There is art that is intended to provoke or inspire. Art that is intended to make the audience react by thinking or feeling or moving beyond their current experiences of the world.
And then there is entertainment. An experience that allows the audience to escape from the world to the comfort of another for a time.
Yes, they may overlap and often do. But when they are mixed, they carry the burden of both.
Aliens3 fails as entertainment.
As a sequel, it is weighted down by the audience's expectations from the films before. These expectations are just as serious as a romance readers' expectations of a happy ending or a mystery readers' expectations that the crime will be solved.
One expectation set by Aliens and Aliens2 was that Ripley would prevail. While her matyrdom can fit this (and both subverts and fulfills the expectation), the crass execution of Newt and Hicks completely negates the success of the second film. It turns the second film into a defeat instead of a victory. It wipes out both Ripley's heroic arc and the arcs of Newt and Hicks, which were secondary plots of survival (Newt) and decency under fire (Hicks).
Having the Gods arbitrarily snatch away victory undercuts any agency that humanity might have. Ripley is no longer a hero. Her victory was negated through no fault or action of her own, and through nothing logical from the preceding story. As a result, she's reduced to a tool, to be used and thrown away by capricious directors who want to make a philosophical or religious point.
If Newt and Hicks needed to die (and I would argue that they do not at more length--Ripley's martyrdom does not require Newt's death, as a mother and crone often leaves behind their progeny), it needed to be a result of the story and within the story. Not a 30 second montage at the beginning that robs them or Ripley of any agency.
Aliens3 is artistic. It is not entertaining (and to be fair, I saw the theater cut). It completely obliterates the success of the previous movie for little value other than "let's subvert things to be different." In essence, it's drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa and proclaiming "look at me! I'm making a statement!"
Fine. Some people will enjoy that (looking directly at you, Dan). But some of us just want to spend some time escaping from our lives by enjoying something beautiful. Aliens3 ain't that.
While I obviously can't agree on whether it was entertaining (I found it terrifically entertaining in the theater, and found the Assembly Cut to be nothing short of miraculous), your reaction is both entirely legitimate and makes great reading.
Your crit about the loss of Newt and Hicks needing to be done either on screen, or the separation accomplished otherwise, is a really good one. Great food for thought, especially for storytellers!
At the very least, I believe we could raise a glass together and say "To hell with studio interference--let the storytellers tell their stories, and be content with reaping the profits!"
There is art that is intended to provoke or inspire. Art that is intended to make the audience react by thinking or feeling or moving beyond their current experiences of the world.
And then there is entertainment. An experience that allows the audience to escape from the world to the comfort of another for a time.
Yes, they may overlap and often do. But when they are mixed, they carry the burden of both.
Aliens3 fails as entertainment.
As a sequel, it is weighted down by the audience's expectations from the films before. These expectations are just as serious as a romance readers' expectations of a happy ending or a mystery readers' expectations that the crime will be solved.
One expectation set by Aliens and Aliens2 was that Ripley would prevail. While her matyrdom can fit this (and both subverts and fulfills the expectation), the crass execution of Newt and Hicks completely negates the success of the second film. It turns the second film into a defeat instead of a victory. It wipes out both Ripley's heroic arc and the arcs of Newt and Hicks, which were secondary plots of survival (Newt) and decency under fire (Hicks).
Having the Gods arbitrarily snatch away victory undercuts any agency that humanity might have. Ripley is no longer a hero. Her victory was negated through no fault or action of her own, and through nothing logical from the preceding story. As a result, she's reduced to a tool, to be used and thrown away by capricious directors who want to make a philosophical or religious point.
If Newt and Hicks needed to die (and I would argue that they do not at more length--Ripley's martyrdom does not require Newt's death, as a mother and crone often leaves behind their progeny), it needed to be a result of the story and within the story. Not a 30 second montage at the beginning that robs them or Ripley of any agency.
Aliens3 is artistic. It is not entertaining (and to be fair, I saw the theater cut). It completely obliterates the success of the previous movie for little value other than "let's subvert things to be different." In essence, it's drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa and proclaiming "look at me! I'm making a statement!"
Fine. Some people will enjoy that (looking directly at you, Dan). But some of us just want to spend some time escaping from our lives by enjoying something beautiful. Aliens3 ain't that.
While I obviously can't agree on whether it was entertaining (I found it terrifically entertaining in the theater, and found the Assembly Cut to be nothing short of miraculous), your reaction is both entirely legitimate and makes great reading.
Your crit about the loss of Newt and Hicks needing to be done either on screen, or the separation accomplished otherwise, is a really good one. Great food for thought, especially for storytellers!
At the very least, I believe we could raise a glass together and say "To hell with studio interference--let the storytellers tell their stories, and be content with reaping the profits!"