It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I see what you're saying, but I still don't think they needed to kill off Newt and Hicks. The events of Alien 3 did not have to pick up immediately after Aliens. It could be assumed that the Sulaco made it home safe, and Hicks and Newt could be out of the picture without killing them off. The story could progress some other way. Their deaths, especially Newt's, makes the events of the previous film pointless. It particularly ruins the dramatic rescue from the hive; an otherwise awesome triumph in the series.
I'm usually not a fan of sequels that do that: take the predecessor's great ending and negate a large chunk of it in the opening minutes. It's one of my main issues with 'Alien 3'; past that and the poor puppetry work on the Xenomorph, it's a very solid film. David Fincher's first movie!
I understand how the opening of Alien 3 would appear to trivialize the events of Aliens, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be viewed that way. Rather I think the desperation and struggle and eventual triumph of the climax of Aliens serves to make the tragedy of Alien 3's opening all the more profound. Alien 3 works precisely because the viewer cares about Hicks and Newt and the impact they've had on Ripley's life. That's why she needed to lose them for the continuation of her story—actually really lose them like how she lost her daughter—rather than see them picked up by a passing ship and Ripley continues on in her fight against the xenomorphs elsewhere. Ripley needed to lose absolutely everyone she ever cared about because of the xenomorphs (and perhaps more importantly, because of the Company). If you're going to tell Ripley's story in three movies and make a closed trilogy out of it (which certainly appears to be what they were doing with Alien 3) that was really the only way to go story- and character-wise.
Alien 3 is an improvement in its assembly cut (though I still like the theatrical version plenty and prefer the xenomorph emerging from the dog rather than the ox since its appearance and movements are more doglike than ox-like). Alien: Resurrection I could easily take in its theatrical cut. I don't think the director's version adds much that's essential at all and I definitely prefer the theatrical opening titles. Could be wrong, but I think A:R's director's cut was a case like Ridley's Alien, where the director didn't really need to do a new cut but was asked to do one for the Special Edition DVD release so all the films would have two versions (most importantly Cameron's awesomely extended Aliens and Alien 3's assembly cut).
She is a tragic character and giving her 2 people that she can care about and see possibility of a future is not what this series is about, it's continually hopeless no light at the end of the tunnel and I like of that, I don't expect Ripley to have a happy ending.
This is Cameron's version, what it does is much more in spirit to the original.
I do think 3 pretty much changes the view of Bishop, he clearly has put the facehugger there and if you have any suspicions that this isn't true when the Human Bishop played by Henrikson turns up and is clearly wanting Ripley for what she is carrying. I think it's clear that Bishop was always working for Weyland Yuntani and not the hero that Cameron's film suggests.
Very well put. The Alien films are set in a bleak, depressing, and nightmarish future. By nature, a happy ending was never in the cards.
That is the big change. It certainly is strongly implied that Bishop was acting under Company orders, however there are other theories that could allow for an honest Bishop. One being that the Queen deposited the eggs there herself. Possibly. Another is that we don't technically see Burke die, but that one I think is a bit farther of a stretch.
As I understand it, the facehuggers caused the ship to crash-land by breaking into the cryotubes, thus killing Hicks and Newt.
Logistically, since they were killing Hicks and Newt anyway, it surely made more sense to not pay for Michael Biehn's return and try to recast Newt with an age-appropriate actress who looked similar enough to Carrie Henn. And as Shardlake says, it really isn't Hicks' and Newt's story. I don't know what the film would have gained by having them there for a few scenes and then killing them off.
Didn't like the cast, i hated it took place in a prison, rather it happen on earth.
They should of dished out the money to get Biehn back and they could of easily re cast newt.
Fair enough. For the direction they took, I thought they did an excellent job with the film, but I can understand not liking that direction, especially following Aliens. It was dark, cheerless, almost apocalyptic.
That's another thing that put me off it from the clips I've seen. The best thing about horror, IMHO, is the ultimate triumph over the monster, not continuous gloom, defeat, and tragedy.
Check out the film. Sometimes there is triumph in tragedy. ;)
I am aware of how the film ends and I've seen that much of it. I do see how that is triumph in tragedy, and I actually quite like that ending, but not at the expense of the beginning ruining a far better, more triumphant ending to the previous film. It shall remain a two film series in my mind.
This gives me new respect for the Bond producers. Managing to keep a film series going in the right direction for 50+ years when some series screw up after only a few is quite a feat.
But I agree that bad CG effects contibute to my discomfort.
There were only two facehuggers—the one that breaks into Ripley's tube and the one that gets the dog. Newt drowns in her tube and we briefly see Hicks horrendously maimed by the crash.
In my earlier post I meant that breaking into Ripley's tube is what causes the ship to go into emergency landing mode and it's the landing that results in the deaths of Newt and Hicks. Just a little confusing the way I wrote it.
As the Alien Queen had detached herself from the eggsac thing when she went after Ripley there is no explanation as to how a Fachugger got onboard the ship. Alien 3 was a ridiculous idea that was adapted from the Vincent Ward concept of a wooden monastery planet. The script was still being written while the film was being shot so no wonder it ended up such a mess of ideas and crap dialogue.
When James Cameron signed up to do Aliens he had a clear idea of what he wanted and a script already written.
There are some good moments in Alien 3, but then there ought to be considering the talent behind it.
I think the likeliest scenario is that the makers needed something to happen to Ripley's ship (Couldn't make the film otherwise!) to make it jettison the escape pod, and came up with 'a facehugger mysteriously got on board' with no explanation as to how it got there. Treating the audience and Cameron's film with utter contempt.
The Bishop theory is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I bet producer's love all these 'theories' because it basically does the job for them in explaining away plot contrivances and the lack of logic in their movies.
And the Alien films were never meant to be a 'trilogy'.
One theory about how the egg got on his that when Bishop went to go to the satellite to get the other dropship he made a quick detour into the processing station to grab an egg and while ripley is going to get newt he went back and snuck it on board the drop ship
You could say that Burke was definitely there to do that in Aliens but surely have a plan B if he fails hence Bishop puts them there, it's much more plausible than the Alien Queen who by this time has no egg sack.