Let's Read the ALIEN RPG

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Prometheus, especially, gets a lot of hate it doesn't deserve. Damon Lindelof's 'novel' approach to storytelling means that fan edits are better than the cinematic cut.

Both movies are beautiful. Scott's eye for visual storytelling remains as strong as ever. Sadly, neither script was as strong as it needed to be. Most people wanted another Aliens action movie. Scott wanted to explore the Engineers and A.I.
Ridley Scott is an odd duck. He's not really bothered about scripts and figures, if you hire good actors and then let them do their thing, you'll get great performances. He's made a lot of bad movies, but never a bad looking one. Wow, can he force a frame and he works wonders with a smoke machine, a spotlight and shadows.

I've said for years, it's almost as if the good films he made, he made by accident. He lucked into a good script, did his design homework and came in on time and under budget.
 
I like Alien and Aliens. But, I've ways felt that the line, "Get away from her, you bitch!" from Aliens was one of the stupidest, tacked-on, pandering and terrible bits of dialogue ever put in a film. I literally felt embarassed watching it. I know everyone loves it, I've only ever talked to one other person who felt the same way about it as I did. Unfortunately, it worked for James Cameron, leading him to make a whole slew of utterly shit movies.

But, then, I like 2001 as well. I get why people don't. But I do.
 
2001's a weird movie from my childhood. I wanted to see it as a kid because my dad said it had a supercomputer killing people off. Half way through I was absolutely bored to tears by it and I desperately wanted to do something else, but Dad said "No you've got to finish the whole movie!". The scene near the end where the astronaut is outside the ship in his suit trying to get back in, and it's about 5 minutes of just listening to him breathing drove me nuts as a kid.
This bad experience has led me to be hesitant to watch it again.
Part of me wonders if it's better to watch as an adult, another part of me is afraid that it's still boring.
 
When it comes to slasher films, many of them have been surpassed in terms of gore and sheer nastiness, making it hard to see today why many of them had the impact they did. Halloween (the first movie anyway) was more atmosphere than gore, and is a brilliant work from a photographic standpoint. There are several instances where Michael Myers is literally hiding in the shadows, almost invisibly, being seen only when he emerges. That's why the character was credited as "The Shape" instead of Michael Myers at the end of that one. There was a remaster of the film in the early aughts that brightened everything and completely ruined the effect, rendering Myers visible the whole time.

Friday the 13th Part 2 never gets enough love, IMO, being overshadowed by the Joseph Zito & Tom Saving team-up of the fourth movie. But Part 2 is a genuinely good movie for what it is.

For a slasher that is genuinely nasty, but also far more clever than most of the genre (and than it will ever get credit for) check out The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. The whole thing spits in the face of the puritanical hysteria surrounding slasher movies everything at that time.
 
2001's a weird movie from my childhood. I wanted to see it as a kid because my dad said it had a supercomputer killing people off. Half way through I was absolutely bored to tears by it and I desperately wanted to do something else, but Dad said "No you've got to finish the whole movie!". The scene near the end where the astronaut is outside the ship in his suit trying to get back in, and it's about 5 minutes of just listening to him breathing drove me nuts as a kid.
This bad experience has led me to be hesitant to watch it again.
Part of me wonders if it's better to watch as an adult, another part of me is afraid that it's still boring.

If I saw 2001 as a kid, I don't explicitly recall it.

2001 is very slow paced and it does not spoon feed you anything. You have to be willing to read between the lines and find the story being told. When I first saw it as an adult, I have to admit that I found it a bit tedious. However, I did find it interesting.

The exception was the ending scene going through the "space warp." It's OK up UNTIL things just flip to color filtered helicopter flyovers of landscapes. Before that, the various color streaming FX are trippy and cool, but then the scene flips to the color filtered flyover garbage and goes on and on and on. I'm not sure what Kubrick was going for there, because I think his point was made before he effectively switches to low quality stock footage with random color filters.

Of course then it gets to the hotel room, and things get interesting again. But once again, 2001 is whatever you bring to it and whatever effort you put into it.
 
Ridley Scott is an odd duck. He's not really bothered about scripts and figures, if you hire good actors and then let them do their thing, you'll get great performances. He's made a lot of bad movies, but never a bad looking one. Wow, can he force a frame and he works wonders with a smoke machine, a spotlight and shadows.

I've said for years, it's almost as if the good films he made, he made by accident. He lucked into a good script, did his design homework and came in on time and under budget.

He's directed some duds, but also some of my favorite films. He is absolutely a visual director, and the strength of the story or character rests on the screenplay writer. Unfortunately, for Prometheus, that was Damon Lindelof, who must possess incriminating photographs to explain his continued employment in the industry.
 
He's directed some duds, but also some of my favorite films. He is absolutely a visual director, and the strength of the story or character rests on the screenplay writer. Unfortunately, for Prometheus, that was Damon Lindelof, who must possess incriminating photographs to explain his continued employment in the industry.

Except Lindelof has done some of the most brilliant stuff of the last decade! Even for those who don't care for Prometheus or are frustrated with what happened on LOST, it's hard to deny both the critical and public acclaim for both The Leftovers and Watchmen, two absolutely brilliant shows that he did amazing work on.
 
Except Lindelof has done some of the most brilliant stuff of the last decade! Even for those who don't care for Prometheus or are frustrated with what happened on LOST, it's hard to deny both the critical and public acclaim for both The Leftovers and Watchmen, two absolutely brilliant shows that he did amazing work on.

You're clearly a fan and I am absolutely not, which is fine. I haven't watched The Leftovers, but might get around to it one day. Everything else he has written I have disliked immensely. Lost, Star Trek Into Darkness, Cowboys Vs. Aliens, Tomorrowland and World War Z... Not exactly towering works of brilliance.
 
You're clearly a fan and I am absolutely not, which is fine. I haven't watched The Leftovers, but might get around to it one day. Everything else he has written I have disliked immensely. Lost, Star Trek Into Darkness, Cowboys Vs. Aliens, Tomorrowland and World War Z... Not exactly towering works of brilliance.
It's not that I'm a fan. Some of those you mentioned were not great. But it's kind of hard to argue with success, and awards like ones from the Writer's Guild of America would suggest he's not just some incompetent hack.
 
I like Alien and Aliens. But, I've ways felt that the line, "Get away from her, you bitch!" from Aliens was one of the stupidest, tacked-on, pandering and terrible bits of dialogue ever put in a film. I literally felt embarassed watching it. I know everyone loves it, I've only ever talked to one other person who felt the same way about it as I did. Unfortunately, it worked for James Cameron, leading him to make a whole slew of utterly shit movies.

But, then, I like 2001 as well. I get why people don't. But I do.

I'm not a fan of Aliens, great action scenes but clumsy characterization and a sentimentality that is completely inappropriate to the tone/world of the original film. I feel the same way about Cameron's T2 compared to T1. I think The Abyss is the best combo of sentiment and character by Cameron.
 
It's not that I'm a fan. Some of those you mentioned were not great. But it's kind of hard to argue with success, and awards like ones from the Writer's Guild of America would suggest he's not just some incompetent hack.

I really don't want to derail this thread further, especially since we seem to be of very differing opinions on his work.

I can (and will, at length, ask anyone) absolutely argue that Lindelof's writing for Prometheus is the weakest element of the movie for me. Success elsewhere is hardly going to change that. Besides, I'm sure everyone has a successful creator they dislike and wouldn't want involved in a franchise they enjoy.

Amuse yourself with the frustration I feel knowing that J.J.Abrams, Damon Lindelof and Alex Kurtsman have all had their sticky fingers all over Star Trek and I don't like any of them!


I'm not a fan of Aliens, great action scenes but clumsy characterization and a sentimentality that is completely inappropriate to the tone/world of the original film. I feel the same way about Cameron's T2 compared to T1. I think The Abyss is the best combo of sentiment and character by Cameron.

Someone else who prefers The Terminator to Judgement Day!
 
I personally never understood the love for T2. Sure the effects were good for it's time, but I thought it completely destroyed the closed time loop of the first film and retroactivelly made it nonsensical.
 
Someone else who prefers The Terminator to Judgement Day!

It isn't that rare an opinion outside of internet fandom, David Foster Wallace wrote a well known essay that sums up most of my issues with T2 as does Sean French's excellent book on T1 for BFI Classics.

I've seen consensus on Alien/Aliens swing towards Alien over time and expect the same to happen over time with T1/T2, if it hasn't already happened.

I'm not that familiar with Lindelof's work but Watchmen was excellent and I've heard very good things about The Leftovers.
 
2001's a weird movie from my childhood. I wanted to see it as a kid because my dad said it had a supercomputer killing people off. Half way through I was absolutely bored to tears by it and I desperately wanted to do something else, but Dad said "No you've got to finish the whole movie!". The scene near the end where the astronaut is outside the ship in his suit trying to get back in, and it's about 5 minutes of just listening to him breathing drove me nuts as a kid.
This bad experience has led me to be hesitant to watch it again.
Part of me wonders if it's better to watch as an adult, another part of me is afraid that it's still boring.
Heh, we had similar experiences as children. My family made a big deal of it (grandfather was an engineer for JPL) but as far as child me was concerned, 2001 consisted of awful stretches of tedium punctuated by a handful of interesting scenes; we get it, space is vast, boring, and lonely. I have not seen 2001 as an adult but wonder the same thing, is it still boring? I will grab some beers and try to watch it over the weekend. If I can stream it legally, I'll get back to you.
 
I like slow paced, pondering science fiction. 2001 is essentialy the opposite of Star Wars - it's not pulp or space fantasy, it's closer to a speculative documentary, which is why the ending hits so hard for me. I can completely understand people finding it boring, but for me it has so much value beyond simply watching it...

implication.jpg
 
It isn't that rare an opinion outside of internet fandom, David Foster Wallace wrote a well known essay that sums up most of my issues with T2 as does Sean French's excellent book on T1 for BFI Classics.

I've seen consensus on Alien/Aliens swing towards Alien over time and expect the same to happen over time with T1/T2, if it hasn't already happened.

I'm not that familiar with Lindelof's work but Watchmen was excellent and I've heard very good things about The Leftovers.

I'm pleased to see the original Terminator get some attention. It does seem to have gone ignored due to it's flashier sequel for many years. I don't follow that franchise much, except when I notice the latest prequel/sequel/reboot that no-one seems to care about.

Aliens added to the lore of Alien in ways I dislike. Making an ever-changing and malevolent creature into a hive of easily-killed bugs served the film well, but reduced the titular creature's mystique and threat. The Alien: Isolation video game did wonders making a single Alien scary again.
 
Aliens added to the lore of Alien in ways I dislike. Making an ever-changing and malevolent creature into a hive of easily-killed bugs served the film well, but reduced the titular creature's mystique and threat
One thing I liked about the comics, it's also in earlier Prometheus and Covnenant scripts and as I'll get to later the RPG hints at it, is that the aliens might not necessarily be completely natural. Not in the sense of being created by the Engineers, but that the Engineers found the aliens and worship them as a manifestation of some aspect of the universe.

What that aspect is varies between the various sources.
 
One good thing about the Alien RPG is that it handles all the inspiration very well, so you can draw and ignore from it as you like. As such, you can avoid retreading all the same conversation about what Alien movies are better than others.
 
The game does as good a job as I could hope given the novels, comics, video games and movies all present different interpretations of the Alien universe and the creature itself.

I do wonder why Alien: Resurrection is ignored. I guess the Predator license prevents the inclusion of the AVP films and comics, but why not Resurrection? Unless the answer is simply good taste.
 
I do wonder why Alien: Resurrection is ignored. I guess the Predator license prevents the inclusion of the AVP films and comics, but why not Resurrection? Unless the answer is simply good taste.


Was that the one with Winona Rider and the Ripley clone?
 
I do wonder why Alien: Resurrection is ignored. I guess the Predator license prevents the inclusion of the AVP films and comics, but why not Resurrection? Unless the answer is simply good taste.

It’s set 200 years after Alien 3, so well after the rest of the series. Adding it would be weird. On saying that there is an android in Destroyer of Worlds that seems an earlier version of the Winona Ryder model.
 
I only have the .pdf version of Destroyer of Worlds, and I don't enjoy reading large digital documents, so I had only glanced through it. I'll have a look for the proto-Ryder when I receive my physical copy.
 
The game does as good a job as I could hope given the novels, comics, video games and movies all present different interpretations of the Alien universe and the creature itself.

I do wonder why Alien: Resurrection is ignored. I guess the Predator license prevents the inclusion of the AVP films and comics, but why not Resurrection? Unless the answer is simply good taste.
Skywalker Skywalker already gave the answer that I was thinking. As for Predator, I'm glad they kept that out, at least in the core book. The prop cameo in Predator 2 was cute, but I think Predators are just way too pulpy for the Alienverse. I say that as someone that likes pulpiness.

I'm not going to mind at all if they work Predators into a supplement. I can see a lot of people having fun with that. I just wouldn't want them woven into the core of the setting. Mechanically, I could see the system being a great fit. Just using the scenario of the first movie with escalating stress dice seems like a lot of fun.
 
It isn't that rare an opinion outside of internet fandom, David Foster Wallace wrote a well known essay that sums up most of my issues with T2 as does Sean French's excellent book on T1 for BFI Classics.

I just hunted down that article. What amused me was how much it resembled Scorsese's controversial statements about comicbook films last year.
 
I think there's a way to do Aliens and Predators together well, but it wasn't any of the films.

The two AVP films soured my on the idea of them existing in a shared universe. I enjoyed the Dark Horse comics back in the day, but it is, ultimately, a gimmicky crossover based on a 'blink and you'll miss it' gag from Predator 2, perhaps not the best reason to repeatedly mash these franchises together.
 
The two AVP films soured my on the idea of them existing in a shared universe. I enjoyed the Dark Horse comics back in the day, but it is, ultimately, a gimmicky crossover based on a 'blink and you'll miss it' gag from Predator 2, perhaps not the best reason to repeatedly mash these franchises together.

Yeah, it was the Dark Horse comics that I really enjoyed, but the stark contrast between those and the approaches of the films shows the completely different approach - the comics were deeply introspective, often philosophical stories, in many cases told from the Predator's PoV or done completely visually without the imposition of a human perspective. There seemed to be a religious undercurrent to those stories, that reminded me of European scifi comics. In a way, I find them closer to the Alien prequels in tone.

I don't remember much about the AvP films. I recall hating the first one, and that it was directed by the Resident Evil series guy. I may not have even seen the second one, as I couldn't tell you a single thing about it. I thought switching the setting to contemporary Earth was the hugest mis-step.

I don't personally mind the two sharing the same universe. I just think Hollywood doesn't know what to do with either property, I love Alien, I thought Aliens was a fun action film, but very much it's own thing (and yeah, the addition of a "queen" to the lifecycle made no sense), and at that point I think they exhausted the concept of the xenomorph. I know the difficulties surrounding Alien 3 that led to the theatrical cut being very different than what the director wanted, but even having seen the not-quite-Director's cut, I think it's still just a bad film that has nothing new to offer except a watered-down retread of the original. The 4th one was just so stupid, and I could not understand why they were bending over backwards to bring back Ripley. Predator 2 is a guilty pleasure, again a very goofy action film that doesn't really compare to the original, but I disliked Predators and everything I heard convinced me not to see the most recent one.

What I like most about the Prequels is of how little importance the Xenomorphs are to the plots. I know that hurt the audience reaction for Prometheus, who went in expection a Xenomorph film, but then I think the Xenomorph parts at the end of Covenant are a let down compared to an otherwise awesome "House of Frankenstein in Space" horror flick with an insane android. I think the vision of the future that Scott established in Aliens and fleshed out in Prometheus and Covenant is actually sufficiently interesting on it's own without the need to focus on the xenomorphs. And that's why I guess I don't mind the Predators being a part of that setting, because they fit this hostile universe halfway between Christian myth and Lovecraftian mythos where humans are just trying to be humans in a cold and vicious frontier. I see it as the anti-Star Trek, where expanding out into the universe, we don't find a bunch of other pseudo-humans with civilizations like ours, instead we just find that humanity is on the bottom of a much larger food chain we don't yet understand. This is why I would rather have more "Aliens" movies without any Aliens, or where they are allowed to be incidental to the plot. Because otherwise I can't see what you could really do with them except remake Alien again, or remake Aliens again.

If I were to do a Predators vs Aliens film, I'd do it without any humans. I know Hollywood could never accept that sort of thing though, convinced as they are audiences need their hands held with a PoV etsy.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it was the Dark Horse comics that I really enjoyed, but the stark contrast between those and the approaches of the films shows the completely different approach - the comics were deeply introspective, often philosophical stories, in many cases told from the Predator's PoV or done completely visually without the imposition of a human perspective. There seemed to be a religious undercurrent to those stories, that reminded me of European scifi comics. In a way, I find them closer to the Alien prequels in tone.

I don't remember much about the AvP films. I recall hating the first one, and that it was directed by the Resident Evil series guy. I may not have even seen the second one, as I couldn't tell you a single thing about it. I thought switching the setting to contemporary Earth was the hugest mis-step.

I don't personally mind the two sharing the same universe. I just think Hollywood doesn't know what to do with either property, I love Alien, I thought Aliens was a fun action film, but very much it's own thing (and yeah, the addition of a "queen" to the lifecycle made no sense), and at that point I think they exhausted the concept of the xenomorph. I know the difficulties surrounding Alien 3 that led to the theatrical cut being very different than what the director wanted, but even having seen the not-quite-Director's cut, I think it's still just a bad film that has nothing new to offer except a watered-down retread of the original. The 4th one was just so stupid, and I could not understand why they were bending over backwards to bring back Ripley. Predator 2 is a guilty pleasure, again a very goofy action film that doesn't really compare to the original, but I disliked Predators and everything I heard convinced me not to see the most recent one.

What I like most about the Prequels is of how little importance the Xenomorphs are to the plots. I know that hurt the audience reaction for Prometheus, who went in expection a Xenomorph film, but then I think the Xenomorph parts at the end of Covenant are a let down compared to an otherwise awesome "House of Frankenstein in Space" horror flick with an insane android. I think the vision of the future that Scott established in Aliens and fleshed out in Prometheus and Covenant is actually sufficiently interesting on it's own without the need to focus on the xenomorphs. And that's why I guess I don't mind the Predators being a part of that setting, because they fit this hostile universe halfway between Christian myth and Lovecraftian mythos where humans are just trying to be humans in a cold and vicious frontier. I see it as the anti-Star Trek, where expanding out into the universe, we don't find a bunch of other pseudo-humans with civilizations like ours, instead we just find that humanity is on the bottom of a much larger food chain we don't yet understand. This is why I would rather have more "Aliens" movies without any Aliens, or where they are allowed to be incidental to the plot. Because otherwise I can't see what you could really do with them except remake Alien again, or remake Aliens again.

If I were to do a Predators vs Aliens film, I'd do it without any humans. I know Hollywood could never accept that sort of thing though, convinced as they are audiences need their hands held with a PoV etsy.

I agree with all of that except for Alien3, which I love, though I accept many hate it. Alien3 is kind of the punk response to the thoroughly conventional Aliens. You end that with a traditional family unit? I'll kill them all in the pre-credit. The last words of the film are a defiant "Fuck you." It fails to really capture the religion/occult themes that were intended, but is bleakly and horribly delightful for me.

I like Prometheus' lack of xenomorph focus, and wish Covenant had only featured the blobby albino neomorphs/bloodbursters. Tossing a couple of classic aliens into the third act didn't help.

I hope that we get Alien: Awakening/Paradise, but that's looking less likely as time goes on. Flawed as they are, Prometheus/Covenant are still very interesting.
 
I have come to like Alien 3 a lot more over time. I like Ripley goes from victim to mother to monster over the 3 movies, effectively becoming all three to kill the alien in the end. With the extended cut, I think it makes a good end to the original trilogy.
I only have the .pdf version of Destroyer of Worlds, and I don't enjoy reading large digital documents, so I had only glanced through it. I'll have a look for the proto-Ryder when I receive my physical copy.

My speculation is only based on the portrait for the NPC:
1599974342562.png
 
Yep. Then again there are other examples of this. For example the UPP android looks like David and even has a Russian version of David as a name. On the other hand, one of the marines is called Reece and looks like Michael Biehn, so it could also be done as a call back for fun.
 
Audible relesed an adaption of William Gibson's original script for Alien 3 this year - has anyone here listened to it?

I have... And though I like Gibson, was happy to hear Henriksen and Biehn reprise their roles, it isn't good. It feels like a rough draft cobbled together with some hasty rewrites. I suppose Gibson's stuff never feels exactly polished or slick, but this just doesn't work. While it can be fairly argued that as I fan of the film, I wouldn't like the audio drama, but I don't think that's it. It just feels like a cash grab. It is based on Gibson's second go at the screenplay, not his more interesting first attempt. There's a comic too, which is mostly the same as the audio drama.
 
Audible relesed an adaption of William Gibson's original script for Alien 3 this year - has anyone here listened to it?
I have read the graphic novel and it’s not good. It’s got some ideas in common with Resurrection and seems to think the best way forward is to do Aliens but on a grander scale.

It’s interesting as a glimpse at what could be, but I think it highlighted the danger of continuing from Aliens that Alien 3 rather brutally avoided by forcing Ripley to be on her own again - enabling her to develop into her darkest version of herself. I come to really like how Ripley is actually almost as big a threat to the prisoners as the alien :smile:

It’s also interesting for the RPG as it introduces the UPP.
 
Personally I would have resolved Ripley's character arc quite differently. I really disliked simply killing off the other survivors offscreen just to get Ripley in isolation, it felt like just a cop-out and made the resolution of Aliens kinda redundant. And it wasn't as if they were ignoring the parts of Aliens that didn't work with the original, because the xenomorph queen was kept cannon and made into a major plot point. But a huge element of Ripley's character development in Aliens was her returning home to find that, due to the time dillation of being in stasis for years in the escape shuddle, she'd outlived her daughter on Earth. This leads to her directly developing into a surrogate mother for Newt later in the film, culminating with the "battle between the mothers" that capped the film.

Ripley's primary nemesis in the series is obviously the Wyland-Yutani corporation, not the Aliens themselves which are more of a force of nature. It's the corporation as represented by Ash in the first film, and Burke in Aliens. Having the human inspiration for Bishop be the face of the corporation in 3 wasn't a horrible idea, but his role is completely neutered in comparison as he only shows up at the end, and all her sacrifice does is inconvenience them, it ultimately doesn't do anything to stop the corporation, it simply keeps one xenomorph out of their hands. Obviously other xenomorphs are out there for the corp to eventually get their hands on, she simply delayed the inevitable.

So, instead, what I would have done is have 3 be about Ripley confronting the corporation directly, aggressivelly. In that manner I'd have situated it on Earth. It's not a leap of logic of any kind to assume the corporation would have sent an additional mission to LV- 426 directly after her group as insurance. All they need is one egg, or even one xenomorph corpse to reverse genetically engineer their intended biological weapon. By situating the movie on Earth this directly raises the stakes to a potentially apocalypse-level disaster without the necessity of adding MORE xenomorphs, and would feature Ripley directly confronting the enemy she's only faced representatives of in the films up to that point. It also gives a chance to expand on the mythology without altering the xenomorph, by showing us more of what the corporation is like, and what life on Earth is like, what the socio-political situation is, all that worldbuilding that the series has continued to avoid, almost aggressively. And honestly, a faceless, seemingly all-powerful megacorporation is, to me, a much more terrifying and powerful adversary than the xenomorph itself represents. And by having Ripley ultimately sacrifice herself to cripple the corporation, she's not just defeating an enemy, she's creating a better future for her surrugate daughter.
 
What I like most about the Prequels is of how little importance the Xenomorphs are to the plots. I know that hurt the audience reaction for Prometheus, who went in expection a Xenomorph film, but then I think the Xenomorph parts at the end of Covenant are a let down compared to an otherwise awesome "House of Frankenstein in Space" horror flick with an insane android. I think the vision of the future that Scott established in Aliens and fleshed out in Prometheus and Covenant is actually sufficiently interesting on it's own without the need to focus on the xenomorphs. And that's why I guess I don't mind the Predators being a part of that setting, because they fit this hostile universe halfway between Christian myth and Lovecraftian mythos where humans are just trying to be humans in a cold and vicious frontier. I see it as the anti-Star Trek, where expanding out into the universe, we don't find a bunch of other pseudo-humans with civilizations like ours, instead we just find that humanity is on the bottom of a much larger food chain we don't yet understand. This is why I would rather have more "Aliens" movies without any Aliens, or where they are allowed to be incidental to the plot. Because otherwise I can't see what you could really do with them except remake Alien again, or remake Aliens again.
That's been my feeling going all the way back to the '80s. I generally hate it when sequels are a retread of the plot of the original. The first two Alien movies gave us a sinister corporation, space marines, remnants of alien civilizations. There were plenty of things to do in the setting besides fighting bugs again.

It's as if when Tolkien sat down to write a sequel to The Hobbit, he started from the premise that it absolutely had to be about another group going after a different dragon's treasure.

Audible relesed an adaption of William Gibson's original script for Alien 3 this year - has anyone here listened to it?
I had a copy of the screenplay back before a third movie was even made. I don't know if it was the first or second draft. It was set on an idealistic space station where elements of the leadership had been making deal with the corporation in return for funding, which leads to alien eggs ending up onboard and all hell breaking loose. My memories of it are extremely vague. I think the biggest novelty it added was aliens that burst from animals.
 
Those are some cool ideas Tristram, but I think it goes to show how difficult Alien 3 had it in trying to satisfy expectations after 2 well regarded yet different movies. I personally don’t consider WY as Ripley’s primary antagonist. That is the Xenomorph, and WY act as a foil as well as thematic reference for her conflict with it. It’s one reason why her descent into darkness and away from humanity works well for me.

It’s certainly true that the version we have is flawed, both inherently and also from the fraught movie making process. But I think it ages better with time and I have come to appreciate it more the further away from my initial reaction I got.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top