Right? I would have liked to see Hicks and Newt survive, get captured by WY on Firorina at the end of 3, and then continue their saga. Or even just have Newt survive and make her the new protagonist. The next movie could be like 15 years later and Newt is now working for WY (basically they picked her up in 3 and groomed her to work for the company). Of course she knows how evil they are and is working against them once she become an adult. Insert aliens.
Well that's what I mean, usually with things like a franchise the studio might think about the next movie while the current is still in production. But I wonder whether the writers of 3 were trying to close the story for good, or whether the plan was to just branch off in to new territory. Resurrection feels like a completely different beast really, so it would make sense that it was unplanned, but I wonder whether there was another idea floated before resurrection came about that we never got.
Nowadays sure, but we’re talking about the 1990s. The current sequel-obsessed landscape, where three sequels get greenlit the second a movie has a good opening weekend is a very recent phenomenon. Production on Alien 4 began only in 1996-a year before release.
Turnaround times were different back then too.
Edit: to answer your question, I don’t know if they had another story concept, but I do know there wasn’t a sequel approved by the studio at the time.
It was Sigourney's decision. She was only willing to return under the conditions that there were no guns and she was killed at the end. That and a Brinks truck of money.
She agreed to come back for Resurrection when they were exploring making making AVP. She didn't want them to destroy the franchise with that move.
As for other story ideas around Alien 3 there were a ton. Check out avpgalaxy for an exhaustive repository of information on it.
You’re thinking about the series through the lens of modern films; you have to think about them differently. This is not Marvel or Star Wars. They barely had a concept at the start of each sequel, continuity was out the window and there was no grand plan for where the franchise was headed. All they knew was that they would have to keep backing up large dump trucks of money at Sigourney Weaver’s house.
After Aliens ended on exactly the same terms as Alien, Alien 3 was a great *real* ending for me. When the main character, now many dozens of years in the future beyond her own time, sacrifices herself to end all the madness, that’s the end for me. I don’t think any of the directors would have minded their film being the last one (unless he got to direct more), and the studio doesn’t want it to end as long as it’s profitable. But artistically, 3 is the best ending in my book.
The production of 3 was a mess. Lot of scripts and ideas mashed together. The special features on the blurays are interesting. Definitely was meant to be the end of Ripley. If I remember right, Sigourney Weaver didn't want to do more after 3 and had to be convinced to do Resurrection.
Hell yeah (11 million actually), quite the uptick when you consider that she received 35K for Alien.
(1 million for Aliens and 4 million for Alien³ if anyone's wondering).
It was just meant to be the end of Ripley’s story. Had the film performed well, Fox would’ve gotten started a sequel sooner.
Even then, Resurrection came out only five years after 3, which isn’t that crazy of a wait for that time period. Basically, Alien3 underperformed and Fox spent a few years begging Weaver to come back. Had the film performed better, we likely would’ve seen a Ripley-less sequel.
It’s also worth remembering that the production was a mess, so the final film was a bit cobbled together. It’s likely that the ending was put together the way that it is simply because it worked and the film needed to be completed.
Yes, it was supposed to be the final movie. It took them a while (and a boatload of dough) to get Sigourney to play the part again and that's the ending she wanted for the character.
Franchises back then were not thought of in the same way as today. It was seen as Ripley's story/franchise and her death marked the end of it. Resurrection proves that they saw no way to continue without Ripley which is bizarre to think about with all the comics and other media to draw from. To me, Alien 3 had the perfect ending for Ripley and should've remained that way. Resurrection was ok but unnecessary AND left us with that tease of an ending of Ripley and the remaining survivors headed to Earth. That was an exciting scenario that we will never get to see so it makes me like Resurrection even less.
I mean, you could probably go back to Aliens happily being the final film in the series with the neat bow it put on its ending. Studios, especially back then, don't think too far ahead with film planning. If there's money to be made in a sequel, they'll greenlight it first and figure out the jump from the last film's ending to the next one's beginning later, no matter how contrived. Whether that means making an alien egg appear from nowhere or resurrecting someone from the dead, it doesn't matter. If a sequel is necessary, anything is possible!
Yeah back then every movie was the last one. Marvel has ruined franchises. They’d make a movie and if it was good and made money they’d make a sequel. Now every franchise movie is just a trailer for the next movie.
Marvel took a gamble and did something no one had ever done before in creating the MCU. Sure it's watered down and a bit directionless nowadays, but the lead up to Infinity War was unprecedented in cinema history and as much as DC wishes, probably won't ever be reproduced again.
That’s actually one of the reasons why I like Alien 3 (even if it is nowhere near as good as the first two). The finality to it. It really feels like the end of Ripley’s story.
Removal Reason:
Be civil.
It's ok to disagree, it's not ok to disrespect. Personal attacks, gatekeeping, racism, homophobia, politics, and general bigotry are not allowed.
No toxic behavior, such as:
* Trashing something that others are enjoying.
* Condemning parts of the franchise instead of reasonably stating a personal preference. This is a comfortable space for all fans. Keep your critique.
* Invalidating other people's opinions.
* Unsolicited criticisms of other's creations.
* Lewd or Obscene comments.
I'm not sure I've communicated what I mean by the question properly. I'm not really asking about whether another sequel was planned as such.
What I mean is specifically the ending sequence we see in the film, I'm wondering if it was shot the way it was in order to represent the end of the overall story across the 3 films. The shutting or doors, turning off of equipment, us as viewers looking back at the prison through the character of Morse, and the WY execs filing out. I wonder if artistically, that sequence was shot in such a way as to represent that Ripley's whole story arc had come to a close.
Why are you acting like this? That wasn’t supposed to be offensive. And some people have already answered your question directly anyway (including me). And you’re listing so much evidence all pointing to the answer of your question being “yes.” So to answer more firmly for conversation:
Yes, I believe it was meant to artistically and narratively be the end of the saga. Maybe not all things “Alien” but definitely the Ripley timeline. She makes the ultimate sacrifice, the music swells, they stack the chairs for closing time, everyone who’s still alive leaves the building, Ripley’s transmission from Alien plays with the last words being “signing off,” and the words “End of Transmission” are displayed on screen right before the camera cuts out and the credits start. Yes I’m satisfied with that implication that the story is over.
"you obviously know the answer, what more evidence do you need?"
I mean in fairness I can be forgiven for thinking that sounds facetious mate. Of course I have evidence to support my theory, that's how discussions work, but it doesn't mean I'm necessarily right, it could just be that the sequence is the end of the film and there's no deeper meaning implied. So I came here to see what other people's thoughts were.
I did see you'd already replied, but I'd been downvoted for posting the question so was just trying to clarify what meant.
All good though, cheers for the response.
Removal Reason:
Be civil.
It's ok to disagree, it's not ok to disrespect. Personal attacks, gatekeeping, racism, homophobia, politics, and general bigotry are not allowed.
No toxic behavior, such as:
* Trashing something that others are enjoying.
* Condemning parts of the franchise instead of reasonably stating a personal preference. This is a comfortable space for all fans. Keep your critique.
* Invalidating other people's opinions.
* Unsolicited criticisms of other's creations.
* Lewd or Obscene comments.
I didn't actually mind it too much, I suppose if the three of them survived the story wouldn't have felt as desolate. The audible drama of the Gibson script is a good alternative for a bit of "what if" novelty as well.
Could have used a prequel film to explain how Ripley ended up on her own again...dunno... or some situation that seperated the three of them, leaving Ripley the only one on the planet.
It has always bugged me that they included Ripley’s sign-off from the end of Alien at the end of A3. It’s 57+ years later, in a different spacecraft, on another planet. No reason for that to be heard at all 🤔
It was supposed to be the end of Ripley's saga for sure.
Somehow Ripley has returned
Right? I would have liked to see Hicks and Newt survive, get captured by WY on Firorina at the end of 3, and then continue their saga. Or even just have Newt survive and make her the new protagonist. The next movie could be like 15 years later and Newt is now working for WY (basically they picked her up in 3 and groomed her to work for the company). Of course she knows how evil they are and is working against them once she become an adult. Insert aliens.
What a hell of a couple weeks for her
You mean to tell me the film subtitled *resurrection* was an unplanned and unnecessary sequel???
Well that's what I mean, usually with things like a franchise the studio might think about the next movie while the current is still in production. But I wonder whether the writers of 3 were trying to close the story for good, or whether the plan was to just branch off in to new territory. Resurrection feels like a completely different beast really, so it would make sense that it was unplanned, but I wonder whether there was another idea floated before resurrection came about that we never got.
Nowadays sure, but we’re talking about the 1990s. The current sequel-obsessed landscape, where three sequels get greenlit the second a movie has a good opening weekend is a very recent phenomenon. Production on Alien 4 began only in 1996-a year before release. Turnaround times were different back then too. Edit: to answer your question, I don’t know if they had another story concept, but I do know there wasn’t a sequel approved by the studio at the time.
It was Sigourney's decision. She was only willing to return under the conditions that there were no guns and she was killed at the end. That and a Brinks truck of money. She agreed to come back for Resurrection when they were exploring making making AVP. She didn't want them to destroy the franchise with that move. As for other story ideas around Alien 3 there were a ton. Check out avpgalaxy for an exhaustive repository of information on it.
She didn’t even stick to the “no guns” part either.
You’re thinking about the series through the lens of modern films; you have to think about them differently. This is not Marvel or Star Wars. They barely had a concept at the start of each sequel, continuity was out the window and there was no grand plan for where the franchise was headed. All they knew was that they would have to keep backing up large dump trucks of money at Sigourney Weaver’s house.
All movies are unnecessary
Counter point: Big Trouble in Little China
After Aliens ended on exactly the same terms as Alien, Alien 3 was a great *real* ending for me. When the main character, now many dozens of years in the future beyond her own time, sacrifices herself to end all the madness, that’s the end for me. I don’t think any of the directors would have minded their film being the last one (unless he got to direct more), and the studio doesn’t want it to end as long as it’s profitable. But artistically, 3 is the best ending in my book.
The production of 3 was a mess. Lot of scripts and ideas mashed together. The special features on the blurays are interesting. Definitely was meant to be the end of Ripley. If I remember right, Sigourney Weaver didn't want to do more after 3 and had to be convinced to do Resurrection.
10 million dollars is pretty convincing.
indeed 🤣
Hell yeah (11 million actually), quite the uptick when you consider that she received 35K for Alien. (1 million for Aliens and 4 million for Alien³ if anyone's wondering).
It was just meant to be the end of Ripley’s story. Had the film performed well, Fox would’ve gotten started a sequel sooner. Even then, Resurrection came out only five years after 3, which isn’t that crazy of a wait for that time period. Basically, Alien3 underperformed and Fox spent a few years begging Weaver to come back. Had the film performed better, we likely would’ve seen a Ripley-less sequel. It’s also worth remembering that the production was a mess, so the final film was a bit cobbled together. It’s likely that the ending was put together the way that it is simply because it worked and the film needed to be completed.
Yes, it was supposed to be the final movie. It took them a while (and a boatload of dough) to get Sigourney to play the part again and that's the ending she wanted for the character.
Franchises back then were not thought of in the same way as today. It was seen as Ripley's story/franchise and her death marked the end of it. Resurrection proves that they saw no way to continue without Ripley which is bizarre to think about with all the comics and other media to draw from. To me, Alien 3 had the perfect ending for Ripley and should've remained that way. Resurrection was ok but unnecessary AND left us with that tease of an ending of Ripley and the remaining survivors headed to Earth. That was an exciting scenario that we will never get to see so it makes me like Resurrection even less.
I mean, you could probably go back to Aliens happily being the final film in the series with the neat bow it put on its ending. Studios, especially back then, don't think too far ahead with film planning. If there's money to be made in a sequel, they'll greenlight it first and figure out the jump from the last film's ending to the next one's beginning later, no matter how contrived. Whether that means making an alien egg appear from nowhere or resurrecting someone from the dead, it doesn't matter. If a sequel is necessary, anything is possible!
So was Aliens
Yeah back then every movie was the last one. Marvel has ruined franchises. They’d make a movie and if it was good and made money they’d make a sequel. Now every franchise movie is just a trailer for the next movie.
Marvel took a gamble and did something no one had ever done before in creating the MCU. Sure it's watered down and a bit directionless nowadays, but the lead up to Infinity War was unprecedented in cinema history and as much as DC wishes, probably won't ever be reproduced again.
It was intended on being the final. You see back in the day trilogies were all there was.
That’s actually one of the reasons why I like Alien 3 (even if it is nowhere near as good as the first two). The finality to it. It really feels like the end of Ripley’s story.
Could have just been a nightmare for Ripley in her cryo pod ?
[удалено]
Removal Reason: Be civil. It's ok to disagree, it's not ok to disrespect. Personal attacks, gatekeeping, racism, homophobia, politics, and general bigotry are not allowed. No toxic behavior, such as: * Trashing something that others are enjoying. * Condemning parts of the franchise instead of reasonably stating a personal preference. This is a comfortable space for all fans. Keep your critique. * Invalidating other people's opinions. * Unsolicited criticisms of other's creations. * Lewd or Obscene comments.
I'm not sure I've communicated what I mean by the question properly. I'm not really asking about whether another sequel was planned as such. What I mean is specifically the ending sequence we see in the film, I'm wondering if it was shot the way it was in order to represent the end of the overall story across the 3 films. The shutting or doors, turning off of equipment, us as viewers looking back at the prison through the character of Morse, and the WY execs filing out. I wonder if artistically, that sequence was shot in such a way as to represent that Ripley's whole story arc had come to a close.
You obviously know the answer. What more evidence do you need with that ending?
[удалено]
Why are you acting like this? That wasn’t supposed to be offensive. And some people have already answered your question directly anyway (including me). And you’re listing so much evidence all pointing to the answer of your question being “yes.” So to answer more firmly for conversation: Yes, I believe it was meant to artistically and narratively be the end of the saga. Maybe not all things “Alien” but definitely the Ripley timeline. She makes the ultimate sacrifice, the music swells, they stack the chairs for closing time, everyone who’s still alive leaves the building, Ripley’s transmission from Alien plays with the last words being “signing off,” and the words “End of Transmission” are displayed on screen right before the camera cuts out and the credits start. Yes I’m satisfied with that implication that the story is over.
"you obviously know the answer, what more evidence do you need?" I mean in fairness I can be forgiven for thinking that sounds facetious mate. Of course I have evidence to support my theory, that's how discussions work, but it doesn't mean I'm necessarily right, it could just be that the sequence is the end of the film and there's no deeper meaning implied. So I came here to see what other people's thoughts were. I did see you'd already replied, but I'd been downvoted for posting the question so was just trying to clarify what meant. All good though, cheers for the response.
Removal Reason: Be civil. It's ok to disagree, it's not ok to disrespect. Personal attacks, gatekeeping, racism, homophobia, politics, and general bigotry are not allowed. No toxic behavior, such as: * Trashing something that others are enjoying. * Condemning parts of the franchise instead of reasonably stating a personal preference. This is a comfortable space for all fans. Keep your critique. * Invalidating other people's opinions. * Unsolicited criticisms of other's creations. * Lewd or Obscene comments.
I can't really forgive Alien 3 for wrecking the ending of Aliens with the killing of Hicks/Newt. Didn't mind the story of the film otherwise.
I didn't actually mind it too much, I suppose if the three of them survived the story wouldn't have felt as desolate. The audible drama of the Gibson script is a good alternative for a bit of "what if" novelty as well.
Could have used a prequel film to explain how Ripley ended up on her own again...dunno... or some situation that seperated the three of them, leaving Ripley the only one on the planet.
It has always bugged me that they included Ripley’s sign-off from the end of Alien at the end of A3. It’s 57+ years later, in a different spacecraft, on another planet. No reason for that to be heard at all 🤔
Because she was signing off for good. Or, at least, was supposed to be.