ALIEN RESURRECTION is really underrated. On Fan Conservatism...

[Anwar]

I keep hearing that but just don't see it. Newt wasn't a character in Aliens, she was a living plot device. There'd be little reason to make her the protagonist since the only two kinds of character she'd become as an adult would be either a Ripley clone or a nutjob. Same reason bringing Hicks back would be lame: he'd just be Kyle Reese all over again.

Happy endings are pretty much a no-no for the characters in this series, all of them.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

There'd be little reason to make her the protagonist since the only two kinds of character she'd become as an adult would be either a Ripley clone or a nutjob.

I don't see any reason for those two character types to be the only options.

 

[Harvey]

You could maybe couple that with the fact that Jeunet from what I understand could speak very little English.

I think that's absoluetly right. Even Jeunet now admits he had a hard time directing the film. Whedon's dialogue-heavy script and Jeunet's visual heavy style end up clashing in the final film instead of complementing each other.

 

[DarKush]

An interesting way for the series to go would have been to let Ripley and Hicks have their happy ending at the conclusion of Aliens and for the third film to switch to a grown-up Newt as the protagonist. Having the main character be someone for whom the aliens are a nightmare from her childhood, and then she encounters them again in adulthood could have been interesting, especially if Newt was raised by Ripley.

I like that idea. That could've been cool and breathed new life into the franchise. I've always enjoyed Alien Resurrection. The new born thing was a little weird and disgusting but I didn't have a problem with the story or the cast. If anything it was adequate remake of Aliens, but it did leave the franchise in an interesting place with aliens perhaps finally reaching Earth.

 

[Tulin]

I believe that what we are seeing is a really new kind of fan.

Any thoughts?

I said it here years ago.

The vast majority of people here and, in general, are NOT science fiction fans. They are actually space action films fans.

They want 'splosions and space ships and some aliens("Comedy and a "bit" with a dog!"). The actual "big ideas" that the masters like Asimov and Heinlein championed would be FAR too cerebral for the popcorn munching fifteen year old groundlings of today.

 

[Rii]

I believe that what we are seeing is a really new kind of fan.

Any thoughts?

I said it here years ago.

The vast majority of people here and, in general, are NOT science fiction fans. They are actually space action films fans.

They want 'splosions and space ships and some aliens("Comedy and a "bit" with a dog!"). The actual "big ideas" that the masters like Asimov and Heinlein championed would be FAR too cerebral for the popcorn munching fifteen year old groundlings of today.

Didn't like Star Trek, huh?

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I like intellectual SF and space opera. There's no need to be devoted to one exclusively.

 

[EyalM]

I think the biggest problem is either the script (Joss Whedon be damned), or the fact that they ran out of money and had to completely cut at least two big set pieces.

What were the two missing set pieces?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I believe that what we are seeing is a really new kind of fan.

Any thoughts?

I said it here years ago.

The vast majority of people here and, in general, are NOT science fiction fans. They are actually space action films fans.

They want 'splosions and space ships and some aliens("Comedy and a "bit" with a dog!"). The actual "big ideas" that the masters like Asimov and Heinlein championed would be FAR too cerebral for the popcorn munching fifteen year old groundlings of today.

Didn't like Star Trek, huh?

Yeah but isn't it a bit much to be ranting about a show from 40 years ago?

 

[Tulin]

I believe that what we are seeing is a really new kind of fan.

Any thoughts?

I said it here years ago.

The vast majority of people here and, in general, are NOT science fiction fans. They are actually space action films fans.

They want 'splosions and space ships and some aliens("Comedy and a "bit" with a dog!"). The actual "big ideas" that the masters like Asimov and Heinlein championed would be FAR too cerebral for the popcorn munching fifteen year old groundlings of today.

Didn't like Star Trek, huh?

Actually, I LOVED it.

Saw it twice and possibly going back for a third time.

As another poster said - you CAN be a fan of both. Most people do not distinguish however.

 

[Rii]

I said it here years ago.

The vast majority of people here and, in general, are NOT science fiction fans. They are actually space action films fans.

They want 'splosions and space ships and some aliens("Comedy and a "bit" with a dog!"). The actual "big ideas" that the masters like Asimov and Heinlein championed would be FAR too cerebral for the popcorn munching fifteen year old groundlings of today.

Didn't like Star Trek, huh?

Actually, I LOVED it.

Saw it twice and possibly going back for a third time.

As another poster said - you CAN be a fan of both. Most people do not distinguish however.

So you're just generally misanthropic, then? Good place for it.

 

[bigdaddy]

it's a bit of a stretch to believe her own DNA would also clone the alien embryo inside her. Anybody who studied basic biology in school would know that couldn't happen.

Sci-fi... it's called a sci-fi movie. The movie takes place like 500 years in the future and maybe the made up alien species can mix their DNA and ours.

 

[Anwar]

There'd be little reason to make her the protagonist since the only two kinds of character she'd become as an adult would be either a Ripley clone or a nutjob.

I don't see any reason for those two character types to be the only options.

I don't see how she could be anything else, realistically. And I don't see how Hicks could be anything other than a trauma nut like Reese or a totally broken man.

Better to dispose of them and get new characters like Clemens and Dillon.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

I don't see how she could be anything else, realistically. And I don't see how Hicks could be anything other than a trauma nut like Reese or a totally broken man.

People can and do live through extreme trauma without turning into nutjobs or being completely broken by the experience.

 

[Harvey]

I think the biggest problem is either the script (Joss Whedon be damned), or the fact that they ran out of money and had to completely cut at least two big set pieces.

What were the two missing set pieces?

I wish I could remember now, but at this point all I can remember is that two big things were cut because they ran out of money. Anyone more up and up on this film?

 

[suarezguy]

I liked Ryder's character (she was very charismatic and there was a mystery as to why she didn't like Ripley, the answer and subsequent development was great), how Ripley played a role but was pretty different, the look of the film and how most of the characters were understandably self-interested.

 

[Tulin]

Didn't like Star Trek, huh?

Actually, I LOVED it.

Saw it twice and possibly going back for a third time.

As another poster said - you CAN be a fan of both. Most people do not distinguish however.

So you're just generally misanthropic, then? Good place for it.

It's not my fault or problem that most people don't think.

Also yes, categorizing me as a misanthrope would be quite accurate.

 

[Roshi]

^Buuut, I always thought you loved men!

 

[crouteru]

it's a bit of a stretch to believe her own DNA would also clone the alien embryo inside her. Anybody who studied basic biology in school would know that couldn't happen.

Sci-fi... it's called a sci-fi movie. The movie takes place like 500 years in the future and maybe the made up alien species can mix their DNA and ours.

Yeah, OK, it is a sci-fi movie, but I'm one of those people who hated Star Trek's "fun with DNA" episodes, and this just seems like the same kind of indulgence. Besides, I always thought the Alien franchise took it's sci-fi aspects very seriously in terms of technology, giving a more realistic portrayal of space travel for example.

 

[Bishbot]

I believe that what we are seeing is a really new kind of fan.

Any thoughts?

I said it here years ago.

The vast majority of people here and, in general, are NOT science fiction fans. They are actually space action films fans.

They want 'splosions and space ships and some aliens("Comedy and a "bit" with a dog!"). The actual "big ideas" that the masters like Asimov and Heinlein championed would be FAR too cerebral for the popcorn munching fifteen year old groundlings of today.

So wait... you like Alien: Resurrection? Because your post would seem to be pretty at odds with what the OP is saying... He is postulating a new kind of fan that cares about continuity rather than interesting but flawed ideas. You agree with him, but suggest that people only like big dumb action flicks, which Resurrection is all over?

Personally, I think it sucks, and I won't give it any points for trying - except for that one scene with the clones, which was just a bit that Whedon wrote well and Weaver rose to, and had little to do with the main arc of the film - it should have been integral, but in fact was just a "wow, if only the rest of the film was on this level" moment, in between tired set-pieces, unconvincing CGI and terribly inappropriate dialogue. I bloody love Joss Whedon. I've enjoyed all his tv shows, but I've read his original script, and, while it was more exciting than the filmed version, it still confirmed to me that he shouldn't be writing Alien.