Let's be honest. Retcon, Reboot or Not. Should they let Ripley, Hicks & Co. RIP?

Started by Chris!(($$))!, Mar 04, 2015, 02:36:00 AM

Retcon, Reboot, Sequel: Should they let Ripley, Hicks & Co. RIP?

Yes.
39 (50%)
No.
32 (41%)
Cameo/Supporting Characters at the most.
7 (9%)

Total Members Voted: 77

Author
Let's be honest. Retcon, Reboot or Not. Should they let Ripley, Hicks & Co. RIP? (Read 12,061 times)

NickisSmart

Can't be any worse than a prison priest. : )

Vermillion

Well the alien bores me.

We all know what it does.  How it dies.  How it kills. How it looks. How it talks. Where to look for it. How it's born.

So make an Alien movie without the alien.

Oh guess what... Ripley as the Alien 

I think I saw that sketch...

NickisSmart

Ridley wanted to do Prometheus without aliens at all, and he definitely wants none in the sequel.

Of course, seeing the concept art for Prometheus, this shouldn't have been a problem. But the film was kept so short, with so little of the concept art turned into reality. Ridley "wanted to keep things real" and as a result, there's almost nothing. Feels kind of alien-lite, alien in the sense of any kind of extraterrestrial life. The thing is is that Alien and its cohorts are, at their cores, monster movies. It can be a guy in a suit or a puppet, but if you remove it, something is going to feel missing.

Jarac

Quote from: swarm87 on Mar 26, 2015, 09:25:40 PM
Quote from: Adam802 on Mar 04, 2015, 02:58:54 AM
Quote from: marrerom on Mar 04, 2015, 02:56:04 AM
I voted yes because it seems that the only way to bring back those characters would be to retcon half the series, which is a terrible idea. Either have Alien 5 fit into established canon or dont bother.

Except the 2nd half of the series wrote itself into a corner and hurt the franchise.  Thats why a retcon/alt timeline is necessary.

then reboot the ENTIRE FRANCHISE and start from scratch

That would be a death sentence. God help whoever would have that unfortunate role to helm a complete rebooting of the franchise. I pray it'll never happen.

THE CITY HUNTER

Quote from: marrerom on Mar 04, 2015, 02:56:04 AM
I voted yes because it seems that the only way to bring back those characters would be to retcon half the series, which is a terrible idea. Either have Alien 5 fit into established canon or dont bother.
Maybe change the ending of alien 3 (check my forum)

THE CITY HUNTER

Quote from: Jigsaw85 on Mar 04, 2015, 08:34:19 AM
Let them stay dead! I have never understood this need to bring back Hicks and Newt. Can anyone tell me what's so goddamn great about their characters? Hicks was just a stoic grunt and Newt was just the token little girl in a horror movie: screaming, crying and barely saying anything. Clemens from Alien 3 was a far more interesting and sympathetic character than these two walking cliches. When I first saw them die I was torn up just like everyone else but as I got older I realized this was the right thing to do. Cameron's vision was to have Ripley, Hicks, Newt and Bishop, travel the galaxy as a family unit and fight aliens. Now does that sound like the plot of a Saturday morning cartoon or what? The reason I love Alien 3 so much is because it had balls, It didn't play it safe, you should never feel safe with an alien film. Alien 3 challenged it's audience, it didn't hold your hand and make you feel like everything was going to be OK in the end, like Aliens did. I mean, honestly, did anyone actually believe that Newt was going to die in Aliens? Hell no, the moment you heard Ripley scream "she's alive!" all tension gets destroyed because you know Ripley is just going to save her. In contrast, look at Clemens in Alien 3, he's built up as Ripley's love interest, we get to know his back story, we get to like him and you'd think he would live till the end but no, he gets killed half way through the film. Alien 3 may have it's flaws, but it's the bravest entry in the series and everyone should at least acknowledge that.


Now Blomkamp wants to retcon Alien 3 just so he can have that Aliens 2 wet dream that fans have wanted for over 20 years. Erasing Alien 3 will be the biggest puss-out move in cinematic history. "Oh I don't like that Alien 3 made me feel bad, I wanted the happy go lucky ending for these characters, Ripley and co. should LIVE and be happy forever!" I know it's wrong to assume Blomkamp's reasons for retconning Alien 3 but when you break down what he says and what's in his concept art and the fact that he's talking to  Michael Bein supposedly coming back, it all points to one conclusion: He's retconning Alien 3 for the same reasons we've heard fanboys bitch about for the past 20 years. "They killed Ripley, Hicks and Newt!" Bringing them all back guarantees one thing and one thing only: THEY WILL NEVER DIE! the threat of the aliens will not be felt and the suspense will be none-existent because you know damn well that Blomkamp isn't going to kill any of them after retconing a whole film just so he can have them back. He's going to create a safe film, a film that will please the fanboys and take no chances at all.

Alien 3 deserves it's place in the series and while Blomkamp says he doesn't want to erase it, it's pretty obvious that he does. There's a 57 year gap between Alien and Aliens, there's a 200 year gap between Alien 3 and Resurrection. He can have his film take place ANYWHERE and ANYTIME, so why is he so dead set on sticking his new film right after Aliens? Because "they killed HIcks and Newt Deerrrrr." f**k hicks and newt, give me new characters I can root for.
change the ending of alien 3 (check out my forum)

Kel G 426


Quote from: Jigsaw85 on Mar 04, 2015, 08:34:19 AM
Let them stay dead! I have never understood this need to bring back Hicks and Newt. Can anyone tell me what's so goddamn great about their characters? Hicks was just a stoic grunt and Newt was just the token little girl in a horror movie: screaming, crying and barely saying anything. Clemens from Alien 3 was a far more interesting and sympathetic character than these two walking cliches. When I first saw them die I was torn up just like everyone else but as I got older I realized this was the right thing to do. Cameron's vision was to have Ripley, Hicks, Newt and Bishop, travel the galaxy as a family unit and fight aliens. Now does that sound like the plot of a Saturday morning cartoon or what? The reason I love Alien 3 so much is because it had balls, It didn't play it safe, you should never feel safe with an alien film. Alien 3 challenged it's audience, it didn't hold your hand and make you feel like everything was going to be OK in the end, like Aliens did. I mean, honestly, did anyone actually believe that Newt was going to die in Aliens? Hell no, the moment you heard Ripley scream "she's alive!" all tension gets destroyed because you know Ripley is just going to save her. In contrast, look at Clemens in Alien 3, he's built up as Ripley's love interest, we get to know his back story, we get to like him and you'd think he would live till the end but no, he gets killed half way through the film. Alien 3 may have it's flaws, but it's the bravest entry in the series and everyone should at least acknowledge that.


Now Blomkamp wants to retcon Alien 3 just so he can have that Aliens 2 wet dream that fans have wanted for over 20 years. Erasing Alien 3 will be the biggest puss-out move in cinematic history. "Oh I don't like that Alien 3 made me feel bad, I wanted the happy go lucky ending for these characters, Ripley and co. should LIVE and be happy forever!" I know it's wrong to assume Blomkamp's reasons for retconning Alien 3 but when you break down what he says and what's in his concept art and the fact that he's talking to  Michael Bein supposedly coming back, it all points to one conclusion: He's retconning Alien 3 for the same reasons we've heard fanboys bitch about for the past 20 years. "They killed Ripley, Hicks and Newt!" Bringing them all back guarantees one thing and one thing only: THEY WILL NEVER DIE! the threat of the aliens will not be felt and the suspense will be none-existent because you know damn well that Blomkamp isn't going to kill any of them after retconing a whole film just so he can have them back. He's going to create a safe film, a film that will please the fanboys and take no chances at all.

Alien 3 deserves it's place in the series and while Blomkamp says he doesn't want to erase it, it's pretty obvious that he does. There's a 57 year gap between Alien and Aliens, there's a 200 year gap between Alien 3 and Resurrection. He can have his film take place ANYWHERE and ANYTIME, so why is he so dead set on sticking his new film right after Aliens? Because "they killed HIcks and Newt Deerrrrr." f**k hicks and newt, give me new characters I can root for.

So... yes or no?

szkoki

probably Ripley 8 will clone them for herself :P

Xenomorphine

Quote from: Vermillion on Mar 27, 2015, 11:23:20 AM
Well the alien bores me.

We all know what it does.  How it dies.  How it kills. How it looks. How it talks. Where to look for it. How it's born.

So make an Alien movie without the alien.

Oh guess what... Ripley as the Alien 

I think I saw that sketch...

We also know that stuff about vampires, Nazis, serial killers, arachnids, sharks, etcetera... They can all be awesomely effective when portrayed in the right way, just like they can be generic and mediocre when they're not.

That's what we need to remember. Aliens arguably haven't been portrayed effectively on film since the eighties. That's a big part of why Blomkamp's repetition of saying he's aiming to bring back Giger's biomechanics and psychosexuality, have given me a reason to be hopeful.

Whether or not the story will match up is another question. But based on previous creature work, we should at least successfully get those aspects back again.

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