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.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Because it was a cheap shot and smacked of lazy writing. Really, how convenient that Hicks and Newt die (and Bishop beyond repair), but with Ripley having nary a broken bone in her body.

A pretty unimaginative way of furthering the Ripley character and bringing her back into the midst of the Alien.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Tsavo 9 years ago

We live in a world where a tornado can pick up a babys crib, with the baby still inside, and set it back down some distance away without any harm to the baby at all, while destroying and killing a great many in the process. One person managing to survive an accident hardly smack of lazy writing, nor a "cheap shot", especially in a horror franchise.

"Aw Crap!" - Hellboy

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Yes, the one person who just happens to be the main character and has managed to survive the alien countless times in two previous films. What's even more lazy is how they just happened to be passing by a prison planet when the ship caught fire, and don't even get me started on the egg on the Sulaco plot hole.

Anyway, it wouldn't have been so bad if they hadn't decided to kill off all of the interesting characters in the first 30 min, including Clemens, and only leave interchangeable, bald Englishmen.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] lrdcharlton 9 years ago

I absolutely agree with you, everything that occurs in the beginning was just a little too convenient. The egg just happening to be there. Riley being the one that gets implanted and coincidently survives. Everything leading up reminds me of Halloween resurrection, just not as bad.

[–] DwaynePipes35 8 years ago

Surprised you ain't said you knew they were going to die at the beginning 😉

" No, we are not relations, sir"

[–] lrdcharlton 8 years ago

Now your stalking me, get a life you pathetic poofter.

[–] DwaynePipes35 8 years ago

😄Not stalking just "conveniently" bumped into each other😄

" No, we are not relations, sir"

[–] wears-alan 8 years ago

I absolutely agree with you, everything that occurs in the beginning was just a little too convenient.

Convenient? Whats convenient?

The egg just happening to be there.

Thats not convenient...its a plot hole.

Riley being the one that gets implanted and coincidently survives.

Riley? Ok Im assuming you mean Ripley. But lets say Sigourney refused to do this movie so they had her character killed and Hicks survived and was the one who was implanted, wouldnt that also be convenient? You see, no matter who survived it would have been deemed convenient, no?

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

[–] Filimon 8 years ago

I Think that move to kill them off right away was cheap. + the egg in the cryochamber was stupid.
It feels like they try to cheat us with moves like that. You dont squash all the things people loved about the previous Movie. If Aliens had been a universally hated flop of a Movie...fine just pretend it dont exist and press restart. But Aliens was very popular. The potential for the sequel was endless...thats so frustrating to me and a lot of others.

Im game for the dark scary atmosphere. But those elements could have been there even with Hicks and Bishop in the story. Maybe kill Hicks later in the Movie...making his Death have some impact.

[–] wears-alan 8 years ago

Don't agree at all.
The trouble is, some people were never going to like Alien 3. Cameron made such a good sequel that it didn't really matter which direction another director took, it was never going to live up to Cameron's movie in some people's minds. The only person who could have made an acceptable sequel to Aliens in their minds would have been Cameron himself.

You're old enough to kill, but not for voting....

[–] Filimon 8 years ago

Maybe...maybe not. Alien 3 was like the ultimate buzzkiller thou. By 1992 seems like they had forgotten what made the originals great. They were coherent and had an internal logic. Alien 3 is more of a compromize...it does not really deliver on anything. Not scary, not mysterious, very dark but for the wrong reasons.

[–] wears-alan 8 years ago

I think it tries to be more like the original. It isn't a bad movie, it just isn't great.
I personally like it, but understand why others may not.

You're old enough to kill, but not for voting....

[–] liquidraven 8 years ago

I see where they tried to make it like Scott's original, but I feel like they missed what actually made Alien great in the first place. Alien had interesting and well written characters and it was very impactful when they were killed.

Alien 3 had about three interesting characters and they're mostly wiped out right when they start to develop. After that they're mostly all the same and their deaths have no impact. The climax itself is a mess, where half of the cast just kind of vanish between shots of badly filmed Alien POV and blood splatter (rinse and repeat). The film's plot itself relies on a plothole on the Sulaco.

Hicks and Newt being killed off in the first five minutes just feels like a cheap way to A. Center the series on Ripley again, and B. make the film dark without much effort. I have no problem with depressing aspects in film, but the creators of Alien 3 seemed intent on making every single bit of it depressing with zero positive outlook. By the end, even through Ripley's ultimate sacrifice, I don't feel like there's been any kind of triumph. No positive outlook for anyone.

Deep down too I feel like someone at Fox must've hated Aliens and wanted to completely wipe it away.

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

Main characters deserve a proper death. RIPLEY's death was filmed like a glorious moment. HICKS & NEWT weren't the protagonists like her, but they deserved better than to die in a montage that only kind of shows them dying. It also sucks when main characters die off-screen during a sequel or when a sequel reveals that they died between movies.

It wouldn't have bothered me that much if they had been replaced with someone better, but most of the new characters are pretty much interchangeable.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

Totally agree, Aliens was just a pop corn movie and the true odd man out in this series. Newt and Hicks dying just emphasizes how this monster not only has taken over Ripley's life, it will destroy everything she holds dear.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Picnic10 8 years ago

Going back to the original post, it's a shame keyboard warriors would lash Ridley Scott if he called it 'Prometheus 2 - Rape Monsters from Space'

[–] residentevil6901 8 years ago

I care, killing them off so easily made what happened in Aliens meaningless. I'm happy they're finally fixing that mistake with Blomkamp's new movie.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]