the director now seems to be saying, that Alien 5 will not undo Alien 3 and 4, meaning I presume, it will set between the end of Aliens and beginning of Alien 3, quite how they will deage Ripley and Hicks remains to be seen( unless they go for digital deaging like X Men and Case of Benjamin Button)
the director now seems to be saying, that Alien 5 will not undo Alien 3 and 4, meaning I presume, it will set between the end of Aliens and beginning of Alien 3, quite how they will deage Ripley and Hicks remains to be seen( unless they go for digital deaging like X Men and Case of Benjamin Button)
have a bad feeling about this
Your not alone.
I know Hollywood needs big tentpole movies to prop up the whole system but I fear that their gambling too much on some brand names/franchises etc and its a gamble their pushing their luck on and could lose and I dont just mean in relation to alien.At some point and they wont neccesarily see it coming but audience fatigue will kick in and they will be stuck with an excess of expensive loss making blockbusters.
They need to step back from this strategy a bit.Some sequels ,reboots ,franchises etc are fine but I think they may be overegging the pudding increasingly.
I know Hollywood needs big tentpole movies to prop up the whole system but I fear that their gambling too much on some brand names/franchises etc and its a gamble their pushing their luck on and could lose and I dont just mean in relation to alien.At some point and they wont neccesarily see it coming but audience fatigue will kick in and they will be stuck with an excess of expensive loss making blockbusters.
They need to step back from this strategy a bit.Some sequels ,reboots ,franchises etc are fine but I think they may be overegging the pudding increasingly.
Blomkamp confirms that new Alien movie will IGNORE Alien 3 and Resurrection and take place after Aliens. Hicks will likely be back, given he is in the concept art and (hopefully) Newt makes an appearance too.
That's great news.
That's a situation where I can see Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn, and all the other familiar names being very excited about the project.
What about Newt? Anyone know if Hicks is back would that therefore mean that Newt could be back?
Seems to me that a lot of those excited by this possible continuation of Aliens want a happy families film rather than a horror that doesn't pander to expectations. Hicks and Newt were nothing but props, but other than that they were of little interest to the main arc of the story. They served their narrative purpose in the story of Aliens and would have been in the way, as well as being a distraction from Ripley. Still, it seems that sappy sentimentalism is the wont of many.
Seems to me that a lot of those excited by this possible continuation of Aliens want a happy families film rather than a horror that doesn't pander to expectations. Hicks and Newt were nothing but props, but other than that they were of little interest to the main arc of the story. They served their narrative purpose in the story of Aliens and would have been in the way, as well as being a distraction from Ripley. Still, it seems that sappy sentimentalism is the wont of many.
Not true. It is on record that James Cameron was furious that the studio killed Hicks and Newt off in the sequel. He created those characters so that they could be used.
And what makes you think it seems that a lot of people want happy families? I haven't seen one single post which makes it seem that way at all.
If you think people who like the idea of Hicks and/or Newt being used again are sentimental then you'd have to level the same accusation at James Cameron himself.
Alien 3 was still a pretty good film, but it wasn't the film that was supposed to be made. Cameron couldn't fit it into his schedule due to work commitments, the studio wouldn't wait for him, so they did what they wanted and decided themselves to kill off Hicks and Newt, which Cameron wasn't very happy about at all.
Not true. It is on record that James Cameron was furious that the studio killed Hicks and Newt off in the sequel. He created those characters so that they could be used.
And what makes you think it seems that a lot of people want happy families? I haven't seen one single post which makes it seem that way at all.
If you think people who like the idea of Hicks and/or Newt being used again are sentimental then you'd have to level the same accusation at James Cameron himself.
Alien 3 was still a pretty good film, but it wasn't the film that was supposed to be made. Cameron couldn't fit it into his schedule due to work commitments, the studio wouldn't wait for him, so they did what they wanted and decided themselves to kill off Hicks and Newt, which Cameron wasn't very happy about at all.
I heard they wanted him but never that he was open to doing it
interesting piece of info
according to an empire article from way back, he once had a passing interest in the Alien 4 script
Not true. It is on record that James Cameron was furious that the studio killed Hicks and Newt off in the sequel. He created those characters so that they could be used.
For me, those characters were really only interesting in the context of Aliens (and even then, not that interesting), but once that film was over, what next would you have wanted with them? Some sort of Lost in Space adventure, where the plucky family are on the run from a horde of aliens and the Weyland-Yutani corporation? Where do you go with them in the context of a horror film that's meant to be dark, much like in the spirit of the first film?
Yeah, it was interesting that Ripley and the alien queen were able to express motherhood in their own ways in Aliens, that Ripley was able to bring hope to others, that Ripley found people to care about and they care for her, that Ripley was protective as a mother figure. But in the context of the Alien story as a whole (or at least from the perspective of the first film), those things are going to be transitory, because of the horror around the corner that stalks Ripley.
In Aliens, she goes to sleep contented, but wakes up in a nightmare. That's fitting with the nature of these films; they're meant to be dark, disturbing, unforgiving and downright bleak, at least from what the first film gave us. Sure, a lot of the audience were disturbed by the loss of Hicks and Newt, but at least it gives them some connection with Ripley's loss beyond spectating.
And what makes you think it seems that a lot of people want happy families?
Because over the years on the Internet, I've witnessed a hyped wailing about the death of Newt and Hicks. It sometimes makes me wonder if they went in to see a horror film or went in to see some afternoon matinee (I know, hyperbole).
If you think people who like the idea of Hicks and/or Newt being used again are sentimental then you'd have to level the same accusation at James Cameron himself.
Oh, don't worry, I have since I first saw Aliens in the cinema back in the mid-eighties. I loved the original (saw that when it came out), thought it was innovative and uncompromising, with a lead that was, for that time, radical. So, yeah, when I turned up to watch the sequel, I was a bit disappointed by the typical Hollywood direction that Cameron's film took, embracing mawkish sentimentalism. Still, in relation to the aspect of motherhood, one of the themes that's enshrined in all the films, it has its place; even the "happy" ending can be justified, despite my aversion to such sappy stuff (particularly considering the first film).
Alien 3 was still a pretty good film, but it wasn't the film that was supposed to be made.
Depends on who's supposing. For me, I was glad that Alien 3 brought us back towards the first film's sentiments. It also brought up some interesting themes on sacrifice and redemption, and it was brave in that it didn't pander to the audience like Aliens. Sure, it has its problems (not just the usual nitpick arguments), but I appreciated its stance and it did win me from the beginning by reminding us that this film was going to be an uncompromising horror film. Mind you, it's best to watch the Assembly Cut, which does make Alien 3 a better film, IMO.
Cameron couldn't fit it into his schedule due to work commitments, the studio wouldn't wait for him, so they did what they wanted and decided themselves to kill off Hicks and Newt, which Cameron wasn't very happy about at all.
Well, Cameron doesn't equal the Alien films; they're bigger than him. I'm also glad that he wasn't happy, because I wasn't too happy with what he came up with. Still, for an action film, Aliens wasn't that bad... just I wasn't going in to the cinema, nearly thirty years ago, to watch an action film (not really a genre I care too much about).
I actually love Alien 3 because of its bleak, gothic tone. I think the British cast is superb, and Elliot Goldenthal's score is great. I know that there is this lost version that almost-was, but it's a good instalment. I would have liked either a prison or a monastery as the setting though, not the mish-mash of both.
I don't agree with the criticism of Aliens. To my mind it is the epitome of the perfect sequel. It takes the story and lore of the first movie and whilst familiar, expands it, changes direction with it, explores new themes and ideas.
Worst case scenario A. Hicks is recast and B. Alien 3 is completely ignored without so much as a quick explanation of the storylines diversion. Any "WTFs" of this manner and it's going to be treading on delicate ground and may put a lot of people off.
I still think they might be trying to slot this in between Aliens and Alien 3, but they'll have a job doing it if they do. It will also not likely have any further sequels as Newt is still young when she dies in Alien 3 and Hicks is injured from Aliens in the cryotube. They could have him injured again at the end of Alien 5 which would explain how he looks for the start of Alien 3 but that also means the Sulaco would have the feature heavily in the film too as they are in it at the end of Aliens and at the start of Alien 3. It would have to be very cleverly written to accommodate all this.
One way would be perhaps to have Ripley and Hicks be re-awoken from their tubes for whatever reason and they decide to leave Newt to sleep and reduce the risk of her coming to harm. Then no need for the part to be recast and she's still safe and sound for when Ripley and Hicks go back to sleep.
One thing I loved about the Alien 3 film was the opening Fox theme stalling and turning rather sinister sounding. A wonderful effect that helped set the tone of the film. I hope it gets used again, would be great to hear it for Alien 5.
For me, those characters were really only interesting in the context of Aliens (and even then, not that interesting), but once that film was over, what next would you have wanted with them? Some sort of Lost in Space adventure, where the plucky family are on the run from a horde of aliens and the Weyland-Yutani corporation? Where do you go with them in the context of a horror film that's meant to be dark, much like in the spirit of the first film?
It's irrelevant what I want, the point I was making was that James Cameron himself appeared to want to do stuff with them. He was royally pissed off that the studio killed them off.
Personally I'm just intrigued by the idea of Hicks (maybe even Newt) being used again and that Neil Blomkamp wants to make an Alien film in the spirit of Alien and Aliens and focus on the horror elements. Sounds promising to me.
I actually love Alien 3 because of its bleak, gothic tone. I think the British cast is superb, and Elliot Goldenthal's score is great. I know that there is this lost version that almost-was, but it's a good instalment. I would have liked either a prison or a monastery as the setting though, not the mish-mash of both.
I don't agree with the criticism of Aliens. To my mind it is the epitome of the perfect sequel. It takes the story and lore of the first movie and whilst familiar, expands it, changes direction with it, explores new themes and ideas.
Yes I like Alien 3. It's one of those films that for some reason get slated on their release. With this film, and also others which in my opinion are unfairly maligned, I just don't really understand why this happens.
Some of them go on to be appreciated many years later.
I still think they might be trying to slot this in between Aliens and Alien 3, but they'll have a job doing it if they do. It will also not likely have any further sequels as Newt is still young when she dies in Alien 3 and Hicks is injured from Aliens in the cryotube. They could have him injured again at the end of Alien 5 which would explain how he looks for the start of Alien 3 but that also means the Sulaco would have the feature heavily in the film too as they are in it at the end of Aliens and at the start of Alien 3. It would have to be very cleverly written to accommodate all this.
One way would be perhaps to have Ripley and Hicks be re-awoken from their tubes for whatever reason and they decide to leave Newt to sleep and reduce the risk of her coming to harm. Then no need for the part to be recast and she's still safe and sound for when Ripley and Hicks go back to sleep.
One thing I loved about the Alien 3 film was the opening Fox theme stalling and turning rather sinister sounding. A wonderful effect that helped set the tone of the film. I hope it gets used again, would be great to hear it for Alien 5.
I suppose it should be quite easy to bring Hicks back, because in the Alien series we've already been introduced to the idea of cloning. So in terms of narrative logic it would make sense and not feel so out of place.
In fact it would make sense that if Hicks and Newt's bodies were found the corporation would have investigated the bodies for alien presence and possibly experimented with them. Bear in mind though I've forgotten about what actually happened to their bodies in Alien 3 or if they got incinerated or something.
Yes I like Alien 3. It's one of those films that for some reason get slated on their release. With this film, and also others which in my opinion are unfairly maligned, I just don't really understand why this happens.
Some of them go on to be appreciated many years later.
wasn't there some issue about the edit with David Fincher and the producers/20th Century Fox? i know he was the only one of the directors to refuse to do a directors commentary for the Alien Quadrilogy DVD Boxset but i can't remember what the issue was that caused the upset.
wasn't there some issue about the edit with David Fincher and the producers/20th Century Fox? i know he was the only one of the directors to refuse to do a directors commentary for the Alien Quadrilogy DVD Boxset but i can't remember what the issue was that caused the upset.
he was under a lot of pressure from the studio and the producers, a script that kept changing during production (which I know happens but I think happened a lot more on this film) as I recall because of all the previous drafts/false starts and sets already built
he was under a lot of pressure from the studio and the producers, a script that kept changing during production (which I know happens but I think happened a lot more on this film) as I recall because of all the previous drafts/false starts and sets already built
think it offers some insight into the madness of the films production
ooooo wow thanks for that Alvar that looks fascinating i'll have a watch now... i seem to remember things like the script would say 400 soldiers turn up and they'd have 5 on the actual shoot day.....so i'll be interested to see if stuff like that comes up!
thanks again much appreciated!
wasn't there some issue about the edit with David Fincher and the producers/20th Century Fox? i know he was the only one of the directors to refuse to do a directors commentary for the Alien Quadrilogy DVD Boxset but I can't remember what the issue was that caused the upset.
The studio kept interfering with the shoot, changing the script and story daily and making Fincher shoot and reshoot lots of footage. (The original rough cut of the film was almost 4 hours long. In the producers own words, they never "wrapped", they just eventually stopped filming one day.) Fincher had such a bad experience with the studio that he left as soon as the main filming was done. He refused to work with Fox ever again (although he did make Fight Club for them in 1999 after a meeting where Fox apologised profusely). They did ask him to make a directors cut of the film for the 2003 DVD set and the 2010 Anthology sets but he refused both times, saying that he had such a bad experience working on the film that he didn't want anything to do with it any more.
Yes I like Alien 3. It's one of those films that for some reason get slated on their release. With this film, and also others which in my opinion are unfairly maligned, I just don't really understand why this happens.
Some of them go on to be appreciated many years later.
I expect what happened was that people went in expecting Aliens V2 with even more guns and even more marines. Aliens had sort of set up that expectation. When they got a stripped down typically David Fincher bleak, gothic-horror, it left many feeling disappointed. I also think that David Fincher's style, now greatly appreciated, may have been something of a new thing for audiences to digest with him being much less well-known at the time.
I do think this is why over time, many people's opinion of Alien 3 has warmed slightly. Not to mention some sympathy for Fincher who by all accounts was virtually at war with the studio whilst trying to get his picture made.
The studio kept interfering with the shoot, changing the script and story daily and making Fincher shoot and reshoot lots of footage. (The original rough cut of the film was almost 4 hours long. In the producers own words, they never "wrapped", they just eventually stopped filming one day.) Fincher had such a bad experience with the studio that he left as soon as the main filming was done. He refused to work with Fox ever again (although he did make Fight Club for them in 1999 after a meeting where Fox apologised profusely). They did ask him to make a directors cut of the film for the 2003 DVD set and the 2010 Anthology sets but he refused both times, saying that he had such a bad experience working on the film that he didn't want anything to do with it any more.
Thanks Paddy - appreciate your response! I watched the Making Of documentary that Alvar gave me the link to and it seemed like a nightmare, such a shame i think if he had been given more control it would have been a significantly better result. It must be so frustrating knowing your work is being decimated.
interesting about Fincher and Fox i knew about the Anthology set but was hay on the background to it all thanks again
Comments
http://screenrant.com/neil-blomkamp-alien-5-continuity-elysium-problems/
the director now seems to be saying, that Alien 5 will not undo Alien 3 and 4, meaning I presume, it will set between the end of Aliens and beginning of Alien 3, quite how they will deage Ripley and Hicks remains to be seen( unless they go for digital deaging like X Men and Case of Benjamin Button)
have a bad feeling about this
Your not alone.
I know Hollywood needs big tentpole movies to prop up the whole system but I fear that their gambling too much on some brand names/franchises etc and its a gamble their pushing their luck on and could lose and I dont just mean in relation to alien.At some point and they wont neccesarily see it coming but audience fatigue will kick in and they will be stuck with an excess of expensive loss making blockbusters.
They need to step back from this strategy a bit.Some sequels ,reboots ,franchises etc are fine but I think they may be overegging the pudding increasingly.
good point dude
Oh i think Weaver will say yes to Blomkamp. I feel she's always wanted to do another film, just been waiting for the right person.
she already has according to the link I provided
That's great news.
That's a situation where I can see Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn, and all the other familiar names being very excited about the project.
What about Newt? Anyone know if Hicks is back would that therefore mean that Newt could be back?
Not true. It is on record that James Cameron was furious that the studio killed Hicks and Newt off in the sequel. He created those characters so that they could be used.
And what makes you think it seems that a lot of people want happy families? I haven't seen one single post which makes it seem that way at all.
If you think people who like the idea of Hicks and/or Newt being used again are sentimental then you'd have to level the same accusation at James Cameron himself.
Alien 3 was still a pretty good film, but it wasn't the film that was supposed to be made. Cameron couldn't fit it into his schedule due to work commitments, the studio wouldn't wait for him, so they did what they wanted and decided themselves to kill off Hicks and Newt, which Cameron wasn't very happy about at all.
Ripley dies , then she's 'resurrected' , then . . whatever happens at the end of Alien 5 , then those awful Avs.P movies (do they fit in ?) .
then Prometheus which could've been great but instead held off from finishing it's story for a sequel that seems will never happen .
.
I heard they wanted him but never that he was open to doing it
interesting piece of info
according to an empire article from way back, he once had a passing interest in the Alien 4 script
For me, those characters were really only interesting in the context of Aliens (and even then, not that interesting), but once that film was over, what next would you have wanted with them? Some sort of Lost in Space adventure, where the plucky family are on the run from a horde of aliens and the Weyland-Yutani corporation? Where do you go with them in the context of a horror film that's meant to be dark, much like in the spirit of the first film?
Yeah, it was interesting that Ripley and the alien queen were able to express motherhood in their own ways in Aliens, that Ripley was able to bring hope to others, that Ripley found people to care about and they care for her, that Ripley was protective as a mother figure. But in the context of the Alien story as a whole (or at least from the perspective of the first film), those things are going to be transitory, because of the horror around the corner that stalks Ripley.
In Aliens, she goes to sleep contented, but wakes up in a nightmare. That's fitting with the nature of these films; they're meant to be dark, disturbing, unforgiving and downright bleak, at least from what the first film gave us. Sure, a lot of the audience were disturbed by the loss of Hicks and Newt, but at least it gives them some connection with Ripley's loss beyond spectating.
Because over the years on the Internet, I've witnessed a hyped wailing about the death of Newt and Hicks. It sometimes makes me wonder if they went in to see a horror film or went in to see some afternoon matinee (I know, hyperbole).
Oh, don't worry, I have since I first saw Aliens in the cinema back in the mid-eighties. I loved the original (saw that when it came out), thought it was innovative and uncompromising, with a lead that was, for that time, radical. So, yeah, when I turned up to watch the sequel, I was a bit disappointed by the typical Hollywood direction that Cameron's film took, embracing mawkish sentimentalism. Still, in relation to the aspect of motherhood, one of the themes that's enshrined in all the films, it has its place; even the "happy" ending can be justified, despite my aversion to such sappy stuff (particularly considering the first film).
Depends on who's supposing. For me, I was glad that Alien 3 brought us back towards the first film's sentiments. It also brought up some interesting themes on sacrifice and redemption, and it was brave in that it didn't pander to the audience like Aliens. Sure, it has its problems (not just the usual nitpick arguments), but I appreciated its stance and it did win me from the beginning by reminding us that this film was going to be an uncompromising horror film. Mind you, it's best to watch the Assembly Cut, which does make Alien 3 a better film, IMO.
Well, Cameron doesn't equal the Alien films; they're bigger than him. I'm also glad that he wasn't happy, because I wasn't too happy with what he came up with. Still, for an action film, Aliens wasn't that bad... just I wasn't going in to the cinema, nearly thirty years ago, to watch an action film (not really a genre I care too much about).
I don't agree with the criticism of Aliens. To my mind it is the epitome of the perfect sequel. It takes the story and lore of the first movie and whilst familiar, expands it, changes direction with it, explores new themes and ideas.
One way would be perhaps to have Ripley and Hicks be re-awoken from their tubes for whatever reason and they decide to leave Newt to sleep and reduce the risk of her coming to harm. Then no need for the part to be recast and she's still safe and sound for when Ripley and Hicks go back to sleep.
One thing I loved about the Alien 3 film was the opening Fox theme stalling and turning rather sinister sounding. A wonderful effect that helped set the tone of the film. I hope it gets used again, would be great to hear it for Alien 5.
It's irrelevant what I want, the point I was making was that James Cameron himself appeared to want to do stuff with them. He was royally pissed off that the studio killed them off.
Personally I'm just intrigued by the idea of Hicks (maybe even Newt) being used again and that Neil Blomkamp wants to make an Alien film in the spirit of Alien and Aliens and focus on the horror elements. Sounds promising to me.
Yes I like Alien 3. It's one of those films that for some reason get slated on their release. With this film, and also others which in my opinion are unfairly maligned, I just don't really understand why this happens.
Some of them go on to be appreciated many years later.
I suppose it should be quite easy to bring Hicks back, because in the Alien series we've already been introduced to the idea of cloning. So in terms of narrative logic it would make sense and not feel so out of place.
In fact it would make sense that if Hicks and Newt's bodies were found the corporation would have investigated the bodies for alien presence and possibly experimented with them. Bear in mind though I've forgotten about what actually happened to their bodies in Alien 3 or if they got incinerated or something.
wasn't there some issue about the edit with David Fincher and the producers/20th Century Fox? i know he was the only one of the directors to refuse to do a directors commentary for the Alien Quadrilogy DVD Boxset but i can't remember what the issue was that caused the upset.
he was under a lot of pressure from the studio and the producers, a script that kept changing during production (which I know happens but I think happened a lot more on this film) as I recall because of all the previous drafts/false starts and sets already built
have you seen this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hip868rxkg4
think it offers some insight into the madness of the films production
ooooo wow thanks for that Alvar that looks fascinating i'll have a watch now... i seem to remember things like the script would say 400 soldiers turn up and they'd have 5 on the actual shoot day.....so i'll be interested to see if stuff like that comes up!
thanks again much appreciated!
I expect what happened was that people went in expecting Aliens V2 with even more guns and even more marines. Aliens had sort of set up that expectation. When they got a stripped down typically David Fincher bleak, gothic-horror, it left many feeling disappointed. I also think that David Fincher's style, now greatly appreciated, may have been something of a new thing for audiences to digest with him being much less well-known at the time.
I do think this is why over time, many people's opinion of Alien 3 has warmed slightly. Not to mention some sympathy for Fincher who by all accounts was virtually at war with the studio whilst trying to get his picture made.
Thanks Paddy - appreciate your response! I watched the Making Of documentary that Alvar gave me the link to and it seemed like a nightmare, such a shame i think if he had been given more control it would have been a significantly better result. It must be so frustrating knowing your work is being decimated.
interesting about Fincher and Fox i knew about the Anthology set but was hay on the background to it all thanks again
Surely it could just be a partial reboot, where the first two are followed and the second two are ignored, like with Superman Returns?