From: gibson@crisium.geop.ubc.ca (Brad Gibson)
Subject: Re: Natives Down the River (was re: ALIEN^3 Eggs on Sulaco)
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy / Univ. of British Columbia
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 20:37:33 GMT

In article <4723@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>In article <Bsy5DD.vK@acsu.buffalo.edu> v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:
  ... stuff deleted ...
>>     it also seems that Fincher picked the ball back up... anyone else
>>     get this impression?)
>
>	Nope. The nearly universal impression of those I know (that is, the
>impression of 34 out of 35) who have seen the movie is:
>
>	1) Alien^3 sucked the big one.

    Typically ridiculous overstatement of the facts.  I would counter with the
    statement that 4 out of the 5 I saw it with thought it was an extremely
    interesting interpretation, and a fitting finale to the "trilogy".

>	2) Neato cinematography does not a movie make.

    Agreed, but irrelevant to the discussion here, as I feel there was much
    more to Alien^3 besides the cinematography.  I felt Weaver's performance
    here easily surpassed that of the first two films.  While Fincher the
    Editor does have a tendency to not linger for more than a few seconds
    before cutting elsewhere, I felt it was more than appropriate here.

>	3) No matter what excuses one may give ("homage to the original" or
>what have you), the way Alien^3 was done made EVERYTHING in ALIENS 
>completely pointless. What point now Ripley's heroic overcoming of her
>fear to return to LV426? What point in the sacrifices of Gorman and Vasquez?

    In the short run, the points were obvious - lives saved, honour restored,
    love won, etc.  In the long run, we fully realize and share in 
    the ultimate futility of these "minor" victories.  The bravura rescues of
    the Aliens, while making a great exciting ride for a few hours, are brought
    crashing back to "reality" with Alien^3.  I for one appreciated Fincher's
    bleak and desolate look at a futile, essentially no-win, situation.

    Does this mean I must retroactively dismiss everything I saw in Aliens?  Of
    course not.  As a standalone project, the film is a rousing piece of
    cinema.  As part of a "down and up and down again" 
    trilogy, it is the perfect tie between Scott's and Fincher's vision.

>	The PROPER sequel would have followed some of the advance publicity
>lines: namely, the Aliens get to Earth. Probably by a Company ship landing
>(finally doing what they should have done to begin with) and grabbing
>one of the eggs off the alien ship (then either taking the whole ship or
>nuking it to prevent any competition from getting it). Ripley and Newt and
>Hicks and Bishop would have gotten back home just in time for the fun
>to start.
>
    Thank God they didn't go this route.  A re-hash of the slambang, non-stop
    action of Aliens would have been an ugly conclusion to the films.
    Fincher's version was not perfect, but its dark moody fatalistic vision was
    exactly what myself and those in my discussion group were looking for as a
    fitting tie-up for the trilogy.  A nice sense of closure is what I left the
    theater with.

    Brad

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brad K. Gibson                           INTERNET: gibson@geop.ubc.ca
  Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy         
  #129-2219 Main Mall                      PHONE: (604)822-6722
  University of British Columbia           FAX:   (604)822-6047
  Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  V6T 1Z4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------