Your thoughts on when a character is KILLED of in a sequel.

[Gaith]

Franke Potente being offed at the start of the second Bourne film always rankled, and I could never enjoy the films after that, because they'd lost any semblence of humanity, they were just about a blank faced killer wandering around killing other blank faced killers.

I dislike anything where characters are just arbitraility killed in order to get the hero back in the game.

That's often the only thing that could credibly give the character the motivation to do so - in which case there's nothing "arbitrary" about it as an artistic decision.

In-universe, well, arbitrary things happen in real life. Sounds as though you might want to simply avoid action/adventure sequels where the first had happy endings.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I hated it when Tom Clancy killed off Robbie Jackson "offscreen" in one of his novels. There were a couple of lines about him being assassinated (he was Jack Ryan's vice president) by a racist Klan guy. If you're gonna kill off a character in a novel don't do it by having a character mention it in passing.

That really is a bizarre way to do it. I mean, novels aren't subject to the same restrictions of budget or time as films, never mind actors dying or refusing to come back. Why not include the damn assassination, if even in flashback or prologue?

Not to mention that Clancy's novels are so bloody long to begin with - did he think 'Hmmm, if I actually show this killing as oppose to mentioning it, it might just make the book a bit too unwieldy; 1001 pages instead of 1000 might prove to long for my readers?'

 

[exodus]

See, I love that they killed of Hicks and Newt because it made Ripley's story in Alien 3 that much more tragic. No matter what she does, she can't win.

But it just cheapens all of Aliens to do it. Ripley had the tragedy of everyone she ever knew being gone, but by the end there was some hope. She had saved the day, and the survivors had formed a sort of family unit. It seemed, though she had lost everything, she had gained something else in return. There was no poignancy to killing Newt or Hicks. The only purpose is served on film was to jettison excess baggage. It created despair for the sake of despair and it casts a gloomy shadow on the whole rest of the film. Alien 3 is just a depressing film from start to finish.

And at the end of Alien 3 she died satisfied with the knowledge that the Xenomorphs were dead and that the bad guys would never get their hands on them.

...and then 200 years later she wakes up to find that she'd been cloned and that the bad guys have in fact gotten their hands on the aliens.

It's how Ripley works. Tragedy follows her wherever she goes.

No, that's bad direction of a franchiese that had aquired merchendising rights and has nothing to do with how Ripley works. It's called, we can now make toys, video games & T-Shirts.

 

[Gaith]

^ Indeed. The original, far better plan was to focus on Hicks. Ripley was kept on as the main character due to artistic cowardice, not because the universe demanded it.

 

[exodus]

^ Indeed. The original, far better plan was to focus on Hicks. Ripley was kept on as the main character due to artistic cowardice, not because the universe demanded it.

Exactly.
I remember when Alien 3 was announced, many in the public were saying: "Ripley, again?"
Bringing her back from the dead(she felt molten metal, what DNA?) robbed the franshiese of any dignity it had left. Which is exactly why Ridley Scott has no choice but to do a prequel and not a sequel to try and bring it back to what it once was.

 

[Gaith]

Doesn't need to be a prequel, though; it could be set in the same universe, but not star Ripley - which seems to be what's happening.

 

[RoJoHen]

Meh, I was only 7 years old when Alien 3 was released, so I guess I wasn't thinking "Ripley, again?" To me, the Alien franchise and Ripley have always been one in the same.

And I never really got the love for Hicks. He barely does anything in the entire movie. He's utterly forgettable.

 

[Deckerd]

^ Indeed. The original, far better plan was to focus on Hicks. Ripley was kept on as the main character due to artistic cowardice, not because the universe demanded it.

Exactly.
I remember when Alien 3 was announced, many in the public were saying: "Ripley, again?"

Followed by a deafening cheer.

 

[Starkers]

Franke Potente being offed at the start of the second Bourne film always rankled, and I could never enjoy the films after that, because they'd lost any semblence of humanity, they were just about a blank faced killer wandering around killing other blank faced killers.

Why the rolleyes? Sorry if I've never rode the Bourne bandwagon, I actually find the second and third kinda boring. I liked the first though, but a lot of that was down to Potente.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Indeed. The original, far better plan was to focus on Hicks. Ripley was kept on as the main character due to artistic cowardice, not because the universe demanded it.

Exactly.
I remember when Alien 3 was announced, many in the public were saying: "Ripley, again?"
Bringing her back from the dead(she felt molten metal, what DNA?) robbed the franshiese of any dignity it had left. Which is exactly why Ridley Scott has no choice but to do a prequel and not a sequel to try and bring it back to what it once was.

Ummm, I don't remember people saying that. In fact, when she was killed off, people immediately began talking about how they could bring her back for a fourth movie. As someone else said, Ripley and the Alien saga are nearly one and the same.

Not to mention that the once-Alien-prequel (Promethseus) is no longer a prequel. I don't think it's even set in the same universe, it's merely meant to have similar themes.

 

[Starkers]

It is weird how they felt they couldn't do an Alien film without Ripley?

Of course I still refuse to accept three or four because Jones isn't in them!

 

[RoJoHen]

Of course I still refuse to accept three or four because Jones isn't in them!

Seriously, what happened to that cat? I hope Ripley found it a good home before she went off to kill the aliens.

 

[exodus]

^ Indeed. The original, far better plan was to focus on Hicks. Ripley was kept on as the main character due to artistic cowardice, not because the universe demanded it.

Exactly.
I remember when Alien 3 was announced, many in the public were saying: "Ripley, again?"
Bringing her back from the dead(she felt molten metal, what DNA?) robbed the franshiese of any dignity it had left. Which is exactly why Ridley Scott has no choice but to do a prequel and not a sequel to try and bring it back to what it once was.

Ummm, I don't remember people saying that. In fact, when she was killed off, people immediately began talking about how they could bring her back for a fourth movie. As someone else said, Ripley and the Alien saga are nearly one and the same.

Not to mention that the once-Alien-prequel (Promethseus) is no longer a prequel. I don't think it's even set in the same universe, it's merely meant to have similar themes.

That's the difference in between using words like "many" vs. words like "all". "Many" is not all inclusive and leaves room to accept the fact that there may be others that did want Riply back.


Then the concept of this retelling should be an indication to us from the original creator himself that Ripley & Alien aren't one and the same as does the AVP films. Plus, didn't we discuss bringing back Ripley over & over was just a marketing tool?

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Well, I'm sure some people did object to Ripley returning for Alien 3 (or 4) but I don't recall that as anything but a minority view. But it's all personal and anecdotal, so that doesn't really take us anywhere.

As to your second point, I'm not really sure I get it. The new Scott movie isn't an Alien movie - it's not really relevant to the discussion any more. It's a movie with similar themes to Alien now, not a movie in the Alienverse.

 

[Aragorn]

What about a movie like Young Guns II? It was pretty appropriate to the story they were telling.