Poll
Question:
Retcon, Reboot, Sequel: Should they let Ripley, Hicks & Co. RIP?
Option 1: Yes.
votes: 39
Option 2: No.
votes: 32
Option 3: Cameo/Supporting Characters at the most.
votes: 7
Personally... I think I'd rather them just let the characters RIP BUT if I had to settle I certainly wouldn't want 60 year old Hicks and Ripley being the main characters.
I think most people (both on these forums and fans worldwide) want a new film set after ALIENS with Ripley and Hicks. So much potential to revive the franchise.
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.
Personally... I think Ripley and Hicks' story is done. Let sleeping dogs lie.
But if this is going to be an alternate timeline, and hopefully not a retcon which will write Alien 3 and Resurrection as dreams, then they can do whatever they hell they want.
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.
Quote from: Adam802 on Mar 04, 2015, 02:58:54 AM
Except the 2nd half of the series wrote itself into a corner and hurt the franchise. Thats why a retcon/alt timeline is necessary.
Its not necessary at all. Some people just cant move on from Aliens is all. I would much rather have the franchise follow Ripley 8 then retread old ground with Ripley & Hick's taking on Weyland-Yutani again.
Retconning is what will hurt the franchise. Its a cheap and lazy way to tell a story.
Quote from: marrerom on Mar 04, 2015, 03:06:04 AM
Retconning is what will hurt the franchise. Its a cheap and lazy way to tell a story.
Which is why I am hoping that this will be an alternate timeline.
Retconning would require a write-in/write-out.
Quote from: RakaiThwei on Mar 04, 2015, 03:14:03 AM
Quote from: marrerom on Mar 04, 2015, 03:06:04 AM
Retconning is what will hurt the franchise. Its a cheap and lazy way to tell a story.
Which is why I am hoping that this will be an alternate timeline.
Retconning would require a write-in/write-out.
An alternate timeline is also cheap and lazy. Its done for the same exact reasons a retcon is and it further muddles things by adding weird fantastical elements to what should be a series that's grounded in gritty realism.
Seriously, I'm hearing don't retcon Alien 3 and Resurrection, don't render them dreams, amnesia, false memories. Then I'm hearing retcon Alien 3 and Resurrection, go the route of dreams, amnesia, false memories..
You can't reconcile one and the other (Alien 3 and Alienkamp) without further muddling things.. What is it you want?
Quote from: RakaiThwei on Mar 04, 2015, 03:23:31 AM
[Sighs] ....What do you people want?
Seriously, I'm hearing don't retcon Alien 3 and Resurrection, don't render them dreams, amnesia, false memories. Then I'm hearing retcon Alien 3 and Resurrection, go the route of dreams, amnesia, false memories..
You can't reconcile one and the other without further muddling things.. What is it you want?
I cant speak for others but all I want is Alien 5 to take place after Alien 4. No alternate timelines, no multiple dimensions,
no retcon. I also liked Aliens but I'm not in favor of butchering continuity so that I can have Aliens 2
Quote from: marrerom on Mar 04, 2015, 03:28:01 AM
I cant speak for others but all I want is Alien 5 to take place after Alien 4. No alternate timelines, no multiple dimensions, no retcon.
And that is fine to want that, I wanted that too at some point but it doesn't look like we're going to get that based on Blomkamp's words. You could argue conjecture and all of that, which is fine and dandy but all signs point to the possibility that it's not going that particular route. Now, I'm willing to be proven wrong but something tells me we're not gonna get that.
For me, it's all about reason. I don't have much of an issue with Alien 3 or Resurrection, which is why I'd like them to remain canon. Even though I enjoy the first two films a lot, there is still no reason to remove, retcon or cheapen the existence of the last 2 films. I can understand that people are/were upset with the unceremonious deaths of the survivors from Aliens, but I really don't have a problem with that (Ripley's misfortune is that she is a lone survivor that lives when everything else dies).
Would have it been interesting to revisit an Aliens sequel? Sure, if it had been done over 20 years ago. However we can't go back now and pick back up when we left the Sulaco. For me it just doesn't make sense to go back now.
Quote from: Chris!(($$))! on Mar 04, 2015, 02:36:00 AM
Personally... I think I'd rather them just let the characters RIP BUT if I had to settle I certainly wouldn't want 60 year old Hicks and Ripley being the main characters.
Seconding this.
What's the problem with them being older?
What would be the retcon if they're not bringing back ripley and hicks.
there wouldn't be a retcon
Ripley and Hicks returning would have been a great idea in 1988...
...but this aint 1988, huh.
Why should this movie be so dependent on these 2 characters? This is a big Universe. Aren't there other USCM stories that an 'ALIENS 2' movie could easily accommodate without the need to break canon???
Apparently not.
At this stage, I am so looking forward to 'ALIENS: Colonial Marines - The Movie' in which we get both Hicks and Ripley returning. This is going to be absolutely brilliant!*
-Windebieste.
*Those last 2 lines are sarcasm, for those incapable of detecting such.
I think you all need to understand the power of money.
Alien 3 and A:R are gone
Slow leak in cryotubes...gives us older Ripley and Hicks and Newt.
You'll pay to see it.
You'll go nuts for the pulse rifles
You'll buy the Blurays
You'll buy the Toys
Relax.
The poll portion of this doesn't work for me because only half of this applies. Frankly, I am glad they want to finish Ripley's story because it was a horrible way to leave the franchise off, and hope that I am satisfied with the decisions in the end,... But to me, I haven't an ounce of understanding why Hicks needs to be alive. To me, the real tragedy in there was Newt's death (and that's fine too). Hicks was a side character and I never became too attached to him, in any way during Aliens. He was a quasi-love interest. A bad-ass one, sure, but bad-asses die too. Even Bishop was a more interesting fleshed out character. You can say maybe two sentences about his character after watching Aliens. There is next to no character development for Hicks. He is a marine. He is courageous. He is into Ripley... That's it!!! So, I have no idea why this character's survival mattered to anyone. Dallas dies, Hicks dies, Clemens dies... and Clemens has 30x the character development that Hicks doesn't. You know what? He's dead! The Alien killed him. And etc. That's the extent of the space Hicks occupied for me. So I've just always been like "He's dead! What's the big f**kin' deal b*tch?"
I suspect that 12 year olds really wanted to be a cheesy Space Marine when they saw Aliens and whichever cheesy-ass Space Marine ended up living after killing a few Aliens, be it Hudson, Apone, or Weirzbowski, would now have the same overpraised status in this fan community as Hicks does.
Sorry. Space Marines are cheesy. They'd also be a lot less cheesy if fan-BOIS would stop sweating them so much. Do you remember how corny Space Pirates seemed in A:R? Its almost just as bad.
The global population is getting older... target audiences. Geriatric xenomorphs.
Quote from: marrerom on Mar 04, 2015, 03:28:01 AM
Quote from: RakaiThwei on Mar 04, 2015, 03:23:31 AM
[Sighs] ....What do you people want?
Seriously, I'm hearing don't retcon Alien 3 and Resurrection, don't render them dreams, amnesia, false memories. Then I'm hearing retcon Alien 3 and Resurrection, go the route of dreams, amnesia, false memories..
You can't reconcile one and the other without further muddling things.. What is it you want?
I cant speak for others but all I want is Alien 5 to take place after Alien 4. No alternate timelines, no multiple dimensions, no retcon.
I also liked Aliens but I'm not in favor of butchering continuity so that I can have Aliens 2
In case you didn't know it yet, I'm with this chap^^^.
Quote from: RakaiThwei on Mar 04, 2015, 03:30:12 AM
Quote from: marrerom on Mar 04, 2015, 03:28:01 AM
I cant speak for others but all I want is Alien 5 to take place after Alien 4. No alternate timelines, no multiple dimensions, no retcon.
And that is fine to want that, I wanted that too at some point but it doesn't look like we're going to get that based on Blomkamp's words. You could argue conjecture and all of that, which is fine and dandy but all signs point to the possibility that it's not going that particular route. Now, I'm willing to be proven wrong but something tells me we're not gonna get that.
Im holding out some hope that by "filling in the gap" Blomkmp actually means to make a sequel that depicts events leading up to Alien 3, with her replacing Hicks and Newt in Cryo and etc, etc... The problem with this however, is why would a movie bein as a mystery if the answer to it is then made into a movie. This is the one decision A:CM made that I actually agreed with. The "That's a longer story/another story" bit regarding how someone else ended up in that cryotube.
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.
They should let them RIP. I think returning Ripley and Hicks is sort of misguided. They keep wanting to bring those characters back because of the fondness people have for Aliens and the great movie it was; people want to relive that. They should be instead trying to move on and make a good movie on its own merits. I believe a new movie with new characters can be done provided it has attention to detail and passion put into it.
I just always get this sense that movie makers are afraid to try something new or just don't have the interest in working hard to make something different nowadays. It's all spectacle and gimmicks. I'm not naive to the fact that it's a very money-focused industry, but it's now to the point where things are stagnated. We need to move on.
Quote from: marrerom on Mar 04, 2015, 03:28:01 AMI cant speak for others but all I want is Alien 5 to take place after Alien 4. No alternate timelines, no multiple dimensions, no retcon.
I also liked Aliens but I'm not in favor of butchering continuity so that I can have Aliens 2
You can speak for me.
It isn't a retcon though, it's more so a parallel universe. In all honestly we could still get A|R 2 being how both timelines will be in place. That's not what I wanted, I don't like the competing camps timeline but it is what it is.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Mar 04, 2015, 09:41:27 AMIt isn't a retcon though, it's more so a parallel universe.
According to whom?
We still don't really know
what the new film is going to be.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Mar 04, 2015, 09:43:27 AM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Mar 04, 2015, 09:41:27 AMIt isn't a retcon though, it's more so a parallel universe.
According to whom?
We still don't really know what the new film is going to be.
Oh, thought it was reported that the movie was going to be a Y in the road after aliens, so to speak. In one branch we have Alien3 and A|R and in the other NB aliens sequel.
Everything seems to be very confused at the moment. One minute the new movie is writing off the later films, the next Blomkamp says that's what he doesn't want to do.
I'm still waiting on a concrete announcement before I put all my faith in any one suggestion.
Good advice but hey I haven't slept in 2 days now. :P
Seeing I was 16 when Alien3 came out and wasn't happy at the time I'm all for a different direction with Ripley and Hicks. As for their agevthey both look fine to me and will pull it off.
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 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.
I disagree with this on just about every point. It seems just about canon to say "despite its flaws" when talking about Alien3 - it's flawed from the get-go as it
opens with a deus ex. Rant away, but actually the entire film makes no sense if you go on the evidence of what you are presented with. Taken on its own (out of the context of the previous two films), it makes no sense (because we have no sense of what happens and what this woman's motivations are ("You've been in my life so long..."). Taken as part of the saga - it still makes no sense (no egg, no facehugger. We can postulate, we can assume, we can do what we like. But there was no egg on the Sulaco - we didn't see it happen, therefore it didn't happen)). That's just how it is.
As for Clemens - he, like most of the male leading figures in the saga are either killed off (Clemens, Dallas, Wicncott's character in A:R) or sidelines (Gorman) so Ripley can take control of the situation
Also, saying that Newt is the "token little girl" I think is misunderstanding the entire subtext of Aliens. And Hicks's entire arc is evolution from "just a grunt" to a leader of his team (in doing so supporting the protagonist's agenda). Even the nominal leader Gorman realises that he always was an asshole and ends up deferring to Hicks (and, thus by proxy, Ripley).
Also - I don't think Rippers and Hicks will survive NB's Alien - but I think they will be offed in a satisfying way that addresses the emotional needs of an audience (script writing 101 - which is another of Alien3's epic fails. I've said all over this forum - no one minds that Hix'n'Noot died. It's how they chose to represent which was wrong).
That said, Ripley's final act in Alien3 was epic - at the end of a better movie, it would have been perfect and I don't think we'd have ever seen Resurrection.
Quote from: Russ on Mar 04, 2015, 10:37:55 AMno egg, no facehugger. We can postulate, we can assume, we can do what we like. But there was no egg on the Sulaco - we didn't see it happen, therefore it didn't happen
This is equally floored logic. We never saw Dallas and Lambert somehow carry Kane back to the Nostromo in those bulky, utterly restrictive suits. We never saw the Aliens take over Hadley's Hope, yet there they are when the Marines arrive.
Frankly I find it equally silly that just one Alien can lead to the entire destruction of a colony so quickly that apparently no one had time to send out any kind of distress call before they all got taken. Yet
Aliens expects us to believe that's what happens.
I voted yes because I agree...
Quote from: PsyKore on Mar 04, 2015, 08:45:10 AM
They should let them RIP. I think returning Ripley and Hicks is sort of misguided. They keep wanting to bring those characters back because of the fondness people have for Aliens and the great movie it was; people want to relive that. They should be instead trying to move on and make a good movie on its own merits. I believe a new movie with new characters can be done provided it has attention to detail and passion put into it.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Mar 04, 2015, 10:43:31 AM
Frankly I find it equally silly that just one Alien can lead to the entire destruction of a colony so quickly that apparently no one had time to send out any kind of distress call before they all got taken. Yet Aliens expects us to believe that's what happens.
There was clearly upper management with a relatively lazy attitude. Imagine the Nostromo crew on a much wider scale with the addition of red tape. The creatures could have
multiplied before they even realised they weren't dealing with something the size of a snake.
And we have no idea what trashed their communications ability. Could have been anything; the first chestburster chewing its way through lots of cables in the wall, included. Could also have been something which happened wherever the creatures were hiding out at the time (successive maintenance crews being sent down, inadvertently providing new impregnation victims). Could also have been only a few people living in the colony who knew how to fix it, who were among the first to be abducted.
Quote from: marrerom on Mar 04, 2015, 03:06:04 AM
Quote from: Adam802 on Mar 04, 2015, 02:58:54 AM
Except the 2nd half of the series wrote itself into a corner and hurt the franchise. Thats why a retcon/alt timeline is necessary.
Its not necessary at all. Some people just cant move on from Aliens is all. I would much rather have the franchise follow Ripley 8 then retread old ground with Ripley & Hick's taking on Weyland-Yutani again. Retconning is what will hurt the franchise. Its a cheap and lazy way to tell a story.
And i'd MUCH rather retread old ground than take place after Resurrection. However, like ive said I dont think this movie will "retread old ground" just bc it takes place after ALIENS. Its just using ALIENS as a jumping off point like A3 did. It can go a COMPLETELY different direction than ALIENS (and A3).
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Mar 04, 2015, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Mar 04, 2015, 10:43:31 AM
Frankly I find it equally silly that just one Alien can lead to the entire destruction of a colony so quickly that apparently no one had time to send out any kind of distress call before they all got taken. Yet Aliens expects us to believe that's what happens.
There was clearly upper management with a relatively lazy attitude. Imagine the Nostromo crew on a much wider scale with the addition of red tape. The creatures could have multiplied before they even realised they weren't dealing with something the size of a snake.
And we have no idea what trashed their communications ability. Could have been anything; the first chestburster chewing its way through lots of cables in the wall, included. Could also have been something which happened wherever the creatures were hiding out at the time (successive maintenance crews being sent down, inadvertently providing new impregnation victims). Could also have been only a few people living in the colony who knew how to fix it, who were among the first to be abducted.
Don't they say at some point in the film "Could have been a downed transmitter" when that question comes up? I must rewatch Aliens WITHOUT the commentary.
Quote from: Russ on Mar 04, 2015, 01:04:31 PM
Don't they say at some point in the film "Could have been a downed transmitter" when that question comes up? I must rewatch Aliens WITHOUT the commentary.
Actually, yes, that's a good point. The dialogue clearly makes it sound like that sort of thing happens
frequently. In light of that, it's very plausible that colonies (at least, those of Hadley's Hope scale) don't have the hardware/skilled technicians to correct FTL-capable communications. Either that or the technology is generally prone to malfunction.
Quote from: Russ on Mar 04, 2015, 01:04:31 PMDon't they say at some point in the film "Could have been a downed transmitter" when that question comes up? I must rewatch Aliens WITHOUT the commentary.
Burke's just throwing ideas out at the point to ocnvince Ripley to go.
In any case, the problem clearly
wasn't a downed transmitter. The problem was everyone was dead.
Yes, they should. I'm very excited about this movie, and bringing back Ripley and Hicks and potentially side-stepping the last two films is a dream come true. However, I've also long been an advocate of letting them go. One of the granchise's greatest weaknesses was it's inability to let Ripley go. I liked a lot of the old comics because they involved new stories, new people without connection to Ripley. I disagree heavily with those who say "the franchise can't survive without Ripley', because that mindset is what gave us Resurrection and weakened the franchise.
I believe Ripley, Hicks and Newt deserve closure, but after that, they need to retire and let new stories emerge within this vast universe. The franchise can survive and thrive without them.
Thrive without them?? Lol
That is why they are brining them BACK!
Quote from: Vermillion on Mar 04, 2015, 03:42:43 PM
Thrive without them?? Lol
That is why they are brining them BACK!
A:R is loathed by many fans even with Ripley in it. Just because they are bringing Ripley and Hicks back doesn't mean that the franchise can't survive without them. It's to bring closure that many Alien fans feel A3 and A:R did not do well (A3 had a pretty good end for Ripley, but then A:R nullified that).
Make a good script, with good actors and a good story and people will come. Having Ripley brings some familiarity, but she's not absolutely necessary to have to continue on successfully.
No it didn't nullify that because Ripley 8 isn't even Ripley.
" Ripley and Hicks got married and had many children "
No thank you! The saga Alien it is not that. Alien does not amount to Ripley. Why do not to enrich more the universe by developing new unpublished characters. To continue more with Ripley would damage the franchise. Due to seeing Ripley surviving, she gives itself an image of great heroin. With Ripley the alien does not frighten any more because we know that she is going to make a success.
I do not want that Alien 5 is one to copy to stick of Alien and Aliens 2. I like this saga because 4 movies are different and personalized.
I adore alien 3 and Alien the resurrection! Reboot these 2 movies would be a big lack of respect for the fans.
Quote from: bworko on Mar 04, 2015, 05:23:05 PM
I adore alien 3 and Alien the resurrection! Reboot these 2 movies would be a big lack of respect for the fans.
For a lot of people A3 (to a lesser extent) and Resurrection showed lack of respect to the franchise. I think a majority wouldn't mind them getting retconned, but the best solution is to follow an alternate timeline story.
All I know is that I have yet to actually meet someone who thought Resurrection was good for the franchise. With A3, you at least have a good division.
It is funny. In France Alien resurrection is mainly respected.
I am satisfied not to be everybody.
I find that the movie Alien 3 has much more common point with Alien 1 than that of Cameron. The alien is alone and seems invincible, cruel and bestial.
I go can be to shock sensitive hearts but to choose, Alien the resurrection is much darker and more unhealthy than Alien 2. I prefer it.
Quote from: Jarac on Mar 04, 2015, 03:52:08 PM
Make a good script, with good actors and a good story and prople will come. Having Ripley brings some familiarity, but she's not absolutely necessary to have to continue on successfully.
100% agreed. The series could have, and should have, shed any need for Ripley after Alien 3.
Quote from: Son Of Kane on Mar 04, 2015, 04:50:01 PM
No it didn't nullify that because Ripley 8 isn't even Ripley.
Yeah. I guess that really does narrow down why i've never liked A:R. Aside of the goofiness and stupidity that is. She's just not the Ripley character they're trying to tell us she is. She's a different person.
So after reading through the thread and checking the poll I've so far come to general consensus of.....
We all would LIKE Ripley, Hicks, and Newt to have had equally rewarding closure to their stories BUT we would overall as a fan base RATHER have new characters step in and take the series in a new direction rather than remain glued to Ripley and Hicks and even Newt.
Which is why I'm really hoping if the movie does end up being an alternate timeline, that Ripley, Hicks and Newt either end up dead by the movie's finale or are simply strong supporting characters behind a new lead from the get go.
The reason I'm fine with them not having a happy ending is because at the end I feel the Xenos represent Death as the True End above all else. ALIEN3 did a pretty good job at this when the Xeno bursted during Dillon's speech. ALIEN had more subtle ways of suggesting this. ALIENS had a few but not as much as ALIEN and ALIEN3 as to what the Xenos represented.
I reckon that NB is not lying when he says he's a massive fan of movies - I'm sure he gets this aspect of no happy endings. I think that it's pretty clear that Sigourney Weaver wants a satisfying closure for her signature character (I imagine she's also tired of being asked about sequels and continuations 20 odd years after the last movie finished).
Now - for all its faults (sic) Alien3 provided that definitive, satisfying ending. But, for reasons discussed, I think I can wrap it up and say "right ending, wrong film."
As for new characters - there's been a lot of discussion about this on here and I'm really confident that NB's movie will be pushing that agenda - probably with Jorden as the new protagonist that carries whatever story will follow on from this forward. Even if its purely for practical reasons - as more mature people, how long can Biehn and Weaver conceivably be involved in this type of movie as anything other than "the general" or "the consultant."
I think that Rippers and Hicks may not survive this encounter with the Aliens and that characters introduced in the new film will carry the torch.
I think that all of us are going into this with our eyes open, expecting a new series of films and are looking past the first one to see what happens next, so the call for new characters will be answered.
Strange Shapes posted a great article on his FB page and that aspect - the characters - was at the heart of it. Lots of modern films focus on spectacle and are ultimately disposable because of that (and that's fine, Michael Bay is great at what he does and I enjoy his films because they are cookie-cutter, written to BS2 form and tick every single box), but Alien isn't really about the Xeno, its about how people deal with the Xeno. Great characters (so you need great actors for this). Look at Alien - Weaver, Skerrit, Holm, Hurt, Dean-Stanton (Kotto and Cartwright do brilliantly to even be in the same ring as those guys - and Weaver incredible in her first film role). Though I accept that conversely, Aliens didn't have that - but given the tone of the film, that ensemble was elevated by a guy who was to go on to become the most successful film maker in history. So with him in your corner, even if you're an "OK" actor, your performance is probably going to be elevated. I
Maybe this is one of the issues with Prometheus - aside from Theron (and Pearce, but he didn't have a lot to do) maybe the actors were part of the luke-warm reception (in critical terms if not box office) were the only heavyweights in the film?
Quote from: Chris!(($$))! on Mar 04, 2015, 08:13:03 PMSo after reading through the thread and checking the poll I've so far come to general consensus of.....
Lolwut?
The poll quite overwhelmingly shows people would rather they just left the three of them dead.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Mar 05, 2015, 12:13:07 PM
Quote from: Chris!(($$))! on Mar 04, 2015, 08:13:03 PMSo after reading through the thread and checking the poll I've so far come to general consensus of.....
Lolwut?
The poll quite overwhelmingly shows people would rather they just left the three of them dead.
I think the poll is a bit narrow. I want their time to finally come to an end, however I am excited that they are in this movie and I hope they are all given a satisfying conclusion to their stories so that new protagonists and new stories can emerge without being shackled by Ripley.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Mar 05, 2015, 12:13:07 PM
Quote from: Chris!(($$))! on Mar 04, 2015, 08:13:03 PMSo after reading through the thread and checking the poll I've so far come to general consensus of.....
Lolwut?
The poll quite overwhelmingly shows people would rather they just left the three of them dead.
Funny that ::)
Quote from: marrerom on Mar 04, 2015, 03:20:38 AM
An alternate timeline is also cheap and lazy. Its done for the same exact reasons a retcon is and it further muddles things by adding weird fantastical elements to what should be a series that's grounded in gritty realism.
You do realize resurrection did away with gritty realism right? Which is why I wouldn't mind the fourth film being retconned, no scratch that, I would like it to be retconned, conflicted on the third though as it wrapped Ripley's story up. I hate that the studio won't let the character go, they shoehorned her into the new books.
Resurrection was just too silly and far-fetched, I enjoy it for what it is but I don't believe it belongs in the Alien series, nearly everything about it slaps the previous entries in the face: (A123)Gritty realism - (AR)far-fetched, (A123)subtle company who may or may not only be amoral at worst - (AR)blatant evil organization that kidnaps people and uses them as hosts, (A123)Bio-mechanical Alien - (AR)Fleshy unexplained dog-legged Alien.
The last film entry doesn't fit the series.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 05, 2015, 02:42:20 PM
(AR)Fleshy unexplained dog-legged Alien.
In its defence the aliens are more fleshy because of Ripley's DNA and their legs are
dog-legged due to the Queen's DNA.
Yeah, while I don't necessarily like what Resurrection did with the Alien, it does at least make sense in the context of the film.
Quote from: Alien³ on Mar 05, 2015, 03:12:30 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 05, 2015, 02:42:20 PM
(AR)Fleshy unexplained dog-legged Alien.
In its defence the aliens are more fleshy because of Ripley's DNA and their legs are dog-legged due to the Queen's DNA.
Oh I already do attribute the fleshy look to that, not the leg though because it doesn't explain why normal aliens lacked it before, unless the unstable crossover caused multiple mutations...all silly stuff that doesn't belong in a series that is supposed to be grounded in gritty realism.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 06, 2015, 01:20:01 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Mar 05, 2015, 03:12:30 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 05, 2015, 02:42:20 PM
(AR)Fleshy unexplained dog-legged Alien.
In its defence the aliens are more fleshy because of Ripley's DNA and their legs are dog-legged due to the Queen's DNA.
Oh I already do attribute the fleshy look to that, not the leg though because it doesn't explain why normal aliens lacked it before, unless the unstable crossover caused multiple mutations...all silly stuff that doesn't belong in a series that is supposed to be grounded in gritty realism.
The Legs may in fact be a retcon if you count Alien Isolation.
Quote from: Son Of Kane on Mar 06, 2015, 03:06:15 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 06, 2015, 01:20:01 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Mar 05, 2015, 03:12:30 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 05, 2015, 02:42:20 PM
(AR)Fleshy unexplained dog-legged Alien.
In its defence the aliens are more fleshy because of Ripley's DNA and their legs are dog-legged due to the Queen's DNA.
Oh I already do attribute the fleshy look to that, not the leg though because it doesn't explain why normal aliens lacked it before, unless the unstable crossover caused multiple mutations...all silly stuff that doesn't belong in a series that is supposed to be grounded in gritty realism.
The Legs may in fact be a retcon if you count Alien Isolation.
Except two things, first, they went back to plantigrade for AVP and second, in Isolation they intended to have the plantigrade feet because they wanted the Alien to be faithful to the original, it just didn't do so good in animation apparently, so they had to change it.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 06, 2015, 01:20:01 PM
not the leg though because it doesn't explain why normal aliens lacked it before, unless the unstable crossover caused multiple mutations
The different legs on the aliens in A:R comes from the the Queen's DNA.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20120923192947%2Fvillains%2Fimages%2Fc%2Fc7%2FQueen_Xenomorph.jpg&hash=8e21dfdea04d7eeaffb78b12618b845435bb8058)
I agree its all stupid but there is an in-film explanation.
Quote from: Alien³ on Mar 06, 2015, 03:24:33 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 06, 2015, 01:20:01 PM
not the leg though because it doesn't explain why normal aliens lacked it before, unless the unstable crossover caused multiple mutations
The different legs on the aliens in A:R comes from the the Queen's DNA.
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120923192947/villains/images/c/c7/Queen_Xenomorph.jpg
I agree its all stupid but there is an in-film explanation.
Actually its our fan speculation, never in the film is it stated to be the reason, its just us making the conclusion. I recently posted a section from wikipedia and basically the reason why the Aliens have dog legs? because according to an ADI member, it "felt" like a dog.... :P
I would have laughed if it wasn't so pathetic.
Also the human DNA making the aliens fleshy is fan speculation. ;)
Of course, never denied it ;D Just conclusions coming from us to try and justify the mess :laugh:
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Mar 05, 2015, 12:13:07 PM
Quote from: Chris!(($$))! on Mar 04, 2015, 08:13:03 PMSo after reading through the thread and checking the poll I've so far come to general consensus of.....
Lolwut?
The poll quite overwhelmingly shows people would rather they just left the three of them dead.
The poll yes. The written opinions are't quite as vague.
And as for the leg design. I'm truly fine with either. And its likely that if Cameron and Scott had the option available, they may very well have use the later designs.
What is to say they didn't have the option? they just went by the giger designs which if I remember, had humanoid feet but if not, it was still their choice either way.
Tech available at the time wouldn't have allowed for digitgrade legs I bet. So I don't think they did have the option.
Not that it matters, the way the creatures are shot in both films never blatantly state the Xenomorphs have human feet.
As supporting characters ripley and hicks would be great to have back but after Michael Biehn's vocal performance in colonial marines I have my doubts, hicks sounded like a shadow of his former self
Actually they did, its called stilts. :laugh:
Merchandise and books, early games show that they had human feet, also if it wasn't intended, why waste time and budget designing the feet that way if they could simply hide it in smoke and shadows. :P
Either way, Ridley and James could have pulled digitigrade feet off if they chose too. I'm glad they didn't.
Quote from: Murfy426 on Mar 09, 2015, 01:57:36 PM
As supporting characters ripley and hicks would be great to have back but after Michael Biehn's vocal performance in colonial marines I have my doubts, hicks sounded like a shadow of his former self
That's because the game was shit and the people around him had no enthusiasm.
Quote from: Murfy426 on Mar 09, 2015, 01:57:36 PM
As supporting characters ripley and hicks would be great to have back but after Michael Biehn's vocal performance in colonial marines I have my doubts, hicks sounded like a shadow of his former self
That is because Michael could not be bothered, he felt there was no passion in the game, he knew how bad it was.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 09, 2015, 01:59:36 PM
Actually they did, its called stilts. :laugh:
Merchandise and books, early games show that they had human feet, also if it wasn't intended, why waste time and budget designing the feet that way if they could simply hide it in smoke and shadows. :P
Either way, Ridley and James could have pulled digitigrade feet off if they chose too. I'm glad they didn't.
It's possible the thought never crossed their minds.
Alien: Isolation pulled it off tremendously despite my fears, so I'm not "glad" I'm just happy it's never explicitly stated.
And I'm going to say the honest truth: film is the main form of media in the Alien franchise, nothing stated outside of them will ever have any bearing canonically on those films.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 09, 2015, 02:00:34 PM
Quote from: Murfy426 on Mar 09, 2015, 01:57:36 PM
As supporting characters ripley and hicks would be great to have back but after Michael Biehn's vocal performance in colonial marines I have my doubts, hicks sounded like a shadow of his former self
That is because Michael could not be bothered, he felt there was no passion in the game, he knew how bad it was.
If only he saw the sense to tweet "Hey everyone im not in gearbox studios recording voiceover for colonial marines the game sucks for the love of god wait a couple months till the game drops to £5 that way the heartache will be easier" ah if only if only
Quote from: Son Of Kane on Mar 09, 2015, 02:04:00 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 09, 2015, 01:59:36 PM
Actually they did, its called stilts. :laugh:
Merchandise and books, early games show that they had human feet, also if it wasn't intended, why waste time and budget designing the feet that way if they could simply hide it in smoke and shadows. :P
Either way, Ridley and James could have pulled digitigrade feet off if they chose too. I'm glad they didn't.
It's possible the thought never crossed their minds.
Alien: Isolation pulled it off tremendously despite my fears, so I'm not "glad" I'm just happy it's never explicitly stated.
And I'm going to say the honest truth: film is the main form of media in the Alien franchise, nothing stated outside of them will ever have any bearing canonically on those films.
That is just an opinion, its asolutely your right of course but don't pass it for facts. Fox holds the cards and gets to say what is canon and what is not, yes the movies are the source material and are the highest canon and will trump something else if a contradiction happens but if fox says a game or a book is canon, then whether we like it or not, it is. I am personally neutral on the EU but I can say there is a few things I don't mind have been contradicted by the movies, unfortunately one of movies that does that is AVP-R :P
CA at least did explain Isolation Alien design, so fair play to them.
Quote from: Murfy426 on Mar 09, 2015, 02:07:42 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 09, 2015, 02:00:34 PM
Quote from: Murfy426 on Mar 09, 2015, 01:57:36 PM
As supporting characters ripley and hicks would be great to have back but after Michael Biehn's vocal performance in colonial marines I have my doubts, hicks sounded like a shadow of his former self
That is because Michael could not be bothered, he felt there was no passion in the game, he knew how bad it was.
If only he saw the sense to tweet "Hey everyone im not in gearbox studios recording voiceover for colonial marines the game sucks for the love of god wait a couple months till the game drops to £5 that way the heartache will be easier" ah if only if only
LOL I doubt the contract would have allowed him to.
Lol, colonial marines will never be canon, no matter what Fox says.
That is your opinion and you are free to ignore A:CM like the rest of us do but Fox holds the cards. There is nothing you can do about it except ignorance, unless you want to try and get rights off them. I wouldn't object to that, unless your ideas are crazier than theirs. :laugh:
Talking about canon lol what should be cemented is a monument outside gearbox with randy pitchfords face on it with a big grin it would read under it "I'm happy to disappoint you"
My ideas wouldn't be much crazier.
I'd go more "out there" with Directors I'd pick, such as Jonathan Glazer.
And I'd force the Engineers and SJ to be established as two different things.
(And I'd probably have the urge to massively undermine Predators.)
As a huge Giger fan I'd make sure there'd be no more ADI fleshy Alien nonsense. The A:R Aliens would even be officially disowned as Xenomorphs.
And I'd make sure scripts are the priority above all else.
And get a redesign of the Predator keeping the head the same but change everything else, because Predators look way too human with their mask on to me.
All EU is non-canon except Alien Isolation too.
Lol I'm actually a lot crazier, this will never happen.
haha not bad, or above the gearbox sign, "Weyland-Yutani"
Quote from: Son Of Kane on Mar 09, 2015, 02:28:16 PM
My ideas wouldn't be much crazier.
I'd go more "out there" with Directors I'd pick, such as Jonathan Glazer.
And I'd force the Engineers and SJ to be established as two different things.
(And I'd probably have the urge to massively undermine Predators.)
As a huge Giger fan I'd make sure there'd be no more ADI fleshy Alien nonsense. The A:R Aliens would even be officially disowned as Xenomorphs.
And I'd make sure scripts are the priority above all else.
And get a redesign of the Predator keeping the head the same but change everything else, because Predators look way too human with their mask on to me.
All EU is non-canon except Alien Isolation too.
Lol I'm actually a lot crazier, this will never happen.
Not bad at all,I could maybe accept that, except the predator parts, they are meant to be humanoid and it would be disservice to Stan Winston to mess with them, perhaps create a sub-species. Also ADI not at fault, the directors and studio are.
I believe in Fire and Stone,
Spoiler
Elden actually mentions that the Engineers created them too, they its probably only a guess on his part
Quote from: Murfy426 on Mar 09, 2015, 02:07:42 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 09, 2015, 02:00:34 PM
Quote from: Murfy426 on Mar 09, 2015, 01:57:36 PM
As supporting characters ripley and hicks would be great to have back but after Michael Biehn's vocal performance in colonial marines I have my doubts, hicks sounded like a shadow of his former self
That is because Michael could not be bothered, he felt there was no passion in the game, he knew how bad it was.
If only he saw the sense to tweet "Hey everyone im not in gearbox studios recording voiceover for colonial marines the game sucks for the love of god wait a couple months till the game drops to £5 that way the heartache will be easier" ah if only if only
Pretty sure he wanted to, but that would have led to a broken contract and I'm sure he didn't want to deal with that crap.
What would the point of this sequel be, if they didn't have Ripley and Hicks, when what the selling point of even making it is that.
I would have loved a new cast, setting and characters.Finding the aliens somewhere else on a distant planet where theres a colony but it isnt some rock that you have to teraform
If they bother bringing them back why go with cameos? Make them the damn main characters or not at all.
This will devolve into a ramble but bear with me -
Spoiler
I don't have a problem with the idea of Hicks, Newt, etc. being killed off. Alien 3 just did it in the worst way possible. In the opening credits? Come on. It's just the first example of Alien 3 going so far out of its way to be grim and 'nihilistic' that it becomes obnoxious, made even worse by the film's clusterf**k of a production.
I mean imagine if Ripley had been killed off at the start of Aliens. You know her hospital nightmare? What if they tried to really pass off an Alien coming out of nowhere, offing our established character, and having a repeat of the first film with a single Alien onboard a space station. That's what 3 largely feels like to me. Aliens expands on Alien so nicely in how it segues from Scott's vision of that world (the opening) to Cameron's (the first shot of the Sulaco). 3 doesn't do that at all, it's such a massive step backwards and a missed opportunity on Fincher and Fox's part. Not that it isn't an action film or that certain characters were killed, just in how it went about all that. The only thing story wise that really works for me is how Ripley became one with the Alien and sacrificed herself. The rest is an overwhelmingly grim disappointment. /rambleover
Quote from: Nazrel on Mar 09, 2015, 06:39:05 PM
I would have loved a new cast, setting and characters.Finding the aliens somewhere else on a distant planet where theres a colony but it isnt some rock that you have to teraform
Exactly. Out the Shadows was a pretty good book. But it had one glaring issue: Ripley was in it and she didn't need to be! They shoe-horned her in for no good reason! The characters were already original and likable. The story/premise was already good. I'm fine with Ripley, Hicks and Newt returning for the new movie, but we need new stories that don't shove Ripley in all of the time (like a lot of the comics).
Option 1, New characters. The problem with having new characters is making them as interesting/awesome as the old characters. A lot of the times, this is a fluke that happens by blind luck, which is never a good thing to be told when making a gamble. Also, killing off old, beloved characters isn't always a good idea, as it can polarize fans.
Option 2, Old Characters, New Actors. The problem with keeping old characters but recasting them is they'll use the wrong actors/cast actors who look, sound and act nothing like the original actors did. It's bound to happen. Just look at the guy they cast for Kyle Reese in the upcoming Terminator flick. Just not right. Or the oracle actor switch in the third Matrix (unfortunately necessary in that case, but still quite jarring and unsuccessful).
Option 3, Old characters, Old Actors. The problem with keeping the old characters and original actors is that they're, well, old. It limits what you can do with the story provided the make-up department and digital effects crew aren't willing to make the cast younger. Which is a lot harder to do than make a young person look old. It's doable, but honestly the voice is still going to sound old (while I enjoyed the DLC for Alien: Isolation, Yaphett Koto sounds positively ancient) unless you have a voice actor do the voice effects, and then there isn't much point in having the original actor to begin with. You might as well go back to option 2.
Quote from: Jarac on Mar 09, 2015, 10:10:38 PMExactly. Out the Shadows was a pretty good book. But it had one glaring issue: Ripley was in it and she didn't need to be! They shoe-horned her in for no good reason! The characters were already original and likable. The story/premise was already good.
Yeah, this.
I thought the book would've been infinitely better if Ripley had just stayed in hypersleep on the shuttle, but Ash had actually got more involved in screwing the other survivors. Ash's survival was a great idea that was completely underutilised in the end.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Mar 10, 2015, 08:29:11 AM
Quote from: Jarac on Mar 09, 2015, 10:10:38 PMExactly. Out the Shadows was a pretty good book. But it had one glaring issue: Ripley was in it and she didn't need to be! They shoe-horned her in for no good reason! The characters were already original and likable. The story/premise was already good.
Yeah, this.
I thought the book would've been infinitely better if Ripley had just stayed in hypersleep on the shuttle, but Ash had actually got more involved in screwing the other survivors. Ash's survival was a great idea that was completely underutilised in the end.
Ash was too much as well, his characterization was messed up and over the top, not too mention illogical for a robot who now only be a set of programs or code (which means there should be no emotions or emotional behavior but alas he is a stalker obsessed with Ripley), I didn't like him in it.
Maybe the people at hadleys hope did get messages back about the outbreak. Who's to say it just got ignored by WY deliberately ??
OP
I voted for the retcon with hix noot ellen. But I think in my heart of hearts RIP is the best way to go. Prometheus started a new arc I alien 5 should start its own.....
Glad about the movie being made but if it doesn't pull in new fans perhaps prometheus will justify itself. Who knows.
I fear alien 5 flopping and alien 3 justifying the route it took.
Hope not but ......
Like hudson said: that be a switch !!
Quote from: oduodu on Mar 15, 2015, 05:36:17 PMMaybe the people at hadleys hope did get messages back about the outbreak. Who's to say it just got ignored by WY deliberately ??
Why would they send the message directly to W-Y at not colonial administration? A distress call would likely go out on a general frequency so as many people as possible could hear it and react.
a retcon is extremely divisive right out the gate; especially at a time when everyone is already constantly bitching about all the remakes/reboots/rehashes. A NEW story with NEW characters is something EVERYONE could easily get behind. I strongly feel this is the worst way to etch your name into the Alien series. Directors that have damaged the series in the past, have made permanent enemies out of Alien fans; personally I will NEVER watch another film from that hack Paul Anderson or The Brothers Strause. All I can say is...tread carefully Blomkamp.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Mar 16, 2015, 08:32:57 AM
Quote from: oduodu on Mar 15, 2015, 05:36:17 PMMaybe the people at hadleys hope did get messages back about the outbreak. Who's to say it just got ignored by WY deliberately ??
Why would they send the message directly to W-Y at not colonial administration? A distress call would likely go out on a general frequency so as many people as possible could hear it and react.
Tht a very good point.
I just sometimes wonder why russ jordan getting facehugged was never reported to WY.
Why can't they just ignore the joke that A:R was and continue after alien3 is beyond me. Well, in fact the explanation should be just as easy as to think this director is just one more of those shameful "Aliens" hardcore scrubs that made the entire fanbase look that bad with their cries at anything alien3 related when such film was released.
Quote from: Feeds On Minds on Mar 17, 2015, 01:40:07 AMA NEW story with NEW characters is something EVERYONE could easily get behind.
This is one of the reasons the idea of a retcon rankles me. There's plenty of other things they could do
without retconning stuff. There's just no need to write off existing films.
Quote from: oduodu on Mar 17, 2015, 03:07:25 AMTht a very good point.
I just sometimes wonder why russ jordan getting facehugged was never reported to WY.
I was really hoping the recent book
River of Pain, about the fall of Hadley's Hope, would offer up some kind of explanation for why no distress call was apparently sent, but sadly it didn't.
Quote from: Feeds On Minds on Mar 17, 2015, 01:40:07 AM
a retcon is extremely divisive right out the gate; especially at a time when everyone is already constantly bitching about all the remakes/reboots/rehashes. A NEW story with NEW characters is something EVERYONE could easily get behind. I strongly feel this is the worst way to etch your name into the Alien series. Directors that have damaged the series in the past, have made permanent enemies out of Alien fans; personally I will NEVER watch another film from that hack Paul Anderson or The Brothers Strause. All I can say is...tread carefully Blomkamp.
^ This. I Absolutely, 100% agree with every word written here.
-Windebieste.
It was never about Ripley to me (she was a chance survivor), and much less about Hicks and co. So finding ways to resurrect the characters by ignoring the film that made an attempt to move forward isn't an idea I'm particularly keen on. New characters would have been much preferable.
Quote from: Gash on Mar 19, 2015, 10:56:49 PM
It was never about Ripley to me (she was a chance survivor), and much less about Hicks and co. So finding ways to resurrect the characters by ignoring the film that made an attempt to move forward isn't an idea I'm particularly keen on. New characters would have been much preferable.
I don't see the big fuss with Ripley and Hicks being in the future films. Honestly Alien 3 took the series into a skydive and I think the first two movies made much more of an impact for audiences and drew them in as a fan so I say go ahead...bring the characters back and give this series the proper finish
Quote from: Chronicle on Mar 20, 2015, 05:03:35 AM
Quote from: Gash on Mar 19, 2015, 10:56:49 PM
It was never about Ripley to me (she was a chance survivor), and much less about Hicks and co. So finding ways to resurrect the characters by ignoring the film that made an attempt to move forward isn't an idea I'm particularly keen on. New characters would have been much preferable.
I don't see the big fuss with Ripley and Hicks being in the future films. Honestly Alien 3 took the series into a skydive and I think the first two movies made much more of an impact for audiences and drew them in as a fan so I say go ahead...bring the characters back and give this series the proper finish
Agreed. Over time Alien 3 does grow on an Alien fan, but for many audiences it was unsatisfying as a finish (on this point, I disagree, but I agree that it is not the direction I would have gone in). A new alternate continuity set after Aliens with Ripley, Hicks (and Newt, hopefully) is what has been asked for for years. Their story does need to end "properly", and it needs to stay ended. That's where A3-AR failed: couldn't let go of Ripley and sent the series into a nose-dive.
I do agree with others that it is a big risk, though. The hype will be unreal, and Blomkamp will be walking into a make-it ot brake-it moment. Critically, he's gad two bombs in a row, so he needs this to succeed. And as has been mentioned, if he f**ks this up, he will become a permanent enemy of the Alien fanbase (like Paul W.S. Anderson and the Brothers Strause). It's high-risk, high reward. I only hope it pays off.
Eh, if he drops the ball on this I'd hardly consider myself a "permanent enemy." It's not worth it. It's not like the Alien films I do like will be going anywhere, and regardless of what happens here I will still enjoy those and Blomkamp's previous films. I'll probably just hope that he goes back to doing original, smaller films rather than working within giant established franchises.
I hope they will finally kill Ripley, im so sick of that she Always has to be linked to the xeno's,
its like milking the cow over and over, like they arent creative enough to make new story that stands on its own.
So bring em back Hicks and Ripley and give them some kick ass death.
To be honest, this film is its own interpretation of what happened after the events of Aliens. And so, it should not kill them off. It shouldn't just copy the film it sets out to differ from, and by all accounts it seems to be a film that is full of, subtext of hopefulness or ideal, a logical continuation of the end of Aliens. Now, it shouldn't be all glad and happy, but if they just in the end kill everyone all over again, what would be the point? I know a lot of people are like "Let them die! No more!" but say, you're going to see this film and they just get kaput in the end. That would be so f**king disappointing because like it or not, you come into this film expecting something structurally, differently.
In my opinion, let them live, but in a bittersweet way. Don't have them just die.
Quote from: Infected on Mar 20, 2015, 09:38:42 PMI hope they will finally kill Ripley, im so sick of that she Always has to be linked to the xeno's, its like milking the cow over and over, like they arent creative enough to make new story that stands on its own.
That's one of the reasons I'm annoyed they're potentially going with a retcon. This was the prefect chance for them to do something new, instead of just reverting to old territory.
Quote from: Chronicle on Mar 20, 2015, 05:03:35 AM
I don't see the big fuss with Ripley and Hicks being in the future films. Honestly Alien 3 took the series into a skydive and I think the first two movies made much more of an impact for audiences and drew them in as a fan so I say go ahead...bring the characters back and give this series the proper finish
Grossly boiled down...
Alien and Aliens both start with Ripley waking up from hyper sleep.
Alien and Aliens both both have people discovering the Derelict and getting hugged.
Alien and Aliens both have Ripley and co fly down to LV_426 in a smaller ship from their mothership.
Alien and Aliens both have someone saying "kill me." and getting burnt alive.
Alien and Aliens both face huggers in medical.
Alien and Aliens both have Ripley going back to save someone she loves.
Alien and Aliens both have a huge explosion during the escape.
Alien and Aliens both have an android getting ripped to shreds.
Alien and Aliens both have Ripley discover the alien has stowed away on their escape vessel.
Alien and Aliens both have Ripley suit up to force the alien out of an airlock.
Alien and Aliens both end with Rippers back in hyper sleep.
Now draw the comparisons between the others.
Alien 3 practically plays out the top 3 in that comparison list within the open credits. It fast tracks the plot to a new environment. Fiorina 161 is a well-fleshed out location, in terms of history and character (the dire wasteland, with no weapons) we need more time to soak it all in.
Alien 3 has a couple of prisoners (from memory) saying kill me. Not to mention Ripley trying to get Dylan to kill her.
It doesn't have Ripley going back to save someone she loves, but it does have her not wanting to let Dylan go.
"God will take care of me now sister."An Android is already ripped to shreds.
The alien jumping from the lead is the equivalent of the previous 4th acts.
Ends with Ripley's original message. Almost like her ghost is entering the eternal hyper sleep.
Resurrection has many small parallels as well.
I love the films we've got because we have more of the same but its played out differently each time; without it feeling like Die Hard 2 to 1, where its pretty much the exact same movie, but stale.
Point is I can never understand why anyone can't see Alien 3 as anything but the incredible lucky result it is. (Especially the Assembly Cut, and also as a movie on its own). So retconning them to have Ripley and Hicks back is lazy.
UPDATE: I was not sober last night but I'll stand by this post. :laugh:.
Quote from: Infected on Mar 20, 2015, 09:38:42 PM
I hope they will finally kill Ripley, im so sick of that she Always has to be linked to the xeno's,
its like milking the cow over and over, like they arent creative enough to make new story that stands on its own.
So bring em back Hicks and Ripley and give them some kick ass death.
This, definitely this, I have been saying that for years. Hicks should not die though, he should take over as the protagonist until such time, a new main character is introduced.
Quote from: Alien³ on Mar 24, 2015, 01:29:01 AM
Quote from: Chronicle on Mar 20, 2015, 05:03:35 AM
I don't see the big fuss with Ripley and Hicks being in the future films. Honestly Alien 3 took the series into a skydive and I think the first two movies made much more of an impact for audiences and drew them in as a fan so I say go ahead...bring the characters back and give this series the proper finish
Grossly boiled down...
(Snipped the rest to save room)
VERY well said. Except the part about Resurrection... IMO.
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
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
A L I E N must never be rebooted, it is sacred.
I would be MUCH more excited for an entire series reboot, than what Blomkamp is planning.
Rebooting Alien 1979 would require all information on Human history to be put on a base on Mars, before the reboot then the Earth must be launched into the sun.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 25, 2015, 03:35:04 PM
Quote from: Infected on Mar 20, 2015, 09:38:42 PM
I hope they will finally kill Ripley, im so sick of that she Always has to be linked to the xeno's,
its like milking the cow over and over, like they arent creative enough to make new story that stands on its own.
So bring em back Hicks and Ripley and give them some kick ass death.
This, definitely this, I have been saying that for years. Hicks should not die though, he should take over as the protagonist until such time, a new main character is introduced.
Hicks, or any soldier for that matter, as the main protagonist would bore me to no end. It's beyond generic.
Can't be any worse than a prison priest. : )
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...
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.
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.
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)
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)
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?
probably Ripley 8 will clone them for herself :P
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.