Y'know, lots of people hated The Village because the trailers made it looks like a straight up horror flick, and it wasn't. Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the few people on Earth who actually liked the movie, but that's still the number one reason I get when I ask why some one didn't like it.

As for Alien 3, I don't know why everyone hates it just because Hicks and Newt were knocked off before the movie. They've done that before where actors won't/can't come back to do sequels. I just think it isn't well received due to the fact that there's a "3" tacked on the end of the name and so people are already prejudiced against it. Personally, I liked 3. It's 4 I have a problem with.

Well...aside from my thoughts on the Newt/Hicks thing, and the fact that "Alien 3" was yet another "why don't you believe me when i talk about these aliens?" movie....

I can honestly say that the problem with the movie was there was too many hands in the making of it.


As i have said before...

I still don't care for the movie, but the directors cut was an improvment.

But your example doesn't relate directly to the film; it relates to an advance teaser that was created before they even had a script to work with. The Wedding Crashers example (and the Village one as well) isn't the same as what I'm trying to say. With the Wedding Crashers, I could understand if you saw those trailers and went in expecting a slapstick comedy and were ultimately let down because it wasn't; because all of the trailers that told you the story of the movie you were going to see were misleading.

You say you didn't like Alien3 because your expectations were ruined based on a 30 second teaser (with no actual footage included) that came out a year before the film was released, and even with many trailers that came out around the release of the film showing you much information to the contrary, which would have told you that the original teaser was obsolete; this seems like a bullshit reason to say, "well, that movie sucked, because my expectations didn't hold up based on that first teaser."

Why did Alien 3 suck?

1) The recycled plot - An alien picks off people one-by-one until only Ripley is left to face off against it. Sounds a lot like the first Alien flick.

2) Killing off Newt and Hicks - Sure, horror movies do this all the time, but the first two Alien movies are highly regarded as being among the best entries in the horror genre. The third movie should not have pulled a stunt that belongs in a Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger sequel. Oh, and the entire last 30 minutes of Aliens was devoted to Ripley's desperate struggle to save Newt. Invalidating that in the first 10 minutes of Alien 3 is unforgivable.

3) The illogical premise - The entire plot is based on an egg in the Sulaco that never could've been laid there in the first place. The Queen Alien's sack was still on LV-426 and it never left the shuttle between the escape from the planet and the docking with the Sulaco. And how exactly did one facehugger manage to impregnate both a dog and Ripley anyway?

4) The lame cast of characters - I'm not saying we needed another string of neverending wiseass remarks ala Hudson, but there wasn't one likable supporting character in Alien 3. They were all rapists and murderers which immediately made the audience predisposed to hating them. Charles Dance was the only remotely sympathetic one and he was knocked off before we ever got a chance to know him.

5) The lousy production value - The sets were too darkly lit, the FX were lame, the dialogue was sometimes impossible to hear, etc.

6) That misleading teaser - Yes, I was well aware that the movie was set on Fiorina whatever-the-hell-number it was before I went to see it, but the worst thing Fox could've done was get me all jazzed about seeing the aliens coming to Earth and wreaking havoc only to turn around and recycle the first movie.

True. I remember reading a review somewhere saying something to the effect that if Ripley didnt care what happens to herself why should we?
This script went through a record amount of rewrites and start overs. No wonder it was such a mess and no wonder Fincher doesnt want to talk about it.

Believe it or not, I don't get to the movies all the time and the Alien3 teaser was the only trailer I saw for the movie. This was back before the days of watching trailers on the computer and my expectation were really high for the movie because I loved Alien and Aliens. So when the Aliens weren't coming to Earth, it it was definitely a let down.

I'll admit that Alien3 gets better with repeated viewings, but its mostly because you have become numb to (1) the openining which eliminated Hicks/Newt and (2) you recognize the prisoners. I had no idea who any of the prisoners were, and Roc was the only one that was given enough to differentiate himself (well, I guess you can count the Doc, but he gets waxed pretty early)..

If you take a look at Alien, damn all the characters are given a chance to make a mark in the movie. Alien3, there was nothing like that. I know the studio chopped the script and the final cut, but still.

Alien3 isucked the first time I saw it, and thats the test I use. Sure its gotten better over the years, but only because of low expecations.

[QUOTE=Doughboy]2) Killing off Newt and Hicks - Sure, horror movies do this all the time, but the first two Alien movies are highly regarded as being among the best entries in the horror genre. The third movie should not have pulled a stunt that belongs in a Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger sequel. Oh, and the entire last 30 minutes of Aliens was devoted to Ripley's desperate struggle to save Newt. Invalidating that in the first 10 minutes of Alien 3 is unforgivable.[QUOTE]



I've learned to appreciate Alien 3 more after my initial reaction long ago. If Hicks and Newt were killed off later in the movie, i'd be more forgiving. But in the end killing them right away makes it look like they're taking on piss on the previous movie and everything it had going for it

~Jason

I never seen the directors cut so it might be better now but I didn't care for the movie when I saw it. Didn't care about Newt but was sad that Hicks, the terminator guy was killed off. I also thought they were coming to Earth and it was downer when it didn't happen. Kind of like if in Jason vs Freddy, Freddy and Jason never fought. That would have sucked big time.

Then the no guns things really got to me. I wanted them to up the action not bring it down. It could have worked but didn't for me.

I actually liked Alien: Resurrection but not as much as the first two.

Didn't care that Newt and Hicks died. Never had seen the "Earth teaser". Saw "3" in the theatre and enjoyed it. I thought the final half hour was very suspensful.

I like Alien 3 a lot.

A lot of people who don't like it give real nerd answers, like how it took too long for the alien queen to gestate and how killing the Aliens characters invalidates the second film. It's a continuation of the Ripley story and a beautiful one at that. It's not perfect but it's damn good.

Also, the cast has some excellent actors in it, including Charles Dance and Pete Posthelwaite. I know they don't all get a ton to do in the final cut but they add to it. It's a harsh, interesting, brutal film.

I wish Fincher (absolutely one of my favorite directors) would have gotten involved in the box set but I understand that he doesn't feel that he shot enough of what he wanted to even construct a director's cut even if he wanted. I REALLY wish the documentary on the troubles hadn't been edited down by the studio, however. I'd love to see the full story there.

I agree wholeheartedly with all your reasoning here. I actually live all four Alien movies, they each have a distinctive approach and style, largely (in my opinion) based on the crew (director and producers)... there's a Ridley "put some more smoke on it" movie, there's a Cameron "pour on the action!" movie, there's a Fincher "I'm weird/surreal" movie, and there's a JPJ "Make it quirky and over the top" movie.... plus two of the directors used some of their favorite actors in their respective Alien movies

I could make this easier and dig up any of dozens of old posts of mine on this topic, but I'll try and do this fresh.

How ANYONE could think this way - what basically amounts to "I want my happy ending to remain happy" - in a film series that becomes all about the loss that surrounds Ripley, is unfathomable.

No matter how hard Ripley tries, no matter how much she struggles, no matter what successes she has, she keeps losing EVERYTHING that ever had any meaning to her. She loses her co-workers and friends in the first film, and just when she thinks she has overcome her situation, she finds (in the second movie) that by defeating the source of her loss, she has inadvertantly caused the loss of her job and her daughter. She's STRONG though. She gets back on her feet, fights back, and goes to redeem herself, to put to rest the haunting emptiness. She finds new companionship, new cameraderie, and even a new surrogate daughter. But the struggle begins anew. She loses her new friends one by one to the very same nemesis. She is DETERMINED at all costs to win this time, though, and goes through hell itself to save Hicks and especially Newt. And she succeeds. And finds time to rest at last, a moment of safety where she can finally let her guard down, secure in the knowledge that she has defied the odds and reclaimed part of a respectable life.

Newt and Hicks die while she is asleep, with her guard down. They are ripped from her at a time when she can't even fight back. It's the ULTIMATE experience of personal loss. And once again, it's the same old nemesis. For every tiny forward step that Ripley fights for and gains, she is shoved painfully back by another loss.

Appalled viewers reduce this to: "Alien3 sucked, I can't believe they killed Hicks and Newt off right from the start!" The end. My response: I can't believe you don't get it.

Oh, and of course, there can be no bigger loss than the loss of one's own life, and Ripley finally accepts that at the end of the movie. It is a graceful and towering concluding moment to a nearly perfect trilogy. This is, of course, why the fourth movie just doesn't work - it carries on in a way that is contrary to the theme of the first three films.

Excellent defense. I love Alien3, LOVE it. I knew from the first few minutes that I would, BECAUSE of the killing off of Newt and Hicks. Immediately shocked you and depressed you and put you in the same mindset as Ripley. An almost perfect opening for a movie.

While I don't think it was the best of the series. I have always disagreed with it "sucking."

Short answer to a dead horse topic... It didn't suck. As for the Newt and Hicks bullshit, I'm tired of hearing that as a reason why the film "sucked". If you didn't like it, so be it, but the Alien films are about RIPLEY, not Newt and Hicks. Get over it.

I think it's time that I actually see it. I was all set to see it when it opened but was called into work.. My brother and friend went and saw and needless to say I heard what happened and made a vow to never ever see it. I loved Aliens and it' still one of my favorite movies. But I am also a big Fincher fan and my curiousity has been peaked some time. I think enough time has passed for me to give it a fair viewing. I am sure I will always be ticked off that they made the decisions that they did but I'm going to try to give it a fair shake. Now all I have to do is get the Alien Quadrology set.

And my interpretation of the movie would be that they have put Ripley back in the same old "safe zone" for her character. Ripley fighting off an old nemesis *AGAIN*, Ripley trying to get others to believe the alien is real *AGAIN*. People complain when other movies go the safe route when it comes to the story (MIB2 would be a prime offender) but to me "Alien 3" was the series equivilant of a "safe movie".


The movie doesn't lose so much credit with the Newt/Hicks thing so much as the whole facehugger thing. I can overlook the deaths of those characters but I can't possibly take this movie seriously when viewing the intro. The opening is handled in such a way that it is clearly written half assed and makes no effort to be logical.

The intro alone tells me that this movie had script problems more than anything else.

I guess the question is: why did the Alien series turn on Ripley? I mean Alien really was a strong ensemble movie - sure Ripley was the focus, but the other characters were given a lot to do and played important bits in the movie.(especially Tom Skerrit and Ash).

Aliens gave Ripley a bit more backstory (especially the directors cut) but also introduced a lot of characters that played strong roles (i.e. most notably Bishop, Hicks) and a bunch of other characters.

I felt like Alien3 was just all Ripley, all the time. Its obvious when all the other characters looked the same, talked the same, and were pretty much the same (with the exception of "Roc" and the "Doc"

Alien4, I don't even want to talk about it. Its obvious that as Sigourney Weaver got more producer power through the series, Ripley's character became more and more central.

I agree. Emotionally investing in characters is really nerdy.

Straw man? Just because a person disagrees with a plotline doesn't mean they don't "get it."

Look, ignoring the effect that it had on Ripley, Hicks and Newt dying in the sleep chambers is not a fitting end to their character arcs. It's like the Chief in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest escaping the mental ward at the end, but in the process of his escape tripping over a rock, rolling down a hill, and falling over the edge of a cliff. Or Roy, the last replicant in Blade Runner, dying from a kidney infection in the final scenes of the movie. It's just not a satisfying conclusion to their stories. Justice should always be meted out in some way or another. In real life bad, random things happen all the time, but fiction isn't real life; nothing happens without a purpose, and the purpose here is to isolate Ripley. That could have been done any number of other ways that don't crap all over the triumph of the human spirit that was shown at the end of Aliens.

From Ripley's perspective, it's also not the most difficult situation she could have faced. The most difficult situation would be having to choose to separate herself forever from the people she loved in response to what she knew she had to do. Personal desire versus duty (or fate). That's conflict. Not the "oops, everyone is dead, guess I don't care anymore" bullshit.

Nah, for those people who dismiss the whole movie with that simple wave of a hand, they get my own equivalent dismissal.

That's where we differ, then. That's why I love it so much. Because real life is full of many such futilities, and we SO rarely see it reflected in movies. It was bold and unexpected. And unfortunately it immediately closed peoples' eyes and minds to the rest of the movie.

I guess it depends how you view the Alien series. And I certainly don't view the films as "character arc driven" sequels. I view them as loose sequels from different directors. And to me the series is about the Ripley character, everybody else is expendable. And as others have pointed out, nothing good can happen to Ripley as long as she's around those aliens. That might be too dark and nihilistic for some, but it works perfectly for me. And it works a hell of a lot better than the standard formulaic "now that Ripley has a love interest and a little girl to take care of, she will now fight for her "family"!" Blah... Moreover, having Newt and Hicks around would not have worked in the context of Alien 3.

And for Breakfast with Girls, your comparisons are silly. Newt and Hicks didn't die from a disease or by stumbling over rocks, they were killed by aliens.

Also, why don't we ever hear people bash Cameron for having turned a great suspense/horror film into a mindless popcorn action flick with (mostly) cardboard characters? You can't mess with characters but it's ok, in a series (after all people seem to want continuity right?), to mess with genre/style? Come on now. The reason people disregard this is because they like Aliens. Most people bash Alien 3 not for what it is but for what they wanted it to be (it's not on earth! they killed Newt and Hicks!). That's hardy convincing criticism.

Except that the rest of the movie was no gem, either.

I will say that I haven't seen the director's cut. I was happy to hold off on the Quadrilogy (my passionate dislike for nearly all aspects of Resurrection didn't make it too difficult) and buy the first two films when they came out individually.

I just don't think they should have been in the movie at all.

As for silly, that's what I thought when there was some egg that magically appeared in the ship. It was a gimmick.

And yeah, like most people, I think Aliens is great. It's a popcorn flick. And? It's a lot of fun, and it still manages a few scares. It's not an atmospheric horror movie, but that's one of the reasons I like it -- the sequel wasn't a remake of the original (unlike Alien 3).

Yeah, because adding a love interest and a kid...A KID FOR GOD'S SAKE...isn't playing it "safe"!? How dreadfully formulaic.

Well said!


I dont even think the studio knew what they wanted. Dozens and dozens of scripts were written, There were many directions the character(s) could have gone in, and they settled for this messy plotline?


Keep in mind that Sigorney was the one that didnt want guns in Alien3 which may have suited her tasted but no one elses.

First, Cameron didnt shit all over already established info we have of the species (super facehugger) and he didnt kill off characters for the sake of putting Ripley back in the "safe" story of fighting the aliens by herself. Cameron at least had respect for the movie that came out before his, and all he did was add something to what was already established.

Whoever the hell decided to use the script that Fincher ended up using had no respect for the immediate prequel or the first movie. The intro we ended up with was a inane attempt at justifing the movie we ended up recieving.



Personally, direction that "Alien 3" went to be very formulaic given the series that it in. I find that repeating the storyline of "Ripley is alone in her quest to destory the alien and she must make other people believe this thing exsists."
That is the same old stuff, that is the "safe" story for the Alien series.

But why have the character grow when you could just plop her down on some random planet/spaceship/spacestation and have her fight off an alien once again? It worked in 1979, why not again and again and again? Alien 3 is just "Alien" on a planet but with a cast of character we care less about.


The only thing i will ever admit that "Ressurection" did partially right was introduce another character who felt the same way about the aliens as Ripley did. At least Call exsisting led to the idea that perhaps others out there wanted these things dead and gone other than Ripley.