given what we know from the first film.
In my opinion james cameron took the next logical step with the alien. I don't feel he went overboard and felt he kept in line with the original.
QuoteI don't get the hate levelled at aliens for making the aliens "bugs"
What's not to get? People feel Cameron went too far down the insect path and don't like it.
I don't get people who say "I don't get x" when x has been detailed ad infinitum.
You DO get it - you simply don't agree.
Aliens ARE portrayed as more insect like in Aliens. Personally, I don't mind in the slightest, though.
As SM said, insect-like is not a bad thing, hell it gives them something identifiable and characteristics. Insects are strange creatures and can be very ruthless, just watch them compared to animals. Alien purists would most likely not have a franchise and many merchandise to love if it weren't for Aliens as that is what made it big and unfortunately put dollar signs in fox's eyes, so they should stop complaining since they do not HAVE to watch the sequels.
Alien did not come off as insect like in Alien.
Aliens came off as insect like in Aliens.
And...the Alien in Alien 3 was more like some crazy rampaging lion on a feeding frenzy.
Quote from: SM on Mar 22, 2012, 06:22:19 AM
Aliens ARE portrayed as more insect like in Aliens. Personally, I don't mind in the slightest, though.
Agree.
I think the portrayal of the alien(s) in the first two films, and the differences between the portrayals, really boil down to a)the slightly different genres the two movies have, and b) having one alien vs multiple aliens.
Both work really well, though. You just need to put the portrayals into context.
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 22, 2012, 05:23:56 PM
Alien did not come off as insect like in Alien.
Aliens came off as insect like in Aliens.
And...the Alien in Alien 3 was more like some crazy rampaging lion on a feeding frenzy.
Lion? Really?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdvision.fr%2Fjco%2Frunnerwalk.PNG&hash=1cc25a961288517281a9752bec510cca2fc86f3b)
I guess it really boils down to personal perception, but I think even without the behind the scenes explanations and intentions (Fincher said he wanted to be clear its a space bug and puppet people said he wanted the alien to move like spiders and insects) its made rather clear in the movie what it is. It walks upside down without holding and freely walking sideways on the ceilings and walls, spits acid like ants and is even downright called bug. Sleeps with maggots in the cellar etc
The runner was the one that truly featured bug characteristics, instead of just having a lifecycle of one or moving like one. Which again, is absolutely nothing wrong with. Giger says it best that theres something about bugs and insects that is disturbing, beautiful and repulsive at the same time
Fincher wanted it to be "dumb" in his words and its quite evident in the movie when it falls into a simple trap following food TWICE, but as oppose to some, I dont take it as some sacrilege or profanity. I think its in some ways more terrifying - if its just a non intelligent hugry force, thats something to be feared off
Both insects and cheetahs were used as a reference.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 22, 2012, 06:12:34 PM
Both insects and cheetahs were used as a reference.
Yeah, which made a great mix of insects and animals, something the alien was from the beginning. Not just an animal, and yet not fully an insect, although more or an insectal part
Either way the insect thing wasnt developed by sequels, it was there from the beginning and the original alien wasnt some space demon purists made him out to be and mixing in insects isnt some sacrilege to the
holy demon of Scott. Agaian, "curious animal, niomechanoid insects" were the terms used by its creators. So underlining my point yet again, for those who feel repulsed and that bringing insectal traits and modelling aliens after insects in some form is a cardinal sin, blame people who proudly display there influences and refer them as such - its original creators. That whining about sequels turning space dmeon into bugz gets old and is simply an unfair and selective criticism
QuoteI think its in some ways more terrifying
Must not be many ways then because Alien 3 is the least scary of the movies by far. I don't think there's anything frightening about some force that is driven by its hunger. Throw a raw piece of beef and distract it, like you said it worked twice. There's nothing scary about that, more comical almost.
The xenomorph in Alien almost seemed sadistic, the way it moved slowly towards helpless prey (Lambert). It didn't kill Dallas or Brett until they knew where it was, only killed Parker because he was interfering.
The xenos in Aliens charge fast out of necessity because they're being attacked. When coming up behind Newt the xenomorph again exposed itself to her, almost out of a sick enjoyment if its victim's fear. Sure, they were more like insects in Aliens I guess, controlled by a Queen, swarming, etc. I don't think they chew on power lines because they taste good though.
In Alien 3, it never really moved slow. Very vicious, like I mentioned before, in a frenzy. Much more insect like and efficient this time I think. Not really scary at all though, except maybe when it killed Boggs and Rains.
Not really making any debate here other than I don't think the insect thing is scary at all. Maybe startling, but it doesn't stir any real fear unless you can't stand the sight of bugs or something. More just making observations.
True observations, although I disagree aliens wanted the victims to see them first. It was more like a snake hissing before attacking.
Sure, Alien 3 isnt scary, but I dont think its trying to be a horror movie. If anything, it has to do with the story and its genre which is more psychological drama than anything esle, but the creature itself is scary. If it doesnt care about anything, you know once you meet it and se it that youre done no matter what you do or say, and that makes the creature scary. The Fly worked so well because of it and many other reasons. Insects dont care, they will cocoon you or eat you alive right there on the spot AND theyre downright disguisting but mesmerizing at the same time
I'm pretty sure snakes hiss in defense. Mike "Thedus" Lynch would know more about that one than me.
And, if the Alien didn't want its victims to know it was coming for them, why did it wait for Brett to turn around? Why not kill him and pull him up out of sight before he even knew what was going on?
Why not grab Dallas BEFORE he shines a flashlight in your face instead of waiting for him to get startled?
And what's up with the slow walk towards Lambert after Parker is dead? There's a complete 180 between that and the Alien 3 xeno.
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 22, 2012, 06:43:09 PM
I'm pretty sure snakes hiss in defense. Mike "Thedus" Lynch would know more about that one than me.
And, if the Alien didn't want its victims to know it was coming for them, why did it wait for Brett to turn around? Why not kill him and pull him up out of sight before he even knew what was going on?
Why not grab Dallas BEFORE he shines a flashlight in your face instead of waiting for him to get startled?
As I said, its more to do with startling the prey first or preparing to attack like snakes. Snakes hiss before attacking lions and dogs growl before jumping at you
QuoteAnd what's up with the slow walk towards Lambert after Parker is dead?
It hasnt seen a female version of humn before and was curious, wanted to take a look first and didnt intend to kill her
QuoteThere's a complete 180 between that and the Alien 3 xeno.
True that, but it also hisses in couple of moments before attacking as well. Plus, it came from a dog or ox, a much less intelligent being than humans, so it was probably guided more by instinct than the humanoid ones, and its most likely the reason why it was so much less intelligent
Just to add to the insect thing, I think that inspiration brings a lot of good imagery and unique moevement for the creature. In Alien, they werent able to do leaps and curls because of the technical limitations, but then tried uniquely proportioned man and mime movements, all they could do, and it already worked great. Then in Aliens, the aliens got the movement they were originally intended to have, with leaping from wall to wall, being curled up and racing fast. In Alien 3, it was even taken step further giving the creature some very unique and creepy spidery movements
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Funtitled2.jpg&hash=09b684ead3b3a106dbb23df642c0da0a93c22cc2)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Funtitled3.jpg&hash=9ab50e6cf041b9cd5c09ae7d610df5a1daead8d3)
I like the development of the Alien through the three movies, the first was like a wraith at times, unstoppable, in aliens Cameron expanded on the creatures infrastructure (not too mention the queen was freaking awesome) and Alien 3 Fincher gave it more aggression (not to mention improved on the look from Aliens, IMO) The Runner didn't f**k about
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 22, 2012, 06:43:09 PM
And, if the Alien didn't want its victims to know it was coming for them, why did it wait for Brett to turn around? Why not kill him and pull him up out of sight before he even knew what was going on?
Why not grab Dallas BEFORE he shines a flashlight in your face instead of waiting for him to get startled?
And what's up with the slow walk towards Lambert after Parker is dead? There's a complete 180 between that and the Alien 3 xeno.
You have to allow
some artistic license :P Otherwise we wouldn't get to see that lovely Alien at all! :)
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 22, 2012, 10:03:01 PM
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 22, 2012, 06:43:09 PM
And, if the Alien didn't want its victims to know it was coming for them, why did it wait for Brett to turn around? Why not kill him and pull him up out of sight before he even knew what was going on?
Why not grab Dallas BEFORE he shines a flashlight in your face instead of waiting for him to get startled?
And what's up with the slow walk towards Lambert after Parker is dead? There's a complete 180 between that and the Alien 3 xeno.
You have to allow some artistic license :P Otherwise we wouldn't get to see that lovely Alien at all! :)
Exactly. These are movies. I'm 95% sure the makers were not primarily concerned WHY the alien would wait 10 seconds before it killed anybody. It did so because that way the scenes became more terrifying, and we would get a longer look at the alien.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 22, 2012, 05:00:54 PM
As SM said, insect-like is not a bad thing, hell it gives them something identifiable and characteristics. Insects are strange creatures and can be very ruthless, just watch them compared to animals. Alien purists would most likely not have a franchise and many merchandise to love if it weren't for Aliens as that is what made it big and unfortunately put dollar signs in fox's eyes, so they should stop complaining since they do not HAVE to watch the sequels.
0_0 insects
are animals.
The insect world is barbarous and cruel - sickeningly so. O'Bannon couldn't have picked anything more horrific to take inspiration from. They gave him nightmares. Me too. There are some wild creatures out there beneath your feet or in your rosebush.
Are we talking about Alien 3 or...? :D
QuoteExactly. These are movies.
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me guys. ::)
Guess there's no room for intelligent speculation and discussion.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 22, 2012, 10:14:39 PM
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 22, 2012, 05:00:54 PM
As SM said, insect-like is not a bad thing, hell it gives them something identifiable and characteristics. Insects are strange creatures and can be very ruthless, just watch them compared to animals. Alien purists would most likely not have a franchise and many merchandise to love if it weren't for Aliens as that is what made it big and unfortunately put dollar signs in fox's eyes, so they should stop complaining since they do not HAVE to watch the sequels.
0_0 insects are animals.
Yes i know but i meant compared to mammals or reptiles etc, just my way of saying it as comparing the insects to ALL types of animals other than the insects themselves of course.
I like ALIEN 3, well not as much i i could like ALIENS but i think is a good movie, at this point the dog aliens stills freak me out, when i saw him running in 4 trough the dark corridors and the sweweers, but personally i like it, i think its like a new look to the ALIEN universe, 4 me ALIEN has that terro 2 the unknow and the cleen sence, ALIENS has that war felling and power vs power, but ALIEN 3 is something like its u against something, that u already know but still makes u feel fear
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 22, 2012, 10:32:46 PM
The insect world is barbarous and cruel - sickeningly so.
Fixed! :P
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 23, 2012, 11:41:18 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 23, 2012, 06:16:59 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 22, 2012, 10:32:46 PM
The insect world is barbarous and cruel - sickeningly so.
Fixed! :P
Let me be specific! :D
Yep, much better! the insect world is most certainly not pleasant, some male insects are lucky to survive their mating and some wasps can inject its young into tarantulas and said young eat their way out.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 23, 2012, 03:41:00 PM
Yep, much better! the insect world is most certainly not pleasant, some male insects are lucky to survive their mating and some wasps can inject its young into tarantulas and said young eat their way out.
The 'head-burster' ant is particularly nasty *shudder*
They may be nasty but they are nature's ultimate warriors. They've been around for billions of years and can survive almost any environment.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 23, 2012, 04:57:17 PM
They may be nasty but they are nature's ultimate warriors. They've been around for billions of years and can survive almost any environment.
Indeed which is why its strange that people complain about the aliens characteristics since the insect quality gives them that nastiness and something to identify it with.
Because in the first film, it really behaved like something alien. It was a new type of creature which had never been seen before and it behaved in ways that didn't make any kind of immediate sense, i.e. would it kill you? take you away for something else? eat you? rape you?
Aliens made everything absolute and took away the mystery behind the creature established in the first film.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 23, 2012, 05:28:13 PM
Because in the first film, it really behaved like something alien. It was a new type of creature which had never been seen before and it behaved in ways that didn't make any kind of immediate sense, i.e. would it kill you? take you away for something else? eat you? rape you?
Aliens made everything absolute and took away the mystery behind the creature established in the first film.
Didnt the eggmorphing scene did that? Showed the pattern and logic in alien's behavior? It showed that the people he took were used as hosts and coccooned. The attackers were killed
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 23, 2012, 05:28:13 PM
Because in the first film, it really behaved like something alien. It was a new type of creature which had never been seen before and it behaved in ways that didn't make any kind of immediate sense, i.e. would it kill you? take you away for something else? eat you? rape you?
Aliens made everything absolute and took away the mystery behind the creature established in the first film.
Behaved in strange ways? It killed whomever bumped into it (and literally everyone bumps into it, it doesn't seem to go out of its way to find anyone). That's all the motivation it seemed to have. Alien was a very simple film. The mystery lay in what the creature was, not what it wanted, which was always said, down to the interviews from 1979-2012, to be the propagate. Aside from reproducing, it's effectively single-minded. (Ridley himself, aside from explaining this, complained that Alien had no "prognosis" scene, and that if he were to do Alien II, he would have had one).
the second film didn't take the mystery but added to it as you never see the creatures clearly andthe queen raised many questions on how it got there etc etc the third film and later sequels took away the mystery because they exposed the creature too much.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 23, 2012, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 23, 2012, 05:28:13 PM
Because in the first film, it really behaved like something alien. It was a new type of creature which had never been seen before and it behaved in ways that didn't make any kind of immediate sense, i.e. would it kill you? take you away for something else? eat you? rape you?
Aliens made everything absolute and took away the mystery behind the creature established in the first film.
Behaved in strange ways? It killed whomever bumped into it (and literally everyone bumps into it, it doesn't seem to go out of its way to find anyone). That's all the motivation it seemed to have. Alien was a very simple film. The mystery lay in what the creature was, not what it wanted, which was always said, down to the interviews from 1979-2012, to be the propagate. Aside from reproducing, it's effectively single-minded. (Ridley himself, aside from explaining this, complained that Alien had no "prognosis" scene, and that if he were to do Alien II, he would have had one).
Bingo
Oh and as for motivations of the alien, it was always rather clear. From Scott:
'insects will utilise other bodies to be the hosts of their eggs. That's how the Alien would use Dallas and each of the crew members it kills. it wants to use each person as a separate host each time it has new eggs.'
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 23, 2012, 05:31:34 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 23, 2012, 05:28:13 PM
Because in the first film, it really behaved like something alien. It was a new type of creature which had never been seen before and it behaved in ways that didn't make any kind of immediate sense, i.e. would it kill you? take you away for something else? eat you? rape you?
Aliens made everything absolute and took away the mystery behind the creature established in the first film.
Didnt the eggmorphing scene did that? Showed the pattern and logic in alien's behavior? It showed that the people he took were used as hosts and coccooned. The attackers were killed
So why wasn't Lambert cocooned? Or Brett? Why did it not simply kill Lambert instead of (supposedly) raping her? Why not just kill Dallas on the spot?
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 23, 2012, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 23, 2012, 05:28:13 PM
Because in the first film, it really behaved like something alien. It was a new type of creature which had never been seen before and it behaved in ways that didn't make any kind of immediate sense, i.e. would it kill you? take you away for something else? eat you? rape you?
Aliens made everything absolute and took away the mystery behind the creature established in the first film.
Behaved in strange ways? It killed whomever bumped into it (and literally everyone bumps into it, it doesn't seem to go out of its way to find anyone). That's all the motivation it seemed to have. Alien was a very simple film. The mystery lay in what the creature was, not what it wanted, which was always said, down to the interviews from 1979-2012, to be the propagate. Aside from reproducing, it's effectively single-minded. (Ridley himself, aside from explaining this, complained that Alien had no "prognosis" scene, and that if he were to do Alien II, he would have had one).
That's your interpretation, though. Not a hard fact. In my opinion there was conceptual simplicity and I partially agree with you about its way, but I also found that there's plenty of ambiguity to its simplicity, still...And that's why it worked so effectively as well.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 23, 2012, 05:40:35 PM
Behaved in strange ways? It killed whomever bumped into it (and literally everyone bumps into it, it doesn't seem to go out of its way to find anyone). That's all the motivation it seemed to have. Alien was a very simple film. The mystery lay in what the creature was, not what it wanted, which was always said, down to the interviews from 1979-2012, to be the propagate. Aside from reproducing, it's effectively single-minded. (Ridley himself, aside from explaining this, complained that Alien had no "prognosis" scene, and that if he were to do Alien II, he would have had one).
Well, I don't think it's completely far-fetched to say that the alien behaved in strange ways. If you only think about WHAT it did, then of course you're right. It wanted to kill and reproduce, and there's no need to get too philosophical about it. But thinking about HOW it did those things, it's probably fair to say the alien had a certain amount of strangeness to it. I mean with the way it approached the victims and so on... But I guess that's what you meant with "The mystery lay in what the creature was, not what it wanted". So we're talking about the same thing, basically. Semantics rule, don't they? :)
The third question, WHY it behaved in a certain way, I've never been interested in. Mostly because the only real answer to that question is that the makers of the film thought it would be scary and effective. And it was.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 24, 2012, 03:50:17 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 23, 2012, 05:31:34 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 23, 2012, 05:28:13 PM
Because in the first film, it really behaved like something alien. It was a new type of creature which had never been seen before and it behaved in ways that didn't make any kind of immediate sense, i.e. would it kill you? take you away for something else? eat you? rape you?
Aliens made everything absolute and took away the mystery behind the creature established in the first film.
Didnt the eggmorphing scene did that? Showed the pattern and logic in alien's behavior? It showed that the people he took were used as hosts and coccooned. The attackers were killed
So why wasn't Lambert cocooned? Or Brett? Why did it not simply kill Lambert instead of (supposedly) raping her? Why not just kill Dallas on the spot?
Lambert died, either of heart attack or trying to escape. Brett DID get coccooned. Dallas was needed for the egg. I think its safe to assume that since Brett was his first host, it realized an egg from a dead person wouldnt be viable and the next host he took was alive. Plus remember what Scott said, it took one at a time, and at that tiome two eggs were already en route. Once Dallas wouldve been finished it would take another host for his hive. Also, the whole thing with Brett is kind of inconsistency as well. Hes shown to be headbitten but screams all the way up till disappears and then theres no wound on his forehead whatsoever
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Mar 24, 2012, 08:08:06 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 23, 2012, 05:40:35 PM
Behaved in strange ways? It killed whomever bumped into it (and literally everyone bumps into it, it doesn't seem to go out of its way to find anyone). That's all the motivation it seemed to have. Alien was a very simple film. The mystery lay in what the creature was, not what it wanted, which was always said, down to the interviews from 1979-2012, to be the propagate. Aside from reproducing, it's effectively single-minded. (Ridley himself, aside from explaining this, complained that Alien had no "prognosis" scene, and that if he were to do Alien II, he would have had one).
Well, I don't think it's completely far-fetched to say that the alien behaved in strange ways. If you only think about WHAT it did, then of course you're right. It wanted to kill and reproduce, and there's no need to get too philosophical about it. But thinking about HOW it did those things, it's probably fair to say the alien had a certain amount of strangeness to it. I mean with the way it approached the victims and so on... But I guess that's what you meant with "The mystery lay in what the creature was, not what it wanted". So we're talking about the same thing, basically. Semantics rule, don't they? :)
The third question, WHY it behaved in a certain way, I've never been interested in. Mostly because the only real answer to that question is that the makers of the film thought it would be scary and effective. And it was.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. It was very mysterious in everything it did and it didn't seem like there was logic behind its motives. And yes, you can make the argument if you disregard the DC of the film, especially since Ridley has said he prefers the theatrical version without the egg-morphing.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Mar 24, 2012, 07:04:41 AM
That's your interpretation, though. Not a hard fact. In my opinion there was conceptual simplicity and I partially agree with you about its way, but I also found that there's plenty of ambiguity to its simplicity, still...And that's why it worked so effectively as well.
The ambiguity arose out of serendipity, because Scott had to cut the prognosis scenes from the film, or couldn't film them in the first place. For hard facts, Scott himself calls Alien a simple film and that the Alien is effectively single-minded. You can ignore and interpret the film any way you want, but what I said has its roots in the film-makers mouths (I absolutely don't mean to sound pompous or bratty here, please don't take it that way)
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Mar 24, 2012, 08:08:06 AM
But thinking about HOW it did those things, it's probably fair to say the alien had a certain amount of strangeness to it. I mean with the way it approached the victims and so on...
Scott shot scenes of the Alien hovering around the victims to A) give the audience a sense of its scale without giving the whole creature away ("We wanted to show them that it was big, but not
how big") and B) to showcase the victim's reaction,
not the Alien's interest (Scott categorically denied that the Alien was 'interested' in the crew). Again you can ignore whatever they say if you prefer your own interpretation.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 24, 2012, 02:49:21 PM
Again you can ignore whatever they say if you prefer your own interpretation.
But in that case recognize how
Aliens took things was completely legit.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 24, 2012, 02:49:21 PM
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Mar 24, 2012, 08:08:06 AM
But thinking about HOW it did those things, it's probably fair to say the alien had a certain amount of strangeness to it. I mean with the way it approached the victims and so on...
Scott shot scenes of the Alien hovering around the victims to A) give the audience a sense of its scale without giving the whole creature away ("We wanted to show them that it was big, but not how big") and B) to showcase the victim's reaction, not the Alien's interest (Scott categorically denied that the Alien was 'interested' in the crew). Again you can ignore whatever they say if you prefer your own interpretation.
I'm not saying the alien had any hidden motives or interest in the crew. I'm also in 100% agreement with you that Alien is as simple a film as they come, and exactly because of that (and also the way it's executed) so damn great.
Maybe this is just my own interpretation like you say, but to me the alien still is a strange, terrifying creature, whose appearance, behavior and gestures I can only describe as strange and terrifying! I'm not trying to analyse in any further or read that much into it, though. I'm happy to leave it at that.
Quote from: 8thPassenger on Mar 24, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
I'm not saying the alien had any hidden motives or interest in the crew. I'm also in 100% agreement with you that Alien is as simple a film as they come, and exactly because of that (and also the way it's executed) so damn great.
Maybe this is just my own interpretation like you say, but to me the alien still is a strange, terrifying creature, whose appearance, behavior and gestures I can only describe as strange and terrifying! I'm not trying to analyse in any further or read that much into it, though. I'm happy to leave it at that.
Funnily enough I'm in complete agreement with you. Simple but strange... :D
How does one come to the conclusion that because Alien is a movie based on a simple formula, that the Alien is a simple creature?
The Thing is a similarly formulaic film, but one couldn't conclude that the alien in that film is resultingly simple.
The Alien did not kill whomever it bumped into. The creature toyed with Lambert in what was a purposely sexual manner and didn't even notice Parker until it was provoked. The Alien appeared to calculatedly stalk and sinisterly toy with Dallas in his final scene, and even seemed to admire Brett before it dragged him away. The Alien seemed almost like a tragically confused and existential creature and something that we could never understand.
Now, I don't remember Scott ever saying that the Alien was a simple minded creature. If you could provide a source, I'd concede that to you, but I'd like one that specifically calls the Alien simple and explicitly states the Alien's characteristics rule out anymore depth.
I see that some of you are also referencing the Eggmorphing scene to support your theories, but we all know that the Eggmorphing scene is not canon because it didn't make the final cut. I could just as easily reference the unfilmed scene in which the Alien imitates Ripley's voice to contact Earth as a testament to the the intended depths of its intelligence and mystery. I can't do that, but I can say that none of the scenes that were referenced as examples of the Alien's simple-mindedness were written in an attempt to suggest that the Alien is a simple creature.
To be fair a scene that is present in an official version of the film holds a teensy bit more weight than something that was never even scripted.
Perhaps. But I didn't intend to give it weight. I was merely illustrating that none of the scenes referenced were written with a simple, insect-like alien in mind. In fact, the scenes in the movie were filmed with what was likely a sentient being in mind. Sentience, considering its inexplicable nature, is hardly simple. Because of this, I think the previous arguments in favor of the Alien's simple mindedness hold no weight.
The Alien's motivations are simple. O'Bannon said of it, "the Alien is not only savage, it is also ignorant [of culture, society...]" An interviewer posed to Scott that the Alien escaped onto the Narcissus due to its smarts. Ridley explained it was only done "because we needed an end to the picture." In addition to that, he intended it to be looking for a place to die, rather than stalking anyone. The Narcissus was the place. It's instinctual. The same interviewer told Ridley that Weaver had same something about the Alien having intellectual and sexual interests in her and the crew, to which Scott replied: "I never thought about it that way. I find that her comment is ... certainly odd. Perhaps Sigourney has a touch of sympathy for the creature, because she looks at it from the viewpoint of her character."(I'm sure Weaver brings up this point decades later in the joint commentary she did with Scott. He accepts her interpretation here, if I remember.) In '79, Weaver complained that the film didn't show what the Alien's 'thoughts' were, aside from reproduction: "its first priority was to perpetuate itself. Which means it's us or it." As for the Alien toying with Dallas ... never saw it. How could the Alien be aware that Dallas is being tracked and is in communication with Lambert et al? Otherwise, s'far as it knows, Dallas is fumbling in the dark and can't see or hear a thing. The shadows are spookier than the Alien, if you're blind and deaf to it.
Anyway, I think it's certainly something that's up for interpretation, but so far as I know Scott or O'Bannon etc have never said the Alien was a conniving creature; usually the opposite (SiL or SM - kick my ass into gear if I'm wrong, you guys usually know pretty well).
Scott throws some nuggets of suggestive horror to freak the audience out by what we don't see (inserting Brett's legs into Lambert's scene in editing, for example) but I think a lot of viewers are more transfixed by the idea that this is to portray the Alien in a way that he never quite intended. It was really meant to scare you, first and foremost. Explaining the film overall, Scott said: "Alien is very simple. It is almost like good popular music, like rock n roll." (He also said, "There's nothing intelligent in Alien. It has absolutely no meaning. It works on a very visceral level and its only point is terror and more terror.")
My two pence. Not much, but... :P
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 12:55:17 AM
Explaining the film overall, Scott said: "Alien is very simple. It is almost like good popular music, like rock n roll." (He also said, "There's nothing intelligent in Alien. It has absolutely no meaning. It works on a very visceral level and its only point is terror and more terror.")
Good old Ridley Scott--once again missing the point of his own film, as he did with BLADE RUNNER. :P
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 25, 2012, 12:58:13 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 12:55:17 AM
Explaining the film overall, Scott said: "Alien is very simple. It is almost like good popular music, like rock n roll." (He also said, "There's nothing intelligent in Alien. It has absolutely no meaning. It works on a very visceral level and its only point is terror and more terror.")
Good old Ridley Scott--once again missing the point of his own film, as he did with BLADE RUNNER. :P
He sees them as Heavy Metal-esque comic movies. He gets
his point, we just don't like it (well, I don't care either way)
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 12:59:11 AM
He sees them as Heavy Metal-esque comic movies. He gets his point, we just don't like it (well, I don't care either way)
Yeah, I get that he does, and it makes sense with BLADE RUNNER (and viewing it as a Heavy Metal comic movie is the only way I actually appreciate RUNNER, because I don't think it's very good science fiction)--but still, the sexual imagery and metaphors in ALIEN and Rutger Hauer's interpretation of his character add so much dimension to their respective films that whether Scott intended or not, they accrue far more subtextual weight than what the "great shooter" Sir Ridley did--or rather, didn't--intend.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 25, 2012, 01:02:14 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 12:59:11 AM
He sees them as Heavy Metal-esque comic movies. He gets his point, we just don't like it (well, I don't care either way)
Yeah, I get that he does, and it makes sense with BLADE RUNNER (and viewing it as a Heavy Metal comic movie is the only way I actually appreciate RUNNER, because I don't think it's very good science fiction)--but still, the sexual imagery and metaphors in ALIEN and Rutger Hauer's interpretation of his character add so much dimension to their respective films that whether Scott intended or not, they accrue far more subtextual weight than what the "great shooter" Sir Ridley did--or rather, didn't--intend.
When he says it's simple, I think he means that it's on the nose. The sexual imagery is in your face; you don't miss it (you
can't miss those ovoid doors). Ridley talks about rock n' roll in association with Alien. Rock n' roll can be thematic, it can talk about sex and violence and uncertainty - it just doesn't hide anything from you. You can watch the film in one sitting and get the main thrust of everything it's saying (I think he tends to underestimate how much people can take Blade Runner and run with it, though ... in fact, I've ready some cray-zee interpretations of Alien...) But on the whole, the film doesn't hide anything, and if it does, it's only to scare you (what's the Space Jockey? What's the Alien? etc.)
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 12:55:17 AM
The Alien's motivations are simple. O'Bannon said of it, "the Alien is not only savage, it is also ignorant [of culture, society...]" An interviewer posed to Scott that the Alien escaped onto the Narcissus due to its smarts. Ridley explained it was only done "because we needed an end to the picture." In addition to that, he intended it to be looking for a place to die, rather than stalking anyone. The Narcissus was the place. It's instinctual. The same interviewer told Ridley that Weaver had same something about the Alien having intellectual and sexual interests in her and the crew, to which Scott replied: "I never thought about it that way. I find that her comment is ... certainly odd. Perhaps Sigourney has a touch of sympathy for the creature, because she looks at it from the viewpoint of her character."(I'm sure Weaver brings up this point decades later in the joint commentary she did with Scott. He accepts her interpretation here, if I remember.) In '79, Weaver complained that the film didn't show what the Alien's 'thoughts' were, aside from reproduction: "its first priority was to perpetuate itself. Which means it's us or it." As for the Alien toying with Dallas ... never saw it. How could the Alien be aware that Dallas is being tracked and is in communication with Lambert et al? Otherwise, s'far as it knows, Dallas is fumbling in the dark and can't see or hear a thing. The shadows are spookier than the Alien, if you're blind and deaf to it.
Anyway, I think it's certainly something that's up for interpretation, but so far as I know Scott or O'Bannon etc have never said the Alien was a conniving creature; usually the opposite (SiL or SM - kick my ass into gear if I'm wrong, you guys usually know pretty well).
Scott throws some nuggets of suggestive horror to freak the audience out by what we don't see (inserting Brett's legs into Lambert's scene in editing, for example) but I think a lot of viewers are more transfixed by the idea that this is to portray the Alien in a way that he never quite intended. It was really meant to scare you, first and foremost. Explaining the film overall, Scott said: "Alien is very simple. It is almost like good popular music, like rock n roll." (He also said, "There's nothing intelligent in Alien. It has absolutely no meaning. It works on a very visceral level and its only point is terror and more terror.")
My two pence. Not much, but... :P
I don't find that anything in this post suggests that Scott didn't consider the creature smart. He says that the Alien made its way into the Nostromo not due to its smarts but due to its instincts. That's not to say that the Alien isn't intelligent. O'Bannon is a different story, but we all know that this film was more Scott's than his by the end of production.
I didn't say it wasn't intelligent, I said its motivations are simple. If I didn't say this properly, or was muddled in my explanation in the latter post or elsewhere, I apologise.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 01:07:12 AM
When he says it's simple, I think he means that it's on the nose. The sexual imagery is in your face; you don't miss it (you can't miss those ovoid doors). Ridley talks about rock n' roll in association with Alien. Rock n' roll can be thematic, it can talk about sex and violence and uncertainty - it just doesn't hide anything from you. You can watch the film in one sitting and get the main thrust of everything it's saying (I think he tends to underestimate how much people can take Blade Runner and run with it, though ... in fact, I've ready some cray-zee interpretations of Alien...) But on the whole, the film doesn't hide anything, and if it does, it's only to scare you (what's the Space Jockey? What's the Alien? etc.)
ALIEN has quite a bit of subtext, if you're willing to read into it--like THE SHINING, it is a film that is deceptively simple, but has just enough boiling just under the surface for people to go off and write long academic essays about how ALIEN is about the horror of reproductive instinct writ large, or how it's about sexuality rearing up and destroying the sterile, chaste techonlogical ideas that humanity has of its own future, or the horrors of corporate control, blah blah, or about how THE SHINING is really about the systematic slaughter of the Native Americans and how the hotel itself represents modern day patriarchal white America (even more bizarre because that interpretation makes a
crazy kind of sense).
I'm not comparing Scott to Kubrick, though--Kubrick knew how to use subtext, and considered it carefully (hence the bonkers Shining interpreation above actually perhaps being somewhat correct, at least in parts). I don't think Scott knows what subtext even is--he's a 100% literalist who excels at telling straight narrative and making everything appear grounded and realistic. That is his great skill, especially as a genre director. All the meaningful bits of ALIEN are supplied by Giger, O'Bannon and Hill & Giler. It's just always amusing to see how "the master" Ridley thinks of his own work, often missing the point because he is so literal minded.
Alien 3 is indeed a good movie but I do not understand why some people say it's bad like AVPR?.
Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 25, 2012, 01:22:08 AM
Alien 3 is indeed a good movie but I do not understand why some people say it's bad like AVPR?.
Because those people are
insane. Or prone to ludicrous hyperbole.
Probably both.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 25, 2012, 01:18:08 AM
ALIEN has quite a bit of subtext, if you're willing to read into it--like THE SHINING, it is a film that is deceptively simple, but has just enough boiling just under the surface for people to go off and write long academic essays about how ALIEN is about the horror of reproductive instinct writ large, or how it's about sexuality rearing up and destroying the sterile, chaste techonlogical ideas that humanity has of its own future, or the horrors of corporate control, blah blah, or about how THE SHINING is really about the systematic slaughter of the Native Americans and how the hotel itself represents modern day patriarchal white America (even more bizarre because that interpretation makes a crazy kind of sense).
I'm not comparing Scott to Kubrick, though--Kubrick knew how to use subtext, and considered it carefully (hence the bonkers Shining interpreation above actually perhaps being somewhat correct, at least in parts). I don't think Scott knows what subtext even is--he's a 100% literalist who excels at telling straight narrative and making everything appear grounded and realistic. That is his great skill, especially as a genre director. All the meaningful bits of ALIEN are supplied by Giger, O'Bannon and Hill & Giler. It's just always amusing to see how "the master" Ridley thinks of his own work, often missing the point because he is so literal minded.
Funnily enough, I sometimes see Alien as being deceptively
complex, and that some of the more pompous critics couldn't believe that a film that is so successful could be so straightforward. Saying that, there is of course subtext (be wary of the psychoanalysts who raise an eyebrow when you light up a cigar, though). I think most, if not all, of this subtext is secondary to its purpose - to scare you. But like Ron Shusett said, these elements fulfill their primary intention of scaring you, and additionally give the film an underbelly to survive the decades. (In regards to The Shining, if you're going to feature a film with a family falling apart, then you're obviously going to be critiquing the society or strata they come, no matter your intention -- have you read the moon landing Shining theories by the way, Cvalda? I also remember Kubrick being annoyed that commentators were saying he made HAL 'gay' as a sort of critique.)
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 25, 2012, 01:23:19 AM
Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 25, 2012, 01:22:08 AM
Alien 3 is indeed a good movie but I do not understand why some people say it's bad like AVPR?.
Because those people are insane. Or prone to ludicrous hyperbole.
Probably both.
With you on
both :P
I love how intelligent these boards are compared to other forums. It's refreshing. I appreciate the intelligent discourse here. It reminds me of why I'm a fan of this franchise.
Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 25, 2012, 01:22:08 AM
Alien 3 is indeed a good movie but I do not understand why some people say it's bad like AVPR?.
Because they are stupid idiots.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gallery4collectors.com%2Fimages%2FAndyThomas-AbeLincolnSmilin.jpg&hash=910a9654c5584d59a084798916333f6b070e7960)
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 01:29:28 AM
In regards to The Shining, if you're going to feature a film with a family falling apart, then you're obviously going to be critiquing the society or strata they come, no matter your intention -- have you read the moon landing Shining theories by the way, Cvalda?
Oh yes--
those. I can almost buy the Native American/America thing, but the Moon landing thing? I read a little bit, then felt brain cells going and decided to stop before the deadly waves of crazy got to me. :P
Quote
I also remember Kubrick being annoyed that commentators were saying he made HAL 'gay' as a sort of critique.
:laugh: There's a funny dig at that in the movie
Colour Me Kubrick, where a flamboyantly gay John Malkovich "impersonates" Kubrick. Word gets around that "Stanley Kubrick" is actually gay--cut to two guys in a bar: "But of course he is! Didn't you know? He left his calling card all over
2001!"
Quote from: CarnalCalligraphy on Mar 25, 2012, 01:30:14 AM
I love how intelligent these boards are compared to other forums. It's refreshing. I appreciate the intelligent discourse here. It reminds me of why I'm a fan of this franchise.
I'm sure we can find you a rude idiot or two :P (no, really, we're all buddies!)
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 25, 2012, 01:37:00 AM
Oh yes--those. I can almost buy the Native American/America thing, but the Moon landing thing? I read a little bit, then felt brain cells going and decided to stop before the deadly waves of crazy got to me. :P
To this day I don't know if those theories are deliberate troll attempts, or truly serious. The unknown factor scares me.
Quote
:laugh: There's a funny dig at that in the movie Colour Me Kubrick, where a flamboyantly gay John Malkovich "impersonates" Kubrick. Word gets around that "Stanley Kubrick" is actually gay--cut to two guys in a bar: "But of course he is! Didn't you know? He left his calling card all over 2001!"
:laugh: Well, I've read a few interviews and Kubrick always has to spend the first half dismissing every myth that somehow attaches itself to him. I think the reason his output slowed down so drastically was because he spent most of his years correcting errant journalists :P
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 01:42:15 AM
To this day I don't know if those theories are deliberate troll attempts, or truly serious. The unknown factor scares me.
Whether they are or not, a number of people take them seriously.
They really do. Have you ever been to a forum site called AboveTopSecret? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 25, 2012, 01:46:00 AM
Whether they are or not, a number of people take them seriously. They really do. Have you ever been to a forum site called AboveTopSecret? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I've just Googled it now and ... I'm going to have fun here. I remember finding a Flat Earth forum, and the administrator seriously,
seriously reckoned the Earth was flat and walled by a sheet of ice that was manned by armed sentries, all around its circumference.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 01:48:08 AM
I've just Googled it now and ... I'm going to have fun here. I remember finding a Flat Earth forum, and the administrator seriously, seriously reckoned the Earth was flat and walled by a sheet of ice that was manned by armed sentries, all around its circumference.
:laugh: I occasionally browse those forums to see if anything actually interesting pops up that I can appropriate or recontextualize for writing projects--paranoids often yield the craziest, most inexplicably intriguing historical stuff. But mostly, you take a quick browse, see a wall of crazy, and immediately click away. :P
Some people have alot of nerve comparing AVPR to Alien 3.
Next 10 years AVPR will be even more unpopuler.
I believe that arguably if they stopped at Alien 3 (besides Prometheus... at the moment) the 'trilogy' would of been golden. Ripley sacrificing herself to destroy the queen in the end would of been a great ending to the whole movie franchise. But they just had to do Alien Resurrection. While there were some things I liked overall I'm not that fond of #4, paticularly the ending with Paris. The ending to Alien 3 is ten times better in my opinion, sure it's sad the heroine dies but story wise it was gold because it was a noble sacrifice.
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Mar 25, 2012, 02:02:03 AM
I believe that arguably if they stopped at Alien 3 (besides Prometheus... at the moment) the 'trilogy' would of been golden.
But it is! Just think of Resurrection as an intriguing spin-off. It's not part of the original trilogy. ;) :P
I think the first three all had marvellous endings, but none could get more final than Alien 3's. It was a great note to end on. Even though the beginning of the film is devastating and bleak, the end really counter-acts it. It feels hopeful. We see the sun rise over the planet again, IIRC, in contrast to the beginning when we see the sun drop and shroud the planet in darkness. That was the end of Ripley. 4 could've had promise but one of the worst things about it for me was dragging Ripley out of the grave. Via cloning. How was that not cheesy? :/
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 02:07:22 AM
4 could've had promise but one of the worst things about it for me was dragging Ripley out of the grave. Via cloning. How was that not cheesy? :/
They at least did something with it and incorporated it into the plot. And it lead to the best scene in the film: Ripley 8 discovering her seven failed forerunners. And it also allowed for some kinky, bizzaro stuff we'll never see in any Hollywood film again, ever. :P
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 25, 2012, 02:06:11 AM
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Mar 25, 2012, 02:02:03 AM
I believe that arguably if they stopped at Alien 3 (besides Prometheus... at the moment) the 'trilogy' would of been golden.
But it is! Just think of Resurrection as an intriguing spin-off. It's not part of the original trilogy. ;) :P
The problem with that is as much as I'm not fond of it it doesn't exactly go against any canon that I know of either. But when you say that, it does remind me that with or without Resurrection Alien and Aliens will always be gold. :) Alien 3, while the ending was gold (like the endings to the first two but more final) I can't call the whole movie gold, but it wasn't bad either, especially not as bad as AvP-R, not even close.
Heh, Alien Resurrection is always a chore to watch, hence why I don't really watch it at all anymore. There's this disconnect I feel towards it, like Cvalda said, one can think of it as a spin-off. But, it's that contrived plot which does my head in and that freakish abomination that stalks the corridors near the end. And one final gripe, is Wynona Rider who had the personality of a folding chair in that movie. She was just painful to watch. And, she's usually a good actress.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 02:07:22 AM
I think the first three all had marvellous endings, but none could get more final than Alien 3's. It was a great note to end on. Even though the beginning of the film is devastating and bleak, the end really counter-acts it. It feels hopeful. We see the sun rise over the planet again, IIRC, in contrast to the beginning when we see the sun drop and shroud the planet in darkness. That was the end of Ripley. 4 could've had promise but one of the worst things about it for me was dragging Ripley out of the grave. Via cloning. How was that not cheesy? :/
Exactly that was a good end to Ripley's story and perhaps a good end to the alien story but fox being fox, just had to milk the franchise even more and add a sequel and even brought back Ripley...which was monumentally stupid, Signourney is brilliant and so was Ripley but the franchise should not rely on her. A fourth movie would have been ok if they started a fresh story on another planet with a new protagonist. One of the comics shows how much they relied upon ripley and her status among fans by having her in one of the comics with an insane amount of guns stuck together. cheesy is definitely what it is.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 02:07:22 AM
I think the first three all had marvellous endings, but none could get more final than Alien 3's. It was a great note to end on. Even though the beginning of the film is devastating and bleak, the end really counter-acts it. It feels hopeful. We see the sun rise over the planet again, IIRC, in contrast to the beginning when we see the sun drop and shroud the planet in darkness. That was the end of Ripley. 4 could've had promise but one of the worst things about it for me was dragging Ripley out of the grave. Via cloning. How was that not cheesy? :/
And that's why I can't stand it. More importantly, as far as I'm concerned, it shows just how little regard Weaver has for the franchise if she agreed to such a dumb film.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 25, 2012, 02:03:45 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 02:07:22 AM
I think the first three all had marvellous endings, but none could get more final than Alien 3's. It was a great note to end on. Even though the beginning of the film is devastating and bleak, the end really counter-acts it. It feels hopeful. We see the sun rise over the planet again, IIRC, in contrast to the beginning when we see the sun drop and shroud the planet in darkness. That was the end of Ripley. 4 could've had promise but one of the worst things about it for me was dragging Ripley out of the grave. Via cloning. How was that not cheesy? :/
And that's why I can't stand it. More importantly, as far as I'm concerned, it shows just how little regard Weaver has for the franchise if she agreed to such a dumb film.
Totally agree with you here.
And I probably should apologize to those, who appreciate A^3, for what I'm going to say, but that exactly juxtaposing of foreboding red-orange sunset and white and pure dawn always seemed to me like a big bad joke. As if
Inquisition has finaly burnt the witch at stake and now all heresy-pursuers can happily head to home in their prejudiced faith that everything's going to be all right after the execusion.
But on the other hand,
DoomRulz, whether wouldn't you reprise the role for some 5 million bucks? :P
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 25, 2012, 02:03:45 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 02:07:22 AM
I think the first three all had marvellous endings, but none could get more final than Alien 3's. It was a great note to end on. Even though the beginning of the film is devastating and bleak, the end really counter-acts it. It feels hopeful. We see the sun rise over the planet again, IIRC, in contrast to the beginning when we see the sun drop and shroud the planet in darkness. That was the end of Ripley. 4 could've had promise but one of the worst things about it for me was dragging Ripley out of the grave. Via cloning. How was that not cheesy? :/
And that's why I can't stand it. More importantly, as far as I'm concerned, it shows just how little regard Weaver has for the franchise if she agreed to such a dumb film.
After Alien 3 her career kinda stopped, I think by 97 she needed a gig thats why he agreed to do.... something like that
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 25, 2012, 02:03:45 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 25, 2012, 02:07:22 AM
I think the first three all had marvellous endings, but none could get more final than Alien 3's. It was a great note to end on. Even though the beginning of the film is devastating and bleak, the end really counter-acts it. It feels hopeful. We see the sun rise over the planet again, IIRC, in contrast to the beginning when we see the sun drop and shroud the planet in darkness. That was the end of Ripley. 4 could've had promise but one of the worst things about it for me was dragging Ripley out of the grave. Via cloning. How was that not cheesy? :/
And that's why I can't stand it. More importantly, as far as I'm concerned, it shows just how little regard Weaver has for the franchise if she agreed to such a dumb film.
I don't think she little regard for the franchise, she just looked at them as a set of Science Fiction films, and the screenplay has some good horror elements. If I remember correctly, she was very hands on, and thought she was doing a good thing.
It always annoys me when Alien 3 gets slated. I can't really decide of the first 3 films which is my favourite, but if I absoulutly had to I would probably say that 3 (only) just nicks it from the first two.
Obviously as an individual film it doesn't really compare to its predecessors, but as part of the series it actually makes more of a contribution (in my opinion) than the first two did. (This may only be the case though because at 2 films the franchise couldn't really be classed as a series).
But as I've just said in another topic the line "you've been a part of my life for so long that I can't remember anything else" really highlights Ripley's plight against the Alien and that the two are so entwined that you cannot have the aliens without Ripley and Vice Versa. And I think the whole film in general leans towards this theme - Ripley's loss of Hicks and Newt (and perhaps also to a certain degree Bishop) and Ripley's discovery that she herself is impregnated shows that Ripley has nothing or no-one in her life apart from the alien.
Yes it is not one of the best films ever made, but considering the behind-the-scenes troubles this film had it's surprisiing that it's actually as good as it is.
I'd even go onto say that Ressurection also quite nicely delves into the Aliens/Ripley destiny undertone. (Yes I am aware of just how poor that film is and will never defend it as I have just done with 3). But a few positives that I can take from that film are that we see that even in death Ripley is unable to find solace from the alien (yep again I'm aware that the clonning storyline is cheesy - and that's being polite, but it's what we've got). And we now find that not only are Ripley's and the aliens fates entwined but they now also share a connection on a subatomic level (cheesy I know but again it's what we've got). So for me what A:3 and A:R offer us that the first 2 don't is like I said, As far as the alien and Ripley are concerned you can't have one with out the other. That is until AvP came and ruined that whole mythos for me. (I know I've pretty much said exactly the same in another topic so I appologise to those who've read both for repeating myself, but this topic also seemed quite apt for what I said in the other one).
Also if if anything I've just said is repeating what's already been discussed on this topic then I'm sorry but I'm a newbie and unfortunatly don't have the time to read all 70+ pages here at the mo (but rest assured I will).
But there you go that's my take on A:3 & A:R.
Dare I say it - it's flawed genius. Is it perfect? No, hell no. But I am in love with the deeply haunting atmosphere the film paints. The religious subtext, and the amazing score by Elliot Goldenthal.
Which version would you say you prefer of Alien 3? The Theatrical or the Assembly Cut?
Ah yes the religious subtext - I loved the the dragon worship and thought that could have been explored a little more that we saw on screen.
For me I prefered the theatrical edition - only because I prefered the dog scene to the ox scene. In the "ThoseLittleThings" thread (i think) I read someone mention the scene where the hugger is on the ceiling of the escape pod and the dog is barking at it. That scene is brilliant.
I think the term "flawed genius" perfectly sums up that film.
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 25, 2012, 07:17:32 PM
Dare I say it - it's flawed genius. Is it perfect? No, hell no. But I am in love with the deeply haunting atmosphere the film paints. The religious subtext, and the amazing score by Elliot Goldenthal.
Agree with everything you said. 8)
Quote from: SM on Mar 22, 2012, 06:22:19 AM
QuoteI don't get the hate levelled at aliens for making the aliens "bugs"
What's not to get? People feel Cameron went too far down the insect path and don't like it.
I don't get people who say "I don't get x" when x has been detailed ad infinitum.
You DO get it - you simply don't agree.
Aliens ARE portrayed as more insect like in Aliens. Personally, I don't mind in the slightest, though.
Perhaps this would be more appropriate.
QuoteIt always annoys me when Alien 3 gets slated.
It used to annoy me that Resurrection gets slated. You get over it.
It can be annoying after putting up with decades of complaints when things should be settled by now due to the knowledge we have of the production problems but as SM said, you get over it and its best to focus on the positives and try to figure out what they were trying to make rather than get stuck with negatives.
if you want something to complain about, i hear fox is an excellent target since they are the or a source of the falling of the franchise.
Fox aren't writing the scripts.
But are the unexplained things in Alien 3 that bothersome? Sure, the egg appeared out of nowhere, but so did Ash in Muthurs chamber when Ripley was reading the special order
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 25, 2012, 11:51:59 PM
But are the unexplained things in Alien 3 that bothersome? Sure, the egg appeared out of nowhere, but so did Ash in Muthurs chamber when Ripley was reading the special order
Those two things are not comparable.
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2012, 11:40:18 PM
Fox aren't writing the scripts.
They near enough are since they have more creative control and tend to tell people on sets what they want, they even edited things behind the directors back.
if they are not THE source of the problem then they definitely A source.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 25, 2012, 11:54:10 PM
if they are not THE source of the problem then they definitely A source.
At the very least, we can squarely blame them for the
AVP horrors. Neither Brandywine nor Sigourney were at all involved with those--they were completely a studio-driven train wreck.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 25, 2012, 11:53:40 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 25, 2012, 11:51:59 PM
But are the unexplained things in Alien 3 that bothersome? Sure, the egg appeared out of nowhere, but so did Ash in Muthurs chamber when Ripley was reading the special order
Those two things are not comparable.
Theyre different, but in both artistic license is taken in a bid dose
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 26, 2012, 12:15:46 AM
Theyre different, but in both artistic license is taken in a bid dose
No, one is a plot hole and the other is just a bit of filmmaking sleight of hand.
I love ALIEN 3, and it's my second favorite of the series, but I'm not going to defend the magic egg. It's even more annoying since it should have been removed for the Assembly Cut, so we're
still stuck with it.
^ Yes, I agree with this. Kane in Muthurs chamber is not nearly as jarring as the egg scene – which the whole plot of Alien 3 hinges on.
the only thing worse than the egg from nowhere that somehow appears is the predaliens ability to lay eggs through its mouth in AVPR, what ridiculousness when Aliens have a queen that lays eggs and Predators have females they mate with, it was stupid as it made no sense IMO, so I rank A3 as well(or poorly) as AVPR
Quote from: HUTSON on Mar 26, 2012, 12:30:06 AM
I rank A3 as well(or poorly) as AVPR
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1175.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr623%2FPunisher616%2Fno_country_for_old_men_tommy_lee_jones.jpg&hash=dfb4f09e4681ec15d7859750c97a17b4b571808d)
QuoteThey near enough are since they have more creative control and tend to tell people on sets what they want, they even edited things behind the directors back.
if they are not THE source of the problem then they definitely A source.
A source, yes. Not THE source.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 25, 2012, 11:54:10 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2012, 11:40:18 PM
Fox aren't writing the scripts.
They near enough are since they have more creative control and tend to tell people on sets what they want, they even edited things behind the directors back.
if they are not THE source of the problem then they definitely A source.
In case you didn't realize, David Fincher quit the movie and then the film was edited. He was a spoiled brat 27 year old kid given one of the bigger franchises the studio ever had its hands on, and it was his first feature. I'm not really sure why he was so surprised that he wasn't given much control over the direction the movie went in. Then he threw his hands up and quit. I don't really feel bad for him.
David wasn't even brought on until late in production, fox were just a bunch interfering little t@s who undermined him and everyone so their ideas could be implemented, they are the reason the AVPs were set on earth among other things.
Fox's reputation for executive meddling is infamous.
QuoteDavid wasn't even brought on until late in production
He was brought in during pre-production.
Quotethey are the reason the AVPs were set on earth among other things
That was John Davis. John Davis isn't Fox.
Yeah, well considering the amount of time and money they already put into the film, you really think they were going to leave it in the hands of a 27 year old music video director of all people? I think the shock reaction people have when they find out about Alien 3's production history is blown a little out of proportion when they consider Fox's mess ups.
QuoteThat was John Davis. John Davis isn't Fox.
There's one guy I'd really like to see just LEAVE the franchise and never come back.
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 26, 2012, 01:19:06 AM
In case you didn't realize, David Fincher quit the movie and then the film was edited. He was a spoiled brat 27 year old kid given one of the bigger franchises the studio ever had its hands on, and it was his first feature. I'm not really sure why he was so surprised that he wasn't given much control over the direction the movie went in. Then he threw his hands up and quit. I don't really feel bad for him.
With the amount of shit Fox put him through, I don't blame him. It's like being thrown out to sea. Sink or swim.
What did he expect?
QuoteThere's one guy I'd really like to see just LEAVE the franchise and never come back.
'ken oath...
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 26, 2012, 01:34:21 AM
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 26, 2012, 01:19:06 AM
In case you didn't realize, David Fincher quit the movie and then the film was edited. He was a spoiled brat 27 year old kid given one of the bigger franchises the studio ever had its hands on, and it was his first feature. I'm not really sure why he was so surprised that he wasn't given much control over the direction the movie went in. Then he threw his hands up and quit. I don't really feel bad for him.
With the amount of shit Fox put him through, I don't blame him. It's like being thrown out to sea. Sink or swim.
People have been through worse things than losing control on a multimillion dollar studio film before they even turn 30, and being able to leave with a paycheck. I don't even want Fincher to participate in any documentaries on the subject, I'm just going to lose respect for him as he whines his head off about the whole thing.
How can you quit production on your first feature, ESPECIALLY if its a studio film, and then have a career ahead of you in Hollywood? Amazing.
Quote from: SM on Mar 26, 2012, 01:26:55 AM
QuoteDavid wasn't even brought on until late in production
He was brought in during pre-production.
Quotethey are the reason the AVPs were set on earth among other things
That was John Davis. John Davis isn't Fox.
David was brought in late, i didn't watch much of the blu ray dvds with fincher's interviews etc so this will have to do:
from the wikipedia.
Alien 3 had a difficult production, with various screenwriters and directors getting involved in the project, and shooting even started without a finished script. The film was the big-budget debut of a young David Fincher, who was brought into the project very late in its development, after a proposed version written by Vincent Ward at the helm fell through. Fincher had little time to prepare, and the experience of making the film proved agonizing for him, as he had to endure incessant creative interference from the studio and had to shoot the film without having a definite script. The added weight was also to create a film worthy of the work of the two revered directors that had gone before him, James Cameron and Ridley Scott. Upon completion, the studio dismantled and reworked it without Fincher's consent, including releasing a teaser trailer that suggested the film would take place on Earth.
The distinction here is "pre-production" and "production".
The film was still in pre-production when he was brought in. They weren't shooting yet.
The three production types are pre-production, production and post-production.
Did you mean very late in pre-production? the only thing i know is that he was brought in very late in development.
Late in pre-production.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 26, 2012, 02:00:42 AM
The three production types are pre-production, production and post-production.
Did you mean very late in pre-production? the only thing i know is that he was brought in very late in development.
Pre-Production = Development
Yes thank you, i was just checking to see if that is what SM meant.
Still doesn't justify what fox put him through though and you're right, maybe fox should have got a more veteran director but then they would have trouble bossing him or her around compared to a newbie director.
Orson Welles was just as adamant about having complete creative control over his work. Genius is uncompromising.
It wasn't really about bossing around. They couldn't even afford to hire a veteran at that point. They needed someone quick and cheap. They'd already spent however much money, I don't know the exact amount, SM probably would.
Maybe but more likely they just wanted someone they could easily control, fincher was a newbie with no high reputation to fight or argue the studio with. Cameron succeeded though, which is why we got aliens the way it is although the drawback being its what caused dollar signs to appear in fox's eye.
Cameron's situation is so totally different it shouldn't even be mentioned. He was never brought in to replace anyone. His story had been finalized way before the film even entered pre-production, while Alien 3 began shooting without even a finished script. Cameron was no longer an unknown when he began Aliens, like David Fincher was. If you count Piranha II, "Jimbo" had already finished 2 features. One of them was pretty successful, ahem.
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 26, 2012, 02:16:09 AM
Cameron's situation is so totally different it shouldn't even be mentioned. He was never brought in to replace anyone. His story had been finalized way before the film even entered pre-production, while Alien 3 began shooting without even a finished script. Cameron was no longer an unknown when he began Aliens, like David Fincher was. If you count Piranha II, "Jimbo" had already finished 2 features. One of them was pretty successful, ahem.
That is my point, cameron wasn't a complete newbie so he fought of the studio, fincher was a newbie who had no say in the matter when it came to them and it frustrated him to no end.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 26, 2012, 02:19:38 AM
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 26, 2012, 02:16:09 AM
Cameron's situation is so totally different it shouldn't even be mentioned. He was never brought in to replace anyone. His story had been finalized way before the film even entered pre-production, while Alien 3 began shooting without even a finished script. Cameron was no longer an unknown when he began Aliens, like David Fincher was. If you count Piranha II, "Jimbo" had already finished 2 features. One of them was pretty successful, ahem.
That is my point, cameron wasn't a complete newbie so he fought of the studio, fincher was a newbie who had no say in the matter when it came to them and it frustrated him to no end.
What did he fight them on? They made him cut 20 minutes of the movie. I'm not sure what else he didn't get that he wanted from them or fought them on.
Fox needed Fincher because they needed to get the thing done and over with. They didn't need some artistic guy coming off of a success who was going to make the film their own vision and start from scratch again. They kind of just needed someone to get the ball rolling.
Pretty much. They did treat him pretty appallingly (Weaver said they were all cheerleading for him until he started shooting at which point they continually undermined him). But by the same token he did waste an awful lot of time and money shooting mundane shit.
Quote from: Hudson on Mar 26, 2012, 02:10:13 AM
It wasn't really about bossing around. They couldn't even afford to hire a veteran at that point. They needed someone quick and cheap. They'd already spent however much money, I don't know the exact amount, SM probably would.
Don't know off hand.
But having to pay off Gibson, Twohy, Red, Harlin, Ward, Fasano, Pickett, as well as havng ADI making models of stuff that never got used, and concept designers drawing things that got dropped can't have been cheap, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't run in to the tens of millions before a frame had even been shot.
Not to mention the whole Norman Reynolds thing...and they just really needed to get cameras rolling. I guess the future strategy for that would be to NOT use someone who cut their teeth on MTV.
I didn't like it when i first saw it because i was hping for more of Aliens on earth! Then they killed off two of my favorite characters and had a bunch of bald guys who seemed similar. My friend who had never seen the first 2 enjoyed it because he didn't have any investment in the characters from Aliens. The recut version is much better and the film was done pretty well considering Fincher didn't have a script. But with all the problems it was never going the match the first two films. Good soundtrack though but a wasted opportunity.
I think their first mistake, before anyone even saw the movie, was this right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk_x9W1xKng#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk_x9W1xKng#ws)
Wow, Fox, way to LIE TO THE AUDIENCE.
They also really tried to Push Alien 3 in the trailers as some kind of epic action-horror finale to the series. Which was a huge mistake.
All of that, of course, is before anyone has even sat down in the theater to see the film. It only made things that much harder on the film proper.
I always took that slogan as audiences on earth screaming, not so much characters. There was never any promoting showing earth at all.
That promo shows and mentions Earth.
It's a blatant mislead to the audience. People had a reasonable expectation that Alien3 was going to be on Earth. We know now that Fox never had any intention of doing anything of the sort.
Indeed. Though, wasn't one of the scripts set on gateway? "Close enough" I guess. Though, i'm pretty sure Ripley wasn't in that one.
They just didn't know what the Hell they were doing. Well, trying to make money.
Well, mission complete, I guess. ::) ;D
Kind of.
I don't recall any script set on Gateway. Red, Gibson, Twohy and Ward all set theirs on space stations. Twohy's was a prison in Earth orbit I believe.
"TITS AND FREE BEER
now that we've got your attention - come see our movie"
Quote from: SM on Apr 04, 2012, 01:53:31 AM
That promo shows and mentions Earth.
It's a blatant mislead to the audience. People had a reasonable expectation that Alien3 was going to be on Earth. We know now that Fox never had any intention of doing anything of the sort.
I thought it just hovered over that alien egg in space?
Well its a good job alien 3 was not set on earth as we know how that went for AVP 1 and 2 although that was more to do with avp films simply being bad films with poor plots and cardboard characters rather than the setting but a lot of fans and average viewers in general reckon it would have been a bit better if it was set in space.
Anyway, that was a dick move on fox's part to mislead people like that.
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Apr 04, 2012, 02:43:32 PM
Well its a good job alien 3 was not set on earth as we know how that went for AVP 1 and 2
It was very different. AVP I thought had a great idea to set it in Antarctica, most isolated place on the planet. AVPR on the other hand made a joke of the entire series and an idiot out of Ripley, which is now made out to be an overreacting paranoic. show what she wand everyone else would say would happen - mass infestation. If you have to set it on Earth, make the aliens spread. Theres a wildlife all round the town, dont make them conveniently stay in one town when theres life all over, or dont place the movie in such setting at all. It doesnt take a huge budget to show a global infestation - The Signs did it wonderful. Just show a small town barricaded and seeing everything on TV or through radio, and there you go
I agree that the first AVP had potential though the lack of character development, sped up life cycle, a few errors with the facts of Antarctica etc let the film down. The film could have been very well done and very good but it became very big disappointment, though its something i know had potential and its something i can watch just fine. AVPR is indeed one big joke and took a big stinking dump on the franchises, its funny how the directors call themselves fans and then messed up the established life cycle and made a mockery of everything. Although i hear they wanted to do it in space originally and then when they couldn't they were going to kill the predalien off in the crash (which might have improved the film) but fox had them make it the main antagonist. The stupidity of the characters and bad acting was so awful. Say what you want about A:R and alien 3 but AVPR is most the hated of the films (to my current knowledge anyway since i only know one person who views it as one of the greatest films ever) :laugh:
Quote from: Hudson on Apr 04, 2012, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: SM on Apr 04, 2012, 01:53:31 AM
That promo shows and mentions Earth.
It's a blatant mislead to the audience. People had a reasonable expectation that Alien3 was going to be on Earth. We know now that Fox never had any intention of doing anything of the sort.
I thought it just hovered over that alien egg in space?
Pulls back from the egg, it cracks and we're hovering over the Earth.
And the tagline.
"In space, no one can hear you scream. On Earth, everyone can hear you scream."
Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Apr 04, 2012, 02:43:32 PM
Well its a good job alien 3 was not set on earth as we know how that went for AVP 1 and 2 although that was more to do with avp films simply being bad films with poor plots and cardboard characters rather than the setting but a lot of fans and average viewers in general reckon it would have been a bit better if it was set in space.
Anyway, that was a dick move on fox's part to mislead people like that.
None of the faults of AVP or AVPR had to do with it being on Earth, honestly. None of those that you mention. Bad characters, bad dialogue, bad plotting... That could just as easily happened in space or on another planet.
Alien 3 being set on Earth would have made thematic sense actually, and if they would have done that, but kept the religious elements that were cropping up in all the drafts, it could have given the series a very apocalyptic ending.
The doom that was hinted at in the first film. (The Jockeys.)
The war that was fought in the second film. (The Marines)
The apocalypse that could have occurred in the third film. (Ripley's sacrifice)
I just think it would have been nice had they played to that idea. Oh God, they finally made it to Earth. That thing we've been worried about for two movies has finally happened.
AvP and Requiem were completely at fault for putting the Aliens on Earth, I'm not saying it shouldn't be done but their was no sense of urgency, both times and especially Requiem the Aliens didn't spread rapidly across the world as Ripley had feared killing everything, instead they just dicked about in restaraunts, bushes and sewers not really doing anything
The Predator probably did more harm with shithouse aim than the Aliens.
Yep, another gripe. For a badass experienced Predator Wolf'made a lot of noise and caused a lot of damage... plus killing and skinning the cop... WHY!!
Idiotic writing leads to idiotic Predator.
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Apr 05, 2012, 01:06:26 AM
AvP and Requiem were completely at fault for putting the Aliens on Earth, I'm not saying it shouldn't be done but their was no sense of urgency, both times and especially Requiem the Aliens didn't spread rapidly across the world as Ripley had feared killing everything, instead they just dicked about in restaraunts, bushes and sewers not really doing anything
Again, that's not the fault of the movies being on Earth so much as the writing generally just sucking. It -could- have worked, and with the first film, the general scenario did work okay enough. It was an isolated environment and there weren't too many aliens. It worked well enough. That other movie doesn't even... Just, no. It was bad on every level. :)
Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 05, 2012, 01:53:52 AM
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Apr 05, 2012, 01:06:26 AM
AvP and Requiem were completely at fault for putting the Aliens on Earth, I'm not saying it shouldn't be done but their was no sense of urgency, both times and especially Requiem the Aliens didn't spread rapidly across the world as Ripley had feared killing everything, instead they just dicked about in restaraunts, bushes and sewers not really doing anything
Again, that's not the fault of the movies being on Earth so much as the writing generally just sucking. It -could- have worked, and with the first film, the general scenario did work okay enough. It was an isolated environment and there weren't too many aliens. It worked well enough. That other movie doesn't even... Just, no. It was bad on every level. :)
I understand what you were saying, it's just a bit of a f**k you to the Ripley's whole battle against the Alien and the Company
The film after Alien 3 was a slap in the face to Ripley, Alien Rez despite it being better than the avp films because its set AFTER the events alien 3 and thus undid ripley's sacrifice, the avp movies while a big pile of donkey turd was set before ripley's time.
SM, you are spot on about that predator, it was more like an inept child with temper tantrums, skinning a cop was very unnecessary and a complete opposite to the goal of cleaning up and shooting out the power grid in anger and generally having bad aim although the aliens were fast movers but yeah it falls down to bad writing among other thingg Though i will say the predator was better than the three in AVP. Earth is not a good setting for avp, the first could have pulled it off but did not do so.
It didn't undo anything. For 200 hundred years there was no contact with the Aliens in spite of the efforts of the Company and USM. Job done. It's a dark irony that she's the instrument of their return.
But it did undo something, ripley died wiping out the xenomorphs and by bringing her back when alien 3 was a good end to her story, they unleashed all the aliens all over again and yes there is that irony. :laugh:
I don't think he's really talking storywise. It undid the poignancy of Alien 3's really good ending, probably the best thing about the movie and one of the better moments in the original trilogy. The sacrifice of the main protagonist after her long struggle.
And then..."OH HAI RIPLEYZ BACK GUYZ!!!" :o
Yep and this time, she is the bitch...partly. :laugh:
They twisted her character too but that is probably for the best since the real ripley would have had a meltdown if she had to deal with all this again for the fourth time especially after she killed herself to make sure it would not happen again.
I always hated the genetic cross that happens to ripley 8 as its too over the top, it would have been more...taken in if she had physical signs of xeno in her such as veins or bones so that the acid blood and increased strength could make sense.
Quote from: Basher917 on Oct 30, 2011, 05:06:06 PM
Now I want to know why some people rank this movie as low as ressurection, or even think it's worst than AVP. People seem to compare this film to Aliens thinking it should be just like Aliens, and nothing like the original film witch the entire series started off on. This also brings me to the fact some people actually belive Aliens should be the first film witch beyond infuriates me to no bounds.
I think it struck a nerve with many of us. I know it did with me. I had a nephew who died of leukemia a few days after he was born. My brother has never been the same. Losing a child is the worst pain imaginable for a parent. The fact that they did that twice to Ripley was an abomination.
I would have been happy if they ended the series with the second film. I didn't want any sequels of any kind.
I think Alien 3 kinda sealed off franchise. I mean if it were set on Earth, we would've seen Xenomorph outbreak, infestation.
New kind of Xeno in canon movies. So many more potentials.
The crapy puppets!! ;)
Quote from: s1cohen on Mar 22, 2013, 07:41:15 PM
I would have been happy if they ended the series with the second film. I didn't want any sequels of any kind.
I've been saying this for years and I'm glad there's someone who finally sees it that way. A3 while entertaining, didn't need to be made because it's very premise was pulled out of someone's ass.
Alien 3 was a very difficult film for me to digest when it first came out. After going through the events of the first two films it felt so depressingly sad and the only hope that came was at the end where Ripley sacrificed all to save mankind.
As i grew older and revisited alien 3 (notably the assembly cut) i was amazed at how deep the film actually is. Theres alot of themes explored such as faith, loss and redmeption which in my opinion make this film theamatically, the deepest of the series.
It certainly is not my favourite of the series but it is a worthy entry. Very interesting film.
I just wish they had approached a few things differently. For expample I dont mind the idea of Hicks and Newt being killed off, its just the the unceremonious way it was done especially after all that the characters went through in Aliens. I believe they deserved more.
Since this is here, and I don't want to start another topic strictly for it, I have a silly question (and apologies if this has been discussed before)...
What happened to the bits of the Runner we see flying at the screen at the end of A3..?
They were bagged and tagged along with the facehugger corpse and then quickly discarded in favor of Ripley's blood-samples-on-ice as their last, best hope for obtaining a specimen.
Until someone can properly and logically explain how the egg sack came to be in Alien3, I will never see it as nothing more than a cheap cash grab.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 26, 2013, 02:58:45 AM
Until someone can properly and logically explain how the egg sack came to be in Alien3, I will never see it as nothing more than a cheap cash grab.
Theres plenty of theories (or excuses ;D) out there. This film was great despite a few minor problems. (the egg being the main one) It would have been better if they edited the magic egg bit out and just had the two facehuggers. Showed them scurrying out of the dropship or crawling through the air ducts.
Hey what's going here guys...Oo.
Quote from: RC on Mar 26, 2013, 01:25:03 AM
They were bagged and tagged along with the facehugger corpse and then quickly discarded in favor of Ripley's blood-samples-on-ice as their last, best hope for obtaining a specimen.
:D
Quote from: RC on Mar 26, 2013, 01:25:03 AM
They were bagged and tagged along with the facehugger corpse and then quickly discarded in favor of Ripley's blood-samples-on-ice as their last, best hope for obtaining a specimen.
Hahah...you read
exactly where I was going with that..! ;)
Jokes aside, anyone know of any in-universe references (if any)..? Just curious...
That's because I've been deriding the absurdity of Alien Resurrection's premise for over 15 years now.
I'm unaware of any in-universe references to all the physical evidence that the runner left behind. I guess we're supposed to believe that being doused with molten lead somehow rendered it far less scientifically useful than Ripley's magic blood.
I hear that...I did as well, but then eventually I tired...too exhausting, lulz...
Considering all that's left behind, there might be a good story in there...I stress, might...
I wonder if there is anything in the EU (can't believe I'm even referring to that ish)... :-X
It sucked because it was basically a big f**k you to fans of Aliens. Killing off or dooming all the survivors of that film in the opening moments wasn't bold or clever, it was a dick move. Throw in major plot holes, characters we have no reason to care about and a shonky looking Xenomorph and you have a crap film. I can honestly say the only thing I enjoyed at all was the way the 20th Century Fox fanfare segued into the opening scene. To this day, I remain one of those people that refuse to acknowledge anything after Aliens. Alien Resurrection was worse but only because Alien 3 left it with nowhere to go....
Colonial Marines...is truly the biggest slap in the face to Aliens fans. The absurdity of that game's story vindicates both Alien³ and Resurrection- to me personally, though I have no malice towards them. Sure, both films do have some major flaws: killing Hicks and Newt was dick move and bringing back Ripley, therefore making her noble sacrifice entirely pointless.
But...can we truly continue to bash them, when there is that game's story?
Am I the only person who liked the fact that they killed off Hicks and Newt? It was part of developing Ripley's character arc, for me she had lived on borrowed time ever since escaping the Nostromo. The thought of following up Aliens with Ripley and a family doesn't sit well with me, she destroyed the Alien threat and prevented the company from getting their hands on it at the cost of her own life, perfect ending to a perfect trilogy IMO
I can't say I liked it, but it doesn't bother me either.
Quote from: Novak 1334 on May 28, 2013, 10:11:03 PM
Am I the only person who liked the fact that they killed off Hicks and Newt? It was part of developing Ripley's character arc, for me she had lived on borrowed time ever since escaping the Nostromo. The thought of following up Aliens with Ripley and a family doesn't sit well with me, she destroyed the Alien threat and prevented the company from getting their hands on it at the cost of her own life, perfect ending to a perfect trilogy IMO
They could have quite easily come up with a reason to seperate Ripley (and maybe Bishop) from the others though, opening up possibilities for the next film (or two) before they reunite in the end. Keeping them all together and shoehorning them into another battle against the Xenomorphs wouldn't have worked but there were plenty of better ways they could have gone about it. In fact, I can't think of any worse idea than the one they actually went with in Alien 3. Complete and utter series killer....
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 28, 2013, 10:19:00 PM
I can't say I liked it, but it doesn't bother me either.
Shouldn't really bother me after 21 years, but I was such a huge fan of Aliens growing up (and still am today) that seeing the follow up basically make that film redundant has never sat right with me (I feel the same about Terminator 3). Alien 3 just undid everything that came before and backed the series into a dead end imo.....
Each to their own I suppose, personally it's my favourite of the three films, well Alien is close, and though it has it's flaws (that f**king egg on the nostromo) I still love it, particularly the style and the score
It wasn't so much that they killed Hicks and Newt (though that is seriously wrong) it was more the whole premise.
"Oh no an alien got on board" - it was hokey and a stupid stupid plot set up. It was ridiculous.
At least with Aliens there was a reason for it. At least with Aliens, Ripley CONSCIOUSLY chose to go up against the alien a second time. Ripley survived the first film physically but not mentally. By the end of Aliens we see that she is in a much better state emotionally as well. We get the sense that she's going to be alright.
Along comes alien 3 and just destroys all that. Some people like seeing depressed characters. Some people like that bleak tone. Personally, I like to see movies about people in the pits and overcoming the odds and coming out the other side in a better state.
Point is, that it's not about them killing off Hicks and Newt, it is about the fact that Ripley was in a third movie in the first place. Her story arc had finished.
Quote from: Novak 1334 on May 28, 2013, 10:33:05 PM
Each to their own I suppose, personally it's my favourite of the three films, well Alien is close, and though it has it's flaws (that f**king egg on the nostromo) I still love it, particularly the style and the score
The egg on the Sulaco thing was beyond stupid. If I'm going to bed and there's a wasp/bee/f**k off big spider in my room, I can't drop off until I've thoroughly checked everywhere. By the same token, if I've just been through Hell and back fighting the perfect killing machine and just gone head to head with a Queen Alien (knowing all about her egg laying capabilities), I ain't going into Hypersleep until I've checked every last inch of that ship. For Ripley, after everything she'd been through, to completely miss two eggs that weren't all that well hidden makes no sense at all and makes it impossible for me to take Alien 3 seriously. As you say though, each to their own. I know Alien 3 (and to a lesser extent Resurrection) has it's fans, and I don't begrudge them that, but I just refuse to acknowledge it's existence....
Plus it's still a better love story than Twilight
Killing off Hicks and Newt could have worked. Doing it literally seconds into the movie? Not so much.
To be honest I didn't hate alien 3.
Sure I was upset when my favourite characters were killed off but I thought it was okay :/
Quote from: TheRaven on May 28, 2013, 11:53:35 PM
To be honest I didn't hate alien 3.
Sure I was upset when my favourite characters were killed off but I thought it was okay :/
Pretty much this. That ending though was perfect shame that the start wasn't :(
Quote from: Rankles75 on May 28, 2013, 10:54:42 PM
For Ripley, after everything she'd been through, to completely miss two eggs that weren't all that well hidden makes no sense at all and makes it impossible for me to take Alien 3 seriously.
Two eggs? ???
Quote from: ST on May 29, 2013, 11:49:43 AM
Quote from: Rankles75 on May 28, 2013, 10:54:42 PM
For Ripley, after everything she'd been through, to completely miss two eggs that weren't all that well hidden makes no sense at all and makes it impossible for me to take Alien 3 seriously.
Two eggs? ???
She had the disadvantage of being in stasis, then jettisoned onto a nearby planet whilst unconcious
Quote from: ST on May 29, 2013, 11:49:43 AM
Quote from: Rankles75 on May 28, 2013, 10:54:42 PM
For Ripley, after everything she'd been through, to completely miss two eggs that weren't all that well hidden makes no sense at all and makes it impossible for me to take Alien 3 seriously.
Two eggs? ???
Sorry, been so long since I watched it that I thought 2 Aliens=2 Facehuggers. Forgot about the whole Super Facehugger BS.
Quote from: Novak 1334 on May 29, 2013, 11:57:17 AM
She had the disadvantage of being in stasis, then jettisoned onto a nearby planet whilst unconcious
My point being that surely she would have thoroughly checked the ship
before entering stasis, not as if there was any need to rush....
It's the most ridiculous part of Alien 3, but I can look past it, it's still m favourite of the three
Quote from: Novak 1334 on May 29, 2013, 12:44:01 PM
It's the most ridiculous part of Alien 3, but I can look past it, it's still m favourite of the three
Fraggin' love Alien³, but I still can't wrap my noggin around people's dilemma with this "egg" business?
I put it down to FOX not having a clue as to what they are doing... ever. Stylistically I think it's better than Aliens, particularly the design of the Xenomorph, aswell as the themes and the score in my opinion it's superior to Aliens.
Before the anti aircraft shells fall on where I'm sitting let me point out that I love Aliens too
Quote from: Rankles75 on May 28, 2013, 02:30:27 PM
It sucked because it was basically a big f**k you to fans of Aliens. Killing off or dooming all the survivors of that film in the opening moments wasn't bold or clever, it was a dick move. Throw in major plot holes, characters we have no reason to care about and a shonky looking Xenomorph and you have a crap film. I can honestly say the only thing I enjoyed at all was the way the 20th Century Fox fanfare segued into the opening scene. To this day, I remain one of those people that refuse to acknowledge anything after Aliens. Alien Resurrection was worse but only because Alien 3 left it with nowhere to go....
Alien 3 I feel is underrated in some ways but I do agree with your points. What I like about it is that it's a return to the cramped corridor, horror feel of the first film. There's a sense of doom because like in the first film, Alien 3's cast is stuck with zero defense against the monster.
Quote from: Mr. Runner on May 29, 2013, 02:08:25 PM
Quote from: Novak 1334 on May 29, 2013, 12:44:01 PM
It's the most ridiculous part of Alien 3, but I can look past it, it's still m favourite of the three
Fraggin' love Alien³, but I still can't wrap my noggin around people's dilemma with this "egg" business?
Because it's ill-conceived and ill-executed.
And add to the fact that's why the film shouldn't have been made in the first place.
Aliens= finished story.
Quote from: echobbase79 on May 29, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
And add to the fact that's why the film shouldn't have been made in the first place.
Aliens= finished story.
I hate happy endings for the most part, so I'm glad they made it
Plus a sequel would have been inevitable anyway, and given that Fincher didn't have a finished script, had to incorporate sets that were built for (I think Vincent Wards script) plus all of FOX's meddling, I think he did a pretty decent job of the movie, and I think Alien 3 cops a lot of flack that it doesn't deserve (eggs and rod puppetry aside) plus more recent sci fi efforts that will go nameless f**ked up a lot more and yet seems to be defended to the hilt, but then again each to their own
Don't get me wrong I like Alien3 overall but there was just no more story to tell with Ripley. Visually the movie is brilliant and there are a lot of cool themes to it but overall it just didn't need to be made.
They should've gone with the David Twohy script that was pretty much a go until Vincent Ward came along with his "brilliant" Wood space station idea. Which pretty started Alien3 going down hill. Or was Joe Roth who said he wouldn't make another alien movie without Ripley so Twohy had to add her into his script.
I think Twohy only wrote one draft and Ripley wasn't in it.
And Alien was a finished story too.
21 years on and still it pulls people in.
Still talked about.
Not bad for a film many consider the worst.
Quote from: SM on May 29, 2013, 11:39:20 PM
I think Twohy only wrote one draft and Ripley wasn't in it.
I swear I thought Twohy just added Ripley to his script to appease Joe Roth at the time because he would only make another Alien movie with Weaver in it. I read it in a special edition Cinescape Magazine that was covering A:R at the time. It also had a retrospective of each film and it talked about Alien3's horrible pre-production on all the writers and directors that worked on it before we got the film that was made. I'll have to look for that mag because I still have it somewhere.
Quote from: SM on May 29, 2013, 11:39:20 PM
And Alien was a finished story too.
Yeah, that's true. They didn't have to make one. But the scene where Brett sees all the eggs opened it up for sequel possibilities where as Aliens killed that opportunity by having Ripley blow away and destroy the Queen's egg sac.
*Kane.
I remember reading somewhere that while Twohy was writing he got wind that either Red or Ward were also working on it, so he fulfuilled his contractual obligation by submitting the script then ran a mile.
It says here that Roth wanted Ripley in Twohy's script, but when Ward was brought in, he wanted to write his own script. (http://www.starburstmagazine.com/features/feature-articles/2631-in-development-hell-nobody-can-hear-you-scream-the-story-behind-alien-3)
I wish David Twohy wrote the final film. I thought Pitch Black was much better than Alien Cubed and Rez.
I only know why I don't like Alien 3. It had good idea's and if it wasn't a sequel I'd say it's a good film, and if I pretend it's not a third entry into a movie series it's entertaining.
The reasons I don't like are because (to me) it's basically a slightly different version from Scott's original film. The only real differences being that there's more characters, it's a prison (may as well be a ship) and it's a different type of alien.
I'm also a fan of the soldiers vs creatures thing, so in terms of a third installment I was let down by the fact that the Marines Cameron created where never seen again on film in the series. There weren't even prison guards in the movie to attempt to replace them which would have probably eased that itch a little bit for me.
In terms of tension/action I thought the first to films where great and unique, the third film was the "beginning of the end" for the uniqueness of the series imo.
For some reason people seem to equate "one Alien = remake of the first film".
In terms of the actual story it bears very little resemblance.
If people want a (cleverly masked) remake of Alien, look no further than Aliens. And Alien3 borrows the whole 'Why does no one take Ripley seriously; on, no, wait, now you're rooted you'll listen to her' aspect from Aliens.
Quote from: SM on May 30, 2013, 02:40:28 AM
If people want a (cleverly masked) remake of Alien, look no further than Aliens.
I don't see how, the only thing I find they have in common are Lambert and Hudson.
Quote from: SM on May 30, 2013, 02:40:28 AM
For some reason people seem to equate "one Alien = remake of the first film".
In terms of the actual story it bears very little resemblance.
Fully agree and I always used to say this as well. As you also said, its Alien and Aliens that are actually very much alike, structurally and visually. Some of those similarities are gathered here - http://www.jamescamerononline.com/AlienandAliens.htm (http://www.jamescamerononline.com/AlienandAliens.htm)
Quote from: SM on May 30, 2013, 12:50:04 AM
*Kane.
I remember reading somewhere that while Twohy was writing he got wind that either Red or Ward were also working on it, so he fulfuilled his contractual obligation by submitting the script then ran a mile.
It says here that Roth wanted Ripley in Twohy's script, but when Ward was brought in, he wanted to write his own script. (http://www.starburstmagazine.com/features/feature-articles/2631-in-development-hell-nobody-can-hear-you-scream-the-story-behind-alien-3)
For some reason I get those actors mixed up. But that's what the article said. Twohy's didn't like that Hill and Giler were secretly working on another script with Ward.
Quote from: KiramidHead on May 30, 2013, 01:58:58 AM
I wish David Twohy wrote the final film. I thought Pitch Black was much better than Alien Cubed and Rez.
Agreed. Did he use any of the elements from his abandoned Alien3 script for Pitch Black? I've never read it.
The problem with Alien 3 is the very idea of it. The whole setup for it is so absurd and that's what makes it hard to get behind. If you can somehow overlook the egg on the EEV, you'll enjoy it that much more.
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 30, 2013, 02:54:28 AM
The problem with Alien 3 is the very idea of it. The whole setup for it is so absurd and that's what makes it hard to get behind. If you can somehow overlook the egg on the EEV, you'll enjoy it that much more.
I really never thought the egg was much on an issue. Ok, its just there and details surrounding it are sketchy, but its just a plot device. Queen left it somehow and thats all we need to know. I actually dont think Alien 3 has any big problems
Quote from: StrangeShape on May 30, 2013, 02:56:48 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 30, 2013, 02:54:28 AM
The problem with Alien 3 is the very idea of it. The whole setup for it is so absurd and that's what makes it hard to get behind. If you can somehow overlook the egg on the EEV, you'll enjoy it that much more.
I really never thought the egg was much on an issue. Ok, its just there and details surrounding it are sketchy, but its just a plot device. Queen left it somehow and thats all we need to know. I actually dont think Alien 3 has any big problems
If the queen had enough time to hide an egg then she may as well have just set up shop and turned the Sulaco into a giant floating hive.
I honestly think that would make for a better setting than a space prison.
Quote from: JokersWarPig on May 30, 2013, 02:43:42 AM
Quote from: SM on May 30, 2013, 02:40:28 AM
If people want a (cleverly masked) remake of Alien, look no further than Aliens.
I don't see how, the only thing I find they have in common are Lambert and Hudson.
They have a lot of the same beats and pacing. Waking from hypersleep followed by banter around the breakfast table (complete with table ornaments), bumpy landing onto the same planet, quiet and spooky exploration of somewhere that's seemingly deserted, Ripley thrust into leadership role when existing leaders fall (repeated in every Alien film), a planning scene around a table when they examine weapons and options, a traitor in the midst who tries to silence Ripley (literally by shoving something down her throat), Ripley going to rescue the helpless member of the party instead of escaping, Ripley escapes a massive explosion with seconds to spare, Alien stows away during escape and subsequently has to be ejected into space via means so as not to cause a hull breach. Ends with a shot of Ripley asleep (with Newt in Aliens) shot from the exact same angle as in Alien.
Because it's presented as an action flick, Cameron masterfully gets away with copying lots of stuff (because obviously it's not an out and out remake) from the first film, or turning certain stuff on it's head (ie. Bishop).
Quote from: JokersWarPig on May 30, 2013, 03:02:05 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on May 30, 2013, 02:56:48 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 30, 2013, 02:54:28 AM
The problem with Alien 3 is the very idea of it. The whole setup for it is so absurd and that's what makes it hard to get behind. If you can somehow overlook the egg on the EEV, you'll enjoy it that much more.
I really never thought the egg was much on an issue. Ok, its just there and details surrounding it are sketchy, but its just a plot device. Queen left it somehow and thats all we need to know. I actually dont think Alien 3 has any big problems
If the queen had enough time to hide an egg then she may as well have just set up shop and turned the Sulaco into a giant floating hive.
I honestly think that would make for a better setting than a space prison.
That wouldve been an interesting idea, I agree
The only place she could've hid the egg was the dropship.
Teensy bit different to setting up a hive in the same timeframe.
Quote from: echobbase79 on May 30, 2013, 02:53:04 AM
Quote from: SM on May 30, 2013, 12:50:04 AM
*Kane.
I remember reading somewhere that while Twohy was writing he got wind that either Red or Ward were also working on it, so he fulfuilled his contractual obligation by submitting the script then ran a mile.
It says here that Roth wanted Ripley in Twohy's script, but when Ward was brought in, he wanted to write his own script. (http://www.starburstmagazine.com/features/feature-articles/2631-in-development-hell-nobody-can-hear-you-scream-the-story-behind-alien-3)
For some reason I get those actors mixed up. But that's what the article said. Twohy's didn't like that Hill and Giler were secretly working on another script with Ward.
Quote from: KiramidHead on May 30, 2013, 01:58:58 AM
I wish David Twohy wrote the final film. I thought Pitch Black was much better than Alien Cubed and Rez.
Agreed. Did he use any of the elements from his abandoned Alien3 script for Pitch Black? I've never read it.
I haven't read it either, but the prison planets described/seen in the Riddick films sound like they would use xenos on their prisoners. The whole first film felt very Alien-y, for lack of a better word.
Quote from: echobbase79 on May 29, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Aliens= finished story.
NOT TODAY, MEGATRON!
Not when her Grand Majesty has a back-up plan. ;D
Quote from: SM on May 30, 2013, 03:09:14 AM
The only place she could've hid the egg was the dropship.
Teensy bit different to setting up a hive in the same timeframe.
I don't recall where the egg in A3 was, it looked like it was inside the room with the hyper sleep chambers. I've only watched A3 twice in its entirety so if I could be wrong. I was poking fun at the fact that if she had enough time to carry and hide and egg on the Sulaco why not hide some where and start her hive over again? I'd find the Sulaco becoming a floating hive more believable/interesting than the cleverly placed egg.
You make some good points about the Alien/Aliens having similarities, but imo and from what I remember A3 was just a boring version of Alien with a preaching black guy (I'll give A3 that, he's one of my favorite characters out of all the films)
It's clearly not a version of Alien.
And floating hive may have been able to combine the best aspects of the first two films.
Or it could've been a rehash.
Quote from: SM on May 30, 2013, 03:41:23 AM
It's clearly not a version of Alien.
And floating hive may have been able to combine the best aspects of the first two films.
Or it could've been a rehash.
To each his own, I personally don't like A3 and think Aliens is the best movie of the four. I just said why
I thought it was a bad movie.
Quote from: Mr. Runner on May 30, 2013, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: echobbase79 on May 29, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Aliens= finished story.
NOT TODAY, MEGATRON!
Not when her Grand Majesty has a back-up plan. ;D
But she didn't have an egg with her to support these claims. I mean you can speculate that she did but the fact is the writers didn't have a clue of why the egg was on board the ship.
Quote from: StrangeShape on May 30, 2013, 02:56:48 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 30, 2013, 02:54:28 AM
The problem with Alien 3 is the very idea of it. The whole setup for it is so absurd and that's what makes it hard to get behind. If you can somehow overlook the egg on the EEV, you'll enjoy it that much more.
I really never thought the egg was much on an issue. Ok, its just there and details surrounding it are sketchy, but its just a plot device. Queen left it somehow and thats all we need to know. I actually dont think Alien 3 has any big problems
Just a plot device indeed but a plot device that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 30, 2013, 04:28:39 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on May 30, 2013, 02:56:48 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 30, 2013, 02:54:28 AM
The problem with Alien 3 is the very idea of it. The whole setup for it is so absurd and that's what makes it hard to get behind. If you can somehow overlook the egg on the EEV, you'll enjoy it that much more.
I really never thought the egg was much on an issue. Ok, its just there and details surrounding it are sketchy, but its just a plot device. Queen left it somehow and thats all we need to know. I actually dont think Alien 3 has any big problems
Just a plot device indeed but a plot device that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Agreed, it's the only part of the film that doesn't sit well with me, but I can look past it
The funny thing about Alien3 and the "egg on the Sulaco" thing is who really started it, which ever way you look at it, the Facehugger would STILL have been there no matter what. Perhaps FOX's big mistake was putting the egg there in the first place, to please the masses as it were, but the whole thing was set up from the "very end" of Cameron's film anyway, anyone who followed the franchise should know that... all the studio really did was make a mountain out of a molehill.
An end of credits Easter Egg is hardly a setup, despite how it turned out.
Still a better sequel than Colonial Marines :P
Quote from: Novak 1334 on May 31, 2013, 08:35:19 AM
Still a better sequel than Colonial Marines :P
Quote of the Year. :laugh:
Quote from: Novak 1334 on May 31, 2013, 08:35:19 AM
Still a better sequel than Colonial Marines :P
I foresee a meme here...
Still better than Prometheus, too.
Agreed!
Quote from: Omegazilla on May 31, 2013, 05:31:11 PM
Still better than Prometheus, too.
Very true, though I can't help but like Prometheus, and I was one of the Alien fanatics that despised it. :D
I think the meme should be a photo of Kenner's "Aliens: Hive Wars" series with "Still a better sequel than Colonial Marines."
Nah, Deadliest of the Species.
Quote from: SM on Jun 02, 2013, 02:44:04 AM
Nah, Deadliest of the Species.
:-\
Off topic: Did you happen to finish this? I could never make it through because of the horrible storyline that made sense whatsoever. How did it end if you did?
Quote from: SM on Jun 02, 2013, 02:44:04 AM
Nah, Deadliest of the Species.
"Shit...you're right!" - Johnner
QuoteOff topic: Did you happen to finish this? I could never make it through because of the horrible storyline that made sense whatsoever. How did it end if you did?
To answer the first question: Yes, I finished it. How does it end? I don't know.
I finished it too.
All I remember is:
Spoiler
Toy was the badguy the whole time!
For reasons I don't remember.
Have never watched Alien 3 from start to finish, maybe I'll put it on the ol' to watch list so we can discuss. I'm sure there's merits to be found.
Quote from: viendammage on Jun 02, 2013, 05:11:36 PM
Have never watched Alien 3 from start to finish, maybe I'll put it on the ol' to watch list so we can discuss. I'm sure there's merits to be found.
I wouldn't hold your breath. The opening twist on the 20th Century Fox fanfare was pretty clever, shame about everything that followed...
Quote from: Rankles75 on Jun 02, 2013, 05:15:08 PM
Quote from: viendammage on Jun 02, 2013, 05:11:36 PM
Have never watched Alien 3 from start to finish, maybe I'll put it on the ol' to watch list so we can discuss. I'm sure there's merits to be found.
I wouldn't hold your breath. The opening twist on the 20th Century Fox fanfare was pretty clever, shame about everything that followed...
I think the fact they killed off Hicks the way they did is a big reason why I have low interest in seeing it. Aliens is a huge part of my cinema landscape.
Quote from: viendammage on Jun 02, 2013, 05:27:02 PM
Quote from: Rankles75 on Jun 02, 2013, 05:15:08 PM
Quote from: viendammage on Jun 02, 2013, 05:11:36 PM
Have never watched Alien 3 from start to finish, maybe I'll put it on the ol' to watch list so we can discuss. I'm sure there's merits to be found.
I wouldn't hold your breath. The opening twist on the 20th Century Fox fanfare was pretty clever, shame about everything that followed...
I think the fact they killed off Hicks the way they did is a big reason why I have low interest in seeing it. Aliens is a huge part of my cinema landscape.
The opening moments of that film are why, as far as I'm concerned, the series ended with Aliens....
Quote from: Kimarhi on Jun 02, 2013, 10:03:43 AM
I finished it too.
All I remember is: Spoiler
Toy was the badguy the whole time!
That
Spoiler
and Caryn has a burster pop out of her (after flying around in space in the nuddy covered in gold Alien lacquer) which is a human-Alien-Predator hybrid.
And Caryn survives.
Honestly I don't get why Claremont is so highly regarded.
I don't judge his overall work on DOTS just because I don't read superhero stuff. So I don't know how he is in that field.
He writes bad AvP stuff tho.
Quote from: viendammage on Jun 02, 2013, 05:11:36 PM
Have never watched Alien 3 from start to finish, maybe I'll put it on the ol' to watch list so we can discuss. I'm sure there's merits to be found.
Of course there are merits. Despite the chaotic production and the plot holes with the egg and the EEV evacuation in the first five minutes, the film is a very solid, very bleak, and very powerful continuation of Ripley's story. It most certainly has problems going against it, but it also has just as much (if not more) going for it.
But don't just listen to me. Pop it in and give it a try yourself.
Quote from: Kimarhi on Jun 03, 2013, 12:00:38 AM
I don't judge his overall work on DOTS just because I don't read superhero stuff. So I don't know how he is in that field.
He writes bad AvP stuff tho.
I've read his X-Men stuff, not wanting to judge him solely on DOTS. It wasn't bad, but didn't especially impress me either.
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Jun 03, 2013, 12:08:35 AM
Quote from: viendammage on Jun 02, 2013, 05:11:36 PM
Have never watched Alien 3 from start to finish, maybe I'll put it on the ol' to watch list so we can discuss. I'm sure there's merits to be found.
Of course there are merits. Despite the chaotic production and the plot holes with the egg and the EEV evacuation in the first five minutes, the film is a very solid, very bleak, and very powerful continuation of Ripley's story. It most certainly has problems going against it, but it also has just as much (if not more) going for it.
But don't just listen to me. Pop it in and give it a try yourself.
Watch the Assembly cut too, restores about a third of the film
Quote from: Omegazilla on May 31, 2013, 05:31:11 PM
Still better than Prometheus, too.
Prometheus was good. You suck >:(
Quote from: Novak 1334 on Jun 03, 2013, 06:41:47 AM
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Jun 03, 2013, 12:08:35 AM
Quote from: viendammage on Jun 02, 2013, 05:11:36 PM
Have never watched Alien 3 from start to finish, maybe I'll put it on the ol' to watch list so we can discuss. I'm sure there's merits to be found.
Of course there are merits. Despite the chaotic production and the plot holes with the egg and the EEV evacuation in the first five minutes, the film is a very solid, very bleak, and very powerful continuation of Ripley's story. It most certainly has problems going against it, but it also has just as much (if not more) going for it.
But don't just listen to me. Pop it in and give it a try yourself.
Watch the Assembly cut too, restores about a third of the film
Go easy. You want him to watch it. Not put him to sleep.
Quote from: SM on May 31, 2013, 12:22:11 AM
An end of credits Easter Egg is hardly a setup, despite how it turned out.
Ermm, hardly... yeah ok! (scratches head) :laugh:
The nonsensical egg on the Sulaco is only one small part of the problem, IMO. Without it, the audience would still be wondering where the hell the face hugger came from. Also, it doesn't help matters that the super hugger was never explained, even in the AC.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jun 03, 2013, 05:06:36 PM
The nonsensical egg on the Sulaco is only one small part of the problem, IMO. Without it, the audience would still be wondering where the hell the face hugger came from.
Well, its more logical to assume that a facehugger or two walked onto the ship that it is to assume that an egg did :P
The eggs were all torched. I highly doubt a facehugger or two made it out of the sub-basement.
Oh, and the two embryos in a super facehugger, Ripley carrying one when it was Newts's tube that was melted open, etc. It's all one plot hole that arose from a bunch of different factors.
Newt's tube wasn't melted open.
Ripleys was cracked and the edge of Newts was melted. I'd find it more believable if there was just the two facehuggers. The placing of the egg and how it got there is just odd. At least with the facehuggers there mobile and can easily sneak aboard the Sulaco.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 04, 2013, 02:48:35 AM
The eggs were all torched. I highly doubt a facehugger or two made it out of the sub-basement.
Maybe they hitched a ride on there mother and hid while she was fighting the bad humans :P
Pity they didn't simply nail Ripley and Newt when they got back to the Sulaco and let mama duke it out only to get flushed into space.
There's no issue with an egg being on board.
The issue is the placement.
And if you consider the opening titles as Ripley's dreamlike distortion of actual events, there's no issue at all.
Quote from: Terx2 on Jun 04, 2013, 03:37:30 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 04, 2013, 02:48:35 AM
The eggs were all torched. I highly doubt a facehugger or two made it out of the sub-basement.
Maybe they hitched a ride on there mother and hid while she was fighting the bad humans :P
Call me crazy but I came up with my own theory for the Super Facehugger existence: it's a backup hugger that is attached to the Queen's body that detaches itself only when the Queen is about to die so that there is a chance to impregnate a new host.
Oh, fan fiction. My favorite.
The Super Face-Hugger was an interesting idea I would've liked to have seen more fleshed out, though 2 normal Huggers could still work if you accept some of these things lay Queen embryo's. But there were numerous chances for something to get on the 2nd Drop Ship, and who knows what Bishop really did, even with good intentions, while circling the elevator platform before rescuing Ripley & Newt. It's really the egg being on the Sulaco at all that mucked things up for me, not that it can't possibly be explained, but when you look at the situation as a whole there was no need for it to be there.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 04, 2013, 02:48:35 AM
The eggs were all torched. I highly doubt a facehugger or two made it out of the sub-basement.
There was more than one hive even in the film, plus it's never conclusive all the eggs are destroyed anyway.
The entire site went up in flames. I think it's safe to say the eggs didn't survive.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jun 04, 2013, 03:15:10 AM
Oh, and the two embryos in a super facehugger, Ripley carrying one when it was Newts's tube that was melted open, etc. It's all one plot hole that arose from a bunch of different factors.
Newts cryo was never compromised on board the Sulaco, it was damaged from the crash from which, I believe it was the comic version, where it was assumed the Hugger got to her then slips inside Ripley after the girl drowned. But the film doesn't indicate any of this, instead (mostly) going by the novel from Alan Dead Foster in which a creature tried to get to Newt, but the glass cracks and a shard spears it, this bled acid onto the floor which in turn started the fire. The wounded Hugger then springs over to Hicks' cryo, the novel goes on to say how it bleeds through the Marines cryo in an effort to get to him, which "possibly" explains the quick shot of blood stains on his bandages, but then it simply dies while another creature supposedly hitches a ride or the rest can't happen. The only real difference is the egg is never mentioned, while Ripley has a dream about how she got impregnated, but the film doesn't give us anything.
QuoteThere was more than one hive even in the film
There was?
QuoteNewts cryo was never compromised on board the Sulaco, it was damaged from the crash from which,
It was damaged on the Sulaco.
From memory, there's two huggers in the novel, one dies from its wounds on the Sulaco.
Quote from: SM on Jun 04, 2013, 06:10:33 AM
QuoteThere was more than one hive even in the film
There was?
Depends what you call the area the colonists were taken, some say that was also a hive, or maybe where Ripley finds the Queen is classified as the nest... I'm not sure. But the hive/nest (if you will) where the Queen was situated was several levels below where the colonists were eventually found, my point being there was more than one place eggs were being stored so there could have been others we didn't see.
QuoteNewts cryo was never compromised on board the Sulaco, it was damaged from the crash from which,
Quote
It was damaged on the Sulaco.
Some damage was caused by the Hugger on the Sulaco of course, I did mention this. Perhaps 'compromised' was the wrong word, but Newt's safety was not compromised is what I meant.
Quote
From memory, there's two huggers in the novel, one dies from its wounds on the Sulaco.
Yes indeed, though in the version I have the 2nd hugger isn't mentioned until Ripley's dream later on. A clever twist which works well with the Ox because your not sure what killed it until you actually see it. But the movie isn't clear at all, from what we see it could just as easily be inferred the same Hugger was only wounded and still came down in the EEV, leaving how Ripley became impregnated remaining a mystery.
QuoteDepends what you call the area the colonists were taken, some say that was also a hive, or maybe where Ripley finds the Queen is classified as the nest... I'm not sure. But the hive/nest (if you will) where the Queen was situated was several levels below where the colonists were eventually found, my point being there was more than one place eggs were being stored so there could have been others we didn't see.
The hives starts on sub level 3 where a large portion of the colonists are. Newt and the Queen are on sub level 4. The hive doesn't appear to go below sub level 4, but it's impossible to be certain.
I highly doubt there'd be any stockpiles of eggs other than in the Queen's chamber.
QuoteSome damage was caused by the Hugger on the Sulaco of course, I did mention this. Perhaps 'compromised' was the wrong word, but Newt's safety was not compromised is what I meant.
Her safety was only compromised if her tube was ejected into an EEV that subsequently fell from orbit with no parachutes into a large body of water and became submerged.
QuoteYes indeed, though in the version I have the 2nd hugger isn't mentioned until Ripley's dream later on.
Pretty sure ADF mentioned "things"(plural) moving around on the ship in the first chapter.
Quote from: SM on Jun 04, 2013, 07:16:43 AM
QuoteDepends what you call the area the colonists were taken, some say that was also a hive, or maybe where Ripley finds the Queen is classified as the nest... I'm not sure. But the hive/nest (if you will) where the Queen was situated was several levels below where the colonists were eventually found, my point being there was more than one place eggs were being stored so there could have been others we didn't see.
The hives starts on sub level 3 where a large portion of the colonists are. Newt and the Queen are on sub level 4. The hive doesn't appear to go below sub level 4, but it's impossible to be certain.
I highly doubt there'd be any stockpiles of eggs other than in the Queen's chamber.
It happened in A:R so why not here? Also, maybe I'm wrong as it is hard to tell, but in searching for Newt Ripley descends 2 stairwells so the Queens chamber could also have been on level 5.
QuoteSome damage was caused by the Hugger on the Sulaco of course, I did mention this. Perhaps 'compromised' was the wrong word, but Newt's safety was not compromised is what I meant.
QuoteHer safety was only compromised if her tube was ejected into an EEV that subsequently fell from orbit with no parachutes into a large body of water and became submerged.
But it wasn't compromised I already agreed that, where are you going with this... my comment goes way back to someone else who suggested it was melted open which you "already agreed" didn't happen, and so do I??
QuoteYes indeed, though in the version I have the 2nd hugger isn't mentioned until Ripley's dream later on.
QuotePretty sure ADF mentioned "things"(plural) moving around on the ship in the first chapter.
Nope, the novel only mentions one creature at first, I'm certain of that, though I was mistaken about how the second one came about. Ripley has a dream where she's searching the ship then is suddenly attacked, possibly even raped, by an alien warrior which then disappears. Apparently the reason she went looking was because the ship sensors indicated more than one intruder, which we only discover after the obvious happens, so there's the second one I guess.
Soooooo many plot holes.... :-\
Another one of course being that anyone with half a brain wouldn't have even considered going into hypersleep until they'd checked every last inch of the ship. Not like they were in a rush to get anywhere after all and, considering a f***ing huge Queen Alien had managed to stowaway (and knowing full well about Burke's plan), you'd think the first thing on Ripley's mind would be to make sure there were no more nasty surprises...
It's a big ship.
Also, preeetttyyyy sure a lot of the oxygen got sucked out into the void of space when Ripley dumped Queenie. Best to go into hypersleep than waste oxygen and resources searching every square inch of a gigantic starship.
Maybe she DID go looking for an Alien.
But they don't exactly appear to be the easiest thing to track, even with scanners.
It would just be her. Hicks was out of commission as was Bishop, and Newt isn't going to be allowed on any forays into a combat situation if it can be helped.
So one woman in charge of searching the whole ship. Sulaco's systems would be locked out for civilians I'm sure.
Quote from: RoaryUK on Jun 04, 2013, 07:45:06 AM
Nope, the novel only mentions one creature at first, I'm certain of that
Well, it says there were two. One dies when it cuts itself with the glass of the tube, the other one impregnates
QuoteIt happened in A:R so why not here?
Because they were put there specifically as a trap.
QuoteAlso, maybe I'm wrong as it is hard to tell, but in searching for Newt Ripley descends 2 stairwells so the Queens chamber could also have been on level 5.
The lift only goes down to sub level 2, she goes down some stairs to sub level 3 where the hive begins. She goes down again to find Newt and subsequently - the Queen.
Quotewhere are you going with this...
Nowhere. Just being facetious.
I don't hate Alien 3. In-fact, I grew to appreciate and accept it over the years. Despite its pre-/production woes, it did turn out to be a pretty good film. But it is technically a mess, and that is FOX's fault. All of their meddling, and they couldn't even decide on a script; they doomed this movie from the start. I still don't understand why they decided to add that egg into the scene. It would have been better if two Facehuggers were just hiding in the damn ship because they hitched a ride on the Queen. It's not the best explanation, but it's better than that damn egg, which was placed in such a visible spot! No-way they couldn't have noticed that!
Alien 3 has grown on me, and I enjoy watching it now, but it's got big faults that are never explained. FOX executive meddling killed it. Do I hate that Alien 3 killed off Newt and Hicks? Yes, but I'm okay with it. The series could continue without Ripley, without Newt and Hicks, and it did in the EU (with some alterations to the names in Earth Hive, etc.). Now Resurrection... that's a film I can "hate."
We have no idea where the egg is (which is part of the problem) so it's impossible to tell if it's in a visible area or not.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 05:03:22 AM
We have no idea where the egg is (which is part of the problem) so it's impossible to tell if it's in a visible area or not.
Hm, you got me there. I looked at a picture online so I could remind myself where it was. Why the hell they put it on the ceiling and expected people to understand how it got there I will never know.
A question for the ages.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 05:17:14 AM
A question for the ages.
I always took it as the point where FOX stopped giving a crap about the series. Or I guess with the executive meddling it could be said that they cared too much.
They were trying to appease an audience and overdid it.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 05:35:51 AM
They were trying to appease an audience and overdid it.
What audience was that, I wonder? The original fans of
Alien?
American teenagers who needed everything explained.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 06:02:35 AM
American teenagers who needed everything explained.
Still a lot of ways to explain it better than the way they did, though. I hear they added the egg in at the last second, right?
Yeah I think so. Same with Spike the dog. Spike's in the workprint, but his burster isn't. Nor is the hugger he barks at.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 06:20:44 AM
Yeah I think so. Same with Spike the dog. Spike's in the workprint, but his burster isn't. Nor is the hugger he barks at.
I actually think the dog was a change for the better. It made more sense for the Runner Alien to come out of a dog.
The birth scene was much better and all.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 06:26:49 AM
The birth scene was much better and all.
It seems like the Assembly Cut was a mixed bag, In some ways, it makes the film better. In a few ways, it makes things worse (the Ox). Heck, if they just removed the egg and just showed Facehuggers stowed away in the hanger then it would have been better.
Minor tweaks make for minor improvements. Ultimately you still have a bunch of indistinguishable bald guys running around in the dark shouting "f**k" at each other.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 06:33:19 AM
Minor tweaks make for minor improvements. Ultimately you still have a bunch of indistinguishable bald guys running around in the dark shouting "f**k" at each other.
Lol, exactly! A criticism I have for Alien 3 is the lack of really memorable characters. A lot of the prisoners were just bald, British guys running around. Aliens may have had stereotypes, but dammit they were memorable and people still copy them to this day (Sergeant Johnson from Halo is a blatant copy of Sergeant Apone).
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 06:02:35 AM
American teenagers who needed everything explained.
I was an American teenager at the time, but the egg preoccupied my thoughts for the entire movie.
I was more referring to a test screening that resulted in a lot of Golic's stuff getting cut and people wondering where the Alien came from.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 12:03:06 AM
QuoteIt happened in A:R so why not here?
QuoteBecause they were put there specifically as a trap.
Ok forget the A:R thing, but consider, the colony had already been nearly wiped out while the Queen continues to lay eggs. Nothing wrong there of course, she can lay 1,000's of those things, but by that reckoning they couldn't possibly all be in stored in one room, they would have to go somewhere eventually.
QuoteAlso, maybe I'm wrong as it is hard to tell, but in searching for Newt Ripley descends 2 stairwells so the Queens chamber could also have been on level 5.
QuoteThe lift only goes down to sub level 2, she goes down some stairs to sub level 3 where the hive begins. She goes down again to find Newt and subsequently - the Queen.
Hmm, just looked at it again, correction there. Ripley comes out on Sub Level 2 going down to the next sub level 3, but she still appears to go down another level just before finding Newt at 2:05:35, just that it isn't marked. What always gets me is, earlier scenes inside the Atmosphere Processor suggest each level is a separate platform. I'm still not convinced all the Queen action takes place on sub level 3.
Quotewhere are you going with this...
QuoteNowhere. Just being facetious.
Hmmm... quite! :)
Quote from: Jarac on Jun 05, 2013, 06:38:22 AM
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 06:33:19 AM
Minor tweaks make for minor improvements. Ultimately you still have a bunch of indistinguishable bald guys running around in the dark shouting "f**k" at each other.
Lol, exactly! A criticism I have for Alien 3 is the lack of really memorable characters. A lot of the prisoners were just bald, British guys running around. Aliens may have had stereotypes, but dammit they were memorable and people still copy them to this day (Sergeant Johnson from Halo is a blatant copy of Sergeant Apone).
Well thats another thing. People need to care about whos gonna die next. While some prisoners stand out they are in the end criminals. Alien had people you'd meet at your local truck stop. Aliens had the combat marines which acted very similar to the soldiers that went into Vietnam. Alien 3 had rapists, murderers, drug addicts and psychos. Not very loveable or worth caring.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 06:26:49 AM
The birth scene was much better and all.
Agreed. Hearing a dog whimper in pain is very sad and fitted so well with the burial. Unlike the Ox it was more "This ugly beast is dying/dead and somethings gonna pop out of it"
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jun 04, 2013, 04:32:18 PM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Jun 04, 2013, 07:45:06 AM
Nope, the novel only mentions one creature at first, I'm certain of that
Well, it says there were two. One dies when it cuts itself with the glass of the tube, the other one impregnates
(again) No it doesn't, here's was it says EXACTLY in the book:
QuoteSomething was moving in the sleep chamber that was not a part of the ship, though in the sense that it too was wholly driven by programming it was not so very different from the cold, indifferent corridors it stalked. A single imperative inspired its relentless search, drove it mindlessly onward. Not food, for it was not hungry and did not eat. Not sex, for it had none. It was motivated solely and completely by the desire to procreate. Though organic, it was as much a machine as the computers that guided the ship, though it was possessed of a determination quite foreign to them.
More than any other terrestrial creature it resembled a horseshoe crab with a flexible tail. It advanced across the smooth floor of the sleep chamber on articulated legs fashioned of an unusually carbon-rich chitin. Its physiology was simple, straightforward, and designed to carry out but one biological function and to do that better than any comparable construction known. No machine could have done better.
(edit)
Scaling the smooth flank of the cryonic cylinder was a simple matter for something so superbly engineered. The top of the chamber was fashioned of transparent metallic glass. Within slept a small organic shape; half-formed, blond, innocent save for her nightmares, which were as sophisticated and frequently more extensive than those of 1 the adults sleeping nearby. Eyes closed, oblivious to the horror which explored the thin dome enclosing her, she slept on.
(edit)
Impatiently the thing explored the sleep cylinder, beginning at one end and working methodically up to the head. The cylinder was tight, triple-sealed, in many ways more secure than the hull of the Sulaco itself. Though anxious, the creature was incapable of frustration. The prospect of imminent fulfillment of its biological imperative only excited it and drove it to greater efforts. The extensible tube which protruded from its ventral side probed the unyielding transparency which shielded the helpless body on the unreachable cushions, proximity to its quarry driving the creature into a frenzy of activity.
Sliding to one side, it eventually located the nearly imperceptible line which separated the transparent dome of the cylinder from its metal base. Tiny claws drove into the minuscule crack as the incredibly powerful tail secured a purchase on the instrumentation at the head of the cylinder. The creature exerted tremendous leverage, its small body quivering with the effort. Seals were strained. The thing's effort was unforgiving, its reserves of strength inconceivable.
The lower edge of the transparent dome snapped, the metallic glass splitting parallel to the floor. A sliver of the clear material, sharp as a surgical instrument, drove straight through the creature's body. Frigid air erupted from the cylinder until an internal emergency seal restored its atmospheric integrity.
(edit)
Emitting periodic, unearthly shrieks the mortally wounded crawler flung itself across the room, legs and tail flailing spasmodically at the transparent sliver which pierced its body. It landed atop the cylinder in which reposed the motionless Hicks, its legs convulsively gripping the crest of the dome. Shuddering, quivering, it clawed at the metallic glass while acidic body fluids pumped from the wound. They ate into the glass, into the metal base of the cylinder, into and through the floor. Smoke began to rise from somewhere beneath the deck, filling the chamber.
Around the room, throughout the ship, telltales winked to life, warning lights began to flash and Klaxons to sound. There was no one awake to hear them, but that did not affect the Sulaco's reaction. It was doing its job, complying with its programming. Meanwhile smoke continued to billow from the ragged aperture in the floor. Atop Hicks's cylinder the crawler humped obscenely as it continued to bleed destruction.
(edit)
Flush-mounted fans began to hum within the ceiling, inhaling the swirling, thickening gas. Acid continued to drip from the now motionless, dead crawler.
Online Source: http://www.onread.com/fbreader/191328/ (http://www.onread.com/fbreader/191328/)
As I already pointed out, the book takes a different direction to the film, suggesting Ripley has a dream about being warned of "intruders" on board the ship, before she is attacked by something much larger than a Face Hugger and impregnated during a search. When I first read the book I also assumed there must be another in the cryogenic chamber, because the one mentioned (above) is killed so that's the logic, but it's never actually explained where the 2nd Hugger comes from.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 06:20:44 AM
Yeah I think so. Same with Spike the dog. Spike's in the workprint, but his burster isn't. Nor is the hugger he barks at.
Add to that the removal of the Queen Burster which Fincher never wanted. While it didn't help how FOX re-inserted it for the assembly cut, the terrible FX and music cues that were ruined in my opinion, but it did make more sense in the end.
I always quite liked Alien 3. I completely understand why people would hate it, but I don't.
Then again, it's easier for me to tell the prisoners apart and care about them because I know them all from British TV :)
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 05, 2013, 12:51:19 PM
I always quite liked Alien 3. I completely understand why people would hate it, but I don't.
Then again, it's easier for me to tell the prisoners apart and care about them because I know them all from British TV :)
Totally agree here!! In particular the assembly cut adds more depth to the relationship between Ripley and some of the prisoners, who we get to identify more with as a result. More importantly, it explains Paul McGann's (Gollic) role in the film, because many of his scenes were linked to the alien and the entrapment scene, which IMO should never have been removed in the first place, but was because in the eyes of former FOX exec Jon Landau, trapping the alien somehow lessened its impact on the rest of the film.
Quote from: RoaryUK on Jun 05, 2013, 01:42:59 PMIn particular the assembly cut adds more depth to the relationship between Ripley and some of the prisoners, who we get to identify more with as a result. More importantly, it explains Paul McGann's (Gollic) role in the film, because many of his scenes were linked to the alien and the entrapment scene, which IMO should never have been removed in the first place, but was because in the eyes of former FOX exec Jon Landau, trapping the alien somehow lessened its impact on the rest of the film.
I too agree that the Assembly Cut's better, significantly so in fact, particularly where Golic's concerned. Aside from the basic fact he no longer just vanishes in the middle of the film, his subplot gives the movie a bit more narrative that was sorely missing otherwise. Stupid that they cut it out. Didn't they show it to a teenage test audience and they didn't like it or something? Aside from the Golic stuff, the little bits of extra dialogue add a lot for me, especially with Aaron. It certainly helps explain why he throws his life away attacking Bishop at the end. A few of the minor prisoners feel more like characters rather than faceless cannon (/Xeno) fodder as well. Overall, it just feels like a more complete film.
The only thing I think it takes away is that the ox has a host just doesn't have as much impact as that poor dog. But I guess it does explain why the Runner is born fully formed. Or at least in my mind it does... I figured it couldn't bust out of the ox's stronger ribcage so it kept growing inside. Which is why the ox died before "giving birth".
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 05, 2013, 02:04:29 PM
The only thing I think it takes away is that the ox has a host just doesn't have as much impact as that poor dog. But I guess it does explain why the Runner is born fully formed. Or at least in my mind it does... I figured it couldn't bust out of the ox's stronger ribcage so it kept growing inside. Which is why the ox died before "giving birth".
This, plus I'd also add some of Dillon's religious dialogue where he often repeats himself gets irritating, the ox scene which offers a conflicting point where the beast is dead yet previously the host was deliberately kept alive during incubation (including the dog), while the editing for the assembly cut is all over the place at times. In the end I see it as an insight to what could have been rather than any complete film, it does have it's problems yes, but Fincher was invited to offer his own version which, given the source material we know about, I think he could have done better but chose not to.
Quote from: RoaryUK on Jun 05, 2013, 02:37:27 PMthe ox scene which offers a conflicting point where the beast is dead yet previously the host was deliberately kept alive during incubation (including the dog)
Well as I said, I always figured the Alien just got stuck inside there. After all, an ox's ribcage is gonna be quite a bit stronger than a human's. That's why the ox died, because the Runner couldn't break out and kept growing larger inside. Given how hardy the Xenomorph is, it's unlikely to die from being trapped inside a dead animal. So I figured it just kept growing normally until it was big and strong enough to bust out. At least that's my own personal theory for why it eventually comes out looking more like an adult than a Chestburster. Explains why the Runner's so much bigger when it does emerge too, relative to the host.
As for Fincher, I do kinda wish he'd eventually go back and do something for
Alien 3 (even if it was just talk about what he would have done) but I can understand if he'd rather wash his hands of the experience.
I hope one day Fincher accepts the olive branch with Fox and he can put more of his own vision up there.
He can't put his own vision up. The footage for it doesn't exist.
GODDAMNIT SIL.
QuoteNo it doesn'tYes it does, here's was it says EXACTLY in the book:
"Acid continued to drip from the now motionless dead crawler."
It's right at the very end of the passage you copy and pasted.
QuoteNothing wrong there of course, she can lay 1,000's of those things, but by that reckoning they couldn't possibly all be in stored in one room, they would have to go somewhere eventually.
They simply spread out into surrounding rooms - which seems evident in the film.
QuoteI'm still not convinced all the Queen action takes place on sub level 3.
It doesn't. Sub level 4.
So either the queen can teleport eggs around the Sulaco, or she had one or two huggers hiding up her ass.
Bad dream.
Quote from: SM on Jun 05, 2013, 11:38:03 PM
QuoteNo it doesn'tYes it does, here's was it says EXACTLY in the book:
"Acid continued to drip from the now motionless dead crawler."
It's right at the very end of the passage you copy and pasted.
Sorry but you lost me here. All I missed from the passage was where the fire starts and the "dead crawler" falls off Hicks cryo (or Cylinder the book calls them), but it's the same creature from start to finish in that sequence, the book doesn't indicate anything else at large at that point. You show me where the other is within that passage and I'll buy it.
QuoteNothing wrong there of course, she can lay 1,000's of those things, but by that reckoning they couldn't possibly all be in stored in one room, they would have to go somewhere eventually.
QuoteThey simply spread out into surrounding rooms - which seems evident in the film.
Yeah, that's what I said! What I originally questioned (and maybe you missed) was someone's (can't recall who) logic there couldn't possibly be any other Face Huggers that made it onto the Sulaco because Ripley destroyed them all in the chamber. But no one could really say for sure because the Queen lays so many eggs, while the chamber probably consisted of many rooms and levels we don't see.
QuoteI'm still not convinced all the Queen action takes place on sub level 3.
QuoteIt doesn't. Sub level 4.
Again I agree, the mistake I made was where she got off which I corrected, plus I thought at first you were saying the Queen sequence took place on level 3, but obviously not.
Quote from: RoaryUK on Jun 06, 2013, 02:21:32 AM
Yeah, that's what I said! What I originally questioned (and maybe you missed) was someone's (can't recall who) logic there couldn't possibly be any other Face Huggers that made it onto the Sulaco because Ripley destroyed them all in the chamber. But no one could really say for sure because the Queen lays so many eggs, while the chamber probably consisted of many rooms and levels we don't see.
That was me and I stand by that. Even if there were other eggs on other levels, I question a facehugger's ability to outrun explosions going off all around it.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 05, 2013, 02:04:29 PM
The only thing I think it takes away is that the ox has a host just doesn't have as much impact as that poor dog. But I guess it does explain why the Runner is born fully formed. Or at least in my mind it does... I figured it couldn't bust out of the ox's stronger ribcage so it kept growing inside. Which is why the ox died before "giving birth".
If it can force its way through human ribs, it can force its way through a bovine, too. Nothing's stopping it from going between the gaps in each one or even downwards through the stomach, after all.
QuoteSorry but you lost me here.
Strangeshape said the book says one died and one impregnated, which you said "No, it doesn't" while posting an extract that specifically states the hugger is dead.
QuoteYeah, that's what I said!
You seemed to be indicating that there was a cache of eggs in some completely different location similar to the Auriga situation.
QuoteBut no one could really say for sure because the Queen lays so many eggs, while the chamber probably consisted of many rooms and levels we don't see.
There's no obvious access to other levels in that room.
Quote from: SM on Jun 06, 2013, 02:40:32 AM
QuoteSorry but you lost me here.
Quote
Strangeshape said the book says one died and one impregnated, which you said "No, it doesn't" while posting an extract that specifically states the hugger is dead.
Strangeshape implied to me there was another hugger stated in the book to which I replied "No it didn't" (in other words no there wasn't). I then showed how ADF describes this one Huggers attempts to reach Newt and gets speared by some glass. Mortally wounded it then springs off Newt's cryo landing on Hicks' where it eventually bleeds to death and drops to the deck. There is NOTHING in the transcript I posted that says a Hugger actually gets to anyone or that another exists anywhere in that scene.
QuoteYeah, that's what I said!
QuoteYou seemed to be indicating that there was a cache of eggs in some completely different location similar to the Auriga situation.
Forget the Auriga, why the f**k do you keep bringing that up, that was a bad example, my bad ok!! All I was surmising is given the large number of eggs we know can be produced by the relatively small number we did see, the chamber 'probably' extended to other places, yes maybe even different locations such as rooms and other levels...who knows!
QuoteBut no one could really say for sure because the Queen lays so many eggs, while the chamber probably consisted of many rooms and levels we don't see.
QuoteThere's no obvious access to other levels in that room.
Yes there is, the one Ripley came in and subsequently left, where she passes at least 1 stairwell which goes downward.
Quotewhy the f**k do you keep bringing that up,
...
I don't.
QuoteYes there is, the one Ripley came in and subsequently left, where she passes at least 1 stairwell which goes downward.
No there are
no stairwells in the Queen's chamber - which does however appear to span a couple of levels with it's high ceiling.
Quote from: SM on Jun 06, 2013, 05:38:37 AM
QuoteYes there is, the one Ripley came in and subsequently left, where she passes at least 1 stairwell which goes downward.
No there are no stairwells in the Queen's chamber - which does however appear to span a couple of levels with it's high ceiling.
Hang on, you said "no obvious access to other levels" before... are you screwing with me or what!! :o
How does one obviously access another level if not by a stairwell?
Ahhh ok, you mean "direct access" to a stairwell... I didn't! An access can be a few things, such as a place where one enters/leaves on their way to somewhere else. That's what I meant anyway.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Jun 06, 2013, 02:31:01 AMQuote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 05, 2013, 02:04:29 PMThe only thing I think it takes away is that the ox has a host just doesn't have as much impact as that poor dog. But I guess it does explain why the Runner is born fully formed. Or at least in my mind it does... I figured it couldn't bust out of the ox's stronger ribcage so it kept growing inside. Which is why the ox died before "giving birth".
If it can force its way through human ribs, it can force its way through a bovine, too. Nothing's stopping it from going between the gaps in each one or even downwards through the stomach, after all.
Well as I said, it was just a theory I came up with myself to explain some things, like why the ox dies prematurely. I never said it should be gospel.
'Alien 3' seems to have a subliminal agenda in confounding logic when you try to apply some to its mysteries, I'm afraid. :)
Well, maybe in comparison to pretty tightly written first two movies it stands out as a black geese, but when you compare Alien 3's logic flaws with most of the other movies, its not in any way exceptional at all
Last word, still think they should've gone with Eric Reds script... that damn company!!
Quote from: Kimarhi on Jun 05, 2013, 11:15:26 PM
I hope one day Fincher accepts the olive branch with Fox and he can put more of his own vision up there.
I hope Fincher makes another Alien movie just so he can say "f**k you, I'm David Fincher" whenever the studio tries to interfere.
Quote from: RoaryUK on Jun 30, 2013, 05:29:16 AM
Last word, still think they should've gone with Eric Reds script... that damn company!!
With the chicken and mosquito Aliens and zero-gravity sex scene ... ?
The what now? Those were honest-to-goodness ideas?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 01, 2013, 02:38:45 AM
The what now? Those were honest-to-goodness ideas?
There was also the idea of aliens infecting technology and set on a artificial planet and the entire planet would eventually become an alien. Thank god that one was scrapped :laugh:
Geez, and people say the Brothers had awful ideas...
If I'm not mistaken the belly buster idea came from the Gibson script. But I could wrong, but I know Crom said the Predalien RP method came from a Fox executive. I think it was Alex Young.
Personally, I don't find any of the unproduced Alien 3 scripts that exciting, with the possible exception of Wards, but maybe I'm biased because I like the film we got.
I liked Ward's too. Twohy's had potential.
Quote from: SM on Jul 01, 2013, 11:11:21 AMTwohy's had potential.
I've never actually read any of that but yeah, upon reflection some of it did sound pretty good. Maybe I'll give it a read at some point.
Quote from: SiL on Jun 30, 2013, 11:01:00 PM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Jun 30, 2013, 05:29:16 AM
Last word, still think they should've gone with Eric Reds script... that damn company!!
With the chicken and mosquito Aliens and zero-gravity sex scene ... ?
It was a bit out there, but I think it had potential...why not!
SPACESHIP ALIEN.
Random alien virus changing people into xenomorphs,yea cool story bro.
Sadly most of the A3 scripts were trash,even the semi decent one with Main character Hicks and the UPP.IMO Ward's was one of the worst of them all and it was almost the final movie we got, untill it was decided to change it to a prison instead of a logic defying wooden spacestation.
I thought Eric Red's script was the boldest if anything, no Ripley this time out, but some thoughtful characters in the form of the Smith family. I liked that Red tried to bring back the idea of egg morphing, only a little differently, while the bizarre alien virus idea, carried on from Gibsons script, would have been something really interesting to see on screen for me... each to their own I guess. :)
I dunno, I kind of like Ward's space monastery idea. The monks mistaking the xeno for a demon was a neat concept. Granted, there were plenty of dumb ideas in there, as well.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jul 01, 2013, 04:08:28 PM
I dunno, I kind of like Ward's space monastery idea. The monks mistaking the xeno for a demon was a neat concept.
That still made it into the film, "It was a dragon!"
This thread is entertaining to read. 8)
I do have a soft spot for Ward's script. But it should've just been an original standalone film instead of being tied to the Alien franchise. :P Do love the "chameleon" alien idea. :P
They could still use the setting and some of the ideas in that script for a different creature feature. :P
Quote from: Blacklabel on Jul 02, 2013, 01:31:41 PM
I do have a soft spot for Ward's script. But it should've just been an original standalone film instead of being tied to the Alien franchise. :P Do love the "chameleon" alien idea. :P
They could still use the setting and some of the ideas in that script for a different creature feature. :P
This.
QuoteSam grabs a grenade from his belt. He bites out the pin.
SAM
Breakfast of champions
He chucks the grenade into the Aliens mouth. The creature swallows it.
KRAKA-KABOOOOOOOOOOM! It gets its head blown off.
Alien 3 script,
by Eric Red.
No.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jul 01, 2013, 04:08:28 PM
I dunno, I kind of like Ward's space monastery idea. The monks mistaking the xeno for a demon was a neat concept. Granted, there were plenty of dumb ideas in there, as well.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg547.imageshack.us%2Fimg547%2F5789%2Fteck.jpg&hash=56ac7d695d20c5cbf5d7111b6982c7d7c0e3f4f4)
Quote from: Blacklabel on Jul 02, 2013, 01:31:41 PM
I do have a soft spot for Ward's script. But it should've just been an original standalone film instead of being tied to the Alien franchise. :P Do love the "chameleon" alien idea. :P
They could still use the setting and some of the ideas in that script for a different creature feature. :P
I agree, it would work better as a standalone film or part of something like Star Wars. I think David Giler's problem with that script was that the idea of a huge wooden monastery in space inhabited by Amish monks was too fantastical and that it wouldn't work in the gritty realistic Alien universe. "Where would they get the wood from to build a whole planetoid in space?"
Do pregnant women really dream about sheep with faces on their asses?
Depends on what they're pregnant with.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jul 03, 2013, 10:57:32 AM
QuoteSam grabs a grenade from his belt. He bites out the pin.
SAM
Breakfast of champions
He chucks the grenade into the Aliens mouth. The creature swallows it.
KRAKA-KABOOOOOOOOOOM! It gets its head blown off.
Alien 3 script,
by Eric Red.
No.
Only if his face is completely melted off right after that.
Ah yes the whole pregnant with a xenomorph's baby garbage.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jul 04, 2013, 08:14:02 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Jul 03, 2013, 10:57:32 AM
QuoteSam grabs a grenade from his belt. He bites out the pin.
SAM
Breakfast of champions
He chucks the grenade into the Aliens mouth. The creature swallows it.
KRAKA-KABOOOOOOOOOOM! It gets its head blown off.
Alien 3 script,
by Eric Red.
No.
Only if his face is completely melted off right after that.
lol it was probably like in AVP:R how they forget half ways throught the movie the xenmorphs have acid blood.
Quote from: PanCoreUnit on Jul 04, 2013, 03:29:14 PM
Ah yes the whole pregnant with a xenomorph's baby garbage.
At least, ideas of Ripley's "love-making" and kinship to Alien(s) would have been yet done within the 3rd film, leaving less scope for the 4th installment. I would have rather had a blend off the last two series squeezed into one film, than two discrete flics, as they are.
Personally read through the whole thread, and I still don't understand why people hate Alien³ so vehemently. If anything, if it hadn't been for Newt's and Hick's deaths, . . . I'd rate it higher than the first two.
I think one of the big reasons is in comparison with the first two movies, which really end on upbeat notes.
Alien for example, as dark and intense as it is, has the most peaceful and relaxing conclusion you could ask for in a movie about space rape, further enhanced by Goldsmith's score. This was later repeated in Aliens.
What these two films did so successfully was put the audience on a ride which offered no guarantee of safety or a happy ending, but still gave it to them in a way that didn't feel like a cheat. With the bittersweet nature of Alien 3s conclusion, it is understandable that some would feel blindsided by the tonal shift.
It is by no means a bad film, but it does have a lot of issues, and Hicks n Newt are the least of its problems.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Aug 15, 2013, 07:49:35 PM
I think one of the big reasons is in comparison with the first two movies, which really end on upbeat notes.
Alien for example, as dark and intense as it is, has the most peaceful and relaxing conclusion you could ask for in a movie about space rape, further enhanced by Goldsmith's score. This was later repeated in Aliens.
What these two films did so successfully was put the audience on a ride which offered no guarantee of safety or a happy ending, but still gave it to them in a way that didn't feel like a cheat. With the bittersweet nature of Alien 3s conclusion, it is understandable that some would feel blindsided by the tonal shift.
Which is why I would rate
Alien³ higher than
Alien and
Aliens since the only things I really didn't like about it was the absence of Newt and Hicks. I personally
loved the SHIT out of the ending and the tonal shift. They could have done it without killing off Newt however.
QuoteAlien for example, as dark and intense as it is, has the most peaceful and relaxing conclusion you could ask for in a movie about space rape, further enhanced by Howard Hanson's score.
Quote from: DC on Aug 15, 2013, 08:03:37 PM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Aug 15, 2013, 07:49:35 PM
I think one of the big reasons is in comparison with the first two movies, which really end on upbeat notes.
Alien for example, as dark and intense as it is, has the most peaceful and relaxing conclusion you could ask for in a movie about space rape, further enhanced by Goldsmith's score. This was later repeated in Aliens.
What these two films did so successfully was put the audience on a ride which offered no guarantee of safety or a happy ending, but still gave it to them in a way that didn't feel like a cheat. With the bittersweet nature of Alien 3s conclusion, it is understandable that some would feel blindsided by the tonal shift.
Which is why I would rate Alien³ higher than Alien and Aliens since the only things I really didn't like about it was the absence of Newt and Hicks. I personally loved the SHIT out of the ending and the tonal shift. They could have done it without killing off Newt however.
They could've had only Ripley's pod eject due to malfunction, then have the Sulaco and Patna race to Fury at the end, but they were going for a gut punch I guess.
Quote from: SM on Aug 15, 2013, 11:44:13 PM
QuoteAlien for example, as dark and intense as it is, has the most peaceful and relaxing conclusion you could ask for in a movie about space rape, further enhanced by Howard Hanson's score.
Thanks SM. Learn something new everyday. ;)
Interesting to note that no Alien3 script featured Ripley, Hicks and Newt all together.
Quote from: Valaquen on Aug 15, 2013, 11:47:11 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 15, 2013, 08:03:37 PM
Quote from: TheMonolith on Aug 15, 2013, 07:49:35 PM
I think one of the big reasons is in comparison with the first two movies, which really end on upbeat notes.
Alien for example, as dark and intense as it is, has the most peaceful and relaxing conclusion you could ask for in a movie about space rape, further enhanced by Goldsmith's score. This was later repeated in Aliens.
What these two films did so successfully was put the audience on a ride which offered no guarantee of safety or a happy ending, but still gave it to them in a way that didn't feel like a cheat. With the bittersweet nature of Alien 3s conclusion, it is understandable that some would feel blindsided by the tonal shift.
Which is why I would rate Alien³ higher than Alien and Aliens since the only things I really didn't like about it was the absence of Newt and Hicks. I personally loved the SHIT out of the ending and the tonal shift. They could have done it without killing off Newt however.
They could've had only Ripley's pod eject due to malfunction, then have the Sulaco and Patna race to Fury at the end, but they were going for a gut punch I guess.
Wat. That other ship in
Alien³, or the one from
Aliens: Colonial Marines?
This...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.static.flickr.com%2F202%2F484919981_8a979911f5.jpg&hash=8a91aa78e917b33338e73822798d164f4eccefd2)
Is Patna in any Joseph Conrad books?
Lord Jim.
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 12:29:35 AM
This...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/484919981_8a979911f5.jpg
I had a feeling it was the former.
Nope.
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 01:22:21 AM
Nope.
QuoteThat other ship in Alien³, or the one from Aliens: Colonial Marines?
::)
Even after editing your post...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.memgenerator.pl%2Fmem-image%2Fu-still-mad&hash=36579b2285e3ba13ec1962273d7ca99395c5ea18)
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 01:47:51 AM
http://pl.memgenerator.pl/mem-image/u-still-mad
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Foriginal%2F5%2F55750%2F2503433-obvious_troll_is_obvious.jpg&hash=7e3c7a46559bbc4c3b00ec364b4d459aa109672f)
Indeed.
You want to knock it off already?
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 02:08:09 AM
You want to knock it off already?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F0.tqn.com%2Fd%2Fnetforbeginners%2F1%2F0%2Fw%2FQ%2FYouMad.jpg&hash=ce5032e36c3a7c6ca175e8484bc82d9e976c07ed)
Now do you see how annoying stupid, provocative, and utterly meaningless posts are?
Especially when one does them more than twice in a row.
Not especially.
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 02:35:16 AM
Not especially.
*looks at SM's post count.*(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowgifs.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2Fj-jonah-jameson-laughing-gif.gif&hash=2122f2eea0e8ff3b30c6e57bab0e26ff4b76749b)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbbsimg.ngfiles.com%2F1%2F23693000%2Fngbbs4f27a2659414c.jpg&hash=5b89f9f8ac6522ec4ed50654d3a6143252bbf89a)
Quote from: DC on Aug 16, 2013, 02:37:28 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 02:35:16 AM
Not especially.
*looks at SM's post count.*
http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/j-jonah-jameson-laughing-gif.gif
Is that the second time you've referenced SM's post count, or just the second time I've noticed it?
Quote from: DC on Aug 16, 2013, 02:37:28 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 02:35:16 AM
Not especially.
*looks at SM's post count.*
http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/j-jonah-jameson-laughing-gif.gif
Says the guy averaging
21 post per day.
Getting back on track here for a second (a brief second, I'm sure) I just realized that even though I love Alien 3, it kind of ruins Aliens a little bit for me. Well, not ruins, but when you watch the movie and realize that technically NO ONE survives at all...that's depressing. It fits with Alien 3 when I'm watching it, but just makes Aliens sad. Everything's in vain. :'(
Quote from: Kimarhi on Aug 16, 2013, 04:23:23 AM
Quote from: DC on Aug 16, 2013, 02:37:28 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 02:35:16 AM
Not especially.
*looks at SM's post count.*
http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/j-jonah-jameson-laughing-gif.gif
Says the guy averaging 21 post per day.
21 posts per day in one week.
The Company is stopped from getting an Alien so it's not completely in vain.
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 04:43:23 AM
The Company is stopped from getting an Alien so it's not completely in vain.
I guess that's true at the very end of things, but everything in Aliens is all in vain. The most tense struggle to get off LV-426 before getting vaporized simply resulted in a what is essentially a plane crash later on.
I've always liked fiction with a little bit of irony and reality to it.
People get in their cars with their families and stuff all the time expecting to make it back home and sometimes do not.
This next part is going to sound extremely obvious, but I've always looked at Aliens as being what defined Ripley as a person in Alien 3. Now obviously when you have a trilogy with one central character the center film should have an effect on your main character, but I think that her interactions with Hicks and Newt gave Ripley enough respect and hope for humanity that instead of selling her soul to the company and taking a human way out with the potential lifesaving surgery, she martyred herself so that every other "Ripley/Hicks/Newt" family out there had a chance.
She had her moments of weakness in the film (for some reason this really irks some critics of Alien 3), but eventually overcame them.
It will always be a downer, but there is big picture that one can look at that should at least make people feel a little better.
She lost the battles but won the war.
It was interesting how she evolves throughout Alien3 and through the different cuts. She finds out the Alien is in her so goes looking for the Alien to kill her, when it won't though she claims to Dillon that she can't do what she should.
Then in the workprint she deliberates for a good 40 seconds on Bishop's offer before saying 'No'.
After another different version (unshot as far as I know) where Dillon escapes the lead mold, then finds he can't follow through on his promise to kill Ripley, only to have the Alien drag him back into the molten lead.
That was in ADF's novelization of Alien 3.
It was kind of cool, but I always loved Dillon's staredown of Spike in the TC.
Quote from: Kimarhi on Aug 16, 2013, 05:01:33 AM
That was in ADF's novelization of Alien 3.
It was kind of cool, but I always loved Dillon's staredown of Spike in the TC.
I really like Dillon's last moments...but I'm not sure why he insisted Ripley get out of the mold. Why shouldn't she just have stayed down there? Or was it necessary for her to get out simply to command Morse to pour the lead?
For me I have changed my views on Alien 3 as I've gotten older. When I first saw Alien 3 I didn't understand why they would kill hicks* and newt and I didn't understand why they would have Ripley die but as I have grown older I seem to feel it more and now I appreciate the emotions and the cinematography and the whole character arc.
A good friend of mine and I had this same conversation about a lot of films that we didn't like as teenagers but now we totally appreciate them because we have lived some life and can identify with those deeper darker emotions.
* (or random shirtless guy if you count the game that must not be named as accurate)
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 16, 2013, 05:07:24 AM
Quote from: Kimarhi on Aug 16, 2013, 05:01:33 AM
That was in ADF's novelization of Alien 3.
It was kind of cool, but I always loved Dillon's staredown of Spike in the TC.
I really like Dillon's last moments...but I'm not sure why he insisted Ripley get out of the mold. Why shouldn't she just have stayed down there? Or was it necessary for her to get out simply to command Morse to pour the lead?
"It dies first; then you."
If the Alien escapes the lead - which it inevitably did - and Ripley's dead, they lose their trump card.
QuoteA good friend of mine and I had this same conversation about a lot of films that we didn't like as teenagers but now we totally appreciate them because we have lived some life and can identify with those deeper darker emotions.
I've definitely been going back to watch movies that I haven't seen for a long time. I'm 24, and there are a ton of movies I grew up watching that I haven't seen for a good ten or fifteen years. I recently watched the two Ghostbusters films for the first time in ages, or at least the 2nd for the first time in ages.
I try to watch the Alien movies at least once a year, I don't really have a set time or date to do it. I'm always surprised at how my reaction to Resurrection specifically changes every time.
QuoteIf the Alien escapes the lead - which it inevitably did - and Ripley's dead, they lose their trump card.
Yeah, I guess that covers it.
The bleak tone of Alien 3 is precisely why I like it. It's certainly not a fun film, but it's pretty powerful. Over the series the Alien takes Ripley's crew, then her daughter, then Newt and Hicks, and in the end the only thing she has left to give is her own life, which she does to finally stop it. The film may not match up to the first two for me, but it's still great in my eyes, despite it's faults.
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 04:58:05 AM
After another different version (unshot as far as I know) where Dillon escapes the lead mold, then finds he can't follow through on his promise to kill Ripley, only to have the Alien drag him back into the molten lead.
This is interesting. Was this scrapped ultimately because it was out of line with Dillon's motivation? As in, not sacrificing himself would be out of line with his character?
Quote from: Kimarhi on Aug 16, 2013, 04:23:23 AM
Quote from: DC on Aug 16, 2013, 02:37:28 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 02:35:16 AM
Not especially.
*looks at SM's post count.*
http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/j-jonah-jameson-laughing-gif.gif
Says the guy averaging 21 post per day.
And I thank you, Hudson, SM, and Maledoro humbly for getting me on my feet in my short time here. :)
You guys are
fuuunny. :laugh:
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 16, 2013, 01:08:41 PM
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 04:58:05 AM
After another different version (unshot as far as I know) where Dillon escapes the lead mold, then finds he can't follow through on his promise to kill Ripley, only to have the Alien drag him back into the molten lead.
This is interesting. Was this scrapped ultimately because it was out of line with Dillon's motivation? As in, not sacrificing himself would be out of line with his character?
I'm not sure about that, but if I'm not mistaken I think the whole storyboard sequence is available, isn't it? Or am I thinking of another ending sequence with more time devoted to the special forces guys?
I couldn't tell you. SM would be the one to know. He's one of our resident Alien experts.
If you ignore some of the plot holes(where the egg came from, how many face fuggers there were etc.) Alien 3 is a decent movie IMO.I know the first time i watched it the whole WTF factor of newt and hicks dying some what colored my opinion of it.As already stated its leagues better then the borderline insanity of some of the earlier scripts,even though most of the characters were forgetable.
Also if you go by the Tech manuel Ripleys death was pointless since the derelict is still intact.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 16, 2013, 03:08:26 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 16, 2013, 01:08:41 PM
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 04:58:05 AM
After another different version (unshot as far as I know) where Dillon escapes the lead mold, then finds he can't follow through on his promise to kill Ripley, only to have the Alien drag him back into the molten lead.
This is interesting. Was this scrapped ultimately because it was out of line with Dillon's motivation? As in, not sacrificing himself would be out of line with his character?
I'm not sure about that, but if I'm not mistaken I think the whole storyboard sequence is available, isn't it? Or am I thinking of another ending sequence with more time devoted to the special forces guys?
Not sure about the storyboards as I can't check right now but that ending with Dillon was in the movie adaption comic:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-itmA6wvmPlE%2FSqqq6TEvn6I%2FAAAAAAAAAg0%2Fb6mTyvKFVOQ%2Fs400%2Fdillon1.bmp&hash=0c784cfcebeca6360dddcf2da5b939ed448d4c18)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lySrrTv0V60%2FSqqq6kgaOHI%2FAAAAAAAAAg8%2FRLnc7VhljJ8%2Fs400%2Fdillon2.bmp&hash=0fa3085b0c1303de368d5180ea487c06ebe36dfb)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-qNtHv3kDvCQ%2FSqqq7PL8A3I%2FAAAAAAAAAhE%2Fr91cHuAFQHo%2Fs400%2Fdillon3.bmp&hash=0998394e2271673ffead62f6bc00b11cee0b74c9)
I was just going to say 'It's in the comic'. :)
I don't think Dillon had any desire to sacrifice himself - it just suited the film better for him to die a more heroic death. It was more redemptive than the silly death depicted above.
That's the first glimpse I've caught of the Alien 3 comic and that art looks fine! What's everyone griping about? It's not an eighth as bad as Kieth's nonsense.
It isn't as bad as I remember, but it is not setting the world on fire either.
Quote from: Kimarhi on Aug 17, 2013, 05:44:10 AM
It isn't as bad as I remember, but it is not setting the world on fire either.
I don't expect my benchmark favorite Alien comic illustrator every time, so it looks fine to me. I'm also not a connoisseur of comic books.
Just a preference difference then.
I mean I'm not saying it's great, but I was expecting the art and coloring of Rogue. People have unanimously declared the Alien 3 artwork to be "shit" in most cases, so my expectations were set really low.
Just because it's not Keith bad doesn't make it not shit.
As in Sam Kieth?
Quote from: SM on Aug 18, 2013, 12:41:47 AM
Just because it's not Keith bad doesn't make it not shit.
Well, I'll have to see the rest of it but that one helping doesn't look like shit.
The Alien itself generally looks okay. Despite oversized canines.
Everything else - ugh...
Quote from: SM on Aug 16, 2013, 10:22:42 PM
I was just going to say 'It's in the comic'. :)
I don't think Dillon had any desire to sacrifice himself - it just suited the film better for him to die a more heroic death. It was more redemptive than the silly death depicted above.
Why do you think it's silly? I think it makes sense in a way. The Alien sees Dillon as a threat to the Queen embryo and would naturally want to kill anyone that could harm it.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 19, 2013, 12:25:58 PMWhy do you think it's silly? I think it makes sense in a way. The Alien sees Dillon as a threat to the Queen embryo and would naturally want to kill anyone that could harm it.
I wouldn't say it was silly either - in fact I think it's pretty cool, in a horrific kinda way - but I still feel the more honorable death he got in the film was a batter fit. Love that shot where he takes off his glasses so he can't see what's coming.
It's silly because he spends all of Alien 3 as a steadfast, charismatic leader, and then in his final moments he's basically like "Oh...uh...I don't know...hold on..." and then just dies.
It's silly because it's an afterthought.
He's looking for redemption and ultimately gets it. More or less.
Dutton is a very good actor. Always was sad he didn't move on to bigger things, at least not that I have seen. Only other movie I have seen him in is AfterShock, Earthquake in New York, and that movie stinks.
As much as I liked the ending of Alien 3, it is essentially a repeat of Gene Hackman's big scene in The Poseidon Adventure with a little bit of T2 sprinkled in. Funny, because then 4 came along and ripped off several other scenes from TPA. Funny trend for the series to take.
Quote from: TheMonolith on Aug 20, 2013, 12:43:29 PMDutton is a very good actor. Always was sad he didn't move on to bigger things, at least not that I have seen. Only other movie I have seen him in is AfterShock, Earthquake in New York, and that movie stinks.
He's pretty good in
Mimic, and he's great in
A Time to Kill. He also made a great appearance in an episode from the third season of
Miami Vice, but that's from before
Alien 3, obviously.
Forgot he was in A Time to Kill. Been a while since I have seen that one.
Dutton is half of an Alien franchise reunion of sorts in Badass; he shares the screen with Ron Perlman.
Speaking of Mimic, his death scene in that is almost identical to Alien 3 if I remember correctly.
He got to bust some caps in Mimic before he went down.
And then he got better.
By the way, I'm working on a column entry for Alien 3 for the local magazine I'm writing for and I stumbled upon this trailer again and it's really cool. I feel like it actually kind of reflects the tone of the film unlike the other trailers that used Horner's score:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wJsw6KmRyU#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wJsw6KmRyU#ws)
Quote from: SiL on Aug 21, 2013, 05:46:54 AM
And then he got better.
Wait, he didn't die?
He ded.
I forgot it was another character who probably should've been dead walking out of the subway at the end. For some reason I always remembered it as Dutton.
It's been a while. A damn while.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 21, 2013, 06:14:03 AM
I forgot it was another character who probably should've been dead walking out of the subway at the end. For some reason I always remembered it as Dutton.
It's been a while. A damn while.
When you catch up on Mimic, make sure not to leave out 2 or 3.
I don't want to catch up. I thoroughly failed to enjoy it in the slightest.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 21, 2013, 11:39:02 PM
I don't want to catch up. I thoroughly failed to enjoy it in the slightest.
You need to learn to enjoy things more often. :-\
I enjoyed the first Mimic. The other two are...interesting.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 21, 2013, 05:49:33 AM
By the way, I'm working on a column entry for Alien 3 for the local magazine I'm writing for and I stumbled upon this trailer again and it's really cool. I feel like it actually kind of reflects the tone of the film unlike the other trailers that used Horner's score:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wJsw6KmRyU#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wJsw6KmRyU#ws)
This is actually the trailer that is shown prior to the film in the VHS re-release collection done in the late 90s, which exposed me to the films in the first place. Defiantly more appropriate for the film.
Quote from: DC on Aug 22, 2013, 08:02:41 PM
You need to learn to enjoy things more often. :-\
I enjoy lots of things.
Mimic just isn't one of them.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 23, 2013, 01:12:58 AM
Quote from: DC on Aug 22, 2013, 08:02:41 PM
You need to learn to enjoy things more often. :-\
I enjoy lots of things.
Mimic just isn't one of them.
Well, sort your life out and fix yourself! :laugh:
Wasn't Mimic one of those movies that took place during Mira Sorvino's brief flirtation with stardom?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 23, 2013, 08:03:58 PM
Wasn't Mimic one of those movies that took place during Mira Sorvino's brief flirtation with stardom?
It's honestly a pretty mediocre movie. I enjoy it for the most part but it's a guilty pleasure really. I know some kind of director's cut came out, but I honestly don't care. I'm not a Guillermo del Toro fanboy so I ignored it.
While I like
Mimic, I can't fail but agree it's mediocre at best. I mostly like it for Dutton and the creature design (which is kind of silly, but creepy).
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 24, 2013, 05:50:13 PMI know some kind of director's cut came out, but I honestly don't care. I'm not a Guillermo del Toro fanboy so I ignored it.
From what I've heard it's a bit of a joke anyway, it adds like 3 minutes of completely pointless scenes.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 27, 2013, 07:34:12 AM
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 24, 2013, 05:50:13 PMI know some kind of director's cut came out, but I honestly don't care. I'm not a Guillermo del Toro fanboy so I ignored it.
From what I've heard it's a bit of a joke anyway, it adds like 3 minutes of completely pointless scenes.
I WISH there were 3 more minutes of completely pointless scenes in
JURASSIC PARK damn it!
Since this is my 161st reply, I thought it appropriate to spill my top 5 reasons for loving
Alien 3 (Assembly Cut) versus people hating it.
5. The atmosphere. The first two movies had the very dark atmosphere with weapons, but this film shows how COMPLETELY helpless humans are versus the lethal xenomorph without any weapons and must act on instincts/whatever available to defeat it. Since Weaver specially asked for no weapons in the film, many people don't like the movie simply because it lacks the firepower of
Aliens.
4. The acting. Everyone knows about the script problems; imagine trying to play football without a ball. When the actors finally had something they had to give it their all in a very short amount of time. Granted there many unknown actors, but they still did great imo.
(ALIEN) 3. The queen embryo logo. I remember seeing this logo all over the place in the early-mid 90's and thought it was the most frightening image ever created, not even in your darkest night terrors would something seem so horrific. Glad to see some intelligent folks on the internet think the same (ahem... this website...ahem)
2. The music. My goodness, the intro "Agnus Dei" sends you to the most disturbing and chilling place in the universe and makes you wish you were dead so it would end. Written during the riots of LA in 1992, Elliot Goldenthal had a great (?) setting to be inspired during the writing process. This soundtrack puts all other horror movie soundtracks into the sing-a-long category by comparison. The ending track shows the beauty of reason #1...
1. The reality of life: death. Knowing what Ripley has been thru (including the deaths of Newt and Hicks; so much b!tching and moaning) death seems like a welcome doormat, only thing is, she can not die, at least by the horror that has been chasing her for so long. When the time comes to die, she is given a chance to remain alive (mirroring becoming immortal?) only to assume the demon will be exorcised and destroyed in return. Knowing of the true intentions of the assumed martyrs, she denies life and finally accepts her and everyone's own inevitable fate: death. One quote comes to mind from Conan The Barbarian: "Do you want to live forever?" Well, do you really? I certainly don't.
Hope you enjoyed or despised my 161st post. Either way, Alien 3 will always remain my absolute favorite film of the franchise.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net%2Fimage_cache%2F1341666057907088.jpg&hash=dadd249e3e632afd5cad19384dfdb7869b63e3e7)
They were fairly helpless in Alien too. Aliens was when the weapons came out.
And in the 21 years since release, I don't think anyone has ever complained about Ripley's death.
Quote from: SM on Aug 28, 2013, 03:49:54 AM
They were fairly helpless in Alien too. Aliens was when the weapons came out.
And in the 21 years since release, I don't think anyone has ever complained about Ripley's death.
They had flamethrowers in Alien. Not as helpless as no weapons of any kind. Also I don't think you can complain about Ripleys death. She lived a long life, had a child, witnessed so much death and it was her turn.
She'd had a long life - she only lived about 29 years of it though.
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Aug 28, 2013, 03:46:52 AMSince this is my 161st reply, I thought it appropriate to spill my top 5 reasons for loving Alien 3 (Assembly Cut) versus people hating it.
Great post. We share a lot of the same opinions on the film.
Given the horror genre for the first and action for the second, the third could have followed one of the proposed screenplays, which I think involved something like detective fiction on a space station. I think something like it was attempted for the third, but the atmosphere was too dreary. Given that, another setting would have probably been better, as it would have allowed the audience to gain greater knowledge of the background of the company plus include elements found in the first two films.
Quote from: Terx2 on Aug 28, 2013, 05:10:01 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 28, 2013, 03:49:54 AM
They were fairly helpless in Alien too. Aliens was when the weapons came out.
And in the 21 years since release, I don't think anyone has ever complained about Ripley's death.
They had flamethrowers in Alien. Not as helpless as no weapons of any kind. Also I don't think you can complain about Ripleys death. She lived a long life, had a child, witnessed so much death and it was her turn.
Didn't they only have the one flamethrower that Dallas used and was eventually recovered?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 28, 2013, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: Terx2 on Aug 28, 2013, 05:10:01 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 28, 2013, 03:49:54 AM
They were fairly helpless in Alien too. Aliens was when the weapons came out.
And in the 21 years since release, I don't think anyone has ever complained about Ripley's death.
They had flamethrowers in Alien. Not as helpless as no weapons of any kind. Also I don't think you can complain about Ripleys death. She lived a long life, had a child, witnessed so much death and it was her turn.
Didn't they only have the one flamethrower that Dallas used and was eventually recovered?
I thought it was two :-\ Parker has one on him when they are tracking the alien in the vent. Plus Ripley has one when Parker and Lambert are attacked.
Fairly sure Parker suggests rigging up a "couple" of portable flamethrowers.
Eh, could be. It's been a while since I've seen Alien. In any event, two flamethrowers isn't nearly the same as the arsenal the marines brought with them.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 28, 2013, 11:40:01 AM
Eh, could be. It's been a while since I've seen Alien. In any event, two flamethrowers isn't nearly the same as the arsenal the marines brought with them.
Nor were the flamethrowers on the
Nostromo to be used for the same purpose as the marines' arsenal.
Quote from: Terx2 on Aug 28, 2013, 11:31:18 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Aug 28, 2013, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: Terx2 on Aug 28, 2013, 05:10:01 AM
Quote from: SM on Aug 28, 2013, 03:49:54 AM
They were fairly helpless in Alien too. Aliens was when the weapons came out.
And in the 21 years since release, I don't think anyone has ever complained about Ripley's death.
They had flamethrowers in Alien. Not as helpless as no weapons of any kind. Also I don't think you can complain about Ripleys death. She lived a long life, had a child, witnessed so much death and it was her turn.
Didn't they only have the one flamethrower that Dallas used and was eventually recovered?
I thought it was two :-\ Parker has one on him when they are tracking the alien in the vent. Plus Ripley has one when Parker and Lambert are attacked.
Yeah there were two.
Yeah they were pretty much screwed in Alien.
Arguably more so in Alien 3. Two flamethrowers is still a big step up from using yourself as bait.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 30, 2013, 07:30:12 AM
Arguably more so in Alien 3. Two flamethrowers is still a big step up from using yourself as bait.
True that, the Morph was also more powerful physically, it was faster and stronger, probably a Praetorian/Royal Guard or some other power-caste. (Might explain why it had no dorsal tubes, they were probably for hiving/resin-secretion which only applied to Drones and Drone Warriors.)
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 07:53:24 AMTrue that, the Morph was also more powerful physically, it was faster and stronger, probably a Praetorian/Royal Guard or some other power-caste.
Or just an alien that had a dog or ox as a host. There wasn't any indication that it was faster or stronger than previously seen aliens, and the praetorians shown in the comic books were
much larger than the standard issue aliens.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 07:53:24 AM(Might explain why it had no dorsal tubes, they were probably for hiving/resin-secretion which only applied to Drones and Drone Warriors.)
Praetorians had dorsal tubes.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 30, 2013, 12:01:18 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 07:53:24 AMTrue that, the Morph was also more powerful physically, it was faster and stronger, probably a Praetorian/Royal Guard or some other power-caste.
Or just an alien that had a dog or ox as a host. There wasn't any indication that it was faster or stronger than previously seen aliens, and the praetorians shown in the comic books were much larger than the standard issue aliens.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 07:53:24 AM(Might explain why it had no dorsal tubes, they were probably for hiving/resin-secretion which only applied to Drones and Drone Warriors.)
Praetorians had dorsal tubes.
Assuming the comics are canon, that is.
Bit like assuming the theories you just put forward are true, too.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 12:22:28 PMAssuming the comics are canon, that is.
Canonocity has nothing to do with this. Canon or not, the praetorians had dorsal spines, and the alien in the third movie didn't move any faster than the ones in
Aliens or even the first one in
Alien when it had to react quickly to a given situation (snatching up Brett, pivoting toward Parker, offering Ripley a hand in the shuttle, keeping itself from being ejected from the shuttle). Canonocity has nothing to do with what you proposed.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 30, 2013, 12:37:24 PM
Bit like assuming the theories you just put forward are true, too.
I never once insinuated my post as fact, as is clearly evident in my word usage of...
Quoteprobably
QuoteCanonocity has nothing to do with this. Canon or not, the praetorians had dorsal spines, and the alien in the third movie didn't move any faster than the ones in Aliens or even the first one in Alien when it had to react quickly to a given situation (snatching up Brett, pivoting toward Parker, offering Ripley a hand in the shuttle, keeping itself from being ejected from the shuttle). Canonocity has nothing to do with what you proposed.
Post irrelevant, since it is up for debate whether or not the Praetorian is even canon in the first place, also . . .
Quote from: Ellen Ripley, August 28, 2179"I've never seen one exactly like this before, it moves . . . differently."
Also I like how you ignored the part where the Alien snatches up Aaron, tosses around Clemens, mulches and practically tears Jude limb-from-limb (we never saw
any alien in a prior film do such a thing), jumps out of ten tons of boiling hot lead, being un-phased physically by the 300-350 tonne impact, and stalling the giant, megalithic many hundreds-of-tons-heavy-ass metal piston as it attempts to escape from the mould to make your post seem more relevant. It is indeed faster, stronger, and somewhat more beast-like than the others.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 01:00:49 PMQuoteprobably
Probably implies it is likely, or at least more than 50% likely to be true. Personally, I'd consider 100% of what you said fan-made bullshit.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 01:00:49 PMPost irrelevant, since it is never stated to not be a Praetorian. It is clearly suggested in the movie to be quick on its feet.
What is your point? It is never stated
not to be a fire hydrant, either. Nobody is denying it being fast; you said that it was faster than the previously seen aliens and I said that it wasn't fast
er.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 01:00:49 PMAlso I like how you ignored the part where the Alien snatches up Aaron, Clemens, jumps out of ten tons of boiling hot lead, being un-phased physically by the 300-350 tonne impact, and stalling the giant, megalithic many hundreds-of-tons-heavy-ass metal piston as it attempts to escape from the mould to make your post seem more relevant.
I was talking about speed, earlier. But if you want to compare power, the alien in the first movie didn't get blown apart by the engines of an interstellar spacecraft.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 30, 2013, 01:05:03 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 01:00:49 PMQuoteprobably
Probably implies it is likely, or at least more than 50% likely to be true. Personally, I'd consider 100% of what you said fan-made bullshit.
How about you read my post before spewing your biased douchbaggishly ignorant and stupid troll drivel covering this thread in your hate-filled blasphemous shit.
QuoteWhat is your point? It is never stated not to be a fire hydrant, either. Nobody is denying it being fast; you said that it was faster than the previously seen aliens and I said that it wasn't faster
I seem to have edited my post while you were in the middle of posting.
QuoteI was talking about speed, earlier. But if you want to compare power, the alien in the first movie didn't get blown apart by the engines of an interstellar spacecraft.
Being exposed to a vacuum might have some form of as-of-yet unexplained effect on the thing's biology, anything's possible. Who knows? She was also able to pierce straight through it with a whaling gun. She had also literally
just turned on the engines, so at that point it was probably mostly heat, acting as a propellant to blast the thing into space, before the actual full blast came into effect, and had the alien actually successfully crawled all the way into the blast cavity, as it was attempting to do, it might have been blown to shit.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 01:17:44 PMHow about you read my post before spewing your biased douchbaggishly ignorant and stupid troll drivel covering this thread in your hate-filled blasphemous shit.
I did read your post. You said:
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 07:53:24 AMTrue that, the Morph was also more powerful physically, it was faster and stronger, probably a Praetorian/Royal Guard or some other power-caste. (Might explain why it had no dorsal tubes, they were probably for hiving/resin-secretion which only applied to Drones and Drone Warriors.)
None of which is really backed up by what we see in the film, it's all pure conjecture. So saying it's "probably" the case is a load of rubbish.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 30, 2013, 02:09:18 PM
I did read your post. You said:
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 07:53:24 AMTrue that, the Morph was also more powerful physically, it was faster and stronger, probably a Praetorian/Royal Guard or some other power-caste. (Might explain why it had no dorsal tubes, they were probably for hiving/resin-secretion which only applied to Drones and Drone Warriors.)
None of which is really backed up by what we see in the film, it's all pure conjecture. So saying it's "probably" the case is a load of rubbish.
Wrong post halfwit.
Quoteand stalling the giant, megalithic many hundreds-of-tons-heavy-ass metal piston as it attempts to escape from the mould
Uh...when did that happen exactly?
QuoteHow about you read my post before spewing your biased douchbaggishly ignorant and stupid troll drivel covering this thread in your hate-filled blasphemous shit.
Wow...
...you're a f**king asshole. Weren't
you the one bitching about contacting mods when people didn't treat you like the Queen of Sheba?
None of the movies have done a very good actual measurement of speed or strength. What I mean by that is, no one had a stopwatch or used any measuring devices to check these things so even though an alien in one film might seem faster or stronger it really can't be proven.
(one of the reasons) I think the faster implications for the dog/ox alien are because in some games there's the character class "runner"(or something close to this) which is faster than other alien characters. It also seems to resemble the alien from alien 3.
The lack of dorsal tubes was to make the creature move on all fours and look more streamlined. Without the dorsal tubes the alien may even be able to move faster, though I'm not sure until we could get some measurements. Maybe a person could try to get some measurement of speed by watching the movies and knowing the length of the set pieces and timing how long the alien in each film takes to cover said area. Maybe it would give a rough estimate.
I'll actually concede that the Alien in 3 is faster, if for nothing else the POV shot where Gregor gets killed. Pretty darn fast.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 30, 2013, 02:42:01 PM
I'll actually concede that the Alien in 3 is faster, if for nothing else the POV shot where Gregor gets killed. Pretty darn fast.
I'd agree. My hypothesis would be the Alien in 3 is the fastest of what we have seen on film given the lack of dorsal tubes (less weight) and the creatures way of using all four legs.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 02:24:44 PMWrong post halfwit.
No. That was the post where you suggested the Runner was "probably" a Praetorian, and therefore was the post I was responding to. Keep up.
Quoteyou suggested the Runner was "probably" a Praetorian
Also confusing.
So I'm personally waiting for an answer on the Alien stalling the piston and the reason why it's a Praetorian.
Might want to get comfortable than just in case, one of my own questions towards him has been left unanswered for days.
That might be because I'm on his ignore list though, because I'm apparently a "troll". Riiiiight. And when he called HuDaFuk a troll I felt this great feeling in the force like someone owed me $50 because I won a bet.
But anyway, I hesitated about posting this as I think I found the answer for myself but I'll share my thoughts anyway.
Understandably the alien in Alien 3 would have increased speed and move differently because of having a dog for a host, but what about in the version when the host is an ox? Is an ox considered fast or at least faster than a human?
This is when I felt I found an answer for myself. An ox is cattle, and when cowboys would move cattle across the wild west they did so on horseback because cattle are faster than people (when they want to be), or that's one reason anyway. It was just kinda hard to believe at first because of how big and fat looking I've seen cattle get. :laugh:
But it could be a case of it not mattering so much if it's a dog or ox, because what they share in common is that they are 4 legged mammals for host as opposed to 2 legged mammals for host.
Just some thoughts.
I'm only considering the dog because I'm not going to take the ox as canon and try to justify both versions for myself, but that's just me. Your explanation is fair enough.
I'm okay with my own explanation, as far as the life cycle goes.
But I know what you mean, I don't know why it just occurred to me today and when it did I was like "Man, how does the dog and ox thing all fit together? ? ?".
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 30, 2013, 02:52:43 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 02:24:44 PMWrong post halfwit.
No. That was the post where you suggested the Runner was "probably" a Praetorian, and therefore was the post I was responding to. Keep up.
No, we're talking about two completely different posts.
QuoteAlso I like how you ignored the part where the Alien snatches up Aaron, tosses around Clemens, mulches and practically tears Jude limb-from-limb (we never saw any alien in a prior film do such a thing), jumps out of ten tons of boiling hot lead, being un-phased physically by the 300-350 tonne impact, and stalling the giant, megalithic many hundreds-of-tons-heavy-ass metal piston as it attempts to escape from the mould to make your post seem more relevant. It is indeed faster, stronger, and somewhat more beast-like than the others.
This is the post I was talking about.
It is you who needs to keep up.
Also assuming Crazy Rich is posting more Anti-DC hatespam, remind him that he is on my ignore list, therefore I cannot see his/her posts.
Quotethe reason why it's a Praetorian.
Who said it was a Praetorian? Possibly =/= definitely. People need to stop manipulating my posts. This is getting ridiculous. Although it is hilarious the lengths people go to. The reason I said it is possibly a Praetorian is because it was a
Royal Facehugger that impregnated the bull/dog, it would also explain the lack of dorsal tubes, if they had the purpose of labor roles such as hiving and resin-creation, the purpose of which would possibly be redistributed to the worker-caste of the hive, as opposed to the larger, faster, and stronger Praetorians/Royal Guards/Sentries which are solely there to protect unborn/young Queens in the process of building a hive.
This is all speculation! (Do not ignore this part of the post!!!!) I have stated the word possibly three times now, I shouldn't have to stress myself to this length, people should not be so dense to the point I have to go so out of my way to stress the fact that I am speculating, either people are dumb in the head, or just picking at my posts' purposeful ambiguity to be cyber-jerks due to the simple assumption that I am running on the blind faith and belief in people here being intelligent, mature, level-headed and civilized human beings able to take things at face-value as opposed to going to ridiculous lengths of dissecting posts where unnecessary information is absent and exploiting them to look smart, obviously I was wrong, and from now on will make sure to stress myself till I am blue in the face what it is I am saying, as opposed to things that should be readily accepted by mature debaters, and will run on the assumption that the few avid posters here are trolls, prone to pick apart a post for the lulz where it is lacking extensively and ridiculously (not to mention
unnecessarily) overly-detailed information on a fictional subject matter, on a virtual communication interface, in a fake world full of fake people known as the internet. Thank you for correcting my judgment and increasing my levels of intense paranoia and extreme scrutiny accompanied by the constant looking-over-my-shoulder on the lookout for trolls, over-analysts, and, all-in-all, immature dicks.
QuoteSo I'm personally waiting for an answer on the Alien stalling the piston
I might be wrong on that part, it looked like it was slowing it down, my bad.
*Shakes head.*
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 05:34:50 PMThe reason I said it is possibly a Praetorian is because it was a Royal Facehugger that impregnated the bull/dog, it would also explain the lack of dorsal tubes, if they had the purpose of labor roles such as hiving and resin-creation, the purpose of which would possibly be redistributed to the worker-caste of the hive, as opposed to the larger, faster, and stronger Praetorians/Royal Guards/Sentries which are solely there to protect unborn/young Queens in the process of building a hive.
I proposed a similar theory myself 20 years ago. It was shot down for no good reason. Good luck.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 05:34:50 PM
Also assuming Crazy Rich is posting more Anti-DC hatespam
(not assuming, just doing the ignore function wrong - hate is a strong word - I frankly just don't like your rude and aggressive behavior, it's one thing towards me after I tried to be nice to you, but towards the more peaceful folk and towards my friends in other threads too? Insulting and throwing accusations when you lack conviction? You've asked for it - and it's not spam, most of my posting was actually on topic, talking about the dog version and ox version, you were only mentioned as I was letting some folks know that they are not alone)
remind him that he is on my ignore list, therefore I cannot see his/her posts. (already acknowledged this)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1308.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs602%2FIron_Shield%2FGIFS%2Fian-solo-gif_zpsdbf84eeb.gif&hash=d2a5743908a556761ac32deab5436a13d3ec57d9)
I'd PM guys but his ignore function would prevent that I think, so carry on with Alien 3 folks, if you want to.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 07:15:59 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 05:34:50 PMThe reason I said it is possibly a Praetorian is because it was a Royal Facehugger that impregnated the bull/dog, it would also explain the lack of dorsal tubes, if they had the purpose of labor roles such as hiving and resin-creation, the purpose of which would possibly be redistributed to the worker-caste of the hive, as opposed to the larger, faster, and stronger Praetorians/Royal Guards/Sentries which are solely there to protect unborn/young Queens in the process of building a hive.
I proposed a similar theory myself 20 years ago. It was shot down for no good reason. Good luck.
Well, just because it gets shot down doesn't mean I'm not going to stick to it. =\
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Aug 30, 2013, 07:16:54 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 05:34:50 PM
Also assuming Crazy Rich is posting more Anti-DC hatespam
(not assuming, just doing the ignore function wrong - hate is a strong word - I frankly just don't like your rude and aggressive behavior, it's one thing towards me after I tried to be nice to you, but towards the more peaceful folk and towards my friends in other threads too? Insulting and throwing accusations when you lack conviction? You've asked for it - and it's not spam, most of my posting was actually on topic, talking about the dog version and ox version, you were only mentioned as I was letting some folks know that they are not alone)
remind him that he is on my ignore list, therefore I cannot see his/her posts. (already acknowledged this)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1308.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs602%2FIron_Shield%2FGIFS%2Fian-solo-gif_zpsdbf84eeb.gif&hash=d2a5743908a556761ac32deab5436a13d3ec57d9)
I'd PM guys but his ignore function would prevent that I think, so carry on with Alien 3 folks, if you want to.
just ignore him, dont waste your time with him
Quit exposing a members' post I'm trying to ignore! >:(
It also pisses me off when people claim they tried to be nice to you, when all they ever did was patronize you with arrogant remarks as sarcasm disguised as politeness, and it was really just them being fake as f**k, and then try to use the inability for users to interpret voice tone over the internet as leverage and 'evidence'.
Dammit, why the hell did you have to do that Samhain? >:( GDFKNGDMT!
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 07:28:43 PM
Quit exposing a members' post I'm trying to ignore! >:(
It also pisses me off when people claim they tried to be nice to you, when all they ever did was patronize you with arrogant remarks as sarcasm disguised as politeness, and it was really just them being fake as f**k, and then try to use the inability for users to interpret voice tone over the internet as leverage and 'evidence'.
Dammit, why the hell did you have to do that Samhain? >:( GDFKNGDMT!
oh my bad... also GDFKNGDMT? wat
Quote from: Samhain13 on Aug 30, 2013, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 07:28:43 PM
Quit exposing a members' post I'm trying to ignore! >:(
It also pisses me off when people claim they tried to be nice to you, when all they ever did was patronize you with arrogant remarks as sarcasm disguised as politeness, and it was really just them being fake as f**k, and then try to use the inability for users to interpret voice tone over the internet as leverage and 'evidence'.
Dammit, why the hell did you have to do that Samhain? >:( GDFKNGDMT!
oh my bad... also GDFKNGDMT? wat
I think that's short for GOD F**KING DAMMIT!
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 07:19:46 PM
Well, just because it gets shot down doesn't mean I'm not going to stick to it. =\
You forgot to mention that queens become immobilized by their egg sac, so who else but a "praetorian" will be able to capture hosts for her?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 07:54:53 PM
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 07:19:46 PM
Well, just because it gets shot down doesn't mean I'm not going to stick to it. =\
You forgot to mention that queens become immobilized by their egg sac, so who else but a "praetorian" will be able to capture hosts for her?
Precisely!
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 07:54:53 PM
You forgot to mention that queens become immobilized by their egg sac, so who else but a "praetorian" will be able to capture hosts for her?
Literally any other Alien. Like any of them. Remember the original Alien taking Brett and Dallas like it weren't no thing? Remember all those regular Aliens that did such a bang-up job capturing hosts at LV-426? Remember the Aliens in A:R dragging Hillard away? Remember the Aliens in AvP taking, like, every single person because it was PG-13?
You don't need an entirely new caste of Alien to drag people away. It's how Aliens
do.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 01:17:44 PM
How about you read my post before spewing your biased douchbaggishly ignorant and stupid troll drivel covering this thread in your hate-filled blasphemous shit.
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 02:24:44 PMWrong post halfwit.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.cccctech.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2FTaffer-Meme-2.jpg&hash=95e0046cf67a39633a8a6659adb2b0d687b04498)
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 01:17:44 PMI seem to have edited my post while you were in the middle of posting.
Yeah, looks that way...
;)
Quote from: DC on Aug 30, 2013, 01:17:44 PMBeing exposed to a vacuum might have some form of as-of-yet unexplained effect on the thing's biology, anything's possible. Who knows? She was also able to pierce straight through it with a whaling gun. She had also literally just turned on the engines, so at that point it was probably mostly heat, acting as a propellant to blast the thing into space, before the actual full blast came into effect, and had the alien actually successfully crawled all the way into the blast cavity, as it was attempting to do, it might have been blown to shit.
If you're going to propose it, you have to explain it.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 30, 2013, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 07:54:53 PM
You forgot to mention that queens become immobilized by their egg sac, so who else but a "praetorian" will be able to capture hosts for her?
Literally any other Alien. Like any of them. Remember the original Alien taking Brett and Dallas like it weren't no thing? Remember all those regular Aliens that did such a bang-up job capturing hosts at LV-426? Remember the Aliens in A:R dragging Hillard away? Remember the Aliens in AvP taking, like, every single person because it was PG-13?
You don't need an entirely new caste of Alien to drag people away. It's how Aliens do.
Plus, praetorians are near the queen for a reason: to protect her. Something they can't do if they're off scouting for hosts.
And are conspicuously absent from every hive seen in the films.
The idea here is that the runner came from the same facehugger as the queen and therefore serves as her personal servant and protector, so there would only ever be one per hive.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 30, 2013, 09:01:06 PM
And are conspicuously absent from every hive seen in the films.
This is true... when did the Praetorian actually come to life in the Alien universe? I remember the first time I saw one was in AvP2, the first mini boss fight while playing as the Predator. Since then, I can only think of a couple hints of them in the books, one in AvP 2010 as a Marine mini boss, and that's about it.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 09:06:55 PM
The idea here is that the runner came from the same facehugger as the queen and therefore serves as her personal servant and protector, so there would only ever be one per hive.
That doesn't make the er,
runner, a praetorian. It acted pretty much like a regular adult alien in its duties.
Quote from: PRJ_since1990 on Aug 30, 2013, 09:09:06 PM
Quote from: SiL on Aug 30, 2013, 09:01:06 PM
And are conspicuously absent from every hive seen in the films.
This is true... when did the Praetorian actually come to life in the Alien universe? I remember the first time I saw one was in AvP2, the first mini boss fight while playing as the Predator. Since then, I can only think of a couple hints of them in the books, one in AvP 2010 as a Marine mini boss, and that's about it.
I think their first appearance was the game Alien vs Predator (1999), therefore is AvP gaming material. I'm just throwing it out there because I just looked up above to see "Films/T.V >> Alien Films". I'm not giving anyone shit or anything and you guys can continue if you want, just throwing it out there is all.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 09:06:55 PM
The idea here is that the runner came from the same facehugger as the queen and therefore serves as her personal servant and protector, so there would only ever be one per hive.
If it's job is protecting the queen, it did a pretty bad job when, you know, a bunch of guys tried to beat Ripley up and rape her.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 30, 2013, 09:22:37 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 09:06:55 PM
The idea here is that the runner came from the same facehugger as the queen and therefore serves as her personal servant and protector, so there would only ever be one per hive.
If it's job is protecting the queen, it did a pretty bad job when, you know, a bunch of guys tried to beat Ripley up and rape her.
Did this happen before or after the alien went up into her face?
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Aug 30, 2013, 09:25:04 PM
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 30, 2013, 09:22:37 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 09:06:55 PM
The idea here is that the runner came from the same facehugger as the queen and therefore serves as her personal servant and protector, so there would only ever be one per hive.
If it's job is protecting the queen, it did a pretty bad job when, you know, a bunch of guys tried to beat Ripley up and rape her.
Did this happen before or after the alien went up into her face?
Before.
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 30, 2013, 09:11:27 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 09:06:55 PM
The idea here is that the runner came from the same facehugger as the queen and therefore serves as her personal servant and protector, so there would only ever be one per hive.
That doesn't make the er, runner, a praetorian. It acted pretty much like a regular adult alien in its duties.
Agreed. "Praetorian" just a silly EU label. I like to think of it as the queen's overprotective twin brother.
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 30, 2013, 09:38:11 PM
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Aug 30, 2013, 09:25:04 PM
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 30, 2013, 09:22:37 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 09:06:55 PM
The idea here is that the runner came from the same facehugger as the queen and therefore serves as her personal servant and protector, so there would only ever be one per hive.
If it's job is protecting the queen, it did a pretty bad job when, you know, a bunch of guys tried to beat Ripley up and rape her.
Did this happen before or after the alien went up into her face?
Before.
Alright, so it could speculated that maybe the alien didn't know about the Queen embryo until that moment it got up close to Ripley and perhaps sensed it.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 09:39:15 PM"Praetorian" just a silly EU label.
WTF is it called when an alien pops out of a horse? A pig? A snake? Jesus! (Sorry, but Jesus is
not the answer!) Giving names to all these aliens, like "runner", sounds like shit spoken by a f**ked-up Speak and Spell created by a tenth-rate Giger wannabe!
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 30, 2013, 09:06:55 PM
The idea here is that the runner came from the same facehugger as the queen and therefore serves as her personal servant and protector, so there would only ever be one per hive.
The theatrical version is ambiguous on the number of huggers and the extended cut explicitly shows two different looking huggers. On top of that there's nothing really suggesting the runner is anything special. Any perceived increase in speed (And it is perceived, as the thing spends most of the time being outrun by people) can be put down to moving with four legs instead of two and it's neither stronger nor more durable than we've seen Aliens act before.
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Aug 30, 2013, 09:20:16 PM
I think their first appearance was the game Alien vs Predator (1999), therefore is AvP gaming material. I'm just throwing it out there because I just looked up above to see "Films/T.V >> Alien Films". I'm not giving anyone shit or anything and you guys can continue if you want, just throwing it out there is all.
Aliens: Female War (or "Earth Hive"), actually. The term "Praetorian" I think was used in the games first; in the comics they're just her "Royal guard".
So different names but basically the same creature?
I think I might have both comics (whatever comics I have just collect dust on a shelf) so I'll check it out.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FAVP%2F136037358013413971000401197_Turtleman_Takes_Manhattan_Ep_zps868b5717.jpg&hash=0d5208c412760d0fd06b4b9521554d397766fe9c)
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Aug 31, 2013, 01:30:55 AM
So different names but basically the same creature?
I think I might have both comics (whatever comics I have just collect dust on a shelf) so I'll check it out.
Don't dust off Female War. It doesn't deserve it.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 31, 2013, 01:26:11 AM
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Aug 30, 2013, 09:20:16 PM
I think their first appearance was the game Alien vs Predator (1999), therefore is AvP gaming material. I'm just throwing it out there because I just looked up above to see "Films/T.V >> Alien Films". I'm not giving anyone shit or anything and you guys can continue if you want, just throwing it out there is all.
Aliens: Female War (or "Earth Hive"), actually. The term "Praetorian" I think was used in the games first; in the comics they're just her "Royal guard".
So I checked and have Female War, but in it it's not the same creature, the same role perhaps as I quote "They're her chosen few -- they're trying to protect her" (didn't find any names) but not the same creature. Here is a picture I took with my phone, notice the pincers horizontal (more or less) to it's mouth, the Praetorians from the games lack this and the video game Praetorians have more of a Queen like crown. But I kinda digress as the point isn't about whether they are the same creatures or not, the point is that the Female War "royal guards" as I'll call them do serve a "praetorian" role. Therefore I'll conclude that Female War did it first. AvP1999 though, as you recognized, was the first to actually use "Praetorian" as a specific name for a royal guard type of alien. In Female War I didn't find any names, their role was just made clear by the quote.
Female War
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1308.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs602%2FIron_Shield%2FCAM00795_zps722b4030.jpg&hash=204f719c3bcca33a1b80a369138636fda9f16d1c)
AvP1999
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DH.4788327040420049%26amp%3Bpid%3D1.7&hash=007e18190d5f2c6fb46ff89f66766d50aedbc312)
I don't have Earth Hive, unless you meant Earth War... which is the same as Female war? ? ?
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 31, 2013, 03:23:43 AM
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Aug 31, 2013, 01:30:55 AM
So different names but basically the same creature?
I think I might have both comics (whatever comics I have just collect dust on a shelf) so I'll check it out.
Don't dust off Female War. It doesn't deserve it.
Too late.(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1308.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs602%2FIron_Shield%2FGIFS%2Ftumblr_mlh5itpEM41rl52wjo1_500_zpsf20bce05.gif&hash=1a1b877a978e5f640a281fcf0fd28739e9fe24fb)
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 31, 2013, 03:23:43 AM
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Aug 31, 2013, 01:30:55 AM
So different names but basically the same creature?
I think I might have both comics (whatever comics I have just collect dust on a shelf) so I'll check it out.
Don't dust off Female War. It doesn't deserve it.
This.
QuoteAny perceived increase in speed (And it is perceived, as the thing spends most of the time being outrun by people) can be put down to moving with four legs instead of two and it's neither stronger nor more durable than we've seen Aliens act before.
Well the impact of the lead spilling onto the beastie (300-350 tons according to SM) was significantly more than that of the drone being crushed under the APC (the APC weighed about 40 tons in the final film > not the best source but it will do in the meantime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_(film)#Concept_and_design)), so I think that does count as being significantly more durable. I also remember it catching up to Jude pretty quick and making him practically
explode. So it may not be a praetorian, if that is even canon, but it is possible it was something different from a typical drone alien, I think that was insinuated in the film pretty blatantly.
"The others were afraid of fire. I haven't seen one exactly like this before . . . " - Ripley
Quote from: maledoro on Aug 31, 2013, 01:50:22 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FAVP%2F136037358013413971000401197_Turtleman_Takes_Manhattan_Ep_zps868b5717.jpg&hash=0d5208c412760d0fd06b4b9521554d397766fe9c)
LITERALLY LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Aug 31, 2013, 03:33:53 AM
So I checked and have Female War, but in it it's not the same creature, the same role perhaps as I quote "They're her chosen few -- they're trying to protect her" (didn't find any names) but not the same creature. Here is a picture I took with my phone, notice the pincers horizontal (more or less) to it's mouth, the Praetorians from the games lack this and the video game Praetorians have more of a Queen like crown. But I kinda digress as the point isn't about whether they are the same creatures or not, the point is that the Female War "royal guards" as I'll call them do serve a "praetorian" role. Therefore I'll conclude that Female War did it first. AvP1999 though, as you recognized, was the first to actually use "Praetorian" as a specific name for a royal guard type of alien. In Female War I didn't find any names, their role was just made clear by the quote.
That's why I said the game came up with the name, but the comic came up with the role/design. They pretty much do have a Queen-like crown in
Female War, but only in the context of how the Queen's crown looks in that comic (Flip back a few pages to her appearance and see how similar they are).
QuoteI don't have Earth Hive, unless you meant Earth War... which is the same as Female war? ? ?
Urk. "Earth Hive" is the novel of the first comic;
Female War was originally called something else (Earth War, maybe?), which I thought was
Earth Hive, but apparently isn't. Can't remember it off the top of my head.
Quote from: DC on Aug 31, 2013, 04:13:31 AM
So it may not be a praetorian, if that is even canon, but it is possible it was something different from a typical drone alien, I think that was insinuated in the film pretty blatantly.
"The others were afraid of fire. I haven't seen one exactly like this before . . . " - Ripley
They were drawing attention to the host making the Alien look different, not that it's a whole new type of Alien.
It does seem like it was suppose to be a more dangerous alien. :)
But it wasn't. They just wanted to show that this Alien came from a different host and looks different. Fincher wanted it to be fast and lean ("A freight train with teeth"), but there was never really the intention of "This is a special Alien that's a lot worse than what we've ever seen before!"
Quote from: SiL on Aug 31, 2013, 04:57:55 AM
But it wasn't. They just wanted to show that this Alien came from a different host and looks different. Fincher wanted it to be fast and lean ("A freight train with teeth"), but there was never really the intention of "This is a special Alien that's a lot worse than what we've ever seen before!"
I dunno, the tagline gives me a different impression.
"The bitch is back" ... ?
Quote from: SiL on Aug 31, 2013, 05:25:15 AM
"The bitch is back" ... ?
Three times the danger to be specific, but that could work too I guess. :P
QuoteWell the impact of the lead spilling onto the beastie (300-350 tons according to SM) was significantly more than that of the drone being crushed under the APC (the APC weighed about 40 tons in the final film > not the best source but it will do in the meantime), so I think that does count as being significantly more durable. I also remember it catching up to Jude pretty quick and making him practically explode.
350 tonnes of a heavy liquid to the whole body I think would be a teensy bit different to a solid heavy object to the head.
Jude as the only prisoner it actually caught, and Jude has already outrun it once. Whatever fate he suffered might not have been much different to Ferro.
QuoteUrk. "Earth Hive" is the novel of the first comic; Female War was originally called something else (Earth War, maybe?), which I thought was Earth Hive, but apparently isn't. Can't remember it off the top of my head.
Yeah Female War was Earth War.
And 'praetorian' popped up in the Rogue comics. Possibly Genocide too, prior to that.
The "elite royal guard" is in genocide for just a small part. They have the sideways mandibles but other than that they look similar to the other aliens.
The 300 tons of lead is dispersed throughout the whole mold. So really the alien didn't get hit with the full weight, on the other hand the apc tread/tire was right on the alien's head to the force was right on target. That is my interpretation anyway.
If the special effects that were available for alien 3 were used on the first alien movie would we still be having the discussion of which alien is more "dangerous"? IMO the way the alien in 3 is portrayed on film makes it seems more ferocious (I think this was intentional in some ways) but actually the aliens in the first two films were bad news and could have taken out the prisoners just as easy.
Quote from: saintssinphony on Aug 31, 2013, 12:59:13 PM
The "elite royal guard" is in genocide for just a small part. They have the sideways mandibles but other than that they look similar to the other aliens.
The 300 tons of lead is dispersed throughout the whole mold. So really the alien didn't get hit with the full weight, on the other hand the apc tread/tire was right on the alien's head to the force was right on target. That is my interpretation anyway.
If the special effects that were available for alien 3 were used on the first alien movie would we still be having the discussion of which alien is more "dangerous"? IMO the way the alien in 3 is portrayed on film makes it seems more ferocious (I think this was intentional in some ways) but actually the aliens in the first two films were bad news and could have taken out the prisoners just as easy.
This is basically what I'm saying. Regardless, the alien got hit with a good 75-80 tons of force, as opposed to the 40 tons of the APC on the drone in
Aliens, but like you said; this doesn't mean a lone drone from one of the first two would've been any less of a horror fest for the prisoners, they would have been just as f**ked, if not more so, considering the fact in the first two the aliens relied more on stealth, as opposed to berserk tactics. I'm fairly sure the creature was meant to be shown to the audience as being a much faster and more animalistic variant, the host is apparent of this, as are the digitigrade legs and lengthier tail, huskier torso and neck. (Its arms also appear to be a bit more muscular.) But these are just my personal observations. Also, just prior to the panickey prisoner, Kevin I think, goes to try to activate the piston prematurely out of fear, the alien zips by so fast you could literally miss it if you blinked, and Jude was
mulched, we see Ferro's hand quivering indicating it was a headbite, much like Burke.
I like to think that the absence of back-tubes was the only visible, physiological difference between a "praetorian" and a garden variety soldier. The runner's other differences I attribute solely to the host that it came from.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 31, 2013, 09:19:39 PM
I like to think that the absence of back-tubes was the only visible, physiological difference between a "praetorian" and a garden variety soldier. The runner's other differences I attribute solely to the host that it came from.
And the facehugger right, as you said earlier?
Well, yeah. By herself, a queen is pretty vulnerable and useless. The royal facehugger's ability to impregnate a second host with her protector would address this weakness.
Get ready. For some reason, this theory causes a lot of people to suddenly lose about 50 IQ points and turn into Brad from Extract.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0jPHehx2EQ#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0jPHehx2EQ#ws)
And again, the role of protector could just be done by any other Alien.
And if the protector was smart it would have cocooned Ripley in order to keep her hidden and safe and prevent anyone or anything (or Ripley herself) from stopping the Queen's birth.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 31, 2013, 10:08:14 PM
And again, the role of protector could just be done by any other Alien.
I agree. What's your point?
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Aug 31, 2013, 10:49:17 PM
And if the protector was smart it would have cocooned Ripley in order to keep her hidden and safe and prevent anyone or anything (or Ripley herself) from stopping the Queen's birth.
The same could be said whether it was a regular soldier or not.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 31, 2013, 11:21:40 PM
I agree. What's your point?
If you agree, then what's yours? Why would it need to be a special "praetorian" if it acts and functions identically to every other regular Alien ... ?
My opinion. I highly doubt the dog alien was a praetorian. I believe it was no higher in purpose than a regular alien born of a human. It only began to protect the queen after it realized it was there when going face to face with Ripley, because, well, is there any other aliens around to protect the future of the species?
Quote from: SiL on Aug 31, 2013, 11:30:07 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 31, 2013, 11:21:40 PM
I agree. What's your point?
If you agree, then what's yours? Why would it need to be a special "praetorian" if it acts and functions identically to every other regular Alien ... ?
Call it whatever you want. Like I said, "praetorian" is just a silly EU label.
My point is, why call it anything? Why say it's special?
Because it comes from the same facehugger as the queen. Unless you're going to tell me that there were two eggs and two facehuggers again.
In which case, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think I said it once, let alone need to say it again. Just that the film is ridiculously vague on how many of what were where when.
I like to keep things simple. One egg. One facehugger. We know a queen came from the facehugger which ipso facto makes that facehugger special.
The second embryo and its role are simply an extrapolation from that.
I don't see any reason to assume the dog alien is special.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 01, 2013, 12:29:48 AM
I like to keep things simple. One egg. One facehugger. We know a queen came from the facehugger which ipso facto makes that facehugger special.
The second embryo and its role are simply an extrapolation from that.
Ergo it is a 'royal guard', a guardian of the royal caste. I see no reason why it
wouldn't be specially designed for said role. Each caste of a bee hive has its role, why not an alien hive?
O_o
Quote from: DC on Sep 01, 2013, 12:38:22 PMErgo it is a 'royal guard', a guardian of the royal caste.
No, that's just your personal assumption. Nothing in the film suggests the alien's anything special in any way.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 01, 2013, 01:35:08 PM
Nothing in the film suggests the alien's anything special in any way.
Other than half the posts in this thread stating the opposite.
... am I the only one who isn't seeing such a thing as "half the post in this thread stating the opposite"?
I have no recollection of this.
Quote from: Crazy RichYou are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
Quote from: DC on Sep 01, 2013, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: Crazy RichYou are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.co%2Finstances%2F400x%2F32547898.jpg&hash=c77b9c86e54d820719a728e087bde14025200fd0)
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=8216.0 (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=8216.0)
Quote from: Crazy RichYou are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
Anyway....
I don't see any evidence that points to the dog alien being a praetorian or royal guard, it's just personal assumption as HuDaFuk said. I believe the dog alien was simply doing what any alien would do to secure the future of the species.
I agree
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg420%2Fjohnnycargo%2FInsanity.jpg&hash=d790f3f519ae0937429b1b72b9a7ee811d12167a)
Insanity = Doing the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting a different result.
You do know you're not the only person in the universe right?
I'm allowed to share my thoughts with, you know,
the rest of AvPGalaxy.What was it you once said?Quote from: DC on Aug 27, 2013, 09:30:11 PM
Everyone has equal rights here, deal with it.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.tumblr.com%2Fovfhstl%2F9qrm4ckvl%2Floki_unf.gif&hash=5b6baece51ce9c50fd5484107fe1dbeb1c875d58)
Quote from: DC on Sep 01, 2013, 03:57:32 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg420%2Fjohnnycargo%2FInsanity.jpg&hash=d790f3f519ae0937429b1b72b9a7ee811d12167a)
Insanity = Doing the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting a different result.
Spoiler
I'm beginning to feel insane for asking you to leave me alone over and over again, and expecting you to actually grow up and f**k off, and at this point I'm contemplating doing something different, and contacting site staff and watching them take action, for repeated harassment of a member, as well as the posting of private message material without the consent of the messenger which I hope you know is a direct violation of site rules. Contacting site staff is literally the last thing I can do at this point to get you to f**k off. You should have taken the hint ten f**king posts ago, hell, you should've taken then hint when I BLOCKED YOUR ASS, which I shouldn't even have had to do in the first place. Either you didn't get it and it went straight over your head or you are TROLLING . . . AGAIN.
Quote from: DC on Sep 01, 2013, 02:00:45 PMQuote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 01, 2013, 01:35:08 PMNothing in the film suggests the alien's anything special in any way.
Other than half the posts in this thread stating the opposite.
Aside from the fact virtually all these posts claiming it's "probably" a Praetorian or something have been made by you, it doesn't change the fact that's still a huge assumption. NOTHING in the film makes the alien seem special, beyond the fact it's a quadruped. The novel tells us it's bigger, but in the novel it came from an ox, so it would make sense for it to be bigger, because an ox is bigger than a man. In the film, though, its relative size isn't really made clear, even in the Assembly Cut where it
does come out of an ox. The only thing ever said about the alien being different in the movie is that it "moves differently". Hardly concrete evidence for it being a Praetorian or whatever.
Quote from: DC on Sep 01, 2013, 04:30:15 PM
Quote from: DC on Sep 01, 2013, 03:57:32 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg420%2Fjohnnycargo%2FInsanity.jpg&hash=d790f3f519ae0937429b1b72b9a7ee811d12167a)
Insanity = Doing the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting a different result.
Spoiler
I'm beginning to feel insane for asking you to leave me alone over and over again, and expecting you to actually grow up and f**k off, and at this point I'm contemplating doing something different, and contacting site staff and watching them take action, for repeated harassment of a member, as well as the posting of private message material without the consent of the messenger which I hope you know is a direct violation of site rules. Contacting site staff is literally the last thing I can do at this point to get you to f**k off. You should have taken the hint ten f**king posts ago, hell, you should've taken then hint when I BLOCKED YOUR ASS, which I shouldn't even have had to do in the first place. Either you didn't get it and it went straight over your head or you are TROLLING . . . AGAIN.
Maybe you should... ummm.... actually start ignoring me. Everything was getting cool again until
you started responding to me.And guess what?
I'm going to the mods.
I hope you know I consider the novels canon. :)
Also,
QuoteBy herself, a queen is pretty vulnerable and useless. The royal facehugger's ability to impregnate a second host with her protector would address this weakness.
Oh, and you ignored most of the post you hack-n-slashed, the most important parts to be exact.
QuoteI see no reason why it wouldn't be specially designed for said role. Each caste of a bee hive has its role, why not an alien hive?
And the post it was responding to, proving you targeted me specifically. Grudge-holder much?
QuoteI like to keep things simple. One egg. One facehugger. We know a queen came from the facehugger which ipso facto makes that facehugger special.
The second embryo and its role are simply an extrapolation from that.
Which is the exact opposite of the long-winded try-hard post you barfed up.
Referring to a different opinion as barf won't make your own any more right.
QuoteOther than half the posts in this thread stating the opposite.
And that has NOTHING to do with what's in the movie.
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwhitsblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FTroll_Face.png&hash=2dcab45333e724b395df3d50d2ec9e214a06c775)
Yeah, this debate should be its own thread. That way it can be as long and inane as the "Bishop: Human or Android" one is.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 01, 2013, 09:16:17 AM
I don't see any reason to assume the dog alien is special.
It's not special in the sense that it's bigger, stronger, smarter or faster than a human-bred soldier. If anything, I'd say it lacks certain abilities depending on the function of the back-tubes.
QuoteI'd say it lacks certain abilities depending on the function of the back-tubes.
The only logical explanation I can come up with is that it was caste/role-related.
QuoteErgo it is a 'royal guard', a guardian of the royal caste. I see no reason why it wouldn't be specially designed for said role. Each caste of a bee hive has its role, why not an alien hive?
Because the films show us this isn't the case. The Aliens protecting the Queen in the AP look just like every other Alien. In Resurrection by the time we see the Queen, there only two other Aliens on board - if they're 'royal guards' they also look like every other Alien in the film.
The only two castes that exist on film are adult and Queen.
QuoteThe only two castes that exist on film are adult and Queen.
'Adult' isn't a caste. A caste would be like the drone in
Alien, or the soldiers, workers and queen in
Aliens. They're all adults.
'Adult' in this instance encompasses redundant terms like 'drone', 'soldier', 'warrior', 'worker' etc.
The only difference between the creatures in each film is the appearancce - not in what they do and how they act.
Quote from: DC on Sep 02, 2013, 02:31:51 AM
QuoteThe only two castes that exist on film are adult and Queen.
'Adult' isn't a caste. A caste would be like the drone in Alien, or the soldiers, workers and queen in Aliens. They're all adults.
And the difference between drones, soldiers, and workers is...what exactly?
Nothing.
No in
Aliens they're definitely smarter. The first one tried to reenter the ship through a friggen exhaust vent. In the second one . . .
Quote"HOW DID THEY CUT THE POWER MAN, THEY'RE ANIMALS?!"
, its quite obvious.
Are you for real dude?
Yet none of the Aliens thought to abandon the AP Station...
While the original cheated the tracker, placed itself in the best position to take out Parker and Lambert, and stowed away on the shuttle. For a lifeform that's only half a day old - is there any reason it shouldn't think the engine was a way back on board?
Have you ever watched these movies, dude?
Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Aug 31, 2013, 10:49:17 PM
And if the protector was smart it would have cocooned Ripley in order to keep her hidden and safe and prevent anyone or anything (or Ripley herself) from stopping the Queen's birth.
Well...how long did Ripley's live on Fiorina? In order to sustain the queen, she would have to stay alive, and that means she would have to have immediate access to food and water, something I don't think comes from being cocooned for X days. Plus, naturally aliens render would-be hosts unconscious, prior to cocooning them. This act may compromise the host's health to some degree. Now the workers in
Aliens did just that, but they weren't looking forward to breeding a new queen, just regular soldiers. The runner was probably taking extra precautions with the utterly important cargo Ripley was unknowingly holding. I wonder, was it counting on Ripley to discover the queen? Also, since there were no weapons on Fiorina, how would the prison staff deal with a chestbursting queen? Hell, they didn't even know what it was without Ripley.
I think the Alien needed to clear away threats as a priority over cocooning Ripley for a few days, since it was the only Alien vs. 20 dudes. There are pros and cons between letting her roam and cocooning. Ultimately I think it couldn't really protect her and deal with them at the same time.
Quote from: DC on Sep 02, 2013, 02:51:39 AMNo in Aliens they're definitely smarter. The first one tried to reenter the ship through a friggen exhaust vent. In the second one . . . Quote"HOW DID THEY CUT THE POWER MAN, THEY'RE ANIMALS?!"
, its quite obvious.
Are you for real dude?
Nothing that can't be explained by the fact the aliens in
Aliens had been around for a lot longer, and therefore had had time to learn their environment. The alien in the first film had never seen the outside of the shuttle before.
I don't see anything in
Aliens to suggest the aliens are smarter. In fact, they act a lot more stupidly, mindlessly throwing themselves at the Marines' defences and getting slaughtered in the process. Now, I know there are good reasons in the film for them acting this way, but smarter they are not.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 02, 2013, 07:29:19 AM
I don't see anything in Aliens to suggest the aliens are smarter. In fact, they act a lot more stupidly, mindlessly throwing themselves at the Marines' defences and getting slaughtered in the process.
Well what else where they going to do? Shoot back? Use harsh language? :D
They used a tactic which presumably worked just fine against the colonists, realised it wasn't working here, and changed their plan accordingly.
Sounds smart to me.
Smart, yes. Smarter than the creature in the first film? Not really.
How not? Entirely different circumstances. We're going to assume the original Alien wouldn't have run into the guns ... why, exactly?
In the first film, the alien used stealth to sneak up on its victims. Behaviour like that in an unfamiliar environment against unfamiliar prey requires a high level of intelligence. In Aliens the creatures repeatedly hurl themselves at the Marines and get chopped up. And not just with the sentry guns. Both scenes in the Hive show the aliens just throwing themselves at armed people and getting blown away for their trouble.
I'm not saying they aren't smart, but they certainly don't seem to have the self-preservation instinct that the first creature had.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 02, 2013, 08:53:44 AM
In the first film, the alien used stealth to sneak up on its victims. Behaviour like that in an unfamiliar environment against unfamiliar prey requires a high level of intelligence.
How do you figure? Most animals try to use stealth or surprise to catch prey.
QuoteBoth scenes in the Hive show the aliens just throwing themselves at armed people and getting blown away for their trouble.
They also show a lot of Aliens sneaking. Dietrich is grabbed without ever seeing her attacker. Weirzbowski is grabbed and dragged off with no-one seeing. An Alien snatches Apone in a sneak attack, another Alien
tries to sneak up on the marines as they retreat but is spotted and blown to pieces, killing Drake. At the end, yeah, they do charge Ripley an awful lot -- but they also try to sneak around behind her.
That's to say nothing of using the suspended ceiling and sub-flooring to stealthy infiltrate the marines' defenses, or sneak around through Med-lab to cut off their escape from Operations (see, Burke).
If anything,
Aliens shows that not all Aliens act exactly the same, or that they use mixed tactics to distract and get the upper hand -- some make overt attacks while others use stealth to grab them unaware.
Humans throughout history have charged machinegun placements unarmed even
with the knowledge of what they are. I wouldn't say those events show the human race is stupid, however :P
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2013, 09:13:30 AMQuote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 02, 2013, 08:53:44 AMIn the first film, the alien used stealth to sneak up on its victims. Behaviour like that in an unfamiliar environment against unfamiliar prey requires a high level of intelligence.
How do you figure? Most animals try to use stealth or surprise to catch prey.
Most animals use stealth or surprise to catch prey they have been hunting for hundreds or thousands of generations in an environment they are well used to. The alien does it against a species it has never encountered before in an environment it has never been in. Instinct and intelligence are very different things.
I don't deny that the aliens use their intelligence in
Aliens. Just to me, they don't seem vastly more clever than the creature in the first film, like some people claim is "obviously" the case.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2013, 09:13:30 AM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 02, 2013, 08:53:44 AM
In the first film, the alien used stealth to sneak up on its victims. Behaviour like that in an unfamiliar environment against unfamiliar prey requires a high level of intelligence.
How do you figure? Most animals try to use stealth or surprise to catch prey.
QuoteBoth scenes in the Hive show the aliens just throwing themselves at armed people and getting blown away for their trouble.
They also show a lot of Aliens sneaking. Dietrich is grabbed without ever seeing her attacker. Weirzbowski is grabbed and dragged off with no-one seeing. An Alien snatches Apone in a sneak attack, another Alien tries to sneak up on the marines as they retreat but is spotted and blown to pieces, killing Drake. At the end, yeah, they do charge Ripley an awful lot -- but they also try to sneak around behind her.
That's to say nothing of using the suspended ceiling and sub-flooring to stealthy infiltrate the marines' defenses, or sneak around through Med-lab to cut off their escape from Operations (see, Burke).
If anything, Aliens shows that not all Aliens act exactly the same, or that they use mixed tactics to distract and get the upper hand -- some make overt attacks while others use stealth to grab them unaware.
Humans throughout history have charged machinegun placements unarmed even with the knowledge of what they are. I wouldn't say those events show the human race is stupid, however :P
While I won't contest what you've said here, aren't you the guy who vehemently defends the notion that the Aliens were made stupid in Aliens vs. in Alien in terms of overall behaviour?
No, I say the overtly insect-like hive structure and sacrificing the sense of menace of a single Alien for the sake of making a lot of them scary probably weren't the most interesting ways of developing the creature.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2013, 11:08:22 AM
No, I say the overtly insect-like hive structure and sacrificing the sense of menace of a single Alien for the sake of making a lot of them scary probably weren't the most interesting ways of developing the creature.
I like the way you think.
Just a thought, maybe when there isn't a queen an alien will act a bit smarter but if there's a queen and many others to fight/live with, the alien starts to be less cunning and act more hive-minded? I don't like this idea actually, I'm just throwing it out there amongst other speculation.
Quote from: saintssinphony on Sep 02, 2013, 11:13:45 PM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2013, 11:08:22 AM
No, I say the overtly insect-like hive structure and sacrificing the sense of menace of a single Alien for the sake of making a lot of them scary probably weren't the most interesting ways of developing the creature.
I like the way you think.
Just a thought, maybe when there isn't a queen an alien will act a bit smarter but if there's a queen and many others to fight/live with, the alien starts to be less cunning and act more hive-minded? I don't like this idea actually, I'm just throwing it out there amongst other speculation.
Well the queen is the brain, brawn and body of the hive so it makes some sense. But I doubt the queen would sacrifice her children without making some progress eg sentry gun scene. A lone alien is more dependent on stealth and its own survival. In the case of Alien 3 it had to ensure the survival of the unborn queen and its own.
Quote from: saintssinphony on Sep 02, 2013, 11:13:45 PMJust a thought, maybe when there isn't a queen an alien will act a bit smarter but if there's a queen and many others to fight/live with, the alien starts to be less cunning and act more hive-minded? I don't like this idea actually, I'm just throwing it out there amongst other speculation.
I've always thought that. When there's a queen about, she "overrides" the aliens' individuality and uses them as she sees fit.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 02, 2013, 08:53:44 AM
I'm not saying they aren't smart, but they certainly don't seem to have the self-preservation instinct that the first creature had.
I don't think that's the case. The Alien in the first film was alone and had no leadership caste to take "orders" from, it probably knew this hence its stealthy ways and its choosing to kill the crew (if we follow the theatrical cut, not including the deleted egg morphing scene)
The Aliens in the second film probably know that they aren't out numbered therefore they "know" they don't need to rely on stealth tactics as much as the original Alien. These aliens where also trying to acquire hosts, not just kill the marines outright.
The intelligence in the first two films seems to be about even to me, with a few exceptions here and there. The dog alien is intelligent, but I don't think its as smart as its predecessors.
Quote from: Terx2 on Sep 03, 2013, 07:19:32 AM
Well the queen is the brain, brawn and body of the hive so it makes some sense.
The Queen is none of those things. She's an egg factory. That's about it.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2013, 08:16:42 AMThe Queen is none of those things. She's an egg factory. That's about it.
Pretty debatable, at least with regards to her being the brain. In
Aliens she clearly affects some form of intelligent control over her minions.
She tells them to back off so Ripley doesn't torch the eggs. That's literally all the interaction she ever has with the rest of the Aliens. From that one thing everyone leaped to "Hive mind!" "She's the ruler!" "All Aliens must bow down to her!"
It's like watching a five year old inform a crowd of people that there's a bomb nearby that'll be set off if they get too close, watching the crowd stop, and deducing that five year olds rule humanity.
If she possesses the mechanism to do that, it's perfectly plausible she communicates with her offspring in other regards, otherwise what would be the point in having the mechanism at all? Besides, considering many insect queens affect some kind of control over their hives, it's hardly a massive leap in logic to suggest the xenomorph queen does the same.
It's one thing to pull something out of your ass, and another thing entirely to make a reasonable assumption based on what we see.
She physically turns to the Aliens and hisses. She verbally and visibly communicates to them. There's no special mechanism shown.
Bee and ant queens don't have any real kind of control over their hives. They're important because they're the only ones actually reproducing, and so demand attention and care, but the rest of the hive functions without any real input from the queen. Her purpose is to lay eggs.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 27, 2013, 07:34:12 AM
While I like Mimic, I can't fail but agree it's mediocre at best. I mostly like it for Dutton and the creature design (which is kind of silly, but creepy).
Quote from: Hudson on Aug 24, 2013, 05:50:13 PMI know some kind of director's cut came out, but I honestly don't care. I'm not a Guillermo del Toro fanboy so I ignored it.
From what I've heard it's a bit of a joke anyway, it adds like 3 minutes of completely pointless scenes.
I love Dutton from Mimic.
"Hey guys, there's a lot of strange shit in here. Lots of it." LOL
I don't think the Queen's communication is limited to making faces at the other Aliens. If that's the only way it'd be able to communicate with them (and she obviously does have authority), then it would make no sense for her to get glued down in one spot. It'd have to give out a daily hissing to a gathering of Aliens so they knew their assigned duties for the day instead of transmitting some kind of signal, which is what I would assume she does. I don't know why else its head would be so big.
Quit comparing them to bees and ants, seriously. I'm so sick of those analogies. :P Bees and ants don't have personalities and emotions; they're like robots. The Aliens seem to have personalities and free will. If you don't agree with that, explain the Queen's vengeful behavior against Ripley. Why would it chase someone clear out of her lair and then continue to pursue them? It couldn't have known an explosion was imminent; it had to be pissed off. And if it was simply an egg layer, then why would it care so much about killing the parties responsible for destroying its crop of eggs?
She has to be glued in one spot. That's what happens when an egg-laying organism forms an ovipositor. It cannot run about freely with a gigantic egg-laying sack coming out of its abdomen so it has to stay put.
Worker bees can leave
Even drones can fly away
The queen is their slave
Quote from: DoomRulz on Sep 03, 2013, 02:56:30 PM
She has to be glued in one spot. That's what happens when an egg-laying organism forms an ovipositor. It cannot run about freely with a gigantic egg-laying sack coming out of its abdomen so it has to stay put.
Ok, and so I'm saying that since it's in one spot and clearly has control over Aliens at least in the general vicinity, it wouldn't make sense for the Queen's only form of communication to be hissing and sneering. Since the species is so efficient, I'm assuming their communication is also efficient.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 03, 2013, 03:01:37 PM
Worker bees can leave
Even drones can fly away
The queen is their slave
More like an equally ranked, equally contributing member of the community.
I bet you're wearing your cornflower blue tie today.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 03, 2013, 05:14:32 PM
I bet you're wearing your cornflower blue tie today.
Do what?
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. :-X
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Aug 28, 2013, 03:46:52 AMSince this is my 161st reply, I thought it appropriate to spill my top 5 reasons for loving Alien 3 (Assembly Cut) versus people hating it.
Pretty much sums up my love for this underrated film.
First-class post, Fiorina. :-*
Quote from: Mr. Runner on Sep 03, 2013, 06:54:35 PM
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Aug 28, 2013, 03:46:52 AMSince this is my 161st reply, I thought it appropriate to spill my top 5 reasons for loving Alien 3 (Assembly Cut) versus people hating it.
Pretty much sums up my love for this underrated film.
First-class post, Fiorina. :-*
Well thank you! 8)
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 28, 2013, 07:43:12 AM
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Aug 28, 2013, 03:46:52 AMSince this is my 161st reply, I thought it appropriate to spill my top 5 reasons for loving Alien 3 (Assembly Cut) versus people hating it.
Great post. We share a lot of the same opinions on the film.
Thank you as well 8)
If anyone wants to read the post it is on page 92 btw (selfless promotion I know :P)
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 03, 2013, 06:07:26 PM
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. :-X
That was funny.
I want you to facehug me as hard as you can !!!!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.tinypic.com%2F2j3lm5y.jpg&hash=d6eeb7150c652fa40c8a762a59fdf4824a99731b)
Quote from: Hudson on Sep 03, 2013, 02:28:09 PM
I don't think the Queen's communication is limited to making faces at the other Aliens. If that's the only way it'd be able to communicate with them (and she obviously does have authority), then it would make no sense for her to get glued down in one spot.
She's big and has to lay eggs. She's not meant to go anywhere.
QuoteIt'd have to give out a daily hissing to a gathering of Aliens so they knew their assigned duties for the day instead of transmitting some kind of signal, which is what I would assume she does. I don't know why else its head would be so big.
Why would she need to assign anything? Literally
nothing in the films suggest she has some kind of special position or authority over the other Aliens. She tells them to back off in
Aliens and calls for them (audibly, mind) to free her so they can leave in
AvP -- that's
it. The Aliens in AvP were clearly operating just fine until the Queen made herself known and there's nothing in
Aliens showing she was calling any sort of shots.
QuoteWhy would it chase someone clear out of her lair and then continue to pursue them? It couldn't have known an explosion was imminent; it had to be pissed off.
Ripley had also just set fire to the room and exploded her egg sack with grenades.
QuoteAnd if it was simply an egg layer, then why would it care so much about killing the parties responsible for destroying its crop of eggs?
As you said; egg layer. Kind'a pissed that someone trashed its eggs.
QuoteLiterally nothing in the films suggest she has some kind of special position or authority over the other Aliens. She tells them to back off in Aliens and calls for them (audibly, mind) to free her so they can leave in AvP -- that's it.
That isn't "Literally
nothing."
What of either of those things says "special authority" ... ?
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2013, 10:31:09 PM
What of either of those things says "special authority" ... ?
The fact that no normal Aliens ever tell their brothers and sisters to refrain from killing a person. :o
When have they had the need to?
Quote from: Hudson on Sep 04, 2013, 12:02:55 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2013, 10:31:09 PM
What of either of those things says "special authority" ... ?
The fact that no normal Aliens ever tell their brothers and sisters to refrain from killing a person. :o
I'm just asking this because you said something that got me thinking,
If there was another alien in alien 3, would that alien be able to communicate to the other not to kill Ripley or would the second alien have to go up and "sniff" (for lack of a better term) Ripley like the alien does in the film? If they did communicate would it just be through body language and/or audible noises or do the creatures use a telepathic form of communication? Maybe it's not telepathy but just at a frequency the human ear can't hear.
You guys started talking about how a queen can communicate so I just got to thinking about this stuff. I don't know really, I've read all sorts of stuff but just wondered how others thought it worked or if there's a definitive answer.
Quote from: Hudson on Sep 04, 2013, 12:02:55 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2013, 10:31:09 PM
What of either of those things says "special authority" ... ?
The fact that no normal Aliens ever tell their brothers and sisters to refrain from killing a person. :o
I'd like to know of a situation in which they needed to that appeared in the films, because I sure didn't see anything.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 04, 2013, 12:13:18 AM
When have they had the need to?
Why did the Queen even need to? If the other Xenos ambushed Ripley she would've been dead in about half a second and maybe launched one grenade, which would've caused minimal damage compared to what eventually happened.
QuoteIf they did communicate would it just be through body language and/or audible noises or do the creatures use a telepathic form of communication? Maybe it's not telepathy but just at a frequency the human ear can't hear.
I could go for something like that. I feel like the Aliens' heads are some type of sensory device (why they don't have eyes) that maybe detects something that is incompatible to how humans and other earth animals perceive senses. Not necessarily telepathy, but definitely not sight. Although I'm sure their sense of taste is just dandy.
QuoteWhy did the Queen even need to?
So Ripley wouldn't set fire to the eggs.
Quote from: saintssinphony on Sep 04, 2013, 12:20:54 AM
Quote from: Hudson on Sep 04, 2013, 12:02:55 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2013, 10:31:09 PM
What of either of those things says "special authority" ... ?
The fact that no normal Aliens ever tell their brothers and sisters to refrain from killing a person. :o
I'm just asking this because you said something that got me thinking,
If there was another alien in alien 3, would that alien be able to communicate to the other not to kill Ripley or would the second alien have to go up and "sniff" (for lack of a better term) Ripley like the alien does in the film? If they did communicate would it just be through body language and/or audible noises or do the creatures use a telepathic form of communication? Maybe it's not telepathy but just at a frequency the human ear can't hear.
You guys started talking about how a queen can communicate so I just got to thinking about this stuff. I don't know really, I've read all sorts of stuff but just wondered how others thought it worked or if there's a definitive answer.
Well in AVP2 the game. A scientist had confirmed the alien runners can communicate to other aliens from a frequency to recieve orders and send out information. The scientists datapad goes on to say it might be possible to override there orders if given time, equipment and a live queen (or empress in the game. Basicly a larger more dominant queen.) they could harness and control the hive. However it doesn't say the aliens all work on the same frequency. So it might only apply to runners or drones or predaliens.
Quote from: Terx2 on Sep 04, 2013, 04:03:14 AM
Quote from: saintssinphony on Sep 04, 2013, 12:20:54 AM
Quote from: Hudson on Sep 04, 2013, 12:02:55 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2013, 10:31:09 PM
What of either of those things says "special authority" ... ?
The fact that no normal Aliens ever tell their brothers and sisters to refrain from killing a person. :o
I'm just asking this because you said something that got me thinking,
If there was another alien in alien 3, would that alien be able to communicate to the other not to kill Ripley or would the second alien have to go up and "sniff" (for lack of a better term) Ripley like the alien does in the film? If they did communicate would it just be through body language and/or audible noises or do the creatures use a telepathic form of communication? Maybe it's not telepathy but just at a frequency the human ear can't hear.
You guys started talking about how a queen can communicate so I just got to thinking about this stuff. I don't know really, I've read all sorts of stuff but just wondered how others thought it worked or if there's a definitive answer.
Well in AVP2 the game. A scientist had confirmed the alien runners can communicate to other aliens from a frequency to recieve orders and send out information. The scientists datapad goes on to say it might be possible to override there orders if given time, equipment and a live queen (or empress in the game. Basicly a larger more dominant queen.) they could harness and control the hive. However it doesn't say the aliens all work on the same frequency. So it might only apply to runners or drones or predaliens.
That's a good point. However, although I agree with you, I want to point out this isn't film canon, since that's what folks seem to be going off of purely. Personally, I take all forms of EU into account when considering what is true and what is false (since that's what canon boils down to in the end, personal truth). AvP2 and the Aliens: Earth Hive series both mention a sort of frequency/telepathy that the Queens can use to communicate. In Aliens: Earth Hive, the Royal Queen Mother sends out signals to people all the way from the Alien home world, giving them mixed dreams of love and attraction to utter nightmares. I would venture so far as to call that more of a frequency misread as telepathy, since light has different frequencies, some that can be seen and others not, and can travel great distances.
In AvP they operate in audible frequencies, but Resurrection suggests something outside the audible range. Possibly even telepathic - as much as the concept irks me.
Quote from: SM on Sep 04, 2013, 06:24:38 AMIn AvP they operate in audible frequencies, but Resurrection suggests something outside the audible range. Possibly even telepathic - as much as the concept irks me.
The novelizatrion makes it very clear the aliens have some unspecified mental connection with the queen.
That isn't official canon as now you're bringing in EU material. That's a whole other issue.
I know, I wasn't suggesting it was definitive proof, just throwing it out there.
Although I'd consider the novelizations far more credible than all the other EU books. They're at least based on the official scripts.
Normally I'd take that into account, but since it's not verified in the film (plus the fact I don't like it) I leave telepathy out.
Quote from: SM on Sep 04, 2013, 08:18:27 PM
Normally I'd take that into account, but since it's not verified in the film (plus the fact I don't like it) I leave telepathy out.
I was going to ask why you didn't consider it but you answered my question lol. I mean, considering it's fiction, is it really so wrong to:
A: Disregard the possibility of telepathy
B: Disregard all EU as possible explanations when they all build upon and respect the OC
Quote from: PRJ_since1990 on Sep 04, 2013, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: SM on Sep 04, 2013, 08:18:27 PM
Normally I'd take that into account, but since it's not verified in the film (plus the fact I don't like it) I leave telepathy out.
I was going to ask why you didn't consider it but you answered my question lol. I mean, considering it's fiction, is it really so wrong to:
A: Disregard the possibility of telepathy
B: Disregard all EU as possible explanations when they all build upon and respect the OC
^this^
Besides, I've read many theories pointing towards telepathy, and most of them are backed up by solid film evidence. Plus, the AvP 2010 audio diaries just scream the concept of "hive mind", and the game itself comes pretty close to acceptable canon. And you can't ignore that a considerable amount of alien fans do believe in the alien telepathy theory.
Like PRJ said, it does no harm to leave telepathy an open option. Perhaps the xenomorphs communicate through a mixture of audibly perceptible or imperceptible sounds
and telepathy, as we do with lingual forms and sign language.
For all we know, they communicate with pheromones.
Quote from: jedi9061 on Sep 04, 2013, 10:36:28 PM
Besides, I've read many theories pointing towards telepathy, and most of them are backed up by solid film evidence.
The only film evidence is implied by
Alien Resurrection.
And since that could be explained by either ultrasonic communication or Ripley's enhanced hearing (or both), I'd take them over telepathy.
QuoteAnd you can't ignore that a considerable amount of alien fans do believe in the alien telepathy theory.
Of course you can.
Especially since the AvP film pretty much ignores any concept of telepathy. The Aliens only ge rescue the Queen when they audibly hear her screaming - not through any paranormal means.
There's no evidence of a 'hive mind' of any sort.
I wouldn't want to use the word telepathy, as to me that describes a high level of verbal communication between intelligent beings.
I think the Aliens would use something like high frequency communication or something, I don't know. That just sounds more acceptable to me. Sending sound waves to each other that evoke different types of messages.
The old RPG also said they communicated in vaccuum by changing the colour of their heads in eitehr infrared or ultraviolet spectrum. I liked that idea too.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 04, 2013, 10:57:33 PM
For all we know, they communicate with pheromones.
So two Aliens in adjoining rooms couldn't communicate?
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2013, 04:15:38 AMQuote from: Local Trouble on Sep 04, 2013, 10:57:33 PM
For all we know, they communicate with pheromones.
So two Aliens in adjoining rooms couldn't communicate?
Nope.
Bummer
Although, a perfect organism would probably be telepathic. Just sayin'.
What could you possibly base that on?
Quote from: Hudson on Sep 05, 2013, 01:43:22 AMI think the Aliens would use something like high frequency communication or something, I don't know. That just sounds more acceptable to me. Sending sound waves to each other that evoke different types of messages.
Yeah, I don't particularly like the telepathy idea either, and prefer to think it's done through some other means.
I like the idea that it's something that's not comparable to the way animals on earth communicate, and something incomprehensible to humans, aside from the fact that they make noises sometimes and can hear (which I would consider secondary).
I think the term you folks are looking for is echolocation.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Sep 05, 2013, 11:35:09 AM
I think the term you folks are looking for is echolocation.
Some of you come into the subject of the queen and her role: In Aliens movie she detaches from her eggsack/ovipositor, now I´m not an expert on that organ but wont that mean she wont be able to lay more eggs or can she grow out a new one or create one? I might be thinking too much xD
Quote from: judge death on Sep 05, 2013, 09:01:41 PM
Some of you come into the subject of the queen and her role: In Aliens movie she detaches from her eggsack/ovipositor, now I´m not an expert on that organ but wont that mean she wont be able to lay more eggs or can she grow out a new one or create one? I might be thinking too much xD
I still believe she could manually create an emergency "royal" egg if she felt the life of her own or the hive was in danger of being wiped out.
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Sep 05, 2013, 09:22:26 PM
Quote from: judge death on Sep 05, 2013, 09:01:41 PM
Some of you come into the subject of the queen and her role: In Aliens movie she detaches from her eggsack/ovipositor, now I´m not an expert on that organ but wont that mean she wont be able to lay more eggs or can she grow out a new one or create one? I might be thinking too much xD
I still believe she could manually create an emergency "royal" egg if she felt the life of her own or the hive was in danger of being wiped out.
*coughAlien3cough*
Quote from: Hudson on Sep 05, 2013, 09:56:24 PM
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Sep 05, 2013, 09:22:26 PM
Quote from: judge death on Sep 05, 2013, 09:01:41 PM
Some of you come into the subject of the queen and her role: In Aliens movie she detaches from her eggsack/ovipositor, now I´m not an expert on that organ but wont that mean she wont be able to lay more eggs or can she grow out a new one or create one? I might be thinking too much xD
I still believe she could manually create an emergency "royal" egg if she felt the life of her own or the hive was in danger of being wiped out.
*coughAlien3cough*
At least we are back on topic, sorta. ;)
Quote from: DoomRulz on Sep 05, 2013, 11:35:09 AM
I think the term you folks are looking for is echolocation.
No.
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2013, 11:17:50 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Sep 05, 2013, 11:35:09 AM
I think the term you folks are looking for is echolocation.
No.
Isn't that a Ricky Martin album?
No.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage420.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Ftmbg-no.jpg&hash=1de540360d0a561876da2878991f11ac6a74f6f0)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fglee%2Fimages%2F7%2F7a%2FNO_GOD_PLEASE_NO.gif&hash=a480735312f0f7fc56f60c61e62d01413f4c62d9)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_md6t3sgOzg1r0sqdio1_500.gif&hash=38dca5ff50ddc8130cbed3b68b35df1e644268e6)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt272%2Fgeoffsholly%2Ffunny%2FNO%2FNOOOOOOO_zpse3b2221b.gif&hash=ca5b99f0cff0fa2e67f79a77da56ac8bc9097f29)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.memegeneokerlund.com%2Fmedia%2Fcreated%2Fw1yq1m.jpg&hash=26e3af3b8cd68f6b2b6d92db17ac4aceac0e3c91)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m218n3r8uD1rn045lo1_500.gif&hash=537be16ba4f7e9bf09f612a2b2ca31ab385b0ed3)
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2013, 11:17:50 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Sep 05, 2013, 11:35:09 AM
I think the term you folks are looking for is echolocation.
No.
That's what it sounded like.
Pun intended.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Sep 06, 2013, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2013, 11:17:50 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Sep 05, 2013, 11:35:09 AM
I think the term you folks are looking for is echolocation.
No.
That's what it sounded like.
Pun intended.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforos.gxzone.com%2Fattachments%2F42730d1324777298-god_so_much_win.jpg&hash=6ea4b76304d8382c59ff85111effe88a91dff57a)
...Annnnnd this is why I love forums.
Not to diverge too much from topic, but since FOX and GBX were all about making Aliens Colonial Marines canon, how does that tie in, at all, to Alien 3? I know that most won't take it as canon (and I won't spoil anything for those who haven't played it), but for those who have played it, do the events add to, take away from or do nothing to change Alien 3, for better or worse?
I'll spoiler this just in case anyone cares enough to not want it spoiled.
Spoiler
It doesn't really change much. Although in Stasis Interrupted we find out that Hicks arrives on Fiorina 161 just in time to watch Ripley commit suicide. (Followed by Hicks falling to his knees screaming "Nooooooooo!" Yeah, that happens.) At least it explains why Hicks never even asks about Ripely in the main game. Oh, the add-on also explains exactly how Hicks survives, and it's the lamest scenario imaginable, involving some random guy who just happens to be bandaged in exactly the same places as Hicks.
As another slight tangent to the topic, I saw a guy in London over the weekend who looked exactly like Gregor. Needless to say I kept my distance.
Could it have been Peter Guinness? :o
Not unless he hasn't aged a day since Dillon bumped him on the noggin for trying to sling one up Ripley.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 09, 2013, 02:10:37 PM
Spoiler
It doesn't really change much. Although in Stasis Interrupted we find out that Hicks arrives on Fiorina 161 just in time to watch Ripley commit suicide. (Followed by Hicks falling to his knees screaming "Nooooooooo!" Yeah, that happens.) At least it explains why Hicks never even asks about Ripely in the main game. Oh, the add-on also explains exactly how Hicks survives, and it's the lamest scenario imaginable, involving some random guy who just happens to be bandaged in exactly the same places as Hicks.
Spoiler
I cannot believe this idiocy, what have the corporations done, if not anally slit-raped, the goddamn Alien series with this shit storytelling. Seriously, why not him just screaming "No!" and banging on the gate/fence, as opposed to falling to his knees Darth-Vader style and wailing it.
-Nosepinch-
I have the season pass for ACM...and I still haven't played any of the DLC at all.
In fairness, the Stasis Interrupted DLC probably is better than the main game... but that's like saying a solid shit is better than a runny shit.
Quote from: Hudson
I have the season pass for ACM...and I still haven't played any of the DLC at all.
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.pandawhale.com%2F30819-Sweet-Brown-funny-gif-j2gJ.gif&hash=0da8fb8717d1fb8ecd8a6bb6a88989dd76ccab70)
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 09, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
In fairness, the Stasis Interrupted DLC probably is better than the main game... but that's like saying a solid shit is better than a runny shit.
But...actually, it's so much better.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 09, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
In fairness, the Stasis Interrupted DLC probably is better than the main game... but that's like saying a solid shit is better than a runny shit.
:D
Quotebut for those who have played it, do the events add to, take away from or do nothing to change Alien 3, for better or worse?
Option 4 is 'generally conflicts with Alien3'.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 09, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
In fairness, the Stasis Interrupted DLC probably is better than the main game... but that's like saying a solid shit is better than a runny shit.
Possibly because it was shorter too.
Quote from: Terx2 on Sep 10, 2013, 06:50:50 AM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 09, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
In fairness, the Stasis Interrupted DLC probably is better than the main game... but that's like saying a solid shit is better than a runny shit.
Possibly because it was shorter too.
Spoiler
How many levels/missions?
Quote from: DC on Sep 10, 2013, 07:18:36 AMSpoiler
How many levels/missions?
Spoiler
Five or six, if I remember right. But the individual levels seemed noticeably longer than they were in the base game. The best thing the DLC did was actually end with a challenging fight, instead of the ATROCIOUS boss "battle" in the main game.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 10, 2013, 07:36:35 AM
Quote from: DC on Sep 10, 2013, 07:18:36 AMSpoiler
How many levels/missions?
Spoiler
Five or six, if I remember right. But the individual levels seemed noticeably longer than they were in the base game. The best thing the DLC did was actually end with a challenging fight, instead of the ATROCIOUS boss "battle" in the main game.
Spoiler
An intense last stand. But still better than the horrid last level. Some levels do vary in size like the first mission on LV426 was big compared to the smaller Sulaco levels.
The fact that ACM was so bad makes me like Alien 3.
But than again most people don't like change and in the end thats what most people hate about Alien 3.
Personally, I hate A:CM all the more because I actually liked Alien 3.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 09, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
In fairness, the Stasis Interrupted DLC probably is better than the main game... but that's like saying a solid shit is better than a runny shit.
I agree. It was more fun to play than the main campaign. I finished the main game and I was like whoa, that was cool but...meh. Then I started reading reviews and went back to it again and realized "wow, yeah this could have been better and this too..." etc.
For me, Alien 3 is what it is. Personally I would have preferred to have Alien 3 follow where the DH comics went, with Hicks and Newt's stories as the Alien menace finds its way to earth. But I do like Alien 3, just not as much. I just find it odd, now after playing CM, that "oh, supposedly, there's people in this room that we don't see that are relevant to a "side story."
Quote from: PRJ_since1990 on Sep 10, 2013, 01:35:23 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Sep 09, 2013, 03:25:09 PM
In fairness, the Stasis Interrupted DLC probably is better than the main game... but that's like saying a solid shit is better than a runny shit.
I agree. It was more fun to play than the main campaign. I finished the main game and I was like whoa, that was cool but...meh. Then I started reading reviews and went back to it again and realized "wow, yeah this could have been better and this too..." etc.
For me, Alien 3 is what it is. Personally I would have preferred to have Alien 3 follow where the DH comics went, with Hicks and Newt's stories as the Alien menace finds its way to earth. But I do like Alien 3, just not as much. I just find it odd, now after playing CM, that "oh, supposedly, there's people in this room that we don't see that are relevant to a "side story."
Do you know off top of your head what comics those are? Would like to check them out.
I'm trying to watch Alien 3 as I've never had an interest in it because I loved Aliens so much. Getting rid of Hicks and Newt, while understandable, was also some BS. Started watching regular cut and fell asleep. Today, I got about halfway through the Assembly. It's not to shabby so far it's just hard to compete with Aliens in my memory, I'm sure lots of people same way about Aliens compared to Alien, just depends when you saw it.
QuoteDo you know off top of your head what comics those are? Would like to check them out.
Outbreak, Nightmare Asylum and Female War. They're collected in the Aliens Omnibus Vol. 1, except they were "remastered" back in '96 to fit in with Alien 3's continuity, so Hicks is Wilks and Newt is Billie. The novels also have these changes.
Alien 3, I have some issues with it, mainly that the two most interesting characters played by Charles Dance and Brian Glover are both killed off before they could create the right amount of conflict in Ripley's life. After they go, especially in the theatrical cut, it descends into a runaround and it's hard to know who is in peril. I think the quality of the actors and their look is a step up from Aliens, but the dialogue is lacking in the second half of the film. The alien looks pretty good, at least with it's head resembling it's better design, the compositing of the model isn't so great but then the digital revolution that would have helped that was still just around the corner, the Bishop animatronic is still amazing though.
Other positives are the music, the cinematography,, and the fact that in many ways with Ripley the lone survivor of a shuttle crash it could be seen as more of a direct sequel to A L I E N than it is to Aliens. The tone, though largely grim and dour, feels like more a companion to A L I E N too.
As for Hicks and Newt, I didn't care, in fact I was quite pleased it didn't have to be a film about defending a kid again, child actors rarely engage my interest. However, their burial, thanks to the music, gave them more emotional impact than they ever had as living characters. And, although this is veering away from Alien 3, I never understood how Ripley was re-invented as a mother finding fulfilment in a surrogate daughter - besides what mother would leave her infant daughter to go on a mundane space trucking job for three years?
Dance and Glover had to go so the obstacle between Ripley and the prisoners was removed and she was forced to deal with them directly. See also, Gorman, Dallas.
Quote from: Gash on Dec 30, 2013, 06:25:26 PM
besides what mother would leave her infant daughter to go on a mundane space trucking job for three years?
Isn't it a play on ye olde blue-collar father going off on work trips etc? It's what industrialization did to people. In the Alien universe once-vaunted engineers, trained navigators, and astronauts are "blue-collared"; nobody seems to be getting really rich from it - they find themselves marginalised by a new technological revolution – the rise of the automated machine, spaceship-driving computers, FTL travel, the android, and the commoditisation and trivialisation of space. The result is that people like Ripley are torn from their home lives to provide for the betterment of their families. There was probably no other work.
That's probably more intricate than they intended, but it's something I felt was very definitely part of Alien/s thematic background.
As you all know already I love Alien 3 and think it is far superior to Aliens and almost as good as Alien.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Dec 30, 2013, 11:50:15 PM
As you all know already I love Alien 3 and think it is far superior to Aliens and almost as good as Alien.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7VN8VAu0DaoZKslogloHBD_qT0hpfqsDOCGIuG_cFTXX6FVcPPg)
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Dec 30, 2013, 11:50:15 PM
As you all know already I love Alien 3 and think it is far superior to Aliens and almost as good as Alien.
I wouldn't say it's far superior, but I too prefer it to Aliens.
Strangely enough, of the four Alien films which I do watch quite a lot, the Aliens is the one that I've watched least of all
The SFX and art direction blow because AD suck.
The direction/busdriver is basically the style focused no substance world view of a music video.
Which would, AND DID happen to the commercial director Ridley when his hollywood rep from the success of a decent script allowed him to ignore any advice from anyone other then his producers/money men for the rest of his career.
Its possible that whats his name could have made a better movie,
but the property was wholly in the hands of producers who weren't even sci-fi guys by then.
(Hollywood has a pretty good thing going there, where a young artist who might have one or two flashes of all time brilliance can be got for a cheap price and the ultimate ownership of it all early in their career, while they're still young and ignorant. And then you dont need them anymore.)
Which culminates from every direction into what is colloquially known as a train wreck.
I wouldn't say the SFX, art direction or direction were problems in Alien3.
Quote from: Gash on Jan 01, 2014, 09:16:17 PMI wouldn't say the SFX, art direction or direction were problems in Alien3.
The compositing of the rod puppet looks terrible, but the rest of the film's effects stand up well. And I think the latter two points are among the movie's strong points. The intercut funeral/birth scene is wonderfully directed.
And "AD" weren't responsible for the compositing.
The Alien series were never about happy endings. The "good" guys weren't meant to shoot, win and go home. The series is about death and things worse than death. Alien 3 was especially (brutally) brilliant in the way it killed off Hicks and Newt and even Ripley herself. So the human characters that fans "loved" did not truly win. Instead it establishes that the aliens are in fact unbeatable.
What I liked about Alien 3 was its bleak setting, both in terms of the environment and Ripleys situation, where she had to choose between death and endangering all life on earth. The plot could have simply had another team of marines with heavy weapons, but instead they took a step back and used (once again) unarmed humans pitted against a ferocious creature. In fact, Alien 3 is the last (and second) movie in the franchise that pits a lone alien against a group of humans. Every other fiction created after Alien 3 had multiple aliens and reduced the aliens to mere cannon fodder.
QuoteSo the human characters that fans "loved" did not truly win. Instead it establishes that the aliens are in fact unbeatable.
Except that Ripley beat them and did in fact win - not only against the Alien, but the Company as well.
She neglected to destroy her blood samples on ice.
Quote from: SM on Jan 06, 2014, 10:00:59 PM
QuoteSo the human characters that fans "loved" did not truly win. Instead it establishes that the aliens are in fact unbeatable.
Except that Ripley beat them and did in fact win - not only against the Alien, but the Company as well.
Ripley had to sacrifice herself to beat them, and that's one of the many reasons i love Alien 3.
It's just like @sting3r said, this series is not about happy endings and none of this bullshit. The Alien series is about the ALIENS. A demoniac parasite xenomorph acid for blood creature that spread through the universe and destroy all the others life forms that it encounters. A perfect and ferocious organism that always learn a way to survive and adapt.
Doesn't matter who comes across it. Astronauts, Marines, Killers, Mercenaries, Scientists, they will never destroy nor control it. Dont matter what they do, they will die.
And we see these creatures through the eyes of a woman who has to keeping fighting to survive after finding these monsters, and how her life becomes hell after this.
That is why this trilogy (yeah, TRILOGY) is awesome, its about this unstoppable terrifying creature that destroys everything, and when this woman finds a way to survive it, the creatures destroy what she care's most, her family. Even when she think's that is all fine and that she can live in peace and happy with a new family, the ALIEN crushes it. At the end she stop struggling and sacrifices herself to destroy the creature and save mankind, and that is the most close to a happy ending that we are all get.
They are supposed to be a dark, thrilling, science fiction horror movies, and they are great in it.
I don't count Alien Resurection that much because is not even Ripley and it is f**king dumb..
Wow.
Deep.
Quote from: SM on Jan 07, 2014, 03:50:04 AM
Wow.
Deep.
haha
Thank's M8
Its just that i love this films so much =/
I wish they would make a James Bond style in this franchise. Starting with a new series focusing in a new protagonist and characters, maybe some years after the events in Alien 3, with some new Alien forms, new planets, expanding the universe and stuuff like that.
And never stopping, always continuing to create new sequels, with new characters, directors, producers, concepts ,stories and etc.
yeah, i know its crazy as f**k, but it would be so awesome, even if one movie would suck hard, we would still get a new one who could be great.
I just would love see more of the Xenomorph..
I just cant get into this Prometheus thing, not to mention that Ridley said that the sequel will be less Alien-like, so...f**k!
The first focused on horror and the second action. Logically, the third would have had to employ something different from the two. Such a story line would have involved the corporation preparing to use the creature for bio-weapons and the protagonists and allies trying to stop it. Some proposed scripts for the third movie involved these aspects.
Aliens modified the alien to an insectoid form of life (with cocoons, hives, drones, queens etc.) (Edit to add : It is a good concept )and it pretty much set the template for films and games to come. BUT Alien 3 bravely went against this template. They could have easily featured marines, guns and big explosions (like Alien:R) .... but instead they went a step backward, made the alien faster/more lethal and took the movie in a whole new direction.
As sad as it may sound.... Hicks, Newt, Ripley and all but one of the prisoners had to die.... because Alien 3 perfectly concluded the Alien series. Ripley dies and prevented WY from getting their hands on an alien for research. Also, Aliens saw the destruction of the hive on LV-426....and Alien 3 showed the last known alien destroyed. It was the perfect ending as there were no more aliens left for humans to encounter (in the space that they knew. )
So Alien : Resurrection was uncalled for because it undid everything that Ripley fought for in the 3 alien movies. The "newborn" design was stupid and its torturous death scene was the only good thing about Alien : Resurrection.
Aliens extrapolated the insect connection and took it further, it didn't pull it out of thin air. The Alien was always inspired by insects.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 08, 2014, 09:57:19 AM
Aliens extrapolated the insect connection and took it further, it didn't pull it out of thin air. The Alien was always inspired by insects.
Don't get me wrong. I love the insect treatment shown in Aliens... and it fits perfectly with the alien theme.
But my point was that Alien 3 was brave enough to move away from
the insect/hive/queen theme that was rehashed in many of the later Alien fictions*. Instead, it used an alien that was genetically altered by its quadrapedal host. (dog/bull)
* : Added later
Which was from Alien, incidentally.
Quote from: sting3r on Jan 08, 2014, 10:07:33 AM
But my point was that Alien 3 was brave enough to move away from the insect/hive/queen theme that was rehashed in many of the later Alien fictions*. Instead, it used an alien that was genetically altered by its quadrapedal host. (dog/bull)
Alien 3 was the first to demonstrate that the Alien will take different forms depending on its host, but it was an old idea. Scott mentioned it way back in '79, and it was mentioned a few other times throughout the 80's.
Do remember that a Queen
was present in Alien 3 (the key danger to the universe theme, and Ripley's sacrifice, all hinge on its inclusion) and that cocoon scenes were written for the film and, I believe, even storyboarded. They weren't included due to budget and time, not because Fincher
et al didn't want them.
While I get the everlasting fascination with the title creatures, brought to life through Giger's wicked imagination, the first three films have always been about Ripley to me. In Act I she barely escapes her 1st encounter. Act II revolves around her facing her demons head-on and taking charge over her own life again. Act III deals with the logical conclusion of Ripley's dance of death with her 'companion', her realization that by now, their fates are intertwined with each other. And so they both die in an 'embrace' at the end.
Don't even mention Alien Resurrection to me... :D
PS: I'm not sure anymore that people really 'hate' Alien 3...
Quote from: sting3r on Jan 08, 2014, 10:07:33 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jan 08, 2014, 09:57:19 AM
Aliens extrapolated the insect connection and took it further, it didn't pull it out of thin air. The Alien was always inspired by insects.
Don't get me wrong. I love the insect treatment shown in Aliens... and it fits perfectly with the alien theme.
But my point was that Alien 3 was brave enough to move away from the insect/hive/queen theme that was rehashed in many of the later Alien fictions*. Instead, it used an alien that was genetically altered by its quadrapedal host. (dog/bull)
* : Added later
as Sil said, it was ALien that introduced insect influences, and Scott referred to his alien as insect or ant-like numerous times, and ironically, Alien 3 was the one who went couple steps deeper into the whole insect thing, to the point Fincher refered to it as big and stated that he wanted to make clear that the runner is a big dumb (in his words) bug from space
related reads:
http://www.jamescamerononline.com/BiomechanicalInsect.htm (http://www.jamescamerononline.com/BiomechanicalInsect.htm)
http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/the-insect-influence/ (http://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/the-insect-influence/)
QuoteDon't even mention Alien Resurrection to me...
The Return (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth#Return)
Quote from: sting3r on Jan 08, 2014, 09:54:25 AM
Aliens modified the alien to an insectoid form of life (with cocoons, hives, drones, queens etc.) (Edit to add : It is a good concept )and it pretty much set the template for films and games to come. BUT Alien 3 bravely went against this template. They could have easily featured marines, guns and big explosions (like Alien:R) .... but instead they went a step backward, made the alien faster/more lethal and took the movie in a whole new direction.
As sad as it may sound.... Hicks, Newt, Ripley and all but one of the prisoners had to die.... because Alien 3 perfectly concluded the Alien series. Ripley dies and prevented WY from getting their hands on an alien for research. Also, Aliens saw the destruction of the hive on LV-426....and Alien 3 showed the last known alien destroyed. It was the perfect ending as there were no more aliens left for humans to encounter (in the space that they knew. )
So Alien : Resurrection was uncalled for because it undid everything that Ripley fought for in the 3 alien movies. The "newborn" design was stupid and its torturous death scene was the only good thing about Alien : Resurrection.
I have to disagree with you. Alien 3 should be the ending of the Ripley story not the Alien, IMO. The creature it self is just too much fascinating and awesome. There's just so much of the Xenomorphs that could be explored and expanded, and specially the universe (the technology, colonies, society and etc)
Not to mention that we could never see what the company would do with the Aliens. What experiments would they do, what "weapons", and what would be the consequences
(and no, the guys from Alien Ressurection doesnt count, don't be stupidy).
It's not stupidy - the USM did similar stuff to what the Company would've done.
Quote from: Alien³ on Oct 30, 2011, 10:40:03 PM
I love the Assembly Cut and hate the Theatrical cut. So BOOM!
*like
Times have changed. ;)
Quote from: Morpheus
I have to disagree with you. Alien 3 should be the ending of the Ripley story not the Alien, IMO. The creature it self is just too much fascinating and awesome. There's just so much of the Xenomorphs that could be explored and expanded, and specially the universe (the technology, colonies, society and etc)
Yes, thats what I meant. Alien 3 was the perfect ending
for the Ripley storyline. With the colony on LV426 nuked and the alien embryo destroyed with Ripley, there were no more aliens for humans to find in the space that they knew.
But they could have definitely done something creative with the xenos using a different human character, of course.
Quote from: StrangeShape
as Sil said, it was ALien that introduced insect influences, and Scott referred to his alien as insect or ant-like numerous times, and ironically, Alien 3 was the one who went couple steps deeper into the whole insect thing, to the point Fincher refered to it as big and stated that he wanted to make clear that the runner is a big dumb (in his words) bug from space
Yes the xeno is a "bug".
But story wise, unlike other films.... the Alien 3 storyline did not re-use the insect themes (like cocooning and hives) from
Aliens.
Alien 3, like
Alien was about a killer lurking in the dark.
Quote from: sting3r on Jan 11, 2014, 10:00:48 AM
Yes the xeno is a "bug".
But story wise, unlike other films.... the Alien 3 storyline did not re-use the insect themes (like cocooning and hives) from Aliens. Alien 3, like Alien was about a killer lurking in the dark.
The insect themes such as cocooning almost did make it into Alien 3. Various early drafts had scenes written in where a cocoon chamber was discovered and some of the cocooned prisoners where alive. It even had the blue mist we saw from Alien in it to. It was planned to have 20 or so cocoons made but only one was ever completed.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Jan 11, 2014, 01:50:00 PM
Quote from: sting3r on Jan 11, 2014, 10:00:48 AM
Yes the xeno is a "bug".
But story wise, unlike other films.... the Alien 3 storyline did not re-use the insect themes (like cocooning and hives) from Aliens. Alien 3, like Alien was about a killer lurking in the dark.
The insect themes such as cocooning almost did make it into Alien 3. Various early drafts had scenes written in where a cocoon chamber was discovered and some of the cocooned prisoners where alive. It even had the blue mist we saw from Alien in it to. It was planned to have 20 or so cocoons made but only one was ever completed.
Aren't there pics of it on this site???
There's this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ujkmGszIb4o%2FUPKIaV_kayI%2FAAAAAAAAEFE%2FkghI2_lfPws%2Fs1600%2FALIEN3_DISC2-2.bmp&hash=18dcc574f37ac2c2e93c521101d026f8e1d633c0)
However, it's not sure whether this is an actual cocoon or something else. It's believed to be by some.
Here's a quote from Tom Woodruff Junior:
Quote"We were going to end up making twenty of these cocoons, all vacuumformed and stapled up. We started on two, and then the plug was pulled because Fincher's idea was that the creature simply kills to eat. Actually we did finish one off for Fincher because he liked it so much. He had it on set with him and would occasionally climb into it for inspiration. He called it his 'thinking shell'".
And here's how one of the cocoon scenes played out in the December 18th 1990 Hill & Giler draft. Dillon and Morse enter the Assembly hall. To their horror, the Assembly hall has been transformed into a cocoon chamber. Inside they come across Andrews barely alive and asking them to kill him. Inside the cocoon chamber, they discover a blue membrane similar to the one Kane see's in the egg chamber in Alien, this prevents them getting to Andrews. Dillon decides to set the cocoons ablaze, in the midst of the flames, the Alien shrieks and they both look up and see the Alien holding a torso and a dead prisoner. Dillon throws a torch at the Alien covering it in a sheet of fire, and it disappears. The rest of the cocoon chamber sets a light.
I thought there was one pic on here! I do remember reading about Fincher referring to the cocoon as his "thinking shell". Thanks for the clear up!
Because its a mediocre at best rippoff of a classic movie?
I dont think it would be to far fetched to imagine that Alien 3 would be mildly better treated if it wasn't a further abuse of Alien.
I'm not all that fond of alienS, but it has an intentional audience.
(Stupid people who like punchlines and action movies. And a few smart people who were exposed to it first.)
Who does every other alien movie cater to other then an even lower denominator.
Why do you talk down about the fans of said franchise?
Quote from: RobThom on Jan 20, 2014, 04:13:23 PM
I'm not all that fond of alienS, but it has an intentional audience.
(Stupid people who like punchlines and action movies.
And what about the second half of the movie, where the marines realize that spent the first half of the movie making stupid 'punchlines' about realize what they're up against, become terrified, and die horrible deaths?
Some way of making friends....
Ive always been a true believer that its the stupid people who only see stupid punchlines and action in the movie
Obvious troll is obviarse.
If anything Aliens makes the creatures the scariest they've ever been. It's not one "dumb" alien moving around killing people, its a group of aliens moving as a unit to obtain hosts for their queen.
They aren't stupid killing machines like the dog alien, they have a goal and are able to take out highly trained soldiers to accomplish it (granted most of them died because they had no ammo, but still)
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Jan 20, 2014, 06:53:27 PM
they have a goal and are able to take out highly trained soldiers to accomplish it (granted most of them died because they had no ammo, but still)
Dietrich, Frost, Wierzbowski, Crowe, Apone, Drake, Hudson all die armed and pretty much fully loaded.
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Jan 11, 2014, 01:50:00 PM
The insect themes such as cocooning almost did make it into Alien 3. Various early drafts had scenes written in where a cocoon chamber was discovered and some of the cocooned prisoners where alive. It even had the blue mist we saw from Alien in it to. It was planned to have 20 or so cocoons made but only one was ever completed.
Surely the cocooning thing is really a spider thing rather than an insect when it comes to cocooning a victim, although one might loosely refer to spiders as bugs
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Jan 20, 2014, 08:15:26 PM
Quote from: xeno_alpha_07 on Jan 11, 2014, 01:50:00 PM
The insect themes such as cocooning almost did make it into Alien 3. Various early drafts had scenes written in where a cocoon chamber was discovered and some of the cocooned prisoners where alive. It even had the blue mist we saw from Alien in it to. It was planned to have 20 or so cocoons made but only one was ever completed.
Surely the cocooning thing is really a spider thing rather than an insect when it comes to cocooning a victim, although one might loosely refer to spiders as bugs
Some wasps do it too.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 20, 2014, 08:48:27 PM
Some wasps do it too.
I've only read about wasps sealing victims in cells in their nests with an egg planted on them, just about like the Ovions did in Battlestar Galactica but I haven't seen anything about wasps actually cocooning their victims.
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Jan 20, 2014, 06:53:27 PM
If anything Aliens makes the creatures the scariest they've ever been. It's not one "dumb" alien moving around killing people, its a group of aliens moving as a unit to obtain hosts for their queen.
They aren't stupid killing machines like the dog alien, they have a goal and are able to take out highly trained soldiers to accomplish it (granted most of them died because they had no ammo, but still)
Kane's Son was scarier. It's behaviour was less obvious.
Well, first let me say this is my first day as a member, but I've enjoyed the site for maybe a year or two. If memory serves, Alien 3 was the first Alien movie I saw as a boy, my dad rented the VHS for me from Kroger when they did had a rental place. So I've always appreciated the film and have a strong defense for it. I believe Alien 3 is the closest film thematically to the original, but that's my opinion. See, I think of Alien 3 (and by extension, Alien: Resurrection) the same way I do The Hangover sequels, they may not be as good as the original, but at least they add a new layer. Then only aspect of Alien 3 that I'm not sure I stand is the Theatrical Cut vs. the Assembly Cut. I appreciate the added dialogue and subplot of catching the Runner, but the Assembly Cut omits the Chestburster coming through Ripley's chest as she falls into the molten lava, and that's my favorite shot. So I probably at least lean closer to the Theatrical Cut. Alien 3 also has been known to have been interfered with by Fox, so I don't see the personal HATE a lot of fans levy toward it. Anyway, that's my bit on Alien 3.
I prefer not seeing the Queenburster, adds more drama to Ripley's end. Knowing she had it in her was enough, plus the Scan photo of the Queenburster is just frightening.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jan 21, 2014, 05:32:57 PM
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Jan 20, 2014, 06:53:27 PM
If anything Aliens makes the creatures the scariest they've ever been. It's not one "dumb" alien moving around killing people, its a group of aliens moving as a unit to obtain hosts for their queen.
They aren't stupid killing machines like the dog alien, they have a goal and are able to take out highly trained soldiers to accomplish it (granted most of them died because they had no ammo, but still)
Kane's Son was scarier. It's behaviour was less obvious.
Yes,and more bizarre (Lambert).
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Jan 26, 2014, 11:35:11 PM
I prefer not seeing the Queenburster, adds more drama to Ripley's end. Knowing she had it in her was enough, plus the Scan photo of the Queenburster is just frightening.
I never did like that shot of her wrestling with the Queenburster.
Alien3, straight up there with Alien, at least if you ask me. Aliens and A:R got nothing on A3. 8)
Except plots that make sense and characters we can tell apart. And like.
You're clearly asking for too much.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 27, 2014, 04:51:16 AM
Except plots that make sense and characters we can tell apart. And like.
Not really. The ratio is the same.
You got Ripley, 85, Morse, Dillon, Golic, Chalmers, Clemens, Bishop, Bishop II vs. Ripley, Hudson, Hicks, Vasquez, Drake, Gorman, Burke, Newt & Bishop.
Alien3 is superior.
Aliens is just overhyped canned yesterday's food. Ages really poorly. Blah!
Alien3 on the other hand :)
But that's me. I just laugh when people whine over and dismiss A3 - winey pee-pants :P
It was boring.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 27, 2014, 05:05:19 AM
You got Ripley, 85, Morse, Dillon, Golic, Chalmers, Clemens, Bishop, Bishop II vs. Ripley, Hudson, Hicks, Vasquez, Drake, Gorman, Burke, Newt & Bishop.
Okay, that you called Andrews Chalmers kind'a proves my point.
QuoteAlien3 is superior.
Except it isn't. It's not a well made film. It's pretty and it sounds nice, but it's a hacked together mess. The only people who refuse to admit it are fans who for some reason decided they needed to convince themselves otherwise.
I like
Alien3 more than
Aliens, but it's not the better movie.
QuoteAliens is just overhyped canned yesterday's food. Ages really poorly. Blah! Alien3 on the other hand :)
Alien3, on the other hand, wasn't even good enough to be eaten yesterday, and maintains much of its fanbase solely from the sort of hipsters who need to make everything look vintage on their instagram photos. ;)
I don't even get the love for the special edition. It was just more to be disappointed with.
The Special Edition allows the plot room to breathe and not feel quite so hacked, particularly around the bait and chase sequence. However seeing as it's not meant as anything more than a novelty, they left in a lot of fat that leaves the film needlessly bloated. An ideal edit of the movie would be somewhere between the two.
One of these days, CG will be easy enough for some fan to create whole new scenes and edit them into a movie. Only then can I imagine Alien 3 being redeemable.
If you don't like what's there then you'd need to remake the whole film. If you don't like it, you don't like it.
But I want to like it. I just can't bring myself to do so.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 27, 2014, 05:13:16 AM
Okay, that you called Andrews Chalmers kind'a proves my point.
No. It proves that you have a sense of humor. Hats off.
QuoteAlien3 is superior.
Except it isn't. It's not a well made film. It's pretty and it sounds nice, but it's a hacked together mess. The only people who refuse to admit it are fans who for some reason decided they needed to convince themselves otherwise.[/quote]
No, it is not. It had its problems, they dealt with it and delivered the second best piece of the whole franchise.
QuoteAliens is just overhyped canned yesterday's food. Ages really poorly. Blah! Alien3 on the other hand :)
Alien3, on the other hand, wasn't even good enough to be eaten yesterday, and maintains much of its fanbase solely from the sort of hipsters who need to make everything look vintage on their instagram photos. ;)
[/quote]
Hipster time over bro time any time, any day!
Aliens is crap and
Alien3 is quality, and you know it.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 27, 2014, 05:27:11 AM
But I want to like it. I just can't bring myself to do so.
Why try to force yourself?
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 27, 2014, 05:27:47 AM
No, it is not. It had its problems, they dealt with it and delivered the second best piece of the whole franchise.
They didn't deal with it. They just sewed chunks of it together and hoped people went with it.
QuoteHipster time over bro time any time, any day! Aliens is crap and Alien3 is quality, and you know it.
Alien3 is quality crap, that's about it.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 27, 2014, 05:30:19 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 27, 2014, 05:27:11 AM
But I want to like it. I just can't bring myself to do so.
Why try to force yourself?
I don't like being disappointed.
Alien 3 is fab. (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexhalecdn.breatheheavy.com%2Fpublic%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Fdealwitit.gif&hash=3c56e367cd64723146e72458612afd4a4d5c8ae7)
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 27, 2014, 05:27:47 AM
Hipster time over bro time any time, any day! Aliens is crap and Alien3 is quality, and you know it.
No, just no.
Alien3 is flawed in many ways, but it's a billion times smarter, more mature, intelligent, beautiful, creative, innovative, interesting than Aliens. The latter is a cheesy McDonalds hack job, where's A3 is just unique and wraps up Ripley's story perfectly.
ALIENS kinda sux.
Aliens is alright. My only major gripe with it is that all the extended media and games focus too much on that movie alone and take very little from others in the series. Thus Aliens feels overexposed when in reality it just holds too much of an influence over other creators.
That's why I hope Aliens Isolation is the bomb diggity even though I have my doubts about the storyline. Hoping the gameplay is different and interesting.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 27, 2014, 05:39:27 AM
Alien3 is flawed in many ways, but it's a billion times smarter, more mature, intelligent, beautiful, creative, innovative, interesting than Aliens. The latter is a cheesy McDonalds hack job, where's A3 is just unique and wraps up Ripley's story perfectly.
ALIENS kinda sux.
:laugh:
I like Alien 3 and all... but I wouldn't dare go that far.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 27, 2014, 05:39:27 AM
Alien3 is flawed in many ways, but it's a billion times smarter, more mature, intelligent, beautiful, creative, innovative, interesting than Aliens. The latter is a cheesy McDonalds hack job, where's A3 is just unique and wraps up Ripley's story perfectly.
ALIENS kinda sux.
More like drawn out, boring and depressing. The only thing unique about Alien three is its (unintelligent) "runner" alien. All it is is Alien in a prison with some
slight differences.
Alien and Aliens are the movies where the series shines.
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Jan 27, 2014, 07:29:59 AM
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 27, 2014, 05:39:27 AM
Alien3 is flawed in many ways, but it's a billion times smarter, more mature, intelligent, beautiful, creative, innovative, interesting than Aliens. The latter is a cheesy McDonalds hack job, where's A3 is just unique and wraps up Ripley's story perfectly.
ALIENS kinda sux.
More like drawn out, boring and depressing. The only thing unique about Alien three is its (unintelligent) "runner" alien. All it is is Alien in a prison with some slight differences.
Alien and Aliens are the movies where the series shines.
You crack me up.
As well-made a sci-fi ALIENS is it is still f**king stupid. Especially the end (and the beginning). What the hell is wrong with people?
They're not trolls.
No way is Alien 3 better than Aliens.
I'll agree Aliens' plot - at its most basic level - is a total cliché, but it's at least coherent and delivered effectively. Now, I love Alien 3, I really do, but as a movie it's a mess. The only bits that really shine on a critical level are the funeral scene and Ripley's death, they're both very well done. But a lot of the rest feels muddled.
But that's not the biggest problem with Alien 3. The biggest problem is it has no genre. Alien is a horror masterpiece, Aliens is an action masterpiece. Alien 3... Well, it's not scary, so it's not horror, and it's fairly slow, so it's not an action movie. It's not really drama, it clearly isn't romance. I guess a thriller maybe? Although even that's debatable. It just doesn't know what the hell it is, and so it kind fails at being a film.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 27, 2014, 08:36:21 AM
They're not trolls.
Or, like you know, hipsters, actually.
Pfft... Alien3 is inferior to the first two flicks in every respect.
Except acting. It's at least on par. I'd say better in some cases.
That is a valid point actually. Weaver's terrific in the third film. Dance is good too. Gets killed off a bit too early to really make an impact though.
Pete Postlethwaite and Paul McGann managed to be memorable with 5, 10 minutes of screentime and one or two memorable lines (AC notwithstanding), which is a feat.
I mean sure, most people can't remember Postlethwaite's character's name (David? It's David, right?) the first time or so, but still.
I called him Roland Tembo.
I have a beef with the deaths. People rag on Aliens for being a dumb action movie, but the deaths in Alien 3, minus a few exceptions, are pure ham.
Murphy: 5/10
Rains: 9/10
Boggs: 7/10
Clemens: 5/10
Andrews: 1/10
David: 3/10
Kevin: 1/10
Gregor: 2/10
Jude: 1/10
Dillon: 3/10
Aaron: 2/10
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Jan 27, 2014, 03:20:18 PM
I have a beef with the deaths. People rag on Aliens for being a dumb action movie, but the deaths in Alien 3, minus a few exceptions, are pure ham.
Murphy: 5/10
Rains: 9/10
Boggs: 7/10
Clemens: 5/10
Andrews: 1/10
David: 3/10
Kevin: 1/10
Gregor: 2/10
Jude: 1/10
Dillon: 3/10
Aaron: 2/10
I think it's telling that I can't even remember who over half of those people are.
Personally, I don't have a problem with that. The characters we're supposed to remember (Clemens, Andrews, 85, Dillon, Golic, Morse) we remember; the rest cannon fodder from the get-go. I wouldn't give ALIENS criticism for not characterizing Dietrich, Crowe, Wierzbowski, or Spunkmeyer enough.
Quote from: SM on Jan 27, 2014, 10:58:09 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jan 27, 2014, 08:36:21 AM
They're not trolls.
Or, like you know, hipsters, actually.
Pfft... Alien3 is inferior to the first two flicks in every respect.
To ALIEN, yes. But inferior to ALIENS in e v e r y respect? Now that's really freaking funny! The only thing ALIENS has going for itself are all the awesome designs and special effects. And yeah, it does not have a big glaring plot hole (mystery egg) making it an easy target for ALIENS fanboys & Cameronites.
The actors, the acting, the music, the atmosphere & mood, the photo, the concept, symbolisms and meta narratives etc. in ALIEN3 are light-years ahead and above the happy meal we were served in ALIENS. But that's me.
See, I like all the Alien films, and I see a pattern. I see Alien & Alien 3 as being very similar in tone, as are Aliens & Alien: Resurrection. I also credit Alien 3 as being the first of the series I remember seeing. I am slightly disappointed in a few of the Runner FX, but I could say the same for some of the FX in Resurrection. That being said, I love the atmosphere in Alien 3, and since Last Action Hero was another childhood favorite of mine, I always enjoy Charles Dance. Also, isn't Alien 3 the first film that mentions "The Company" as Weyland-Yutani by name? Take it easy on me if I'm wrong. And it also was the first to show that Aliens take on the characteristics of their hosts, paving the way for toys, games, and sadly, AVP:R.
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 27, 2014, 09:36:22 PM
Also, isn't Alien 3 the first film that mentions "The Company" as Weyland-Yutani by name? Take it easy on me if I'm wrong.
Out aloud, yes. It can be seen around in
Aliens. Harder to spot Weylan-Yutani in
Alien, but it's there too.
Alien 3 (assembly cut) was also the first to call the Alien (with a capital A) a Xenomorph. In
Aliens the term seems applicable to any unknown lifeform. Morse also outright calls the Alien a bug at the end.
Thank you. I was referring to them saying it "outloud" because it isn't obvious in Aliens, as you said.
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 27, 2014, 09:36:22 PMI always enjoy Charles Dance.
That's because Charles Dance is awesome.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 27, 2014, 09:41:15 PM
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 27, 2014, 09:36:22 PMI always enjoy Charles Dance.
That's because Charles Dance is awesome.
Bankers love him too. He always pays his debts!
Haha, yep!
QuoteTo ALIEN, yes. But inferior to ALIENS in e v e r y respect?
Y e s , e v e r y r e s p e c t.
'Cept maybe the m u s i c. Goldenthal and Horner are about on par. And that's after Horner's pilfered his back catalogue and still come up with something that fits perfectly.
QuoteThe actors, the acting, the music, the atmosphere & mood, the photo, the concept, symbolisms and meta narratives etc. in ALIEN3 are light-years ahead and above the happy meal we were served in ALIENS. But that's me.
Alien3 tried to do symbolism - but it was so watered down it ends up being barely worth a mention. Then add in the myriad oft mentioned issues that Alien3 has and Aliens doesn't...
SM wasn't turned off by the overt seppoism in Aliens?
It was the 80s. We were happily drowning in it.
Aliens is probably the film I watch the least of the four these days - but that's probably because I ODed on it 25 years ago.
What was it like, seeing it when it was brand new?
Glorious.
It seems a tad slow nowadays, but back in the day I'd have to imagine that it would be like watching something like 300 now.
It was tense as hell back in those days. I tried to recapture the experience in 1992 by seeing Alien 3 in the same movie theater that I saw Aliens in 1986.
What a f**king letdown.
Aliens is slow, but at least it goes somewhere. I prefer the theatrical cut these days, the DC's needlessly long.
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2014, 12:08:32 AM
QuoteTo ALIEN, yes. But inferior to ALIENS in e v e r y respect?
Y e s , e v e r y r e s p e c t.
:D
Quotecept maybe the m u s i c. Goldenthal and Horner are about on par. And that's after Horner's pilfered his back catalogue and still come up with something that fits perfectly.
Horner is an overrated blow-hard too. Stupid score for a stupid movie. My least favorite score out of all the movies.
QuoteAlien3 tried to do symbolism - but it was so watered down it ends up being barely worth a mention. Then add in the myriad oft mentioned issues that Alien3 has and Aliens doesn't...
Don't agree with you in this one at all. It's all subtle and it's all there.
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2014, 12:41:11 AM
It was the 80s. We were happily drowning in it.
Aliens is probably the film I watch the least of the four these days - but that's probably because I ODed on it 25 years ago.
Or maybe because you know it is incredibly overrated and you know that it didn't age well at all. Watching it again will ruin the nostalgia of it all? ;)
You're very vicious on the subject of Aliens. May I ask why? I prefer the original Alien myself, but I'd like to hear your stance.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 28, 2014, 12:53:35 AM
It was tense as hell back in those days. I tried to recapture the experience in 1992 by seeing Alien 3 in the same movie theater that I saw Aliens in 1986.
What a f**king letdown.
I remember seeing Jurassic Park in a theater, closed down a year later, sat dormant for about five more years then it got torn down and turned into a Med-express. :( Well, its cheaper than a doctor visit or ER :P
Quote from: SiL on Jan 28, 2014, 12:55:23 AM
Aliens is slow, but at least it goes somewhere. I prefer the theatrical cut these days, the DC's needlessly long.
Agreed. And Hudson's ultimate badass monologue on the dropship is cheeseball as f**k.
As cheeseball as it may be, it's still one of the best parts!
I agree. I always crack up when he includes "sharp sticks".
Quote from: FiorinaFury161 on Jan 28, 2014, 01:09:15 AM
As cheeseball as it may be, it's still one of the best parts!
I'm glad it was absent from my first 50 viewings.
Completely understandable.
QuoteIt's all subtle and it's all there.
Troy's existential crisis and search for ultimate meaning still moves my bowels in not entirely unpleasurable ways.
"Ooh look!! Is that Ripley dying for our sins and falling in a Christ-like pose?"
"Looks like a house brick to me - coming straight at our faces."
"Cheeseball"... yeah, that means precisely dick to me.
How about shitball then?
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2014, 01:17:08 AM
Troy's existential crisis and search for ultimate meaning still moves my bowels in not entirely unpleasurable ways.
"Ooh look!! Is that Ripley dying for our sins and falling in a Christ-like pose?"
"Looks like a house brick to me - coming straight at our faces."
I was particularly moved by the subtle metaphor of the Alien as the destructive nature of addiction, vis-a-vis Clemens.
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2014, 01:17:08 AM
QuoteIt's all subtle and it's all there.
Troy's existential crisis and search for ultimate meaning still moves my bowels in not entirely unpleasurable ways.
"Ooh look!! Is that Ripley dying for our sins and falling in a Christ-like pose?"
"Looks like a house brick to me - coming straight at our faces."
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2013-12%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr02%2F18%2F13%2Fanigif_enhanced-buzz-1939-1387390455-50.gif&hash=917547204c264b3a2032a65074a2d830f19c70ac)
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 28, 2014, 01:02:45 AM
You're very vicious on the subject of Aliens. May I ask why? I prefer the original Alien myself, but I'd like to hear your stance.
I'm sorry, too tired to go through it all since this is not the first time we've had this debate around here. Every time an old ALIEN3 bashing thread is resurrected for no good this thing happens.
But basically I love ALIEN3 and I have gotten tired of the butt-hurt & mindless ALIEN3-bashing ALIENS fans display as soon as A3 is mentioned. For me personally ALIENS lost its charm a long time ago. So, in other words it bugs the hell out of me when ALIENS is always being hailed as the best movie of the franchise and ALIEN3 being the worst, always vilified. You can't have a conversation about the 'greatness' of ALIENS without bashing A3 a little bit, and you can't have a conversation about ALIEN3 without having a bunch of people talking shit about (...because it didn't continue where Cameron left off - how dare you!). Annoying.
Alien was the best of the franchise and Alien Resurrection was the worst. I don't even count the AvPs or Prometheus.
At least you and I agree that Alien 3 is solid.
Quote from: SM on Jan 28, 2014, 01:17:08 AM
QuoteIt's all subtle and it's all there.
Troy's existential crisis and search for ultimate meaning still moves my bowels in not entirely unpleasurable ways.
"Ooh look!! Is that Ripley dying for our sins and falling in a Christ-like pose?"
"Looks like a house brick to me - coming straight at our faces."
Yeah, keep on playing stupid.
This is getting boring quickly, but on the other hand this is like the billionth time we are discussing the same shit.
Keep on bashing! See you later
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 01:21:37 AM
I'm sorry, too tired to go through it all since this is not the first time we've had this debate around here. Every time an old ALIEN3 bashing thread is resurrected for no good this thing happens.
What happens is you get butthurt, think people are attacking
Alien3, and go off the wall trying to defend it when nobody really said anything bad about it. You can't let anyone say they don't like the movie, for whatever reason, without turning it into an "
Alien 3 rules,
Aliens sucks" conversation.
Alien 3 was a terrible follow up to Aliens, its as simple as that. Had it come after Alien it probably wouldn't be bashed so hard by people who prefer Aliens. Aliens is a much more coherent, better made film. It has way more tension in it that Alien 3 could hope to have and a better story.
On the subject of seeing it when it first came out my dad said when he saw it for the first time in the theater, when the marines first entered the hive you could hear a pin drop. Then when Crowe bumps into frost he said a good portion of the theater jumped or gasped.
He saw Alien 3 with my mom when it first came out (I was one or so) and itd been the first movie he decided to go out and see since I had been born. He told me it was because they built it up to be comparable to Aliens, and that he and most of the people in the theater where thoroughly, and understandably let down.
It bugs me when people generalize just because people like Aliens more than Alien 3, even though said people still like Alien 3 regardless of preferring Aliens.
^ Agreed.
Honestly, I don't remember ever seeing an topic dedicated to hating Alien 3. In fact, I think it's pretty great that most members I've heard around here quite like the movie and find it underrated.
Not all places on the Internet are as open-minded to the series's third installment.
Well, I can see how it could be considered disappointing when compared to Aliens, but what about to Alien? I've thought it always seemed quite a companion to the first film, like Predators to Predator.
It still lacks the fear and tension. It's a beautiful movie, but it doesn't get the audience quite invested enough to make the climax actually feel climactic.
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Jan 28, 2014, 01:29:42 AM
^ Agreed.
Honestly, I don't remember ever seeing an topic dedicated to hating Alien 3. In fact, I think it's pretty great that most members I've heard around here quite like the movie and find it underrated.
Not all places on the Internet are as open-minded to the series's third installment.
There are many articles and videos online espousing its virtues now. You can find Alien 3 fans on many forums dedicated to things other than Alien. It's not that much of a black sheep anymore in the light of the later movies. People seem more disappointed by it than vitriolic. In my general experience anyway.
The thread is called "why do people hate alien 3" and I stated why I "hate" it a few pages back. It mostly has to do with the fact that I personally think it's a terrible follow up to Aliens, but its better than Resurrection (even though I'm a huge Ron Perlman fan).
I think people also forget that Fox allegedly gutted the film.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 28, 2014, 01:35:46 AM
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Jan 28, 2014, 01:29:42 AM
^ Agreed.
Honestly, I don't remember ever seeing an topic dedicated to hating Alien 3. In fact, I think it's pretty great that most members I've heard around here quite like the movie and find it underrated.
Not all places on the Internet are as open-minded to the series's third installment.
There are many articles and videos online espousing its virtues now. You can find Alien 3 fans on many forums dedicated to things other than Alien. It's not that much of a black sheep anymore in the light of the later movies. People seem more disappointed by it than vitriolic. In my general experience anyway.
True. I was actually thinking of comments under Aliens trailers or Aliens: Colonial Marines Youtube videos.
Honestly though, there's all kinds of criticism. Alien purists saying Cameron turned the xenomorph into a bug, Aliens fans shitting on Alien 3 for its opening, Alien 3 fans complaining how stupid and dumb Aliens was, etc. :P Of course these are the least "valid" form of criticism but among the ones I see the most, so that's why I said what I said.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 28, 2014, 01:26:10 AM
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 01:21:37 AM
I'm sorry, too tired to go through it all since this is not the first time we've had this debate around here. Every time an old ALIEN3 bashing thread is resurrected for no good this thing happens.
What happens is you get butthurt, think people are attacking Alien3, and go off the wall trying to defend it when nobody really said anything bad about it. You can't let anyone say they don't like the movie, for whatever reason, without turning it into an "Alien 3 rules, Aliens sucks" conversation.
Not true. But keep on telling yourself that's the case. Like I said, this isn't the first A3 basher thread and it'll certainly not be the last.
I never tried to get people to like A3. I don't care if people don't like it. What gets on my nerves are the 20+ years old talking points and superficial criticism being reiterated time and time again.
Sad that you interpret my posts that way. You know my stance; I remember a few years ago when the two of us actually had a good conversation about A3 (& ALIENS).
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 02:54:54 AMI never tried to get people to like A3. I don't care if people don't like it.
It sure seems like you care.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 28, 2014, 01:35:46 AM
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Jan 28, 2014, 01:29:42 AM
^ Agreed.
Honestly, I don't remember ever seeing an topic dedicated to hating Alien 3. In fact, I think it's pretty great that most members I've heard around here quite like the movie and find it underrated.
Not all places on the Internet are as open-minded to the series's third installment.
There are many articles and videos online espousing its virtues now. You can find Alien 3 fans on many forums dedicated to things other than Alien. It's not that much of a black sheep anymore in the light of the later movies. People seem more disappointed by it than vitriolic. In my general experience anyway.
You're actilually right. The movie has started to receive the appreciation it deserves. I guess threads like these, at least for me, turn back time 7+ years when A3 was still considered the big bad wolf .
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 28, 2014, 02:57:00 AM
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 02:54:54 AMI never tried to get people to like A3. I don't care if people don't like it.
It sure seems like you care.
I don't care. If you don't like it, fine. It is necrophiliac threads like these and people defending the bashing that I find highly annoying.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 02:54:54 AM
Not true. But keep on telling yourself that's the case. Like I said, this isn't the first A3 basher thread and it'll certainly not be the last.
That's just it -- it's not a basher thread. It was asking why people didn't like it. Most people gave their reasons as asked and went on with their lives. Many people
defended the film. But then you come in on a crusade and have to make
Alien3 out to be something it clearly isn't to try to make a point that doesn't need to be made.
QuoteYou know my stance; I remember a few years ago when the two of us actually had a good conversation about A3 (& ALIENS).
If you weren't so blinded by your love of the film -- or hate of
Aliens -- that you could actually read someone criticizing
Alien3 without getting so upset about it, we could have a good conversation again. But you're not interested in that. The second you see "I don't think it's a good movie" you ignore "but I still love it" and don't allow a conversation to actually happen.
You won't allow someone to acknowledge there's a fault in there without having to tack on "It might have flaws, but at least it's better than
Aliens in every regard!" like a child.
Let him make his dramatic exit now.
I'm going to bash the shit out of Alien 3 right after he leaves. You in?
In all seriousness, I really enjoy Alien 3, but it would have been better if they'd had it where they capture the alien and then the crazy guy (forgot his name) lets it go. It would really have been epic if we'd gotten the space monk script in all its glory.
With the wooden planet and everything?
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 02:54:54 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jan 28, 2014, 01:26:10 AM
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 01:21:37 AM
I'm sorry, too tired to go through it all since this is not the first time we've had this debate around here. Every time an old ALIEN3 bashing thread is resurrected for no good this thing happens.
What happens is you get butthurt, think people are attacking Alien3, and go off the wall trying to defend it when nobody really said anything bad about it. You can't let anyone say they don't like the movie, for whatever reason, without turning it into an "Alien 3 rules, Aliens sucks" conversation.
Not true. But keep on telling yourself that's the case. Like I said, this isn't the first A3 basher thread and it'll certainly not be the last.
I never tried to get people to like A3. I don't care if people don't like it. What gets on my nerves are the 20+ years old talking points and superficial criticism being reiterated time and time again.
Sad that you interpret my posts that way. You know my stance; I remember a few years ago when the two of us actually had a good conversation about A3 (& ALIENS).
How is this a basher thread?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 28, 2014, 03:32:41 AM
With the wooden planet and everything?
Yup, including the alien with the sexy lips and yanking people down toilets.
Ward's script could've been great with a few redrafts. Took the host traits thing a wee bit too far with fluffy sheep Aliens, and the whole "adaptive organism" thing too far with texture-shifting Aliens, but a lot of the themes and visuals could've made for a unique entry.
Aw, you didn't like the texture-shifting idea? I thought that was interesting.
I would have rather seen Fincher film Gibson's revised script. Maybe leave Newt in hypersleep and excise her scenes though.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 28, 2014, 03:08:06 AM
That's just it -- it's not a basher thread. It was asking why people didn't like it. Most people gave their reasons as asked and went on with their lives. Many people defended the film. But then you come in on a crusade and have to make Alien3 out to be something it clearly isn't to try to make a point that doesn't need to be made.
This is just of many threads about people not liking A3, which is perfect for people bash A3 safely. Making A3 out to be something it clearly to try to make a point that doesn't need to be made.
QuoteIf you weren't so blinded by your love of the film -- or hate of Aliens -- that you could actually read someone criticizing Alien3 without getting so upset about it, we could have a good conversation again. But you're not interested in that. The second you see "I don't think it's a good movie" you ignore "but I still love it" and don't allow a conversation to actually happen.
You are wrong about me on every account, which saddens me. I know A3 is flawed and I understand that a lot of people found it to be a letdown for various reasons. I can acknowledge that. But how many times do we have to listen to the same criticism, and how many do we need to hear about the greatness of ALIENS? Why is negative criticism of A3 considered to right end when it comes to this film whereas positive criticism is the right end when it comes to ALIENS?
With that said I recognize people who want a serious A3 discussion, like yourself. You like A3 but think it is at best a flawed mediocre film, and since you write screenplays (?), your opinion has some gravitas. I also know people in the industry, writers and such, and they are of a different opinion than yours when it comes to the cinematic qualities of A3 and ALIENS.
In other words, there is a consensus around here that I don't agree with and I guess that makes me a crusader blinded by hate ;)
QuoteYou won't allow someone to acknowledge there's a fault in there without having to tack on "It might have flaws, but at least it's better than Aliens in every regard!" like a child.
Yet the other way around seems to be perfectly legit around here... It's childish when I do it but the perfectly adult thing to do when SM & co does it.
Anyways, it doesn't matter. I'm not going to continue this since it is not going anywhere, at least not this time around, because I can tell where this is going. Misinterpretation and bickering.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 06:39:53 AM
This is just of many threads about people not liking A3, which is perfect for people bash A3 safely.
Except they aren't. A lot of people are saying "I don't like it, but there's good stuff in it", or "People don't like it for these reasons, but I still like it". You're ignoring all of them because you can't stand the thought of people having anything less than undiluted praise for the movie. Any word that isn't in A3's favour you see as "bashing". There's no mid-ground to you.
QuoteYet the other way around seems to be perfectly legit around here... It's childish when I do it but the perfectly adult thing to do when SM & co does it.
It's childish because you bring it into every part of the conversation. You can't praise
Alien3 without tearing into
Aliens. Everyone else is fine saying nice things about
Alien or
Aliens without always adding "But A3 sucks,
amirite?!" Some do. Most don't.
QuoteAnyways, it doesn't matter. I'm not going to continue this since it is not going anywhere, at least not this time around, because I can tell where this is going. Misinterpretation and bickering.
You've said that a few times now, yet you're still responding.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 28, 2014, 06:47:44 AM
Except they aren't. A lot of people are saying "I don't like it, but there's good stuff in it", or "People don't like it for these reasons, but I still like it". You're ignoring all of them because you can't stand the thought of people having anything less than undiluted praise for the movie. Any word that isn't in A3's favour you see as "bashing". There's no mid-ground to you.
Again not true. I don't have a problem with those people at all - on the contrary - I appreciate It. So I don't know where you got that idea from. Never criticized any member with views like that.
QuoteIt's childish because you bring it into every part of the conversation. You can't praise Alien3 without tearing into Aliens. Everyone else is fine saying nice things about Alien or Aliens without always adding "But A3 sucks, amirite?!" Some do. Most don't.
Funny how double-standards never have been so conflicting... ;)
QuoteYou've said that a few times now, yet you're still responding.
Because I value your input and your opinion. Sucks when forum members that I respect interpret me and my posts this kind if way. I guess I'll have to try to become more eloquent and less brash in my posts from now on.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 07:05:02 AM
So I don't know where you got that idea from.
Basically everything you've said in this thread the last few pages.
QuoteFunny how double-standards never have been so conflicting... ;)
Again, there's no double standard. Every point you've made so far insists on adding "...and Aliens sucks!" That's the immaturity, that you feel the need to say it all the time.
Seriously, what the f*ck is SpreadEagle on?
Having been away for a few pages of ranting and only just now catching up, I haven't seen a single person bash Alien 3 so far. In fact, almost everyone seems to be saying they enjoy the film. So why's he climbing all up his own arse?
QuoteBut how many times do we have to listen to the same criticism, and how many do we need to hear about the greatness of ALIENS?
This really seems like it's all spurred by a personal annoyance rather than anything going on around the boards. You just have to understand that a lot of people love
Aliens; they have really positive and happy experiences with it. Sometimes this love sullies their appreciation for the third movie, but I've said before,
Alien 3 has been undergoing a rehabilitation of late - people will still heckle it for its flaws (which you admit exist) but they are also being more open to what it did right. I don't feel that accusing many threads and posters of bashing the movie is helping anymore. The milieu seems different. Folk seem generally willing to hold up their hands and say what they think worked in the movie. A lot worked. A lot really didn't. I don't think that evaluation will change so much.
Do we really have to hear about the greatness of
Alien and the inferiority of
Aliens? It seems you're tackling one perceived problem by introducing another. Just my thoughts.
SIL
Quote from: SiL on Jan 28, 2014, 07:51:51 AM
Basically everything you've said in this thread the last few pages.
What the hell are you talking about? Flat out lie. I haven't criticized any of the people with those kinds of views (unless you count SM as one of them, but he fore sure is one hell of a A3 basher, which no can deny). My posts have been directed at the people who got all pissy pants for killing hix & noot, the lack of guns, only one alien, British bald men, the depressing darkness/mood, the people who don't like simply because it is not ALIENS 2. In other words the people who flat out rejects most of, if not everything, about A3.
QuoteAgain, there's no double standard. Every point you've made so far insists on adding "...and Aliens sucks!" That's the immaturity, that you feel the need to say it all the time.
I guess I have started to sound like the people I find annoying in that respect and that I have to take the chill pill when it comes to threads that may or may not be intended fir some good ol A3 bashing.
HUDAFUK
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 28, 2014, 08:39:17 AM
Seriously, what the f*ck is SpreadEagle on?
Having been away for a few pages of ranting and only just now catching up, I haven't seen a single person bash Alien 3 so far. In fact, almost everyone seems to be saying they enjoy the film. So why's he climbing all up his own arse?
Brave man confronting me in third person. Nice. I'm here you know.
Anyways, read for example SM's or JokersWarPig (amongst many) posts and there you have some. There are also two active threads right now about A3 in a negative perspective, and there has been plenty of these threads before (SM likes to post a link to them once Ina while to show us how disliked the movie still is). So my reaction this is a reaction to a long line (or more like a 22 year history) of people "discrediting" A3.
I agree however that my recent reaction to it was a little brash and slightly misdirected.
VALAQUEN
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 28, 2014, 12:34:29 PM
QuoteBut how many times do we have to listen to the same criticism, and how many do we need to hear about the greatness of ALIENS?
This really seems like it's all spurred by a personal annoyance rather than anything going on around the boards. You just have to understand that a lot of people love Aliens; they have really positive and happy experiences with it. Sometimes this love sullies their appreciation for the third movie, but I've said before, Alien 3 has been undergoing a rehabilitation of late - people will still heckle it for its flaws (which you admit exist) but they are also being more open to what it did right. I don't feel that accusing many threads and posters of bashing the movie is helping anymore. The milieu seems different. Folk seem generally willing to hold up their hands and say what they think worked in the movie. A lot worked. A lot really didn't. I don't think that evaluation will change so much.
You're totally right. Spot on. My reaction this time around was over the top and 'outdated' so to speak.
You're taking this way too personally over something imagined.
Chill out.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 04:06:48 PM
You're totally right. Spot on. My reaction this time around was over the top and 'outdated' so to speak.
You're a good poster, man. I like to view threads where you've contributed. It's a waste of your time and ability to reiterate the same frustrations.
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Jan 28, 2014, 04:19:14 PM
You're taking this way too personally over something imagined.
Chill out.
We're doing that. Let's try and move on?
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 04:06:48 PM
Anyways, read for example SM's or JokersWarPig
I didn't start "bashing" A3 until you started (from my point of view) unnecessarily bashing Aliens and basically calling it crap, which isn't the case.
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 04:06:48 PMunless you count SM as one of them, but he fore sure is one hell of a A3 basher, which no can deny
I deny it. SM is SM. There's no malice in him, just pure logic. He's like V'ger.
I never got an impression that SM is a basher, hes always very balanced with his statements and it seems like hes very objective. Taking A3 as an example, he doesn't hate the movie at all and I know that, hes just never shy to recognize the flaws if there are any, same with movies he likes most. He defends the movies just as much as he openly presents their flaws
To me, the making of A3 is far more fascinating than the final product. That's why I talk about it more than any other movie in the series.
I personally love the movie and it got me into the franchise, theres lots of reasons why I love it and I talked about them many times before so I wont be repeating myself, but Ill just say that it has a vibe, a feel and atmosphere (and music) that not even the previous two could achieve (not that any of the previous two are missing anything). I love that VERY eerie, isolated, rotten and lice infested look and dark feel of the film
LOCAL TROUBLE & STRANGE SHAPES
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 28, 2014, 06:19:51 PM
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 28, 2014, 04:06:48 PMunless you count SM as one of them, but he fore sure is one hell of a A3 basher, which no can deny
I deny it. SM is SM. There's no malice in him, just pure logic. He's like V'ger.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 28, 2014, 06:42:44 PM
I never got an impression that SM is a basher, hes always very balanced with his statements and it seems like hes very objective. Taking A3 as an example, he doesn't hate the movie at all and I know that, hes just never shy to recognize the flaws if there are any, same with movies he likes most. He defends the movies just as much as he openly presents their flaws
Wow, someone around here is held in quite high regard I see.
I've been on these forums for about 7 years, and the benevolent saint Dr. Rainman Spock you're portraying here is far, far away from the mere mortal I have encountered. He is just as pig-headed and biased as the rest of us and quite prone to be snide, openly obnoxious and sometimes downright malicious. The super logical and objective higher being he is being praised as by you guys is a complete myth interconnected with the fact that he has been around forever and has been a great contributor to these forums and the A/P/AVP fan community over all; he has been granted some kind of special exempt status that allows him to behave the way he wants without being called out for it, at least it seems like it.
Once in a while though a new member gets pissed off and confronts him resulting in a handful members defending him (actually I've been guilty of doing that; defended SM when a pissed off "new" forum member called him a troll). It's good to be king.
Sorry for the OT.
^Is that the dramatic exit he mentioned?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 28, 2014, 08:48:38 PM
^Is that the dramatic exit he mentioned?
Keep on kissing his ring and licking his boots...
Guys, on topic. No more bashing one another.
And no kinky sex.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 28, 2014, 06:52:18 PM
I personally love the movie and it got me into the franchise, theres lots of reasons why I love it and I talked about them many times before so I wont be repeating myself, but Ill just say that it has a vibe, a feel and atmosphere (and music) that not even the previous two could achieve (not that any of the previous two are missing anything). I love that VERY eerie, isolated, rotten and lice infested look and dark feel of the film
As do I. And Fincher was definitely the right choice for director. I have no idea why Renny Harlin was ever involved.
Harlin was a hot director at the time. Die Hard 2 and Elm Street 4. They knew he could balance action and horror.
So glad they didn't pick Harlin. He would've butchered it completely.
Cronenberg on the other hand would've been "interesting"...
Yes,he would have been a great choice,"Body Horror" is a favourite theme of his.
He would just have given us "The Fly" again. Which I like, but it would have not been satisfying for Alien 3, which at least kept a lot of the series main themes.
Fincher did just fine, considering this was his first feature film. Whatever the flaws of ALIEN3 (which are mostly related to story and editing), it looks magnificent. Some of the producers on the other hand, look like complete dicks in comparison, even going by 20th Century Fox's own making of documentary on the ALIEN3 dvd/bd extras.
Renny Harlin - horror? Elm Street 4 isn't horror - it's comedy lol. Krueger was reduced to a stand-up comedian by then. :D
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 28, 2014, 10:10:03 PM
He would just have given us "The Fly" again. Which I like, but it would have not been satisfying for Alien 3, which at least kept a lot of the series main themes.
I think he would of given us something original.
To be fair, the 80's was a slippery slope of horror/comedy. Mistress of the Dark, Transylvania 6-5000, Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives, House, House II, Return of the Killer Tomatoes, Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, Evil Dead II, Killer Klowns from Outer Space, it was chic to mix the genres, and not on Harlin. Not saying he should have done Alien 3, though.
Killer Klowns From Outer Space was the
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2011%2F6%2F1%2F1306944911840%2FKiller-Clowns-from-Outer--007.jpg&hash=f217a77c7e9cb265105e535d24456cd2ffa0ec97)
of the 1980's!
A classic
The Fearless Vampire Killers - best horror comedy ever made. (not the 80s though)
Can't wait for Killer Klowns Return From Outer Space in 2016/17!
Quote from: Eva on Jan 28, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
Renny Harlin - horror? Elm Street 4 isn't horror - it's comedy lol. Krueger was reduced to a stand-up comedian by then. :D
And it was Harlin's idea to make him more comedic for that entry, an idea that they finally went full retard with in Freddy's Dead.
In retrospect, Harlin would have been the ideal choice for Alien Resurrection since that's when this franchise finally went full retard.
Is there a less offensive way of saying "full retard"? I'm sorry, I don't mean to be sensitive, but I don't think that's a clever way of saying stupid, since that's what you really mean.
I'm open to suggestions.
Forgive me. I'm a care provider for adults with cognitive disorders, and I don't mean to be sensitive, I just think we can call a movie dumb in a better way. How about we say "Jumped the shark" or "nuked the fridge"?
How do you feel about calling androids "synthetics?"
I prefer the term 'artificial human' myself
Quote from: Eva on Jan 28, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
Fincher did just fine, considering this was his first feature film. Whatever the flaws of ALIEN3 (which are mostly related to story and editing), it looks magnificent. Some of the producers on the other hand, look like complete dicks in comparison, even going by 20th Century Fox's own making of documentary on the ALIEN3 dvd/bd extras.
Renny Harlin - horror? Elm Street 4 isn't horror - it's comedy lol. Krueger was reduced to a stand-up comedian by then. :D
You pretty much nailed it. Fincher was the right choice and he did more than a magnificent job, at least if you ask me.
But in a "what if?" scenario where Cronenberg and Harlin were the only options I would definitely go with Cronenberg since he would've delivered us something truly unpleasant and original where as Harlin would've delivered us something truly easygoing and generic.
Fair point but I still think Fincher delivered an unsettling and dark film as it was. I don't think Croenenberg would have truly understood the concept, not 100%. What Fincher lacked in experience, he made up with ambition.
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 28, 2014, 11:33:41 PM
Forgive me. I'm a care provider for adults with cognitive disorders, and I don't mean to be sensitive, I just think we can call a movie dumb in a better way. How about we say "Jumped the shark" or "nuked the fridge"?
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiz-x.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Findy-fridge.jpg&hash=12eb0384a7784331e43b9fa122a7bbf27e5bc198)
"You insensitive bastard"
;)
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 28, 2014, 11:33:41 PM
Forgive me. I'm a care provider for adults with cognitive disorders, and I don't mean to be sensitive, I just think we can call a movie dumb in a better way. How about we say "Jumped the shark" or "nuked the fridge"?
I apologize, then. The phrase just entered my vocabulary and never left after
Tropic Thunder.
It's cool, I didn't mean to be sensitive. I just think we can use better words to describe when a movie in a particular series takes a turn.
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 28, 2014, 11:40:39 PM
Fair point but I still think Fincher delivered an unsettling and dark film as it was. I don't think Croenenberg would have truly understood the concept, not 100%. What Fincher lacked in experience, he made up with ambition.
Agreed.
Thank you.
As I understand it, Fincher had very little involvement with the story and character motifs. Cronenberg would have worked under the same conditions. I don't think their versions of ALIEN3 would have been that different from each other, other than in their visual style and editing, which shares similarities.
Sorry, but when I hear "Alien 3 directed by David Croenenberg" I just have this nightmare image of a person spending two hours slowly turning into an Alien while Geena Davis watches in horror. "I'm saying...I'm an Alien who dreamed he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over, and the Alien is awake." Pass.
I feel the same way about Vincent Ward. It would have seemed like the alien and Ripley were intruding on his self-indulgant neo-medieval fantasy.
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 29, 2014, 12:09:15 AM
Sorry, but when I hear "Alien 3 directed by David Croenenberg" I just have this nightmare image of a person spending two hours slowly turning into an Alien while Geena Davis watches in horror.
Geena Davis actually suggests a Renny Harlin movie, not a Cronenberg movie, mate. ;)
Quote from: Eva on Jan 29, 2014, 12:56:20 AM
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 29, 2014, 12:09:15 AM
Sorry, but when I hear "Alien 3 directed by David Croenenberg" I just have this nightmare image of a person spending two hours slowly turning into an Alien while Geena Davis watches in horror.
Geena Davis actually suggests a Renny Harlin movie, not a Cronenberg movie, mate. ;)
I still haven't seen that one. :(
Geena Davis did Croenenberg's remake ofnThe Fly, hence the reference.
But she married Harlin and then went on to star in his awful pirate movie.
But I wasn't referencing that haha
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 29, 2014, 12:09:15 AM
Sorry, but when I hear "Alien 3 directed by David Croenenberg" I just have this nightmare image of a person spending two hours slowly turning into an Alien while Geena Davis watches in horror. "I'm saying...I'm an Alien who dreamed he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over, and the Alien is awake." Pass.
You know he directed other horror films, yeah?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 29, 2014, 01:09:03 AM
But she married Harlin and then went on to star in his awful pirate movie.
and in Harlins
The Long Kiss Goodnight. And then Harlins career turned to shit and has stayed there ever since. ;)
So? Cameron wasn't a horror director. I'm just saying I like Croenenberg, but I wouldn't be excited to see him as an Alien director.
The Terminator proved Cameron's sci-fi action chops. I suppose it could even be considered a quasi horror/slasher too.
Don't forget Lance Henriksen and Michael Beihn!
Calm down, mate. I have nothing bad to say about your preferences at all. That wasn't what I was talking about. Just some general observations...
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 29, 2014, 01:24:13 AM
Don't forget Lance Henriksen and Michael Beihn!
Bill Paxton too.
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 29, 2014, 01:20:21 AM
I'm just saying I like Croenenberg, but I wouldn't be excited to see him as an Alien director.
But you keep going on about
The Fly when he's got other work you could look at to see why he'd be a good decision.
Not that he'd want to. He's not that keen on the Alien.
Videodrome comes to mind. Based on that, a Cronenberg version of Prometheus would have been interesting to see.
If he were making an Alien movie, I'd prefer something a bit closer to Dead Zone Cronenberg.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 29, 2014, 01:57:06 AM
Quote from: Henriksen on Jan 29, 2014, 01:20:21 AM
I'm just saying I like Croenenberg, but I wouldn't be excited to see him as an Alien director.
But you keep going on about The Fly when he's got other work you could look at to see why he'd be a good decision.
Not that he'd want to. He's not that keen on the Alien.
He did say at the time of Alien's release he was disappointed by the film.
... yes, hence saying he's not too keen on it.
Has he ever expressed an opinion on Alien?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 29, 2014, 03:12:45 AM
Has he ever expressed an opinion on Alien?
He thought they ripped off his Eraserhead.
Later he recanted, saying it was clearly more a ripoff of his Pocahontas.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 29, 2014, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 29, 2014, 03:12:45 AM
Has he ever expressed an opinion on Alien?
He thought they ripped off his Eraserhead.
For a second I imagined Ridley Scott stealing his pencil and tearing the eraser off. :laugh:
Quote from: SiL on Jan 29, 2014, 03:19:45 AM
Later he recanted, saying it was clearly more a ripoff of his Pocahontas.
Why am I up this late...
Sleep is for the weak.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 29, 2014, 03:22:38 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jan 29, 2014, 03:19:45 AM
Later he recanted, saying it was clearly more a ripoff of his Pocahontas.
Why am I up this late...
We need supervision.
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 29, 2014, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 29, 2014, 03:12:45 AM
Has he ever expressed an opinion on Alien?
He thought they ripped off his Eraserhead.
I thought that it was David Lynch who directed ERASERHEAD, no?
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 29, 2014, 03:35:04 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 29, 2014, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 29, 2014, 03:12:45 AM
Has he ever expressed an opinion on Alien?
He thought they ripped off his Eraserhead.
I thought tgat it was David Lynch who directed ERASERHEAD, no?
Hence my "why am I up this late" response to SiL. 3:30am - g'night guys... ... behave... ...
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 29, 2014, 03:36:56 AM
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 29, 2014, 03:35:04 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 29, 2014, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 29, 2014, 03:12:45 AM
Has he ever expressed an opinion on Alien?
He thought they ripped off his Eraserhead.
I thought tgat it was David Lynch who directed ERASERHEAD, no?
Hence my "why am I up this late" response to SiL. 3:30am - g'night guys... ... behave... ...
8)
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 29, 2014, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 29, 2014, 03:12:45 AM
Has he ever expressed an opinion on Alien?
He thought they ripped off his Eraserhead.
He was interviewed by Fangoria magazine for The Brood,and says he thought Alien was a missed opportunity,that the film ended up being about a group of people being chased around by a guy in a crocodile suit.That's not a quote,simply from memory.Giger mentioned that Lynch thought that Alien ripped off the look of the baby in Eraserhead with the Chestburster.
Lol every time I come back to this thread, there's like ten new pages of rambling (amusing rambling, in this instance).
It's going back a bit, but I'd also like to share my love for the "rotten" look of Alien 3. It ties in well with the bleak themes and just gives it a really unsettling feel. Maybe that's one of the reasons the film didn't do so well, it's really not very pleasant to watch at times (in terms of the atmosphere it generates). Although that happens to be one of very the reasons I like it so much.
Also, while we're talking about people perhaps having a negative view towards the film... Aren't I right in saying Alien 3 actually did really well outside of the US when it was released?
It did alright. Enough for them to revisit it some years later, but not enough for them to revisit it right away.
Wait, wasn't David Lynch director of Eraserhead?
^ Read below
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 29, 2014, 03:36:56 AM
Quote from: SpreadEagleBeagle on Jan 29, 2014, 03:35:04 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 29, 2014, 03:15:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 29, 2014, 03:12:45 AM
Has he ever expressed an opinion on Alien?
He thought they ripped off his Eraserhead.
I thought tgat it was David Lynch who directed ERASERHEAD, no?
Hence my "why am I up this late" response to SiL. 3:30am - g'night guys... ... behave... ...
Quote from: Elmazalman on Jan 29, 2014, 04:40:20 AM
That's not a quote,simply from memory.Giger mentioned that Lynch thought that Alien ripped off the look of the baby in Eraserhead with the Chestburster.
David Lynch came to terms in the end with the idea that maybe the ideas just come from a similar place. But Cronenberg still hasn't come to terms with O'Bannon borrowing from Shivers and maybe there isn't really enough substance to David Cronenberg's claim although O'Bannon seemed to have seen the film and maybe at the time of the fillm since there were so few movies dealing with body horror, the Cronenberg's point of view in an abstract way would have had more weight
Everything I could find about the whole argument that Shivers inspired Alien is on my blog.
http://alienexplorations.blogspot.co.uk/1979/06/inspiration-from-shivers.html (http://alienexplorations.blogspot.co.uk/1979/06/inspiration-from-shivers.html)
I'll track down my copy of Fangoria 3 later on to get his view of Alien from that Brood interview
(later note: Full quote from Fangoria interview for The Brood has now been added)
If people wanna see monster designs in something Cronenberg was involved in, I'd suggest Nightbreed from 1990. I'll just say that Cronenberg plays an... interesting character in that movie.... :)
Jason X too.
Cronenberg's mask still rapes my dreams.
No surprise since rape and dreams are the Croenenberg staples.
Your avatar gives me a craving for cornbread.
As for the cornbread, yes, I'm not fond of it. And your avatar amuses me as we'll, since I'm currently watching Family Guy: Something, Something, Something, Darkside.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 29, 2014, 08:10:38 PMYour avatar gives me a craving for cornbread.
It's good for you, boy, eat it.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 29, 2014, 08:02:44 PM
Cronenberg's mask still rapes my dreams.
It was so memorable that they basically copied it for the antagonist in
The Collector.
The Collection was the best horror movie of 2012.
Very interesting piece about Alien 3.
http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-unloved-part-1-alien-3-david-fincher-sigourney-weaver-feminism-science-fiction-heroine (http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-unloved-part-1-alien-3-david-fincher-sigourney-weaver-feminism-science-fiction-heroine)
Quote from: Alien³ on Apr 29, 2014, 03:31:55 PM
Very interesting piece about Alien 3.
http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-unloved-part-1-alien-3-david-fincher-sigourney-weaver-feminism-science-fiction-heroine (http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-unloved-part-1-alien-3-david-fincher-sigourney-weaver-feminism-science-fiction-heroine)
Good read. Something just came to me though, about
Quoteabout a woman who was sleep-raped by a monster
How did the facehugger get out of the cryotube after it impregnated her? I thought they just fall off and die, in which case, it would have still been inside the tube. How then does it end up inside the prison?
Quote from: DoomRulz on Apr 30, 2014, 11:29:16 AMHow did the facehugger get out of the cryotube after it impregnated her? I thought they just fall off and die, in which case, it would have still been inside the tube. How then does it end up inside the prison?
The idea is it doesn't die, but goes on to impregnate a second victim (the dog/ox). In the Assembly Cut it's implied to be because it's some kind of super-Facehugger, presumably for implanting Queens, but the theatrical cut doesn't really address why it suddenly has twice the embryo laying capacity at all.
In the Assembly it's either two huggers, or one that grows a lot.
QuoteHow did the facehugger get out of the cryotube after it impregnated her? I thought they just fall off and die, in which case, it would have still been inside the tube. How then does it end up inside the prison?
Great big hole in Ripley's cryotube.
Quote from: SM on Apr 30, 2014, 11:42:38 AMIn the Assembly it's either two huggers, or one that grows a lot.
That's true, I'd forgotten about that quick snapshot during the opening credits.
In my own mind I tend to put that down to a goof now, as I prefer the idea of one Queen-laying Hugger myself.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Apr 30, 2014, 11:29:16 AM
Quote from: Alien³ on Apr 29, 2014, 03:31:55 PM
Very interesting piece about Alien 3.
http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-unloved-part-1-alien-3-david-fincher-sigourney-weaver-feminism-science-fiction-heroine (http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-unloved-part-1-alien-3-david-fincher-sigourney-weaver-feminism-science-fiction-heroine)
Good read. Something just came to me though, about
Quoteabout a woman who was sleep-raped by a monster
How did the facehugger get out of the cryotube after it impregnated her? I thought they just fall off and die, in which case, it would have still been inside the tube. How then does it end up inside the prison?
Didn't the facehugger in Alien climb up to somewhere hidden after impregnating Kane? Only to later fall on Ripley?
Yes.
Quote from: Alien³ on Apr 30, 2014, 12:06:03 PM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Apr 30, 2014, 11:29:16 AM
Quote from: Alien³ on Apr 29, 2014, 03:31:55 PM
Very interesting piece about Alien 3.
http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-unloved-part-1-alien-3-david-fincher-sigourney-weaver-feminism-science-fiction-heroine (http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-unloved-part-1-alien-3-david-fincher-sigourney-weaver-feminism-science-fiction-heroine)
Good read. Something just came to me though, about
Quoteabout a woman who was sleep-raped by a monster
How did the facehugger get out of the cryotube after it impregnated her? I thought they just fall off and die, in which case, it would have still been inside the tube. How then does it end up inside the prison?
Didn't the facehugger in Alien climb up to somewhere hidden after impregnating Kane? Only to later fall on Ripley?
Ah, forgot about that.
Quote from: SM on Apr 30, 2014, 11:42:38 AM
In the Assembly it's either two huggers, or one that grows a lot.
QuoteHow did the facehugger get out of the cryotube after it impregnated her? I thought they just fall off and die, in which case, it would have still been inside the tube. How then does it end up inside the prison?
Great big hole in Ripley's cryotube.
The novelization also points two
Quote from: StrangeShape on Apr 30, 2014, 02:53:40 PMThe novelization also points two
The novelization makes even less sense, because the one on the Sulaco dies before it can impregnate anyone.
Yup.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Apr 30, 2014, 02:55:42 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Apr 30, 2014, 02:53:40 PMThe novelization also points two
The novelization makes even less sense, because the one on the Sulaco dies before it can impregnate anyone.
It was the guinea pig for the super hugger... ;D
I always figured Alan Dean Foster was just trying to make logical sense of the POS script that he was hired to adapt.
Alan Dean Foster hates Alien 3 and makes no bones about it.
I can't blame him. For a writer, it must have seemed like a dreadful mess.
Meh. He was tore up about the whole nuclear family getting destroyed. I don't think the facehugger things bothered him as much as losing newt and hicks did.
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 01, 2014, 01:26:42 AM
Meh. He was tore up about the whole nuclear family getting destroyed. I don't think the facehugger things bothered him as much as losing newt and hicks did.
Just Newt, as he said it didnt make sense for Ripley to go on
"Killing Newt was not only an obscenity, it removes the principal rationale for Ripley to fight to stay alive. Filmmakers love to shock, even if it goes against logic, reason, and plot. They suffer from a misguided belief that shock equates to art. This misnomer is not confined to cinema."
Quote from: StrangeShape on May 01, 2014, 04:34:05 AM
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 01, 2014, 01:26:42 AM
Meh. He was tore up about the whole nuclear family getting destroyed. I don't think the facehugger things bothered him as much as losing newt and hicks did.
Just Newt, as he said it didnt make sense for Ripley to go on
"Killing Newt was not only an obscenity, it removes the principal rationale for Ripley to fight to stay alive. Filmmakers love to shock, even if it goes against logic, reason, and plot. They suffer from a misguided belief that shock equates to art. This misnomer is not confined to cinema."
Which has been my point all along. Ripley's "sacrifice" doesn't mean anything to me because I don't buy it. IF she was sacrificing herself FOR Newt, then perhaps I could buy that. As it is, I think it's ridiculous.
QuoteRipley's "sacrifice" doesn't mean anything to me because I don't buy it.
Flawless logic...
Quote from: stephen on May 01, 2014, 04:43:11 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on May 01, 2014, 04:34:05 AM
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 01, 2014, 01:26:42 AM
Meh. He was tore up about the whole nuclear family getting destroyed. I don't think the facehugger things bothered him as much as losing newt and hicks did.
Just Newt, as he said it didnt make sense for Ripley to go on
"Killing Newt was not only an obscenity, it removes the principal rationale for Ripley to fight to stay alive. Filmmakers love to shock, even if it goes against logic, reason, and plot. They suffer from a misguided belief that shock equates to art. This misnomer is not confined to cinema."
Which has been my point all along. Ripley's "sacrifice" doesn't mean anything to me because I don't buy it. IF she was sacrificing herself FOR Newt, then perhaps I could buy that. As it is, I think it's ridiculous.
Well, she sacrificed herself for all mankind
Don't be "ridiculous"...
The logic to just give up because other people die is ridiculous argument in myself. Parents just supposed to kill themselves when they have a young one killed in say a vehicle accident? What kind of sense does that make?
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 01, 2014, 05:17:40 AM
The logic to just give up because other people die is ridiculous argument in myself. Parents just supposed to kill themselves when they have a young one killed in say a vehicle accident? What kind of sense does that make?
Well, Ripleys sutiation is different. she sort of witnessed all of her crew getting murdered, she had to evaporize the entire ship and barely survived. She woke up at the time where everyone she knew including her family is already dead. She struggles with nightmares. She finds a new way, a glimmer of hope in an orphan child and a soldier. She looses everything brutally again and is lost with nothing. It shouldnt be surprising shed get suicidal, and she eventually did commit suicide for the good of mankind but also she had nothing to live for anymore and was too drained emotionally
Its a film that celebrates Ripley's personality
Ripley was never suicidal. When Newt and Hicks were killed she sought solace with Clemens rather than wallowing. When the Alien was discovered on Fiorina and they had no weapons, she devised a plan to deal with it. Even when she found out she was carrying the Alien - she asked Dillon to take care of her because she 'couldn't do what she should'. The latter was about as close as she got to suicidal and even that was for the greater good, and therefore more supreme sacrifice than anything else.
My point is that I don't buy into ripley's "greater good" sacrifice. I think it would have been more powerful if she did it for someone like newt. To me, her sacrifice is empty because it's not linked to anything or anyone personal to ripley. We can talk all day about "the greater good" and doing "what she should" but I personally find it empty. If it was for someone personal to ripley that's different. It's like in aliens where she went after newt. She didn't go after sarge and Dietrich because they weren't personal to ripley but by god she went after newt. See I buy into that.
I'd be satisfied if Ripley simply did it to spite the company.
Quote from: stephen on May 02, 2014, 12:44:26 AM
My point is that I don't buy into ripley's "greater good" sacrifice. I think it would have been more powerful if she did it for someone like newt. To me, her sacrifice is empty because it's not linked to anything or anyone personal to ripley. We can talk all day about "the greater good" and doing "what she should" but I personally find it empty.
Then you haven't been paying attention to her character for the previous two films... ???
How so?
In alien she was just trying to survive.
In aliens when the company asked her to go she initially refused but then went to exorcise her demons. Yes she went to wipe them out but it was on the back of something personal to her - her nightmares. See I get that. Then she finds newt and forms a bond with her, eventually going to "hell" to save her, willingly putting her life in danger not for some greater good, but again for something personal to her. She could have gone after sarge and Dietrich with help but was convinced they couldn't be helped. Only when it became personal was she willing to go into the best.
QuoteIn alien she was just trying to survive.
Then why did she blow up the ship. If she "just" wanted to survive, she would've just bugged out without throwing the switches.
QuoteIn aliens when the company asked her to go she initially refused but then went to exorcise her demons. Yes she went to wipe them out but it was on the back of something personal to her - her nightmares. See I get that. Then she finds newt and forms a bond with her, eventually going to "hell" to save her, willingly putting her life in danger not for some greater good, but again for something personal to her. She could have gone after sarge and Dietrich with help but was convinced they couldn't be helped. Only when it became personal was she willing to go into the best.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire sight from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 01:53:46 AM
QuoteIn alien she was just trying to survive.
Then why did she blow up the ship. If she "just" wanted to survive, she would've just bugged out with throwing the switches.
To kill it. And to a certain degree I suppose to stick it to the company because she had found out about special order 937.
Query, when Lambert first proposes that they take the shuttle and Ripley says the shuttle won't take four, I can't recall whether it was stated at that point that they were going to blow up the ship?
At any rate, I don't think it was really for any "common good" and if it was it certainly wasn't expressed in such a manner. As I said, Alien was more about surviving then anything else.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 01:53:46 AM
QuoteIn aliens when the company asked her to go she initially refused but then went to exorcise her demons. Yes she went to wipe them out but it was on the back of something personal to her - her nightmares. See I get that. Then she finds newt and forms a bond with her, eventually going to "hell" to save her, willingly putting her life in danger not for some greater good, but again for something personal to her. She could have gone after sarge and Dietrich with help but was convinced they couldn't be helped. Only when it became personal was she willing to go into the best.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire sight from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Let's not go after Sarge and Dietrich, let's take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
This is opposed to her going after Newt. As I've said all along, the personal connection makes it much more powerful.
This is why I don't like Alien 3 and Ripley's so called sacrifice. There is no personal connection.
In Alien, she blew up the ship and while there was an obvious danger in doing so, she wasn't actually trying to kill herself or sacrificing herself in order to do so.
In Aliens, Nuking the site from orbit was actually directly taking herself OUT of danger. But then she puts herself DIRECTLY in danger by going after Newt - that personal connection.
In Alien 3, this sacrifice she makes is supposed to be for some "greater good" and that maybe so, but I don't buy it or better yet if you prefer, I don't like it. IF she was making this sacrifice not for some "greater good but for something personal to her, like Newt, then maybe I could buy into that. But it's not. It's for some ghostly "greater good concept" and given the tone of the film which is all dark and depressing anyway, in my personal opinion, it makes it very difficult for me to accept.
QuoteQuery, when Lambert first proposes that they take the shuttle and Ripley says the shuttle won't take four, I can't recall whether it was stated at that point that they were going to blow up the ship?
No. Lambert only talks about abandoning ship.
QuoteLet's not go after Sarge and Dietrich, let's take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
They were beyond help in nest full of Aliens.
QuoteThis is opposed to her going after Newt.
Who wasn't beyond help in a nest not full of Aliens.
QuoteIn Aliens, Nuking the site from orbit was actually directly taking herself OUT of danger. But then she puts herself DIRECTLY in danger by going after Newt - that personal connection.
That's not sacrifice though. It's heroic, no doubt, but Ripley didn't go in there to kill herself so that others may live.
In Alien3 she sacrifices herself for everyone in existance and not one of them - beyond the handful present - will ever know what she gave up. No accolades, no memorial. She died ostensibly as she lived and dreamed, alone (dziekuje, Jozef), for humanity, protecting humanity and humanity doesn't even know. Even protecting the WY guys in the room from themselves ("Father, forgive them, for they know now what they do"). The complete lack of personal connection is what make it truly selfless - or if you like, messianic.
Which is a long step above the more selfish reason of rescuing the daughter she conveniently just gained after losing the first one.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 03:27:10 AM
QuoteQuery, when Lambert first proposes that they take the shuttle and Ripley says the shuttle won't take four, I can't recall whether it was stated at that point that they were going to blow up the ship?
No. Lambert only talks about abandoning ship.
Yeah that's what I thought.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 03:27:10 AMQuoteLet's not go after Sarge and Dietrich, let's take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
They were beyond help in nest full of Aliens.
QuoteThis is opposed to her going after Newt.
Who wasn't beyond help in a nest not full of Aliens.
What's the difference again - besides the number of aliens?
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 03:27:10 AM
QuoteIn Aliens, Nuking the site from orbit was actually directly taking herself OUT of danger. But then she puts herself DIRECTLY in danger by going after Newt - that personal connection.
That's not sacrifice though. It's heroic, no doubt, but Ripley didn't go in there to kill herself so that others may live.
She went in there in the hope of rescuing Newt. At great risk to herself and putting herself directly in harms way, she went to save someone.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 03:27:10 AMIn Alien3 she sacrifices herself for everyone in existance and not one of them - beyond the handful present - will ever know what she gave up. No accolades, no memorial. She died ostensibly as she lived and dreamed, alone (dziekuje, Jozef), for humanity, protecting humanity and humanity doesn't even know. Even protecting the WY guys in the room from themselves ("Father, forgive them, for they know now what they do"). The complete lack of personal connection is what make it truly selfless - or if you like, messianic.
Yes I understand that. This thread is about why people don't like Alien 3. And I don't like that. And I don't buy it. I just don't get the sense that she was doing it to save humanity. I get that's what they were going for, but for me it falls short.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 03:27:10 AMWhich is a long step above the more selfish reason of rescuing the daughter she conveniently just gained after losing the first one.
Depends on your philosophical point of view.
I buy into her going after Newt because I believe the Aliens does a better job of building up Ripley's relationship with Newt then Alien 3 does in building up Ripley's relationship with mankind if that makes any kind of sense.
In that sense I believe Terminator 2's ending does a better job (funnily enough a James Cameron film). Arnie sacrifices himself at the end to save humanity because "I now know why you cry". There is a personal link between the Terminator and John. Yes Arnie is doing it for humanity's sake (like Ripley in this movie) but by building the relationship between the terminator and John, it has more resonance for me.
I don't get that same feeling with Alien 3.
QuoteWhat's the difference again - besides the number of aliens?
The number of Aliens is the only difference. It's also the
key difference that lead to Ripley getting in and out unscathed.
QuoteI don't get that same feeling with Alien 3.
I don't think you're supposed to. As I said, Ripley did this alone, in a way that most people miss (and often through no fault of their own - many have stopped caring by that point because of the mess of a film that often precedes it). It's something you need to think about, rather than having it dangling in your face like a big pair of dogs balls with all the subtlety Cameron can muster.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 05:08:46 AM
QuoteWhat's the difference again - besides the number of aliens?
The number of Aliens is the only difference. It's also the key difference that lead to Ripley getting in and out unscathed.
That's not why Ripley refused to go in after the marines and it's not why Ripley went in after Newt. Ripley's reaction to Newt was emotional, but her reaction to the marines was more objective, more realistic if you will.
It was actually rather silly for her to go after Newt given everything that was going on. But I buy it. I understand it. It's the whole mother motif. Would a parent go to hell and back for their (surrogate) child. Aliens does a great job of building to that point.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 05:08:46 AMQuoteI don't get that same feeling with Alien 3.
I don't think you're supposed to. As I said, Ripley did this alone, in a way that most people miss (and often through no fault of their own - many have stopped caring by that point because of the mess of a film that often precedes it). It's something you need to think about, rather than having it dangling in your face like a big pair of dogs balls with all the subtlety Cameron can muster.
I have thought about it. In great detail.
Hey, if you like it then that's great. Each to his own as they say. But this is a big reason as to why I don't like this film.
It's not silly for Ripley to go after Newt. Yes there's emotion involved, but in context it make perfect sense to go after Newt and not the marines. The marines were taken in the hive. A hive swarming with Aliens. Even if they could've fought their way to where Apone and Dietrich were cocooned - they'd still be too late. Newt was taken at the colony, so the Alien that took her needed time to get back to the hive and cocoon her in. That and the fact all the Aliens were back over at the colony made going in after Newt perfectly viable - even given the short time frame.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 05:28:06 AM
It's not silly for Ripley to go after Newt. Yes there's emotion involved, but in context it make perfect sense to go after Newt and not the marines.
The emotional reaction taking precedence over everything else.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 05:28:06 AMThe marines were taken in the hive. A hive swarming with Aliens. Even if they could've fought their way to where Apone and Dietrich were cocooned - they'd still be too late.
If they had of turned around and gone straight back in the timings may not have been that terrible. Given also that if they did go in they're more aware of what's going on too and it wouldn't be just one person.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 05:28:06 AMNewt was taken at the colony, so the Alien that took her needed time to get back to the hive and cocoon her in.
And if they had of turned around and gone straight back into the hive they may have gotten the marines out. Highly unlikely though and very realistic of Ripley to take the stance she did.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 05:28:06 AMThat and the fact all the Aliens were back over at the colony made going in after Newt perfectly viable - even given the short time frame.
Something Ripley couldn't have possibly have known. We know it in hindsight, but Ripley went in expecting to find numerous aliens.
But yeah, Ripley, one individual going into an alien hive, expecting to encounter goodness knows how many aliens, all by herself in order to save a little girl, that she should know is "being cocooned just like the others" makes perfect sense.
Ultimately regardless of the actual facts of this particular circumstance which could be debated back and forth ad nausem - the bottom line is that going after Newt was an emotional reaction by Ripley and is essentially the only reason she went in. As I have said, the bond Ripley had with Newt drove her to go after her, nothing more nothing less.
Your last comment doesn't make any sense. They know there wouldn't be that many aliens in the hive because they had just shot the shit out of them with Sentry Guns and in the operations battle and then she had a tracker tracking individual targets left over.
Meanwhile she took a dropship to get Newt while the rest of the Aliens would have to hoof it back.
The majority of the Aliens were in the Hadley's Hope complex. Not the atmosphere processor. This would be obvious to anybody with basic reasoning skills. I don't know that Hicks or Bishop would agree to the suicide run if they both knew that the hive was being sat on by a huge number of Aliens.
QuoteIf they had of turned around and gone straight back in the timings may not have been that terrible.
Three marines - one wounded - had limited weapons, even more limited time and an APC with a busted transaxle.
They would've been slaughtered. The three civilians they left behind with their KOed commanding officer would've been slaughtered shortly after.
I would've rolled in the CN20 just in case it killed the Aliens but also to put down my allies I couldn't reach so they weren't bursted had I been the ranking Marine.
Unless of course dying by CN20 was as painful as dying by chestburster.
Quote from: SM on May 02, 2014, 06:03:00 AM
QuoteIf they had of turned around and gone straight back in the timings may not have been that terrible.
Three marines - one wounded - had limited weapons, even more limited time and an APC with a busted transaxle.
They would've been slaughtered. The three civilians they left behind with their KOed commanding officer would've been slaughtered shortly after.
Again, it is ultimately besides the point. I in fact agree with you but I also think that rationally, ripley going after newt was just as dangerous.
However as I said it is the emotional connection to newt that caused ripley to go after her, not some rationale thought process where ripley said to herself "I think most of the aliens are in the colony, I'm pretty sure that the nest will have minimal aliens and I rate my chances of survival at xx percent."
Quote from: stephen on May 02, 2014, 09:21:23 AMHowever as I said it is the emotional connection to newt that caused ripley to go after her, not some rationale thought process where ripley said to herself "I think most of the aliens are in the colony, I'm pretty sure that the nest will have minimal aliens and I rate my chances of survival at xx percent."
She may not have done the exact maths, but it's only natural to assume that as most of the Aliens are still searching the colony, the hive itself is likely pretty empty and your chances of dashing in, rescuing the girl and escaping are clearly much higher.
But ripley literally doesn't know how many aliens are in the colony or in the nest she has no f**king idea.
It is a running theme throughout the film and don't forget what ripley says to newt when she was putting her to bed. "I won't leave you newt i mean that." And after it all newt says "I knew you'd come"
That doesn't mean she can't consider it. There can't possibly be that many aliens left because there were only so many colonists to start with, and they've been slaughtering the aliens all through the film. Plus a whole horde of them are still crawling around the colony before she leaves.
I'm not saying she doesn't go because of her desire to save Newt, but that also doesn't mean she hasn't considered her chances.
Yes perhaps but my point is that it is because it is newt. It is because of the bond they now have that ultimately causes her to go.
And the point of that is that it is that personal connection that causes ripley to put herself in danger. As opposed to her death in alien 3 that was for something else. My whole point is that I believe ripley's need to go after newt much more then I believe in her sacrifice for a common good.
If ripley's death had of been to protect something personal to her like newt then I might have accepted a bit easier.
Quote from: stephen on May 02, 2014, 09:57:58 AMAnd the point of that is that it is that personal connection that causes ripley to put herself in danger. As opposed to her death in alien 3 that was for something else.
A personal connection is hardly prerequisite. Plenty of people put their lives on the line to save total strangers. People have died for it. It's not hard to fathom.
You're right it's not but I don't like the film as it is. Thematically the way it is told I don't buy into it. I buy into aliens but not alien 3. I have explained why I don't like the film and I have guven my point of view into what May have made it better in my opinion.
Given all the religious overtones in the film, giving your life so that humanity might live is thematically pretty much the perfect ending.
I still haven't changed my mind. I hate the movie because they killed most everyone from aliens in the begining of it.
I've never had any problem with Ripley's sacrifice, but a lot of what led up to it was a bit forced and diabolus ex machina.
Quote from: whiterabbit on May 02, 2014, 09:14:21 PM
I still haven't changed my mind. I hate the movie because they killed most everyone from aliens in the begining of it.
Which is good, one or none should survive in an Alien film.
Quote from: whiterabbit on May 02, 2014, 09:14:21 PM
I still haven't changed my mind. I hate the movie because they killed most everyone from aliens in the begining of it.
Don't forget that Ripley experiences several days of grief, terror and misery before she dies too. So Alien 3 basically f**ked everyone from the previous movie, it just made her suffer a little longer.
Yall soft.
:D
No matter what it's still a bad follow up to Aliens ::)
Each to their own.
Quote from: JokersWarPig on May 03, 2014, 09:05:00 AM
No matter what it's still a bad follow up to Aliens ::)
Nope.
Sssssshhhhhhhh
Just accept the truth.
Doesn't mean much to me, even though I love Aliens,.certain elements make me cringe like people's attitude that it should be a fun adventure franchise rather than a dark horror, so in that respect I'm glad Alien3 killed off nearly everyone.
The fact that Alien3 has the worst setup in the world is why it's bleh. Never killing off Hicks n' Newt. Random, plot-serving, last-minute eggs drive me crazy.
Life is too short Doom.
It's still a lousy setup.
You hear Facehuggers scuttling after the credits of Aliens, so it wasn't a lousy set-up to me.
Everyone should die.
It was a lazy setup. But unlike some people all I need is the connection of a queen being on board and the fact its an Alien monster. Some people need to see how and where the Alien eggs were placed for it to work.
But half the people that complain about this also wouldn't complain about it had Cameron directed the sequel and done it himself.
Only the blind fanboys wouldn't complain about it. Then again, Cameron knew better than to continue past Aliens.
The blind fanboys make up about 90% of Alien series fans.
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 07, 2014, 02:02:15 PMThe blind fanboys make up about 90% of Alien series fans.
They even call it the "Alien
s Franchise".
The thing I hated the most was the 'convenient egg' but I can look past it, for what Fincher had to put up with he did an admirable job.
Quote from: DoomRulz on May 07, 2014, 01:13:31 PM
Only the blind fanboys wouldn't complain about it. Then again, Cameron knew better than to continue past Aliens.
Cameron apparently had ideas for how, but the studio chose not to contact him to continue.
I remember in one interview that he said "and it's not in the f**king cat," when queried about how he'd do it (which implies he would have done something more common sense than having eggs appear out of nowhere), but little more is known, outside of discussing with Henriksen about Bishop realising he's had some kind of programming sub-set which would make him paranoid about effectively being schizophrenic and carrying out Weyland-Yutani's will without consent or actual conscious knowledge (which could have been an interesting logical progression from Ash).
The problem with the egg is that it renders the Queen's egg sack utterly pointless. If she's capable of viable laying without it, why even grow it?
And that's assuming the egg was meant to be in the dropship landing gear, where she was hiding... I don't think anyone's been able to figure out a 100% definitive answer for where those snapshot looks at the egg could be. I, for one, certainly find it difficult to accept that a small troop transport, which could be ferried between ships and bases at a moment's notice, would have 'SULACO' physically engraved into the metal of somewhere nobody would ever bother looking. :)
But, y'know, it was years ago... With the arrival of yet further sequels (And one prequel), nobody cares as much about the magical egg as they used to. It's become just one bizarre element of several, by now. It's just a very glaring one. Stuff like Kane's mysteriously disappearing cloth cap thing and the Sulaco's cryotubes completely changing design are almost trivial by comparison, because the stories don't hinge upon them. For '
Alien 3', if the egg hadn't appeared out of nowhere, what followed would never have ultimately happened.
What came first, Fox or the egg? :o
QuoteThe problem with the egg is that it renders the Queen's egg sack utterly pointless. If she's capable of viable laying without it, why even grow it?
So she brought the egg with her.
Or the egg sac just accelerates the process. There are some physical differences between the A3 eggs and others.
Her hands looked completely free when she got out of the elevator. I know some people think she put one on her back, but... Not exactly practical (not even sure she'd be able to reach around with those arms, either).
As for the egg sack accelerating anything, we see what the eggs look like inside it when Ripley shoots it open. They're at very primitive stages of development. At the slow rate she's laying them, it looks like it would take a long while for them to 'mature'.
It's OK to hand-wave it away, because that's the only way 'Alien 3' can possibly work, but it's still pretty much an anomaly, logic-wise.
Why isn't it "practical"? She's protecting the egg with her body, thereby having a good chance of perpetuating her species since she doesn't have an egg sac any more AND leaving both arms free. Well, all four really.
If you wanted to go further into areas that Cameron never considered or intended - the Queen rescuing an egg mirrors Ripley rescuing Newt.
Quote from: SM on May 08, 2014, 12:56:31 AM
If you wanted to go further into areas that Cameron never considered or intended - the Queen rescuing an egg mirrors Ripley rescuing Newt.
It could also be at that point that the queen realises the predicament and takes off after Ripley, with egg, specifically in order to get out of the place. Maybe the queen could have seen Ripley as an ideal way for the queen to escape.
Assuming there is intelligence there, the queen could have been "playing" ripley, making Ripley run, so the queen could follow her, the queen realising that Ripley is her escape route.
food for thought.
The easiest way to do it wooed have been to just have more eggs discovered elsewhere, but the writers of A3 just had to set it immediately after Aliens. Seriously, what was the point of that?
If we'd never seen the egg up the wall, then it's plausible some huggers could have come up with the Queen. I never understand why they didn't just do that.
It's been noted before that the opening sequence could be more from Ripley's mind as she's in a dream state, and the snapshots are pictures her mind are inferring from the sounds she's hearing around her. I kinda like that explanation.
Quote from: SM on May 08, 2014, 12:56:31 AM
Why isn't it "practical"? She's protecting the egg with her body, thereby having a good chance of perpetuating her species since she doesn't have an egg sac any more AND leaving both arms free. Well, all four really.
If you wanted to go further into areas that Cameron never considered or intended - the Queen rescuing an egg mirrors Ripley rescuing Newt.
We never see her pick up the egg and carry it with her. When would she have done this?
Quote from: stephen on May 08, 2014, 04:09:44 AM
Quote from: SM on May 08, 2014, 12:56:31 AM
If you wanted to go further into areas that Cameron never considered or intended - the Queen rescuing an egg mirrors Ripley rescuing Newt.
It could also be at that point that the queen realises the predicament and takes off after Ripley, with egg, specifically in order to get out of the place. Maybe the queen could have seen Ripley as an ideal way for the queen to escape.
Assuming there is intelligence there, the queen could have been "playing" ripley, making Ripley run, so the queen could follow her, the queen realising that Ripley is her escape route.
food for thought.
Nah. If there was real intelligence she woulda legged it four hours earlier.
Oh lets just settle this once and for all. Alien Queen farts spores that turn into eggs on the go. WHAT YOU SAY? :laugh:
That's actually not unlike a theory of mine.
The one about Bishop's legs morphing into an egg?
No, the one about the queen oozing out a glob of goo that congealed in the subflooring of the hangar bay and then grew into the egg we saw.
Mmm... I'd rather go with the Bishop legs theorem personally. Wasn't there something like that in one of the Gibson drafts?
If you want to involve Bishop's legs, I guess you could say that one of the egg's root tendrils reached back up to the hangar bay floor and "fed" off of them. In Gibson's script, the egg grew out of Bishop's upper body inside his cryotube.
Just re-read Gibson's first draft introduction and you're correct. Wonder how that was possible? Did her tail somehow infect him or did he smuggle some form of alien tissue or DNA up with him inside his body?
I think it was somewhat implied by Gibson that both synthetics and Aliens were artificial creatures.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2014, 06:57:27 PM
Just re-read Gibson's first draft introduction and you're correct. Wonder how that was possible? Did her tail somehow infect him or did he smuggle some form of alien tissue or DNA up with him inside his body?
I think it was supposed to mean that the queen's tail injected Bishop with genetic material capable of developing into a viable egg. The Anchorpoint techs scraped samples of it from Bishop's legs and cultured it in the their science lab. IIRC, the UPP did the same with samples they took from Bishop's upper half.
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 08, 2014, 06:58:41 PMI think it was somewhat implied by Gibson that both synthetics and Aliens were artificial creatures.
Even if the aliens aren't synthetic, their biology suggests that they can metabolize inorganic materials.
Been too long since I read either version of the script. I seem to recall them weaponizing the spore very easily because it was easy to manipulate. Basically like piecing together a biological weapon. Hence the infection being so much worse (at least in the original script).
But I can't remember exactly how it all went down.
Interesting...
Anyone know how Kane's son infected Dallas and Brett in the DC?
One can only speculate. However, since it actually killed Brett, the aliens can apparently even make use of dead bodies for reproduction. This might even help to explain why the dog alien never hesitated to kill its victims in Alien 3.
Quote from: SM on May 08, 2014, 12:13:34 PM
Quote from: stephen on May 08, 2014, 04:09:44 AM
Quote from: SM on May 08, 2014, 12:56:31 AM
If you wanted to go further into areas that Cameron never considered or intended - the Queen rescuing an egg mirrors Ripley rescuing Newt.
It could also be at that point that the queen realises the predicament and takes off after Ripley, with egg, specifically in order to get out of the place. Maybe the queen could have seen Ripley as an ideal way for the queen to escape.
Assuming there is intelligence there, the queen could have been "playing" ripley, making Ripley run, so the queen could follow her, the queen realising that Ripley is her escape route.
food for thought.
Nah. If there was real intelligence she woulda legged it four hours earlier.
But the place only started falling apart towards the end. Four hours earlier not much was happening regarding explosions etc.
The emergency venting had started, meaning there would've been alarms going off in the AP.
Quote from: SM on May 08, 2014, 11:19:14 PM
The emergency venting had started, meaning there would've been alarms going off in the AP.
Why weren't there alarms going off in the colony?
Quote from: SM on May 08, 2014, 12:56:31 AM
Why isn't it "practical"?
Because the arms are the wrong dimensions/proportions. They don't have the correct reach to nestle something in between the spikes. She wouldn't have been able to do it the least bit easily (if even at all).
I'm also unsure an egg would fit in between the dorsal spikes without simply falling off between the gaps. :)
QuoteShe's protecting the egg with her body, thereby having a good chance of perpetuating her species since she doesn't have an egg sac any more AND leaving both arms free. Well, all four really.
If you wanted to go further into areas that Cameron never considered or intended - the Queen rescuing an egg mirrors Ripley rescuing Newt.
The most practical course of action would be for her to use the smaller arms. They're the right size, are probably used for egg movement in her early development and her body stance would help them be protective of the egg 'cargo' carried beneath. While I do think it would have made for an interesting mirrored subtext, as you say, I just don't see it as terribly realistic, given what we see.
Quote from: Local Trouble on May 08, 2014, 06:30:23 PM
No, the one about the queen oozing out a glob of goo that congealed in the subflooring of the hangar bay and then grew into the egg we saw.
Again, if she can do that, why does she naturally grow an egg sack? There'd be no point in it even existing.
unless it lets her rapidly produce eggs whereas not having one wouldn't.
QuoteWhy weren't there alarms going off in the colony?
Same reason there were alarms going off when Ripley got to the AP and no alarms at the colony when they left.
"Crashed caused too much damage."
Even in the future nothing works!
QuoteBecause the arms are the wrong dimensions/proportions. They don't have the correct reach to nestle something in between the spikes. She wouldn't have been able to do it the least bit easily (if even at all).
She fit herself in to the landing gear bay without any major issues. They're nothing if not limber, and thems is some mighty long arms.
QuoteI'm also unsure an egg would fit in between the dorsal spikes without simply falling off between the gaps.
It was hanging upside down at the start of Alien3.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on May 09, 2014, 12:48:29 AMQuote from: Local Trouble on May 08, 2014, 06:30:23 PM
No, the one about the queen oozing out a glob of goo that congealed in the subflooring of the hangar bay and then grew into the egg we saw.
Again, if she can do that, why does she naturally grow an egg sack? There'd be no point in it even existing.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 12, 2012, 04:41:51 AM
Well, the egg sac would allow for the rapid production of fully functional eggs. This method would be much slower. Theoretically, a soldier alien could produce eggs the same way.
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 09, 2014, 12:54:30 AM
unless it lets her rapidly produce eggs whereas not having one wouldn't.
:D
The most sensible conclusion I've ever come to is that she simply carries an egg aboard in her smaller arms. Of course we can see this isn't the case in Aliens, but I still think it's a far more sensible idea than her somehow balancing one on her back or magically pooping one out even though she has no egg sac.
It's all academic really, because it still doesn't explain how she managed to get the egg to some random location on the Sulaco and pin it upside-down to the ceiling.
Carrying one with the smaller arms makes no sense as Ripley is armed and eggs are flammable. Might as well paint a big red bulls eye on it.
If it's stuck to her back/ wedged between the dorsal spines, she is able to protect the hugger inside with her bulk.
But by the time she confronts her on the landing pad she knows Ripley's out of juice for her flamethrower.
Like I said, as a theory it's still got more holes than Swiss cheese, it's just the one I buy into the most.
The Queen doesn't know Ripley's out of fuel until she tries a couple of bursts in the lift. And she's obviously not carrying an egg with her small arms.
My theory may be a retcon - but it's impossible to disprove because we never see the Queen from the back. And it's about the same amount of retcon as the start of Alien3 itself.
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 09, 2014, 12:54:30 AM
unless it lets her rapidly produce eggs whereas not having one wouldn't.
Given the relatively small amount of time she would have to lay one (and place it), I'm not sure it's got a huge speed advantage. We saw in '
Aliens' how the ones at an early period of development are very primitive and pale. They clearly need to mature while still within her and I'd guess that, given that she's not exactly machine-gunning them out (especially if we factor in how there's not another 'egg laying' noise heard in the background after Ripley sees the first getting deposited), it takes a fair while for them to get along her biological conveyor belt and get shunted out. Looks like it could be at least a whole day, if not more.
It's always possible (more so since the inconsistent black ooze, if we factor in '
Prometheus', just like the Predalien reproduction cycle now is), but I just don't see it as
probable. It totally negates the point of her getting webbed up and slowly laying them the other way.
Quote from: SM on May 09, 2014, 01:02:29 AM
She fit herself in to the landing gear bay without any major issues. They're nothing if not limber, and thems is some mighty long arms.
That's the problem. They're too long. :) I've even tried posing the Revoltech Queen and two different CGI models, but it's an excessively awkward thing for her to do, given her limb mobility and dimensions of the same - and likely damages the precious egg in doing so.
QuoteQuoteI'm also unsure an egg would fit in between the dorsal spikes without simply falling off between the gaps.
It was hanging upside down at the start of Alien3.
True. I'd guess it takes a while for it to set in place, given the state of Newt's resin, but YMMV.
Quote from: SM on May 09, 2014, 08:04:31 AM
Carrying one with the smaller arms makes no sense as Ripley is armed and eggs are flammable. Might as well paint a big red bulls eye on it.
If it's stuck to her back/wedged between the dorsal spines, she is able to protect the hugger inside with her bulk.
If it was specifically for protection, she'd be better off winding her tail around it and keeping it out of the line of fire completely.
On the other hand, given how she was literally using them as weapons, just moments before, we'd be left with the issue of why she wouldn't just attempt to do the same here: Carry one up and have its contents leap at Newt/Ripley, like a biological gun ('organic ballistics' being a concept which '
Alien 3' implies they're familiar with, going by how one spat acid at a prisoner).
And we're
also lleft with the issue of... Where would she find an egg which wasn't already set on fire? :)
Quote from: Xenomorphine on May 09, 2014, 09:11:23 AMAnd we're also lleft with the issue of... Where would she find an egg which wasn't already set on fire? :)
That one at least is easy to explain - when the Marines first find the colonists there are (empty) eggs lying around, and yet they aren't in the Queen's chamber. It makes sense that they'd be moved to other areas after they are laid, otherwise there'd just be a huge pile of them all around the Queen. So maybe she grabbed one en route.
From what I know a queen alien cant lay eggs without her eggsack/ovipositor since the eggs needs time to mature inside it before being laid, now how a eggsack is created and if she can make a new one after ripley ruined it? My own question would be since I cant see the queen manage to hang herself up my guess is that the eggsack when she is young and alone is just positioned on the floor and she later get hanged up in her position we see in Aliens movie.
I doubt Ripley managed to destroy all eggs since they were clearly laid all over the place and like HudaFuk say they should be in other rooms as well.
Hmm I dont know how the queen either could get out from her nest, the walkways Ripley uses have barely enough space for Ripley and a xeno warrior to walk through, dunno how a queen would fit through them?
My own studies and anchorpointessays.com also comes to the same conclusion: The queen lays one egg each third hour. So 3 hours for each egg to be laid, not a super fast way to reproduce compared to ants and how people imagine it here :)
The queen had the entire flight back to the Sulaco to lay the egg and the egg itself could continue to develop until its activation at the start of Alien 3.
I always thought (even back when I was learning the series): The queen could go thru an "emergency preservation" cycle if she felt the entirety of colony (or herself) was at risk of being eliminated. The cycle for that royal egg could take a half hour at most. A little far-fetched, but we all have seen worse.
Problem is, the Queen was completely clueless that her colony was about to be eliminated.
I think he means post Ripley bombardment.
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 09, 2014, 03:52:18 PMThe queen had the entire flight back to the Sulaco to lay the egg and the egg itself could continue to develop until its activation at the start of Alien 3.
But again, that renders the egg sac completely useless if she can just plop out an egg that fast.
Don't know if one egg in 50 minutes is "fast".
Quote from: SM on May 10, 2014, 12:21:52 PM
Don't know if one egg in 50 minutes is "fast".
Faster than 3 hours with egg sack :P
Quote from: Kimarhi on May 10, 2014, 05:40:57 AM
I think he means post Ripley bombardment.
I did ;D
Quote from: judge death on May 10, 2014, 09:07:21 PM
Quote from: SM on May 10, 2014, 12:21:52 PM
Don't know if one egg in 50 minutes is "fast".
Faster than 3 hours with egg sack :P
The what now?
Fifty minutes, plus the great bitch fight, plus Ripley probably looking around for any Aliens on board, plus them going into hibernation. The egg might've been laid in Aliens but it didn't hatch until Alien 3. It could've taken way longer to develop than an egg sac egg.