So I watched the original Space Jockey Scene last night...

[Predaker]

I don't like the idea of them only having a 24 hour life span, but maybe it could work. Perhaps the aliens go into stasis, effectively surviving for longer periods. When they become active again, they die off. Also the aliens could build the hive over several generations. I'm probably stretching this too far, who knows. Newt survived for more than one day on her own I think and the aliens didn't die off then.

[SM]

The creatures in Aliens and Alien3 were older than 24 hours.

[Xenomrph]

Leaked Prometheus "Space Jockey" concept art!!!!!!!!!!!

Spoiler

[close]

[RoaryUK]

Leaked Prometheus "Space Jockey" concept art!!!!!!!!!!!

Spoiler

[close]

From what I've seen so far, I'm truly ready to believe....

[wap069]

is that not a egg sat in front of dallas or is that his knees? looks to me to be an open egg.

[HenryEllis]

Yeah right ok, but you're wrong.  Kids get written into the script in order to deal with themes that kids can relate to.  Like the dialogue between Ripley and Newt when Newt says, "Mommy always said Monsters aren't real but they are."  That line rips down into the psyche of a child and speaks to their imagination on its own level.  Don't try to tell me that's just arbitrary dialogue when it is clearly aimed at the children Cameron is assuming he has enveloped in the world of "Alien". Oh and George Lucas wishes his star wars prequels were aimed at children, more like they're aimed at his wallet.

I'm not wrong. Most films that young boys (example) watch do not feature young boys in them. NEWT was not in ALIENS For KIDS. She was there for Ripley. She was part of Ripley's story arc. That whole maternal thing? Yes, Newt was a character of her own. She had a family that she lost, she was messed up mentally from the entire thing, but she was there entirely for Ripley to find a the strength to face her OWN nightmare. The line at the end of the movie? "Can I dream?" "Yes honey, I think we both can." Their arcs were connected, but Newt was never put there for kids. Newt's characterization in that scene IS for Ripley's sake. It's there so Ripley can step up and play parent to Newt. Cameron was setting up for future story lines where it would be Hicks, Newt, and Ripley. That never happened, but in any event it wasn't for kids that Newt existed at all. It was for Ripley.

Yeah you are wrong or perhaps just a bit naive.  You don't think that Cameron, in all his training as a screenwriter/filmmaker hasn't figured out that by introducing certain themes into his storys, (in this case the theme of a mother-child relationship), he can make them more viable to a wider audience (and as result make more money)?  You really think an "R" rating stops kids from seeing movies, no, if accompanied by a parent-guardian a kid can see any R rated movie they want and after the VHS release even more so (and I had plenty of friends as a kid whose parents took them to R rated movies it was the 80s after all).  You think the R rated Terminator 2 wasn't aimed at kids?  HA! they had a T2 magic eye book in the grocery store when I was a kid (while it was in theatres) where you get the Red Lensed glasses and have to buy the stickers so you can see the pictures without the glasses.  Yeah defenitely not aimed at kids...

[SM]

A studio licencsing arm aiming merch at kids inappropriately does not automatically equate to a movie being aimed at kids.

[HenryEllis]

A studio licencsing arm aiming merch at kids inappropriately does not automatically equate to a movie being aimed at kids.

Your operative word being "inappropriately".  People did not always take as much stock in ratings as they do now.  The rating system was a relatively new idea back when Aliens came out and defenitely did not affect the decision making process of the execs as much as it does now.  The scariness of something is irrelevant, if it can be sold to kids it shall.  And the merchandising may not automatically equate to the aim but its a pretty good indicator.

[SM]

Alien wasn't aimed at kids in any sense - yet they produced toys aimed at children.

Wasn't any fault of the people making the film.

[OpenMaw]

A studio licencsing arm aiming merch at kids inappropriately does not automatically equate to a movie being aimed at kids.

Your operative word being "inappropriately".  People did not always take as much stock in ratings as they do now.  The rating system was a relatively new idea back when Aliens came out and defenitely did not affect the decision making process of the execs as much as it does now.  The scariness of something is irrelevant, if it can be sold to kids it shall.  And the merchandising may not automatically equate to the aim but its a pretty good indicator.

All this noise and chaff aside. Your initial point is still wrong.

Newt, and most child characters in films for older audiences, are not there for kids. Not in movies like Aliens. They're there to give the main characters something to react to.

Doctor. Grant in Jurassic Park didn't like kids. The kids in JP were there to help him learn to get over that and adapt, by the end of it, he has learned something because of the kids. They were not there for the children to relate to. They were there for Sam Neil's character to grow.

The same for Aliens. Newt was there for Ripley's sake. Newt was there to help Ripley come to terms with her nightmares, and to give her a purpose to keep on fighting.

[HenryEllis]

A studio licencsing arm aiming merch at kids inappropriately does not automatically equate to a movie being aimed at kids.

Your operative word being "inappropriately".  People did not always take as much stock in ratings as they do now.  The rating system was a relatively new idea back when Aliens came out and defenitely did not affect the decision making process of the execs as much as it does now.  The scariness of something is irrelevant, if it can be sold to kids it shall.  And the merchandising may not automatically equate to the aim but its a pretty good indicator.

All this noise and chaff aside. Your initial point is still wrong.

Newt, and most child characters in films for older audiences, are not there for kids. Not in movies like Aliens. They're there to give the main characters something to react to.

Doctor. Grant in Jurassic Park didn't like kids. The kids in JP were there to help him learn to get over that and adapt, by the end of it, he has learned something because of the kids. They were not there for the children to relate to. They were there for Sam Neil's character to grow.

The same for Aliens. Newt was there for Ripley's sake. Newt was there to help Ripley come to terms with her nightmares, and to give her a purpose to keep on fighting.

Your point of view is extremely Adult-centric whereas James Cameron's is not.  If characters exist for the sole purpose of providing reactions for the "main" character they become extremely 2-D (just like the soldiers except hicks).  What you don't seem to understand is that Aliens is about Ripley, Hicks, and Newt as 3-D explored and developed characters.  Apparently though, the writers of Alien 3 thought as you do and killed them off but that's another thread.

[SM]

What you don't seem to understand is that Aliens is about Ripley, Hicks, and Newt as 3-D explored and developed characters.

No, it's about Ripley.

Hicks and Newt are there to mold Ripley - to cure her of her nightmares - not develop in and of themselves.

[HenryEllis]

What you don't seem to understand is that Aliens is about Ripley, Hicks, and Newt as 3-D explored and developed characters.

No, it's about Ripley.

Hicks and Newt are there to mold Ripley - to cure her of her nightmares - not develop in and of themselves.

Oh?  Then why was James Cameron so offended when he saw Alien 3.  Obviously they were important enough to him to develop an attachment and no doubt he wanted to convey that same attachment to the audience.  That's what main characters are for after all, to get you attached to something you can identify with within the film.  So that, you may not be watching the movie to see Newt, you're more interested in Ripley Hicks (or maybe even Hudson) and the aliens, just like Newt, but you're watching the movie through Newt's eyes, from her point of view as a child because you are a child.

[SM]

Then why was James Cameron so offended when he saw Alien 3.

Cambo building up this family unit to surround Ripley is irrelevant.  Hicks and Newt exist solely to turn Ripley into the warrior/ mother.  Well liked?  Certanly.  But they have no development as such.  Same as any other female that Cameron writes ('cept blue thundercat girl).  They need someone else - a man 99% of the time - in order for them to reach their true potential, and seem incapable of doing it on thier own.  Cameron thought Ripley's place was being part of a family.  Weaver and others thought otherwise.

[HenryEllis]

"Hicks and Newt exist solely to turn Ripley into the warrior."  Yeah but the fact that she needs someone to Love to turn into that automatically makes those characters equally important.  Thats how Love works my man its never about "I" its about "Us".  A family is defined by the equal worth of all of its members in relation to each other, with no one being more important to the other, if Cameron had denied this when writing it as you are saying he did, it wouldn't have resonated so well with the audience.  Which brings me back to my original point, which is that he made Aliens for kids, not just kids, both kids, moms, and dads, but that still includes kids.