Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Note: this post will not display until it has been approved by a moderator.
Other options
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Immortan Jonesy
 - Oct 10, 2021, 01:23:36 AM
Indeed. Now that would be horrible! Kinda like...

Spoiler
[close]
Posted by SiL
 - Oct 09, 2021, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 09, 2021, 01:58:19 PM
But once you secure Sigourney Weaver's return because you feel you need her, you're boxed into a dumb idea. Painted into a corner. There's no way around it. That bad idea has to be your launching point... resurrecting the dead in someway.
Ripley was a symptom, not the disease. Rsurrecting the dead was the idea before they got Weaver on board - and it came from the top, not the writer. You can't blame Ripley for the producer falling in love with a dumb concept and finding any way he could to make it work.

Quote from: Trash Queen on Oct 09, 2021, 06:34:45 PM
I mean I do not want lineages involved.
This is the right answer.
Posted by Rankles75
 - Oct 09, 2021, 09:45:19 PM
Quote from: Trash Queen on Oct 09, 2021, 06:34:45 PM
I mean I do not want lineages involved.

Agreed.
Posted by irn
 - Oct 09, 2021, 09:11:56 PM
Quote from: Trash Queen on Oct 09, 2021, 06:34:45 PM
I mean I do not want lineages involved.

That would be preferable. Keeping every story revolving around the same people/families just makes the universe feel very small.
Posted by BlueMarsalis79
 - Oct 09, 2021, 06:34:45 PM
I mean I do not want lineages involved.
Posted by Stitch
 - Oct 09, 2021, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: Trash Queen on Oct 09, 2021, 05:22:25 PM
Child of no one thank you.
Not sure how that works. Unless you're meaning a synthetic?
Posted by BlueMarsalis79
 - Oct 09, 2021, 05:22:25 PM
 Child of no one thank you.
Posted by irn
 - Oct 09, 2021, 05:04:22 PM
Quote from: DiabloGuapo on Aug 26, 2021, 09:01:01 PM
I seem to be one of those rare Alien 3 fans. I find the bleak tone of the film fits with the universe of the Alien franchise and that Ellen Ripley's sacrifice was the best way to end her story. But I still want more "Alien" films, and not just the Ridley Scott prequels. Seeing the concept art of Neil Blomkamp's Alien V, I wonder if it could still work but have it be a midquel instead of being a sequel that erases Alien 3. Instead of Ripley and Hicks, could Amanda Ripley and Zula Hendricks work as the leads?

I'd prefer they branched out away from the Ripley story arc and had it be the child of someone else from Alien or Aliens rather than Amanda Ripley. Like they could presumably use Blomkamp's story, which looked interesting from the concept art, but have say Dallas or Parker's now much older daughter team up with Hick's father to take on The Company and find answers instead of Ripley and Hicks.
Posted by Voodoo Magic
 - Oct 09, 2021, 01:58:19 PM
Quote from: SiL on Oct 08, 2021, 10:35:59 PM
Whedon's first idea was to clone Newt and turn her into Buffy the Alien Slayer so no, I do not agree that bringing Ripley back was the foundation of Resurrection's problems :laugh:

EDIT

I got it a bit backwards. Fox originally asked him to write the Newt clone due to Buffy, then switched to Ripley after the outline stage. But still, the creative direction was f**ked from the outset.

See also, every Alien 3 script being pretty lame with or without Ripley.

Certainly bad writing can be greenlit at anytime. But writing can be scrapped too and the production doesn't move forward, and next we read in Variety that common article... "____ film gets a new writer!" And a new writer then takes a whack at it. We're familiar with that occuring in these franchises already. So who knows what could have happened.

But once you secure Sigourney Weaver's return because you feel you need her, you're boxed into a dumb idea. Painted into a corner. There's no way around it. That bad idea has to be your launching point... resurrecting the dead in someway.
Posted by SiL
 - Oct 08, 2021, 10:35:59 PM
An actor's performance is the character in a movie. You can't really separate the two out. Any two actors reading the same lines off a page will give two different performances and create two different characters, however similar.

Whedon's first idea was to clone Newt and turn her into Buffy the Alien Slayer so no, I do not agree that bringing Ripley back was the foundation of Resurrection's problems :laugh:

EDIT

I got it a bit backwards. Fox originally asked him to write the Newt clone due to Buffy, then switched to Ripley after the outline stage. But still, the creative direction was f**ked from the outset.

See also, every Alien 3 script being pretty lame with or without Ripley.
Posted by Voodoo Magic
 - Oct 08, 2021, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: SiL on Oct 08, 2021, 09:09:32 PM
Ripley didn't ruin anything. Her character is a highlight of every film she's in.

To be fair, one can easily argue the performance of Sigourney Weaver was the highlight of every film she's in, not the character Ripley, nor words on the page, especially in Alien 79 and Resurrection. But it's synonymous at this point. With a iconic role performance like this, Sigourney is Ripley and Ripley is Sigourney. To replace her in the role of Ripley is like replacing Bruce Willis as John McClane. Not impossible, but so damn hard not to be perceived as worse or a pale imitation in comparison.

But yeah, I wouldn't go as far to say she "ruined" anything. She just became an expectation with any new Alien movie.

QuoteTerrible creative direction "ruined" the franchise, not Ripley.

Well, the studio believing Alien needs Ripley hamstrung that creativity in the first place.
The bigger picture is audience polling and everything that led to the studio still believing Sigourney as Ripley is necessary for a successful Alien film severely handicapped the creative options in Alien 4. Painted in a corner with a dead character.

I personally would have loved if Ripley stopped with Aliens. Her arc was wonderfully complete at that point. It would have better served the franchise if they moved to another part of the universe at that point in my humble opinion... on Fury with that supporting cast alone without Ripley would have been great to me!
Posted by SiL
 - Oct 08, 2021, 09:09:32 PM
Ripley didn't ruin anything. Her character is a highlight of every film she's in.

Studios getting cold feet and wanting to continue banking on a particular character with name value is no fault of the character itself. Considering the four films which don't feature her hardly achieved stellar responses, it's almost like whether Ripley is or isn't in a story is completely inconsequential to it being good or not.

Terrible creative direction "ruined" the franchise, not Ripley.
Posted by Voodoo Magic
 - Oct 08, 2021, 04:34:05 PM
Quote from: Darwinsgirl on Oct 08, 2021, 03:48:55 PM
It's just my opinion.  :)  As you point out Voodoo the studio made an error thinking Ripley equals a successful ALIEN film. I view her as a heroine in the franchise. I don't think she ruined anything. I welcome new characters and story lines to the franchise. Though I still can see a future for Ripley.

And you were correct Voodoo my examples were about films based on the main characters. I was focused on the "Ripley ruined" part of the previous post. :P

Concerning Resurrection I think the directors choice to go with the dark humor was a big contribution to the "mockery" for some. I think it would have been a much better film if it didn't have that slant.

Yep, just our opinions here, and I 100% respect yours, and everyone's here actually... (except that wacky Voodoo Magic guy - his opinions are a little bit suspect.) ;)  :D

And please don't get me wrong, I looooove Ripley, and love Alien and Aliens, and I'm so grateful for her. Those films are greater because of her (much due to Sigourney Weaver's performance!) But as Arnold was great in The Terminator and Terminator 2, I can see a character and its actor become so iconic and tied to the franchise, that the very character we love can become the franchise's worst enemy... where it becomes seen as - it's not a fill-in-blank movie unless a fill-in-blank actor is in it. Big shoes to fill, even when she's gone. She's no Ripley! That's why I am soooo thankful Arnold didn't return for Predator 2. And thankfully, Ridley's prequels finally helped dispell much of that Ripley audience desire.... yet there's still calls to bring back Ripley and retcon Alien 3.

Regarding Resurrection, yeah, I think you're right, the dark humor, that tone probably contributed to its bad reception. Too me, the replacement of of Alien's traditional realistic characters with comic booky characters also didn't help. Of course, resurrecting your main character starts you off on the wrong foot with audiences to begin with. Audiences are smart enough to realize why the studio is doing this. ($$$) Whatever the case, as an Alien fan, seeing the film as a repeated punchline in late night talk shows and it appearing on critics' Worst Film of the Year lists was no definitely no fun time.
Posted by Darwinsgirl
 - Oct 08, 2021, 03:48:55 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 08, 2021, 02:31:27 PM
Before the prequels, Ripley severely damaged the franchise in the term of the studio worried they couldn't make an Alien film without her, and a result of that mindset was "Alien Resurrection", which (I know it still has its fans here) turned Alien into a mockery at the time for the general audience. Those weren't the good days.

Quote from: Darwinsgirl on Oct 08, 2021, 01:25:33 PM
I don't think Ripley ruined the franchise any more than Indiana Jones,James Bond,John McClane or the Lone Ranger did theirs. Any series needs a good script and director. We all ready know the leads in those films are competent actors (or were).

I think this doesn't quite equate though. Indiana Jones films are about the character Indiana Jones. James Bond films are about the character James Bond. Alien doesn't have to be about Ripley, nor did it need to be.... just as Terminator didn't need to be about Arnold Schwarzenegger's infiltration T-800 model... yet it became that.

To me, the Alien is the star of Alien films, just like in Predator.

In Predator films, there are no recurring characters, nor does there need to be. With Alien, I am personally ultimately good if there are recurring characters, as long as the films never become reliant on them again.  :)

It's just my opinion.  :)  As you point out Voodoo the studio made an error thinking Ripley equals a successful ALIEN film. I view her as a heroine in the franchise. I don't think she ruined anything. I welcome new characters and story lines to the franchise. Though I still can see a future for Ripley.

And you were correct Voodoo my examples were about films based on the main characters. I was focused on the "Ripley ruined" part of the previous post. :P

Concerning Resurrection I think the directors choice to go with the dark humor was a big contribution to the "mockery" for some. I think it would have been a much better film if it didn't have that slant.
Posted by Drukathi
 - Oct 08, 2021, 02:50:16 PM
I think Predator franchise has a clear win in this aspect.
AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News