From: v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Natives Down the River (was re: ALIEN^3 Eggs on Sulaco)
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:23:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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:
>>     everything else -- the cinematographer, the film editor, the film
>>     scorer, the actors and most importantly, the director -- is absolute
>>     top of the line, they CAN overcome a bad script.  The stupid bits
>>     CAN be edited out, or re-shot later -- and for this movie, they were.

>	When? I noticed that most of the movie appeared to be stupid
>bits. If anyone edited them out since I saw it, they must have done about
>2 hours of reshoots and rescripts.

     My definition of stupid bits that were edited out: all reference to
     Ripley's gestating Queen being "the last in the Universe."  The
     Golic subplot - in which he thinks the alien is God come to
     deliver apocolypse - is edited out.  Bishop II really being human --
     gone.  The EEV slaming into the sea and Ripley washing up on shore:
     reshot.  Etc.

     What did you think was stupid in what remained?  Examples...?

>>     I can't wait to get ALEN^3 on video.  (I've noticed - incidentally -
>>     that since I've seen ^3, my opinion of Cameron's movie has gone
>>     WAY down... it just seems like the he dropped the BEST things about
>>     the first one in favor of action and Rambo-lina type things; and
>>     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.

      Everyone I know who saw it, with one exception, thought it was the
      best of the three.  How can you deny the sheer power of Ripley's
      sacrifice?  How can you not acknowledge the emotional journey
      Sigourney Weaver's performance takes us on - from relization, to
      rebellion, to depression, to recklessness, to acceptance -- the
      stages of death awareness.  
      This is the gold in ALIEN^3 - no, it's not as obvious as pulse
      rifles and Colonial Marines; yes, it takes intelligence and
      sensitivity to appreciate -- but the gold's there.

>	2) Neato cinematography does not a movie make.
>	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?
>The duel between two mothers? 

     This is the old "Why did Spock die, then?" argument.  Who cares?
     ALIENS was a great movie.  Why does anything that may or may not
     happen in ALIEN^3 lessen how good ALIENS is?  How does that work?
     Besides, I don't think - even in your context - that ^3 makes
     ALIENS worthless.  Look at it in the context of a TRILOGY -- think
     of it as a sequel to ALIEN, not just a sequel to ALIENS -- and you'll
     see that Ridley Scott's movie predicted all this: You can't beat
     the alien; it's the perfect organism.  NOTHING can beat the alien.
     Not big elephant motherfuckers.  Not humans.  Not Ripley.  And no
     matter if you think you survive, you won't -- because the alien
     will always find a way to fuck you up the pooper in the end.
     You're saying that ALIEN didn't say all this?  It did: Cameron
     tried to contradict it in his movie and Fincher smacked Cameron
     in the face with his.  

>	4) Not only is it pointless, this clumsy excuse for a script can't
>even do us the courtesy of explaining HOW this disaster came to happen.
>Someone just decided "let's do it this way" and to hell with continuity,
>logic, or anything else. Atmosphere be damned, it does NOT excuse this!

     I won't dispute the merits of the script -- because I've read it and
     it is pathetic -- but IT DOES WORK on screen.  They make it work.
     WHY does everything need to be explained?  It seems like your 
     problem is that you JUST WON'T accept the premise, and that if you
     did accept the premise, you'd love the movie.  It's the only complaint
     you make concretely.  
     The weakness - and I admit that in the script it's a weakness - in
     not explaining where the eggs came from is turned into a STRENGTH
     on screen.  Why, in ALIEN, did the one egg - and only one - hatch
     when Kane entered the ship?  NOTHING EVER moved through that blue
     mist before he did?  Come on.  That's tenuous at best, but you're
     not bitching about THAT.
     The point is: YOU CAN'T BEAT THE ALIEN.  No matter what you do.  So
     if it will always find a way to beat you, then it can always find
     a way to leave a motherfucking egg on the ship.  Maybe it was in
     Hicks - who was IMPALED, so you wouldn't know...

>	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.

     What a shitty movie that would make.  That's a cliche - you know?  The
     "While our heroes take a much deserved rest on the trip back home,
     evil elements conspire to bring the nasty aliens HOME with them."
     ALIEN^3 was original, unique, and overpowering.  

     Newt dying doesn't destroy ALIENS.  It empowers it: Ripley tried,
     but even she is only human.  


     Scott
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies