Has AvPR improved wih age?

[predxeno]

He's basing it on ADF did alterations to other novelizations that didn't drastically change the stories.

But... they're completely unrelated novels.

So your argument is basically that ADF keeps to the scripts of all the novelizations he has ever written except for Alien 3 where, for some reason, he has thrown the idea of consistency completely to the wind?

[Perfect-Organism]

For clarities sake, here's what he told me back in 06:

Corporal Hicks – The third novel, like the film itself, had quite a bit trouble coming into making. Would you care to explain just what problems you faced while writing the Alien3 novel?

Alan Dean Foster – So many things did not make sense, from character motivation to the science. For example, two characters trying to find still functioning batteries from a pile of same...as if D-cells will still be power sources three hundred years from now. And the killing of the little girl, Newt, was as big an obscenity as anything I've encountered in modern film. It also destroys Ripley's motivation for wanting to stay alive. Shaving Ripley's head...one more visual excuse for scriptorial ineptness. If you can't write plot and character, try to dazzle 'em with smoke and mirrors. My initial version included such things as histories and motivations for many of the convicts; why they had been sentenced to such a world, etc. I also invented a way to rationalize Newt's not dying but also not participating in the story. The producers forced Warner and I to remove all of it, and more. Following the screenplay exactly 'would make a better book', as I recall the wording.

Corporal Hicks – How difficult was it trying to write such a novel when you didn't know how it would end or what might happen to the characters?

Alan Dean Foster – Actually, I did know. But things often change during production, between the time the manuscript is approved for production and the film's final cut.

http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/interviews/alan-dean-foster/

With the passage of time, the release of such a book would not really create confusion in relation to the film.  So how epic would it be if ADF were able to release this "alternate" Alien 3 book?  I mean just as something for the fans.  I know it will not happen, because this sort of thing just never does happen, but it would probably be a great read...

[HuDaFuK]

So your argument is basically that ADF keeps to the scripts of all the novelizations he has ever written except for Alien 3 where, for some reason, he has thrown the idea of consistency completely to the wind?

My argument is what he may or may not have done with another book has literally zero bearing on what you're trying to argue. The simple fact is he clearly made some changes to move the book away from the script, because that's the reason the producers asked him to change it back.

[predxeno]

And I'm saying that ADF has done this before with other books and those books provide an indicator as to how different Alien 3 would have been.  It should be reminded that ADF could have Newt awaken in his novelization, but instead he kept her in a death-like trance to not deviate too much from the script he was provided where Newt died.

[Corporal Hicks]

With the passage of time, the release of such a book would not really create confusion in relation to the film.  So how epic would it be if ADF were able to release this "alternate" Alien 3 book?  I mean just as something for the fans.  I know it will not happen, because this sort of thing just never does happen, but it would probably be a great read...

Pretty sure he's actually dead. But it would be really cool if someone published that original version.

And I'm saying that ADF has done this before with other books and those books provide an indicator as to how different Alien 3 would have been.  It should be reminded that ADF could have Newt awaken in his novelization, but instead he kept her in a death-like trance to not deviate too much from the script he was provided where Newt died.

Have you got some extra information about his early Alien 3 novelization?

So your argument is basically that ADF keeps to the scripts of all the novelizations he has ever written except for Alien 3 where, for some reason, he has thrown the idea of consistency completely to the wind?

My argument is what he may or may not have done with another book has literally zero bearing on what you're trying to argue. The simple fact is he clearly made some changes to move the book away from the script, because that's the reason the producers asked him to change it back.

This. ^^

[predxeno]

And I'm saying that ADF has done this before with other books and those books provide an indicator as to how different Alien 3 would have been.  It should be reminded that ADF could have Newt awaken in his novelization, but instead he kept her in a death-like trance to not deviate too much from the script he was provided where Newt died.

Have you got some extra information about his early Alien 3 novelization?

I have the same information that you have of the interviews ADF gave us.  It's pretty clear to any Alien fan that ADF wanted to keep things consistent, to a degree, with the script hence that's why Newt has never woken up from hypersleep.  Your argument is essentially that ADF is capable of keeping all of his novelizations to the script but for Alien 3 exclusively he went completely out of it and wrote a book that had nothing at all to do with the script, which in itself is pretty unbelievable.

This is an argument that's trying to say that Alien 3, the worst received Alien movie according to The Alien Saga documentary, should be considered the exception to not just one but multiple established rules in movie fiction:

1) When a character is killed offscreen, it's always for convenience reasons rather than to tell a good story (e.g. Teriminator 3, Jaws: The Revenge, Independence Day: Resurgence).

2) When a character is killed in the intro of a horror movie, it's always for shock value rather than plot value (e.g. The Grudge sequels, Cabin Fever 2, Hostel 2).

3) ADF is capable of writing amazing books that while slightly different from the script still keep to the story (e.g. Terminator: Salvation, Star Wars: The Force Awakens).

I'm a fan of AVPR, arguably the worst received movie in the entire series, and even I wouldn't dream of exempting it from one, let alone three, established rule(s) in the film entertainment industry:

1) Horror movies centering teens are often cheap and/or poorly portrayed.

2) When a horror movie kills pregnant women and children, it's more for shock value than plot value.

[Corporal Hicks]

You're completely missing the points and the facts, xeno.

His initial attempts to "fix" the script was significantly different enough that the producers asked him to stick to the script.

This is an argument that's trying to say that Alien 3, the worst received Alien movie according to The Alien Saga documentary, should be considered the exception to not just one but multiple established rules in movie fiction:

1) When a character is killed offscreen, it's always for convenience reasons rather than to tell a good story (e.g. Teriminator 3, Jaws: The Revenge, Independence Day: Resurgence).

2) When a character is killed in the intro of a horror movie, it's always for shock value rather than plot value (e.g. The Grudge sequels, Cabin Fever 2, Hostel 2).

Just because it's common place, doesn't make it a rule. If they are rules, I must have missed those lessons when I was studying film in college.

I'm not saying that the killing of the characters wasn't for convenience, just that they actually worked in into the movie itself. Specifically in the tone of the film and the motivation towards Ripley. Yes, it could have been differently to achieve similar character effects but as ADF himself said - and you like to keep bringing up ADFs opinions - " It also destroys Ripley's motivation for wanting to stay alive." It does effect her character.

3) ADF is capable of writing amazing books that while slightly different from the script still keep to the story (e.g. Terminator: Salvation, Star Wars: The Force Awakens).

Just because he's done it before, doesn't mean that was the case this time around. Obviously it was different enough to want get the producers to ask him to return to the original script.

That said, I feel like I'm wasting my time trying to have a chat with you because you're just not taking it in or willing to accept anything other than what you're saying.

[Perfect-Organism]

With the passage of time, the release of such a book would not really create confusion in relation to the film.  So how epic would it be if ADF were able to release this "alternate" Alien 3 book?  I mean just as something for the fans.  I know it will not happen, because this sort of thing just never does happen, but it would probably be a great read...

Pretty sure he's actually dead. But it would be really cool if someone published that original version.

Alan Dean Foster?  Dead?  For a moment there I experienced a splinter of my mind's eye.  Oh, he alive.  He's 69 years old, unless Wikipedia is out of touch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dean_Foster

[Corporal Hicks]

Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking Robert Sheckley who wrote the adaptation of Alien Harvest.

[predxeno]

You're completely missing the points and the facts, xeno.

His initial attempts to "fix" the script was significantly different enough that the producers asked him to stick to the script.

This is an argument that's trying to say that Alien 3, the worst received Alien movie according to The Alien Saga documentary, should be considered the exception to not just one but multiple established rules in movie fiction:

1) When a character is killed offscreen, it's always for convenience reasons rather than to tell a good story (e.g. Teriminator 3, Jaws: The Revenge, Independence Day: Resurgence).

2) When a character is killed in the intro of a horror movie, it's always for shock value rather than plot value (e.g. The Grudge sequels, Cabin Fever 2, Hostel 2).

Just because it's common place, doesn't make it a rule. If they are rules, I must have missed those lessons when I was studying film in college.

I'm not saying that the killing of the characters wasn't for convenience, just that they actually worked in into the movie itself. Specifically in the tone of the film and the motivation towards Ripley. Yes, it could have been differently to achieve similar character effects but as ADF himself said - and you like to keep bringing up ADFs opinions - " It also destroys Ripley's motivation for wanting to stay alive." It does effect her character.

So if Newt lived, you're suggesting that instead of sacrificing herself, Ripley would just have handed herself over to W-Y so the bad guys get their Alien and win after everything they have done?  This is a VERY questionable ending no matter who's writing.  Also, the "rules" I listed aren't so much rules but often followed patterns; there are definitely exceptions to them but those exceptions are almost always instantly popular, which Alien 3 isn't.

I get what you're saying, Hicks' and Newt's death did affect the viewers' interpretation of the movie by making it darker, but likewise could be said for the death of Amanda Ripley encouraging Ripley's relationship with Newt.  However, just because it adds to the movie's tone doesn't mean it can't be easily cut from the series as James Cameron did with Aliens and ADF tried to do with Alien 3.

3) ADF is capable of writing amazing books that while slightly different from the script still keep to the story (e.g. Terminator: Salvation, Star Wars: The Force Awakens).

Just because he's done it before, doesn't mean that was the case this time around. Obviously it was different enough to want get the producers to ask him to return to the original script.

That said, I feel like I'm wasting my time trying to have a chat with you because you're just not taking it in or willing to accept anything other than what you're saying.

I feel more or less the same way, with all due respect it's like arguing with a Creationist; Darwinians will argue that evolution exists because there are patterns in the fossil record demonstrating that species appear to be changing over millions of years to become new creatures entirely.  The creationist will continuously argue that regardless of the evidence, no one can ever prove that evolution exists (the process takes millions of years) and therefore all evidence in that manner should be tossed aside.  The creationist will also argue that it's equally likely that God decided to create all these different animals to be structurally similar to each other and any similarity among them is just coincidental.

This is similar to this argument because despite all the evidence I have put forward (that ADF has written multiple novelizations that don't differ from their respective scripts, plus the fact that Newt is in a death-like sleep is proof that ADF didn't want to stray too far from the script), the opposition continues to argue that it's all coincidence and that if Newt were to survive then the story would have changed so drastically that Ripley may never have sacrificed herself at all and instead given W-Y what they wanted after all the evil things they've done.

[Kel G 426]

Guys, this has gotten way off topic.  We're supposed to be talking about how happy stupid Aliens is, remember?

[predxeno]

Yes, that's right, I'll back off now, I don't think this debate is really going anywhere anyway.

[HuDaFuK]

This is similar to this argument because despite all the evidence I have put forward...

What?!

You haven't produced any evidence, just massive leaps in logic.

On the flipside, the fact the producers made him change the book back to the script version because it was too different seems not to equate with you.

...Ripley may never have sacrificed herself at all and instead given W-Y what they wanted after all the evil things they've done.

Again I find myself laughing and scratching my head in equal measure. When did anyone ever say that? All I said was having Newt alive would have altered Ripley's character and given her hope that she doesn't have in the film. No one's ever even suggested it would have drastically altered the ending and doomed the human race to destruction. What a laughable statement.

Like Hicks says, evidently trying to talk you out of your bemusing determination not to accept the only piece of hard evidence we actually have about the situation is a lost cause.

[predxeno]

Can we simply agree then that Newt and Hicks' death helped Alien 3 as much as Amanda Ripley's death helped Aliens?  Both deaths paved the way for the storytelling of their respective films, but on the flip side of the coin both can just as easily be removed without affecting the overall plot.  I think this is a fair compromise for both our arguments.

[HuDaFuK]

Can we simply agree then that Newt and Hicks' death helped Alien 3 as much as Amanda Ripley's death helped Aliens?  Both deaths paved the way for the storytelling of their respective films, but on the flip side of the coin both can just as easily be removed without affecting the overall plot.

No, because the second film still makes sense without knowing about Amanda - we never even knew she existed in Alien - whereas if you hacked the death of Newt and Hicks out of the third film it would change things.