User Information

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

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: What possible thing justifies a retcon?  (Read 6894 times)

Rankles75
Feb 26, 2015, 03:45:12 PM
Reply #15 on: Feb 26, 2015, 03:45:12 PM
Q
Still think Alien Resurrection got a shit deal. Not that is wasn't a bad film (it clearly was), but where else could they have really gone with it after Alien 3 closed off all other avenues? They pretty much had to go with the ridiculous cloning McGuffin and run with it, although the whole Newborn thing was unforgivable...  :-\


Perfect-Organism
Feb 26, 2015, 03:50:15 PM
Reply #16 on: Feb 26, 2015, 03:50:15 PM
Q
Still think Alien Resurrection got a shit deal. Not that is wasn't a bad film (it clearly was), but where else could they have really gone with it after Alien 3 closed off all other avenues? They pretty much had to go with the ridiculous cloning McGuffin and run with it, although the whole Newborn thing was unforgivable...  :-\

Exactly, hence why Alien 3 has to go.


Corporal Hicks
Feb 26, 2015, 03:52:24 PM
Reply #17 on: Feb 26, 2015, 03:52:24 PM
Q
Not really - Alien 3 didn't ruin opportunities, Resurrection did that itself with the line "for all intents and purposes, she succeeded". There was far more they could have done after 3 but it was the need to bring Sigourney back that took AR where it went.


Nightmare Asylum
Feb 26, 2015, 03:59:35 PM
Reply #18 on: Feb 26, 2015, 03:59:35 PM
Q
Yup. If they really wanted to, they could have found some excuse to bring the series back to LV-426 and the Derelict (that could have written in that it wasn't destroyed in the explosion).

Or just have them find Aliens (or, hell, even Jockeys if they wanted to go that route) elsewhere. It'd kind of undermine Ripley's sacrifice either way, but Fox surely doesn't care about that.


Ulfer
Feb 26, 2015, 04:12:44 PM
Reply #19 on: Feb 26, 2015, 04:12:44 PM
Q
I'm quite surprised by this kind of comment about Alien 3 and 4. I understand that Resurrection is not well loved (but I think the hatred for it here is hyperbolic). But Alien 3 ? The extended cut is great, in my opinion, and Alien 3 has great elements. I understand that many people hated the death of two beloved characters, Newt and Hicks. But the death of Ripley gave closure to the character in a meaningful way. The "trilogy" that it made up was coherent.
Of course, there were other possible scenarios for Ripley at the time and Alien 3 closed the way - except for the idea of the clone experiment which was chosen in Resurrection (but Ripley 8 is another character).

It's one thing to support the retcon, and another one to say "the two last movies must be forgotten" or are utterly bad. I'm not opposed to the retcon with Ripley, for example. But it better be good, and a great movie, and the risk is to take the reverse way of Alien 3 (killing the two other survivors of Haldey's Hope was maybe too much, but making Hicks invincible in Alien V would appear the same, for example).

« Last Edit: Feb 26, 2015, 04:24:32 PM by Ulfer »

Perfect-Organism
Feb 26, 2015, 04:23:04 PM
Reply #20 on: Feb 26, 2015, 04:23:04 PM
Q
Not really - Alien 3 didn't ruin opportunities, Resurrection did that itself with the line "for all intents and purposes, she succeeded". There was far more they could have done after 3 but it was the need to bring Sigourney back that took AR where it went.

Hicks I can't understand how you can justify that perspective.  (I mean the sheer fact that you chose Corporal hicks as you tag suggests you would have a different perspective, but I digress   ;) )

Let's take a look at some story / film fundamentals:

Every story is basically one of 3 archetypes

Man vs Man
Man vs Nature
Man vs Himself

The story of Alien is essentially Man vs Nature.  In this case it is Ripley (Woman) vs the Alien (Nature).  The Aliens are exotic but for all intents and purposes they're just stupid animals.  (How could they cut the power?).  Independently of a cast of people, the Aliens have no story of their own.  Pure Sci-fi fans may differ in their opinion of this because they are more fascinated with the fantastic situation than they are with the actual human aspects which are intrinsic to every good story.  For any story to be any good, it has to have the human element.  It can't be denied that Alien 3 finished Ripley's arc effectively, but to say that it allowed for further continuity is not consistent with good story telling.

Granted you could just tell another tale in the established Alien universe, but any such story would be hollow without the lead character.  The Aliens are the equivalent of a tornado.  A force of nature.  You can tell different tales about a tornado, but without the protagonist from the first story, they are just unrelated tales.  To continue with an exploration of LV-426's derelict without Ripley is no more than an epilogue to the central story arc.  It may satisfy some fans' curiosities, but for the most part it will fall flat.  It is like the Rocky series without Sly Stallone's character (but instead some other boxer), or Superman without Clark Kent (but with a similar super-being).

Do you recall the Airwolf TV series?  How about the Knight Rider TV series?  They had very compelling universes.  An intelligent talking car and a futuristic helicopter.  At some point the lead characters went away and then they were replaced by other lead characters in a follow-up series.  Each series fell flat.  You can't just delete the main character and expect the story to continue regardless of how amazing the context is.

My 2 cents.



Liberator
Feb 26, 2015, 04:58:41 PM
Reply #21 on: Feb 26, 2015, 04:58:41 PM
Q
Alien 5 continuing the story of Ripley, Hicks, and Newt would be perfect.


SpreadEagleBeagle
Feb 26, 2015, 05:01:43 PM
Reply #22 on: Feb 26, 2015, 05:01:43 PM
Q
Retcons and reboots are ALWAYS cop outs. Period.
You're too lazy and cheap to work with what you got. It's unimaginative an uncreative. It's money grabbing.


Omegamorph
Feb 26, 2015, 05:05:41 PM
Reply #23 on: Feb 26, 2015, 05:05:41 PM
Q
Every film ever is money grabbing -- nothing makes 'retcons' any more guilty of doing that.


Perfect-Organism
Feb 26, 2015, 05:20:45 PM
Reply #24 on: Feb 26, 2015, 05:20:45 PM
Q
Every film ever is money grabbing -- nothing makes 'retcons' any more guilty of doing that.

Especiall sequels.  Let's not forget that his is an industry.  It exists to make money.  By selling artistic stories on film, but to make money nonetheless.  Alien 3 was not a part of the original story teller's vision.  It was a random, ad-hock story that was cobbled together to eek out some more money from the success of Aliens.  It needs to be retconned, and the quicker the better.


Corporal Hicks
Feb 26, 2015, 05:28:29 PM
Reply #25 on: Feb 26, 2015, 05:28:29 PM
Q
Not really - Alien 3 didn't ruin opportunities, Resurrection did that itself with the line "for all intents and purposes, she succeeded". There was far more they could have done after 3 but it was the need to bring Sigourney back that took AR where it went.

Hicks I can't understand how you can justify that perspective.  (I mean the sheer fact that you chose Corporal hicks as you tag suggests you would have a different perspective, but I digress   ;) )

Let's take a look at some story / film fundamentals:

Every story is basically one of 3 archetypes

Man vs Man
Man vs Nature
Man vs Himself

The story of Alien is essentially Man vs Nature.  In this case it is Ripley (Woman) vs the Alien (Nature).  The Aliens are exotic but for all intents and purposes they're just stupid animals.  (How could they cut the power?).  Independently of a cast of people, the Aliens have no story of their own.  Pure Sci-fi fans may differ in their opinion of this because they are more fascinated with the fantastic situation than they are with the actual human aspects which are intrinsic to every good story.  For any story to be any good, it has to have the human element.  It can't be denied that Alien 3 finished Ripley's arc effectively, but to say that it allowed for further continuity is not consistent with good story telling.

Granted you could just tell another tale in the established Alien universe, but any such story would be hollow without the lead character.  The Aliens are the equivalent of a tornado.  A force of nature.  You can tell different tales about a tornado, but without the protagonist from the first story, they are just unrelated tales.  To continue with an exploration of LV-426's derelict without Ripley is no more than an epilogue to the central story arc.  It may satisfy some fans' curiosities, but for the most part it will fall flat.  It is like the Rocky series without Sly Stallone's character (but instead some other boxer), or Superman without Clark Kent (but with a similar super-being).

Do you recall the Airwolf TV series?  How about the Knight Rider TV series?  They had very compelling universes.  An intelligent talking car and a futuristic helicopter.  At some point the lead characters went away and then they were replaced by other lead characters in a follow-up series.  Each series fell flat.  You can't just delete the main character and expect the story to continue regardless of how amazing the context is.

My 2 cents.

I'm out atm and on my phone but when I get home tonight I'll reply to this properly.


Valaquen
Feb 26, 2015, 05:48:34 PM
Reply #26 on: Feb 26, 2015, 05:48:34 PM
Q
Retcons and reboots are ALWAYS cop outs. Period.
You're too lazy and cheap to work with what you got. It's unimaginative an uncreative. It's money grabbing.

C'mon, man.

Quote
"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.'"

Quote
"There are people, who shall remain nameless, that I was bumping into as I was trying to put this thing 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.

He's not alone:

Quote
"The impetus of the third film was primarily the success of Aliens."
~ Sigourney Weaver.

Quote
"I hesitate to say it, but I think that money men now seem to be in control of the studios, rather than filmmakers, the emphasis is much more on making profits. These people know that if they release a film called Alien 3 they're going to make millions of dollars, providing they don't exceed the initial budget. So, they don't actually care what the picture's like. That sounds very cynical, but that's the way things work in the industry at the moment."
~ Martin Asbury, Alien 3 storyboard artist, Starlog, 1992.

Quote
“In the end,it came to a showdown between the director’s vision and a dwindling amount of cold, hard cash.”
~ Sigourney Weaver, Premiere magazine, 1992.


Perfect-Organism
Feb 26, 2015, 05:48:43 PM
Reply #27 on: Feb 26, 2015, 05:48:43 PM
Q
Not really - Alien 3 didn't ruin opportunities, Resurrection did that itself with the line "for all intents and purposes, she succeeded". There was far more they could have done after 3 but it was the need to bring Sigourney back that took AR where it went.

Hicks I can't understand how you can justify that perspective.  (I mean the sheer fact that you chose Corporal hicks as you tag suggests you would have a different perspective, but I digress   ;) )

Let's take a look at some story / film fundamentals:

Every story is basically one of 3 archetypes

Man vs Man
Man vs Nature
Man vs Himself

The story of Alien is essentially Man vs Nature.  In this case it is Ripley (Woman) vs the Alien (Nature).  The Aliens are exotic but for all intents and purposes they're just stupid animals.  (How could they cut the power?).  Independently of a cast of people, the Aliens have no story of their own.  Pure Sci-fi fans may differ in their opinion of this because they are more fascinated with the fantastic situation than they are with the actual human aspects which are intrinsic to every good story.  For any story to be any good, it has to have the human element.  It can't be denied that Alien 3 finished Ripley's arc effectively, but to say that it allowed for further continuity is not consistent with good story telling.

Granted you could just tell another tale in the established Alien universe, but any such story would be hollow without the lead character.  The Aliens are the equivalent of a tornado.  A force of nature.  You can tell different tales about a tornado, but without the protagonist from the first story, they are just unrelated tales.  To continue with an exploration of LV-426's derelict without Ripley is no more than an epilogue to the central story arc.  It may satisfy some fans' curiosities, but for the most part it will fall flat.  It is like the Rocky series without Sly Stallone's character (but instead some other boxer), or Superman without Clark Kent (but with a similar super-being).

Do you recall the Airwolf TV series?  How about the Knight Rider TV series?  They had very compelling universes.  An intelligent talking car and a futuristic helicopter.  At some point the lead characters went away and then they were replaced by other lead characters in a follow-up series.  Each series fell flat.  You can't just delete the main character and expect the story to continue regardless of how amazing the context is.

My 2 cents.

I'm out atm and on my phone but when I get home tonight I'll reply to this properly.

Cool.  Looking forward to your insights.



Nightlord
Feb 26, 2015, 06:50:18 PM
Reply #29 on: Feb 26, 2015, 06:50:18 PM
Q


This right here makes alien3 an easy retcon in my eyes.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed