James Cameron is a whiny punk who didn't like how HIS characters were killed off.
Alien 5: An Open Message About Newt, Hicks, and Bishop
- Thread starter JWPlatt
- Start date
James Cameron is a whiny punk who didn't like how HIS characters were killed off.
He is also not wrong about Hicks and Newt.
Newt was a living plot device to tug at heartstrings, and Hicks was a walking gun prop. Neither are worthwhile characters on their own.
Not really. They were indeed well-constructed characters and that is why killing them - offscreen no less - was such an incredibly stupid fox-suit waste. And it's why nearly everyone wants them back. Anwar's post is just something a Tellarite would say. Don't be distracted by it.
Creating characters purely to flesh them out in another installment is serious laziness.
They weren't well-constructed at all. They were just props for Ripley's character.
They want them back because people still can't handle a kid getting killed in movies, and they want Hicks back because he's an action film cliche. That, or they read those silly Dark Horse comics and thought those two were supposed to be the new main characters (which was never going to happen).
Really, next to characters like Dallas, Dillon and Clemens neither Newt nor Hicks are much of anything.
Seriously, the Alien fandom has been plagued by people obsessed with these minor characters for over 20 years. It's time people got over them.
Last edited:
The first Alien film came out in 1979. Ripley was last seen on screen almost 20 years ago. By your logic nobody should care about the franchise as a whole because it's old. And yet most franchises are old. James Bond, comic book properties, Star Wars. It seems like you're just trolling here.
I love irony.
Technically, Ripley was last seen on screen 24 years ago.
( The one from 19 years ago wasn't the original. )
I'm not saying they shouldn't care because the series is old, I'm saying they should get over it because they were minor characters in the first place who were never as important as these people made them out to be.
Just because a character is "minor" in one work doesn't mean they aren't worthy of being major characters in another. Think of how Orson Welles became fascinated with Falstaff. All them being minor means is the story they were in didn't focus on or revolve around them. Their importance is a function of the story built around them. In a new story, they would be more important because the writer wants to make it so. How can you say a story like that would suck? You don't know what it would involve.
Seriously, the Alien fandom has been plagued by shitty movies after the second one.
If that fact weren't true the complaining would be greatly reduced.
Cameron can eat a dick, because the Assembly Cut of Alien3 is quite possibly the second-best movie in the series after the original.
Considering Cameron's box office record, I'd say he knows better than Fox suits.
When it comes to Internet arguments - box office receipts are the trump card.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, I love Cameron and The Terminator, T2 and Titanic are among the best films ever made. But the outrage over Newt and Hicks dying -- let's be honest, they were total ciphers -- will never stop boggling me.
The complaining is mainly because the type of audience that Aliens attracted couldn't handle Fincher's style.