Google| Subject | Re: The Lone Alien theory |
| From | Robbie Grant |
| Date | 07/18/2001 02:44 (07/18/2001 10:44) |
| Message-ID | <3B54DBEC.6249F666@ozemail.com.au> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.cult-movies.alien |
| Follows | Keith Hazelwood |
| Followups | Covenant (1h & 50m) Thomas S. McDonald esquire (9h & 25m) > Robbie Grant |
Keith Hazelwood wrote:
Maybe you're right, but it's wishful thinking I'm afraid. BTW, if the next alien movie revealed the aliens to be bio-weapons, and gave us their creators, I'd call that a "gimmick".Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
Anyway, while I do agree with this to an extent, I still see no reason why we can't have a gimmick, *if it's done well*.
Because it's a poor substitute for a good story. They should leave well enough alone. Less (preferably zero) gimmicks, more plot.
Oh, you *know* I agree with you there.Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
In the end, it's all done to please the masses, and rake in the money.
Excuse me, but I'd rather have less Jerry Bruckheimer philosophy behind the Alien series and something more artistic. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is hardly a good thing.
Oh yeah! [slaps forehead] Of course, the original alien went around killing people because it could still use them as egg-fodder, so I guess Alien3 doesn't *quite* go against that alternate lifecycle after all.Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
Whether the alien has one or two modes or reproduction, there was still no reason for it to go around simply killing everyone.
The original alien did.
Well, as you've just reminded me, it doesn't really go against alien3. As for the "serves no purpose" thing, I just can't see you actually believing that. Having the aliens as bioweapons serves no purpose, yet you seem quite taken with that idea. There is simply no need to explain the origins of the alien in such a way. It adds *way* more complexity, bringing in a whole new race, probably two (unless they were fighting a civil war), and brings in the possibility that there could be other alien-type races, possibly far stronger, floating around out there.Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
I have no problem with re-introduction the original lifecycle (or rather, the originally proposed lifecycle), even though it may go against A3.
I do if it serves no purpose AND because it goes against A3.
No, not necessarily, but it's a fairly good practical assumption.Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
Any new film is going to have a gimmick,
Not necessarily.
Yes, but given that that's not an option...Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
and personally I'd rather it be an alien that can create an egg from a host than that whole Newborn thing. Given that, should any new movie be made, there *will* be something new about the alien, wouldn't you prefer the devil you know?
No, I'd prefer the status quo. I'd prefer they stop trying to paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
Why? It can't be because it's not necessary, because the script would make it so. It can't be because it adds complexity, because complexity is required in order to have any kind of decent narrative. Because it's new? Because it's a gimmick? It's gonna happen, regardless. No studio exec would ok a movie that's just "more of the same", and no writer/director could pass up the opportunity to put their own little stamp on the series.Keith HazelwoodWhile I see no necessity for them to be prematurely endowed with special powers and abilities unless and until they're shown or otherwise implied within the narrative structure of the films.Robbie Grant
So you'd have no problem with a script that dictated the necessity for an alternate lifecycle?
Of course I would. I'd be forced to accept it, but I wouldn't like it so I sure as hell don't welcome it.
Uh, it's already happened. AR sunk the series in large part *because* of this liberal attitude when it comes to tweaking with the aliens, although I'm sure there are people (*cough*JEyers*cough*) who actually thought the Newborn was a fine idea, while the rest of us couldn't stand the damn thing.The whole idea of the newborn was too "new", and away from what we know of the alien. Too "gimmicky", I'll certainly give you that. I just don't feel that the alternate lifecycle falls into the same category as the newborn. It has a relatively low impact on what we know of the alien, it could be integrated into the series without too much difficulty, and it's not going to ruin a script that is, in every other respect, good. It wont do anything to save a bad script, but it's low-impact enough (or could be) to allow a good script to flourish.
What I wish is that someone at Fox, or whoever the hell is commanding this rudderless fucking ship, would stand up and say, "Enough with the gimmicky crap! The alien is fine as it is! Let's just concentrate on writing a good story about it for once!"Agreed. It'd be nice.
No, it's like saying "George Lucas is going to put a totally CGI creature in the movie, so lets hope he does a good job of it". Yes, these things can and do go astray. But there's no reason that they have to. -- *The Fuzz* You are about to begin reading The Fuzz's new sig. Relax. Concentrate. Dispel every other thought. -"And after that, my guess is you'll never hear from him again"- | http://www.ozemail.com.au/~randrgrant \ / "For such is the nature of men, that howsoever they -- O O -- may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more / \ eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe _| |_ there be many so wise as themselves...Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
These other crap plot devices are going to come, whatever is or is not put forward.
That's like saying, "Well, George Lucas is going to put Jar Jar Binks into Episode 2 anyway, so we may as well start liking him because there's nothing we can do about it."
07/08/2001-
