robin2099

Yeah obviously we know that she was the central character in all four Alien movies. She was a good character in the first one and a better character in the second movie. However after the second movie her story was pretty complete.

Then you read about Alien 3 and the scripts that didn't include the Ripley character and instead focused on Hicks and Newt and they actually sounded pretty good. Instead Fox refused to do an Alien 3 without that character and it helped contribute to a weaker movie. Then comes Alien Resurrection, again they refused to do it without the Ripley character and again the movie seemed to be weaker because of shoe horning in that character.

So really outside of the first two movies I can't see any logical reason for why that character was force ably included other than executive meddling.

inri222

Which is why the series should have ended with Aliens.

fumanstan

She seems important in hindsight given how terrible the movies without her were, but the creature and story they set up in the first two movies should have been enough to make something interesting without her.

Jory

Trying to make the series all about Ripley was just as much of a mistake as trying to make Star Wars all about Darth Vader. They should have dropped her after the second movie. What they did with Charles Bishop Weyland in Alien vs. Predator was pretty interesting, more than if they had used some time travel bullshit to shoehorn Ripley into the story yet again, so it can certainly be done. Too bad the next AVP movie only had Friday the 13th rejects for characters, and Prometheus tried to repeat the same old Ripley formula with Elizabeth Shaw. Here's a crazy idea: make David the android the main character in the sequel.

Do it, Ridley. Please?

(He won't do it.)

UAIOE

Honestly, after "Aliens" the story should have shifted to Newt. Ripley had her crew killed, but Newt had her whole family and friends killed off. This should have made Newt 100x more pissed off than Ripley was.

What could have been had FOX not messed things up.

Jory

From what I understand, some of the Aliens comic book sequels (which I haven't read) made Newt and Hicks the main characters, with Newt growing up alongside him. That would have been a much better starting point than "where can we throw Ripley next?"

brayzie

Weaver either didn't want to return, or wanted only a cameo. In William Gibson's script for Alien 3, they explain Weaver's absence by having her be in a coma for the majority of the film. I think the people who were upset about Newt and Hicks' fate would have been just as upset about Ripley not returning to kick ass. I also wasn't crazy about the Cold War analogue and the political message of unifying the superpowers for the common good.

What contributed to a weaker movie was scaling back the stakes involved and simplifying, instead of expanding, the concept.
ALIEN: one alien picking off a crew.
ALIENS: a colony full of aliens picking off a group of marines.
ALIEN 3: back to one alien, picking off a colony of prisoners who we don't really care about.

The first two films got our imaginations running with the derelict ship and the introduction of a hive and the queen. The third didn't add anything. The film should have been on Earth like the teaser promised, and Ripley being the main character is integral to the story. Her journey is intertwined with the xenomorph. The species is first introduced to man in her presence, and it's only when she's found 80s year later that the species is able to proliferate once again. The alien has been with her for so long, and taken so much from her. Take her out of the story and it's a random sequel with random campers dying gory deaths.

It was weaker because it seemed cheap compared to the previous three films. This film takes place even further into the future and yet the technology displayed looks the same as in ALIENS or even less advanced. The subplot about Ripley being cloned and what it would mean to her, and what it would make her was an interesting concept and the one highlight of the film.

UAIOE

Among the problems with "Alien Resurrection" was that the tone was so much goofier than the other movies. It's less an "Alien" movie and more of a "cheesy late 90's monster movie that just happens to have connections to the Alien franchise".

hanshotfirst1138

Are the Gibson and Ward script of any interest beyond curiosity value?

Rockmjd23

Agreed, whoever wrote that thing is obviously a hack.

UAIOE

They probably only serve as painful reminders that a better movie could have been made had FOX left well enough alone.

inri222

In other words a total piece of shit that was made by the producers & studio for the sole purpose of cashing in on the name.

joliom

Not to mention - I love Jean-Pierre Jeunet - but his cinematic style is just all wrong for an Aliens film. At least Fincher got the tone and look right in his otherwise flawed sequel.

UAIOE

I'm afraid this applies to both 3 and Resurrection.

Which is why this franchise pretty much stopped at the end credits of "Aliens".

inri222

I agree

K&AJones

I'd like to see Newt become a "second" Ripley instead of killing her off and having Ripley more of a supporting cast member who knew all the answers but wanted no part of it. Not bringing in a mature gutsy survialist "Ripley Jr" Newt was the biggest mistake I can think of.