Movie Defense Force: Alien 3
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Huh, never knew Alien 3 was considered bad.
I would love to see how Jim defends Alien 4. It`s a movie i can watch but compared to the first three movies it doesn`t look good and for the most part it felt disconnected and odd. To me Alien 3 was the counterpart to the second. No marines with heavy guns shooting aliens down, just one hunter and it`s prey.
I would love to see how Jim defends Alien 4. It`s a movie i can watch but compared to the first three movies it doesn`t look good and for the most part it felt disconnected and odd. To me Alien 3 was the counterpart to the second. No marines with heavy guns shooting aliens down, just one hunter and it`s prey.
I'm a huge fan of the Alien series. As usual I agree with Mr. Sterling. I thought that Aliens was a step in the wrong direction honestly. LV-426 seemed desolate and mysterious which gave the entire film a sense of foreboding terror that it had lost in the second movie. I thought that Alien 3 recaptured that feeling both with the setting of Fury 161 and--as Jim stated--the loss of every key character in the movie.
I found it odd that you picked this as the first movie to defend, I wasn't aware that many people harped on it. From a story perspective, I agreed with most of what you had to say before you had said it. My only issue with Alien 3 was the change from the first two, where they didn't show the aliens off too much, except near the end of Aliens. You see the xenomorphs constantly in Alien 3, which I felt was a huge mistake. You could have easily got the point across that it's evolution was based on what it spawned from without the goofy ass runner alien CGI.
The points are all true. And I liked Aliens 3--I caught it when it first came out on video (I was too young to watch it in theatres at the time), so the crap CGI never bothered me. I saw it again when I was older, and yeah the CGI was bad, but the movie was still good.
But.
The only way that Alien 3 was a major standout from Alien and Aliens was its depth. And character depth was never the driving force behind the concept of the franchise. The alien is the title character. The alien is the star. The alien is what we all came to see. And there's no denying that their decision to use CGI (which, in the pre Jurassic Park era, most of the time made everything look like the goddamn Lawnmower Man) made the star of both previous movies look like shit.
In a sense, it's a fate worse than death by violent chest-birthing; at least the dead colonists were mangled with a sense of meaning, not because some producer jumped on the "CGI does it better for cheaper" bandwagon WAY too early.
Now, you could argue that each movie takes a completely different approach, and you wouldn't be wrong: Alien was essentially just a schlocky sci-fi horror movie, Aliens was a sci-fi action flick, Alien 3 went back to the horror angle but re-did it with more depth of character, and Resurrection was a failed first-attempt at a 'space cowboys meet prodigal woman who the higher powers have been experimenting on' concept that eventually turned into Firefly.
No, you wouldn't be wrong about the different themes. But all the films were called Alien. All the films featured members of the same family--Paw Alien in the first one, Ma Alien in the second, the Aliens' dog Old Yeller in the third, and the Aliens' freakshow cousin who's the product of severe inbreeding in the fourth. And fucking up the alien in an Alien movie is like fucking up the meat in a hamburger: Yes, you could scrape off a patty that's been way over-cooked to mask the fact that it's been off for about two days, and the rest of it might be an otherwise quality sandwich--but it's not a friggin' burger anymore, is it?
So yes. Good movie. Not the best.
But.
The only way that Alien 3 was a major standout from Alien and Aliens was its depth. And character depth was never the driving force behind the concept of the franchise. The alien is the title character. The alien is the star. The alien is what we all came to see. And there's no denying that their decision to use CGI (which, in the pre Jurassic Park era, most of the time made everything look like the goddamn Lawnmower Man) made the star of both previous movies look like shit.
In a sense, it's a fate worse than death by violent chest-birthing; at least the dead colonists were mangled with a sense of meaning, not because some producer jumped on the "CGI does it better for cheaper" bandwagon WAY too early.
Now, you could argue that each movie takes a completely different approach, and you wouldn't be wrong: Alien was essentially just a schlocky sci-fi horror movie, Aliens was a sci-fi action flick, Alien 3 went back to the horror angle but re-did it with more depth of character, and Resurrection was a failed first-attempt at a 'space cowboys meet prodigal woman who the higher powers have been experimenting on' concept that eventually turned into Firefly.
No, you wouldn't be wrong about the different themes. But all the films were called Alien. All the films featured members of the same family--Paw Alien in the first one, Ma Alien in the second, the Aliens' dog Old Yeller in the third, and the Aliens' freakshow cousin who's the product of severe inbreeding in the fourth. And fucking up the alien in an Alien movie is like fucking up the meat in a hamburger: Yes, you could scrape off a patty that's been way over-cooked to mask the fact that it's been off for about two days, and the rest of it might be an otherwise quality sandwich--but it's not a friggin' burger anymore, is it?
So yes. Good movie. Not the best.
I discussed this with my dad, and I think his response is much more poignant than anything I could write.Jimothy Sterling said:
Hey damn well said.
Your understanding of Alien is phenomenal. And that sometimes there is victory in defeat, as we saw with Ripley trying to take the gestating queen with her.
That said ... I was (as an immense Ripley fan - I have an 8 month pregnant wife who I am busy battling with about whether our daughter will be named "Ripley" or not...) somewhat ... saddened? ... by Alien 3. I just wanted Ripley to get out of it all. She needed a break, or hell, a holiday.
She's presented as this 'expert' on xenomorphs, but (when you consider all the time she's spent in hypersleep) she's only known them for, literally, weeks if not days by the end of Alien 3. Sure ... she's well over 100 Earth years old by the end of the 3rd movie .. to her, she might have been .. what .. 27 on the Nostromo? And hey presto she's in this shit hole prison colony by the time she's 28.
Ripley needed to win. The Aliens have millions of years of cunning evolution and scorched earth behind them ... Ripley just has the skin of her teeth.
Your understanding of Alien is phenomenal. And that sometimes there is victory in defeat, as we saw with Ripley trying to take the gestating queen with her.
That said ... I was (as an immense Ripley fan - I have an 8 month pregnant wife who I am busy battling with about whether our daughter will be named "Ripley" or not...) somewhat ... saddened? ... by Alien 3. I just wanted Ripley to get out of it all. She needed a break, or hell, a holiday.
She's presented as this 'expert' on xenomorphs, but (when you consider all the time she's spent in hypersleep) she's only known them for, literally, weeks if not days by the end of Alien 3. Sure ... she's well over 100 Earth years old by the end of the 3rd movie .. to her, she might have been .. what .. 27 on the Nostromo? And hey presto she's in this shit hole prison colony by the time she's 28.
Ripley needed to win. The Aliens have millions of years of cunning evolution and scorched earth behind them ... Ripley just has the skin of her teeth.
Watching this, I realised that I don't remember a single thing that happened in Alien 3. I usually remember at least a few key moments of the films I've seen, so either Alien 3 was extraordinarily bland or it just went straight over my head (I was 15 when I saw it). Maybe I'll give it another try.
I'm late to the party, but your review is crap.
You know when at the end of a monster movie, when the bad guy inexplicably gets up after being killed a dozen times? That's what Alien 3 did to Aliens. A new movie director/writer crapped on the previous movie by having Jason get up for another kill. If it had happened after the end credits of Aliens, it would have sucked. I have no respect for the filmtards that produced this dreck.
Oh, and bizarre characters that don't really act like people? Check. A childish view of religion? Check.
As for "no one is invincible", what about the same scene where Ripley isn't killed? Oops, I guess your analysis doesn't hold up there. Ripley could have walked around whistling a happy tune, because she wasn't going to be Xeno chow.
I tend to prefer my characters to behave remotely like humans. And for a movie to try to stick to the rules of the universe that it sets up (ugh, the steaming pile that was Alien:Resurrection....argh.)
Back to the drawing board. You're not clever just because you can fanwank yourself into it being a good movie. It wasn't. And on top of being crap, it pissed away Aliens.
Alien 3 & 4 didn't happen.
See, Ripley's saving Newt to recover her motherhood that she lost in the extended cryosleep, fighting against the mother of the species that's trying to kill her is a bit stronger thematically than the bowl-floater that this director splashed out.
You know when at the end of a monster movie, when the bad guy inexplicably gets up after being killed a dozen times? That's what Alien 3 did to Aliens. A new movie director/writer crapped on the previous movie by having Jason get up for another kill. If it had happened after the end credits of Aliens, it would have sucked. I have no respect for the filmtards that produced this dreck.
Oh, and bizarre characters that don't really act like people? Check. A childish view of religion? Check.
As for "no one is invincible", what about the same scene where Ripley isn't killed? Oops, I guess your analysis doesn't hold up there. Ripley could have walked around whistling a happy tune, because she wasn't going to be Xeno chow.
I tend to prefer my characters to behave remotely like humans. And for a movie to try to stick to the rules of the universe that it sets up (ugh, the steaming pile that was Alien:Resurrection....argh.)
Back to the drawing board. You're not clever just because you can fanwank yourself into it being a good movie. It wasn't. And on top of being crap, it pissed away Aliens.
Alien 3 & 4 didn't happen.
See, Ripley's saving Newt to recover her motherhood that she lost in the extended cryosleep, fighting against the mother of the species that's trying to kill her is a bit stronger thematically than the bowl-floater that this director splashed out.
I watched the video, I pondered a bit, I went back and watched both versions of Alien 3...I'm still not buying it. The whole film just comes off as contrived to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's nothing good about it, far from it, you illustrated quite a few good points. However, the movie says very little to me other than "cash-in sequel"
It's nice to know, after all these years, that someone else in fandom holds a similar opinions of Alien 3. I still love my Aliens, and Alien was a fun horror movie, but Alien 3 was such icing on the cake from a story perspective. It helps that I was the generation that didn't grow up with the post-Aliens fanfiction about Newt and Hicks I'm sure, but I enjoyed those stories even after Alien 3.
I am also a fan of the novelization of Alien 3, although it's been years since I read the book. Funny considering I just learned that the author is on record as being one of those who hated the story because of the death ofHicks and Newt.
I am also a fan of the novelization of Alien 3, although it's been years since I read the book. Funny considering I just learned that the author is on record as being one of those who hated the story because of the death ofHicks and Newt.
