Alien film/reboot? - Neill Blomkamp

[MoonSylver]

Hicks is and always was a pretty minor support character though. There's a bit of a Boba Fett fanboi thing going on with him to be honest. He has no history and was never anything other than someone to use to progress Ripley's story along. Even Hudson has more to do in 'Aliens'. Don't get me wrong though, I like Michael Biehn, he's a decent character actor. But I certainly didn't miss him in 'Alien 3'. That said, he was hard done by, by the producers, even if he was paid handsomely for a role for a film he wasn't even in. Yeah, I'll concede a bit on the "Boba Fett" thing. But I'll also say I think all the actors in that flick did a great job of making (some of) us get attached to them with what little bit they had to work with. Between the performances, some great dialog, & a scenario that really causes us to attach to & feel for & root for the heroes, I'm still bummed every time I watch "Aliens" & Hudson dies, or Vasquez & Gorman die. I think a lot of the ire about killing off the surviving support characters from 'Aliens' came from Cameron in the first place. I don't think there were too many people who gave a crap. But, it was certainly a thing that grew. But that was mainly because the film didn't meet a lot of people's expectations. If the film had been a masterpiece, nobody who have given Hicks or Rebecca a second thought. Don't completely agree there. The general public & casual fans probably didn't care, but there were a fair number of folks who really dug the 2nd film that weren't happy besides Cameron. TBH I didn't even know his feelings at the time. The more I think about it though, having Hicks and Newt survive with Ripley could have been a disaster of epic proportions and may have ended up being a "space family" film. 'Alien 3' might have turned out to be like the Jetsons with Xenomorphs. Eh, If they'd kept them alive, I'd really wanted a much different scenario. TBH they could have kept them alive & written them out of the story & I'd have been cool with THAT. But to take these characters that struggle so hard to survive & succeed, that we get emotionally invested in, & discard them so casually, feels very disrespectful of the prior film, the characters, & the audience themselves, IMO. Never liked 'Terminator 2'. I can understand that. Would have been a time that boggled my mind, but I can see now there are two camps on The Terminator: those who only embrace the darker original with its message of "the end is nigh" & those who are on board with the brighter message of the second "we can control our fate". For those who are on board with the 2nd, T3 is a slap in the face, as again, it invalidates everything the characters went through in the second & basically says: "sorry, all your efforts are for naught". (which TBH I might have been ok with in a darker, edgier film, as I'm all for nihilistic moves, but seeing how it was couched in such a shit film to boot...) Of course w/ the Terminator, you have the fact that there are infinite time streams, that Skynet sent back X# who knows of Terminators, & all of these are splitting off into alternate timelines from what I understand, so that takes the sting off some... OH YEAH! WELL I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU.... Oh wait, you agree... I suspect you & I agree more than you think...just not always on the same things...

[shootemindehead]

Yeah, I'll concede a bit on the "Boba Fett" thing. But I'll also say I think all the actors in that flick did a great job of making (some of) us get attached to them with what little bit they had to work with. Between the performances, some great dialog, & a scenario that really causes us to attach to & feel for & root for the heroes, I'm still bummed every time I watch "Aliens" & Hudson dies, or Vasquez & Gorman die. Absolutely and I think Bill Paxton did a great job with Hudson, who started out as, let's be honest, a big war movie coward cliche and turned into a guy you could rely on... ...and he had all the best lines. Eh, If they'd kept them alive, I'd really wanted a much different scenario. TBH they could have kept them alive & written them out of the story & I'd have been cool with THAT. But to take these characters that struggle so hard to survive & succeed, that we get emotionally invested in, & discard them so casually, feels very disrespectful of the prior film, the characters, & the audience themselves, IMO. I think keeping them alive and trying to write them out would have been difficult to do though. If they're alive on Fury XYZ (or whatever the hell it was called), they'd have to be involved some way. It's just too small a setting for them to be relegated to sitting in the canteen or something, while Ripley and baldies play with the alien. I think the deaths of both Hicks and Newt was handled as well as could have been given the circumstances involved. People who survive traumatic events can still die in relatively simple ways. It sad, awful and yes a kick in the balls...but so is life. I suppose I just wasn't that invested in their characters. I wasn't even too pushed when they knocked off Ripley. I was certainly pissed off when they brought her back to life though. I can understand that. Would have been a time that boggled my mind, but I can see now there are two camps on The Terminator: those who only embrace the darker original with its message of "the end is nigh" & those who are on board with the brighter message of the second "we can control our fate". For those who are on board with the 2nd, T3 is a slap in the face, as again, it invalidates everything the characters went through in the second & basically says: "sorry, all your efforts are for naught". (which TBH I might have been ok with in a darker, edgier film, as I'm all for nihilistic moves, but seeing how it was couched in such a shit film to boot...) Of course w/ the Terminator, you have the fact that there are infinite time streams, that Skynet sent back X# who knows of Terminators, & all of these are splitting off into alternate timelines from what I understand, so that takes the sting off some... You know 'Terminator 2' just never grabbed me in the same place as 'The Terminator'. For all its brash spectacle, it lacks the qualities that made the first effort great. The concept of the T-1000 is just silly and never works for me either. I certainly understand why fans of the series would hate 'Terminator 3' though. I saw that picture once and I cannot remember a single thing about it, other than John Connor bares no resemblance to his previous outing and they end up in a fallout shelter at the end. It's a film I have no desire to ever see again. Anyway, as I've said before, the Terminator franchise begins and ends with 'The Terminator' for me. It's a fine film with a grand story that I have no need to be expanded on. Especially in the way it was actually expanded on. I suspect you & I agree more than you think...just not always on the same things... Ah sure, I know. I'm only kidding.

[bassman]

Looking through Blomkamp's concept art again.....I forgot that there's a drawing of Ripley wearing an alien/space jokey costume. That's a bit troublesome. It reminds me of her intimate relationship with the aliens in Resurrection. Ruh roh....

[MoonSylver]

Absolutely and I think Bill Paxton did a great job with Hudson, who started out as, let's be honest, a big war movie coward cliche and turned into a guy you could rely on... ...and he had all the best lines. I have nothing to add here, but this deserved to be quoted. I think keeping them alive and trying to write them out would have been difficult to do though. If they're alive on Fury XYZ (or whatever the hell it was called), they'd have to be involved some way. It's just too small a setting for them to be relegated to sitting in the canteen or something, while Ripley and baldies play with the alien. Well yeah, like I said, if you keep them alive, &/or write them out, you really need a whole new scenario. Which I would be ok with anyway, since the one we got I wasn't overly fond of anyway. I think the deaths of both Hicks and Newt was handled as well as could have been given the circumstances involved. People who survive traumatic events can still die in relatively simple ways. It sad, awful and yes a kick in the balls...but so is life. Understood. But there are some movies I watch for that "life like kick in the balls" & some I don't. I guess at the end of the day, one of the things they wanted was to make a type of movie that delivers that kick. But after the second one, I suspect there was a large portion of the audience that wasn't braced for that kick in the balls, delivered in the way it was delivered, or the abrupt shift in tone (to depart from the metaphor for the moment). Plus #3 just kicks you, & kicks you, & kicks you, & kicks you, &... A relentlessly dour Debbie Downer of a movie...you should have loved it. I suppose I just wasn't that invested in their characters. I wasn't even too pushed when they knocked off Ripley. You know, I was so miserable after having sat through the damn thing, I wasn't either. I just wanted it to be over so I could go home. I was certainly pissed off when they brought her back to life though. I never even got around to watching #4. Everyone says I'm not missing much, but the premise sounded interesting enough to me. You know 'Terminator 2' just never grabbed me in the same place as 'The Terminator'. For all its brash spectacle, it lacks the qualities that made the first effort great. The concept of the T-1000 is just silly and never works for me either. Yeah, T2 is a very different beast than the 1st one. Again, an abrupt tonal shift that some folks apparently didn't embrace. I was ok with it though. Rather than a continuation of the 1st one, it felt like a bookend to me. A nice companion piece. Which is probably why they should have left it there. Having said THAT, in some ways it might have been cool if they'd never made it. The ending of the original was powerful & worked mightily on my teen age imagination back in the day. Same way as the ending of "Dawn of the Dead". Will partially agree on the T-1000. Wasn't totally sold on it, but was ok enough to roll with it. From the rumors I heard back in the day, one of the concepts that was thrown around was basically the Terminator we ended up with in T3, which was a more believable one & would have been a better fit in T2 IMO. Matter of fact, she was about the only good thing about that flick. :yuck: Ah sure, I know. I'm only kidding. I know. I just had to kid your kidding.

[MinionZombie]

In terms of how they could have written out Hicks and Newt - but kept them alive - would have been some sort of thing along the lines of: * Ripley gets attacked by a face hugger - an alarm triggers on her pod alone, and it gets shunted off automatically to some sort of ejection port. * However, Weyland Yutani - somehow - know that she's got an alien lifeform gestating inside her, so the pod isn't ejected to be trashed, it's going to be swept up by W-Y. * BUT it ends up crash landing on the prison planet, and then it continues on from there pretty much as-is. That way the fans wouldn't have been slapped in the face. I still want them to do an alt-universe tangent that ignores Alien 3 and 4 and picks up many years after #2 (perhaps near enough the amount of time that's passed in real life). On the topic of Hicks - he's a reliable guy, strong-willed but intelligent (but not overly intelligent) and open to orders and suggestions from others. He's capable and loyal, but he's no fool and doesn't take shit - he's a good dude all round basically. So often we end up with dreadfully flawed/inept military commanders (although to be fair Gorman kind of filled that sort of role - but even he became capable and died a hero's death), so it's nice to have someone like Hicks who's on the ball. Cameron did intend to have a 'family of sorts' vibe form between Ripley/Hicks/Newt - particularly in that shot of the three of them in the medical bay after the double-teaming face hugger attack staged by Burke where Ripley's hugging Newt and coughing up "Burke! It was Burke!" as Hicks holds them both ... not in a lollipops and roses kind of way, but just as a sort of subtle hint of it. IIRC JC's spoken of it before specifically, I think on the extra features for the movie. Also - despite being shite - Aliens: Colonial Marines brings back Hicks, so they ignored Alien 3. Just a shame they messed up the whole project! ... As for Terminator - I love both T1 and T2. I enjoy the different tones and approaches - you get more of what you want, but you also get something different from each flick. T3 and T4 can go eff themselves though. Seriously. Also - nothing from T3 would have worked in T2 ... don't even theorise such sacrilege, Moon!

[MoonSylver]

T3 and T4 can go eff themselves though. Seriously. Also - nothing from T3 would have worked in T2 ... don't even theorise such sacrilege, Moon! Sorry dude. Jus' sayin', The T-X was a more believable Terminator than the T-1000, just in that it felt like a more natural progression in technology, rather than this quantum leap light years ahead from the T-800 to the T-1000. The T-1000 is way more "sci-fi". Almost too much so. Plus... I know which one I prefer.

[MinionZombie]

Yes, Kristanna Loken is sexier than Robert Patrick - I think most heterosexual males would agree with that - but the "Terminatrix" *gags* was shite. The T-1000 makes sense - it is what it is - just like with the T-800 ... but both technologies together in some half-arsed bodge 'em together job? No, it doesn't make enough sense - if anything that's the more out there idea than the T-1000. The T-800 is solid and the T-1000 is fluid. Both of them together? No... The TX was crap ... crap crappity crap crap crap. Fact.

[shootemindehead]

Well yeah, like I said, if you keep them alive, &/or write them out, you really need a whole new scenario. Which I would be ok with anyway, since the one we got I wasn't overly fond of anyway. True. But, I don't know what that scenario would be though. However, the alien franchise, is really a simple "find the monster and then run away from it" schtick, so chances are it would have involved the ready-made space family of Hicks, Ripley and their surrogate daughter hiding from xenomorphs, while trying to find a way to escape in some fashion. Understood. But there are some movies I watch for that "life like kick in the balls" & some I don't. I guess at the end of the day, one of the things they wanted was to make a type of movie that delivers that kick. But after the second one, I suspect there was a large portion of the audience that wasn't braced for that kick in the balls, delivered in the way it was delivered, or the abrupt shift in tone (to depart from the metaphor for the moment). Plus #3 just kicks you, & kicks you, & kicks you, & kicks you, &... A relentlessly dour Debbie Downer of a movie...you should have loved it. If I made an alien film... Seriously, there's a lot wrong with 'Alien 3', no doubt and these days I just cannot watch the theatrical cut. But, there's things wrong with all three films (I don't count 4 as existing). 'Aliens' gets away with being the most streamlined film. I still prefer the original 'Alien' out of all the films though. I never even got around to watching #4. Everyone says I'm not missing much, but the premise sounded interesting enough to me. It's wretched. Do yourself a favour, Moonie and don't even try. If you disliked 'Alien 3', you'll melt the interwebs with your hate over 4. The premise is fine, even if it is still just a "find the monster and run away" story. The execution, however, is simply awful. It's incredible just how terrible it is. Yeah, T2 is a very different beast than the 1st one. Again, an abrupt tonal shift that some folks apparently didn't embrace. I was ok with it though. Rather than a continuation of the 1st one, it felt like a bookend to me. A nice companion piece. Which is probably why they should have left it there. Having said THAT, in some ways it might have been cool if they'd never made it. The ending of the original was powerful & worked mightily on my teen age imagination back in the day. Same way as the ending of "Dawn of the Dead". Will partially agree on the T-1000. Wasn't totally sold on it, but was ok enough to roll with it. From the rumors I heard back in the day, one of the concepts that was thrown around was basically the Terminator we ended up with in T3, which was a more believable one & would have been a better fit in T2 IMO. Matter of fact, she was about the only good thing about that flick. :yuck: There's just too many efforts at "kewl" in 'Terminator 2' for me, signed of with an absolutely lame, cringing, thumbs up at the end. The worst, of course, is the T-1000, whose ability to completely imitate every human it comes into contact with would put the Thing to shame. Having something so powerful like that ruins suspense. Its advantages are so immense that it ends up being silly. In addition, 'The Terminator' clearly states that the time machine cannot transport anything but living tissue, so the T-1000 wouldn't be able to go back in time as it's compose entirely of liquid metal. Oooops. But, we'll let that go. In any case, why didn't Skynet just switch all the factory lines to T-1000 standard and flood its enemies with them. Bingo...job done. Human beings wouldn't stand a chance. Or just send back an army of them to whack John Connor? Or back to the 80's again and do his mum. In the mortal sense, not the boomchickawawa way. That's a whole other film. [spoiler]BTW, I've read that the T-1000 is making a comeback in the next film.[/quote] 'Terminator 2' is big, brash, loud and kind of stupid, but completely empty and you have to turn your brain off. It is enjoyable for a film of its type though. The original film is slower, cheaper and allows for more thoughts to go through the viewers head. 'Terminator 2' doesn't even give you time to think. Plus Edward Furlong.

[MoonSylver]

Yes, Kristanna Loken is sexier than Robert Patrick - I think most heterosexual males would agree with that - but the "Terminatrix" *thumbs up* was ok. The T-1000 doesn't make sense... but both technologies together designed to not only terminate humans but also rogue Terminators reprogrammed by the Resistance, as an "anti-terminator terminator" as stated by John Connor. It is a composite of the T-800 and T-1000, a solid endoskeleton covered with a liquid metal "mimetic polyalloy", allowing it to take the shape of any humanoid it touches, makes a little more sense - if anything that's not as far out there as T-1000. The T-800 is solid and, so is the TX, but the T-1000 is fluid? No... The TX was *pretty cool*. *OPINION*. *Redacted by Skynet* Sorry, TX just "felt" more like an actual machine/Terminator to me than the T-1000 "goo-bot". I think it might have been a better idea than the T-1000. Not that I'm super opposed to him, but he just always felt a little "off" to me, a little too implausible. The worst, of course, is the T-1000, whose ability to completely imitate every human it comes into contact with would put the Thing to shame. Having something so powerful like that ruins suspense. Its advantages are so immense that it ends up being silly. In addition, 'The Terminator' clearly states that the time machine cannot transport anything but living tissue, so the T-1000 wouldn't be able to go back in time as it's compose entirely of liquid metal. Oooops. But, we'll let that go. In any case, why didn't Skynet just switch all the factory lines to T-1000 standard and flood its enemies with them. Bingo...job done. Human beings wouldn't stand a chance. Or just send back an army of them to whack John Connor? IIRC he was a prototype, one-of-a-kind. Still doesn't explain how they were able to time travel, though I did find this on the Terminator Wiki: Skynet is able to send Series 1000 Terminators back through time — but as they do not possess living tissue, it is unclear how they can be transported. * One theory states that the T-1000 is capable of generating a synthetic bioelectric field. *Another concludes that Skynet grows a synthetic flesh pod, or cocoon, around the T-1000 specifically to send it through time. Once through, the T-1000 would rip out of this cocoon and begin its mission. However, no evidence of such a pod was shown when the TDE was used to transport the T-1000 and the T-X, an endoskeletal unit contained in a mimetic polyalloy infiltration sheath. *It is also possible that the T-1000 simulates the structure of living cells for the duration that is required for the time displacement to occur. *There is another explanation that the TDE is able to transport the mimetic polyalloy in addition to the living tissue. In the pilot episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, a T-888 head is transported through time along with Sarah, John and Cameron. According to Josh Friedmann, immediately before the time travel, the head was covered in tissue that was then burnt off during time travel. This could possibly be the way Skynet is able to send the T-1000 prototype and the T-X back in time without traces of cocoons being seen following time travel — a thin layer of skin covering the T-1000 is burnt off during time travel. Or back to the 80's again and do his mum. In the mortal sense, not the boomchickawawa way. That's a whole other film. Again, I'll take the TX for that fim as well.

[MinionZombie]

*Redacted by Skynet* Ruddy Skynet! *shakes fist in the air*

[MoonSylver]

Ruddy Skynet! *shakes fist in the air*

[bassman]

To me, the TX felt how I feel about the new Ghostbusters film. If the female character had progressed naturally from the story, that would be fantastic. Instead, like the new GB, it only came about because they needed something different from the previous entries and when they couldn't come up with something that flowed naturally, they fell back on "we haven't seen a woman terminator and we can make her hot so that'll put more men in the seats!". If the TX had spawned from more of a plot progression it could've been great. Instead of servicing the story first and foremost, they started with a gimmick and then molded everything else around that. Bring on the sexist accusations....

[MinionZombie]

The TX always felt gimmicky to me, too ... the bit where the TX 'inflates' her chest to sucker a cop flagged up the real intentions and thought process of the filmmakers. Plus, the whole mish-mash of T-800 and T-1000 tech smacked of a cobbled together middle ground birthed from an idiotic lack of vision or invention. After all, it was the same movie where the T-800 was reduced to the embarrassing spectacle of putting on star-shaped sunglasses and saying "talk to the hand" ... ugh ... just, just, just ... ugh ...

[MoonSylver]

I'm pretty much all T-X'ed out at this point, but as I said earlier, Cameron actually was tossing around the idea for a T-X like, among others, Terminator FIRST, before he came up with the "better" idea of the T-1000. Among other rejected idea that sounded kinda interesting: Another T-800 like Arnold (so Arnold vs Arnold) & a Skynet Terminator with an outer skin grown from cells of Kyle Reese as the bad guy vs Arnold's reprogrammed T-800 "good" Terminator.

[EvilNed]

There's been two good terminator films, two bad ones and one bad TV-series. Ok, I won't say that Part 3 was complete bullshit, but it was (for me, at least) nothing more than an average action film. And since Terminator 2 was so much more than an average action film, I just couldn't find it in me to enjoy T3 that much. In any case, the franchise is kinda dead to me... I don't care... Wait, isn't this an Alien thread? Oh my, let me just state that I completely disagree with MZ's idea of ignoring Alien 3 and 4. I watched those films and I actually enjoy part 3 very much, in some aspects even more than Aliens (calm down, I'm not saying it's a better film), so to ignore that would just make me not want to go and see the new alien film. Seems like such a copout... I enjoyed Alien 4, too, for what it's worth. The extended edition of that is total crap tho. But the theatrical version works. And I really enjoyed the sexual vibe they introduced between Ripley and the Aliens. Grosse thing to say, but I think it plays well with Giger's design.