well, 2 things trouble me about this:

1.) Fox Studios... this studio is big on producing crap in the last years. Not one of their big films has any quality... their treatment of AVP is a clear sign how little they care about the film itself. All that counts is the name and hopefully a good opening.

2.) Ridley Scott and Tony Scott... horrorfilms from these 2? Sorry... ALIEN was 30 years ago, Im afraid Scott has lost his touch on something like this uhm 29 years ago... and the worst thing of all is, those two involved means Marc Streitenfeld or Harry Gregson-Williams will provide the score. Now that actually would create horror in me... Yeeeesh...

When you look at The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner and then look at The Hunger and Top Gun, it looks like Tony has been more influential on Ridley, instead of vice-versa--in the 80's, who would have thought THAT would happen?

Monterey Jack wrote:

JSWalsh wrote:it's baffling how many Cameron fans are ticked off at Alien 3. The reason seems to be that Hicks and Newt die, as if those characters had any juice left in them. What more do we get out of them, more shooting, more "Come on let's go, mommy"?

Because when you've built up a nuclear family (literally) out of Ripley, Newt and Hicks, asked the audience to care about the three...then arbitrarilly kill off two of them in the opening credits of the third movie, that's pretty much an insult.

From my perspective, the series was about Ripley and the Aliens. Everyone else was expendable. It's her nightmare. She can't have love, family, or any of the things anyone else could have because her life was tied to the Aliens. I would not have wanted to see a film continue with Newt, Hicks, and Ripley. It would have taken away from her story and would have been a four piece character film rather than a two piece character film (Ripley and Aliens). The Aliens ensure that nothing survives- it's hopeless. To make films with the family unit intact, fighting alongside each other together would have just been wrong in my opinion. There shouldn't be any "bright light" in these films.

Although Hicks and Newt are killed at the opening of ALIEN 3, I think the burial/birth montage was extremely moving and visually said more about Ripley's lost loves and the horror facing her than any dialogue or running around could have done. The opening titles of ALIEN 3 were creepy and effective- the tone and mood for the film is immediately set. I cared about Ripley; the others were just there to illustrate her journey to he rlast breath. I thought that Ripley being impregnated with a queen and dying for the human race was the perfect end to her life.

I know that is incredibly morbid...lol...but for her character in this series of films, it made logical sense to me that this is how things should go.

mkaroly wrote:The Aliens ensure that nothing survives- it's hopeless. To make films with the family unit intact, fighting alongside each other together would have just been wrong in my opinion. There shouldn't be any "bright light" in these films.

That IS a morbid point of view! lol. Sorry Michael

That POV is what ALIEN3 is all about, but it's not the message of ALIEN or ALIENS. She overcomes the creature in the first movie -- she not only does so in the second, but Cameron actually bothered to develop her character (far more than Scott had done with any of the characters in ALIEN) to give the film a far richer emotional arc than anything in its predecessor, or its follow-ups (it's ironic how those who trash Cameron can't see that any of the emotional aspects of ALIEN3 in terms of Ripley having lost her comrades is entirely due to the fact that ALIENS -- not ALIEN, not ALIEN3 -- developed those themes. There's nothing that ALIEN3 does that's interesting on its own other than -- gasp! -- killing off its lead characters, a tactic so "shocking" and "edgy" that it's been employed on TV series from DALLAS to DYNASTY and 24 when either cast members depart, they're stuck in a narrative corner or they're trying to drive up ratings through mere shock value).

I look at ALIEN and ALIENS as being two movies that follow, at least as far as science fiction goes, a somewhat believable/logical storyline: a crew deep in space is attacked by an alien. She wakes up from suspended animation, the "company" needs her help in returning to the planet where she had been. It's a bit of a stretch but it's somewhat plausible as to why she would go back there.

After that, the series becomes an absolute mess -- more of a "gothic nightmare" than a real science fiction story, and packed with coincidences so that Weaver's character would stay in the forefront. There just happens to be an alien still on the ship that kills everyone...she just happens to crashland on a prison planet without any weapons...it's a series of coincidences and "reality" was it were goes out the window. Yes these films aren't believable and they're futuristic science fiction pieces, but the first and second films have a kind of "real" aspect to them that is completely absent from 3 and 4. (And while the Fincher fans would love to add to the auteur theory and tell you killing off the ALIENS characters in ALIEN3 is somehow related to his "world view" or fits comfortably in his filmography, he had nothing to do with the film's storyline on almost any creative level. Ripley's sacrifice, the deaths of Newt and Hicks -- all of that was written up in scripts by almost a dozen other writers before Fincher had anything to do with that project! The reality is that he was a "hired hand" and the third or fourth choice to direct an especially troubled movie, and did the best he could under the circumstances).

Anyway, for me this entire series stopped working when it became about Ripley and everything else was shoved to the background -- the screenplays, the behind-the-scenes issues, everything is related to Weaver. Once ALIENS came out and she earned her Oscar nomination, Fox worked overtime to make sure the series was all about Sigourney, pleasing her, making sure she had loads of input,, all to the detriment of telling a satisfying story.

In retrospect, it was a massive mistake, based on how the third and fourth movies in the series turned out. They killed it both commercially and critically.

I agree... Ripley's story was told in ALIENS... they should have really gone into a new direction in Part 3 and start with new characters... still I like 3 and 4, especially 4 had a very good setup and I like her character, but it just ends in an ordinary chase through the spaceship film, which was very disappointing, despite some great action scenes and effects.

I wonder whether they would dare to change the look of the Alien, because nobody is scared by that thing anymore, everybody knows exactly what it looks like. The last time they looked frightening was in Alien 4, but in AVP 1 and 2 they were really out of date...

but I guess they will not dare... nobody since then has come up with a really frightening monster... THE RELIC is a pretty cool one, as it looked finally not like ALIEN... I also liked the fluorescent monster in Outlander... but still, so many creatures borrow from ALIEN, it is actually very disappointing...

I wouldn't doubt this project is going to happen. Between Rodriguez's PREDATORS movie and the upcoming ALIEN VS. PREDATOR video game (which looks great), there's probably room for another ALIEN movie. If it's NOT a remake (and it may not be), then I don't think it's a terrible idea, especially not if Scott is involved to some degree. Anything would be better than what Juenet vomited up on-screen in ALIEN RESURRECTION.

I also agree with JS on the visual stylings of Ridley. That washed-out blue-hued cinematography was something Tony employed on countless projects before. And he's also had more of an influence on Ridley thanks to his musical choices too -- sadly

at least both brothers are quite old already, so soon I dont have to endure any Tony Scott film anymore and Ridley's outings may not be an endurance test, but they have hardly been interesting either... hardly I know a director with such highs and such lows...

to have Fincher now direct his first ALIEN film, now that would be something... but sadly he was given the choice at a time where he couldnt handle the powers that be, but well, maybe that experience made him what he is today...

Good points Andy!

mkaroly wrote:Good points Andy!

Thanks Michael, you make them as well. I know you are in the ALIEN3 fanbase. I don't hate it -- I reserve that for RESURRECTION. YUCK. lol.

The whole idea that killing Newt and Hicks is a "slap in the face of the fans" is ludicrous, like saying Shakespeare killing Falstaff was an insult to those who loved the character (and he was loved enough to make more than one appearance in Shakespeare's works). It actually speaks to the TV/comic book background of the fans (I have that background, too) when these are supposed to be for adults. You'd think adults would appreciate the audacity of this kind of thing in an R-rated HORROR movie.

As said above, these movies were Ripley's living nightmare. The whole point of Alien 3--the point of Alien, and all great (as opposed to crap) horror--is that the horror, the universe DOESN'T PLAY FAIR.

Cameron's approach is that of an action melodrama director, not a horror one. In melodramatic action movies, the good guys always die heroically, the bad guys always get theirs, no matter how these results defy logic or the unfairness of REAL life.

Alien retains its power because it starts with a comic book premise and addresses it with artistry, with seriousness. The white regular-guy captain OF COURSE is going to win out in the end, even if it's only with the woman who has an unspoken love for him as the only other survivor. The black guy will ALWAYS get it early on. And if you gotta die, it won't be in some bizarrely, sexually-disturbing way.

Aliens is melodrama, and that's fine, but it simply is a different, and to me, lesser, safer approach to the material. All those stupid Marines (pure melodrama) who let a civilian take over just because (pure melodrama) fall because they are not part of the "husband-wife-child" family (and "magical" pal robot)--purest melodrama.

Alien 3 went back to and beyond the first movie's attempt to bring a non-genre-centric approach to the material--the producers debated whether the alien represented cancer or AIDS, and the heroine freakin' DIES...as does that comforting "family". With the legs knocked out from under her right from the start, Ripley is in a nightmarish situation, without the sense of "well, even if I die, my 'child' will live on after I die heroically, saving her in the process." Alien 3 says "That bull won't fly here--life sucks, and at best you get a Pyrrhic victory, maybe save a slimeball rapist and stopping the threat, but you won't get to savor that victory because you have to kill yourself before you die painfully."

Beside all that, the comic book Cute Kid and Handsome Stalwart Warrior Husband Figure are embarrassingly naive. That fans think these two cardboard creations had any purpose shows they only wanted more "badass" retorts and "all-out action" as they say on the message boards.

Fincher chose something original. That fans felt killing off fictional creations was somehow a personal insult shows why the field is still looked down on for its adolescent core.

Tony Scott has confirmed that this is a prequel, and hopes it starts filming this year.

AndyDursin wrote: (it's ironic how those who trash Cameron can't see that any of the emotional aspects of ALIEN3 in terms of Ripley having lost her comrades is entirely due to the fact that ALIENS -- not ALIEN, not ALIEN3 -- developed those themes. There's nothing that ALIEN3 does that's interesting on its own other than -- gasp! -- killing off its lead characters, a tactic so "shocking" and "edgy" that it's been employed on TV series from DALLAS to DYNASTY and 24 when either cast members depart, they're stuck in a narrative corner or they're trying to drive up ratings through mere shock value).

And there's no difference between killing off the ONE main character in a movie franchise that is still viable, and croaking characters in ensemble TV shows that are on their way out?

You're missing the entire concept of dramatic impact. Alien 3 wasn't some last-gasp cheapie done to wring a few bucks from a long-running series, it was the second sequel to a hit movie, which followed another hit movie. THAT is why it really is --gasp!--edgy and shocking.

BTW, Shakespeare killed his main characters off, too, so I guess he could have learned some lessons about drama from James Cameron.

Of course there's impact to losing the comrades--I mean, the characters CAME from Aliens, not Alien, so that's really kind of a moot point, isn't it? I've never heard anyone claim that if Aliens never existed and Alien 3 started as it was, people would be gasping "Oh, no, they killed two characters we never heard of but who must be important!"

But the impact wasn't along the lines of "Oh, no, they killed those great characters!" It was, "Wow, they don't usually do THAT in just another franchise movie. What's going on here?" I mean, we're not talking two incredibly original, classic characters--what was so great about Michael Biehn's character--that he was a cute grunt who let the heroine take over, when no trained military professional would ever allow that? What were his characteristic traits--that he shot at aliens, and ran around? What was with the little kid that made anyone want to see more of her? I for one can't stand having little kids in these kinds of movies, and her presence in Aliens made the movie female-friendly, but it also contributed to the diluting of the adult tone. I didn't miss either character--did you? Really? What was it they could have added to any sequel--the kid being held hostage by aliens again, Biehn (sp) looking cool while he fired his rifle? They were dead weight, and it was a good idea to dump them, and this being a horror movie, losing two characters we thought were safe was indeed daring. How many times do you see that in this kind of movie? The comparison with TV is shoddy and you know it--the situations are completely different and unrelated.

Your phrasing above is a little confusing, but you seem to be saying there is nothing powerful about Ripley's end that wasn't due to residual character development from Aliens. You're welcome to your theory, if that indeed IS your position, but it sure doesn't hold up to close examination. If that were true, we'd have zero interest in the climax of Alien, where Ripley is the center of attention. One of the many very effective tactics of Alien was having Ripley be first among equals in the crew, but only just--up to the point where she's the last one on the ship, it certainly was plausible that she and Parker could have been the last ones to face off and survive the alien. The moment when she is alone on the ship, Alien takes off into being something so much better than just a routine genre exercise. As she's running down those corridors, it's not a like a James Bond movie where we just know she's going to survive. The script, Scott's direction and the excellent art direction have created an atmosphere where we really don't know how this is going to turn out. At the time, we weren't used to this kind of material being taken so seriously. like an art film--the chest burster's impact, the serious tone, the sense of dread are so far from what genre fans were used to at the time. We're WITH Ripley at that point. When she escapes the ship, we feel she got away fairly easy--she didn't have to DEAL with the thingee...but then she DOES have to deal with it, directly.

And that's why her character has impact. Cameron can't deal with her on these adult terms, so he turns her into a comic book figure. In the first, she's a blue collar woman who just barely ekes out a victory with a force of nature. In the second, she is OF COURSE a maternal figure (just like a woman!), but she's also a brilliant military tactician, capable of keeping her cool while these stupid, well-trained professionals all turn into crybabies and chickens, AND she's a multi-rifle-totin' superhero, too!

Cameron's character has impact in comic book, cardboard terms. Scott's and Fincher's show a human being grappling with things that overwhelm mere mortals. In the first she barely gets away with her life, and nothing more; in the third movie, she succumbs.

That's a lot more human and interesting than a shoot 'em up fantasy about a woman who somehow becomes a general/gunslinger/supermommy when the chips are down, who somehow got all this training while she was making a living on a cruddy space truck...

You're missing the entire concept of dramatic impact.

No, sorry, I'm not. That's your concept of dramatic impact, and obviously we are never going to agree on that.

I don't object to Newt and Hicks dying...I object to them dying in such an arbitrary, dramatically inept fashion. It's like how the Kraken was killed off-screen between the seond and third Pirates Of The Caribbean movies. In the second, it was made out to be the most powerful sea beast imaginable, and then it's like, "No, he's dead". We don't even see it get killed. You don't spend an entire movie setting up a mother/daughter relationship between Ripley and Newt only to kill the kid off before the opening credits of the third have finished rolling!

Monterey Jack wrote:I don't object to Newt and Hicks dying...I object to them dying in such an arbitrary, dramatically inept fashion. It's like how the Kraken was killed off-screen between the seond and third Pirates Of The Caribbean movies. In the second, it was made out to be the most powerful sea beast imaginable, and then it's like, "No, he's dead". We don't even see it get killed. You don't spend an entire movie setting up a mother/daughter relationship between Ripley and Newt only to kill the kid off before the opening credits of the third have finished rolling!

Couldn't agree with this more.

For me, they are basically two Alien films that count to me. Parts 3 and 4 are interesing curiosities and I have to admit, on its own merits, that director's cut of Alien 3 earned my respect a bit. When you hear the story about how much 20th Century Fox screwed up that film and what Fincher's original vision for it was... Wow.