User Information

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

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Disney's Plans Regarding Alien 5?  (Read 11819 times)

Biomechanoid
Dec 18, 2017, 03:25:53 AM
Reply #15 on: Dec 18, 2017, 03:25:53 AM
Q
This could easily have been achieved by having Newt survive the crash and be killed off in the prison.
I understand where you're coming from, but the jarring loss of Newt portrayed an act of random and instantaneous tragedy. It's rare one is allowed to be prepared for a sudden tragic loss. Like a wife telling a husband on the phone on his way home to stop and get bread. Minutes later, she gets a call from the police he was killed in a car accident. It's a shocking and jarring announcement, she was never given the chance to prepare for her husband's sudden loss.

With just one sentence from Clemens, Ripley went from a last strand of hope to a gloomy funk of melancholy in an instant. Would it have the same jarring impact if the film makers "prepared" the audience that Newt will not survive.

You may think it's executed horribly, but I think it's a cogent exercise in portraying how a tragic loss can be swift and shocking, leaving the recipient blindsided.


SM
Dec 18, 2017, 03:28:52 AM
Reply #16 on: Dec 18, 2017, 03:28:52 AM
Q
But onoes! Carrie Henn would have been 6 years older, and 12 inches taller! ...and you can't have anyone else play that role...

That would be a MORTAL SIN!!1!!!!1

-Windebieste.
Drowning in a cryotube vs. rape and murder by Golic?

I think I'll take the drowning.

Anyone could play the role with the proper skill and ability. The role does not live or die on Carrie's involvement. After all, it's highly unlikely that if Blomkamp's pitch is revived that she'll break retirement. And that's perfectly fine.

And I was calling for the xenomorph to directly kill her, not prison f**king. Everyone knows Ripley would make sure that those prisoners wouldn't dare touch her.

Why would Ripley would let the Alien touch her?  They were never going to have Newt killed by an Alien back in 1992.  Her autopsy and killing Spike with the chestburster were pushing the taste boundary.

Also how would the Alien killing Newt change things?


Toxic34
Dec 18, 2017, 03:39:34 AM
Reply #17 on: Dec 18, 2017, 03:39:34 AM
Q
Ripley barely managed to pull Newt out of the jaws of death. It's quite conceivable that even she couldn't quite do it again another time round, that she tries her damnedest, but it doesn't happen again. And that the same happens for Hicks.

Think of the video game Life Is Strange, and the people you/Max could potentially save, the chances that you have but can't always rewind, and of course that tearjerking final choice you have to make. All the potential deaths that Chloe faces. If anything you are "prepared for death" in just about every way possible. But having it happen isn't any less tragic, any less emotional, any less pulsing with deep symbolism and meaning. Same thing with having the chance to try to prevent Chloe's father's fatal accident, leading to a paralyzed Chloe. I'm not saying that this is exactly how Newt and Hicks should be killed off properly, especially given that the film and this game are more than 20 years apart, but something closer to these lines could easily have been achieved with a writer that was skilled enough to do so...and was not either David Giler or Walter Hill. I think Blomkamp could easily make that happen.


Scorpio
Dec 18, 2017, 03:44:08 AM
Reply #18 on: Dec 18, 2017, 03:44:08 AM
Q
Newt and Hicks are just side characters.  Why would you waste time on them when the story's about Ripley?  This is not supposed to be Star Wars or a superhero movie.  People pay money to see Ripley, not a little girl and a macho but sensitive tough guy.


SM
Dec 18, 2017, 03:48:41 AM
Reply #19 on: Dec 18, 2017, 03:48:41 AM
Q
Quote
Ripley barely managed to pull Newt out of the jaws of death. It's quite conceivable that even she couldn't quite do it again another time round, that she tries her damnedest, but it doesn't happen again. And that the same happens for Hicks.

Taking all that into account - how would Newt getting killed by an Alien change Alien 3 in a positive way?


Toxic34
Dec 18, 2017, 03:55:05 AM
Reply #20 on: Dec 18, 2017, 03:55:05 AM
Q
Newt and Hicks are just side characters.  Why would you waste time on them when the story's about Ripley?  This is not supposed to be Star Wars or a superhero movie.  People pay money to see Ripley, not a little girl and a macho but sensitive tough guy.

Even side characters should be handled in an intelligent, thoughtful and meaningful manner, that makes one feel it was a logical progression to move towards. The only handling of a character, side or main, that was worse in terms of being thoroughly insulting was how Covenant dealt with Shaw and her quest regarding the Engineers.

Again, Life Is Strange does this in a thoroughly sympathetic and commendable manner. This also applies to things like Cortana's switch to malevolence in Halo 5, characters such as Daisy Fitzroy and the Luteces in BioShock Infinite, the twists and turns in much of David Fincher's later filmography (make no mistake, the good elements of Alien 3 are primarily because of Fincher's direction), or the ensemble cast of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the Evil Dead franchise, and on and on. There's an art to dealing with side characters, and Alien 3 simply doesn't achieve it. Of course, Resurrection and Covenant are far worse in their execution, even if there is never a reason to remotely care about any of the characters in Resurrection.

« Last Edit: Dec 18, 2017, 04:31:00 AM by Toxic34 »

Gash
Dec 18, 2017, 05:20:56 AM
Reply #21 on: Dec 18, 2017, 05:20:56 AM
Q
Disliked the character of Newt in Aliens, but the impact of her death made her a significant character in Alien3. I was more emotionally involved in her thanks to Weaver's acting in the autopsy scene than I ever was in their surrogate mother/daughter relationship.

However, appreciation of Weaver aside, I really hope not to see the character of an ageing Ripley dragged out for another outing with the alien. Newt and Hicks even less so.


I'm not saying that this is exactly how Newt and Hicks should be killed off properly, especially given that the film and this game are more than 20 years apart, but something closer to these lines could easily have been achieved with a writer that was skilled enough to do so...and was not either David Giler or Walter Hill. I think Blomkamp could easily make that happen.

Are you suggesting Blomkamp is a better writer than David Giler or Walter Hill? Bold considering the track record.

« Last Edit: Dec 18, 2017, 05:28:02 AM by Gash »

JungleHunter87
Dec 18, 2017, 04:47:47 PM
Reply #22 on: Dec 18, 2017, 04:47:47 PM
Q
Newt and Hicks are just side characters.  Why would you waste time on them when the story's about Ripley?  This is not supposed to be Star Wars or a superhero movie.  People pay money to see Ripley, not a little girl and a macho but sensitive tough guy.

ALIEN3 and RESURRECTION proved the latter isn’t true. Audiences by and large did NOT pay to see Ripley. With diminishing returns every movie after 1986.

I find it ironic though, that despite your seemingly unending distaste for ALIENS. It was that very film the turned the ALIEN series into the Ripley show.

In A L I E N she was just the final girl. No other story relevance, then Cameron came along and pinned a sequel all about Ellen Ripley.


SiL
Dec 18, 2017, 09:14:42 PM
Reply #23 on: Dec 18, 2017, 09:14:42 PM
Q
Diminishing returns for every film since 1979, since you seem to be adjusting for inflation.


Scorpio
Dec 18, 2017, 10:46:17 PM
Reply #24 on: Dec 18, 2017, 10:46:17 PM
Q


ALIEN3 and RESURRECTION proved the latter isn’t true. Audiences by and large did NOT pay to see Ripley. With diminishing returns every movie after 1986.

Arguably, she was a big part of the box office returns for those films.

Quote
I find it ironic though, that despite your seemingly unending distaste for ALIENS. It was that very film the turned the ALIEN series into the Ripley show.

In A L I E N she was just the final girl. No other story relevance, then Cameron came along and pinned a sequel all about Ellen Ripley.

Yes, Aliens did turn it into the Ripley show.  I have no problem with that. 

That's why I say Newt and Hicks were just side characters that revolved around Ripley.  Ripley is the star of Aliens.  It is her story from the beginning of the movie.  The others are just supporting characters.

So including Newt and Hicks in Alien 3 wouldn't make much sense.  There's nothing more they could add to the story.  They are just there to prop up Ripley and that's it.  They are not the stars of the show, they are peripheral.


OpenMaw
Dec 18, 2017, 11:35:18 PM
Reply #25 on: Dec 18, 2017, 11:35:18 PM
Q
If I were going to keep Hicks or Newt alive I would have kept Hicks alive and had him fill in 90% of the role that Clemens did. Hicks would exit the film in the same way Clemens did. Newt's death in Alien 3 serves a distinct purpose. Hicks is more tertiary and of no importance, which is a disservice to the character, and a disservice to the relationship that was forming there. Boot him, sure, just boot him with a little more meaning.


JungleHunter87
Dec 19, 2017, 02:27:36 AM
Reply #26 on: Dec 19, 2017, 02:27:36 AM
Q
Diminishing returns for every film since 1979, since you seem to be adjusting for inflation.

I stand corrected. :P

Quote
I find it ironic though, that despite your seemingly unending distaste for ALIENS. It was that very film the turned the ALIEN series into the Ripley show.

In A L I E N she was just the final girl. No other story relevance, then Cameron came along and pinned a sequel all about Ellen Ripley.

Quote
Yes, Aliens did turn it into the Ripley show.  I have no problem with that. 


Unfortunately the sequels thought that every story there after needed to revolve around Ripley. They were proven wrong time and again. It’s become a curse the series, save for the prequels who have their own identity crisis, still can’t seem too shake.

Quote
That's why I say Newt and Hicks were just side characters that revolved around Ripley.  Ripley is the star of Aliens.  It is her story from the beginning of the movie.  The others are just supporting characters.

While I agree the overall story is heavily written with Ripley at the center. It’s not solely about her. ALIENS like it’s predecessor and successors have and always will be ensemble films.

Quote
So including Newt and Hicks in Alien 3 wouldn't make much sense.  There's nothing more they could add to the story.  They are just there to prop up Ripley and that's it.  They are not the stars of the show, they are peripheral.

It’s lazy writing to say Hicks and Newt served no further narrative purpose. Same can be said of Ripley after A L I E N. Without the benefit of hindsight. How would you have continued that story? At this point all we know of Ripley as a character is that she was the final girl who beat the star beast and detonated her crew’s vessel. We have no other info on her as the film wasn’t about her. It was about the Xenomorph.

The mark of great writers is to expand upon those thin plot threads and elaborate on situations and themes. So with that minimal info, Cameron created much of Ellen Ripley’s on-screen background and gave her a narrative reason to be relevant past the inquest scene.

The same could have been done for ALIEN3 with Hicks and Newt. It wasn’t, not really a big deal too me. But, I can see other people’s POV in regards to the ultimate fate of two beloved characters via bad writing. A glimpse into some of those people’s reason for disliking the way Hicks and Newt were offed can probably be summed up by a quote from ALIEN3 -

“You're all gonna die. Only question is how you check out. Do you want it on your feet? Or on your f**king knees, begging? I ain't much for begging. Nobody ever gave me nothing! So I say f**k that thing! Let's fight it! “

Except Hicks and Newt didn’t get that chance. Which is where the hard feelings come from I imagine?


SM
Dec 19, 2017, 02:31:50 AM
Reply #27 on: Dec 19, 2017, 02:31:50 AM
Q
Quote
While I agree the overall story is heavily written with Ripley at the center. It’s not solely about her. ALIENS like it’s predecessor and successors have and always will be ensemble films.

The only film that was close to an ensemble after Alien was Resurrection by including Winona Ryder.  Aliens and Alien 3 were the Sigourney Weaver show.

Quote
At this point all we know of Ripley as a character is that she was the final girl who beat the star beast and detonated her crew’s vessel. We have no other info on her as the film wasn’t about her. It was about the Xenomorph.

No, it was about her beating the Xenomorph.  Ripley is the only character in Alien who has any development or arc.


SiL
Dec 19, 2017, 02:49:32 AM
Reply #28 on: Dec 19, 2017, 02:49:32 AM
Q
No, it was about her beating the Xenomorph.  Ripley is the only character in Alien who has any development or arc.
Definitely the only one with any real arc, but I'd say at least Parker is a pretty well developed character. He's not entirely one note -- he seems lazy and complacent for the most part, but when shit gets real he's one of the people demanding (and engaging in) direct action.

Dallas' desperate talk with MUTHR is also pretty damn humanising, and a fair sight better than we get with most characters throughout the series.


SM
Dec 19, 2017, 02:59:27 AM
Reply #29 on: Dec 19, 2017, 02:59:27 AM
Q
I think they're all pretty well developed in Alien, it's just not in your face.

With Dallas it only occurred to me a relatively short time ago (probably someone else told me; I don't remember) that him going into the vent was very possibly out of responsibility for letting the Alien on board, and not mere bravado.  It's something that makes perfect sense, but in no way needs to be stated.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed