FRANCHISE ME: ALIEN 3

Just wanted to say: great write up. I really enjoyed the article, Joshua. I haven't seen this flick for almost 20 years, and little I've read about it makes me want to fix that. But I do enjoy the discussions around it.

Fantastic article, Josh.  I agree with Michael though, as much as I enjoy hearing stories of the troubled production, I have virtually no interest in ever sitting throught it again.

Somehow I didn't know Renny Harlin was attached to this, and that going to the Alien's home planet was seriously considered.   Was that before or after the infamous wooden planted inhabited by monks script was ditched?

Before. Vincent Ward was doing the wooden monastery planet version, and they changed it into a prison. He still has story credit.

Hmm, well I'll be damned.  Do you know anything more about it?  I'm kind of fascinated by the idea, particulary now that Scott has more or less established that the Alien was a Space Jockey engineered bio-weapon.  Imagining what they would have come up with for an Alien homeworld is kind of intriguing.

Don't know much about Harlin's plan for the Alien homeworld, as far as story or new creatures. Just that it was what he wanted to do, but Fox got cold feet because it seemed so expensive.

Kevin, you might want to spoiler tag part of your post.

Really?  Scott has come out and said that multiple times over the years.  I haven't even seen Prometheus, I'm going by his comments during the Alien commentary track.

And to be honest I don't think I know to spoiler tag text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Macken 

Really?  Scott has come out and said that, multiple times, over the years.  I haven't even seen Prometheus, I'm going by his comments during the Alien commentary track.

 

 

And to be honest I don't think I know to spoiler tag text.

I didn't know that (about his comments in the commentary and elsewhere). So, I guess, no harm no foul.

Spoiler tagging is really easy. Select the text to tag, then just click on the black spoiler icon in the editing control panel for posts (it's right next to the giant quote marks).

Like this:

I don't agree with your assessment of Weaver's unintersted performance; I actually think it's her best of the series. She conveys a lot pain really well. It's that bloodshot eye and clenched jaw.

I did like the gross eye

Oh man, I always thought Lance Henrickson at the end was just a newer Bishop model, because he never acknowledges that ghastly ear injury.

You learn something new every day!

This was a great write-up, Joshua.  I never really thought about why the alien is just slaughtering everybody it comes across, rather than cocooning them for the queen.  That's an excellent point, and definitely a strike against the film that I hadn't considered before.

Regardless, I'm a pretty staunch Alien 3 apologist, and although I like Aliens well enough, I fall firmly into that 'return to form' camp.  

Interesting tidbit about Harlin.  I never knew he was attached.  To do an Alien homeworld story no less!  Sounds like a disaster.  And even though what I've read of the script is kinda shitty, I find Ward's wooden planet monastery concept to be endlessly fascinating.  There's a weird, trippy, downright frightening masterpiece in there somewhere.    

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe 

Oh man, I always thought Lance Henrickson at the end was just a newer Bishop model, because he never acknowledges that ghastly ear injury.

You learn something new every day!

His ear is bloody - red bloody - which I think has always been a decent indicator that he's human.

It is much clearer in the Assembly Cut though, where we see Bishop II (as he's called in the credits for some reason) actually react. I wonder if the decision to edit that out was because someone at Fox thought it was cooler to imply it was just another robot.

Yeah, the Assembly Cut is pretty definitive about it.  Bishop II's ear is a bloody mess and he screams "I'm not a droid!!"

I need to watch that assembly cut on the Blu-Ray then. Doesn't that show the facehugger being bigger or armored or something? Because it impregnated Ripley with an alien queen? I thought I read/saw that somewhere, and always liked that idea.

Yes/no. You can see it briefly in the background when they bring in the dead ox (not sure why it is dead, as facehuggers want you alive). But that would seem to imply it facehugged the ox, not Ripley. So I don't know. Granted, I've only seen the Assembly Cut once.

The idea with the bigger facehugger is that it was a special one designed for laying Queens, and that's why it could impregnate both Ripley and the ox (which was alive during impregnation-- the two guys bringing it in say it just collapsed outside).

One of the guys holds up the dead facehugger and it looks noticably different.

But isn't it held up in the ox scene?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

But isn't it held up in the ox scene?

Yes. It's not in the theatrical dog cut. Which now that you pointed it out makes total sense that that facehugger wouldn't be the one to impregnate the animal.

According to the novelization there were three facehuggers on the Sulaco. One that survives into the shuttle and impregantes the animal, one that cuts itself on the glass of Newt's pod and starts the fire, and one that impregnates Ripley with the queen. The prologue handles this info so badly in the credits that I never knew it until recently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Macken 

 

 

Somehow I didn't know Renny Harlin was attached to this, and that going to the Alien's home planet was seriously considered.   Was that before or after the infamous wooden planted inhabited by monks script was ditched?

I don't think it was every seriously considered.  It was talked about, but then they realized it would cost $$$$. 

The documentary on the Anthology Blu-ray says that Harlin was involved with Alien 3 for over a year.  They tried other concepts but he was annoyed that it always came back feeling like either Alien or Aliens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

I don't agree with your assessment of Weaver's unintersted performance; I actually think it's her best of the series. She conveys a lot pain really well. It's that bloodshot eye and clenched jaw.

I'm with you on this one.  I think it's arguably the best acting of her career in this film.

Josh: no mention of the quite liberal use of the word FUCK?  The movie almost falls into parody with the word's overuse.

I still don't get the change to the Alien creature.  You could deduce that every kill the Alien made was out of self preservation, or to procreate in the first two films.  This Alien is a slasher.  He stalks and kills these prisoners for no other reason then to kill.  It makes no sense considering Ripley is pregnant with the Queen.  Why not save these prisoners for future hosts?  If it is smart enough to realize Ripley is carrying the Queen, it should be able to take it one step further.

Which then leads to the question, why let Ripley walk around with other humans?  The Alien cocoons it hosts.  Why wouldn't the Alien have taken Ripley, and cocooned her in order to "protect" the queen embryo?  Instead, it let's her run around with other humans, dangerous humans. 

They should have took the Alien subplot of it not harming Ripley further.  Why not have the prisoners trying to rape her, and instead of Dillon saving her, it's the Alien.  It would really bring in a new dynamic of her enemy being her protector now. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monster Pete 

 

Which then leads to the question, why let Ripley walk around with other humans?  The Alien cocoons it hosts.  Why wouldn't the Alien have taken Ripley, and cocooned her in order to "protect" the queen embryo?  Instead, it let's her run around with other humans, dangerous humans. 

 

They should have took the Alien subplot of it not harming Ripley further.  Why not have the prisoners trying to rape her, and instead of Dillon saving her, it's the Alien.  It would really bring in a new dynamic of her enemy being her protector now. 

I don't know where one would go with that concept that wasn't lame, but it is intriguing.

I would have totally went left field on this.  3rd film, Ripley has to become darker after everything she's encountered. 

I never cared for the religious undertone of the film.  I still think changing them from murders and rapists, to factory workers just wanting to get home to their families, would have worked wonders. 

You make one of the factory workers a co-lead, and have Ripley distraught (unlike Alien 3) in losing Newt.  She learns of the Alien after some workers attack her, due to their being no women on the planet, and the Alien preserves her life by eliminating them.  She then learns she is pregnant with an Alien, and becomes fucked up in the head.  She loses her mind,. and actually starts considering the creature her child.  Only at the end of the film, does she use the Aliens inability to harm her, as a weapon against it.  Still ending of course, with her killing herself. 

Probably would have been just as bad, if not worse... but eh, I'm not a writer. 

I would have also like to see more Weyland Yutani.  And not reduce them to a bunch of fools wearing trash bags and carrying a fucking cage.  This company creates interstellar travel and terraforming towers, but thinks it can contain an Alien with a fucking steel cage. 

My main issue with the film is with the loss of Clemens.  He's far and away the most interesting NEW character in the film and his death leaves a big, wet blanket of I DON'T LIKE OR CARE ABOUT ANYONE THAT'S LEFT for the final half of the film.  He should have either been the one to survive the film.  Having him be the one to move the gantry into position for Ripley to plunge to her death would have given her suicide some emotional resonance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas Booth 

 

I'm with you on this one.  I think it's arguably the best acting of her career in this film.

 

Josh: no mention of the quite liberal use of the word FUCK?  The movie almost falls into parody with the word's overuse.

For whatever reason it didn't leave a huge impression on me. FUCK I mean.

And possibly I'm blaming Weaver for elements I simply dislike about Ripley in the film. I just find her so riveting in ALIEN, and she is doing so little. ALIEN 3 is the big acting showcase for her, and I found myself significantly less engaged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

 

For whatever reason it didn't leave a huge impression on me. FUCK I mean.

 

And possibly I'm blaming Weaver for elements I simply dislike about Ripley in the film. I just find her so riveting in ALIEN, and she is doing so little. ALIEN 3 is the big acting showcase for her, and I found myself significantly less engaged.

well, that's because you're CRUD.

In a movie full of fucks and shit... they are crud. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas Booth 

My main issue with the film is with the loss of Clemens.  He's far and away the most interesting NEW character in the film and his death leaves a big, wet blanket of I DON'T LIKE OR CARE ABOUT ANYONE THAT'S LEFT for the final half of the film.  He should have either been the one to survive the film.  Having him be the one to move the gantry into position for Ripley to plunge to her death would have given her suicide some emotional resonance.

Can't argue with that.  I've always been a big proponent of the shocking death -- the one that completely raises the stakes and makes you think anyone could go.  But in this case, there's nobody to fill that gap, so you're left with a complete dearth of interesting characters to take up the slack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas Booth 

My main issue with the film is with the loss of Clemens.  He's far and away the most interesting NEW character in the film and his death leaves a big, wet blanket of I DON'T LIKE OR CARE ABOUT ANYONE THAT'S LEFT for the final half of the film.  He should have either been the one to survive the film.  Having him be the one to move the gantry into position for Ripley to plunge to her death would have given her suicide some emotional resonance.

the monk equal to Clemens in the Ward script did survive until the end.  In fact, Ripley kissed him, and the chestburster was transferred from Ripley, to him, via kiss.  He then sacrificed himself, and Ripley went into the EEV and took off for more space adventures. 

When Alien 3 first came out, I HATED it.  But I was 13 years old, and was more interested ins eeing the continuity expanded than in seeing a new take on the ideas.  When I came back to the story much later, I'd grown from a kid who thought he was a fan of the Alien series, to borderline-young-adult who was a devoted fan of the first Alien, but not terribly interested in Aliens, and more interested in the thematic, narrative, and stylistic qualities fo a movie in its own right than in its place within a pre-exisiting continuity.  And viewed from the very different perspective, I suddenly found myself quite taken with Alien 3.  I don't call myself an apologist, nor a defender, but simply a fan.  Yes, I'll admit it, I just enjoy the hell out of Alien 3.

Tried toe dit my post, but it wouldn't load, so I'll just add: The reason I say that I "thought" I was a fan of the series is that, in retrospect, I realize that, while I was constantly re-watching Alien, it always took somebody else suggesting it for me to put on Aliens.  If asked, I'd have called myself a fan of it, but I never especially wanted to watch it.

I know it's kind of lame, because I've done this before, but I'm reposting my thoughts from the classic "I've Outgrown...Aliens" thread. There's not much more I can say about this film, except that I love it like a red-headed stepchild that dies in an EEV crash.

_________________________

The Long, Hard Road to Loving Alien 3

It's been almost twenty years since the third film in this four-part trilogy was released. Oddly enough this is one of the first movie going experiences I can remember. I'm not sure what my mom was thinking at the time, as I was only seven years old, but it certainly stuck with me.

My formative years were spent watching horror, sci-fi and action films, and Aliens at that point was the cream of the crop. Recorded off of ABC (which was a strange cut that included the "Ripley's Daughter" scene and the Sentry Guns, but not Newt's family going to the Derelict) circa 1989, I wore that VHS copy down to the nub. Imagine my surprise when I sat down in that darkened theater to experience this thoroughly adult creation.

That's the strange thing about James Cameron's films: moreso than action films, they're ADVENTURE films. Aliens, in retrospect, has more in common with an Indiana Jones film or, dare I say it, Goonies (complete with screaming kid) in terms of tone. I'm not harshing Aliens, which I still love, but where once I thought it was timeless I have in recent times began to realize how thoroughly '80s it is.

My tastes have changed. Immediately following my first viewing of Alien 3, I decided to shun it for years. In its place I sought out something, anything, to replace it in my mind. How could they kill Hicks(Michael Biehn!) and Newt?! Luckily Dark Horse's Aliens series, and eventually the many drafts of Alien 3 that ended up online, curtailed my concerns.

It took me a while, but I came to realize that William Gibson's Alien 3 was a hot mess. Just silly, with half of it feeling nothing like an Alien movie (more like some strange procedural set on a space station) and the other half feeling like Aliens EXTREME with more of everything, completely misunderstanding what made the first two movies work. David Twohy's proto-Riddick Alien 3 was better, but felt inconsequential and unworthy of the Alien name.

With that preface, when I purchased the Aliens Quadrilogy set a few years ago, complete with the Assembly Cut, something clicked in my mind. The nihilism, the imagery, the subtext; this is a dense movie. The setting is kind of brilliant, because the lack of weapons not only restores the xenomorph's threat, but devolves the cast back to medieval times. They might as well be in a gothic castle in England circa 1300, fighting a literal dragon (or Satan, or their own personal demons).

That's what's great about the movie: the Alien is unnecessary. In fact, it's shown too much (especially in the Assembly Cut, which is a superior version but has a few horrible scenes of xenomorph CGI). It's the threat of the thing, and the implications of that threat, that matter here. Like any great zombie film, or the first two Alien films, it's the people that are the real threat.

Speaking of the people, I don't understand the complaint that the cast is unlikeable. Clemens, Dillon, 85 and even Morse are all standouts, with idiosyncratic quirks and rousing bits of very quotable dialogue. So they're former criminals...so what? In the context of this film, they're monks that have long been seeking redemption. Further more, the thesis of the film is that no one is innocent, even St. Ripley. There's a question of fate vs. free will, choice and temptation running throughout the film. This is exemplified by the two Bishops.

In chess, a Bishop is not limited in the distance it can travel but can only travel diagonally. A Bishop is also, of course, an important figurehead in the Catholic Church (duh). Along with the Alien Queen, there's multiple metaphors permeating this beast that intertwine: Chess, Christianity, and Fairy Tales. Ripley is playing a game here with the Alien Queen, the inmates, and the Company, and by the end she knows the only way to win is to sacrifice the Queen. The question of choice is first raised by the android Bishop, who not only confirms Ripley's fears but chooses to die rather than face a life of hardship. The second choice is presented by Bishop II (or Michael Bishop, or whoever he is), who tells Ripley the Queen can be removed from her. Kudos to Lance Henrickson for pulling off the dual role with class, even though he maybe has five minutes screentime total.

The Christian parallels have been long-discussed, and free will is just as much a question in the Bible as it is in Chess. Ripley starts off the movie under glass, like a Saint preserved forever. She is corrupted by a facehugger/dragon/satan, and falls from grace. She brings temptation, original sin to humanity (the inmates), and then has to become a man (shaves her head) in order to be Christ-like and destroy sin. All pretty obvious, which brings me to Golic...

The Judas character, or from the perspective of Fairy Tales, Gollum. When the Vincent Ward version of the film was going to be set on a wooden space station and the cast were to literally be monks, there was some discussion of the film working as a Snow White allegory (Ripley=Snow White, monks/inmates=Seven Dwarves, Alien=Evil Stepmother, Alien Queen=poisoned apple). Although this has met with derision, personally I love the idea and think it can still be applied to the finished product. Ripley under glass is certainly evocative of Snow White, but the subversive nature of the ending is brilliant in that Bishop II shows up as Prince Charming to save the day, and Ripley not only rejects him but becomes a man herself in order to slay the dragon. It's not a 1:1 parallel, but there's certainly a gothic fantasy element to the movie that is intentionally being confronted.

Along with the imagery of emaciated, sickly people and all the needles hinting at the Alien as an HIV metaphor, this is a fun little movie to pick apart. I don't know if I would rate it above the first two films, but I do know it's my favorite performance from Sigourney Weaver. It's brave of her to dirty Ripley up like this, making her simultaneously ugly and sexual. A lot is hinted at here, including her lack of faith, that makes her a truly well-realized, multi-faceted being even after three movies and more than a decade. That's really the biggest change in my opinion of the film, as I used to be a big advocate of getting rid of Ripley and having stand-alone tales, or Alien vs. Predator.

Now I realize these movies (at least the series proper) are Ripley's story, and the xenomorphs are only there to comment on her. I am looking forward to Prometheus, but with hope a thrilling, challenging lead will be introduced to bounce off the awesome creature design and foreboding connotations of H.R. Giger's creations.

Great article, Josh. I revisited the Assembly Cut last weekend and pretty much agree with your assessment on all counts. The added/reinstated stuff with the inmates does a lot to breathe life into them (Especially poor Paul McGann, who essentially gets his entire character back) but it somehow feels moot when we're dealing with such a cold film. I get what you're saying about it being more intimate, but to me it's intimacy without any warmth to it. The film is basically doing what Ripley does with Clemens; giving a heightened surface-level closeness without fully letting us in.

Admittedly, the Assembly Cut helps this a bit; you can't blame Fincher for walking, but you have to wonder that if he'd stuck around, maybe the editing in general would've been a bit clearer and more consistent. As it stands, the Assembly Cut makes Alien 3 a good if not exactly enjoyable film. After Aliens, it's like running into a brick wall of sheer grimness. It does a lot of things that are intellectually good for the franchise - making Ripley more proactive, bringing everything full-circle back to the 'haunted house' feel of the first film, actually giving an end to a story that was already rife with the potential for repetition (...Ripley kills the alien, goes into hypersleep aaand credits) - yet practically falls over itself to give the audience the cold shoulder at every turn. It's one of those films that is more enjoyable in retrospect than it is to actually watch.

Weaver is fantastic in it though, and should be given a Golden Balls award for helping push for such a final end for what had become her signature - and potentially most lucrative - character (Resurrection does not exist in this dojo - that is, until Josh writes about it). I can get why she might come across as cold or disinterested in the film, but to me it's a masterful portrayal of the grief process. The shock of losing someone close to you can give you a sense of numbness, and it can be all-pervasive yet still punctuated with occasional bouts of grasping for emotional connection. It's why she seems so blank throughout the first half of the film, yet sleeps with Clemens. In Ripley's case, she's not only lost her two links back to an emotional life (i.e. Newt and to a lesser extent Hicks), she's accepted that the only chance she'll ever have to be a mother is having that Queen drill its way through her chest. It's also why I don't mind the film nudging newt and Hicks out of the way as soon as possible; again, grief often manifests itself in an inability to even think about the departed person in the short-term. It's not coldness, but a defence mechanism; your brain can shut out that person because it simply can't handle the thought of them, or to try and take on the enormity of what's happened. True, it doesn't necessarily make for comfortably blockbuster narrative, but the film is from Ripley's POV and is psychologically understandable. Weaver's quite incredible in how she portrays this process.

In fact, the film has a killer cast. Glover, McGann, Brown, Postlethwaite, Dance, Dutton... Talk about some serious thespian firepower. A pity, therefore, that they're ill-served by some terrible, terrible dialogue. I know that Dutton's big 'rallying the troops' speech has its fans, but IMO it works solely due to Dutton; on the page, it's little more than a string of Hollywood tough-guy motivational soundbites strung together ("You're all gonna die... The question is, how you check out - on your feet, or on your fuckin' knees... Nobody ever gave me nothin'! So I say fuck that thing! It fucked with the wrong guys! Give it all you got! Not on OUR watch! Life is fuckin' like a box of fuckin' chocolates!!"*) To be honest, the script is riddled with lines like this, just lazy Hollywood dialogue totally at odds with the tone of the film, while at other times it's quite effective in a stark, minimalist kind of way - the Ripley/Clemens scenes especially.

This leads me to my other gripe, something that's always bugged me but of which Alien 3 is a particularly bad example. Hollywood - if you're going to cast British actors in roles that were clearly meant for Americans, with Americanisms up the jacksy, change the dialogue. Very few American turns of phrase sound good coming from a Brit mouth. I'm sure the line "Listen to me you piece of shit!  You screw with me one more time and I'll cut you in half!" sounds great coming from an American, but get a Brit to say it and it just sounds awkward - especially if that Brit happens to be Brian Glover. The film's full of lines that were clearly meant to be spoken by Americans, and they just don't sound right coming from such an overwhelmingly British cast. Granted, this isn't a new thing for the franchise: John Hurt drops a couple of 'goddamn's in Alien which also sound a bit awkward, but Alien 3 takes that ball runs the fuck out of it.

In the end though 'Neither as good nor bad as you think it is' is a fair summation of Alien 3. It's a weird film both in concept and execution, displaying both moments of brilliance and the stubborn refusal to let the audience fully enjoy them. Still, it was at least an attempt to plough fresh turf in a franchise that was already looking tapped-out, and the last time we'd see anyone actually try for a while - but more on that next time...

*Some mild extrapolation may be present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 


Have you seen the director's cut? I've always liked it much more (though I think the Hadley's Hope scenes are a mistake). The sentry gun sequence and the reveal of the fate of Ripley's daughter add immeasurably to the film.

I have seen it, and to me it just makes the movie... longer.  I remember first seeing the stuff about Ripley's daughter in a TV edit way, way back when, and thinking it was kind of interesting, but now I just feel like it adds an extra heavy-handedness to the whole movie.  And the sentry gun sequence, I'm afraid, just bores me.  Sometimes I wonder if I've just let some kind of snobbery and a distaste for Cameron's later work ruin the movie for me, but, ultimately, I just don't think it's to my tastes the way that the original and (to a lesser extent) part 3 are.  The tone, the pace, the visual style, they just don't grab me.

My fiancee is a big fan of Aliens, and she and I are due to watch it together soon, so maybe my attitude will change when I view it through her more enthusiastic eyes.  I'm hoping to bring her around on Alien 3.

 I only saw Alien 3 once; when it was first released. I wasn't a fan. I didn't like Newt and Hicks dying. It made the climax of Aliens pointless. Newt was going to die anyway. Not only was saving her a waste of time it lead to Hicks dying and Ripley getting impregnated. At least I don't use darker is better fanboy logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaz 

 I only saw Alien 3 once; when it was first released. I wasn't a fan. I didn't like Newt and Hicks dying. It made the climax of Aliens pointless. Newt was going to die anyway. Not only was saving her a waste of time it lead to Hicks dying and Ripley getting impregnated. At least I don't use darker is better fanboy logic.

It doesn't render the ending of Aliens pointless.  The ending of Aliens is still just that: the conclusion of one story.  Alien 3 starts its story afresh, and in noway impacts the meaning of the separate, self-contained earlier work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaz 

 I only saw Alien 3 once; when it was first released. I wasn't a fan. I didn't like Newt and Hicks dying. It made the climax of Aliens pointless. Newt was going to die anyway. Not only was saving her a waste of time it lead to Hicks dying and Ripley getting impregnated. At least I don't use darker is better fanboy logic.

Also, using "fanboy" as a pejorative term on a message board like this has an air of pot-and-kettle politics about it...

A nice fair article I think.  It's got problems but it's got a good, if sad, heart and it looks amazing.  The work print proves it was always a solid film, for the most part.  The dog is the proper choice, but the rest add everything you need to an already highly resonant film, for me.

This is a Tragedy.  A very nineties one at that.  Ripley isn't brought down by hubris or some character flaw.  She's cursed with knowledge and experience of the world (universe) that she didn't ask for and must act upon.  That's always going to make people angry who want to see heroic self determination on screen (In that sense 3 turned the balance from American back to English in more fundamental ways than just single alien and a big UK cast).

Me and other who saw it back in the day agreed it's a good way to round off the series, so it doesn't spiral off into way-out shit.  And then it spiraled off into way-out shit anyway.

(people enjoying Resurrection more than this is far more unfathomable to me than most things.  There is a movie that's cold and detached and has no one to care about.  It remains one of the most boring and uninvolving  big budget films I've seen.)

The thing is, I don't dislike the film; it's just a massive fucking conundrum. Intellectually I see what they were going for as a particularly harsh and unflinching direction in which to take Ripley's story, that creates a relationship between Ripley and the alien(s), one that is forced on her from the moment the Nostromo crew land on LV426 and can only be consummated in one way. It just isn't a hell of a lot of fun to actually watch.

Killing Newt and Hicks making Aliens pointless is in some ways a fair thing to point out, but also indicative of the hole the producers and Weaver were desperately trying to dig themselves out of before they even started (Note I don't include Fincher in this because the guy never seemed to have had a hell of a lot of choice in any of this). So Ripley, Hicks and Newt become this Alien-busting team: good for continuity, but also running the risk of turning the film franchise into pure action, with the mystique and symbolic power of the Alien diminishing with each entry. We saw this happen with the non-canon stuff (The books, comics, video games etc.) and with Resurrection. Of course, it didn't have to be balls-out action, but with all these characters in place that would've been what audiences were expecting. Which, of course, was what they were expecting anyway. As Josh points out, the franchise had painted itself into a corner in the first place just in terms of where to take Ripley; killing Newt, Hicks and Bishop was a way to at least wipe the slate clean and concentrate on Ripley.

Not that they strictly needed to kill them; it was the most efficient way to establish their own take on the franchise. I think it was an overreaction, but one that at least came from an understandable place. They wanted to provide their own take on Ripley and the franchise in general and they went for it full-bore, which is both to their credit and a huge case of overreaching. How much of either it is I've never been able to fully work out.

Did I mention that this movie's a massive fucking conundrum?

I kinda feel like killing Newt and Hicks turned Aliens into one of those filler seasons of Lost, where they introduce a bunch of new characters, then kill them off one by one to get back to Jack, Kate, and Sawyer. Is there any real reason you couldn't just go straight from Alien to Alien3? The end of Alien, Ripley is traumatized and alone. The beginning of Alien 3, Ripley is traumatized and alone. It turns Aliens into just a bit more shit that dropped on Ripley instead of a real expansion of the universe.

Besides which, with Newt and Hicks dead, who exactly is Ripley sacrificing herself for? A couple semi-reformed rapists and murderers? "Humanity"? For all we know they're a bunch of Company stooges running Earth into the ground. She might as well decide mankind deserves to be wiped out and hand the chestburster over, knowing it will inevitably break free and kill everything. (I am become death, mother of the destroyer of worlds.)

I get more convinced that people mad at the Newt-Hicks departure are Hudsons of the world.  When shit goes bad they'll just flail about yelling "What's the point?! It's all fucked! Who cares! Oh God!".  Ripley still knows what she's gotta do, even surrounded by despair and nihilism.

People hating Alien 3 for these superficial reasons actually make it's interesting aspects even more obvious to me.  It'd debatable whether it succeeded in its treatment, but this movie definitely is all about growing up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avian 

 

Besides which, with Newt and Hicks dead, who exactly is Ripley sacrificing herself for? A couple semi-reformed rapists and murderers? "Humanity"? For all we know they're a bunch of Company stooges running Earth into the ground. She might as well decide mankind deserves to be wiped out and hand the chestburster over, knowing it will inevitably break free and kill everything. (I am become death, mother of the destroyer of worlds.)

That's the thing though, with this relationship with the Alien comes a sense of responsibility to protect humanity from it. In each film she follows the same basic mini-arc: first, she's established as the outsider in a group who don't take her seriously, and gradually wins their respect by pulling them together. Though she was closest to the crew of the Nostromo, there was visible tension due to the fact that she was seen as something of a stickler (And trying to refuse facehugged Kane entry to the ship hardly helped her popularity); it's only after she assumes command after Dallas's death that the remaining crewmembers start to listen to her. Ditto Aliens: the Marines initially see her as a kook until the shit hits the fan and she effectively takes command.

Alien 3 takes it further by throwing her in with possibly the most unlikely group she could find herself in - a bunch of murderers and rapists, who essentially hate her because of her gender. Because the film introduces the idea of Ripley needing to make a sacrifice to save humanity, it also needs her to understand the value of humanity. She's had her friends taken from her, so instead she has to learn to coexist with this band of rapists and screws and see the goodness inside them, thus renewing the drive to save humanity and make the sacrifice this relationship with the aliens has her destined for.

Which leads us to the other part of the Ripley mini-arc: in each film, she has to take responsibility. In the first film, it's for the crew; in the second, for newt, Hicks and Bishop informing a sense of motherhood. in the third one, she takes responsibility for humanity, itself informing a growing awareness of this sacrifice she's destined to make.

You know what? Call me dense, but only typing that out do I realize just how Christ-like Ripley's overall arc becomes in 3 (which would explain why she's doing the Jesus Christ Pose [c. Soundgarden] on my blu ray cover, and when she jumps into the foundry). She literally does save humanity by forgiving the lowered, then sacrificing herself. That's only become crystal clear to me now and... I don't know if I like it particularly.

It's obvious why they wouldn't do it (because shit would be grim), but I always thought it would have been more interesting to have Newt be the one carrying the queen, setting up a three way conflict between Hicks/Ripley/Newt, the alien drone, and the prisoners. I also think it would make the sacrifice aspect a lot more interesting as the ticking clock forces some hard choices on Ripley's part. As others have said, Ripley killing herself just seems like to much of a neat, low-stakes wrap-up considering the way things played out.

I don't think we're allowed to call the main character of a huge franchise committing suicide 'low-stakes'.  Especially when plenty of people seem to have wanted the film to be some sort of straight faced version of Starship Troopers.  Where Ripley and Hicks lay waste to those alien fuckers on their home turf (or earth, whatever) get married, adopt Newt, kiss on a pier in the sunset at the end of the film and Morgan Freeman in v/o says "And they all lived happily ever after".

(yes this is mostly a humerous exaggeration.  Mostly.  But it's not some ultra grim European art film either (although some people think it is already).  Baby steps people)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muzman 

I don't think we're allowed to call the main character of a huge franchise committing suicide 'low-stakes'.  Especially when plenty of people seem to have wanted the film to be some sort of straight faced version of Starship Troopers.  Where Ripley and Hicks lay waste to those alien fuckers on their home turf (or earth, whatever) get married, adopt Newt, kiss on a pier in the sunset at the end of the film and Morgan Freeman in v/o says "And they all lived happily ever after".

 

(yes this is mostly a humerous exaggeration.  Mostly.  But it's not some ultra grim European art film either (although some people think it is already).  Baby steps people)

So what are the stakes? As was pointed out, the threat to Earth is hypothetical not immediate, Ripley has no friends or family to think of, and she's essentially infected with a terminal disease. None of that adds up to a particular monumental choice, and so yeah, I'd say it was a limp finale.