Yeah, when Cameron made 'Aliens', all he had to go on was the theatrical cut of 'Alien', so the deleted scene is a non-issue, even if he knew it existed (which I doubt) and even if he did, the audience going to see his film hadn't. Therefore, it's irrelevant.
So what he did was a perfectly valid extrapolation of what the *theatrical cut* of the first movie portrayed and provided a neat way to drastically up the stakes in the final act by showing a bigger, badder version of the title creature.
Indeed, for better or worse, each film has made a point of showing their own unique version from the quadriplegic dog-alien in '3', to the Newborn in 'Resurrection', to even the Pred-Alien in those god awful AvP movies and kinda-sorta whatever that thing was at the end of 'Prometheus'.
Really? That's surprising. I would have thought given it's re-insertion in the Director's Cut that they would have gone with it, given the opportunity.
For me, liking or not liking a film is just a personal preference, not a lifestyle choice that must be defended to the death. I'd be delusional if I didn't acknowledge that 'Alien 3' is a *deeply* flawed masterpiece of cinema.
For the record I also rather liked 'Prometheus', despite it being painfully obvious that Scott hacked the plot to near unintelligible levels in the editing room in order to get the kind of pacing he wanted. Poorly explained motivations, characters acting stupidly because the plot demands it (there's those darn contrivances again!) and a very unsatisfactory pay-off that amounts to a one-sided conversation with a god...huh...actually, I think I may have just got the point of that last one.
Still, it's a mess, but I liked it anyway. Noomi Rapace does a very good job of carrying the movie, Michael Fassbender puts in one of the best android performances since Robin Williams in 'Bicentennial Man' (sorry Alan Tudyk.) Charlize Theron and Idris Elba do a fine job with what little they're given to work with. And of course Guy Pearce who may just be the most underrated A-list actor in Hollywood.
And of course, the production design and cinematography is *amazing*.
So what he did was a perfectly valid extrapolation of what the *theatrical cut* of the first movie portrayed and provided a neat way to drastically up the stakes in the final act by showing a bigger, badder version of the title creature.
Indeed, for better or worse, each film has made a point of showing their own unique version from the quadriplegic dog-alien in '3', to the Newborn in 'Resurrection', to even the Pred-Alien in those god awful AvP movies and kinda-sorta whatever that thing was at the end of 'Prometheus'.
Really? That's surprising. I would have thought given it's re-insertion in the Director's Cut that they would have gone with it, given the opportunity.
For me, liking or not liking a film is just a personal preference, not a lifestyle choice that must be defended to the death. I'd be delusional if I didn't acknowledge that 'Alien 3' is a *deeply* flawed masterpiece of cinema.
For the record I also rather liked 'Prometheus', despite it being painfully obvious that Scott hacked the plot to near unintelligible levels in the editing room in order to get the kind of pacing he wanted. Poorly explained motivations, characters acting stupidly because the plot demands it (there's those darn contrivances again!) and a very unsatisfactory pay-off that amounts to a one-sided conversation with a god...huh...actually, I think I may have just got the point of that last one.
Still, it's a mess, but I liked it anyway. Noomi Rapace does a very good job of carrying the movie, Michael Fassbender puts in one of the best android performances since Robin Williams in 'Bicentennial Man' (sorry Alan Tudyk.) Charlize Theron and Idris Elba do a fine job with what little they're given to work with. And of course Guy Pearce who may just be the most underrated A-list actor in Hollywood.
And of course, the production design and cinematography is *amazing*.
Last edited:
