From: jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (JJ Glamma)
Subject: Re: Natives Down the River (was re: ALIEN^3 Eggs on Sulaco)
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:56:36 GMT

v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey) writes:

>In article <4815@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes...

>     ALIENS virtually ignored the first movie.  Instead of an ominous,
>     monolithic, imposing entity simply known as THE COMPANY - and
>     lifted neatly from the pages of Conrad's HEART OF DARKNESS - you
>     have IBM and Mitsubishi in ALIENS - complete with the whiny, backbiting,
>     but not scary, Burke (Paul Riser).  

Paul REiser's Burke. This is a character with depth and subtlety that the
characters in the third movie were crying out for. The problem with his
character on the second and subsequent viewing of this film is that you
*know* he is the bad guy. Try wiping your memory and watching the flick
again. Until the aftermath of the first firefight, he does nothing that can be
construed as "wrong", and until the double-barelled revelation (in successive
scenes) that he a) engineered the disaster, and b) let the 'huggers loose, we
still think of him as one of the "good guys".

Of course, seeing the film for the second time, we *know* he is the bad guy, so
we boo and hiss like Pavlovian dogs. That's cool. His character works on two
levels.

But, what *is* Burke? He is not a representative of a monolithic corporation,
like Ash, Bishop II, or that Japanese guy. He is a person, like you and me, who
sees an opportunity to make a fast buck, possibly at the expense of some other
people's lives (which doesn't matter, since he doesn't know them - he does care
about Ripley) and takes it.

What makes Burke infinitely more scary than some semi-mystical Company or a
giant Japanese ideogram is that he is us. He is an ordinary person, who acts
without realising the consequences of his actions. A Company run by people
like Burke, who do harm unwittingly, is more scary because it can and does
happen.

Which relates to another theme of the first two films that is ignored in the
third. Despite Ash's speech in film 1, the Alien is not invincible. It is not
the fact that the Alien is stronger than the human that allows it to win. It is
that the humans are fragmented and disorganised. The point of Ash's speech is
not that the alien is physically strong, but that it is ruthless and efficient.

Dallas ignored quarantine to bring the alien on board.

Burke consistently sabotaged the humans' in the second film. He refused to warn
the colonists of potential danger, he (and Ripley) cited the monetary value of
the reactor as sufficient reason to send in the Marines with inadequate
weaponry; he released the facehuggers to grap Newt and Ripley; and he locked
the rest of them in the MedLab with the aliens.

In 3, we had Ripley and her merry band WORKING TOGETHER to fight the alien. The
only character who looked like sabotaging the unity of this team was dragged off
early in the film.

>     Cameron changed what continuity he wanted between the first movie and
>     his; he changed the alien life cycle you people like to talk about so
>     much; he changed just about everything -- but since you liked the
>     movie, it doesn't matter.

Actually, I don't think Cameron changed anything... the Aliens were reproducing
in entirely different circumstances. It makes sense to me that a lone alien
would create an egg that would hatch a queen ASAP. I'll kludge it more when I
see the Alien SE 8^).

Still, I think this is irrelevant, since I don't see how anything in 3 alters
the reproductive habits of the Alien. (I still don't see anything doggy about
the Alien)

>     No!  Really?  Listen, what I meant was that ALIEN and ALIENS each
>     told complete stories - self-contained.  No loose ends.  The only
>     impetus to do a sequel came from their boxoffice - not from a 
>     diegetic storyline need.  

No argument here.

>     dead.  ALIEN^3 was arguably worse: she went to sleep thinking all
>     was well, had a horrible dream, and woke up in a nightmare.
>     How can you possibly say this isn't in keeping with the other two
>     films?

Just that the end of ALIENS implies that the sleepers are safe. Leaving aside
for the moment the fact that there was no way the eggs seen at the start could
get on board, the ending of ALIENS (slow fadeout on the undisturbed bodies)
implies safety; Cameron states that the danger is past "Can I dream?" "Yes, I
think we both can."

>     Sorry, ALIEN^3 does anything BUT ignore ALIENS, from a story perspective.
>     You're just pissed because of WHAT KIND of attention ALIEN^3 GAVE the
>     remnants of ALIENS.

Alien 3 deals with the *events* of Aliens, but, as stated above, not the
emotional subtext of the last scene.

>     ALIEN 4 is probably in active development (with a severely cut-down
>     budget, since ^3 made no money...) at Fox as we speak... don't worry,
>     you'll get your way... and please, let's chat after this film is
>     out... I assure you, it will be more like ALIENS (because people like
>     you bitch when there aren't enough guns to go round).

Aliens had great characterisations and great hardware.
Alien3 had no charaterisation and no hardware.

I can't speak for your correspondent, but I didn't miss the hardware quite so
much.

Still, if you think Aliens was just a gunfest, you probably missed all the
characterisation no-one was telling you to look for.


-- 
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
JJ Glamma                          | "Hey look... The Sarge and Dietrich ain't
aka James William Patrick Bennetts |  dead, man... their signs are real low, 
jamesbs@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU         |  but they ain't dead!"
-----------------------------------+ "Then we go back in and get them!"
When in doubt, use brute force.	   | "F*ck that!"
		-- Ken Thompson	   |	-- PFCs Hudson & Vasquez, on loyalty.
-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------