Anyone know what has been changed/added/remastered for this version of the movie?
If it's good I might get it... I won't hold out for Alien 5, they'll just screw it up.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I believe most of the reinserted stuff was present on the recent DVD as deleted scenes, though I'm not completely certain. An all new DVD box set (the awkwardly titled "Alien Quadrilogy") is coming out soon. I don't know what version of the film it will contain.
It appears to be as I thought, though they are not very clear on the details.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
There's something about the original release that's puzzled me for quite a long time. It has to do with the most important of the deleted scenes (and if you haven't seen it, don't worry; I'm not going to ruin it for you). My last college roommate and I once talked about the film (this was fall 1982, BTW), and he swore he saw that scene in the film when he saw it. To this day I still can't figure out how; I saw Alien in New York on a 70mm print, and it sure as hell wasn't in the version I saw. He said he saw it after it opened, so it couldn't have been in a preview.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mainly the deleted scenes consist of:
****SPOILERS*****
These are the scenes I've seen (back when Sci-i channel didint suck):
A scene showing an "infected" Tom Skarett begging ripley to kill him: she does- with the torch. (the Alien idea was more of a disease kind of thing than an animal back then) The studio thought this scene was a bit much.
A scene showing the last two crewmen getting killed (it's really cool because they walk right past the curled up alien several times before it breathes and they notice it slowly unfolding from fetal position and wlking toward them: this scene was ditched because you can tell the alien is either a prop or a guy in a suit).
A three or four minute scene of the crew aproaching the derilict spaceship (showing it's scale) and some more footage of Ridlry scott's kids walking arounf the "SpaceJockey". He filmed his young children in scaled down spacesuits because he felt the SpaceJockey was too small. Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I really want to see as much as possible of the derelict ship, that thing is so underused.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I am looking forward to commentaries on Alien 3 like nobody's business, but I'd imagine Fincher, when approached, would have been all like: "I am sorry, but I've moved on now. I am teaching my trade to the youth. Fred, put that down. Where can I get a neat red cap?"
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well this was interesting. What's so special about Alien� to you, Ultra?
Sure, it's the darkest episode, but to me it's also the most uneventful and short.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I haven't actually seen Alien 3. Seen the other three, the first two being decidedly better than the last IMO. Are they releasing Director's cut versions of all the films?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
There is no way they could undo the damage of Alien Resurrection through adding some "Hitherto unreleased footage!!". I don't even think they have any, they probably finished it two weeks ahead of schedule. :-)
That movie is so much lower quality that it would be like doing a Director's Cut of Mimic (Scourge of the Drag-queen Cockroaches); no one cares. 2 minutes of F. Murray Abraham does not a blockbuster make.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
ANyone know what the main things in the Director's Cut of Alien 3 are? 50 minutes is quite a bit!
Mark
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I was thinking more of Aliens... Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Aliens has already been done. And a good job they did too. Phalanx gun turrets, more backstory of Ripley's lost life back on earth due to her drifting in space, many little tidbits.
But they did right to leave out Vasquez' and Hudson's insights on Alien Hive Structure the first time around, it leaves more to the imagination...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oddly enough, the TV version of Aliens always included the bit with the Phalanx auto-turrets but only sometimes included the part about Ripey's kid and her sitting in the atrifical "park" on the space station.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: Well this was interesting. What's so special about Alien� to you, Ultra?
I'd imagine, from Young Man Ultra's comments, that he mainly wants to hear Fincher explain away the less-that-positive reception the film got.
Which he can do quite easily, by saying two things.
1/ "Weaver wouldn't let me have guns."
2/ "It's a lot better than Resurrection though, isn't it? Isn't it? Eh?"
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
The failure of Alien� is a four-spoked wheel, forever revolving in the grand ass of the universe; ($$$$$$$$ Wraith go to your room and put on a little light music instead)
$$$$$$$$$$$$ (I won't tell you again, young man)
� No sympathy for a bunch of inmates nor interest in their fate (half of them tried to rape Ripley, ffs)
� Killing off Ricks and Newt killed the link to the previous movie
� Ripley's immunity to the alien due to her pregnancy
� The most anticlimactic ending ever*
(*before "Sphere")
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Reasons for:
� Cool dog-spawned alien instead of human-spawned
� Little John from "Robin of Sherwood" is in it! -"Fighting monks???? I thought you were the only one, Tuck!" Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I actually thought that Alien 3 was better than Alien 4. Though the plot of Alien 3 was dark and somewhat strange, it was better than the complete weirdness and impossibility of Alien Resurrection.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Oh I agree. Alien� was like ordering a T-bone and getting some hamburgers, very nice hamburgers but hamburgers nonetheless. Alien Resurrection felt like trying to drink a gallon of strawberry milk in under one hour.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: Alien Resurrection felt like trying to drink a gallon of strawberry milk in under one hour.
In under five minutes.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well I liked Michael Wincott and Brad Dourif, but as with all sequels made since 1990, the forced insertion of comedy relief and sidekicks tears down movies that were originally made to scare people, damnit.
Predator: Torn down, *"pussyface" (*Danny Glover quote)
Terminator: Torn down, babee. (I actually had nightmares of the T1 robot catching up to me in that dark factory corridor and ripping my spine out before I could close the door)
Alien: Cranium-crushing tongue? Torn out, here, take it as a souvenir.
Gollum: Pacified, now all girls think he's cute and have a cute voice. Great. He used to smother babies and eat them, y'know.
Vader: Dark, unrelenting, merciless Lord of Destruction? Try angsty teen. Is that Linkin' Park I hear from his speeder com?
You know, Tolkien hesitated to publish the Silmarillion. He wanted to, but both The Hobbit and LOTR had been built on the untold stories of the ancient world, only hinted at from time to time by people like Gandalf and Elrond. Should they be told, he feared the magic would go away. Like seeing a magnificent mountain far away then walking up to it and seeing just a big rock.
The 'Silmarillion' and 'History of Middle Earth' withstood close scrutiny, as it turned out. IMO, the Clone Wars didn't. But that ain't over yet, so I'll not say more about that.
And I'm definitely getting that Alien DC. If they update the Alien Collector's Box with that, I'm holding out for the box, of course.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well the Silmarillion was a *bit* dry.
It's like the mystery of where the aliens came from or Wolverine's origin: the less you know, the cooler they are.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Which is why the poor man spent all of his last years trying to improve it and reach the unattainable goal of feeling confident of its worth and having faith in the "eyes of the beholders".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
He probably talked to himself in that Gollum voice by the end....
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Um... I liked Resurrection better than 3. At least the supporting characters were actually memorable.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Seriously, dude. Are there anti-taste neutrons in the Tennessee water?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Alien 3 is my personal favourite.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Although Lee has gone to the other extreme.
Still, Alien 3 had an anticlimatic ending? The one where the heroine killed herself? Buh?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well there was that lead-boil sprinkler thingy, then the corporation steps in and she just oh, ok, I give up, I'll just hop over here then. And considering Kain, I wonder how she managed to keep that smile as the baby-queen tore through her ribcage, it must've hurt at least a bit.
Maybe I was just so depressed, there was that recording machine playing the Nostromo-message on the garbage heap and then they shut everything down.
I felt like taking a long cold shower with my clothes on and listen to "Adagio for strings". *snort*
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I once had sex while the William Orbit dance version played in the background, that's sort of similar. 8)
No, I know no-one else understands it, but for some reason of all the films Alien 3 struck a chord with me. Partly because I first saw it at about 5 in the morning at the end of a video marathon, and the weird lighting on that planet worked really well with dawn creeping in through the curtains.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
For the record, I believe you'll find that I didn't say I liked Alien Resurrection. I just liked it better than 3. This says nothing at all. Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Duly noted.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: For the record, I believe you'll find that I didn't say I liked Alien Resurrection. I just liked it better than 3. This says nothing at all.
Nothing except that Alien3 SUCKED ASS, which it DID...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oddly, Alien3 had the best acting and worst plot.
If I want to see great actors doing their very best with a shitty plot, I'll rent 9th Gate. Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by Omega: For the record, I believe you'll find that I didn't say I liked Alien Resurrection. I just liked it better than 3. This says nothing at all.
Nothing except that Alien3 SUCKED ASS, which it DID...
I respectfully disagree. While Alien3 will never go down in history as being a fine piece of writing, it's leagues better than it might have been (anyone who read the draft script with the wooden space station and the crazy monks should agree.) I think the main reason why I like it is because it's the only film of the four that had a heart, all the others were about sheer survival and desperation while this one had the "protagonists" turning around and fighting the creature, not to mention shouting a load of verbal abuse at it (Sure in Aliens Ripley went back into the hive and had a go at the queen, but that was more of a maternal instinct thing.)
Aside from that I really liked the design and the speed of the creature itself, all the others in my opinion suffered a bit from the inescapable "guy in rubber suit" syndrome. While Ridley did a good job of hiding the creature in shadow and mystery and Cameron did very well in utilising numbers and motion to disguise the inferior quality of the costumes, both incarnations still had the feel of something that was vaguely human. On the other hand the third alien was purely animalistic, which to me seamed allot more dangerous given the creatures apparent inherent intelligence.
Plus Alien3 is the first time Ripley gets laid in the better part of a century, now that has to be something worth watching...even if you don't actual witness it. Spot the contradiction.
I don't know, I guess I'm just a sucker for films that end on a dark note.
Oh and for the record, Ripley didn't commit suicide. She just made sure her body was properly disposed of...and that the nasty company men didn't get the queen they wanted.
Which reminds me, does anyone know what the deal was with the human Bishop at the end? I ask because after he'd been cracked over the head his ear sort of bent outwards, was he wearing a mask or what?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
We are supposed to be confused about whether that is a human or a robot, at the end, I think. In the human column, his blood is red. Yet he recovers awfully quickly from that blow to the head. At any rate, it doesn't seem like it matters much, because what real difference to the film does it make?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
There's also the fact that he appears to be the same age as robo-Bishop.
Assuming that all robo-Bishops look the same, it is logical to assume that they are based on the appearence of their creator. I can't remember how long passed between Aliens and Alien3 (and no, I'm not going to superscript it), but for him to be human, it would have to be a very short period of time, and the robo-Bishops would have to be pretty much brand new at the start of Aliens.
Actually, something about the ending of that film bugged me. Alien and Aliens show that it takes months and years to travel between planets, and yet the company turns up after Ripley's been there for, what, a week?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Porbably the Bishop feom A3 was another android: they just got around to coloring the mushroom soup that passes for their blood.
I believe several years and passed between A2 and A3. The company might have been searching along the Sulaco's flight path for some time though (I guess).
Big plothole though. Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well they could have had representatives at some space hub close by the system or something.
The Bishop in Alien 3 had red blood? I always took it for a fact that his skin and ear coming off like that, without him caring about it, was a sure sign he was a company android and not to be trusted.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Why does that make him less trustworthy than real-life human Company Bishop?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Because as with Ash, it seems androids seem to be partial to their owner's orders, if they've been issued. Original-Bishop didn't have that problem because he wasn't sent to bring specimens but to be advisor and technician against an unknown threat, he could make decisions from his own head. He probably didn't even rank on the same level as Ash, keeping the shipcrew in check, he was just an addition to the little task force, trying to help in any way he could.
The second Bishop lied to her face. What's funny is that even though Ripley, Hicks, Newt and Bishop had crashlanded there after their escape from LV-426, the company-Bishop called her by name and tried to exploit her feelings of trust toward original Bishop. How could they possibly have known about the bond between the two? Writer's screwup?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
"I cannot harm, or through omission of action, allow harm to come to a human being."
Granted the writers for A3 probably didn't pay attention to this little bit of A2 dialogue... But sould this apply to Bishop 2? Alternatively, they coulda just skipped installing the Asimov Routine into this particular model.
Mark
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
He would just deliver her to the team, though. If she died when they cut it out of her, or if they just left her in a locked observation room waiting for it to pop, wouldn't be his problem.
Anyone know exactly what he said when she started going for the furnace? His pleas? Would be interesting.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: We are supposed to be confused about whether that is a human or a robot, at the end, I think. In the human column, his blood is red. Yet he recovers awfully quickly from that blow to the head. At any rate, it doesn't seem like it matters much, because what real difference to the film does it make?
I'm not sure that the film makers quite knew what he was either, which is why I suspected that he was a human wearing a Bishop mask.
One point of interest though, this is from the novelisation.
Aaron picked up a chunk of broken pipe, muttering. 'You fucking droid!' The pipe landed hard on Bishop II's head. The impact was spongy. The man staggered, twitching as his troops shot the acting superintendent down. Red blood poured from Bishop II's cracked skull. 'I am...not a...droid.' the bleeding figure mumbled in surprise as it crumpled to the floor. Ripley clutched at her chest. 'It's moving.' Company men rushed to the fallen Bishop II. He turned on his side, watching her. 'You owe it to us. You owe it to yourself.' A beautific smile crossed her face. Then she almost snarled. 'No way!' 'It's too late' 'It's not!' Bishop II pleaded with her. Staggering, she clutched both hands to her chest over the rising heat. 'Good-bye.' 'Nooo!' Bishop II howeled.
It should be noted however that the novel is apparently based on an earlier draft of the script. One where the alien is spawned from an Ox, instead of a dog, Dillon doesn�t stay in the mould and in which they succeeded in trapping the creature in the toxic waste container...for a while.
So they could have also changed their thoughts on the nature of Bishop II.
quote: Actually, something about the ending of that film bugged me. Alien and Aliens show that it takes months and years to travel between planets, and yet the company turns up after Ripley's been there for, what, a week?
Again, in the novel I think it's mentioned that a ship that was in the neibourhood was diverted to Fury-161 by the company. It's still a little sudden though. I suppose it could have been a rescue vessel that was sent to search for the Sullaco, which was apparantly destroyed or severly crippled (Once more from the novel, it's an explosion from the Sullaco that damages the EEV so badly that it has to ditch in a planet and also why Hicks and Newt didn't survive the splash-down.)
quote: Because as with Ash, it seems androids seem to be partial to their owner's orders, if they've been issued. Original-Bishop didn't have that problem because he wasn't sent to bring specimens but to be advisor and technician against an unknown threat, he could make decisions from his own head. He probably didn't even rank on the same level as Ash, keeping the shipcrew in check, he was just an addition to the little task force, trying to help in any way he could.
I think the main difference here that Ash was a covert plant, assigned to the Nostromo at the last minute who's sole purpose was to ensure that the company got the sample it wanted. Bishop was already a permanent fixture with this particular group (Platoon?) of Marines (his knife trick was already old hat). I'm not sure but if you watch Aliens you might notice that Bishop isning in the waking up scene in they cryo-room and that IIRC he doesn't show up until the mess hall scene. Again according to the novel he had been awake during the whole journey, tending to the ship and that this new breed of Android was neccesaraly more independant and adaptable than the older models, able to develope personalities and even feelings. Something which is reflected in his preference for the term 'artificial person'. Aside from that Burke fills the Ash/antagonist role in the second move.
quote: How could they possibly have known about the bond between the two? Writer's screwup?
If as Bishop-I says, the company knows everything that happens on board the ship then they would have a record of the conversation between Ripley and Bishop as they got off the dropship, along with (possibly) video footage of the battle with the Queen. If they also had recorders on the dropship itself then that might be enough to determine the bond between them.
quote: Anyone know exactly what he said when she started going for the furnace? His pleas? Would be interesting.
If I remember this correctly...
After Morse gets shot:- (to the trooper) Stop! It was a mistake, there was no need for any of it.
After Aaron gets gunned down:- Ripley, think of all we can learn from it. It's the chance of a lifetime! You must let me have it.
As the platform stops:- What are you doing?
As Ripley falls back:- Nooo!
He defiantly seams to have a personal stake in this, which is another tick in the human box.
That BTW is my favourite scene in the whole Alien saga, due in no small part to the scoring. A close second is the power loader/bitch moment in Aliens. Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I have one thing to note about Alien Ressurection. If you think the plot in Alien 3 was bad, just look at the excuse to bring back Ripley in Alien 4.
Because they wanted to recreate the Alien, they had to recreate Ripley. Doesn't that sound stupid?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Stupid was the alien hybrid getting sucked into space like it was made from tothpaste. It's body would have just plugged that little gap.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Tahna:"Because they wanted to recreate the Alien, they had to recreate Ripley. Doesn't that sound stupid?"
Exactly. A body-building father does not get muscular kids, so the DNA of a deceased, implanted woman shouldn't contain much viable DNA of the embryo since it is a later-stage addition.
Reverend: I highly doubt they had the time to extrapolate useful "Ripley-persuading"-info from the Sulaco after tracking it down but before finding Ripley.
Besides, how could they know she was impregnated when starting for Fury-161, I thought only she herself and the doctor knew that, and he died!? Who told them???
At the same time, I agree totally with absolutely everything you have said and-HEY!!! Point that toad somewhere else!!!
.. ... Didn't the movie explain the Sulaco's pod-jettisoning with a few drops of acid on the floor from the facehopper melting Ripley's pod-cover?
How did the book explain the Sulaco's motives for throwing out the pods?
Also, Reverend, have you read "The Anchorpoint Essays"? Actually, all of you should read it. You hear that, Mountain Man? Here's a link for you to read, for once! http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/3119/index.html Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
quote:I'm not sure but if you watch Aliens you might notice that Bishop isning in the waking up scene in they cryo-room and that IIRC he doesn't show up until the mess hall scene.
Yes he is. He walks by Apone along with everyone else, dressed in skivvies as they were. He was there, probably to better accent Ripley's justified hatred of androids. After all, they can be anywhere.
The bigger quesiton is how he got like he was by the next movie - they basically dumped him into a cryotube at the end, but by the end of the film he was in a plastic bag in a corner of the pod.
As for the elapsed time, I'm willing to bet that not THAT much time passed after A2. The Patna (name from the A3 novelisation) could have been searching for the Sulaco following the accident that ejected the pods, or could have been rushing out to meet her halfway... I was under the impression that they set the ship just to return to Earth, and were I a W-Y rep I'd not rely on a rogue like Ripley to take care of it all. Also, we don't REALLY know how fast the ships in thie universe go...
Regardless of the transit time, fifteen people in cryo still use less air, food and power than fifteen people walking around. Given the economically-minded Company and the apparent reliability of the cryonics process, I don't see why the travel time between Earth and Fury161 can't be a matter of days anyway... It *is* an older installation, and thus could easily be close enough to Earth to warrant the relatively quick arrival of the Patna.
Mark
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: Exactly. A body-building father does not get muscular kids, so the DNA of a deceased, implanted woman shouldn't contain much viable DNA of the embryo since it is a later-stage addition.
I think this has something to do with the Alien's gestation process. Presumably the embrio uses it's host's DNA as a template as it develops (hence the dog-alien and the humanoid-aliens), what ressuraction seams to imply is that the process goes both ways, a sort of genetic bleed if you will. Perhaps this is just an unintentional by-product of genome mitosis or it's a way for the creature to strengthen the host against illness or injury until it can fully grow. Either way it seams that when the doctor took blood samples of her after the crash they contained alien DNA, which is why the Auriga scientists had trouble seperating the two codes.
quote: I highly doubt they had the time to extrapolate useful "Ripley-persuading"-info from the Sulaco after tracking it down but before finding Ripley.
I'm pretty sure that Bishop said that everything that happens onboard the ship gets transmitted to the company, they didn't find the Sullaco first.
It actually just occured to me that the Patna could have been in the area anyways as backup for the Marines, after all Hicks said that a rescue team would come in 17 days. Since it apparantly took months to get from Gateway to Acheron that's pretty close and Fury-161 is going to be closer still so the quick arrival suddenly makes a little more sense.
quote: Besides, how could they know she was impregnated when starting for Fury-161, I thought only she herself and the doctor knew that, and he died!? Who told them???
They didn't initially, it's only after she scanned herself in the EEV that they found out. If you recall there was a message from WY confirming receipt of the scan and giving orders to ensure Ripley's safety...all other priorities rescinded I imagine. Oh and the Doctor didn't know, he was killed before the scan. If you remember it was '85' that opperated the console, so he was the only one to know until she told Dillon.
quote: At the same time, I agree totally with absolutely everything you have said and-HEY!!! Point that toad somewhere else!!!
Oh I'm sorry. Would you like an official brain-slug novelty hat?
quote: How did the book explain the Sulaco's motives for throwing out the pods?
Almost the same as in the film, acid burned through floor, caused electrical fire, computer ejected the tubes into EEV, EEV launched and headed for homebase, Sullaco continued to burn, fire caused a major explosion, (it's a warship remember, full of nukes, knives and sharp sticks!). The blast wave damaged the EEV, EEV makes an emergency course correction for the nearest beacon, nearest beacon happens to be that of 'Fiorina' Fury-161, EEV tried to make a safe landing, systems fail, crash, splash, oh dear.
quote: Also, Reverend, have you read "The Anchorpoint Essays"? Actually, all of you should read it.
I have not and cannot since that link is down temporarily.
quote: Yes he is. He walks by Apone along with everyone else, dressed in skivvies as they were. He was there, probably to better accent Ripley's justified hatred of androids. After all, they can be anywhere.
I stand corrected. They must have altered that in a later draft of the script. In the novel there's a scene with him on the Sullaco's bridge as they come into orbit.
quote: The bigger quesiton is how he got like he was by the next movie - they basically dumped him into a cryotube at the end, but by the end of the film he was in a plastic bag in a corner of the pod.
I'm pretty sure he was in a bag at the end of Aliens. Presumably he ended up in the corner because of the very rough splash-down, which also cost him an arm and half his face if I recall correctly.
quote: Also, we don't REALLY know how fast the ships in thie universe go...
There seams to be some confusion about this within the franchise since in the original novel of Alien, the Nostromo uses a hyperspace engine to travel between the stars (hence the ridiculously huge explosion) while in later films it's seams that the ship only travel in real space and at sublight speeds. However there is enough that has not been specified to allow the writers to make up what they want.
If you want to point out plot holes in Alien3 then you might as well pick the two big ones. How many facehuggers/eggs did the Queen bring up with her and how did she do that without anybody noticing?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
This was never much of a loophole for me. Consider the following:
-We DO see a dead, pale alien in A3's opening credits.
-The Queen's glunky transparent egg factory shows eggs at near-full size within. It's reasonable to assume that the eggs are created within the queen proper, and simply grow/mature in the warmth of the gooey goo. This would also help explain their different colouring and smaller size as shown in A3.
-The novelization and probably some versions of the script for Aliens suggest "worker" aliens whose job it is to take care of and move the eggs and stuff around for the immobile queen. Since we don't see any other types of aliens besides the queen and warrior constructs, it is a common supposition that the workers can look quite a bit like the warriors.
So, we have a source for the eggs, and a method for them to get to the cryotubes. The dead alien seen at the beginning could have been a worker, and could have taken eggs with it, or from the queen, on the way up. While Ripley was doing the catfight with the queen, the worker stayed put and guarded the eggs, and later placed them where it could infect the survivors. Following that, it died and got all white. Shortly thereafter, the eggs hatch and start huggin'.
Also, it never seemed to me that subsequent Alien films suggest there wasn't some sort of FTL drive in operation. Only in the DHP comics do they really conisder the trip to LV-426 would take months, as their subsequent indroduction of the "gravity drive" cut the trip down to mere days. Didn't stop 'em from using cryosleep though, for storage and transportation purposes.
Ta-dah!
Mark
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote: -We DO see a dead, pale alien in A3's opening credits.
We do? I've never noticed that before. *puts on DVD, scrutinised credit sequence*
I still don't see it. Can you be more specific? A time index? It's location on-screen?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I want proof of the dead alien in the A3 opening credits, all I saw was two eggs. Also, I thought aliens couldn't die from age. No one even knows how they eat, the dead colonizers were untouched.
Could it be brains? I am always disgusted and shocked by the way the dog-alien from A3 keeps penetrating and emptying the skull of that dead inmate, during The Chase.
Cruelest thing I've ever seen, short of the removed scenes from "Henry: Diary of a serial killer". My movie-class was invited to the swedish bureau of cinema, got to see their famed shockflick; 45 minutes of the worst edited scenes gathered since 1970. I almost threw up after the house invasion scene of "Henry".
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I no longer have the movie on VHS. But I remember a pan across an empty room on the Sulaco, and when it stops, there's a pasty-white alien on the screen. It's in profile, facing the direction the camera just panned from.
EDIT: Oh, wait. I musta been hallucinating when I saw this hanging from a rack saying "Sulaco". Someone please bop me on the head.
Still, my original supposition stands - there could have been another alien on the ship that came up with the queen. Or, the egg could be hanging in the dropship somehow. Or something like that.
Mark
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Somebody explain that thing with the cat, the box and the cyanide capsule again, I'm so confused.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: If you want to point out plot holes in Alien3 then you might as well pick the two big ones. How many facehuggers/eggs did the Queen bring up with her and how did she do that without anybody noticing?
The Queen we saw fighting Ripley was shot all to hell (she lost half her arms in the grenade's explosions) and was possibly a goner....the Queen probably lays the egg for the new Queen when she's dying (so there's not several Queens) to continue the hive.
The aliens from the first film were being transported somewhere and were not in their natural state (all the eggs were lined up in neat rows with a security laser thingie over them).
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
Not only is Bishop walking among those coming out of cryosleep, his name is also on the computer screen listing the sleep chambers being deactivated; his is the last name to appear before the scene changes. Makes you wonder why they put him on the ship in the first place if they're going to freeze him like the human crew.
As to whether the ships have FTL drive, I cracked out my DVDs of the first two movies and did some checking. From Lambert's dialogue, the LV-426 system is "just short of Zeta II Reticuli." Zeta Reticuli is a binary system 39.4 to 39.5 light years from earth. Since the dialogue indicates they were short of the system (on an inbound course), I used the larger figure for my calculations. Again from Lambert's dialogue, after taking off from the planet it would take the Nostromo ten months to get to earth, which computes to an average speed of 47.4 times lightspeed.
Moving on to Aliens, after the crew is defrosted you can hear two of the marines in the background talking. One asks about downtime, and another (Hicks, I think), says they just had three weeks on their backs. Three weeks to Zeta II Reticuli figures out to a speed of just under 685 times lightspeed. This makes sense when you figure Hick's later comment that it would take a rescue mission 17 days to arrive after they were declared overdue. It also implies that the original mission had something less than an emergency priority.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Warships tend to be faster than haulers regardless, I'd imagine. Plus, odds are they can develop faster ships in the 57 intervening years...
Mark
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well, IIRC, the only evidence we have of 57 years having passed is in Ripley's nightmare and then the Dead Daughter bit. Since the Dead Daughter was edited out originally, what's to say she hadn't just been asleep for, say, 10 years?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Burke breaks the news about the 57 years to Ripley while she's in the hospital about the elapsed time when he fiest shows up oin the theactrical version too. Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Exactly, and just after hearing "57 years, drifting past outer rim bla bla" she starts getting seizures and begs them to kill her, then wakes up at night. So it could've been part of the dream, it was never confirmed.
Posted by Brian Whisenhunt (Member # 1095) on :
quote:
Warships tend to be faster than haulers regardless, I'd imagine. Plus, odds are they can develop faster ships in the 57 intervening years...
Mark
Yes, just like the U.S. Navy lists the "OFFICIAL" top speed of a Nimitz class carrier as "35+" knots. The speculation is that they can EASILY hit 70 knots. The old Midway class could hit 54 burning oil.
There is also the possibility that the size of the system could affect the journey. My theory is you wouldn't just warp right into our solar system.... you would probably need to go at sublight speeds to prevent damage from system "clutter" such as asteroids and other planets if you will. You might be able to go to the next star in a few days, but when you get there you might need to do a couple of weeks to get into the system. Therefor if you are travelling to an inner planet, it would take that much longer than if the planet is alone in the system or farther out.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: Exactly, and just after hearing "57 years, drifting past outer rim bla bla" she starts getting seizures and begs them to kill her, then wakes up at night. So it could've been part of the dream, it was never confirmed.
It's pretty obvious that the Burke part of her dream really happened: She already knows him in the next scene, after all when she agrees to either A) go along with the mission to get her liscence back or B) testify before the board of inquiry. Depending on what version you watch.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Absolutely, just stating facts here. Technically it's not set in stone, but since they created the Daughter scene, of course their intentions are for the 57-figure to be true.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Did Ridley Scott really agree to re-insert the deleted scenes into "A L I E N: The Directors Cut"? The scenes that were deleted were deleted for a reason. I think that the movie will suffer if they are put back in. The tension of Ripley's escape from theNostromo will be lost if he re-inserts that scene with Brett and Dallas. And that other scene with Lambert and the Alien, makes the Alien look like he has bad joints. It was better the way they showed the Alien in the theatrical cut. The whole enterprise is just an excuse to get people to go back and see the movie in theaters.
As for "Alien 3", I really didn't like it all. There was no suspense or tension in the film, because how can you feel any sympathy for serial killers and serial rapists. The Alien in that film was doing a public service. As for Ripley, she was an emotional wreck and needed to be put out of her misery as well.
The less said about "Alien Resurrection" the better.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"The scenes that were deleted were deleted for a reason."
Not necessarily the Director's Reason. Hence, Director's Cut.
Mr. Scott knows what he does.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Or 'Scotty', to friends und family.
I agree, Ripley's escape through dark, strobing corridors, while hearing Lambert's death struggle (hyperventilating), that's one of the most unbearable scenes of movie history. That, Dallas' attack and forcing myself to stare at Ben Gardner's head. *slurp*
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: "The scenes that were deleted were deleted for a reason."
Not necessarily the Director's Reason. Hence, Director's Cut.
Mr. Scott knows what he does.
I wish I shared your faith. In my opinion, most of the Director's Cuts just don't work and the theatrical cut of the film is often superior. For example, Francis Ford Coppola's recent director's cut of Apocalypse Now,Apocalypse Now Redux. The scene with the Playboy bunnies was totally frivilous and did nothing to move the story along. The theft of Kilgore's surf board, and Kilgore's hunting of the boat to get it back, also started to make Kilgore look totally unrealistic.
The only Director's Cut that I thought that was superior to the theatrical cut was for Blade Runner. But director Scott revised the film so that it was shown as he originally intended. The voice over and the ending were additions that were demanded by the studio.
I've viewed the deleted scenes several times on the "A L I E N: 20th Anniversary Edition" DVD, and I really don't think that they add much to the film. Reinserting the Dallas/Brett scene will also cause continuity problems for James Cameron's "Aliens".
Posted by CaptainMike20X6 (Member # 709) on :
Mr. Scott has a reputation as a miracle worker though..
i think that any continuity problems would be a moot point, it would be enjoyable to watch a film thinking not of its affects on a franchise, but instead thinking of its quality as a stand-alone production (my Enterprise train of thought, at times)
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Re: Triton's post: Yes, but technically they're just saying "This is how we intended it to be from the beginning". Kind of like reading "History of Middle Earth" and in it Tolkien's original notes and plans for shaping his work.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Personally, I much prefer the original version of Blade Runner: I had to track down on old VHS copy to see it though. Lousy Directors Cut! THey could have just included BOTH versions on DVD, y'know!
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Well, they would, if the original version wasn't akin to Mr. Scott's detesticling at the hands of the suits.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's really something the viewers should decide though. Blade Runner's original version has been unavialable for quite some time now. In any format.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Triton: Reinserting the Dallas/Brett scene will also cause continuity problems for James Cameron's "Aliens".
Well, I suppose you could make the argument that, in an emergency, warrior xenomorphs are capable of creating eggs out of raw materials (people). Otherwise they would have no way of propogating the species if the Queen is killed.
In fact, maybe the warrior drones, in the absence of a Queen, instinctively create a Queen egg out of a poor hapless victim. In that way, everyone wins. Apart from the victim. And the reason that there were two people being converted is that it takes tow bodies worth of resources to create a Queen egg. Or perhaps they make a Queen, and a drone to protect it while it is an infant.
[ September 22, 2003, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Triton: Reinserting the Dallas/Brett scene will also cause continuity problems for James Cameron's "Aliens".
Well, I suppose you could make the argument that, in an emergency, warrior xenomorphs are capable of creating eggs out of raw materials (people). Otherwise they would have no way of propogating the species if the Queen is killed.
In fact, maybe the warrior drones, in the absence of a Queen, instinctively create a Queen egg out of a poor hapless victim. In that way, everyone wins. Apart from the victim. And the reason that there were two people being converted is that it takes tow bodies worth of resources to create a Queen egg. Or perhaps they make a Queen, and a drone to protect it while it is an infant.
Surprisingly this scene is referred to in the Alien3 novel. It supposes, as you do that an isolated drone/warrior can force a reproductive cycle by converting potential hosts into eggs. This of course would be a very limited way of maintaining a species since it basically halves their birthrate, at least until a Queen is born. The Aliens book also has what I presume is a reference to this encounter with the rudimentary nest. It's when the Marines first encounter the walls covered with the secretions, Ripley notes that she's seen something like this before, just knowhere near on that scale.
In regards to how Queens are created, the Aliens novel has some disscussion that draws comparisons with terrestrial bees. If I recall, it states that in a Bee hive it's the drones who decide to make a new Queen, not the Queen herself. Apparantly they do this by feeding a normal developing larva with a substance called "Royal Jelly". In the case of the Alien this would mean a worker would insert this substance (presumably a mix of growth hormones and/or specialised genetic material) into an egg which would in turn filter through to the facehugger, changing the makeup of the embryo within to eventually become a Queen.
This would make more sense than the Queen wilfully producing a "Queen-Egg" or the statistical occasionally proposed option of having one such egg randomly produced every so often. For one thing it offers the greater chance for survival of the hive if, so long as there is at least one egg and some hosts, there can a hive.
In regards to how long a single Alien can live, I'm heard Ridley Scott suppose that they are very short lived (as little as a few days) because of the rate that they grow and that there darkening colour is due to some form of brusing as the creature ages. Aliens have shown that they can of course live for at least a few months, although they might require reletively long periods of hibernation as evidenced by the behavior of the nest in ALIENS. They're certianly not immortal since there are no Xenomorphs in evidence onboard the deralict and we know that at least one was spawned there (though I shudder to think how formidable THAT particular incarnation would have been, given the size of it's host.) The eggs on the other hand are another matter since it's not clear if the spores seen in the deralict's hold are natuallry long lived (remember the body had been there long enough to be fossilised) or if the 'laser-mist' was responsible. The latter only makes sense if the ship was, as Ridley Scott has suggested, intentionally transporting the spores as bio-weapons. While that seams to be the accepted interpertation, it might be worth bearing in mind that in the original book Ash decode more of the message than is shown in the film. From that he supposes that the other aliens were noble explorers who picked up the eggs and (obviously) failed to realise how dangerous they were before it was to late, their final act being to force the ship down on an uninhabited planet and set up an automatic warning beacon to prevent the Xenomorphs from spreading. Either explanation is valid as I see it, although the evidence is stacked in favour of the former. I suppose you could say that Ash was intentionally misleading the crew since: -
1. They might not have been so eager to let Kane back inside if they knew that face-hugger was as good as un-exploded ordinance. 2. It's not like anyone else was really qualified to contradict his findings.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'd have to wonder why they'd purposefully set down somewhere if they were trying to keep people from finding the eggs. Couldn't they just, oh, fly into a sun?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I'd have to wonder why they'd purposefully set down somewhere if they were trying to keep people from finding the eggs. Couldn't they just, oh, fly into a sun?
The ship may have been slightly out of the pilot's control after the alien burst from it's chest.
Something I've always considered to be possible is that the Alien from the first film is some kind of "king" that secures the new hive for the Queen and eggs. It would explain the physical diffrences between the first Alien and the more ant-like versions of the second movie. (other than VFX limitations, that is) It's also concievable that the alien from the first movie would have developed into a Queen (much like some frogs and fish change sexes if there's no female around).
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
He had time to set the ship down and record a warning signal, at least IIRC. Does anyone remember, exactly? Was the alien problem only discovered after the ship set down?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The warning signal might have been activated on the pilot's lifesigns terminating. He was the only occupant of the ship after all. I wonder what happened to the Alien that got the pilot.... You'd think it would be pretty big. On the other hand, the derilect may have been there for hundreds of years (assuming the laser barrier thingie over the eggs kept them in stasis.)
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Doesn't it take longer than a few hundred years for organic matter to fossilize?
Also, I don't believe the Space Jockey was alone in there. If the team had had time to search the ship floor-by-floor, something more ought to have turned up.
What I don't get is why the team acted so blas� when finding the first sign ever of extraterrestial intelligence. They should've been a bit more happy and anxious, IMO. :-)
One really strange thing is that although the derelict ship sits in a very strange angle in the bedrock, the floors are levelled normally in the Space Jockey room and the egg chamber. So what the heck did this thing look like when it flew? Has there ever been an attempt at drawing it intact? Any sketches from HR Giger?
[ September 23, 2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Nim ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A company called Horizon made a model of the Derilict ship from the studio models and Geiger's designs. Kinda irregular horseshoe shaped and very organic.
Interesting stuff. I did wonder why the ship looked a little different in Aliens. Now if only there was a similar letter from Ridley Scott.
As for the shape of the derelict, there is a shot of the original artwork by HRG on which the ship's design is based in the Alien DVD. Basically those protrusions we see sticking out are the tail ends of a 'U' shaped vessel. From dialog in the novel those are theorised as being the engines.
Regarding the circumstances of the ship's infection and subsequent landing, I agree with Cameron. Sometimes it's best not to know. However it's not too hard the theorise a believable scenario, it's not like an intelligent audience needs to be spoon fed every conceivable plot-point.
quote: Doesn't it take longer than a few hundred years for organic matter to fossilize?
I'm not sure exactly, I think it depends on the chemistry involved. However I am slightly curious just what the organic material would be replaced by in the environment. Still the timescale doesn't really matter, it could have been there 1,000 years or 1,000,000. Either way the results are the same.
quote: Also, I don't believe the Space Jockey was alone in there. If the team had had time to search the ship floor-by-floor, something more ought to have turned up.
If it was as organic on the inside as it was on the outside then I don't believe it had 'floors' per-say, at least not in the naval sense. More likely just a set of interconnected chambers and passageways. Still the possibility of other crewmembers is there, however if that were the case then surely a hive would have been established. If that were so then I don't think the queen would have left all those eggs unattended.
quote: One really strange thing is that although the derelict ship sits in a very strange angle in the bedrock, the floors are levelled normally in the Space Jockey room and the egg chamber.
If the beacon and the 'stasis field' was still opperational then it's reasonable to assume that the artificial gravity still worked too.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:By the way, it's not in the goddamed cat and it's not in Newt, either. I would never be that cruel.
But. . . he separated Leo and Kate by killing one of them! Heartless bastard! All they had was each other. . . *sob*
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, if only a chestburster could have gotten them both...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
That page combines several magazine interviews with the writers, Ridley Scott and HR Giger, along with snippets from the DVD commentary plus bits from the novelization and other sources. It covers everything, except the parts they intentionally left unexplored and confusing. Mmm...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nice, Jase. When you compare the scale like this the ship doesn't look that big, suddenly. About 200 meters wide?
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Wow Nim, that IS the mother load!
quote:To connect things further, in the silo the Alien Life Cycle Hieroglyphics had been changed in terms of the appearance of the victim, which was at first an anonymous astronaut but soon Giger altered it to resemble a member of the Space Jockey's race, and this frieze was filmed but left out of the final film.
I wonder if that will make it in the Halloween show.. I don't recall it in the director's cut.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
At 200 meters across, that's be a lot of unseen space in the derilict. The egg-chamber thing could be in that seperate prong like structure towards the "aft". Or anywhere, really. Posted by Brian Whisenhunt (Member # 1095) on :
I believe Ripley speculated that the alien in #1 was making a nest possibly to make a queen. I also believe the #3 book had Ripley talking about a dream of being raped. Which explains why the queen wasn't in her chest, but abdomen. As for the alien ship, it reminds me of my airbrush crossed with a cinnamon role. I think its better that we didn't see it all at once.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
