CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Why no love for ALIEN 3?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why no love for ALIEN 3? - Page 2

post #51 of 114
Thread Starter 
Especially if you add a drink for everytime dialouge is obscured by huge echo.
post #52 of 114
Booth has it right, killing Charles Dance off early would have been fine if there were other characters to grab the baton and keep the story interesting. There just weren't. It's a bit like killing Michael Wincott off, who I was digging in RESURRECTION, and you're just left twiddling your thumbs. This is a big contrast to losing John Hurt early on in the original because you still have plenty of people to keep you compelled through the remainder of the film.
post #53 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
a bit like killing Michael Wincott off, who I was digging in RESURRECTION, and you're just left twiddling your thumbs. This is a big contrast to losing John Hurt early on in the original because you still have plenty of people to keep you compelled through the remainder of the film.
You're absolutely right. Wincott is wasted in 'Alien Resurrection'. And he's killed in a really weak death scene. If you get an actor like him in a role like that, USE HIM. He had some of the only good dialog in the whole movie and seemed to be having fun with the role. Once he's gone, all we're left with is TRULY a bunch of cliches that even Ron Perlman can't salvage with his Johner character.

Oh, and thanks for agreeing with me. Your place in heaven has now been reserved.
post #54 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
I agree completely, and it's one of my big complaints with Aliens, and with Cameron as a writer in general (not that I want to open that thread of worms again). Cameron likes safe, predictable character arcs and plotlines, and almost always does exactly what's expected. Who's going to die and how soon is almost predestined when the characters are introduced.

I love it when a character who, by traditional storytelling, should live, is killed in as random and abrupt a manner as possible. It makes everyone unsafe. I'd list some great examples of this, but I don't want to ruin any movies that people haven't seen yet.
Yeah, but it's whether they do it for shock value, or in service of the story. Personally, while I agree that Cameron isn't the best writer, the whole maternal theme in ALIENS, both with Ripley and the Queen, is what makes it work for me so much. There's not a lot in ALIEN 3 and very little in A:R in terms of characters that can really pull me in, especially since the whole way it played out in terms of bringing the aliens back was kind of dumb. Personally, I think they should have ditched the Ripley character after the second movie.
post #55 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
Personally, I think they should have ditched the Ripley character after the second movie.
I can't argue with that. There was really nowhere to go with her anymore. Except, of course, where Alien 3 went, which really only makes her worthwhile in the final moments of the film. Bringing her back a fourth time was pretty much the definition of beating a dead horse.
post #56 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Brigden
Yeah, but it's whether they do it for shock value, or in service of the story. Personally, while I agree that Cameron isn't the best writer, the whole maternal theme in ALIENS, both with Ripley and the Queen, is what makes it work for me so much. There's not a lot in ALIEN 3 and very little in A:R in terms of characters that can really pull me in, especially since the whole way it played out in terms of bringing the aliens back was kind of dumb. Personally, I think they should have ditched the Ripley character after the second movie.
Read some of the other Alien 3 scripts. Aside from Twohy's draft, ditching Ripley has only lead to crappiness. And I think we can all agree that Ripley could not have been killed off in Alien 3 in a more beautiful fashion.

Although, any hatred of Alien Resurrection is both deserved and welcome.

And as for the earlier comment, there's not a whole lot character-wise going on in Alien 3. That's because the goods in that movie, for me anyway, are thematic.
post #57 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
I love it when a character who, by traditional storytelling, should live, is killed in as random and abrupt a manner as possible. It makes everyone unsafe. I'd list some great examples of this, but I don't want to ruin any movies that people haven't seen yet.
I, on the other hand, have no problem ruining movies whatsoever.

So, SPOILERS for those who haven't seen Serenity and Deep Blue Sea.

In the commentary on Serenity, Whedon talks about exactly what you're talking about, explaining how the death of Wash was essential to make it seem as if anyone was expendable and the final battle actually meant something. It raises the stakes significantly. This is especially important since no one dies at all after Wash, even the bad guy. Whedon gets away with that because every time someone almost dies, you feel like there's a pretty good shot that they might.

Deep Blue Sea - The only redeeming factor in this entire film is that the Sam Jackson death is one of the best examples of GOTCHA character deaths I've ever seen. They do such a good job of setting him up as the obvious group badass that his death is absolute gold. Saw the movie in a packed theater and the reaction -- OH SHIT! followed by people laughing at themselves for being shocked -- was priceless.

Another, random point -- Lot of random backlash for Aliens. I remember seeing that for the first time, and when you take that movie in context, as the sequel to Alien, not knowing what's going to happen, it's fraught with tension. The movie is on rails from the second the first marine team gets attacked and they have to make their escape in the troop carrier. I watched it again recently, and aside from some of the hair, and a couple bad blue screens, it completely held up for me. Not sure why people think it aged.

Also, re: Alien 3... A big problem I had with it (and I recently watched the extended cut which was better than the theatrical) is that they decided to render the alien in CGI for a few shots. The CGI absolutely killed it for me. It wasn't bad per se, but it just changed the there of the alien, made it feel fake, less of a threat.

I thought Charles Dance's death was pointless. Yes, it made you think that anyone could die, but when did you not feel that way in the Aliens series? With the exception of Ripley and maybe Newt, everyone's always been expendible. Especially in Alien3, I had no doubt anyone could die, and none of the characters were likeable enough to assume they were untouchable. So Dance's death did nothing for me. I would have rather he stuck around at least until the end so that his death meant something.

Anyway, that's all I got.
post #58 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow
Read some of the other Alien 3 scripts. Aside from Twohy's draft, ditching Ripley has only lead to crappiness. And I think we can all agree that Ripley could not have been killed off in Alien 3 in a more beautiful fashion.
Well I don't think it's correct to say that ditching Ripley lead to crappiness. If they were lousy scripts, it's because they were written badly, not because Ripley wasn't in them. It's entirely possible to write a good Alien movie without Ripley. She isn't magic, and she isn't necessary.
post #59 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Cokes
I thought Charles Dance's death was pointless. Yes, it made you think that anyone could die, but when did you not feel that way in the Aliens series? With the exception of Ripley and maybe Newt, everyone's always been expendible. Especially in Alien3, I had no doubt anyone could die, and none of the characters were likeable enough to assume they were untouchable. So Dance's death did nothing for me. I would have rather he stuck around at least until the end so that his death meant something.
His death did mean something. It meant the complete and total impossibility of hope for Ripley. Given where the movie goes afterward, it's an important death.

Still, can't blame you for the sentiment. I liked his character.
post #60 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel St. Buggering
Well I don't think it's correct to say that ditching Ripley lead to crappiness. If they were lousy scripts, it's because they were written badly, not because Ripley wasn't in them.
This is where Nigel loses me. It would be one thing if these were original scripts that we were talking about. It is another thing to be a writer attached to a major studio production. Said writer(s) have to please everyone: The studio, the producers, the above the title actors, the director.

Alien 3 had no guns because Sigourney Weaver demanded that to be the case, as she just had a kid and was feeling ill at ease about the firearm glorification of Aliens.

Ripley came back as a clone in Resurrection not because Joss Whedon thought it a good idea, but because the studio demanded it.

Cameron was better served as writer since he was the director attached (and in my opinion it is easily the best thing he's ever written). On top of that, it wasn't considered a franchise as it had been 7 years since Alien and no one was rushing in for a sequel. Once it was a success, all hell broke loose in terms of Giler, Hill, Weaver and Joe Roth of Fox all chiming in with what they felt the series needed.
post #61 of 114
So I'll blame the producers. Ditching Ripley has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the scripts. Hell, the best post-ALIENS story out there didn't have Ripley until the final page of the second part, and that was Mark Verheiden's comic book.
post #62 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domingo
I'll also throw in my "If only" comment, as in if only Wards wooden planet script was shot.
No, no, no. While I like the idea of Ripley crash landing in amongst a bunch of monks (which was the genesis of the prison planet idea for Alien3 I suppose), as a simple scientific concept the whole idea is worse than Armageddon. I'm not asking for everything to be rigorously grounded in physics but the idea of a wooden planet really doesn't work, at least as it's described in that script.

As to the hate for killing off Hicks and Newt, as others here have said, this was a conscious break with the previous film. Alien3 was supposed to be totally different from the ones that went before, and in that Fincher was only partly successful. It's well known that he was hobbled by studio interference.

As I understand it from interviews I read way back in the mists of time, Fincher wanted a planet full of paedophiles and a platoon of marines arriving in in the third act. That might have worked but I think the sombre tone of the film would have been lost. I think Fincher did the best he could under the circumstances and created a film which stands well enough on its own two feet.

One other thing: Fincher made this film when he was twenty-friggin-nine! Now that's one fact that makes me feel old.
post #63 of 114
I'm quite fond of this, especially the long cut included in the Quadrilogy box.
post #64 of 114
I love Alien3,
It is an amazing addition to the trilogy
(I ignore Alien:Resurrection as it was a lame cash cow)
The reason people dislike it is because pre release it was marketed as the alien coming to earth, and people anticipated Camerons Aliens firefights on earth on a large scale and what they got was a grim atmospheric haunted house shocker; Brilliant brilliant movie!!!!!!!!
post #65 of 114
From what I understood about the creation of the quadrilogy box set someone resigned from the staff after 30 mins of footage was cut from the accompaning documentary. Has anyone heard if this footage/a transcript is floating around the big ole' web?
post #66 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by fall
From what I understood about the creation of the quadrilogy box set someone resigned from the staff after 30 mins of footage was cut from the accompaning documentary. Has anyone heard if this footage/a transcript is floating around the big ole' web?
Nope, but theres a ton of deleted stuff from the documentaries on Alien 3 buried deep in the vaults somewhere. Personally, I don't see the point in deleting shit since anyone who has any idea about the movie knows it got fucked over. I think most of the deleted material dealt with Fincher, as you can see he doesnt even make an appearance on the current documentaries.

Maybe we'll finally get the uncut documentaries on BluRay.
post #67 of 114
Alien was an amazing film. Aliens was an amazing film, though completely different. I don't know what Alien 3 could have been or should have been, but i do know that it wasn't very good...regardless of the cut.

the biggest problem for me was the characters, and the lack of development. i don't think it matters that Newt and Hicks were killed off in the beginning. what matters is that they, besides Ripley, were the only developed characters in the film. if you are going to kill them off, you had better make sure they are replaced by new ones who can carry a story. instead they were replaced by charaters with no development other than, "these are very bad men..."

From there, everything just goes down hill. doesn't matter if you have great visuals, the emotional thrill is gone. even Ripley kinda got twisted around... She's supposed to be so wrecked having lost everything she knows, yet she screws the doctor. I couldn't believe she'd do that considering what has happened to her. i guess an argument could be made that she was trying to move on...but it just didn't work.

anyway, it's still better than part 4. but that isn't saying much.
post #68 of 114
Fincher bit off more than he could chew. He delivered nether the tension of the first or the action of the second. None of the characters are the least bit interesting (the same could be said of the rest of the series). The effects are worse than any of the other movies (mostly because he seemed to try things either he couldnt afford or werent possible at the time).

I dont so much blame this on Fincher (I love all of his other movies). His movie was taken over by the studio and he didnt have the clout at the time to make it his way.

Alien 3 is a movie made by studio committee and as such is exactly the mess you would expect it to be.
post #69 of 114
Although I am a lot less harsh about the idea of a wooden planet (this being sci-fi and all) I did love the idea of the Alien being come to be seen as a demon in the heavily religious context of it all. The notion that Ripley would have an abortian/exorcism to rid herself of the queen, the monks fearing a women in their midst etc etc.
post #70 of 114
To be honest, the first two films really exhausted the possibilities of where you could take a concept like the Alien films. The third one tries to go a different direction, but in the end relies on the "catch the alien by running around claustrophobic tunnels" set-piece that was used so well in the first one. And what if the marines turned up in the third act? How could you have done that differently to Aliens?

It's certainly a moody film (if a bit too orange for my taste), but the fact of the matter is it's too disjointed to be considered enjoyable. The idea behind the alien design and biology is an interesting one, but couldn't you argue that it's been marginalised to make the films more palatable to a broader audience?
post #71 of 114
is there no friend to alien 3?
post #72 of 114
" The moments you listed are highlights as is the numerous chases. I hated Alien 3 when I first saw it but I rewatched it on the Sci-Fi channel a few years back and grew to appreciate it in some measure. Dutton especially did some great, great work here and I always enjoy his performance. Also Goldenthal's score is really good. "

http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76541
post #73 of 114
Thread Starter 
I don't think there nessecarily needed to be characters to replace them. I think the idea of Ripley being in danger would have been softened because there would be someone to rely on for her. I've never really thought any other characters in any Aliens movie were really so essential to the story.
post #74 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kraken
To be honest, the first two films really exhausted the possibilities of where you could take a concept like the Alien films. The third one tries to go a different direction, but in the end relies on the "catch the alien by running around claustrophobic tunnels" set-piece that was used so well in the first one.
That's true, but the key difference is in the strong sense of 'fatalism' that has overcome Ripley and is seeping out of the movie. Newt, Hicks and even Bishop are dead, Ripley's going to die and the corporation are going to get the Alien - it's all spiraling downwards. But that scene where Dutton refuses to kill Ripley sort of gives it a 'one final effort' sort of push. It's a great end to the trilogy.
post #75 of 114
Alien3 is a decent movie, and if it had been the sequel to the original Alien it would probably have been better received and more fondly remembered. The problem is that it was the follow-up to Aliens, which IMHO is one of the top four or five action/sci-fi movies ever made. Aliens has weathered the decades practically unscathed.

I don't know if Aliens could have a truly successful follow-up, and Alien3 didn't really try. Alien3 instead went for an entirely different tone, with mixed results in light of the movies that had gone before.

Jaws 2 and Alien3 are the two sequels I feel have been so utterly overshadowed by their predecessors that despite being fairly good movies in their own right they receive little to no praise.
post #76 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by soybomb42
I never quite understood this. I always thought it was a fine movie, and a third viewing this afternoon confirmed these feelings. What is it about Alien 3 that most people find fault in? I know David Fincher even disowned it but I still think it's pretty good, especially the set design, which is phenomenal.


See the thing is this. whether it was good or bad is almost a seprete issue. The reason why there was dissapointment recorded in all audiances who saw the film is because the movie was not loyal ( not even close to being loyal ) to the franchise.


Now I suppose if I see the movie now, I might be capable ( maybe ) of judging the movie as in individual movie rather than a part of a franchise.

And in that light, although the movie still had some flaws, I would probably say that its a decent movie.


Possibly *** out of **** 4 stars.
post #77 of 114
Unfortunately, no one can be told what anyname is. You have to see him for yourself.
post #78 of 114
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anyname
See the thing is this. whether it was good or bad is almost a seprete issue. The reason why there was dissapointment recorded in all audiances who saw the film is because the movie was not loyal ( not even close to being loyal ) to the franchise.


Now I suppose if I see the movie now, I might be capable ( maybe ) of judging the movie as in individual movie rather than a part of a franchise.

And in that light, although the movie still had some flaws, I would probably say that its a decent movie.


Possibly *** out of **** 4 stars.
Goddamn.
post #79 of 114
The past is the future. The future is the past.




The present is anyname.
post #80 of 114
I have made no apologies for defending the Matrix trilogy, but Alien 3 is a big pile of shit. Every so often you get people leaping to the defense of movies like this and Mystery Men.

Why leave James Cameron with the satisfaction of actual successful character development when you can basically give his film a nasty offscreen death, and who needs primal fears and penis-shaped aliens when you can have bald British convicts running around in tunnels.

It's a sombre, sorry, miserable mess of a film.
post #81 of 114
You dress in the manner of a male prostitute.
post #82 of 114
Thy mother mated with a scorpion.
post #83 of 114
The wooden planet concept is "weak", but it can adapted into something that works. Maybe this thing was the first attempt at an artificial space station to act like a man made Earth, with mostly metallic structure, and a few wooden structures within, etc. Maybe atmo is designed to cover the core area aswell as the upper structure? Who knows. Not really plausible, but it could have been made into something %90 of people would buy without question.
post #84 of 114
Why no love? Because it's a messy, poorly cobbled-together piece of crap, with dull action sequences to boot.

As ol' Cameron said: "I couldn't stand Alien 3 – how they could just go in there and kill off all these great characters we introduced in Aliens, and the correlation between mother and daughter. It stunk, but hopefully I'll get a chance to rectify all that [with Alien 5]."

Of course, a certain "VS." film killed that project, but perhaps now with the rumblings of AVSP2, sometime in the future...
post #85 of 114
My .02 cents...

For me, sci-fi films are interesting when they bring in an unknown element into our reality, make up rules for that element, and abide by them. Yes, characters, plot, dialogue, are still all important to a sci-fi film, but plausibility is a unique property that this particular genre needs to take into account much more carefully to provide some stability.

The first two Alien films set up some rules for the way the title species works and it should be one of the priorities of any director or writer coming into the series later to uphold the established mythology, or at least provide explanations when the mythology changes.

Ridley Scott created a very unique creature and provided a fuzzy but provocative biology for it. Cameron expanded and clarified what Scott had set up in the first film. Every single incarnation of the creature since, including and especially Alien vs. Predator, has completely fucked up these established conventions. Alien 3 was merely the first to do this. Killing off the two main characters was not the first offense of the film. The first offense was even establishing that through some leap of logic an alien egg got on the Sulaco, and that the resulting face-hugger impregnated two creatures on top of that.

If you can't be bothered to pay attention to the established rules, or expand on the rules in a logical fashion, then I don't want you touching my science fiction franchise.

Of course there are many things presented in these films that may one day prove impossible, like cryo-sleep, etc. But only time can tell. For now, the first two films provide fascinating possibilities, while the rest of them completely screw up any suspense of disbelief without provocation. You'd think it would actually be simpler to work within the rules of a series and develop a story around it, but apparently not.

But on top of that, I would agree with everyone else who has mentioned the poor character development of Alien 3, the dull action sequences, etc. The whole thing is just a chore to watch.
post #86 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal
The first offense was even establishing that through some leap of logic an alien egg got on the Sulaco, and that the resulting face-hugger impregnated two creatures on top of that.
It's not that big a leap - the Queen was creating eggs anyway down on LV426 so it's concievable she still had two more when she made it onboard the Sulaco. I can't argue about the dull characters, though. With a few exceptions they simply aren't drawn out enough compared to the characters in the first two films, which weakens the whole 'pick them off one by one' thing.
post #87 of 114
Its interesting that people don't like the idea of a wooden planet because it has no grounding in reality. I take the point that some people like to see sci-fi skewer their reality and present something true of this moment (I have the rooftop scene in blade runner in my mind as I think this). But if reality is such a important component of sci fi, why do the crew of a space ship not go splat against the wall when their ship steps on the accelerator? Ahh some g force reduction thingy you say, when I look at sci-fi I don't really want to see people with guns shooting things, I want to see things I have never thought off before. Alien one and two are balls to the wall genre films in sci fi drag, they are a whole lot of fun in the process and astonishing achievements of their time but in no way insightful or particular meditations in the genre of scifi. I find the idea of a place, so starved of resources that they have to burn their own planet until it destroys the eco balance, coupled with the alien/demon theme so loaded in "sci-fi touching of naughty parts" that I must touch myself now and will continue to do so until nerdgasm commences.
post #88 of 114
I know the prisoners were all British actors due to shooting at Pinewood, but it would have made so much more sense to use Australian actors, don't you think.

Alien 3 is frankly far better than it deserves to be given how fucked over it was by the studio. The hate is, in my view, and as mentioned above, because it disappointed an audience with impossible expectations.
post #89 of 114
Realism shouldn't really be applied to this series.

I mean, NO ONE can hold on to anything that would stop them from being sucked out into space. Its just not possible. Yet its happened in this series in every film except one (Alien 3).

Apparently, a seven yr old can avoid being sucked out into space by holding onto metal grating.
post #90 of 114
It sucked, walking in there and not knowing Hicks and Newt were toast. Dutton's character was a little interesting, but overall the cast had little appeal. His 'win one for the Gipper' speech had little interest, seeing how these guys were the scum of the galaxy.

Great score by Goldenthal, though.
post #91 of 114
I love ALIEN3 just for fact that it had balls enough to kill off Newt and Hicks. Sure, they were lovable in their own way [I'd take Hicks home any day] but the idea of a family unit fighting the aliens in space together, well, yeah, it doesn't seem right to me.

Fox and Fincher had balls enough to kill them off. This makes the most plausible sense to me. This isn't a faerie tale, and the idea that Ripley would again be found alone with this creature, well, I like it.

I enjoy ALIENS but in my humble opinion, James Cameron made what could have continued being a 'perfect organism' into a "bug hunt" stripping the creature of its mystique and science. The alien started it's decline into "monster" as opposed to scientific specimen. The characters in ALIENS were interesting and fun, but I prefer bleakness and solitude. The idea of Nam in space, well, it just doesn't do it for me at all. ALIENS is an obvious film with obvious choices and gimmicks.

ALIEN3 stopped the gimmick machine and Fincher slapped us all in the face saying "this is it, everyone's dead, and you're gonna die to, love me or hate me." That's unique, that's vision, thats guts whether successful or not. Art takes risks, and ALIENS certainly isn't art.

Aside from the terrible Amalgamated Dynamics creature effects and the GOD AWFUL bluescreen puppet effects, I believe ALIEN3 to be a masterpiece. I wish they could go back and clean up and fix the effects. This film is my second favorite to the first one.
post #92 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kraken
To be honest, the first two films really exhausted the possibilities of where you could take a concept like the Alien films. The third one tries to go a different direction, but in the end relies on the "catch the alien by running around claustrophobic tunnels" set-piece that was used so well in the first one.
I feel the exact same way. My main disappointment is based on what I thought the movie was going to be about based on the teaser that was shown in theaters the summer before. To me it had seemed as though it was going to be about the aliens coming to Earth. In retrospect it might have been silly of me to assume so much about a movie's storyline based on a vague teaser, but I still hold onto my opinion of why I don't like 3 and 4 as much as I like the first two.

It comes down to this. There are hints of a larger universe operating in the background of these movies. We have a greedy corporation operating on an Earth that we never see with hints of other non-human sentient beings such as those on the alien spacecraft from which the characters in the first movie encounter the bugs. We have Space marines who must serve some kind of interstellar military purpose. They refer to Arcturian poontang.

But yet, apparently this is only just set up for yet another tale about people stuck in some claustrophobic environment as they are picked off one by one by the scary monsters. We get nothing new out of the experience. It doesn't develop anything that came before. In fact it cuts any potential ties to the previous movie by killing off two of the characters from that movie in an offhand, offscreen kind of way.

Maybe the movie works on its own merits, but when viewed as something that's supposed to be connected with another story it is completely pointless. It's more of the same thing we got the first two times.
post #93 of 114
I don't really see how killing of Hicks and Newt was ballsy since it was done purely to explain why they were not in the movie. It would be like saying Coppola was ballsy for killing off Tom Hagen's character between Godfather movies. It wasn't brave, it was just done because Robert Duvall couldn't agree on the salary and the plot had to deal with his absence.

I don't know the whole story regarding Biehn and Alien 3, but if they wanted to make an Alien film that takes place right after Aliens and still include Ripley, they'd have to deal with Newt in some way and they had two options: Hire another actress to play her or kill her off. Obviously there was no way to have Carrie Henn play her since she would've have been around 16-17 at the time. Kill her off and while you're at it, kill Hicks off as well.

One of my problems with their deaths though is how contrived it is. Some drops of acid cause a huge ship like the Sulocu to eject their cyrotubes into an escape pod (doesn't the ship have a sprinkler system?) and then shoots the escape pod into space so it can crashland on a planet and kill everyone except the star of the film. Some safety system. That bugs me as well, Hicks is crushed, Newt drowns and Ripley just gets a some bruises. It just reaks of the characters having to die so the writers just killed them off with out any regard for logic and plausibility, kind of a reverse deus ex machina.

And how did the egg get on the ship? Sure it could have been from the Queen, or even Bishop, but given Ripley's character and how paranoid she was, does anyone think she would'nt have went over everything with a fine tooth comb to make sure?

I suspect Alien 3 is just another one of those films that that certain people feel attracted too so they can pat themselves on the back for being different, or more intelligent because they could appreciate it but Joe Sixpack couldn't and embracing a film that's dark, bleak and "ballsy", even though just being dark and bleak does not necessarily a great film make.

I mean Aliens had guns and explosions, and had more than one alien, and had a bigger, badder queen alien and most of the public embraced it, can't like that one! Have to go for the bleak, everybody dies, and most importantly, the general audience rejected it, one instead!
post #94 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Creosote
I don't know the whole story regarding Biehn and Alien 3, but if they wanted to make an Alien film that takes place right after Aliens and still include Ripley, they'd have to deal with Newt in some way and they had two options: Hire another actress to play her or kill her off. Obviously there was no way to have Carrie Henn play her since she would've have been around 16-17 at the time. Kill her off and while you're at it, kill Hicks off as well.
I don't remember from the DVD extras if they mentioned the situation with Biehn returning, but Carrie Henn's age was definitely a factor in writing out Newt. I suppose they would've wanted to keep Newt as a young girl to further the mother/daughter relationship with Ripley, but there's an easy explanation for the age difference if they had wanted to still cast Henn - cryotube malfunction. Newt was still asleep during the trip, but continued to age at a normal pace. It's contrived, but it would've been an alternative to killing off Newt and Hicks.
post #95 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Creosote
I suspect Alien 3 is just another one of those films that that certain people feel attracted too so they can pat themselves on the back for being different, or more intelligent because they could appreciate it but Joe Sixpack couldn't and embracing a film that's dark, bleak and "ballsy", even though just being dark and bleak does not necessarily a great film make.

I mean Aliens had guns and explosions, and had more than one alien, and had a bigger, badder queen alien and most of the public embraced it, can't like that one! Have to go for the bleak, everybody dies, and most importantly, the general audience rejected it, one instead!
I don't think anybody here claimed that Alien 3 was better than Aliens, just that it's better than most people give it credit for. There's a big damn gap between saying it's not a complete disaster and saying it's the best of the series. And apparently, you can't imagine anyone liking a film that you don't without some kind of ulterior motive. Thanks for dropping by and being a complete dick on the subject, though.
post #96 of 114
I think you're going a little bit too much on the defensive there.

Some people have said Alien 3 is the best or second best, next to the first, and some have taken shots at Aliens in favor of 3.

And I said "certain" people, not all people. If you like Alien 3 then fine, but few people have made compelling cases for it beyond superficial reasons like "it's darker, more bleak and they had balls for killing off Newt and Hicks, and Joe Sixpack was expecting an Aliens Redux, so that's why they hated it but I love it cause I'm better and smarter than Joe Sixpack, etc."
post #97 of 114
It was ok, but the ending was handled in a very cheesy manner. It certainly has some continuity/logistical problems insofar as the Alien mythos is concerned. I liked Alien 3 about as much as I care for Resurrection, which is to say, I'll watch them if they're on tv from time to time, but I will never buy them.
post #98 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Creosote
I suspect Alien 3 is just another one of those films that that certain people feel attracted too so they can pat themselves on the back for being different, or more intelligent because they could appreciate it but Joe Sixpack couldn't and embracing a film that's dark, bleak and "ballsy", even though just being dark and bleak does not necessarily a great film make.

If you like Alien 3 then fine, but few people have made compelling cases for it beyond superficial reasons like "it's darker, more bleak and they had balls for killing off Newt and Hicks, and Joe Sixpack was expecting an Aliens Redux, so that's why they hated it but I love it cause I'm better and smarter than Joe Sixpack, etc."

Excellent observation. Couldn't have summed it up better myself, Creosote.
post #99 of 114
Thread Starter 
I think that's pretty off base. I like Alien 3 more than Aliens but it's not because I think it's 'ballsy' or that I'm 'smarter'. It's just that I prefer the darker tone and the set design of Alien 3 while I'm not a very big fan of Aliens. It has nothing to do with intellegence, and I don't think anyone is trying to say that. Neither of them are as good as the first one, in my opinion. It's just that, of the two, I prefer Alien 3 and I definitely think it's better than most people give it credit for.
post #100 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Creosote
I think you're going a little bit too much on the defensive there.

Some people have said Alien 3 is the best or second best, next to the first, and some have taken shots at Aliens in favor of 3.

And I said "certain" people, not all people. If you like Alien 3 then fine, but few people have made compelling cases for it beyond superficial reasons like "it's darker, more bleak and they had balls for killing off Newt and Hicks, and Joe Sixpack was expecting an Aliens Redux, so that's why they hated it but I love it cause I'm better and smarter than Joe Sixpack, etc."
It's got nothing to do with wanting to feel superior to "Joe Sixpack". You're saying that anybody who claims to like Alien 3 is only doing so to claim exclusivity in liking something that the general public doesn't. In other words, anybody who likes Alien 3 is being a pompous jerk. Obviously, I'm not going to agree with that. And if it comes off as defensive, well, I wonder why that would be.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Why no love for ALIEN 3?