A way to make Blomkamp's Alien work without retconning Alien 3 or Resurrection?

[SiL]

There's an anime I really like, Gurren Lagann, which perfectly sums up why I hate the idea of bringing Hicks and Newt back. And it's actually nothing to do with maintaining Alien3 in continuity. I love A3, but f**k it, this is how movies are these days: Don't like it? Reboot it. But my problem with it is this: we shouldn't bring back old, dead characters just because we can. It's counterproductive. These characters had their shot, and they left their mark. Let the next generation have its chance to shine.

Imagine if Aliens had dragged back Parker, Dallas, Ash, etc. Imagine if that film had been burdened by needing to resurrect, justify, and nurture characters that were already dead. Would it be the powerhouse it is today? Of course not. Would fans of Alien even be happy to see those characters' corpses dug up from the grave? f**k, no. They died trying to do something.

The strength of Aliens lies in its ability to move onwards and upwards from where we were left off. It works because it didn't try to suck Alien's cock and preserve every ounce of its precious memory. Why we feel the need to do just that for Aliens is beyond me.

It might well be awful for many that these characters died unceremonious deaths, but for God's sake -- they died, let other characters have their moment! We've gone decades without them. We don't need them. Give us new characters we can root for, instead of banking on us still giving a flying f**k about characters that died 24 years ago.

[whiterabbit]

Yea, stick a fork in it already. Throw us some new meat.

[Kel G 426]

 

Imagine if Aliens had dragged back Parker, Dallas, Ash, etc.

It's not like we want characters like Hudson or Vasquez, we just want the characters who were still alive at the end of the movie.  Big difference.

[HuDaFuK]

Alien 3 and Resurrection could be explained as drug-induced nightmares or hallucinations that Ripley suffered while in captivity.

The dream thing will never work because there's too much that happens in the later films that in no way involves Ripley.

It's not like we want characters like Hudson or Vasquez, we just want the characters who were still alive at the end of the movie.  Big difference.

It's no different. People who are still so bitter about it after all this time should really get over themselves and realise there's a hell of a lot more potential to the series than simply backtracking to resurrect a couple of people several decades after the fact.

[irn]

This is already causing a big divide in the fans and it's not even official yet.

Please, FOX, just go the route of new characters. Just have Michael Beihn play Hicks father looking for justice for the death of his Marine son fighting a corporations battles if you need to just have that little bit of fanservice.

[Local Trouble]

But my problem with it is this: we shouldn't bring back old, dead characters just because we can. It's counterproductive. These characters had their shot, and they left their mark. Let the next generation have its chance to shine.

Agreed, but apparently Weaver needs a new pair of shoes.

Alien 3 and Resurrection could be explained as drug-induced nightmares or hallucinations that Ripley suffered while in captivity.

The dream thing will never work because there's too much that happens in the later films that in no way involves Ripley.

When has that ever stopped hack writers before?

[Kel G 426]

It's no different. People who are still so bitter about it after all this time should really get over themselves and realise there's a hell of a lot more potential to the series than simply backtracking to resurrect a couple of people several decades after the fact.

It is different.  We're not pulling characters at random, just the ones Aliens told us survived.  Frost or Lambert would require an explanation because they died in-story.   But with Newt, just scrap A3 and you're all set.  Get it?  She's not resurrected because she was never dead in the first place. As intended. No explanation required.

This is already causing a big divide in the fans and it's not even official yet.

Fans are divided over everything. Always have been.

[Perfect-Organism]

What if they go the cloning route, but never actually say it until by the end it becomes apparent that that is what happened?

But why would anyone want to clone them?

The cloning in Resurrection at least made sense because they got the Alien out of it. There's no logical reason to go to the vast expense and effort of cloning Ripley, Hicks and Newt. What would you gain? Sod all.

The premise why anyone would want to clone them is as described in the first few posts here.  They were cloned just to have some warm bodies to impregnate.  Bishop had conflicting requests made of him in Aliens.  He was supposed to not harm or by omission of action allow to be harmed another person.  But he was also instructed to bring hoe some Aliens.  One way he could do that, is to make some dumb clones of the people on board the Sulaco and impregnate them with eggs he brought on board.  That's the only reason that so far seems to make sense as to why they would be cloned, and it's not too much of a stretch, and it's also consistent with some of the themes of the films.

What the new proposal is, is to not explain any of this at the beginning of the new film, but rather have it be implied by the end of the movie.  That could be kind of clever.

[HuDaFuK]

The premise why anyone would want to clone them is as described in the first few posts here.  They were cloned just to have some warm bodies to impregnate.

But that's still no explanation. If all they want is someone to be the host for an Alien, why wouldn't they just get someone who already exists - a hobo, a convict, anybody - rather than pointlessly spending millions of dollars on cloning those three in particular?

Whichever way you cut it, the cloning idea just doesn't stand up to any kind of logical scrutiny.

[Perfect-Organism]

It's no different. People who are still so bitter about it after all this time should really get over themselves and realise there's a hell of a lot more potential to the series than simply backtracking to resurrect a couple of people several decades after the fact.

It is different.  We're not pulling characters at random, just the ones Aliens told us survived.  Frost or Lambert would require an explanation because they died in-story.   But with Newt, just scrap A3 and you're all set.  Get it?  She's not resurrected because she was never dead in the first place. As intended. No explanation required.

This is already causing a big divide in the fans and it's not even official yet.

Fans are divided over everything. Always have been.

Yes it is natural for fans to be divided about this issue.  It is normal and I think it is ok.  But there is a caveat with that...

While not agreeing with many of the people on this forum, I am respectfully disagreeing.  There are valuable opinions on both sides of the subject and it serves no purpose for anyone to attack anybody else over their opinions about what is ultimately just a work of fiction.  I propose that the polemic be taken elsewhere on this forum.  There were some active topics on the subject already.  I created this thread for the purpose of trying to make Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection WORK with the underlying assumptions that have been made about Blomkamp's film.  This thread wasn't made to debate the validity of Blomkamp's film, but to see if as fans, we can come up with a logical solution to make Blomkamp's ideas work with A3 and AR.  Can we stick to that?  It's all in good fun boys and girls...

The premise why anyone would want to clone them is as described in the first few posts here.  They were cloned just to have some warm bodies to impregnate.

But that's still no explanation. If all they want is someone to be the host for an Alien, why wouldn't they just get someone who already exists - a hobo, a convict, anybody - rather than pointlessly spending millions of dollars on cloning those three in particular?

Whichever way you cut it, the cloning idea just doesn't stand up to any kind of logical scrutiny.

I am not proposing some magical "them" but rather Bishop.  People can read other people's dreams in this future.  Who is to say that cloning is a multi-million dollar expense at the time of the films.  Perhaps Bishop just throws a switch and the bodies are automatically cloned within a few weeks or days on the Sulaco.  Who is to say that equipment like that doesn't exist on a military vessel.  What if somebody loses an arm in combat?  Clone it once they get back to the ship.  It's reasonable.

The premise is that Bishop brought a few eggs onto the ship and it is more probable than a few eggs magically appearing on the Sulaco as per Alien 3.  Bishop was simply in a rush to impregnate some bodies on the ship so that no actual people get harmed.  The idea is to impregnate and then put back in stasis...

[426Buddy]

Cloning appeared to be a major hurdle for the scientists in resurrection. I guess that doesn't matter if its being written out of existence though.

[HuDaFuK]

Perhaps Bishop just throws a switch and the bodies are automatically cloned within a few weeks or days on the Sulaco.

That would completely contradict the more realistic technological world displayed in the series. The idea that every Marine starship is equipped with some magical machine that can spew out clones at the drop of a hat is a pretty ridiculous one. That's Star Trek deus ex machina stuff.

The idea that Bishop is somehow behind it would also totally undermine the very essence of his character in Aliens, as well as his character arc in that film.

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

Cloning appeared to be a major hurdle for the scientisst in resurrection.

And that was 200 years into the future.

Although to be fair, I think they only had a drop of old, dried-up blood to work with.

Who is to say that cloning is a multi-million dollar expense at the time of the films.  Perhaps Bishop just throws a switch and the bodies are automatically cloned within a few weeks or days on the Sulaco.  Who is to say that equipment like that doesn't exist on a military vessel.  What if somebody loses an arm in combat?  Clone it once they get back to the ship.  It's reasonable.

Could come in handy when you're running short on manpower as a result of attrition. Oi Sarge! We need another 50 Hudson's and let's say another 27 Hickses. Better cook up another batch of 15 Vasquez's as well just in case.

[colonialmarine9]

Why should they recton Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection just because some people don't like them? Believe it or not but some people don't like Aliens because they think it differs too much from Alien. There are even people who don't like the original Alien. Should we recton those movies as well just because some people don't like them?

If they find a logical way to include these characters without recton  (which will be nearly impossible) then be my guest, but don't go around changing movies just because some people don't like it.Technically Colonial Marines is canon but not many people take it as such. If this movie comes out not everybody will like it . What if the movie sucks then what are we stuck with?

I just wish the Alien franchise could move on, for example imagine a movie with Aliens, Colonial Marines, and the UPP you don't need these old characters and still make a good movie that everybody can enjoy without changing the past movies.

[426Buddy]

I think fox no longer considers Aliens CM canon if I remember right.