Neill Blomkamp's (cancelled?) Alien 5 project

Started by Jenga, Jan 02, 2015, 02:42:40 AM

Author
Neill Blomkamp's (cancelled?) Alien 5 project (Read 147,671 times)

HuDaFuK

Quote from: Russ on Jan 09, 2015, 06:54:53 AMI brought up the facehugger because HuDa postulates that "Ripley's Nightmare" is daft. It probably is, but A3 relies on the facehugger and handwaves Hicks away ("oh, and everyone's dead, by the way") which is equally not satisfying.

A lack of explanation for the Facehugger is just lax scriptwriting. The dream idea is actively silly.

Corporal Hicks

Corporal Hicks

#241
Quote from: Quarax on Jan 08, 2015, 10:10:52 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jan 08, 2015, 03:10:55 PM
Just cut that clip of the egg, insert some footage of a face-hugger crawling over the Queen instead and boom done. Let's send Charles a message to fix that for the next holographic edition of the films.

The Queen that was ejected into space? :)

Don't be like that. It's obvious I meant it came up at the end of Aliens. But if you want to be that obvious, then just have a shot of it moving away with Ripley in the Loader and the Queen going out it in the unfocused background. If I remember rightly anyway, isn't the sound of a face-hugger in the credits for Aliens anyway.


Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 09, 2015, 08:39:08 AM
Quote from: Russ on Jan 09, 2015, 06:54:53 AMI brought up the facehugger because HuDa postulates that "Ripley's Nightmare" is daft. It probably is, but A3 relies on the facehugger and handwaves Hicks away ("oh, and everyone's dead, by the way") which is equally not satisfying.

A lack of explanation for the Facehugger is just lax scriptwriting. The dream idea is actively silly.

Whilst I would hate to see it - it is slightly more within the realms of "real" for the universe following Prometheus. And the idea of dreams in hyperspace has been a thing since the Alien novelization. ADF talked about it being a profession, where people's dreams would be recorded for entertainment. So it wouldn't be too outrageous.

But I'd hate it as it would incredibly cheapen Alien 3. And as terrible as AR was, the Ripley 8 character has the potential to be utterly fascinating if they explore her Alien connection.

Russ

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jan 09, 2015, 09:16:02 AM

But I'd hate it as it would incredibly cheapen Alien 3.

But the point of it ultimately is to say that "there is no Alien3", so in that regard I think it works - and my guess is that Blomkamp thought so too, given the stuff you say about ADF (it's been years since I read those books). I recall also that visions and dreams were a big part of the very first Aliens comic -- where Hicks is a pariah and Newt is a nutter.


HuDaFuK

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jan 09, 2015, 09:16:02 AMIf I remember rightly anyway, isn't the sound of a face-hugger in the credits for Aliens anyway.

There is, although Cameron has himself said he never intended anything by it other than a bit of fun. But it would tie up quite nicely!

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jan 09, 2015, 09:16:02 AMBut I'd hate it as it would incredibly cheapen Alien 3. And as terrible as AR was, the Ripley 8 character has the potential to be utterly fascinating if they explore her Alien connection.

Same. For all its faults, the ending of Alien 3, with Ripley's death, was absolutely fantastic. I'd hate to see such a pivotal scene arbitrarily undone. And I totally agree about Ripley 8. It's a shame she had such a muddled film as a starting block.

Anyway, how could it all be a dream? You never dream about your own death :P

Russ

Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 09, 2015, 10:04:20 AM
For all its faults

And this is what the retcon would try to address. It's a good but flawed movie, a square peg in a round hole - not the film the franchise needed at the time. I'd agree, it had the ending the franchise needed, but the delivery was utterly botched from facehuggers, eggs and handwaves.

I wonder if NB had it mind to kill them off anyway - but in a more satisfying way. That's the question. That and how he would attempt to retcon in the first place.

I guess we'll never know.

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#245
Quote from: Russ on Jan 09, 2015, 10:28:21 AMAnd this is what the retcon would try to address.

No it wouldn't. By retconning it you aren't addressing anything, merely undoing it. A remake might address it, but not a retcon. And I don't think either is a good idea.

Besides, I don't see the death of Hicks and Newt as a fault. Maybe it wasn't done in the best possible way, but the plot point is solid.

Russ

No, I get that you don't.

But the point of the thread that Blomkamp clearly did.

HuDaFuK

Surely the point of the thread is to discuss how we feel about it?

Corporal Hicks

Corporal Hicks

#248
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jan 09, 2015, 10:30:39 AM
Besides, I don't see the death of Hicks and Newt as a fault. Maybe it wasn't done in the best possible way, but the plot point is solid.

Indeed. It was certainly an integral part of the story and in my eyes, it was done without giving the characters a big grand exit because it wasn't their story. And I think the funeral scene is the best in the series, personally.

The problem is they'll never please everyone. I love Hicks - he's my namesake - and plenty of people love Hicks. But that fan desire is what gave us the wonderful Colonial Marines. I think I groaned more during A:CM and Hicks' revival than during the entire AvPR movie.

SiL

Hicks being killed isn't a handwave either. Hicks saying "that's a longer story" or some shit to explain his re-appearance in A:CM is a hand wave because they do nothing to explain it (until the DLC) and basically tell the audience to shut up and go with it. Alien3's pretty blunt about why he's not there; he's f**king dead.

Russ

"And they all died" is a hand wave. Like I said, if the new Superman movie opened with Clark, Perry and co standing a by a grave that read "RIP Lois Lane" because it served the plot (for say a Wonder Woman romance), that wouldn't be acceptable. In the same way, offing Hicks character was poorly done. Shit, even GI Joe II handled it better than Alien3.

I don't want to get into semantics about what your version of a handwave is or isn't, but "and they all died" for me is on the same level as "it was all a dream". But we've been through that a number of times already.

HuDaFuK

Quote from: Russ on Jan 09, 2015, 02:26:07 PMLike I said, if the new Superman movie opened with Clark, Perry and co standing a by a grave that read "RIP Lois Lane" because it served the plot (for say a Wonder Woman romance), that wouldn't be acceptable.

But that's not really a comparable example. Alien 3 doesn't start with them already dead and buried, their passing is the major plot point for the first half hour of the movie. True they may physically die straight away, but it's not like the whole thing is wrapped up in that single scene. We see Ripley learning of it, saying goodbye (to Newt at least), the funeral...

Your labelling it a hand-wave makes it sound like it isn't an integral part of the movie, but it is.

Russ

OK, so we are getting into the semantics of a hand wave. Look, I think I've laid out my thoughts on this: it was poorly done. If Alien3 was a flawless movie, there would be no discussion to had. If it was a seen as a worthy sequel, there would be no need for recuts.

I think the Assembly cut is a fine film, but as I've said (over and over and over and over and over again), its a square peg in a round hole and was not a satisfying follow on from the previous movie. It's not a question of whether those characters live or die (as I said above a few times) its how it was handled. Many people think it was not well done - Blomkamp included.

Anyway, I think I'm almost talked on this one.


HuDaFuK

Quote from: Russ on Jan 09, 2015, 03:49:10 PMIf Alien3 was a flawless movie, there would be no discussion to had.

I'm fairly sure even if there weren't plot holes surrounding Hicks' death, plenty of Aliens fanboys would be up in arms because they killed him off and they dared not to make Aliens 2.0.

NetworkATTH

NetworkATTH

#254
Quote from: Russ on Jan 09, 2015, 02:26:07 PM
"And they all died" is a hand wave. Like I said, if the new Superman movie opened with Clark, Perry and co standing a by a grave that read "RIP Lois Lane" because it served the plot (for say a Wonder Woman romance), that wouldn't be acceptable. In the same way, offing Hicks character was poorly done. Shit, even GI Joe II handled it better than Alien3.

I don't want to get into semantics about what your version of a handwave is or isn't, but "and they all died" for me is on the same level as "it was all a dream". But we've been through that a number of times already.

Sorry to start my posting on a negative note, but in what planet can you compare Superman and Alien tho. That doesn't make any sense, for a number of reasons.

This is more of a narrative driven conclusion based on the nature of the series. In Aliens, the sudden reduction of the on screen cast (killing off most of the marines) was a clear plot decision made on the point of James Cameron to remove the majority cast to put pressure on Ripley in a dangerous situation she has to come up with a solution for, the outcome if she doesn't for the audience means more characters might die, there is unpredictability and hazard if you remove characters you expected to stay. In Cameron's own words, this is Ripley's journey, and the more characters around her the more the focus drifts, or you cannot develop the characters in satisfactory manner parallel with Ripley, which also is counter to the point of Alien, which is remote isolated terror.

The choice to remove Hicks and Newt worked IMO, because of the dynamics just pointed out Cameron wanted. This is only more so with Newt and Hicks. Their deaths have to be sudden and tragic or else the plot has the potential to get corny/muddled quick; the danger to misstep the two characters and make the movie worse than what you think Alien 3 was was possible.

Also in the dark oligarch capitalist industrial culture of the future that is the world of Alien, what makes you think this would be an appropriate setting for a little girl. If they kill the aliens, what exactly does Newt hope to achieve in her life within the probably crushing socio-economic conditions. You also have the problem they've seen to much and if they come out with their stories, Weyland-Yutani would probably drown them in a massive legal battle because of some non-disclosure agreement they signed. But worst of all, if survived, lets say, happy ending, what exactly is the future of Newt going to look like. Education is probably private, her family is dead, she probably has severe ptsd and will develop dissociative traits and live unhappily. Keeping them alive and happy and well ready for the big screen, isn't appropriate tonally to the previous two movies, there is no development to suggest this would happen, and it would be sadistic to demand the characters go through more and more pain with each subsequent film. Alien 3 understands this, pretty well, and the obvious decision was made for the plot and the setting to remove hicks and newt so Ripley can focus her thematic power on getting rid of the Alien once and for all. A lot of the anger at the idea fails to question what would happen if they lived to survive in this world that is clearly not best suited to people with post traumatic stress, in the world of Weyland-Yutani if you cannot sign to provide every bead of sweat you'll make in your future it doesn't seem like the rest of society will miss you much, poverty associated with lack of mental health care seem likely. Worse, if we look at the world of Alien, Weyland-Yutani will never be accountable for what they did, they pretty much are the Government at that point not too different from the relationship between Britain and the East India Company a few centuries back, even if they were held accountable and got what they deserved the system is set up if that happens more people will suffer because of the infrastructure they provide. This is why anti-trust laws exist, but apparently anti-trust laws are gone in the future, which would make matters worse in the future than it previously did without them.

There is literally, nothing in the Alien series that would be logical and also tonally fit within the narrative and its subtext set up in Alien. All things considered if Newt and Hicks survived they would probably be f**ked.

It's a number of reasons limiting in what can be done for these characters, and tonally it fits to have them killed off and have those questions be asked. It makes it more interesting and dynamic than it would, the vague world building of the William Gibson script.

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