Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Note: this post will not display until it has been approved by a moderator.
Other options
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by OpenMaw
 - Dec 05, 2017, 10:14:34 PM
Quote from: Kane's other son on Dec 04, 2017, 03:08:58 PM
Whedon's version of the newborn was nonsensical: A bone white spider alien that sucked blood. It had no narrative justification and was there just to up the ante and give us a new monster. Just a big bad that looked cool.

It did have narrative justification thanks to dialogue earlier in the script. Gediman makes remarks about the queen's next breeding cycle being different. So it's setup. Which is more than can be said for the final film where the newborn is setup and introduced in the same scene with no setup prior.

Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 05, 2017, 09:42:07 PM
I don't mind that but the rest of the discussion is cheesy when they compare them to ants and bees.  So they're mutated bugs now.

The scene actually does the exact opposite.

"These things ain't ants, stupido!"

The comparison is a thin one.

Every time they try to box the alien into a definition in the first two films, the alien subverts belief.

"What do you mean they cut the power. How could they cut the power man, they're animals!"

Think they're going to get off the planet, a lone warrior acts like a sapper and traps them. They think they have the colony secured and barricaded, the aliens find a way in. Ripley thinks she's gotten away from the queen, it takes the elevator up.


I would point out that, although later media made it clear, it was never made clear in the first film that fire was going to do anything to the Alien at all. Nothing in the film suggests that it does either. Doesn't save or help Dallas one bit in the vent.
Posted by Scorpio
 - Dec 05, 2017, 09:42:07 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Dec 04, 2017, 03:44:14 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 04, 2017, 09:15:19 AM
You mean like that random dialogue setup in Aliens "maybe it's like an ant hive"?
Aliens carefully sets up the queen with another dialogue sequence that is well implemented into the story -- when Ripley asks what lays the eggs. The movie poses the question in the beginning of the second act and answers it later in the third.

I don't mind that but the rest of the discussion is cheesy when they compare them to ants and bees.  So they're mutated bugs now.
Posted by OmegaZilla
 - Dec 04, 2017, 03:44:14 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 04, 2017, 09:15:19 AM
You mean like that random dialogue setup in Aliens "maybe it's like an ant hive"?
Aliens carefully sets up the queen with another dialogue sequence that is well implemented into the story -- when Ripley asks what lays the eggs. The movie poses the question in the beginning of the second act and answers it later in the third.
Posted by Kane's other son
 - Dec 04, 2017, 03:08:58 PM
Whedon's version of the newborn was nonsensical: A bone white spider alien that sucked blood. It had no narrative justification and was there just to up the ante and give us a new monster. Just a big bad that looked cool.
Posted by OpenMaw
 - Dec 04, 2017, 01:22:57 PM
There was dialogue in the script that actually pretty much told us things were going wrong with the queen, or rather, that Gediman pretty much knew things were going to go wrong after a certain amount of time. He makes mention of the "second cycle"

Quote from: Kane's other son on Dec 01, 2017, 03:39:34 PM
Alien Resurrection is a first draft. There's a very interesting subtext about those outside the norm looking for their place in the world: Call, Ripley 8, the newborn.

Unfortunately it is never coherently developed and is buried under an avalanche of slapstick, weird tone shifts and half-baked 90s action cliches.

The Newborn reflects the above confusion. They were going for a tragic character that doesn't fit anywhere. They ended up with a goofy behemoth that could barely move.

That depends on who "they" is because Whedon very clearly was not going for a tragic character in his script. The Newborn was a monster, through and through. It was supposed to be something even worse than the queen because it was the byproduct of the genetic mix, just like Ripley. It was stronger, faster, and more resilient than the adult aliens, and likely even the queen itself. There was even some lip service to the idea that it could breed in some fashion.
Posted by OmegaZilla
 - Dec 04, 2017, 11:22:42 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 04, 2017, 09:23:36 AM
SM previously mentioned an idea that I always liked the sounds of - that the characters have come across the Queen, already dead.
That would deprive the film of the birth scene -- a wonderfully morbid sequence -- however we could have got quick glimpses of the Queen's growing "womb-sac" or something akin, sort of like a visual time bomb. There were plenty of ways to do it
Posted by Corporal Hicks
 - Dec 04, 2017, 09:23:36 AM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Dec 04, 2017, 06:11:02 AM
The real problem with the newborn lies in how it is positioned structurally, narratively in the film. It appears at the end with no previous set-up. You may interpret the Ripley clones as a sort of foreshadowing of where the finale goes, but there's never a clear visual or dialogue-based set-up that specifically points to the newborn.

SM previously mentioned an idea that I always liked the sounds of - that the characters have come across the Queen, already dead.
Posted by Scorpio
 - Dec 04, 2017, 09:15:19 AM
You mean like that random dialogue setup in Aliens "maybe it's like an ant hive"?

Gediman:  If these things came from human dna, then maybe one can grow a human reproductive system and can give birth.  To a New... born [emphasis added].
Wren:  These things ain't got wombs, Gediman.

:P
Posted by OmegaZilla
 - Dec 04, 2017, 06:11:02 AM
The newborn works perfectly for what it's supposed to do in the film; it's horrible, pathetic and sad. It's the whole point of it. Also helps that the animatronic may very well be one of the most realistic film creatures to date.

The real problem with the newborn lies in how it is positioned structurally, narratively in the film. It appears at the end with no previous set-up. You may interpret the Ripley clones as a sort of foreshadowing of where the finale goes, but there's never a clear visual or dialogue-based set-up that specifically points to the newborn.
Posted by Scorpio
 - Dec 01, 2017, 09:57:56 PM
The Newborn didn't need to move, it wasn't part of any action scenes.  I think that's why fans were disappointed, because they were expecting another powerloader vs queen battle.  But there was no battle.  It was more of a psychological battle, Ripley betraying her own offspring.
Posted by Kane's other son
 - Dec 01, 2017, 03:39:34 PM
Alien Resurrection is a first draft. There's a very interesting subtext about those outside the norm looking for their place in the world: Call, Ripley 8, the newborn.

Unfortunately it is never coherently developed and is buried under an avalanche of slapstick, weird tone shifts and half-baked 90s action cliches.

The Newborn reflects the above confusion. They were going for a tragic character that doesn't fit anywhere. They ended up with a goofy behemoth that could barely move.
Posted by OpenMaw
 - Nov 30, 2017, 03:31:29 AM
It meows like a f*cking cat for God's sake.


Imagine an H.R. Giger verison of the Regenator from Resident Evil 4 coming after the crew at the end?






Posted by PsyKore
 - Nov 29, 2017, 02:33:16 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 28, 2017, 10:48:49 PM
How can you say it would have worked better? 

For all we know, it could have been worse.

There's a reason why they didn't use those earlier designs.

I can say the earlier designs would be better, because like with most things in this film, if they cut down on the absurdity and ridiculous nature of the film, it would be genuinely a much greater movie. Those earlier designs offer more intrigue just from a picture of them than the final Newborn does in the film. I'm sorry, but giving the creature sad eyes and facial emotes doesn't create character.
Posted by Ultramorph
 - Nov 29, 2017, 02:11:46 AM
I don't know, I think they nailed the right mix between making the Newborn sympathetic and monstrous. It's mostly the puppy eyes, I suppose, and how horrific they made its death.
Posted by SM
 - Nov 28, 2017, 10:57:57 PM
QuoteI don't know why you assume people don't understand it.

It is because he's given to baseless hyperbole?  ;)
AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News