User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Alien Prequel No Longer An Alien Film  (Read 86801 times)

Kimarhi
Feb 11, 2011, 03:30:44 AM
Reply #585 on: Feb 11, 2011, 03:30:44 AM
Whose alive at the end of Alien 3?


SM
Feb 11, 2011, 03:34:59 AM
Reply #586 on: Feb 11, 2011, 03:34:59 AM
Ripley's pod was smashed.  If water got in through the hole it could just as easily get out.  Newt's tube would've filled slower because it was cracked and therefore not " broken just like Newt's".  As such it would've emptied slower.

"Ergo, she drowned."

Quote
It's contrived.  It's old. It's cliche.  It's predictable. 

The same could also be said of other horror series, where the survivor of the previous film is bumped off in the first few minutes of the sequel.

That said, I immediately rationalised the carnage at the start of Alien3 as "This universe is a cruel and nasty place".



Sharp Sticks
Feb 11, 2011, 03:36:54 AM
Reply #587 on: Feb 11, 2011, 03:36:54 AM
Where safety beams kill.

Give me Gibson or give me death.


SM
Feb 11, 2011, 03:45:01 AM
Reply #588 on: Feb 11, 2011, 03:45:01 AM
Ironic safety beam is ironic.

And Gibson's script with the spores was shithouse.


Sharp Sticks
Feb 11, 2011, 03:46:39 AM
Reply #589 on: Feb 11, 2011, 03:46:39 AM
Spores sucked. But the way the characters were handled worked for me.


SM
Feb 11, 2011, 03:47:57 AM
Reply #590 on: Feb 11, 2011, 03:47:57 AM
Been too long for me to remember much beyond the shitty spores.


Valaquen
Feb 11, 2011, 03:49:23 AM
Reply #591 on: Feb 11, 2011, 03:49:23 AM
Quote
Yeah, 'cause that was the only option for the story to go. Aliens was about what Ripley lost and rebuilding a life from that. Alien 3 was about rehashing the whole trauma and, on the account of the writers and Weaver, just ending the damn franchise.

Sounds like more of that eighties generic hollywood commonstance bullshit to me.

Could Newt and Hicks deaths had more weight in Alien 3?  Yeah.  But Ripley, Newt, and Hicks running around as the Untouchables in the Alien Universe would've been more damaging to the franchise than James Cameron's sentry guns.  We don't need invincible characters in the Alien universe.  Thats what made the original so great.  Nobody had script immunity.  The three of them retiring in the sunset would've been too perfect.  Something that would seem entirely out of place in the Alien universe.

By the third film, even Ripley's luck had run out.

I infinately prefer the third film to that happy go lucky bullshit.  It feels real.  It feels grounded in reality.  It fits the franchise. 

Or maybe people prefer the ending that if I go to McDonald's I can see Hicks feeding Newt a Chicken Nugget while Ripley opens her kid's meal toy like nothing happened.  Because thats believable.
Or, you know, not find a contrived way to have Ripley wake up around an Alien again. No idea why everyone assumes Alien 3 with Hicks/Newt would be a happy space adventure. Die or be the Jetsons? Talk about a false dilemna. The one thing Alien 3 did need was a little more weight. You couldn't have known who most of the characters were if they were wearing nametags.


Sharp Sticks
Feb 11, 2011, 03:55:04 AM
Reply #592 on: Feb 11, 2011, 03:55:04 AM
Been too long for me to remember much beyond the shitty spores.

It was a first draft, it obviously needed work. Gibson got Ripley and Newt out of the way in a way that was believable enough and shifted the focus to Hicks and Bishop instead. The script is dated by the Cold War references, but it's still a good read, and personally, I prefer it to what we got.

Helps that I'm a Gibson die-hard, though. Plenty of bias here.

« Last Edit: Feb 11, 2011, 04:06:40 AM by Sharp Sticks »

Kimarhi
Feb 11, 2011, 04:01:00 AM
Reply #593 on: Feb 11, 2011, 04:01:00 AM
@ Val

But then again, the story of Alien 3 had become Ripley centric, thanks to James Cameron's use of the Ripley character as the centerpiece for Aliens. 

You didn't need to pay attention to anybody besides Clemens, Morse, Dillon, 85, and Ripley.  Since Ripley has now become the series primary character and the others there merely help her story for the third film come to an apex and close.

Alien 3 took it a step further and made it a story arc.  That said Alien 3 isn't about all those other characters.  Its about whether a person would sacrifice their life for the good of a whole.  Even if they don't deserve it.  You don't need to have that many characters to tell that story.  The disposables were merely there to show the threat of the Alien and of the collateral damage caused by rampant unchecked capitalism.

Ripley in alien 3 is just a representation of the best of mankind.  The Alien is merely the tool that would cause the fall of mankind should the true series villian (the company) get its hands on it to pop a few dollars.

On a sidenote: I'm also fond of the Gibson Alien script, but not as an Alien movie.  The changing of the species ability to do things they didn't originally is one of the things that led to the fall of the EU media.  If you can't make the same creatures dangerous in the future, don't add random shit to make them more dangerous.  Stop writing about them.  They'll become something they aren't otherwise.

Definately think it could've worked as something else though.  It reads somewhat like Dead Space (except the virus can change living host instead of reviving dead ones) now that I think of it.


SM
Feb 11, 2011, 04:07:49 AM
Reply #594 on: Feb 11, 2011, 04:07:49 AM
Quote
No idea why everyone assumes Alien 3 with Hicks/Newt would be a happy space adventure.

Natural progression from the family unit Cambo created.


Peakius Baragonius
Feb 12, 2011, 08:09:58 PM
Reply #595 on: Feb 12, 2011, 08:09:58 PM
Quote
No idea why everyone assumes Alien 3 with Hicks/Newt would be a happy space adventure.

Natural progression from the family unit Cambo created.

Of course the family unit would progress. But that in NO WAY indicates it would have been a live-action Disney-type film, I mean seriously, where do you guys get these whacked-out ideas just because you feel the need to bash Aliens in order to justify Alien Cubed? I mean, come on!!!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)


Kimarhi
Feb 13, 2011, 03:13:21 AM
Reply #596 on: Feb 13, 2011, 03:13:21 AM
If it wasn't going to be a happy ending movie it was going to be a sad ending movie like Alien 3........






I don't dislike Aliens.  I hold it pretty much on an even tier with Alien 3.  The original smokes both of them by a mile though.



Valaquen
Feb 13, 2011, 03:45:02 PM
Reply #597 on: Feb 13, 2011, 03:45:02 PM
@ Val

But then again, the story of Alien 3 had become Ripley centric, thanks to James Cameron's use of the Ripley character as the centerpiece for Aliens.
Alien 3 became Ripley-centric because the head of FOX was playing it safe by having an established star. Everyone else tried writing in a new lead hero.

Quote
Since Ripley has now become the series primary character and the others there merely help her story for the third film come to an apex and close.
Or, you know, assume it was done it by the end of the second movie and give us someone new. Ripley was rehashed and off-kilter for so much of Alien 3, and then essentiallly thrust and bullied into allying herself with child molesters [so I won't buy the "she's redeeming them"], and then given no sane choice to remain alive, [so no "she gave her life for everyone." Gave what life?]. But let's not pretend Ripley returned to finish her 'story'. Everyong involved either says outright or alludes that the pay cheque brought the character back.

Quote
Alien 3 took it a step further and made it a story arc.  That said Alien 3 isn't about all those other characters.  Its about whether a person would sacrifice their life for the good of a whole.  Even if they don't deserve it.  You don't need to have that many characters to tell that story.  The disposables were merely there to show the threat of the Alien and of the collateral damage caused by rampant unchecked capitalism.
Except there was many characters. And every moment spent on even the most insignificant one of them was wasted seconds. We don't need gore shots to see how deadly the Alien is. We've been through two movies. Alien 3 wants us to divert attention from its flaws and exaggerate its rather limited strengths.

'There are people, who shall remain nameless, that I was bumping into as I was trying to put this thing [Alien 3] together who put the whole experience into a really interesting perspective. They would say, "Look, you could have somebody piss against the wall for two hours and call it Alien 3 and it would still do 30 million dollars worth of business." That's the impetus to make these movies, you can't keep the people away.'
David Fincher.


Quote
Ripley in alien 3 is just a representation of the best of mankind.  The Alien is merely the tool that would cause the fall of mankind should the true series villian (the company) get its hands on it to pop a few dollars.
I absolutely disagree. The 'best of mankind' is bullied into every decison she seems to make [even Lance Henriksen acted expressed that he thought the character was off]. The rest is already expressed through the first and second movie.


Kimarhi
Feb 13, 2011, 10:24:31 PM
Reply #598 on: Feb 13, 2011, 10:24:31 PM
Quote
Alien 3 became Ripley-centric because the head of FOX was playing it safe by having an established star. Everyone else tried writing in a new lead hero.

You only need to look at the generic nature of the multitude of Alien 3 scripts to realize this was an terrible idea.  Every nonripley script released was WAY below subpar.  Gibson's was the only one with any sort of interesting ideas at all.

Quote
Or, you know, assume it was done it by the end of the second movie and give us someone new. Ripley was rehashed and off-kilter for so much of Alien 3, and then essentiallly thrust and bullied into allying herself with child molesters [so I won't buy the "she's redeeming them"], and then given no sane choice to remain alive, [so no "she gave her life for everyone." Gave what life?]. But let's not pretend Ripley returned to finish her 'story'. Everyong involved either says outright or alludes that the pay cheque brought the character back.

Never said once she redeemed them.  At the end of the day they are still child molesters.  Ripley is the one that does the sacrifice. 

Given no sane choice to remain alive?  I guess parents that lose kids to vehicle accidents should just commit suicide because they have no reason to remain alive either?  Not everybody has such a pussweak disposition towards death when the going gets tough. 

I also laugh at the notion that the check brought Ripley back.  The check also brought Ripley back for Aliens.  To look at one and not the other in this notion is completely biased toward a pro aliens slant.  Cameron wrote her in so she could continue the story of the first and was worried that Fox wouldn't be able to meet her demands for pay.  The EXACT same reasons she joined, and the EXACT same reasons her character was written, was used for BOTH movies.

Likewise you probably understand in hollywood your suppossed to turn a profit.  Arthouse direction is nice, but they work on only a fraction of the budget.  Your in it to make money.  ALL parties from ALL teams involved with the franchise.  Including mighty Cameron.

Thats weak man.

Quote
Except there was many characters. And every moment spent on even the most insignificant one of them was wasted seconds. We don't need gore shots to see how deadly the Alien is. We've been through two movies. Alien 3 wants us to divert attention from its flaws and exaggerate its rather limited strengths

What purpose did characters like Spunkmeir, Crowe and Weirzbowski have in Aliens?  They were there as essentially plot pieces to further the action.  Alien 3 did have alot more.  But generic characters put on board script for death isn't used first in Alien 3.

Quote
I absolutely disagree. The 'best of mankind' is bullied into every decison she seems to make [even Lance Henriksen acted expressed that he thought the character was off]. The rest is already expressed through the first and second movie.

How was she bullied?  She's the one in charge.  Even super prisoner badass Dillon leaves leadership to her.  She works with them because they are the only option she has to stop the Alien and the Company from obtaining it.

Using Lance Henrickson as a reference to this movies is a little bit like using Dan O'bannon or David Fincher.  Henrickson has been involved with several terrible iterations with the Alien franchise.  Starting with AvP and finishing with the AvP2010 game.  He can say what he wants to about the terrible direction they took the Ripley character in, but he continues to join multiple halfassed projects involving the Alien mythos.

Likewise for every objective comment you get from O'bannon or Fincher, you get twelve more comments aimed at the Giler/Hill or the studio involvement that you can no longer say they give a nonslanted opinion towards the films that they were involved in.


Valaquen
Feb 13, 2011, 11:01:58 PM
Reply #599 on: Feb 13, 2011, 11:01:58 PM
You only need to look at the generic nature of the multitude of Alien 3 scripts to realize this was an terrible idea.  Every nonripley script released was WAY below subpar.  Gibson's was the only one with any sort of interesting ideas at all.
You mean a script that was actually written had some interesting ideas? Seemed like a good start. Walter Hill hiimself has said the Alien 3 script by himself was no good, the whole thing a 'complete f**king mess'. 

Quote
Never said once she redeemed them.  At the end of the day they are still child molesters.  Ripley is the one that does the sacrifice.
Then the entire tunnel sequence depicting the individual fates of the prisoners was a massive waste of time.

Quote
Given no sane choice to remain alive?  I guess parents that lose kids to vehicle accidents should just commit suicide because they have no reason to remain alive either?  Not everybody has such a pussweak disposition towards death when the going gets tough.
Entire family, biological or adopted dead [suffered twice], Earthly prospects wiped out. A lot of people do kill themselves over these things. Your example of a parent losing a child or children is pretty pussweak. Wipe out their entire family and every friend they can count twice.

Quote
I also laugh at the notion that the check brought Ripley back.  The check also brought Ripley back for Aliens.  To look at one and not the other in this notion is completely biased toward a pro aliens slant.  Cameron wrote her in so she could continue the story of the first and was worried that Fox wouldn't be able to meet her demands for pay.  The EXACT same reasons she joined, and the EXACT same reasons her character was written, was used for BOTH movies.
'I didn't want to do Aliens just to make money for 20th Century FOX ... I didn't want to do a sequel unless we all felt that there was something else that needed said about it.'
Sigourney Weaver.

'The impetus for the third film was primarily the huge success of Aliens.'
Sigourney Weaver.


Says the man who co-wrote the movie: Everyone wanted to make the sequel to Aliens, kinda except us.
No idea where how you come up with your last conclusion there. Ripley was in Aliens because Cameron wrote her into it, when FOX demanded a Ripley-less script after Weaver's asking price, Cameron refused to do so. With Alien 3, Ripley was in because Joe Roth demanded it. Weaver has always said how wary she was of Aliens until she read the script, and how she was reluctant to do Alien 3 because her character had been explored enough. Not hard to deduce that her sudden 180 on the matter was influence with her pay-or-play contract, co-producer credit, etc.

Quote
Likewise you probably understand in hollywood your suppossed to turn a profit.  Arthouse direction is nice, but they work on only a fraction of the budget.  Your in it to make money.  ALL parties from ALL teams involved with the franchise.  Including mighty Cameron.

'If Jim Cameron hadn't fallen in love with something about Alien, then a sequel wouldn't have been made. No one really wanted to touch it ... Luckily, Jim wanted to make his own movie.'
Sigourney Weaver.


'I'd always had this naive idea that everybody wants to make movies as good as they can be, which is stupid. So I learned on this movie [Alien 3] that nobody really knows, so therefore no one has to care, so it's always going to be your fault. I'd always thought, "Well, surely you don't want to have the Twentieth Century Fox logo over a shitty movie." And they were like, "Well, as long as it opens."'
David Fincher.


In the first case, FOX didn't really care all too much. During Aliens' development, most of their eggs were in another basket [Space Camp]. Then Aliens hit big. In the second, they cared too much and pushed for a sequel and, as Fincher says, it affected the entire movie.

'There are people, who shall remain nameless, that I was bumping into as I was trying to put this thing [Alien 3] together who put the whole experience into a really interesting perspective. They would say, "Look, you could have somebody piss against the wall for two hours and call it Alien 3 and it would still do 30 million dollars worth of business." That's the impetus to make these movies, you can't keep the people away.'
David Fincher.


Quote
Thats weak man.
What.

Quote
What purpose did characters like Spunkmeir, Crowe and Weirzbowski have in Aliens?  They were there as essentially plot pieces to further the action.  Alien 3 did have alot more.  But generic characters put on board script for death isn't used first in Alien 3.
How much screentime did these Aliens characters actually have? The Alien 3 prisoners dominate an entire movie.

Quote
How was she bullied?  She's the one in charge.  Even super prisoner badass Dillon leaves leadership to her.  She works with them because they are the only option she has to stop the Alien and the Company from obtaining it.
If Ripley had her way, she would have died immediately after discovering she was impregnated. Dillon roughs her up and makes her agree to killing the Alien first. She's his tool, that's all. Dillon cares about killing the creature, not euthanising Ripley, and vice versa, it seems. We see this when Dillon stays behind in the lead works. Later, the Company don't hide the fact very well that they're after the Alien and may dispose of Ripley regardless of getting the Alien or not. Her entire family and every person she has met in her life is dead, either naturally or slaughtered, and she's spent the last 20 minutes of the film feeling the pangs of 'birth'. Plunging herself into the lead was almost easy.

Quote
Using Lance Henrickson as a reference to this movies is a little bit like using Dan O'bannon or David Fincher.  Henrickson has been involved with several terrible iterations with the Alien franchise.  Starting with AvP and finishing with the AvP2010 game.  He can say what he wants to about the terrible direction they took the Ripley character in, but he continues to join multiple halfassed projects involving the Alien mythos.
Don't care what he's been involved in, other than he was involved with movie in question. Resorting to a near ad hominem is bad argument.

Quote
Likewise for every objective comment you get from O'bannon or Fincher, you get twelve more comments aimed at the Giler/Hill or the studio involvement that you can no longer say they give a nonslanted opinion towards the films that they were involved in.
What?


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube RSS Feed