With Disney officially buying 20th Century Fox, the big question for us is the future of the Alien franchise. Does Ridley's plan for the sequel to Covenant continue unabated? After all, if Disney does want to rein him in, they can't do anything if he starts production very soon, since the deal won't close for a year.
But the bigger question is, what now becomes of Neill Blomkamp's film? Would Disney now give it the green light and move to get it done, much the way Disney has moved concerning Lucasfilm and Star Wars? Given that the dose of nostalgia has been key to helping the current Star Wars films, would Disney likely use that in making a "true sequel" to Aliens? If they do move to put it back on track, what will then happen regarding video games? I'd very much like a tie-in FPS game for Blomkamp's film, to essentially be what Colonial Marines was meant to be, but failed miserably at.
It would not surprise me at all if they had another look at Blomkamp's pitch. But I don't expect we'll hear anything anytime soon.
I honestly have no idea what Disney will want to do. I just find this completely ironic because comedy central was playing the South Park episode where Disney buys out Star Wars in 2012...
If they want to tick boxes, as they arguably did with The Force Awakens, I guess they might revisit Alien 5 as it was clearly ticking Aliens nostalgia boxes anyway. However Rogue One was a decent stab at something new and familiar without too many predictable tropes so who knows. I don't see Scott's sensibilities flourishing under Disney's general approach, unless they've got higher aspirations and are willing to let visionaries make deeper films than popcorn fodder/a springboard for FPS games.
They'll definitely get Sigourney back, you can count on it, but they'll also probably want pass the torch to a younger actor. It'll be the same shit that Star Wars is doing now.
Quote from: PsyKore on Dec 18, 2017, 01:37:10 AM
They'll definitely get Sigourney back, you can count on it, but they'll also probably want pass the torch to a younger actor. It'll be the same shit that Star Wars is doing now.
I don't find that a bad thing. I think passing the torch to Newt and/or additional characters would feel satisfying, especially after giving Ripley's arc an ending that it actually deserves that isn't just a poorly-executed "back to zero" move. Look, I don't have any inherent problem with doing that, if it's done well. Take Rocky 6, and having Adrian dead from cancer and Rocky as a restaurant owner. It's unexpected and certainly something many fans wouldn't initially like, but it's handled in a manner that not only feels like a logical progression, but provides a great subconscious reason for Rocky to go the distance one last time. Just killing off Hicks and Newt off screen is so f**king disgraceful, and just throws the fans and those characters under the bus, making it feel that the great sacrifice and effort to save them utterly pointless.
And honestly, I don't really get how the Star Wars fans can just fracture so much, worse than ever before during the prequels. Look, I love the original trilogy, I love the prequels, and I love what has happened on the big screen since Disney bought Lucasfilm. It's of the scope and scale that this massive saga deserves, and it enriches not only the characters, but their stories and the various environments in ways that still manage to surprise. Simple fact is that many of you want Star Wars to take risks, but only the risks that YOU approve of and have settled upon years ago. And because it upends what you thought the world of the saga was, because it completely shatters your notions of how you saw it, rather than simply admit that you were wrong, you say that "things WERE this way, but they changed it to spite us! f**k THEM ALL!", and never bother to understand how this could be the logical end result. Simply put, the problem isn't the films, the characters, the effects, or anything like that. The problem is you and your inflexible, arbitrary standards. The same line of thinking completely runs through the reaction to Disney's filmography, animated or otherwise, as of late, of an increasing backlash for the direction of the Evil Dead franchise, of slamming popular anime series, of dismissing any Call of Duty installment, of the hipster hate and gaslighting over the merits of Final Fantasy X and X-2 and Advent Children, of the "Metallica are sellouts" argument, of the undeserved overly negative reaction to Prometheus and initial mood of "vastly improved" for Covenant, or calling Steven Spielberg well past his prime.
Quote from: Toxic34 on Dec 18, 2017, 02:00:40 AM
Just killing off Hicks and Newt off screen is so f**king disgraceful, and just throws the fans and those characters under the bus, making it feel that the great sacrifice and effort to save them utterly pointless.
Alien: the happy families saga. Like Little House on the Prairie.
It's not about creatures bursting through your chest and caving your skull in. It's about love and family in tough times.
The Alien Bunch. Here's the story of a lovely lady...
'Little House on the Planet'.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 02:21:21 AM
Quote from: Toxic34 on Dec 18, 2017, 02:00:40 AM
Just killing off Hicks and Newt off screen is so f**king disgraceful, and just throws the fans and those characters under the bus, making it feel that the great sacrifice and effort to save them utterly pointless.
Alien: the happy families saga. Like Little House on the Prairie.
It's not about creatures bursting through your chest and caving your skull in. It's about love and family in tough times.
The Alien Bunch. Here's the story of a lovely lady...
They could have easily made their deaths actually mean something, by having both survive the initial crash, then have them be slowly picked off along with the prisoners. It would still be disappointing, but it would have a bigger emotional impact, especially if the xenomorph is directly responsible for their deaths. As done in the film, it is basically "knocked out by default" and "I couldn't be bothered to spend more time on the characters because I put the whole project off until the last day" and the unceremonious nature of their deaths is what is thoroughly insulting.
Quote from: Toxic34
I don't find that a bad thing.
I agree. Fictional characters shouldn't live forever in an ongoing franchise, but that's just imo.
Quote from: Toxic34
They could have easily made their deaths actually mean something
Newt's death did mean something.
rogerebert.com explains it best, imo: "In previous films, her character embodied feelings and values that one loves to see in their heroes—the ability to face awful circumstances and not only survive but conquer deep-seated fears in the process. By this point, however, she has already faced the devastating losses of her fellow crew members from two different missions and of everything that she knew and held dear back on Earth.
The one element of hope that she still has to cling to is Newt and when she discovers that she wasn't able to protect her after all, she is plunged into a sense of hopelessness and despair that is only accentuated by the fact that she is surrounded by people who, despite their own grim circumstances, have managed to find a little bit of faith in life to keep them going."
A theme you may not like regarding Newt, but it's a powerful theme nevertheless.
Quote from: Toxic34 on Dec 18, 2017, 02:31:36 AM
They could have easily made their deaths actually mean something
They did mean something.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 18, 2017, 02:45:47 AM
Quote from: Toxic34
I don't find that a bad thing.
I agree. Fictional characters shouldn't live forever in an ongoing franchise, but that's just imo.
Quote from: Toxic34
They could have easily made their deaths actually mean something
Newt's death did mean something.
rogerebert.com explains it best, imo: "In previous films, her character embodied feelings and values that one loves to see in their heroes—the ability to face awful circumstances and not only survive but conquer deep-seated fears in the process. By this point, however, she has already faced the devastating losses of her fellow crew members from two different missions and of everything that she knew and held dear back on Earth.
The one element of hope that she still has to cling to is Newt and when she discovers that she wasn't able to protect her after all, she is plunged into a sense of hopelessness and despair that is only accentuated by the fact that she is surrounded by people who, despite their own grim circumstances, have managed to find a little bit of faith in life to keep them going."
A theme you may not like regarding Newt, but it's a powerful theme nevertheless.
Again, it's not the theme, as it is quite wonderful. It's the execution that is horrible. This could easily have been achieved by having Newt survive the crash and be killed off in the prison.
Drowning in a cryotube vs. rape and murder by Golic?
I think I'll take the drowning.
But onoes! Carrie Henn would have been 6 years older, and 12 inches taller! ...and you can't have anyone else play that role...
That would be a MORTAL SIN!!1!!!!1
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 18, 2017, 03:14:55 AM
But onoes! Carrie Henn would have been 6 years older, and 12 inches taller! ...and you can't have anyone else play that role...
That would be a MORTAL SIN!!1!!!!1
-Windebieste.
Quote from: SM on Dec 18, 2017, 03:14:06 AM
Drowning in a cryotube vs. rape and murder by Golic?
I think I'll take the drowning.
Anyone could play the role with the proper skill and ability. The role does not live or die on Carrie's involvement. After all, it's highly unlikely that if Blomkamp's pitch is revived that she'll break retirement. And that's perfectly fine.
And I was calling for the xenomorph to directly kill her, not prison f**king. Everyone knows Ripley would make sure that those prisoners wouldn't dare touch her.
Quote from: Toxic34 on Dec 18, 2017, 02:53:17 AM
This could easily have been achieved by having Newt survive the crash and be killed off in the prison.
I understand where you're coming from, but the jarring loss of Newt portrayed an act of random and instantaneous tragedy. It's rare one is allowed to be prepared for a sudden tragic loss. Like a wife telling a husband on the phone on his way home to stop and get bread. Minutes later, she gets a call from the police he was killed in a car accident. It's a shocking and jarring announcement, she was never given the chance to prepare for her husband's sudden loss.
With just one sentence from Clemens, Ripley went from a last strand of hope to a gloomy funk of melancholy in an instant. Would it have the same jarring impact if the film makers "prepared" the audience that Newt will not survive.
You may think it's executed horribly, but I think it's a cogent exercise in portraying how a tragic loss can be swift and shocking, leaving the recipient blindsided.
Quote from: Toxic34 on Dec 18, 2017, 03:24:24 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 18, 2017, 03:14:55 AM
But onoes! Carrie Henn would have been 6 years older, and 12 inches taller! ...and you can't have anyone else play that role...
That would be a MORTAL SIN!!1!!!!1
-Windebieste.
Quote from: SM on Dec 18, 2017, 03:14:06 AM
Drowning in a cryotube vs. rape and murder by Golic?
I think I'll take the drowning.
Anyone could play the role with the proper skill and ability. The role does not live or die on Carrie's involvement. After all, it's highly unlikely that if Blomkamp's pitch is revived that she'll break retirement. And that's perfectly fine.
And I was calling for the xenomorph to directly kill her, not prison f**king. Everyone knows Ripley would make sure that those prisoners wouldn't dare touch her.
Why would Ripley would let the Alien touch her? They were never going to have Newt killed by an Alien back in 1992. Her autopsy and killing Spike with the chestburster were pushing the taste boundary.
Also how would the Alien killing Newt change things?
Ripley barely managed to pull Newt out of the jaws of death. It's quite conceivable that even she couldn't quite do it again another time round, that she tries her damnedest, but it doesn't happen again. And that the same happens for Hicks.
Think of the video game Life Is Strange, and the people you/Max could potentially save, the chances that you have but can't always rewind, and of course that tearjerking final choice you have to make. All the potential deaths that Chloe faces. If anything you are "prepared for death" in just about every way possible. But having it happen isn't any less tragic, any less emotional, any less pulsing with deep symbolism and meaning. Same thing with having the chance to try to prevent Chloe's father's fatal accident, leading to a paralyzed Chloe. I'm not saying that this is exactly how Newt and Hicks should be killed off properly, especially given that the film and this game are more than 20 years apart, but something closer to these lines could easily have been achieved with a writer that was skilled enough to do so...and was not either David Giler or Walter Hill. I think Blomkamp could easily make that happen.
Newt and Hicks are just side characters. Why would you waste time on them when the story's about Ripley? This is not supposed to be Star Wars or a superhero movie. People pay money to see Ripley, not a little girl and a macho but sensitive tough guy.
QuoteRipley barely managed to pull Newt out of the jaws of death. It's quite conceivable that even she couldn't quite do it again another time round, that she tries her damnedest, but it doesn't happen again. And that the same happens for Hicks.
Taking all that into account - how would Newt getting killed by an Alien change Alien 3 in a positive way?
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 03:44:08 AM
Newt and Hicks are just side characters. Why would you waste time on them when the story's about Ripley? This is not supposed to be Star Wars or a superhero movie. People pay money to see Ripley, not a little girl and a macho but sensitive tough guy.
Even side characters should be handled in an intelligent, thoughtful and meaningful manner, that makes one feel it was a logical progression to move towards. The only handling of a character, side or main, that was worse in terms of being thoroughly insulting was how Covenant dealt with Shaw and her quest regarding the Engineers.
Again, Life Is Strange does this in a thoroughly sympathetic and commendable manner. This also applies to things like Cortana's switch to malevolence in Halo 5, characters such as Daisy Fitzroy and the Luteces in BioShock Infinite, the twists and turns in much of David Fincher's later filmography (make no mistake, the good elements of Alien 3 are primarily because of Fincher's direction), or the ensemble cast of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the Evil Dead franchise, and on and on. There's an art to dealing with side characters, and Alien 3 simply doesn't achieve it. Of course, Resurrection and Covenant are far worse in their execution, even if there is never a reason to remotely care about any of the characters in Resurrection.
Disliked the character of Newt in Aliens, but the impact of her death made her a significant character in Alien3. I was more emotionally involved in her thanks to Weaver's acting in the autopsy scene than I ever was in their surrogate mother/daughter relationship.
However, appreciation of Weaver aside, I really hope not to see the character of an ageing Ripley dragged out for another outing with the alien. Newt and Hicks even less so.
Quote from: Toxic34 on Dec 18, 2017, 03:39:34 AM
I'm not saying that this is exactly how Newt and Hicks should be killed off properly, especially given that the film and this game are more than 20 years apart, but something closer to these lines could easily have been achieved with a writer that was skilled enough to do so...and was not either David Giler or Walter Hill. I think Blomkamp could easily make that happen.
Are you suggesting Blomkamp is a better writer than David Giler or Walter Hill? Bold considering the track record.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 18, 2017, 03:44:08 AM
Newt and Hicks are just side characters. Why would you waste time on them when the story's about Ripley? This is not supposed to be Star Wars or a superhero movie. People pay money to see Ripley, not a little girl and a macho but sensitive tough guy.
ALIEN3 and RESURRECTION proved the latter isn't true. Audiences by and large did NOT pay to see Ripley. With diminishing returns every movie after 1986.
I find it ironic though, that despite your seemingly unending distaste for ALIENS. It was that very film the turned the ALIEN series into the Ripley show.
In A L I E N she was just the final girl. No other story relevance, then Cameron came along and pinned a sequel all about Ellen Ripley.
Diminishing returns for every film since 1979, since you seem to be adjusting for inflation.
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 18, 2017, 04:47:47 PM
ALIEN3 and RESURRECTION proved the latter isn't true. Audiences by and large did NOT pay to see Ripley. With diminishing returns every movie after 1986.
Arguably, she was a big part of the box office returns for those films.
QuoteI find it ironic though, that despite your seemingly unending distaste for ALIENS. It was that very film the turned the ALIEN series into the Ripley show.
In A L I E N she was just the final girl. No other story relevance, then Cameron came along and pinned a sequel all about Ellen Ripley.
Yes, Aliens did turn it into the Ripley show. I have no problem with that.
That's why I say Newt and Hicks were just side characters that revolved around Ripley. Ripley is the star of Aliens. It is her story from the beginning of the movie. The others are just supporting characters.
So including Newt and Hicks in Alien 3 wouldn't make much sense. There's nothing more they could add to the story. They are just there to prop up Ripley and that's it. They are not the stars of the show, they are peripheral.
If I were going to keep Hicks or Newt alive I would have kept Hicks alive and had him fill in 90% of the role that Clemens did. Hicks would exit the film in the same way Clemens did. Newt's death in Alien 3 serves a distinct purpose. Hicks is more tertiary and of no importance, which is a disservice to the character, and a disservice to the relationship that was forming there. Boot him, sure, just boot him with a little more meaning.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 18, 2017, 09:14:42 PM
Diminishing returns for every film since 1979, since you seem to be adjusting for inflation.
I stand corrected. :P
QuoteI find it ironic though, that despite your seemingly unending distaste for ALIENS. It was that very film the turned the ALIEN series into the Ripley show.
In A L I E N she was just the final girl. No other story relevance, then Cameron came along and pinned a sequel all about Ellen Ripley.
QuoteYes, Aliens did turn it into the Ripley show. I have no problem with that.
Unfortunately the sequels thought that every story there after needed to revolve around Ripley. They were proven wrong time and again. It's become a curse the series, save for the prequels who have their own identity crisis, still can't seem too shake.
QuoteThat's why I say Newt and Hicks were just side characters that revolved around Ripley. Ripley is the star of Aliens. It is her story from the beginning of the movie. The others are just supporting characters.
While I agree the overall story is heavily written with Ripley at the center. It's not solely about her. ALIENS like it's predecessor and successors have and always will be ensemble films.
QuoteSo including Newt and Hicks in Alien 3 wouldn't make much sense. There's nothing more they could add to the story. They are just there to prop up Ripley and that's it. They are not the stars of the show, they are peripheral.
It's lazy writing to say Hicks and Newt served no further narrative purpose. Same can be said of Ripley after A L I E N. Without the benefit of hindsight. How would you have continued that story? At this point all we know of Ripley as a character is that she was the final girl who beat the star beast and detonated her crew's vessel. We have no other info on her as the film wasn't about her. It was about the Xenomorph.
The mark of great writers is to expand upon those thin plot threads and elaborate on situations and themes. So with that minimal info, Cameron created much of Ellen Ripley's on-screen background and gave her a narrative reason to be relevant past the inquest scene.
The same could have been done for ALIEN3 with Hicks and Newt. It wasn't, not really a big deal too me. But, I can see other people's POV in regards to the ultimate fate of two beloved characters via bad writing. A glimpse into some of those people's reason for disliking the way Hicks and Newt were offed can probably be summed up by a quote from ALIEN3 -
"You're all gonna die. Only question is how you check out. Do you want it on your feet? Or on your f**king knees, begging? I ain't much for begging. Nobody ever gave me nothing! So I say f**k that thing! Let's fight it! "
Except Hicks and Newt didn't get that chance. Which is where the hard feelings come from I imagine?
QuoteWhile I agree the overall story is heavily written with Ripley at the center. It's not solely about her. ALIENS like it's predecessor and successors have and always will be ensemble films.
The only film that was close to an ensemble after Alien was Resurrection by including Winona Ryder. Aliens and Alien 3 were the Sigourney Weaver show.
QuoteAt this point all we know of Ripley as a character is that she was the final girl who beat the star beast and detonated her crew's vessel. We have no other info on her as the film wasn't about her. It was about the Xenomorph.
No, it was about her beating the Xenomorph. Ripley is the only character in Alien who has any development or arc.
Quote from: SM on Dec 19, 2017, 02:31:50 AM
No, it was about her beating the Xenomorph. Ripley is the only character in Alien who has any development or arc.
Definitely the only one with any real arc, but I'd say at least Parker is a pretty well developed character. He's not entirely one note -- he seems lazy and complacent for the most part, but when shit gets real he's one of the people demanding (and engaging in) direct action.
Dallas' desperate talk with MUTHR is also pretty damn humanising, and a fair sight better than we get with most characters throughout the series.
I think they're all pretty well developed in Alien, it's just not in your face.
With Dallas it only occurred to me a relatively short time ago (probably someone else told me; I don't remember) that him going into the vent was very possibly out of responsibility for letting the Alien on board, and not mere bravado. It's something that makes perfect sense, but in no way needs to be stated.
QuoteThe only film that was close to an ensemble after Alien was Resurrection by including Winona Ryder. Aliens and Alien 3 were the Sigourney Weaver show.
Okay, so, in ALIENS Newt, Gorman and Hudson didn't have an arc? How about in ALIEN3? Did Dillon and 85 not have arcs?
QuoteNo, it was about her beating the Xenomorph.
You misunderstand me. I didn't mean that the first film was all about the Xeno without any characters. I realize it's ultimately a survival film in the vein of John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN. In which the only way to survive is for Ripley to kill the killer.
QuoteRipley is the only character in Alien who has any development or arc.
QuoteI think they're all pretty well developed in Alien, it's just not in your face.
So which is it? Are the characters in A L I E N well developed or is it just Ripley?
QuoteOkay, so, in ALIENS Newt, Gorman and Hudson didn't have an arc? How about in ALIEN3? Did Dillon and 85 not have arcs?
How does make them ensemble pieces.
QuoteSo which is it? Are the characters in A L I E N well developed or is it just Ripley?
Are you perhaps confusing developed with development? Ripley goes through a change in Alien; the others don't. But that doesn't mean they're undeveloped from the outset.
I would say, in the entire series, Hudson's arc is probably the most overt and in-your-face. Loud mouth cocky SOB who completely shatters and becomes a blubbering mess, only to rally in his final moments.
It is true that most characters in the Alien films, as with a lot of horror series in general, are there to serve plot-point purposes.
I think the rallying was development. The dissolving into a mess not so much. The bravado was just a cover.
Quote from: SM on Dec 19, 2017, 07:48:33 AM
I think the rallying was development. The dissolving into a mess not so much. The bravado was just a cover.
Yeah, that's true. The
bravado as a whole is almost like a sub-theme of the movie. All of the marines are more or less guilty of it. Save for Hicks who basically is "on the fence" or shall we say open minded. He is the one to ask the only real serious question during the briefing.
It's interesting to isolate the marines in that regard. Those that survive the initial slaughter all have a different position they fill on the other side. Vasquez was basically right along side Hudson with her bravado. The moment she loses Drake she turns into something of strong, quiet team player. She doesn't ever really touch base with Ripley, which would be the obvious stroke for a writer to take. One of those "You were right and I was wrong" things. It doesn't need to be said, but I could see a lesser writer throwing it in there. Gorman is the only one to try and verbalize his repentance to Ripley.
There was a moment scripted between Ripley and Vasquez where they lock eyes in the APC. Ripley doesn't intend the moment to be 'I told you so' but that's how Vasquez reads it.
Quote from: SM on Dec 19, 2017, 04:47:22 AM
QuoteOkay, so, in ALIENS Newt, Gorman and Hudson didn't have an arc? How about in ALIEN3? Did Dillon and 85 not have arcs?
How does make them ensemble pieces.
You're right it doesn't. It does mean they each have interesting character arcs. Meaning not every secondary character is underdeveloped. I'd throw Dallas, Parker, and Call too that list as well.
QuoteSo which is it? Are the characters in A L I E N well developed or is it just Ripley?
QuoteAre you perhaps confusing developed with development? Ripley goes through a change in Alien; the others don't. But that doesn't mean they're undeveloped from the outset.
I apologize I misread that. However as I've stated above Ripley is not the only character to have an Arc in the films. Including the first entry in the franchise.
Dallas goes from just doing what the company wants at the expense of others. Too putting himself in harms way for the sake of his crew and likely a regret for having broken protocol bringing the Xeno aboard.
Parker goes from not caring about anything other than his bonus. Going as far as stalling the work on the wrecked Nostromo, just to have another talk about said bonus. Too someone who is willing to sacrifice his life to save his fellow crewmen/women. If those aren't character arcs. Then I guess I need too brush up on my writing skills.
On Topic: I would guess that if Disney keeps the ALIEN franchise then ALIENS 2 will probably be the route they take. If the Star Wars franchise is any indication. Time will tell if Ridley gets a chance at Awakening or not.
More aspects of Dallas and Parker are revealed throughout the film, but there's no arc.
Dallas isn't doing what the Company wants at the expense of others - he's doing the job he's contracted to do. He leads the expedition to the Derelict - he doesn't delegate it. Again with the vents, he doesn't delegate. He's consistent.
Dallas tells Parker he doesn't want any heroics, which means he was already the sort of person who would fight to help his crewmates. He too is consistent.
Quote from: SM on Dec 19, 2017, 07:16:55 PM
More aspects of Dallas and Parker are revealed throughout the film, but there's no arc.
Dallas isn't doing what the Company wants at the expense of others - he's doing the job he's contracted to do. He leads the expedition to the Derelict - he doesn't delegate it. Again with the vents, he doesn't delegate. He's consistent.
Dallas tells Parker he doesn't want any heroics, which means he was already the sort of person who would fight to help his crewmates. He too is consistent.
We can agree to disagree about what constitutes an arc. Both men are changed from where they started to when they were killed.
As for Dallas. Like you said, he did the job he was contracted to do. Even if it made no sense for the safety of his crew. It's gross negligence bringing Kane on board . But he redeems himself by going into the vent after the creature he knowingly brought on board. Granted he didn't know what a Xenomorph was. Still, he put everyone in danger foolishly. Not for any evil purpose. Like a good company drone, he does whatever the company asks and never once questions it. He does all this out of blind obedience. His lack of
critical thinking is his achelles heel. Thus leading to the death of his entire crew, ship and cargo. Save for Ripley and Jonsey.
" It happens because that's what the Company wants to happen"
" Standard procedure is to do what the hell they tell you to do"- Dallas
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 19, 2017, 08:46:15 PM
We can agree to disagree about what constitutes an arc. Both men are changed from where they started to when they were killed.
Arc has a clear definition. Most of the characters in the Alien series do not have arcs. They have "jobs" to fill in the script.
Dallas and Parker are unchanged by the encounters with the Alien. They both stick to who and what they have always been. None of them really do, in Alien. The reason is quite clear, too. The intention in Alien was to keep you guessing who might go next. Nobody is attributed overt character arcs because they make characters stick out. So all of the Nostromo crew stay the same throughout the ordeal, only their terror is at the surface. That's not an arc, though. That's just turning the prism and seeing a different angle.
Quote from: SM on Dec 19, 2017, 07:16:55 PM
Dallas tells Parker he doesn't want any heroics, which means he was already the sort of person who would fight to help his crewmates. He too is consistent.
Dallas should have told Parker: "You bring me that thing's head and we'll talk all day about the bonus situation."
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 19, 2017, 09:03:27 PM
Quote from: SM on Dec 19, 2017, 07:16:55 PM
Dallas tells Parker he doesn't want any heroics, which means he was already the sort of person who would fight to help his crewmates. He too is consistent.
Dallas should have told Parker: "You bring me that thing's head and we'll talk all day about the bonus situation."
Don't you mean ....
SKULL? ;) :D
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 19, 2017, 09:00:28 PM
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 19, 2017, 08:46:15 PM
We can agree to disagree about what constitutes an arc. Both men are changed from where they started to when they were killed.
Arc has a clear definition. Most of the characters in the Alien series do not have arcs. They have "jobs" to fill in the script.
Dallas and Parker are unchanged by the encounters with the Alien. They both stick to who and what they have always been. None of them really do, in Alien. The reason is quite clear, too. The intention in Alien was to keep you guessing who might go next. Nobody is attributed overt character arcs because they make characters stick out. So all of the Nostromo crew stay the same throughout the ordeal, only their terror is at the surface. That's not an arc, though. That's just turning the prism and seeing a different angle.
I know what the clear definition is. We all have access to an online dictionary. Also, it isn't a matter of twisting the definition of character arc to fit how you view things. Both characters clearly go through an arc. If you disagree, so be it. Doesn't mean I am wrong in my opinion that it's fact they both check off all the boxes that make a character arc. Ripley herself stays consistent throughout the entire film. Which is plays by the book but challenges authority. You are correct though, as in every single movie ever made. Some characters are there solely to fill a role and that's it.
Just so we're all clear:
Character Arc - A character arc is the transformation or inner journey of a character over the course of a story. If a story has a character arc, the character begins as one sort of person and gradually transforms into a different sort of person in response to changing developments in the story. In most stories, lead characters and protagonists are the characters most likely to experience character arcs, although it is possible for lesser characters to change as well.
QuoteBoth characters clearly go through an arc.
In what way?
We just find out more about them, but they don't actually change from the start of the story to their deaths.
It's like Burke in Aliens. On the surface it might seem like he changed from Ripley's ally to would-be murderer, but for him it was always about greed. The audience finding out more about a character doesn't mean they're transforming.
QuoteRipley herself stays consistent throughout the entire film.
No. She is very by-the-book, follows orders, elects to continue with Dallas' plan, etc. until she finds out about the Special Order. After that she quite obviously changes. She decides to go with Lambert's previously rejected idea about abandoning ship. It's all about survival from that point.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 19, 2017, 09:05:41 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 19, 2017, 09:03:27 PM
Quote from: SM on Dec 19, 2017, 07:16:55 PM
Dallas tells Parker he doesn't want any heroics, which means he was already the sort of person who would fight to help his crewmates. He too is consistent.
Dallas should have told Parker: "You bring me that thing's head and we'll talk all day about the bonus situation."
Don't you mean .... SKULL? ;) :D
(https://i.imgur.com/mgx8IdK.gif)
Quote from: SM on Dec 19, 2017, 10:04:30 PM
QuoteBoth characters clearly go through an arc.
In what way?
I already stated why they have arcs. If you don't agree. That's cool, I refuse to answer the same question fifty times.
QuoteWe just find out more about them, but they don't actually change from the start of the story to their deaths.
Obviously we don't agree. I see no further need kicking a dead horse.
QuoteIt's like Burke in Aliens.
No, it's not. That's a false equivalency, Dallas didn't change by revealing his true motivations same for Parker.
QuoteNo. She is very by-the-book, follows orders, elects to continue with Dallas' plan, etc. until she finds out about the Special Order. After that she quite obviously changes. She decides to go with Lambert's previously rejected idea about abandoning ship. It's all about survival from that point.
I stated she was by the book. She doesn't always follow orders see: letting Kane in after Dallas ORDERS her too. She argues with Dallas about Ash and his seemingly taking the science officer's side. In a clear cut case of quarantine procedure that also undercut her place as Warrant Officer (third in command) when both Dallas and Kane are off ship. Which is why I said she " challenges authority ". None of that changes through the rest of the film.
As for the last part, yes she changes gears toward a scorched earth policy as do Parker and Lambert after hearing Ash's little speech. But the game was always survival, once Brett was taken into the vents.
I've yet to see you post anything that's transformative about Dallas and Parker. The guys we see when they die were always those guys.
In this scene you've quoted:
Quote" It happens because that's what the Company wants to happen"
" Standard procedure is to do what the hell they tell you to do"- Dallas
Dallas also orders Ripley to take off despite her telling him the repairs weren't finished. Doesn't exactly scream 'Company drone'. He wants to do his job with the least amount of fuss and get paid at the end of it.
Quote
No, it's not. That's a false equivalency, Dallas didn't change by revealing his true motivations same for Parker.
More is revealed to the audience about Burke, Dallas and Parker throughout the story - but they don't change.
QuoteI stated she was by the book. She doesn't always follow orders see: letting Kane in after Dallas ORDERS her too.
As clearly stated in the film, Ripley was senior officer and legally obliged to have them wait for 24 hours for decontamination. Dallas tries to get her to break the law, and Ash outright does it.
Ripley doesn't challenge authority; she appeals to a higher authority ie. laws and Company rules, when her superiors aren't following them. Taking ones chances with three crew in a shuttle built for two in deep space, is not following the rules. By this point however, the higher authority doesn't care if she lives or dies, so she throws out the rule book.
QuoteI've yet to see you post anything that's transformative about Dallas and Parker.
My post weren't meant too appease you. I stated my case, you weren't swayed. End of story.
QuoteDallas also orders Ripley to take off despite her telling him the repairs weren't finished. Doesn't exactly scream 'Company drone'. He wants to do his job with the least amount of fuss and get paid at the end of it.
I would imagine his attitude at that specific moment was due to the fact he already broke company policy on quarantine. So what else has he got to lose? Still doesn't change the quote about how it's the company who make the rules and they follow. Nor does it change his prior actions of leading a team to an alien distress signal. Leading to his XO getting face hugged.
QuoteAs clearly stated in the film, Ripley was senior officer and legally obliged to have them wait for 24 hours for decontamination. Dallas tries to get her to break the law, and Ash outright does it.
Okay now you're not even trying to read my post.
QuoteShe doesn't always follow orders see: letting Kane in after Dallas ORDERS her too. She argues with Dallas about Ash and his seemingly taking the science officer's side. In a clear cut case of quarantine procedure that also undercut her place as Warrant Officer (third in command) when both Dallas and Kane are off ship. Which is why I said she " challenges authority ". None of that changes through the rest of the film.
Please re-read because you parroted what I already said. Plainly.
QuoteRipley doesn't challenge authority; she appeals to a higher authority ie. laws and Company rules, when her superiors aren't following them.
So I should disregard her arguments with her superior (Dallas) on multiple occasions including in regards too Ash's authority over the Kane situation? Okay, I'll pretend those parts didn't happen.
QuoteTaking ones chances with three crew in a shuttle built for two in deep space, is not following the rules. By this point however, the higher authority doesn't care if she lives or dies, so she throws out the rule book.
Thus challenging the authority by doing so.
QuoteNor does it change his prior actions of leading a team to an alien distress signal.
Is there a problem with those actions?
QuotePlease re-read because you parroted what I already said. Plainly.
You said "She doesn't always follow orders". Dallas is in no position to order Ripley to defy quarantine. He can't legally order her to do so, so his 'order' has no basis. His order is null and void. She is quite deliberately following quarantine orders and ignoring illegal interference.
QuoteSo I should disregard her arguments with her superior (Dallas) on multiple occasions including in regards too Ash's authority over the Kane situation? Okay, I'll pretend those parts didn't happen.
The only reason she is challenging the Captain is because she believes he's not going by the rulebook.
QuoteThus challenging the authority by doing so.
Exactly. She
changed from following the rules to saying 'f**k the rules'.
QuoteIs there a problem with those actions?
Well seeing as how the rest of the film panned out, I'd say so. ;)
QuoteThe only reason she is challenging the Captain is because she believes he's not going by the rulebook.
What she believes is neither here nor there. She is still challenging a figure of authority.
JungleHunter, I admire your patience.
QuoteWell seeing as how the rest of the film panned out, I'd say so.
If he didn't follow the his contractual obligation to investigate the signal - he wouldn't get paid.
QuoteWhat she believes is neither here nor there. She is still challenging a figure of authority.
By appealing to a higher authority. She's essentially saying 'I follow the rules and you have to as well.'
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 20, 2017, 12:08:09 AM
JungleHunter, I admire your patience.
Thanks? ??? :D
QuoteIf he didn't follow the his contractual obligation to investigate the signal - he wouldn't get paid.
Yes I realize that. However, because he did no one got paid.
QuoteBy appealing to a higher authority. She's essentially saying 'I follow the rules and you have to as well.'
Her moral compass or reasoning for arguing with a superior doesn't matter. The basic fact is she is challenging an authority figure by arguing with Dallas. The Captain of the ship, the buck begins and ends with him whilst on board the ship in space.
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 20, 2017, 12:21:20 AM
Her moral compass or reasoning for arguing with a superior doesn't matter. The basic fact is she is challenging an authority figure by arguing with Dallas. The Captain of the ship, the buck begins and ends with him whilst on board the ship in space.
Well, no. Not if we're using real-world equivalents here. In most chains of command the SOP for following an illegal order is that
you don't.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 20, 2017, 01:33:08 AM
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 20, 2017, 12:21:20 AM
Her moral compass or reasoning for arguing with a superior doesn't matter. The basic fact is she is challenging an authority figure by arguing with Dallas. The Captain of the ship, the buck begins and ends with him whilst on board the ship in space.
Well, no. Not if we're using real-world equivalents here. In most chains of command the SOP for following an illegal order is that you don't.
The content of the argument was
not in question. It was whether or not she was challenging authority. Which she was by arguing with a superior. In effect arguing with her boss. SOP for that is... you don't.
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 20, 2017, 01:40:47 AM
The content of the argument was not in question. It was whether or not she was challenging authority. Which she was by arguing with a superior. In effect arguing with her boss. SOP for that is... you don't.
Unless, as previously stated, it's illegal. You don't do what your boss asks you if it's illegal.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 20, 2017, 08:41:00 AM
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 20, 2017, 01:40:47 AM
The content of the argument was not in question. It was whether or not she was challenging authority. Which she was by arguing with a superior. In effect arguing with her boss. SOP for that is... you don't.
Unless, as previously stated, it's illegal. You don't do what your boss asks you if it's illegal.
That wasn't what we were debating. Firstly, she never complied with Dallas' illegal order. So that was never a problem. This has always been about whether or not Ripley's argument with Captain Dallas shows her as a character,
challenging authority.
If that isn't clear, I apologize. I don't know how else I can explain my argument in a way that's any more concise.
Except, that's the whole thing. She's not challenging authority. She's adhering to the letter of quarantine law. Dallas is the one challenging authority.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Dec 20, 2017, 03:03:19 PM
Except, that's the whole thing. She's not challenging authority. She's adhering to the letter of quarantine law. Dallas is the one challenging authority.
I finally see the miscommunication we've all been experiencing. The argument I've been talking about, is not the one in which Ripley rightfully refuses entry to Dallas and Co. . It's the Hallway, scene, where Dallas says " It happens my dear because that's what the company wants to happen ". Nothing illegal about this scenario, just Ripley challenging Dallas' decision in regards to Ash, getting the final say on what happens with the remains of the facehugger.
Thus we have an instance of Challenging Authority. I hope this clears the air. I apologize for not realizing this error sooner.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 18, 2017, 02:25:30 AM
'Little House on the Planet'.
-Windebieste.
Hahaha excellent ! I can already picture a cute chestburster strolling and falling on a field !
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 20, 2017, 03:13:43 PM
I finally see the miscommunication we've all been experiencing. The argument I've been talking about, is not the one in which Ripley rightfully refuses entry to Dallas and Co. . It's the Hallway, scene, where Dallas says " It happens my dear because that's what the company wants to happen ". Nothing illegal about this scenario, just Ripley challenging Dallas' decision in regards to Ash, getting the final say on what happens with the remains of the facehugger.
Thus we have an instance of Challenging Authority. I hope this clears the air. I apologize for not realizing this error sooner.
You can read that scene another way, though. Ripley, the by-the-book officer, is challenging something because it doesn't adhere to her knowledge of procedures.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 21, 2017, 08:58:31 AM
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 20, 2017, 03:13:43 PM
I finally see the miscommunication we've all been experiencing. The argument I've been talking about, is not the one in which Ripley rightfully refuses entry to Dallas and Co. . It's the Hallway, scene, where Dallas says " It happens my dear because that's what the company wants to happen ". Nothing illegal about this scenario, just Ripley challenging Dallas' decision in regards to Ash, getting the final say on what happens with the remains of the facehugger.
Thus we have an instance of Challenging Authority. I hope this clears the air. I apologize for not realizing this error sooner.
You can read that scene another way, though. Ripley, the by-the-book officer, is challenging something because it doesn't adhere to her knowledge of procedures.
I suppose that's one way to look at it. I see it two fold. As in, Ripley Challenging Dallas' decision in regards to Ash. A decision that normally isn't SOP or by-the-book. That hits two consistent character traits in one scene: Challenges Authority and By-The-Books.
By the by Hicks, have you heard any mention of Disney's intentions? Regarding ALIEN 5 from your sources? I'd guess not, however I'm curious if any leaks of possible intent have been gathered by someone on the inside.
Five pages of tangential waffle, disappointing :-[
Back on topic, here's hoping Disney see the overall potential of the franchise in terms of merchandise, books and video games etc. It's because of this angle that they will pump in the money required for, let's face it, a franchise which is running on fumes or muddled prequel's. I think the overall picture will interest them rather than the box office potential alone although done right that could be huge IMO.
Blomkamp is the right guy in terms of the technological style he has, which I think would really blend well with Alien. He's a good director too and loves the subject matter. It'll be a long time before they do, but his script and ideas should be the starting point IMO.
Quote from: Morse on Dec 27, 2017, 12:57:39 PM
Five pages of tangential waffle, disappointing :-[
Back on topic, here's hoping Disney see the overall potential of the franchise in terms of merchandise, books and video games etc. It's because of this angle that they will pump in the money required for, let's face it, a franchise which is running on fumes or muddled prequel's. I think the overall picture will interest them rather than the box office potential alone although done right that could be huge IMO.
Blomkamp is the right guy in terms of the technological style he has, which I think would really blend well with Alien. He's a good director too and loves the subject matter. It'll be a long time before they do, but his script and ideas should be the starting point IMO.
I've not seen anything in his directing or commissioned concept art that inspires great confidence. And if Disney were to primarily look at merchandising based on Alien then that would end it for me. I'm very much for Ridley continuing his themes or just ending it now, without sullying it by once again devolving into the box-ticking action-orientated route.
I hope Disney doesn't shelve the series due to Covenants less than stellar performance. As for Blomkamps involvement? I'd like too see his take on the series. It couldn't hurt anymore than what AVPR did too the franchise. Disney would be wise to look at the fan interest and take note. Even the average fan seems more interested in Blomkamp's Alien 5. Than anything we've seen as of late, save for Prometheus, which did well at the box office.
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 28, 2017, 10:28:13 PM
Disney would be wise to look at the fan interest and take note. Even the average fan seems more interested in Blomkamp's Alien 5.
It's a talking point. I wouldn't say that equates to interest in it going ahead.
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 28, 2017, 10:28:13 PM
I hope Disney doesn't shelve the series due to Covenants less than stellar performance. As for Blomkamps involvement? I'd like too see his take on the series. It couldn't hurt anymore than what AVPR did too the franchise. Disney would be wise to look at the fan interest and take note. Even the average fan seems more interested in Blomkamp's Alien 5. Than anything we've seen as of late, save for Prometheus, which did well at the box office.
kinda agree and disagree at the same time; looking at Chappie, Blomkamp's last theatrical outing, hovering just over 50% with audiences and just over 30% with critics if I worked at Disney im not too sure if id allow half to retcon HALF THE FRANCHISE to please a very vocal MINORITY, especially after how people reacted to the last jedi. I would like to see something done post alien 3 however as Hick surviving is now canon thanks to colonial marines, perhaps Hicks as an old grizzled CO still working against WY attempts to control an alien and perhaps running into an Alien\Ripley Hybrid clone more along the lines of what was shown in the earlier concept art.
Quote from: swarm87 on Dec 31, 2017, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 28, 2017, 10:28:13 PM
I hope Disney doesn't shelve the series due to Covenants less than stellar performance. As for Blomkamps involvement? I'd like too see his take on the series. It couldn't hurt anymore than what AVPR did too the franchise. Disney would be wise to look at the fan interest and take note. Even the average fan seems more interested in Blomkamp's Alien 5. Than anything we've seen as of late, save for Prometheus, which did well at the box office.
kinda agree and disagree at the same time; looking at Chappie, Blomkamp's last theatrical outing, hovering just over 50% with audiences and just over 30% with critics if I worked at Disney im not too sure if id allow half to retcon HALF THE FRANCHISE to please a very vocal MINORITY, especially after how people reacted to the last jedi. I would like to see something done post alien 3 however as Hick surviving is now canon thanks to colonial marines, perhaps Hicks as an old grizzled CO still working against WY attempts to control an alien and perhaps running into an Alien\Ripley Hybrid clone more along the lines of what was shown in the earlier concept art.
If anything, the real vocal minority are those who like 3 and possibly even Resurrection. But the vocal minority appears bigger than they really are because they take up the majority of the Internet presence. A prime example is Kiss. The vast majority of fans have no problem with the band continuing in makeup without all original members. They eagerly pay money to go to the concerts every year. But the vocal minority is anti-Paul and Gene appears larger because they flood the Internet with their vitriolic hatred. The same holds true with Star Wars. The vast majority have accepted the series and the directions it has taken, both with the prequels and the Disney era. The audiences have always come in droves to see the films, applauding wildly and enjoy it. I can distinctly remember my experiences for the Special Editions, the prequels and Disney. Not a single person left the theater disappointed any of the times I was viewing the films there. These crowds of all ages were talking excitedly, saying what an amazing experience it was, and "I can't wait to do it again!" But the butthurt fanboys have succeeded in gaslighting the public, to change the narrative and rewriting history.
Make no mistake, Disney is not anyway pummeled or destroyed by the fandom split. The Last Jedi is a success by every standard, and they are not going to disavow that. The clear majority loves it, and can't wait for more. Likewise, the vast majority want a "true sequel" to Aliens, and would be happy if Disney gives Blomkamp another shot. Even if it doesn't live up to all expectations, it would still be above and beyond far better than 3, Resurrection, AVP, Colonial Marines, and Covenant. (Prometheus is still a fairly good film, but definitely flawed and kept from its masterpiece potential. The original 2-part movie plan or the fanmade "workprint version" as the released film would have been a rousing success, much like how the director's cut version of Kingdom of Heaven would've been thoroughly accepted if it had been the theatrical version).
Quote from: Toxic34 on Jan 01, 2018, 09:58:51 PMLikewise, the vast majority want a "true sequel" to Aliens, and would be happy if Disney gives Blomkamp another shot.
Do you have a source for this?
Quote from: Toxic34 on Jan 01, 2018, 09:58:51 PM
Even if it doesn't live up to all expectations, it would still be above and beyond far better than 3, Resurrection, AVP, Colonial Marines, and Covenant.
Can I borrow your time machine?
Quote from: Alionic on Jan 02, 2018, 06:37:01 AM
Quote from: Toxic34 on Jan 01, 2018, 09:58:51 PMLikewise, the vast majority want a "true sequel" to Aliens, and would be happy if Disney gives Blomkamp another shot.
Do you have a source for this?
Among those who care enough to sign a petition, we have over 5000 for vs 19 against.
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/neill-blomkamp-for-alien5
https://www.change.org/p/20th-century-fox-don-t-retcon-the-alien-series
Quote from: Kelgaard on Jan 02, 2018, 01:33:15 PM
Quote from: Alionic on Jan 02, 2018, 06:37:01 AM
Quote from: Toxic34 on Jan 01, 2018, 09:58:51 PMLikewise, the vast majority want a "true sequel" to Aliens, and would be happy if Disney gives Blomkamp another shot.
Do you have a source for this?
Among those who care enough to sign a petition, we have over 5000 for vs 19 against.
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/neill-blomkamp-for-alien5
https://www.change.org/p/20th-century-fox-don-t-retcon-the-alien-series
A closed petition vs an open one, and the open one has reached the dizzying heights of the population of Stoke Poges..
A source was asked for, a source was given. If there are opposition numbers with greater heights, enough to dismiss us as a "vocal minority" go ahead and share them.
Quote from: Toxic34 on Jan 01, 2018, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: swarm87 on Dec 31, 2017, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Dec 28, 2017, 10:28:13 PM
I hope Disney doesn't shelve the series due to Covenants less than stellar performance. As for Blomkamps involvement? I'd like too see his take on the series. It couldn't hurt anymore than what AVPR did too the franchise. Disney would be wise to look at the fan interest and take note. Even the average fan seems more interested in Blomkamp's Alien 5. Than anything we've seen as of late, save for Prometheus, which did well at the box office.
kinda agree and disagree at the same time; looking at Chappie, Blomkamp's last theatrical outing, hovering just over 50% with audiences and just over 30% with critics if I worked at Disney im not too sure if id allow half to retcon HALF THE FRANCHISE to please a very vocal MINORITY, especially after how people reacted to the last jedi. I would like to see something done post alien 3 however as Hick surviving is now canon thanks to colonial marines, perhaps Hicks as an old grizzled CO still working against WY attempts to control an alien and perhaps running into an Alien\Ripley Hybrid clone more along the lines of what was shown in the earlier concept art.
If anything, the real vocal minority are those who like 3 and possibly even Resurrection.
I'd agree with Resurrection.
Though, for Alien 3 if you do a google search it has gained a lot of love that it didn't have when it was released in 92, and that's thanks to its Assembly Cut. Some see it as finality of the series. It might have its issues though it was better than having Aliens part deux.
Quote from: Kelgaard on Jan 02, 2018, 02:53:56 PM
A source was asked for, a source was given. If there are opposition numbers with greater heights, enough to dismiss us as a "vocal minority" go ahead and share them.
I never heard of a petition
against a film being made, have you?
And 5k signatures is still a hilariously small amount. How is this the
vast majority, again?
Quote from: Toxic34 on Jan 01, 2018, 09:58:51 PM
...if Disney gives Blomkamp another shot. Even if it doesn't live up to all expectations, it would still be above and beyond far better than 3, Resurrection, AVP, Colonial Marines, and Covenant.
* There is no way to know that an unreleased movie ("Alien 5") will be "above and beyond better than" other existing films.
- Did you see "Chappie" and how Blomkamp handled an AI character? It was not "above and beyond" what Fassbender did in "Covenant".
- And Weaver was in "Chappie" as well as in the "Defenders" TV series.
Sigourney is no longer the young, nimble action hero from the old days.
She's visibly slowed down and that would affect what she can do on screen.
- Look at how Arnold did in "Terminator Genesys" for an example of that.
;)
That's why they would've had Newt in her 20s, it was said this film would pass the torch to a younger actress anyways.
Quote from: Alionic on Jan 02, 2018, 05:44:34 PM
Quote from: Kelgaard on Jan 02, 2018, 02:53:56 PM
A source was asked for, a source was given. If there are opposition numbers with greater heights, enough to dismiss us as a "vocal minority" go ahead and share them.
I never heard of a petition against a film being made, have you?
https://www.change.org/p/20th-century-fox-don-t-retcon-the-alien-series
And 5k signatures is still a hilariously small amount. How is this the vast majority, again?
How many would you expect for ANY Alien related petition? It's over twice the goal. All I can say is try and top it:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-alien-3
Petitions are a poor indication of general audience interests. However look at pop culture and ask yourself. Why is ALIENS related merchandise iso profitable and why do they keep making Toys, Plushies, Video Games, Comics, Novels, Prop Replicas, Knick knacks, Apparel, etc. every year since atleast 1990? That's a good starting point for general interest in the series I should think.
Yeah those number of signatures are pretty pitiful. Not nearly as pitiful as nearly 80,000 people signing that pathetic Last Jedi petition, mind you.
Another combat movie akin to Aliens (even if Ripley and Hicks aren't in it) would be successful. Considering Riddles made a great combat movie in Black Hawk Down (which sucked in other regards), there's no reason he couldn't do something similar with a third prequel, and make everyone happy.
Quote from: Whos_Nick on Jan 02, 2018, 07:04:19 PM
That's why they would've had Newt in her 20s, it was said this film would pass the torch to a younger actress anyways.
That was the plan for Alien 4 but it never panned out.
Quote from: Whos_Nick on Jan 02, 2018, 07:04:19 PM
That's why they would've had Newt in her 20s, it was said this film would pass the torch to a younger actress anyways.
She dead.
Quote from: Gash on Jan 03, 2018, 12:11:13 AM
Quote from: Whos_Nick on Jan 02, 2018, 07:04:19 PM
That's why they would've had Newt in her 20s, it was said this film would pass the torch to a younger actress anyways.
She dead.
You don't say?
Quote from: Gash on Jan 03, 2018, 12:16:45 AM
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Jan 03, 2018, 12:12:27 AM
Quote from: Gash on Jan 03, 2018, 12:11:13 AM
Quote from: Whos_Nick on Jan 02, 2018, 07:04:19 PM
That's why they would've had Newt in her 20s, it was said this film would pass the torch to a younger actress anyways.
She dead.
You don't say?
I do.
Thanks for the 25 yr old news. I'm pretty sure he wasn't denying Newt's fate. He was just positing the plans for the cancelled ALIEN 5 Blomkamp was working on.
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Jan 03, 2018, 12:20:22 AM
Quote from: Gash on Jan 03, 2018, 12:16:45 AM
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Jan 03, 2018, 12:12:27 AM
Quote from: Gash on Jan 03, 2018, 12:11:13 AM
Quote from: Whos_Nick on Jan 02, 2018, 07:04:19 PM
That's why they would've had Newt in her 20s, it was said this film would pass the torch to a younger actress anyways.
She dead.
You don't say?
I do.
Thanks for the 25 yr old news. I'm pretty sure he wasn't denying Newt's fate. He was just positing the plans for the cancelled ALIEN 5 Blomkamp was working on.
You don't say.
Quote from: Gash on Jan 03, 2018, 12:36:00 AM
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Jan 03, 2018, 12:20:22 AM
Quote from: Gash on Jan 03, 2018, 12:16:45 AM
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Jan 03, 2018, 12:12:27 AM
Quote from: Gash on Jan 03, 2018, 12:11:13 AM
Quote from: Whos_Nick on Jan 02, 2018, 07:04:19 PM
That's why they would've had Newt in her 20s, it was said this film would pass the torch to a younger actress anyways.
She dead.
You don't say?
I do.
Thanks for the 25 yr old news. I'm pretty sure he wasn't denying Newt's fate. He was just positing the plans for the cancelled ALIEN 5 Blomkamp was working on.
You don't say.
I do.
I honestly can't wait till Riddles is finished with his prequel trilogy just so we can move on to something else, whether it be "Alien 5", "Aliens 2.5", Blomkamp or anyone else to be honest. It's just not sitting well with me and regardless of how you feel about it, there hasn't been a REAL "Alien" movie since 1992 and that's a long damn time.
Quote from: N-Shifter on Jan 03, 2018, 01:08:51 AM
I honestly can't wait till Riddles is finished with his prequel trilogy just so we can move on to something else, whether it be "Alien 5", "Aliens 2.5", Blomkamp or anyone else to be honest. It's just not sitting well with me and regardless of how you feel about it, there hasn't been a REAL "Alien" movie since 1992 and that's a long damn time.
I saw a new one in May last year.
Yeah. It looked pretty REAL.
As real as a make believe monster can be, at least.
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2018, 02:03:03 AM
Yeah. It looked pretty REAL.
As real as a make believe monster can be, at least.
I thought you were tired of all this Pro/Anti Blomkamp topics? Why do you continue too post in them? Especially if you find them so...
disappointing?
How it that related to the topic?
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2018, 03:26:14 AM
How it that related to the topic?
Well, you got done complaining off topic, on another topic. About this very type of behavior. So, I was just curious. How does being sarcastic and piling on help change anything?
back on topic.
Obviously to say a REAL Alien film is hyperbole. It's obvious he would like to see a movie other than DAVID 8 - WAR OF THE WORLDS. Something similar to the first three in the original quadrilogy. Hopefully Disney can find a way to please everyone. However I doubt they could.
QuoteObviously to say a REAL Alien film is hyperbole.
Obviously.
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Jan 03, 2018, 04:16:14 AM
DAVID 8 - WAR OF THE WORLDS
Interesting, but I'm pretty sure it's Blomkamp fans who consistently want this overproduced blockbuster formula of space marines fighting armies of aliens with lots of explosions.
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2018, 04:20:18 AM
QuoteObviously to say a REAL Alien film is hyperbole.
Obviously.
Gotta have that sarcasm that always adds to the topic on hand.
QuoteInteresting, but I'm pretty sure it's Blomkamp fans who consistently want this overproduced blockbuster formula of space marines fighting armies of aliens with lots of explosions.
Maybe? You'd have to poll fans on why they like Blomkamps artwork. I really wouldn't know the exact reason.
What I DO know for a fact is that Ridley has described the sequel to Covenant as a " War of the Worlds". I haven't a clue as to what he means by that?
QuoteGotta have that sarcasm that always adds to the topic on hand.
It helps when combatting hyperbole.
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2018, 04:47:31 AM
QuoteGotta have that sarcasm that always adds to the topic on hand.
It helps when combatting hyperbole.
I'm glad you find this all amusing.
I'm glad that you are glad. :)
I just wanted to apologize too SM and Gash for my behavior. I said some juvenile things and acted immature. I know I'm above this kind of behavior and ask that we can move forward without any bad blood.
Quote from: JungleHunter87 on Jan 03, 2018, 08:40:34 AM
I just wanted to apologize too SM and Gash for my behavior. I said some juvenile things and acted immature. I know I'm above this kind of behavior and ask that we can move forward without any bad blood.
Not really necessary mate. Alien isn't religion, we're not going start a conflict over it, we're all fans with different tastes. :)
Wot he said.
It is just a film series but it's important to remember we're all supposed to be adults here, discussing things as such. I appreciate you making that post, Jungle. Thank you. :)