Why do people hate Alien3?

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

Author
Why do people hate Alien3? (Read 240,962 times)

Cvalda

Cvalda

#465
Quote from: aliennaire on Feb 22, 2012, 11:46:48 PM
And as for A^3, I just don't recognize my favourite heroine in that Ripley after she says "no" to question about daughter. From that very moment till the end it's just a sloping down of the image, that I loved before.
But Newt wasn't her daughter.

Everything Ripley does in Alien 3 is perfectly in character. It's Sigourney Weaver's character, and she threw out every other script for the film that came her way because the writers did not understand Ripley. That's why Giler & Hill ended up writing--Sigourney demanded they do it as they were the only writers who could get Ripley right, especially seeing as they created the character in the first place.

stephen

stephen

#466
Quote from: SM on Feb 22, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
QuoteI WANT to see people overcome the odds.


Ripley did.  She beat the Alien and Company.

As I said before - I disagree.


Quote from: TheMonolith on Feb 22, 2012, 02:09:07 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 22, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
QuoteI WANT to see people overcome the odds.


Ripley did.  She beat the Alien and Company.
SM, I have been saying that for the past several pages.
It's not gonna work.
By the way, I would like to voice my appriciation towards your well thought out and scholarly arguments about this film.
Of all this film's critics, your arguments are the most legitimate.

Like he said - I disagree that Ripley won.

And I thank you for the compliment.  While we may have our disagreements about the film, it is nice to know that we can have a civil discussion about it.


Quote from: StrangeShape on Feb 22, 2012, 05:40:31 PM

Well, the definition of depressing is : causing sad feelings of gloom and inadequacy

In Aliens we have an extremely dark environment, feel and visuals and entire colony of families and kids wiped out, soldiers dying without , sacrificing, Ripley's family being dead, world rejecting her, nightmares haunting her etc. Yes, they make it out alive but at what cost? The ship came filled with marines, came back basically empty with seriously wounded and scarred Hicks, leftovers of a robot and two survivors, both of which just experienced deaths of their entire families. Yes, they overcame their fears and nightmares and can dream again, but its just a tinker of light in the middle of a darkness

Ripley in Alien 3 isnt treated much differently. As in Aliens, everyone she loves is wiped out in the middle of a movie, but the trick here is that she has to go through this a second time and something like this takes a serisous toll on a human being. Te she faces a gloom of a certain and forthcoming death of herself

There is a world of difference between the tone of Aliens and the tone of Alien 3.


Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 23, 2012, 12:02:09 AM
Quote from: aliennaire on Feb 22, 2012, 11:46:48 PM
And as for A^3, I just don't recognize my favourite heroine in that Ripley after she says "no" to question about daughter. From that very moment till the end it's just a sloping down of the image, that I loved before.
But Newt wasn't her daughter.

She was her surrogate daughter.  There was the whole mother/daughter motif throughout aliens.


aliennaire

aliennaire

#467
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 23, 2012, 12:02:09 AMBut Newt wasn't her daughter.
But she might be her adopted child, moreover Newt called her mum in the end of Aliens. Again, we have there this inexplicable pause. (I guess, I've said you before, I'm prone to search the sense for those pauses  ;)). Clemens asks, Ripley falls into minute stupor, and then answers "no".

Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 23, 2012, 12:02:09 AMEverything Ripley does in Alien 3 is perfectly in character. It's Sigourney Weaver's character, and she threw out every other script for the film that came her way because the writers did not understand Ripley. That's why Giler & Hill ended up writing--Sigourney demanded they do it as they were the only writers who could get Ripley right, especially seeing as they created the character in the first place.
Apart from several scripts didn't have Ripley's character in at all, I read Weaver wasn't so much against cameo appearance in the film. It was studio, who demanded "more Ripley" in the franchise. What initially Giler & Hill created was a lucky woman, who fortunately defeated the monster and stayed alive. Who gave her true development was Cameron with adaptation of his Mother script to Giler & Hill demands of battle story.

Cvalda, with all my respect to you and others, I'm not so fond of quarells and disputing, I can almost always find a common divisor in every discussion, it's just the case I never change my mind on. A^3 ruins Ripley's character to me. Just my humble girl's opinion  :)

Valaquen

Valaquen

#468
By David Giler's admission, the most they did for the character of Ripley was have Brandywine's secretary change all of the instances of "he" to "she" from the prior script. [By the actors admission, most of the character work was done on set as the script was so precisely bare]
Weaver has name checked G&H and Cameron as being the only ones to get Ripley. Ward's Ripley read badly.

stephen

stephen

#469
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:17:07 AM
By David Giler's admission, the most they did for the character of Ripley was have Brandywine's secretary change all of the instances of "he" to "she" from the prior script.
Weaver has name checked G&H and Cameron as being the only ones to get Ripley. Ward's Ripley read badly.

It's interesting then that Cameron is on record as having not liked Alien 3.

Valaquen

Valaquen

#470
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:17:07 AM
By David Giler's admission, the most they did for the character of Ripley was have Brandywine's secretary change all of the instances of "he" to "she" from the prior script.
Weaver has name checked G&H and Cameron as being the only ones to get Ripley. Ward's Ripley read badly.

It's interesting then that Cameron is on record as having not liked Alien 3.
He has been kind, having said that the photography and directing was beautiful and that Fincher showed his talent. He just didn't like the script.

stephen

stephen

#471
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:20:22 AM
Quote from: stephen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:17:07 AM
By David Giler's admission, the most they did for the character of Ripley was have Brandywine's secretary change all of the instances of "he" to "she" from the prior script.
Weaver has name checked G&H and Cameron as being the only ones to get Ripley. Ward's Ripley read badly.

It's interesting then that Cameron is on record as having not liked Alien 3.
He has been kind, having said that the photography and directing was beautiful and that Fincher showed his talent. He just didn't like the script.

Quite right - and it was the script I was talking about.  And it is the script that I have a problem with.

I agree with anyone who says that Alien 3 is beautifully shot.  And certainly the score was great.

Valaquen

Valaquen

#472
Much agreed. I love the score.

Cvalda

Cvalda

#473
Quote from: Valaquen on Feb 23, 2012, 01:17:07 AM
By David Giler's admission, the most they did for the character of Ripley was have Brandywine's secretary change all of the instances of "he" to "she" from the prior script.
Though I'm sure he was being a bit facetious when he said that, I think that's one of the reasons Giler & Hill's take on Ripley is so successful--she is simply written the same way as the male characters, and is not in any way defined by her gender in terms of behavior. Whether they wanted to or not, they created what is still the only true feminist hero in science fiction cinema, especially in the third film. One of the things that has always irked me a little about ALIENS is that James Cameron immediately defines Ripley in terms of her gender and then imposes motherhood upon her, not once but twice. It works on a story level, but it's still a step backwards.

Quote
Weaver has name checked G&H and Cameron as being the only ones to get Ripley. Ward's Ripley read badly.
Not to mention the entire Ward script was ludicrous in itself. The basic plot points were sound (which is why they were carried over to Giler & Hill's version), but everything around them was either ridiculous or contrived. It always irks me when people say "Ward's version would have been so much more awesome!" No, it wouldn't have been, and neither would William Gibson's.

QuantumSheep

QuantumSheep

#474
I read the Vincent Ward script and thought it was alright. In that one, the alien seems to enjoy tormenting Ripley and adds some extra menace to it. The actual idea of the "wooden planet" just comes across as silly, though. The place was supposed to have an atmosphere and everything, which is sort of hard to work out considering it was more or less a spherical shaped space station.

Valaquen

Valaquen

#475
Quote from: Cvalda on Feb 23, 2012, 01:28:05 AM
Not to mention the entire Ward script was ludicrous in itself. The basic plot points were sound (which is why they were carried over to Giler & Hill's version), but everything around them was either ridiculous or contrived. It always irks me when people say "Ward's version would have been so much more awesome!" No, it wouldn't have been, and neither would William Gibson's.
I think that a lot of people who like it probably haven't read the script. A lot of their problems with the final Alien 3 emerged from Ward's pen. They wouldn't be happy. Maybe it's a contrarian view or maybe Ward's script has just had good marketing recently  :P

Nero the Jackal

Nero the Jackal

#476
Yeah, one script had a wooden planet! how insane is that!

SM

SM

#477
I would've loved to have seen Ward's script realised - I just don't know how the wooden planet would've been explained.

QuoteSM, I have been saying that for the past several pages.
It's not gonna work.
By the way, I would like to voice my appriciation towards your well thought out and scholarly arguments about this film.
Of all this film's critics, your arguments are the most legitimate.

You're too kind.

RE: The sacrifice - it's probably already been said, but Ripley sacrificing herself for people she will never know means WAY more, than people she does know.  The latter option makes things easier.

Nero the Jackal

Nero the Jackal

#478
Quote from: SM on Feb 23, 2012, 02:11:36 AM
I would've loved to have seen Ward's script realised - I just don't know how the wooden planet would've been explained.

Exactly, it doesn't make sense at all, a metal planet would be more likely but it still sounds insane.

TheMonolith

TheMonolith

#479
Sorry stephen, I was talking to SM. I hope this misunderstanding doesn't offend you.

Quote from: SM on Feb 23, 2012, 02:11:36 AM
I would've loved to have seen Ward's script realised - I just don't know how the wooden planet would've been explained.

QuoteSM, I have been saying that for the past several pages.
It's not gonna work.
By the way, I would like to voice my appriciation towards your well thought out and scholarly arguments about this film.
Of all this film's critics, your arguments are the most legitimate.

You're too kind.

RE: The sacrifice - it's probably already been said, but Ripley sacrificing herself for people she will never know means WAY more, than people she does know.  The latter option makes things easier.
Yes. it is much more selfless to do this for strangers. For someone you know there is a personal reason and more insentive to do it. Since she had less insentive, her final decision is all the more heroic.

Stephen,
What I cannot understand about your argument is the entire point of it is Ripley's death, yet this blatantly disregards the conclusion, which was the death of the alien and the destruction of company prospects. 
You bring up Hudson's death as an example, yet there is a huge difference.
Hudson didn't destroy the next generation of xenomorphs with his death. Ripley did. She didn't want to die until AFTER discovering she was carrying the next queen. Before then she fought just as hard to stay alive, and continued to fight as such afterwards. Upon discovering she was carrying the queen, she destroyed it just like she would have any other. Her death was just what was necessary to do so. Yes, she wanted to die with the runner in the led, but when it came up after her, she didn't sit still and let it kill her, she doused it in the water and destroyed it. She even considered Bishop II's offer for life when she asked for reassurance that it would be killed. When he dodged the answer, she said "Okay. Screw you. This little bitch is going down. This one is for my friends."
I cannot and do not understand your argument of it being in vain and her being defeated when you simply focus on the fact she died and disregard the very reason she died and the successful completion of her goal. Her goal was to destroy the queen and keep it out of company hands. She succeeded. This breaking down of facts goes against the very definition of something that is in vain.
As far as most of us are concerned, that is the end of the story and one of Ripley's crowning moments of heroism.
If it was her surrender, why was it scored with such triumphant music? Upon seeing this scene at the age of 12, it was my favorite part of the film. I stood up and cheered and said "Ripley, you are awesome. God speed and rest in peace."

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