Blomkamp's Alien 5 is "Innovative, Amazing, Performs Fan Service"

[SM]

Only Original Sin dealt with the characters and setting that Resurrection created.  Sea of Sorrows was a return to the setting circa Aliens.  Rage War is the progression of that setting centuries into the future.  It's not something that has roots in the world Resurrection created.

The same could be said of Star Wars before Episode 8 was announced based on the concept that the prequels preceded the release of the new sequel trilogy. Your argument is fallacious, insulting to the franchise and not based on fact. Just because something has yet to be made doesn't mean that no one has touched it because they didn't want to.

But the fact remains - they didn't want to.  Resurrection wasn't popular enough to spawn any more sequels, Original Sin wasn't popular enough for more books in that setting.  Fox effectively hit the reset button with current crop of comics and books and have all but ignored Resurrection for the sake of returning to the Alien/ Aliens status quo.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding Star Wars.  That had 25 years worth of books and comics set in that universe, all of which sold in copious volumes.

[Kurai]

Only Original Sin dealt with the characters and setting that Resurrection created.  Sea of Sorrows was a return to the setting circa Aliens.  Rage War is the progression of that setting centuries into the future.  It's not something that has roots in the world Resurrection created.

Bull.

His grandfather had lived in Chicago at that time and had told Decker plenty of stories while he was growing up. One of the USM research vessels, the Auriga, had been taken by terrorists and crashed into France, a country that until that point had been an important part of the European continent. It was a big ship and it did a lot of damage. The massive devastation took the planet literally to the brink of a new ice age, and it wasn't the USM that came to the rescue—it was Weyland-Yutani.

Right out of Sea of Sorrows, or are you trying to say the Auriga was in Aliens? 

But the fact remains - they didn't want to.  Resurrection wasn't popular enough to spawn any more sequels,

Who is this "They"? Citation required. Neil Blomkamp, Weaver and Biehn? Obviously, but they're fairly recent.
I hate how a lot of people keep throwing around this as if it were a fact. Give me examples of people who were specifically approached to make a sequel to A:R and refused because they didn't want to make a sequel to it.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding Star Wars.  That had 25 years worth of books and comics set in that universe, all of which sold in copious volumes.

I swear you aren't reading what I'm saying. It's simple: It took 33 years for them to pick up and make a sequel to Return of the Jedi, does the time taken to make a sequel to a movie have anything to do with lack of desire to make a movie? No. The whole argument that it hasn't been touched in nearly 20 years is ridiculous. If your premise is false, then what you are saying is false.

[SM]

You seem a little upset?

Bull.

What do you base this on?  You seem to have read these books.  Where's the USM?

Right out of Sea of Sorrows, or are you trying to say the Auriga was in Aliens?

I didn't suggest any such thing.  I'm quite clearly talking about "the characters and setting that Resurrection created".  That has completely gone from Sea of Sorrows.  The USM collapsed towards the end of the 24th century, and Sea of Sorrows is over a century later where Weyland-Yutani has regained it's former glory.  And then some.  The setting is akin to Alien and Aliens; not Resurrection.

Who is this "They"? Citation required.

Fox.  If they thought they could make succesful Resurrection sequels, they would've.  They haven't.  They instead moved onto AvP and Prometheus.  And now when talk of sequels comes up - it's not a sequel to Resurrection.  They planned to at the time because the pre-release buzz was very positive.  Didn't pan out though.

Give me examples of people who were specifically approached to make a sequel to A:R and refused because they didn't want to make a sequel to it.

See above.  If Fox thought there was something in it, they would've pursued it.

I swear you aren't reading what I'm saying. It's simple: It took 33 years for them to pick up and make a sequel to Return of the Jedi, does the time taken to make a sequel to a movie have anything to do with lack of desire to make a movie? No. The whole argument that it hasn't been touched in nearly 20 years is ridiculous. If your premise is false, then what you are saying is false.

You seem a little upset?  You need to compare apples with apples.  There was a huge audience out there who were dying to find out what happened to Luke, Han and Leia.  There is not a huge audience out there wondering what happened to Ripley, Noni Ryder, Hellboy and that guy in the chair.

On the other hand, lots of people would like to revisit Ripley, Hicks and Newt.

[Kurai]

You seem a little upset?

Sigh... Just frustrated, not upset.

What do you base this on?  You seem to have read these books.  Where's the USM?

I just gave you a quote, right out of the book, featuring mention of the USM and the Auriga but sigh... Here it is again, this time with page number included and USM in bold if that's what you're missing:

is grandfather had lived in Chicago at that time and had told Decker plenty of stories while he was growing up. One of the USM research vessels, the Auriga, had been taken by terrorists and crashed into France, a country that until that point had been an important part of the European continent. It was a big ship and it did a lot of damage. The massive devastation took the planet literally to the brink of a new ice age, and it wasn't the USM that came to the rescue—it was Weyland-Yutani.
Aliens - Sea of Sorrows (page 43 of ebook, third page of the chapter HOME AGAIN)

I didn't suggest any such thing.  I'm quite clearly talking about "the characters and setting that Resurrection created".  That has completely gone from Sea of Sorrows.  The USM collapsed towards the end of the 24th century, and Sea of Sorrows is over a century later where Weyland-Yutani has regained it's former glory.  And then some.  The setting is akin to Alien and Aliens; not Resurrection.

I was making a mocking gesture about the Auriga, I'm talking about the universe and lore established by Resurrection.

You need to compare apples with apples.  There was a huge audience out there who were dying to find out what happened to Luke, Han and Leia.  There is not a huge audience out there wondering what happened to Ripley, Noni Ryder, Hellboy and that guy in the chair.

On the other hand, lots of people would like to revisit Ripley, Hicks and Newt.

Again, you're ignoring what I said. I was commenting on your false reasoning, comparing the time gaps and saying that the time passing between the end of Resurrection and now is stagnation when clearly it isn't since we've had a movie in the last four years and have another coming next year. I understand perfectly why people want a retcon, I'm only pointing out that your previous reasoning was false. You can't just dismiss valid reasoning and comparisons by taking it out of context of the discussion then ignoring it all together and claim the other is comparing apples and oranges, that's childish and incorrect.

You seem a little upset?

Frustrated and tired of trying to be logical on the internet. 

[Corporal Hicks]

I think SM's point is more about while Sea of Sorrows and Rage Wars maybe post Resurrection and mention elements established in Resurrection, they don't rely on them. Sea of Sorrows is a soft reboot that returns the Resurrection-era to something resembling the Alien and Aliens era.

[Kurai]

I think SM's point is more about while Sea of Sorrows and Rage Wars maybe post Resurrection and mention elements established in Resurrection, they don't rely on them. Sea of Sorrows is a soft reboot that returns the Resurrection-era to something resembling the Alien and Aliens era.

Except he clearly stated:

There's only been one novel that was linked to Resurrection.  Not sure what the other four are.

Which was the point I was contending with in that case.

Though honestly, that's the kind of reboot that I do like, a soft reboot. 

[HuDaFuK]

I just gave you a quote, right out of the book, featuring mention of the USM and the Auriga but sigh...

That hardly makes it a direct follow-up.

SM's right, the book essentially resets the universe to what it was in Aliens.

[SM]

I just gave you a quote, right out of the book, featuring mention of the USM and the Auriga but sigh... Here it is again, this time with page number included and USM in bold if that's what you're missing:

What you're missing is the fact I'm talking about the setting.  The setting for Alien, Aliens and Alien3 is quite different to the setting of Resurrection.  It's Company and marines vs. United Systems Military.  The latter setting was dispensed with, in favour of returning to a vibe that was more in common with Alien, Aliens and Alien3 with the Company and marines.  Doesn't mean Resurrection didn't happen, but it was long way in the past during the time of Sea of Sorrows - as the passage you quoted makes clear.

I was making a mocking gesture about the Auriga, I'm talking about the universe and lore established by Resurrection.

The universe and lore of Resurrection was changed in the decades after those events to be more like the universe and lore of the earlier films.  USM gone; Company back in charge.  More or less.

I was commenting on your false reasoning, comparing the time gaps and saying that the time passing between the end of Resurrection and now is stagnation when clearly it isn't since we've had a movie in the last four years and have another coming next year.

Neither of which have anything to do with Alien Resurrection.  Ditto AvP.

You can't just dismiss valid reasoning and comparisons by taking it out of context of the discussion then ignoring it all together and claim the other is comparing apples and oranges, that's childish and incorrect.

My original point was - there has been no ongoing narrative in the sense of following on from Resurrection for nearly 20 years.  What have I taken out of context?

Which was the point I was contending with in that case.

Sea of Sorrows references Resurrection; it isn't linked to it.  There's no USM, no Ripley8, no Call, no Betty, no cloned Aliens.

[Corporal Hicks]

I think SM's point is more about while Sea of Sorrows and Rage Wars maybe post Resurrection and mention elements established in Resurrection, they don't rely on them. Sea of Sorrows is a soft reboot that returns the Resurrection-era to something resembling the Alien and Aliens era.

Except he clearly stated:

There's only been one novel that was linked to Resurrection.  Not sure what the other four are.

Which was the point I was contending with in that case.

Though honestly, that's the kind of reboot that I do like, a soft reboot. 

There is only one novel that follows on directly from Resurrection using its characters and that is Original Sin (so-so to poor novel from what I remember) and then there's that God awful Alien vs Predator vs Terminator that uses Ripley 8 and Call. I can't think of any else that tie directly into Resurrection.

The other 4 are undeniably set post Resurrection and reference elements of them but they're not direct responses or sequels to. Sea of Sorrows goes out of its way to return the universe to something more like Alien and Aliens.

[Kurai]

I just gave you a quote, right out of the book, featuring mention of the USM and the Auriga but sigh...

That hardly makes it a direct follow-up.

SM's right, the book essentially resets the universe to what it was in Aliens.

Which I never said it was and SM's original point was written as.

(slams head on keyboard)

Ok, ok... I'm out. 

[SM]

That was unfortunate.

[Kurai]

What you're missing is the fact I'm talking about the setting.  The setting for Alien, Aliens and Alien3 is quite different to the setting of Resurrection.  It's Company and marines vs. United Systems Military.  The latter setting was dispensed with, in favour of returning to a vibe that was more in common with Alien, Aliens and Alien3 with the Company and marines.  Doesn't mean Resurrection didn't happen, but it was long way in the past during the time of Sea of Sorrows - as the passage you quoted makes clear.

No, what you're talking about is theme. The setting does in fact take place in the world established by A:R, it just get's rid of a couple of things in a believable fashion.

The universe and lore of Resurrection was changed in the decades after those events to be more like the universe and lore of the earlier films.  USM gone; Company back in charge.  More or less.

Yes it was.

Sea of Sorrows references Resurrection; it isn't linked to it.  There's no USM, no Ripley8, no Call, no Betty, no cloned Aliens.

That. Is. A. Link. It is a connection, it is a statement that that particular movie occurred. No, it does not follow the same characters, I never said it did.

My original point was - there has been no ongoing narrative in the sense of following on from Resurrection for nearly 20 years.  What have I taken out of context?

The movie provides an end point capable of establishing a new movie in a franchise that is ongoing. The time between A:R and now doesn't factor into this as there are many precedents for sequels being made after equally long or longer periods.

Neither of which have anything to do with Alien Resurrection.  Ditto AvP.

Prometheus is part of the same world, the prequel series is just going backwards and starting from a point further back before connecting in to the first film in the franchise once more. AvP is a spinoff but the same thing can be said about it. Their existence doesn't mean there won't be a sequel set after A:R and their existence doesn't mean that the franchise has stagnated.

Seriously, I don't even like A:R that much, I don't get how you hooked me into this debate. 

Retconning is a failure in consistency that shouldn't be allowed when a franchise actually has an ongoing narrative that doesn't need to be retconned.

I'd hardly call 'sitting there stagnating for nearly 20 years and no one is interested in picking it up' an ongoing narrative.

Shame on you SM, I expected you of all people not to make such a silly fallacious comment. 

As of 2012 (4 years ago) we have the prequel series with a new release coming next year, and say what you will about the quality of Alien: Resurrection it left the doors wide open for a sequel.

I stand by this and this is all I mean. I see now that you were focused on Alien: Resurrection, something that I only later brought up in regards to the open endedness of its' ending while I was specifically talking about the franchise as a whole.

That was unfortunate.

I had to reply, I couldn't be out for long. 

[HuDaFuK]

No, what you're talking about is theme. The setting does in fact take place in the world established by A:R, it just get's rid of a couple of things in a believable fashion.

I think it's more that you could delete the fourth film entirely and it really wouldn't affect the book at all. Apart from having to change a couple of throw-away references (maybe a page at the most), the story could still happen as it is regardless of Resurrection.

The author even went out of his way to state that the hero is a descendant of the original Ripley (somehow), rather than Ripley 8.

[Kurai]

I think it's more that you could delete the fourth film entirely and it really wouldn't affect the book at all. Apart from having to change a couple of throw-away references (maybe a page at the most), the story could still happen as it is regardless of Resurrection.

Yeah, I totally agree, but that wasn't the point of the debate. 

The author even went out of his way to state that the hero is a descendant of the original Ripley (somehow), rather than Ripley 8.

I never got that impression, with all the psychic powers and such I was pretty certain he was Ripley 8's descendant, but that's just my opinion.
Wasn't it mentioned in Aliens that Amanda died childless?

[HuDaFuK]

It wasn't in the book, I got chatting to him on another forum. I said I'd assumed Dekker was a descendant of Ripley 8 but he quite categorically stated he was meant to be descended from the original Ripley.