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
reply
share