Author Topic: Neil Blomkamp Has "Moved On" From Alien 5  (Read 37280 times)

Scorpio
Jan 08, 2018, 05:34:27 AM
Reply #135 on: Jan 08, 2018, 05:34:27 AM
Q
We know.  Aliens is the most popular movie.  Only the opinions of the majority count, because they bring in the money.  That's the way it is.


I'll admit, I was kind of sad Hicks died when I watched Alien 3 as a younger fellow.

It never even registered with me.  Granted, I would have been only 10 years old when I saw it, that's why I don't get the 'controversy'.  If the internet was around in its current form back then, it would have exploded.


Huggs
Jan 08, 2018, 07:10:31 AM
Reply #136 on: Jan 08, 2018, 07:10:31 AM
Q
Well, I was almost your age scorpio. But yeah, "sad" may have been a bit of an overstatement. I was kinda bummed out about it honestly because he was my favorite character from Aliens. I didn't really find Ripley that interesting back then. I kind of still don't. But I thought Hicks was awesome. Him and Drake were my two favorite characters from that movie.

Aliens in general isn't my favorite film in the franchise, but it does hold a special place in my heart. It was the first one I ever saw. I still remember when my dad found out I saw it, he said "I don't care what else has been made, those movies will scare...you...to...death." My mother was less than pleased. Then he asked me if I saw the first one, he told me he'd seen it in theaters when he was young, and it was gonna be a lot scarier than Aliens. Of course, this made me want to watch it even more. I watched it at night. I was horrified, and it was great. It's been my favorite film ever since, followed closely by John Carpenters The Thing. Every single time I watch Aliens though, I still think about my dad telling me how scary it is. To this day, we've still never watched it together.


windebieste
Jan 08, 2018, 09:15:22 AM
Reply #137 on: Jan 08, 2018, 09:15:22 AM
Q
In terms of the 'ALIEN' property, the "grand scope of studio commerce" the majority of fan's opinion has been ignored. 

You may have noticed.

Otherwise, the sequel we got in 1992 would have featured Rippers and Hicks running around with pulse rifles shootin' bugs again. 

-Windebieste


Corporal Hicks
Jan 08, 2018, 09:40:40 AM
Reply #138 on: Jan 08, 2018, 09:40:40 AM
Q
I'm not sure that was the thinking back then. Didn't Hill or Giler make some sort of comment during Alien 3's production about sticking the title Alien on a video of someone pissing up a wall for 3 hours and it'd make money? The fanbase or franchise probably wasn't as fractured back then.


Scorpio
Jan 08, 2018, 10:11:37 AM
Reply #139 on: Jan 08, 2018, 10:11:37 AM
Q
"James Cameron always used to talk about the possibilities of Alien 3 and what would happen ...  He always planned on Ripley, Hicks and Newt going back to Earth and being a family.  And throughout the movie there's different parts where there's a shot of the three of us and like in medlab when the aliens had attacked Sigourney there's a shot of me giving Sigourney a hug and Hicks right behind her and that was like his big family shot." 

-Carrie Henn on the Making of Alien 3



The Eighth Passenger
Jan 08, 2018, 04:39:36 PM
Reply #140 on: Jan 08, 2018, 04:39:36 PM
Q
Only guessing but probably his idea after discussions with Weaver while working on Chappie.

Judging from the response at the time, the only people who weren't keen on the idea were a segment of Alien fans.

Yeah, you're quite right. Blomkamp said his original story idea was a very different beast and didn't involve Weaver at all. But it was while filming Chappie that Weaver told him she was quite keen to reprise her original Ripley character. That convinced him to re-write his story and effectively turn it into a direct Aliens sequel. At that point the studio didn't even know he was working on an Alien film.

Having Weaver on-board would very likely have increased his chances of getting the film off the ground, so it was probably a smart move. It wasn't just Blomkamp pitching an Alien movie to Fox now, it was Blomkamp and Sigourney Weaver.

I'm not sure that was the thinking back then. Didn't Hill or Giler make some sort of comment during Alien 3's production about sticking the title Alien on a video of someone pissing up a wall for 3 hours and it'd make money? The fanbase or franchise probably wasn't as fractured back then.

Well, Gearbox basically did that and yep, it still made money.

« Last Edit: Jan 08, 2018, 04:51:13 PM by The Eighth Passenger »

Kelgaard
Jan 08, 2018, 05:42:05 PM
Reply #141 on: Jan 08, 2018, 05:42:05 PM
Q
An older Hicks was in his artwork, and Michael Biehn confirmed he was contacted about the film before it was cancelled. I'm all ears if you can rationally explain how bringing back his dead character does not in fact retcon Alien 3.

And I think most of the hate towards Blomkamp's proposed film was about bringing back these dead characters rather than it returning to the action-oriented approach of Aliens.

No need to rationally explain how he's bringing back dead characters if they never died. As Bishop already explained, Blomkamp's film follows an alternative timeline. It's Alien, Aliens and then the timelines diverge. It's two separate universes from then on out that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with each other anymore.

It would have been a retcon if Blomkamp was going to explain Alien 3 away as a bad dream or through some other daft method such as time-travel or Hicks and Newt clones. His solution is much more elegant, no need for retcons involving time travel, clones or bad dreams.

Fans will now have a choice, they can either stick to the original quadrilogy timeline and version of events or follow the alternative chain of events. It's like those old choose-your-own-adventure books. But it seems certain members on here hate the idea of having a choice?

I'm sorry, but this simply does not make any rational sense whatsoever. Hicks and Newt died in Alien 3; bringing them back would effectively retcon that film. It's really that simple.

Do you not understand the difference between ignoring and retconning?



OpenMaw
Jan 08, 2018, 08:36:54 PM
Reply #142 on: Jan 08, 2018, 08:36:54 PM
Q
There's no indication that Newt was going to come back, and for all we know Michael Biehn's presence as Hicks might have been limited to some kind of a fever-dream hallucination.


Jonesy1974
Jan 08, 2018, 10:55:35 PM
Reply #143 on: Jan 08, 2018, 10:55:35 PM
Q
Retconning Alien 3, alternate timelines or fever dreams. I don't care whatever spin is put on it, it's still a naff and lazy idea.

We've had Ripleys story and it was a perfectly rounded arc prior to Resurrection, no need to drag her back again. I liked Hicks and he had charisma but the character didn't leave a big enough impression to require his return, from death or dream. I just don't see why it's necessary to mess about with what's already established.

Just write good new characters for people to follow, I don't think that's too much to ask.



Beatnation
Jan 09, 2018, 02:09:00 AM
Reply #145 on: Jan 09, 2018, 02:09:00 AM
Q
An older Hicks was in his artwork, and Michael Biehn confirmed he was contacted about the film before it was cancelled. I'm all ears if you can rationally explain how bringing back his dead character does not in fact retcon Alien 3.

And I think most of the hate towards Blomkamp's proposed film was about bringing back these dead characters rather than it returning to the action-oriented approach of Aliens.

No need to rationally explain how he's bringing back dead characters if they never died. As Bishop already explained, Blomkamp's film follows an alternative timeline. It's Alien, Aliens and then the timelines diverge. It's two separate universes from then on out that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with each other anymore.

It would have been a retcon if Blomkamp was going to explain Alien 3 away as a bad dream or through some other daft method such as time-travel or Hicks and Newt clones. His solution is much more elegant, no need for retcons involving time travel, clones or bad dreams.

Fans will now have a choice, they can either stick to the original quadrilogy timeline and version of events or follow the alternative chain of events. It's like those old choose-your-own-adventure books. But it seems certain members on here hate the idea of having a choice?

I'm sorry, but this simply does not make any rational sense whatsoever. Hicks and Newt died in Alien 3; bringing them back would effectively retcon that film. It's really that simple.

Do you not understand the difference between ignoring and retconning?

Are you for real ríght now??


Huggs
Jan 09, 2018, 04:14:04 AM
Reply #146 on: Jan 09, 2018, 04:14:04 AM
Q
Well, one could look at it this way. Ignoring the "process" of retconning, what we're dealing with is a group of characters in a movie. Those characters were seen dead by the viewing audience long ago, and countless times since. The effect their new presence has on the franchise is irrelevant. Alternate timelines and other shoehorns aside, it will be the same viewing audience that saw them die in Alien 3. To me, those characters are long dead and gone. Officially, they're long dead and gone. To see them resurrected for any reason, is just weird and unnecessary. David creating the Alien and the jockey being a giant member of the blue-man group is crazy enough. Having 3 dead characters alive and onscreen again would be the cow that jumps the shark.

And yes, to be technical, to ignore is to disregard. Effectively if we're ignoring Alien 3 then we're disregarding it. Which is technically retconning. Either way, I understand where he's coming from. He loves the second movie, and wants another film like it with the same characters. I just don't personally find it a good idea for this franchise. But, if it winds up being made, I hope it's made well and we all get to see a great movie. Might as well try and be positive.


Beatnation
Jan 09, 2018, 12:52:04 PM
Reply #147 on: Jan 09, 2018, 12:52:04 PM
Q
Even Blomkamp, the director and creative mind behind this aberration, has moved on.

Why some of you can't??


Scorpio
Jan 09, 2018, 01:12:59 PM
Reply #148 on: Jan 09, 2018, 01:12:59 PM
Q
If I were a betting man, my money would be on Ridley.


Xenomorphine
Jan 10, 2018, 04:38:32 AM
Reply #149 on: Jan 10, 2018, 04:38:32 AM
Q
Yeah, you're quite right. Blomkamp said his original story idea was a very different beast and didn't involve Weaver at all. But it was while filming Chappie that Weaver told him she was quite keen to reprise her original Ripley character. That convinced him to re-write his story and effectively turn it into a direct Aliens sequel. At that point the studio didn't even know he was working on an Alien film.

Having Weaver on-board would very likely have increased his chances of getting the film off the ground, so it was probably a smart move. It wasn't just Blomkamp pitching an Alien movie to Fox now, it was Blomkamp and Sigourney Weaver.

This is what I don't understand about the pre-emptive critics of this project. They keep blaming Blomkamp for the scant few details we even have about the story (Ripley being included and 'Alien 3' somehow being negated), when he was never responsible for that angle. If one wants to land the blame (or praise) for that stuff, then aim at Weaver.

And she's been the one person continuously associated with the series, who has consistently praised the third and fourth films, to this very day.

Put yourself in his position. You casually chat with one of your screen icons about a story you've been working on - one which we know would have continued after the third film. She responds positively and the ball actually seems to get rolling on something you're creatively passionate about. She's willing to not only feature, but use her contacts and reputation to help get it started.

You're going to refuse that kind of personal involvement? With one of the best actresses still in show business?

You're either an idiot or have no idea how difficult it could be in the Hollywood system, if you honestly think you would say no.

We have very little in the way of story details to go on. Certainly not enough to decry whatever writing was done as supposed fan-fiction (any more than we have enough to cheerlead it). All I know is that NB has repeatedly voiced, in interviews, an understanding of what works about the original two films and why those elements are so timeless. He knows it needs to return to themes like psychosexuality, biomechanics, genuine horror, etcetera.

None of use know of the end result would have been any good, but I can't argue against him on those ingredients being necessary to properly revitalise this series of films.

Is there a worry about certain things he might have tried introducing? Sure. That goes with any artistic talent getting a chance at adding something to this - including Scott. But blame Weaver for the Ripley/Hicks/Newt/retcon stuff. If it's meant to take place not long after 'Aliens' and a military element happens to be involved, one would expect Colonial Marine-related visuals to have been included in concept art. Indeed, 'Alien 3' uncluded a Sulaco-like ship, pulse rifles, Weyland-Yutani and that struck a very different tone to 'Aliens'.

We simply do not know enough about what was in the works to make any kind of judgement calls over it.

« Last Edit: Jan 10, 2018, 04:44:04 AM by Xenomorphine »

 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed