Why do people hate Alien3?

Started by Basher917, Oct 30, 2011, 05:06:06 PM

Author
Why do people hate Alien3? (Read 240,946 times)

Cvalda

Cvalda

#255
Quote from: aliennaire on Jan 19, 2012, 08:46:47 PM
Depends on what you reckon to be thet he last act. In the very last sequence (well, before the transmision is ended) you see a cryo tubes, like they were in concluding scenes of both previous films, however empty and shattered this time.

As about the false happy end, which perportedly should have taken place right away after critter's death, A^3 doesn't differ from its predecessors again, though this time the finale is quite predictable: we all know, that Alien queen chestbuster is about to hatch out of Ripley (what exactly happens in Theatrical version).
That's not quite what I was getting at.

ALIEN: Ripley escapes after a massive explosion destroys the spaceship. Music swells, tension released. Just as she's starting to relax, the alien drops a limb out of the escape craft machinery. Ripley runs and hides behind a door, where she gets suited up and goes back out to face the beast. She opens the airlock and blows it into space.

ALIENS: Ripley escapes after a massive explosion destroys the colony. Music swells, tension released. Just as she's starting to relax, the alien drops a limb out of the escape craft machinery. Ripley runs and hides behind a door, where she gets suited up and goes back out to face the beast. She opens the airlock and blows it into space.

ALIEN RESURRECTION: Ripley escapes after a massive explosion destroys the spaceship.  Just as she's starting to relax, the Newborn emerges from the escape craft machinery. Ripley confronts the beast (and by confronts, I mean gets all sicky-nasty-makey-outy). She opens a hole in the window and blows the alien into space.

The third film is the only sequel that bucks this trend and dispatches the alien in a clever way.

Valaquen

Valaquen

#256
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 08:27:47 PM
Your post is mistaken. What you are referring to is a VERY early Giler/Hill rewrite. They did something like twenty different rewrites before coming to the final shooting script--which is all them, no O'Bannon. The only reason O'Bannon got sole screenplay credit was because of WGA arbitrations.
They did further rewrites because the one they supplied wasn't good enough; then Scott asked for a return to O'Bannons 'alien' ideas. They did not do twenty rewrites; and the final shooting script (which you can buy in stores or peruse online) was actually cobbled together in Dec 1978 - after shooting had taken place. O'Bannon got credit because the final film most reflected his script which he came up with; from concept, to characters, and so on. G&H's contributions were not minimal but they weren't completely revisionary either. They also have a strange habit of outright lying about their contributions (Giler claimed they came up with the ship's cat, despite the cat already being in O'Bannon's script.) Since when did changing character names and punctuating differently constitute really writing the film? The space crew; alien SOS; mysterious spore; gestating alien; alien-amok-on-a-ship; one survivor armed with a flamethrower; the cat; the "fourth act" etc, are all from O'Bannon's script -- that's why he was credited. G&H added Ash, changed the names, and changed the dialogue (how it's spoken, but not the content). Later, Ridley added his own touches, like writing crew bios and allowing the actors to ad lib, as well as allowing O'Bannon to have Giger on the film and to get rid of G&H's government-alien angle.

I disagree with your assertion that G&H really wrote Alien. They certainly helped, but the film is a collaborative effort between many creative chefs, and O'Bannon shouldn't be overlooked simply because his script reads 'B' [and especially considering that G&H merely rephrased entire sections of the script, rather than altering it]. Even the space trucker element was borrowed from O'Bannon's Dark Star [check the film out for many Alien-esque cues, such as cramped working spaces, malfunctioning machinery, disaffected crew-men, jumpsuit uniforms, porno posters in workspaces, and even a rogue albeit tongue-in-cheek alien on the loose]. Ridley himself name checked Dark Star along with Star Wars and 2001 for influencing Alien. Anyway, as I said: many creative chefs an' all.

Cvalda

Cvalda

#257
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 09:00:07 PM
They did further rewrites because the one they supplied wasn't good enough; then Scott asked for a return to O'Bannons 'alien' ideas. They did not do twenty rewrites; and the final shooting script (which you can buy in stores or peruse online) was actually cobbled together in Dec 1978 - after shooting had taken place.
I actually own an original copy of the final draft of the shooting script, the one amended with visual effects inserts.



Despite having the same basic plot structure, the differences between O'Bannon's original script and what Hill & Giler finally ended up with is the difference between a crappy rehash of It! The Terror From Beyond Space with a mildly interesting twist, to a full-blown masterpiece. Have you actually read the different scripts in their entirety? Giler & Hill's changes are MASSIVE, it's an entirely different film because of them. 

Valaquen

Valaquen

#258
I have several of the scripts, from O'Bannon's through to G&H's first revisions [including the version featuring the human Jockey, Cylinder, etc]. The script you have there is the December 1978 draft - it was pieced together after shooting had finished and reflected what the actors said and did in Scott's cut - not what they had on hand. For example, Ash's "perfect organism" speech was written on the day and wasn't scripted at all. What you hold there is the final stew between Scott, O'Bannon, and G&H's collaboration. The film is not massively different at all. Besides, even if G&H never touched O'Bannon's script, you'd still have Giger designing everything alien [something G&H were actively against] and Cobb and Foss designing the human elements. Likely, with Ridley directing, you'd still get a damn fine film out of O'Bannon's script.

To clarify, I'm not dissing G&H at all [how can you diss Ash or his fabulous speech?], I'm only contesting that they really wrote Alien, which they absolutely did not do. Every plot point in the film is from O'Bannon - G&H refined it into something that certainly reads better, and they added the brilliant Company subtext, but they are not massively different plots, and most of what G&H actually wanted in the movie, they didn't get, because Scott preferred O'Bannon's idea [actual aliens an' all]. Elements like the pyramid weren't cut because G&H didn't like them, they were cut because of the budget. And on and on. I provided a link above, if you read that and still don't think differently in any [minor] way, then we'll just continue to disagree. Not that there's anything wrong with that :)

Cvalda

Cvalda

#259
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 09:33:09 PM
I have several of the scripts, from O'Bannon's through to G&H's first revisions [including the version featuring the human Jockey, Cylinder, etc]. The script you have there is the December 1978 draft - it was pieced together after shooting had finished and reflected what the actors said and did in Scott's cut - not what they had on hand. For example, Ash's "perfect organism" speech was written on the day and wasn't scripted at all. What you hold there is the final stew between Scott, O'Bannon, and G&H's collaboration. The film is not massively different at all. Besides, even if G&H never touched O'Bannon's script, you'd still have Giger designing everything alien [something G&H were actively against] and Cobb and Foss designing the human elements. Likely, with Ridley directing, you'd still get a damn fine film out of O'Bannon's script.
Not exactly true. Substantial portions of the dialogue in my draft differ from what is onscreen. The revised final draft is simply a polished version of the original shooting script--the dialogue changes mentioned in the opening paragraph page are most likely ADR lines. The same is true for the ALIEN 3 final draft script, which I also own an original copy of. I own multiple copies of the scripts for all four films, multiple drafts each, and with ALIEN it is readily apparent between O'Bannon's terrible original draft and Hill & Giler's spectacular end product that most of the script success goes to them, not O'Bannon. Yes, Hill & Giler can come off sounding like major assholes when they talk about O'Bannon's original script, and I originally thought they were being jerks--until I actually got a copy and read it. It's bad. The only thing notable is the chestburster. That is all. So on this count, we are definitely going to have to agree to disagree. ;)

Valaquen

Valaquen

#260
No, but the final script was pieced together after shooting, and whatever was different substantially [ie, Ash's speech or cut content] was revised. The shooting script was dated July '78, and features different lines for different speakers, etc. After shooting, Giler and Hill revised the script to reflect whatever they had seen onset [mostly Giler, as Hill didn't step foot in England]. This script still doesn't reflect the final movie, as you say, because the film was still being cut. As it stands, it's the closest to the final film, though it differs.

As for O'Bannon's script, as said, the content is all there: from ship waking its crew due to an alien SOS, to motion tracking devices and a flamethrower weapon, from hunting the Alien with electrical prods only to get jumped by the full grown creature, an airduct sequence, the Alien jumping two of the crewmen whilst another can only listen, an airlock sequence [that found itself in Giler and Hill's script but not in the movie], Broussard/Kane's body drifting outside the ship [also scrapped in the final movie, though it was storyboarded by Ridley Scott], a self-detonation countdown that is unable to be aborted despite an attempt, the lone survivor dashing through the halls of the imminently exploding ship whilst clutching a flamethrower, saving the cat and taking the lifeboat, the Alien stowing away on the lifeboat, the lone survivor hides in a locker and pulls on a space suit as the Alien is distracted by the cat, the hero shoots the Alien with a speargun and ejects the Alien, which grabs onto his foot,  the hero managing to shake off the Alien's grasp and trapping it outside, igniting the Alien with the jets, and then finally, cryo-sleep with the cat.

^ That is why O'Bannon got his credit, and why Giler and Hill really writing Alien isn't true. None of those things -the story itself- were theirs. They simply refined something they were given. I've said it before: collaboration.

Re; disagreeing. That's fine, because we're wildly off-topic. Let's return to it.

Cvalda

Cvalda

#261
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 09:52:30 PM
^ That is why O'Bannon got his credit, and why Giler and Hill really writing Alien isn't true. None of those things -the story itself- were theirs. They simply refined something they were given. I've said it before: collaboration.

Re; disagreeing. That's fine, because we're wildly off-topic. Let's return to it.
I didn't so much as mean they completely wrote ALIEN as in what ended up onscreen reflects their vision rather than O'Bannon's. As stated earlier, O'Bannon came up with the basic plot, but the difference between his interpretation of it and Giler & Hill's is so massively divergent in terms of quality that Hill & Giler's original claim to the screenplay are justified, in my opinion.

But anyway, back to the topic at hand...  ;)

Valaquen

Valaquen

#262
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 10:01:47 PM
I didn't so much as mean they completely wrote ALIEN as in what ended up onscreen reflects their vision rather than O'Bannon's.
Then I misinterpreted you. Sorry.

QuoteAs stated earlier, O'Bannon came up with the basic plot, but the difference between his interpretation of it and Giler & Hill's is so massively divergent in terms of quality that Hill & Giler's original claim to the screenplay are justified, in my opinion.
I can only argue that Giler and Hill didn't get their interpretation across - O'Bannon did. Giler and Hill wanted no alien elements in the film - the derelict was a human craft called an L-52; the Jockey was a dead human pilot; the egg silo was a government building ['government model 503' according to Dallas] and the alien itself was a human bioweapon. Ridley Scott insisted that Giler and Hill return to O'Bannon's ideas, which they did.

QuoteBut anyway, back to the topic at hand...  ;)
Yeah, my bad  :P So why do people hate Alien 3?  :laugh:

aliennaire

aliennaire

#263
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 08:57:14 PM
The third film is the only sequel that bucks this trend and dispatches the alien in a clever way.

Yes, both times they just bury monsters under the tonnes of hot lead. Repetitiousness it's not what this film is flawed with...

As far as I can judge, stereotypes and cliches in scriptwriting are not so bad, because what matters is a filling for each algorithm's step of the screenplay, e. g. characters and their personalities, scenery, ambience, minor events (which are talking without words), etc.  :)

ALIEN^3: Ripley escapes the fate of being poured over with boiling metal, but the monster escapes straight away after her and explosion takes place. Music swells, tension released, partially though, due to we all know there is still the Alien inside her.. Just as she catches her breath, the company roll in. Ripley confronts them verbally and blows herself down (with a chestburster) into the inner space of (so-called) blast furnace.

Cvalda

Cvalda

#264
Quote from: aliennaire on Jan 19, 2012, 11:06:39 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 08:57:14 PM
The third film is the only sequel that bucks this trend and dispatches the alien in a clever way.
Yes, both times they just bury monsters under the tonnes of hot lead. Repetitiousness it's not what this film is flawed with...
Actually, the alien is dispatched via the wonders of thermal shock, not being drowned in lead. It's infinitely more clever than simply blasting the alien out of an airlock again, like ALIENS did.

Quote
ALIEN^3: Ripley escapes the fate of being poured over with boiling metal, but the monster escapes straight away after her and explosion takes place. Music swells, tension released, partially though, due to we all know there is still the Alien inside her.. Just as she catches her breath, the company roll in. Ripley confronts them verbally and blows herself down (with a chestburster) into the inner space of (so-called) blast furnace.
I don't see how this is in any way analogous to my point that the ending of ALIENS and RESURRECTION simply repeats the ending of ALIEN wholesale. If you are seriously trying to say that Ripley committing suicide in a leadworks is the same as Ripley dispatching an alien through a hatch in a spaceship, I don't think you're doing a very good job at convincing :/

Valaquen

Valaquen

#265
I really liked how they dispatched the Alien in Alien 3. It felt good to see that sucker explode. Saying that, I loved the tussle between the Queen and the powerloader. That was some relief when it was over.

The Golden Fox

The Golden Fox

#266
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 11:18:54 PM
I really liked how they dispatched the Alien in Alien 3. It felt good to see that sucker explode. Saying that, I loved the tussle between the Queen and the powerloader. That was some relief when it was over.

I didn't like the final battle. Throughout the entire film I was able to convince myself that even though it was mostly action taking place, there was constantly some amount of horror.

That sorta flew out of the window for me when Ripley confronted the Queen. I loved the final confrontation in 'Alien' and 'Alien 3', though. Both times Ripley was on the verge of panicking, and barely mustering enough courage to take out the beast, and it felt so much more horrific.

aliennaire

aliennaire

#267
Quote from: Cvalda on Jan 19, 2012, 11:17:07 PM
I don't see how this is in any way analogous to my point that the ending of ALIENS and RESURRECTION simply repeats the ending of ALIEN wholesale. If you are seriously trying to say that Ripley committing suicide in a leadworks is the same as Ripley dispatching an alien through a hatch in a spaceship, I don't think you're doing a very good job at convincing :/

Ripley, killing herself, disposes of the beast simultaneously.
I just tried to say, that the film follows the same general algorithm, as the other franchise's series do. On that level I even like the recurrence. But overall set and means, available (or rather unavailable) for the film's characters define the succession of events, which the movie unveils. I was speaking in general, as you were, comparing three other films between themselves. Nobody can say, that Aliens is a totall retreading to original film, as nobody insists that A:R is a buck blueprint of any off previous series.

Valaquen

Valaquen

#268
Quote from: The Golden Fox on Jan 19, 2012, 11:40:02 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Jan 19, 2012, 11:18:54 PM
I really liked how they dispatched the Alien in Alien 3. It felt good to see that sucker explode. Saying that, I loved the tussle between the Queen and the powerloader. That was some relief when it was over.

I didn't like the final battle. Throughout the entire film I was able to convince myself that even though it was mostly action taking place, there was constantly some amount of horror.

That sorta flew out of the window for me when Ripley confronted the Queen. I loved the final confrontation in 'Alien' and 'Alien 3', though. Both times Ripley was on the verge of panicking, and barely mustering enough courage to take out the beast, and it felt so much more horrific.
Diff'rent strokes an' all. I let my girlfriend watch the films this week actually and she screamed and jumped and was more frightened by Aliens than Alien [she explained the stakes were higher in Aliens for her, because there was more than just Ripley and the cat in danger]. She'd never seen them before. I had the same reaction as a kid. It was great when the Alien came to snatch Brett actually, because she went, "Oh f**k, it's HUGE:laugh:

Cvalda

Cvalda

#269
Quote from: aliennaire on Jan 19, 2012, 11:48:46 PM
Ripley, killing herself, disposes of the beast simultaneously.
You're still missing the point.  :-\
Quote
I just tried to say, that the film follows the same general algorithm, as the other franchise's series do. On that level I even like the recurrence. But overall set and means, available (or rather unavailable) for the film's characters define the succession of events, which the movie unveils. I was speaking in general, as you were, comparing three other films between themselves. Nobody can say, that Aliens is a totall retreading to original film, as nobody insists that A:R is a buck blueprint of any off previous series.
I didn't say that ALIENS was a total retread of ALIEN--I simply said its ending is, pretty much note for note. Hell, even Newt just plays like a human child substitute for Jones.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News