A L I E N FIVE Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

The director and writer of Alien³ didn't exactly ignore what came before but chose to go in a different direction and use a certain style that did not appeal to many fans while at the same time killing off two popular characters.

I didn't say they did. I said " ignoring Alien3 and Alien Resurrection isn't much of a new thing since both the director and writer of Alien3 choose to ignore it in their own way". They're not ignoring the previous movies. They're ignoring their own.
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

The director and writer of Alien³ didn't exactly ignore what came before but chose to go in a different direction and use a certain style that did not appeal to many fans while at the same time killing off two popular characters.

Wait... two popular characters? Last I checked there were four survivors in ALIENS and even if you were to exclude Newt, the remaining three are still pretty popular. I count Bishop to be a popular character as well as Newt. That's one of my biggest questions regarding Neil's Alien film is where it leaves Newt.
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

I didn't say they did. I said " ignoring Alien3 and Alien Resurrection isn't much of a new thing since both the director and writer of Alien3 choose to ignore it in their own way". They're not ignoring the previous movies. They're ignoring their own.

I realize that and as I said David Fincher left in disgust at the studio interference so I don't think he could sit down and objectively watch it without thinking about the way he was treated. Joss Whedon should be ashamed of himself for even writing the last movie. I don't care what he says I don't think anyone could have made that script entertaining so I can see why he chooses to ignore it. The fact remains that the movies do exist and simply because some of the people who worked on the movies choose to ignore them does not change that fact. Which leads back to my original point should we all just start ignoring huge chunks of a franchise because we didn't like the direction they went in or the quality of the movie? Hell I would prefer George Lucas never made the prequels but he did and they are unfortunately part of the franchise now.

Wait... two popular characters? Last I checked there were four survivors in ALIENS and even if you were to exclude Newt, the remaining three are still pretty popular. I count Bishop to be a popular character as well as Newt. That's one of my biggest questions regarding Neil's Alien film is where it leaves Newt.

Bishop was in Alien³ and after he had helped Ripley he chose to have her leave him deactivated due to his somewhat mangled condition. That treatment of the character was not popular but that's the way it happened. As for Newt - I liked her better when she was called Jones.
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

The director and writer of Alien³ didn't exactly ignore what came before but chose to go in a different direction and use a certain style that did not appeal to many fans while at the same time killing off two popular characters. He left the movie because of studio interference and didn't choose to ignore it intentionally. I don't have a major problem with the third movie except for some inconsistencies in the hardware and sets and some sloppy FX, as for Alien Resurrection I don't consider what they did as ignoring what came before I just see the whole movie as a mishmash of one bad idea after another that was ill conceived, badly written, and poorly acted and filmed, it's just a terrible movie. Joss Whedon expressing his dissatisfaction is not exactly ignoring that the movie exists.

But to try and erase both movies simply for the convenience of bringing back two or more beloved characters is just ridiculous.

As for Ghostbusters I have never been that big a fan anyway but I don't see a problem with continuing the story with new actors (just not the ones they cast) I just think the reboot thing is a bad idea in general. But really without Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, and Rick Moranis what the hell is the point.

Alien³ was a mess. Killing off Hicks and Newt was a catastrophic mistake. Darkhorse Comics had a good story that involved those characters that could easily have been turned into a movie.

Ignoring previous sequels seems to be gaining acceptance (T3). If it was a horrible movie it's certainly better than rebooting it again and again, but it's also confusing to people that don't read into movies at the uber-fan level.

The rebooting of Ghostbusters is going to be a mess. The original was awesome and original. The second one was a steaming pile of crap that tried so hard to be he first one and fell flat. I'm expecting the worst for this new movie. Nothing to do with the casting of all females (although that certainly plays a part).
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

Bishop was in Alien³ and after he had helped Ripley he chose to have her leave him deactivated due to his somewhat mangled condition.

Actually it was because Bishop knew that even if he was rebuilt he would "never be top of the line again". Don't you remember all those scenes from ALIENS that established that about his character? It's probably my biggest criticism towards ALIENS because Bishop wouldn't shut up about how inferior he was.
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

Actually it was because Bishop knew that even if he was rebuilt he would "never be top of the line again". Don't you remember all those scenes from ALIENS that established that about his character? It's probably my biggest criticism towards ALIENS because Bishop wouldn't shut up about how inferior he was.

He never claimed to be inferior or superior in Aliens. The only inferior talk he had was about the Hyperdyne Systems 120-A/2 (aka Ash's model) because they were "always a bit twitchy." Other than that, he never talked about how inferior or superior a model he was. He talked about how he wouldn't harm or allow harm to a human being, how he was the only one able to remote pilot the Dropship, and joked about "being synthetic, but not stupid." But he never claimed to be such.

Maybe the reason why he requested to be deactivated was from the amount of damage he had from being split and the crash (maybe he still could have been restored to normal functionality after being split in half had the life pod hadn't crashed. But with what we see of him in Alien3, it looks like he went from badly damaged to way freakin' worse damage).
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

He never claimed to be inferior or superior in Aliens. The only inferior talk he had was about the Hyperdyne Systems 120-A/2 (aka Ash's model) because they were "always a bit twitchy." Other than that, he never talked about how inferior or superior a model he was. He talked about how he wouldn't harm or allow harm to a human being, how he was the only one able to remote pilot the Dropship, and joked about "being synthetic, but not stupid." But he never claimed to be such.

And that's the whole point. The writers pulled a random gratuitous character moment that was never previously established to justify an out of character motivation for Bishop to die. Do you have any idea how easy it is not to screw up a moment like this? He's so damaged that he only has minutes left to in his final moments he regrets not being able to help her out more. Bishop should never want to quit, especially when one of his comrades are in danger.
 
Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

And that's the whole point. The writers pulled a random gratuitous character moment that was never previously established to justify an out of character motivation for Bishop to die. Do you have any idea how easy it is not to screw up a moment like this? He's so damaged that he only has minutes left to in his final moments he regrets not being able to help her out more. Bishop should never want to quit, especially when one of his comrades are in danger.

Well, if that's the case, you can blame Fox for that out of character moment, as they messed up Alien 3. But I agree that he'd probably want to do more. But could he have done more in the condition he was in?
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

Well, if that's the case, you can blame Fox for that out of character moment, as they messed up Alien 3. But I agree that he'd probably want to do more. But could he have done more in the condition he was in?

How about just being another voice of reasoning to help Ripley's claim that there is a dangerous creature on the loose in the prison? I'm sure with his memory and analysis of the creatures that he could make a convincing point.
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

How about just being another voice of reasoning to help Ripley's claim that there is a dangerous creature on the loose in the prison? I'm sure with his memory and analysis of the creatures that he could make a convincing point.

But would the warden and the prisoners have believed him, even if he provided the info he had?
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

What's to say the concept idea that accompanied this artwork didn't involve another alien encounter or more, meaning Hicks could have been hit in the face with more acidic blood? Didn't the Alien/Aliens novel indicate that crew members in cryosleep get paid to record the dreams they have? Maybe Alien 3 and 4 are recordings of Ripley's dreams and they're still floating around on the Sulaco? :D
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

But would the warden and the prisoners have believed him, even if he provided the info he had?

...Yes. They would have. Why else would they have killed him off for reasons that don't make any sense within both the context of the situation and the nature of his very character?
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

...Yes. They would have. Why else would they have killed him off for reasons that don't make any sense within both the context of the situation and the nature of his very character?

I'm not sure that they would have believed him. They don't seem like the kind of people who'd take Ripley and Bishop at their word. Even if they had shared that information, it'd still take the attack on the warden in the mess hall, in front of everyone, for them to believe them.

But then again, this comes back to the whole "why do characters make stupid mistakes" topic. If the warden and the prisoners believed Ripley (and Bishop if she had provided him as proof), then there wouldn't be any tension between her and the prisoners, and it'd be rather short and dull movie.
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

I'm not sure that they would have believed him. I mean, if you hadn't seen the events of any of the films and Ripley told you about what happened, and she presented a damaged android providing the same information, what's not to say they wouldn't have assumed he was programmed by Ripley to make the same claim?

Programmed him... with what?
 
Re: Neill Blomkamp's ALIEN movie

Programmed him... with what?

Sorry, I thought I clarified that. They could believe that Ripley programmed him to make the same claim about the existence of the alien like how she claimed, which for all they knew was nothing more than a delusion that she came up with. I mean, a machine can be programmed with false information (I mean, let's use A:I for example. The families and friends of the people on board Sevastopol Station would be asking questions about what happened. Clearly, the Weyland-Yutani would have come up with a false story and false information about what happened onboard to explain why the station lost orbit and crashed on the gas giant. And they would have put that information in their computer systems in case anyone accessing that info from a later time would see the information and not think twice about it).

But, like I said, Alien 3's story failure was on Fox's head. I bet that if they had allowed Fincher to make the movie the way he wanted to, it would have been better.
 
Back
Top