Cameron talks Alien 5 - Page 2

Killing off Newt and Hicks was not a gimmick. It was an integral part of a gloomy and dark story, that grabbed you by the throat and told you that no one's safe and all bets are off.

Alien 3 is one of the boldest blockbusters ever made and that's why people didn't like it.

Why do you need James Cameron's approval to ignore the second and third sequel? If you want a happy ending and closure for the characters you like, go watch "Aliens" again...it's all there. You don't have to acknowledge 3 & 4 if you don't want to. Just pretend that the series ended with "Aliens", and let the new film go in a new direction with new ideas and new characters. Everybody wins.

Jesus. Such drama.

Slater-I don't think anyone needs cameron's approval. i think it stems more from the fact that he made a sequel that stands as one of the best ever made. it makes sense that the fans and people who liked that film would want a return to it or a film similiar to it compared to the negative vibes started in part 3 and continued in part 4.

while it's easy to say "ignore" alien 3 and 4 and just be happy with "aliens"(just as easy to say as they're bad dreams but i digress ) they are considered alien films and canon(though the whole dream story would do interesting things to canon i suppose).

people like happy endings. i don't think it's asking much to end the "alien" series on a happy ending(which neither 3 or 4 did).

this series has been about a "HUMAN" ripley's struggle and battle against the aliens. 3 and 4 did not deliver on that i.m.h.o.

So it's okay if Jim Cameron chooses to ignore Alien 3 & 4, but it's not okay if *you* choose to ignore Alien 3 & 4? This "canon" business is nonsense. Jaws: The Revenge is part of the Jaws canon, but it doesn't taint my love for the original film. I just ignore it and move on.

<strong>people like happy endings. i don't think it's asking much to end the "alien" series on a happy ending(which neither 3 or 4 did).</strong>

I don't like happy endings. Not in horror movies, anyway. If you want to feel safe and secure walking out of the movie theater, watch a romantic comedy. Horror movies are supposed to shock and disturb you.

<strong>this series has been about a "HUMAN" ripley's struggle and battle against the aliens. 3 and 4 did not deliver on that i.m.h.o.</strong>

Neither did the first Alien, either, if you get right down to it. Ripley was just one character in an ensemble cast, and she just happened to be the only one who survived. So, as the franchise was conceived, an Alien movie is NOT about Ellen Ripley--it's about the Aliens themselves, and that's how it should be. If you need proof, look at "A:R", which was about as Ripely-centric as you can get, to the point where the Aliens were shoved into the background and dilluted as a threat. Absolute failure.

Exactly ....as Cameron said in the BBC interview mentioned at Dark Horizons
"im happy with what they did in T3 but hate what they did with Alien3" ...says it all really

And I see an equally valid point in discussing WHY this is such a bad idea.

If you need proof to support the other side of this argument, look at "Aliens", which was about as Ripley-centric as you can get. Absolute success.

Of course, they are. But many successfully do while providing a happy ending, the relief that we desire after heading through the intense ride. Imagine if Jaws had eaten Roy Scheider. If Leatherface had caught and killed Sally. If Alien had ended with the Alien putting its little mouth in Ripley's head. If Aliens had ended with Newt facehugged and chestbursted. Some movies demand a happy ending. Cameron had given a great one to his, until Fox and whoever else fucked it up.

As for Alien Resurrection, for me having Ripley central to the plot wasn't the reason for it's failure, christ, Cameron did that in Aliens. The fact is that it's a horribly written, horribly concieved piece of shit.

The movies demand nothing.
It's the viewers that do all that demanding.

Other than that, it's not the fact that Ripley was the centre of attention in resurrection that was the problem, but what they did with Ripley:

In the previous two sequels, she went through an internal journey: In Aliens she managed to bring closure to her nightmares and find a purpose in Newt. In Alien 3 she had all this taken away from her and had to embrace a new purpose: Destroy the aliens, even if it means her life.

In Resurrection she learns nothing. She is a cold cypher with no purpose. And she is one of the most inactive heroes in film history. If she wasn't around, the events of the film would be pretty much the same, she adds NOTHING to the story.

When it comes down to it, Resurrection failed because it didn't have a Ripley underwear scene.

Good point.

But at the same time, just because something was successful once doesn't mean that it needs to be repeated ad nauseum in all the sequels.

Mastronikolas is absolutely right. "Aliens" had a purpose--to show the Aliens as a hive colony of monsters, and to give closure to Ripley's character. "Alien3" had a purpose--even if half of fandom HATED that purpose--to show the eradication of the xenomorphs, even if the cost was Ripley's life. The fourth film had no purpose other than to make money, it had nothing new to add to the mythology, and it failed on every level.

If "Alien 5" introduces the "it was all a dream" plot device, what does it add to the mythology? We see that Ripley and her little space family are still alive after all. We see that--shock!--there are more Aliens to be destroyed. We see that Ripley destroys the Aliens. We see that Ripley lives happily ever after.

And we've already seen that.

SO how about people who just want to sit down and see a good, original movie FOR ONCE, something unpredictable, moving, shocking, and not some lame rehash of franchise "lore" and "mythos" and endlessly continuing characters who you know are destined to survive into the next cookie-cutter sequel?

<strong> Fuck canon. Nobody whose opinion is worth a shit gives a damn about some geeky "canon". Can we in our lifetimes end this ridiculous process of trivializing good movies like Alien by transforming them into formulaic geek-movie "canons" of interest only to nerdy purists and movie merchandisers?

<strong> A nice concise summation of the attitudes that have lead to the constant development of pathetic forgettable celluloid pablum where once people were interest in producing surprising, scary memorable out-of-nowhere movies like the first Alien.

Enough with Ripley. Her story arc ended in "Aliens". They had to drastically change her character just to shoe-horn her into the last two films. The Ripley character in 3 and A:R could (and should) have been someone else.
And furthermore-
The main character in the first movie was the audience. We were immersed in this enviroment with an ensemble.
The main character in "Aliens" was absolutely Ripley. It was her story, beginning to end.
Forget the other two. They were all about the bling-bling as far as Fox was concerned.

So who should the next movie be about? How about the forgotten hero of the first two?
Jonesy, the cat!

I still fail to see how Alien 3 was a cash-in. It featured none of the elements that made Aliens a hit and had the balls to kill off its heroine.

A cash-in would be Ripley running around with Hicks, armed to the teeth, chasing the "Alien King" who has abducted Newt or some nonsense like that.

Amen to both Englebert and Bob Clark.

Wouldn't it be nice to see an "Alien" movie that was fucking SCARY? Where you had no idea who was going to live or die? Where there were no marquee stars shoehorned into the plot just to satisfy the geek purists and the studio executives? Where each and every character in the film was in danger of dying at any moment?

I sure think so.

...And that wouldn't be a big deal, if the fact wasn't that Cameron has already forgotten about it and has probably gone skydiving or something.

I think Cameron definitely took the Alien franchise away from the horror path that Ridly Scott originally had in the first. I don't expect for that to happen. And of course if he puts Arnold in there, you can blow that notion away with some sort of large weapon. I sill think its all bull shit because Cameron aint gonna do anything before he does True Lies 2, IF he even gets to that.

Isn't the idea of a sequel to give us more of what made the previous movie work and be successful? isn't it also the job of the sequel to live up to or surpass the previous entry? aliens surely did this. alien 3 and 4 did not. general public opinion will back this up.

I'm not really sure what "alien 3's purpose" was(except to piss off the vast majority of the previous film's fans), hell Fox didn't know it for most of the filming!

I think there could be numerous great stories written involving the further adventures of Ripley, Newt and Hicks battling the aliens.

Hell, Dark Horse Comics made a direct sequel to "Aliens"(a 4 part mini-series) that featured an older Newt and Hicks fighting the aliens and Ripley makes an appearance at the end. IMHO, it was a very well done story.

As long as you can explain how big animals have warships...

Exactly. Aren't the aliens intended to be not all that intelligent, just really efficient killers? I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think they are dumber than cows, but certainly nothing has shown them to be capable of piloting warships and engaging in military campaigns.

Edited to add: It seems more like they have the intelligence of the raptors in 'Jurassic Park'.

erm, i've liked some of your ideas posted here but this aint one of them. no alien warships. i also do NOT want this to take place on Earth. sigourney has even recently stated she doesn't want it set on earth.

the logistics of putting the aliens on earth and filming it without a camp look to it would be very tough(and the budget would make t3's look like pocket change-you'd have to build entire future earth/ city sets).

alien 5 imho should take place in space, the evil company(weyland yutani) needs to be dealt with, the space jockey should be addressed and finally the alien homeworld (the alien-it's origins)should be addressed. i have a funny feeling that if cameron does get involved with 5, we may see the homeworld.

Welcome, students, to Remedial Class 121: Trying to Understand Why You Can't Understand the Concept of a Speculation Thread.

I'd like to see the Alien warships, if by you mean the Space Jockeys, who according to Ridley Scott engineered the Aliens as a biomechanical weapon.

And yes, the Dark Horse Aliens comics Books 1 and 2 beat movies 3 and 4 into the ground.

It's the brand of underwear worn to keep your balls from floating up Uranis.
Thank you! I'll be here all week!

The term 'space jockey' isn't in the films, but it's the Behind-the-Scenes name of the elephantine creature sitting in the huge chair in the bone ship in Alien, and are supposedly the creatures that created the Aliens.

Now where did you hear they created the aliens? I always liked the idea that they were just hapless victims like everyone else.

Ridley Scott's commentary for Alien.

There is a chance this could happen, but there is no reason to get worked up over any potential Cameron film unless they actually start filming it. He is one of those directors that really does not have to ever make another film, but I would love to see another one.