MovieChat Forums > Alien³ (1992) Discussion > What's so bad about Hicks and Newt dying...

What's so bad about Hicks and Newt dying?

posted 9 years ago by tinoynk
43 replies | jump to latest

I get that people were invested in their characters in ALIENS, and I understand that for people who really cared about them having them offed so unceremoniously might seem a little cold, but at the end of the day, who cares?

For a series that is so dark and disturbing and full of such nihilistic cosmic horror, I feel like complaints about the little girl and the swashbuckling heroic guy getting killed are a little out of wack from what the actual tone of the series is. This isn't the Little Mermaid, it's about a species of rape monsters from space. If you can't take a dark disturbing twist, I don't really understand why you'd like this series to begin with.

It's one thing if you'd prefer them to have lived, that's fine, but the extent to which people cling to the idea that it was an irreconcilable sin is just baffling to me.

_____________________________________________________________

Live and learn. At least we lived.

[–] dalleer74 9 years ago

Hicks, Newt and the little core family thing they had going on with Ripley sure had alot of fans after Aliens.

I never had any trouble with the twist of them two getting killed like that in the beginning of the third movie. It was a surprising albeit depressing turn of events in the story which is bleak enough as it is, but then again so is life in many cases too. People die unexpectedly in terrible and completely unforeseeable accidents or terrorist strikes daily, so the thing that happened to Newt&Hicks just seems plausable enough in the whole dark and pessimistic Alien universe to begin with.

The videogames they've made after the third movie now apparently make it clear that Hicks survived, but I'm not sure about their worth to the official Alien canon at this point.

I'd much rather continue the way the movies made the thing revolve around and not try to come up with happier outcomes decades later just to please fans.

[–] TRinzler 9 years ago

It's not so much that they died but how and when...they were killed off for plot convenience...

However, someone pointed out that the actress who played Newt in Aliens (1986) had aged too much by the time the film was made (6 years later in 1992) so they'd have to recast her or come up with a plot reason for why she is much older...

[–] tngrecuts 9 years ago

the problem was that they died right away without even showing them. they should have been in the beginning of the movie and die during it.

Newt should have been the one infected with the Xenomorph, and her face mutilated by acid/facehugger scars which could help disguise her since she'd be played by a different actress.
Hicks would be brutally killed by the prisoners while trying to defend Newt from being raped. as the prisoners attempt to rape Newt *that's* when the chestburster emerges from her, kills the rapist leader and the rest of them run away in terror as the xenomorph runs off into the ventilation shaft.

Ripley was also being held by the prisoners (in turn to get raped too) and sees it all, and she's the only one left in the scene, crying over the dead body of Newt and Hicks.

it would be a much more powerful scene this way.

also later on in the film she'll have to "forgive" the prisoners who almost raped her and Newt, because she needs their help in fighting the Xenomorph.

this would add to the symbolism of Ripley as a Jesus-figure in the film.

[–] ck100 9 years ago

I get why people were so upset with the characters being killed off, but I also get why the decision was made to do so. I mean I can see both sides of the argument so to speak. So in the end I guess I have a "middle-of-the-road" feel toward having Newt and Hicks killed off.

[–] dalleer74 9 years ago

Bringing Hicks and Newt alive into the plot of Alien 3 would've certainly made the movie very different if they had continued with the prison setting. It is my understanding that this was not the plan if Newt and Hicks would've lived.

I feel that the movie would've taken alot more darker tones into it if Newt had been alive and especially inside a prison with such characters inside it. This scenario has been discussed to death several times before, but I just feel that it was better left unexplored.

It was a bold and brutal move to kill them off at the beginning, but at the same time to me it demonstrated a believable turn of events totally suiting the feel of the universe that the movies take place in. Although I'll agree that the alien egg inside the Sulaco seemed unbelievable and perhaps in itself represents an unlikely turn for the plot, but still that's something that was filmed and thus happened in the movie canonizing it in the Alien lore. We'll just have to deal with it.

I suppose alot of fanboys and girls would've liked Hicks, Newt and Ripley continue their fight as a trio against the company and the beasts themselves.

[–] tinoynk 9 years ago

Very well said.

Gotta love being agreed with.

_____________________________________________________________

Live and learn. At least we lived.

[–] washclothrepairman 8 years ago

It was a bold and brutal move to kill them off at the beginning

No, it was a stupid move. They were only killed off because they studio didn't want to pay Michael Beihn and Carrie Henn had aged too much. That is the only reason they were killed off, at the begining, off-screen. It's stupid and unbelievable and convenient. I could accept one of them being killed in such a way (though it would still be lame), but both is just dumb and poor writing.

Never trust a black man named "Chip." 

[–] wears-alan 8 years ago

No, it was a stupid move. They were only killed off because they studio didn't want to pay Michael Beihn and Carrie Henn had aged too much. That is the only reason they were killed off, at the begining, off-screen.

Utter Crap!I get that people dont like this movie, but when BS like this gets posted, it makes me laugh.
They paid Beihn more just to use that grainy image of him than his salary for Aliens, so the how do you come to the conclusion his omittance was about money? None of the scripts for Alien3 included Newt and Hicks being involved anyway. If they had then Carrie Henn being too old would have been a problem more because it took so many years to get the film made than anything else.

It's stupid and unbelievable and convenient.

You not liking it doesnt make it stupid. Unbelievable, really? Its unbelievable that people die when they are in a vehicle that crashes? Convenient? No more than elements of Aliens were convenient.

I could accept one of them being killed in such a way (though it would still be lame), but both is just dumb and poor writing.

Why would it be lame? Because you like the characters? Oh dear me, best not watch movies if you cant accept characters you like being killed off then. As for the writing, well if Sigourney Weaver felt bad about the writers killing those characters off, she could have used her sway to insist they were sent off in a different EEV, thus having them survive. Surely she had enough influence to insist on that, no?

It wasnt me, it was the other three. Hang them!

[–] washclothrepairman 8 years ago

You really don't know what you're talking about.

The fact is Alien3 is poorly written and full of glaring plot holes and all-too-convenient occurrences and stupid plot points.

Never trust a black man named "Chip." 

[–] wears-alan 8 years ago

I don't know what I'm talking about?
You're the numpty who said the only reason they killed off Hicks was because they didnt want to pay Michael Beihn. Total and utter crap!

It wasnt me, it was the other three. Hang them!

[–] saulsx 8 years ago

@wears-alan I realize your post is almost a year old now, but I felt compelled to respond cause you called bs on another post that was probably more accurate, & your info is wrong.

They paid Beihn more just to use that grainy image of him than his salary for Aliens, so the how do you come to the conclusion his ommittance was about money?

They paid him cause Biehn threatened to sue when he found out his likeness was going to be used without his permission. Not quite the same thing. I don't think he was ever approached about returning for the sequel, nor was Henn.

None of the scripts for Alien3 included Newt and Hicks being involved anyway. If they had then Carrie Henn being too old would have been a problem more because it took so many years to get the film made than anything else.

William Gibson's original script, the first out of something like 10 or 12 different scripts, featured Hicks as the main character. Newt was still alive but played a smaller role. Ripley survived but ended up in a coma. Some studio head insisted on having Ripley be the hero, so that script got sh*tcanned.

The issue of Carrie Henn having aged could've been easily solved by having had the character age (any number of ways to explain that), or by simply re-casting the actress.

As for the writing, well if Sigourney Weaver felt bad about the writers killing those characters off, she could have used her sway to insist they were sent off in a different EEV, thus having them survive. Surely she had enough influence to insist on that, no?

Well, she had sway enough to convince the producers to not have her shoot a gun cause she detested them & have Ripley killed off, both, of which, she wanted to do in Aliens.

Alien 3 1992 Review https://youtu.be/ZXQYsdaT1bk

[–] wears-alan 8 years ago

True he wasn't approached about returning for a sequel, but the PP's point about the reason being they didn't want to pay him is nonsense. As I said they paid him more to use that grainy image than his salary for Aliens.
The reason he threatened to sue them was over somebody telling him they were using a prop of his likeness that looked as if a chestburster had erupted from it. The studio then negotiated with him to use the grainy picture

[–] saulsx 8 years ago

True he wasn't approached about returning for a sequel, but the PP's point about the reason being they didn't want to pay him is nonsense. As I said they paid him more to use that grainy image than his salary for Aliens.

Yeah, sounds to me like we're basically making the same point but it's getting twisted somewhere.

Whether or not Biehn got paid more for that image than his salary for Aliens, the point still stands. They didn't approach him to reprise his role, they originally weren't going to pay him because he wasn't going to be in it, & when he found out (I believe from his agent) that they were killing off his character & using his likeness, he threatened to sue. Then they paid him. That is THE reason he got paid. A potential lawsuit. After it had already gone into production.

Hell, the main reason Aliens was given a "Go" in the first place was because Fox had already been sued by Giler, Hill, & Carroll, twice. It stalled for so long because Fox didn't want to spend the money, despite the success of Alien. Fox ended up getting sued again by Cameron, Hurd, Carroll, & Weaver over breach of contract (profit shares) after Aliens was released. Then there was the whole Giger thing with Alien 3 & Resurrection, where Fox basically tried to screw him over. I guess my point with all that, is that the idea of Fox not wanting to pay Biehn yet use his likeness anyway doesn't sound too far-fetched.

So, what about your claim that there was never a script that involved Hicks & Newt? The first writer that was hired wrote a script that featured Hicks. He was like the lead character, & Newt was still alive. Then there was the comic series that was released shortly after Aliens, where Hicks & Newt were both alive.

To address the OP's question, it bothered me quite a bit that Hicks & Newt were killed in the first couple of minutes, off-screen, but that was surprisingly one of the movie's lesser flaws. It kind of worked with the direction the movie went in, but that's about it. With all the fuss over Colonial Marines retconning the beginning of Alien 3, & the fuss over the possibility of Blomkamp's Alien movie possibly ignoring 3 & 4, Alien 3 practically retconned the events of Aliens. Not really, but it made Aliens rather pointless.

I'm not a big fan of Aliens, but that story (Ripley losing her daughter & finding a new family) was one of the things I liked most about it. That, the theme of motherhood (the queen Alien was a mother), & Ripley's character being fleshed out more & given a backstory. I also liked Bishop. But, Alien 3 erased all that & put Ripley in the same, exact situation she was in at the beginning of Aliens, with almost the same, exact tragic backstory. Why did Aliens even happen if the hero ultimately ended up in the same place, in the same situation, & her story didn't change?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCblhzhwdj1cKzh8s9xzVNtQ

[–] pufduff 9 years ago

We were all happy that Newt and Hicks survived Aliens, but they are better off dead. What did Newt have to look forward to, more aliens? Hicks would have shot himself if he encountered another Xenomorph in Alien3.
To answer your question, I think fans were happy for Ripley's character that, in Newt, she got the daughter that had been removed from her life, plus Hicks was a love interest the character deserved. It was like a perfect ending that Ripley winds up having Newt, it was a nice warm fuzzy feeling in a dark violent universe where happy endings are impossible (It defied gravity). I think that's why fans hate she dies in A3 so much. Newt meant SO much because she was a godsend for Ripley when all that she had was despair and survivor's guilt.

[–] DwaynePipes35 9 years ago

^^this^^

(BTB) " F11cking northern monkeys"

[–] akuma634 9 years ago

It sucked because Aliens built up these awesome characters. Then in the 3rd movie, oh everyone you liked is now dead. Now here's a prison planet full of rapists and murderers, enjoy! It's not a good thing to do. In comparison read Dark Horse Comics sequels, like Aliens Book One, where it's the sequel that blows away Alien 3 in every single aspect. It's the real sequel, and they ran dozens of stories with this continuity that focused on an older Hicks and Newt.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] samhmd-7489 9 years ago

It sucked because Aliens built up these awesome characters.

Newt and Hicks weren't very developed in Aliens, at all. Hicks was just a living gun prop and Newt was more or less just a plot device.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] irishtom99 9 years ago

the hero giving his life to save the boys at the end of "them" was noble..the hero being killed at the end of "night of the living dead" was both ironic and made a statement about blacks being killed by white cops..the deaths of the girl and soldier at the BEGINNING of alien 3 seemed like the filmmakers were
disassociating themselves from Cameron's film.
your point about the pessimistic,tragic feel of the trilogy is valid,and no apology should be made for killing off beloved characters..as the daily news reminds us ,that happens every day..but if I was a film maker,i would be terrified of your rhetorical question--"at the end of the day,who cares?".
if there is one thing i WOULD want my audience to do..is care..
I hear billy bob thornton is up for the lead in the new film BAD ALIEN..

[–] Picnic10 9 years ago

Alien3, despite the appallingly unintentionally funny sight of Brian Glover being hoisted through a ceiling panel, predictably after a camera shot from below and on cue after an overlong Norris from Coronation Street-style speech, has sufficient numbers of people defending it mostly on the grounds of some of it looking like a good industrial metal music video and being the most like Scott's peerless original . I was once of those defenders but I now see that cramming your movie with every class warrior actor who went to RADA or suchlike does not necessarily make a great Alien movie. But I'm also not a huge fan of Aliens as an Alien movie -if that movie is about surrogate motherhood for Ripley (like the icky, and therefore in a perverse way successful, Resurrection) then, in Alien3 ,she briefly becomes an actual mother. So they might have thought that Newt didn't fit yet I can imagine that a Newt approaching 16 would have been totally IDEAL with more imagination as someone for Ripley to try to protect from a group of sex offenders. Better than the hopelessly underused fact that Weaver is the only woman in that prison (whose design is mostly relatively uninspiring. We could have had imposing Brutalist architecture in this film instead of the serviced office and bargain bin council incinerator that we got). No, I would have once agreed with you that Newt's death gives this film a kind of 'Nietzschian' horror but they gloss over the poor girl's rather routine mode of demise quickly anyway and the rest of the film lacks any human twist at all. Nice music and well lit tunnels can't hide that this had the potential to be so much more than the utterly foreseeable fact of semi repentant prisoners dying anyway.

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 9 years ago

Because it makes everything that Ripley went through at the end of the second film completely pointless.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

[–] Tsavo 9 years ago

Only it didn't, it fed into the tragedy and haunted feeling Ripley had taken on. As Ward stated, if Alien was about the rookie, and Aliens was about the veteran, Alien 3 was about the older Ripley looking back on her life and what had happened, mourning.

"Aw Crap!" - Hellboy