So for me Alien is the superior in the series which I think most people will agree with either that, or they'll say Aliens is their favorite. But i think Alien³ isn't terrible. In fact, i think i may like it more than Aliens. I don't understand all the hate other than the movie most likely could have been better if not for all the shenanigans behind the scenes and if so many rewrites didn't happen. I'm down to hear what other folks think, but i'm pretty sure i'm a minority for giving so much love for Alien³.

I was thinking of buying the Assembly Cut. Are the plus 20 minutes worth it? Does it make the film better? And is there more screen time for the legendary Pete Postelthwaite (i know he has a super minor role in this. Im just being hopeful)?

I appreciate the feedback, amigo. Thank you.

Another fan of Alien 3, thought we were a dying breed lol. The assembly cut is even better and feels more like a finished film. But yeah, the biggest complaints were that Newt & Hicks died and the prisoners looked the same. It's something most always forget Bishop survived the crash.

It's a film that got screwed over by the executive. It's story meanders a bit, and so on. The assembly cut is a bit better, but the film still isn't great.

It's primarily hated because the beloved Hicks and Newt are killed off. I've always really enjoyed the film. I like the setting and atmosphere and the character types.

The assembly cut is definitely better yes. I can't recall exactly but I think there is a bit more of Postelthwaite yes.

Alien and Aliens are in my top 10 of all time but Alien 3 is enjoyable and good in its own right. I also even like Resurrection but not as much.

It's primarily hated because the beloved Hicks and Newt are killed off.

This is an easy reason to hate it, and sure that part could've been written in many different ways (allowing them to survive) but the way it was written was the way it was made to be, right? I actually think that killing off these likeable--Heck--loveable characters adds to the atmosphere you mention. Alien3 has a very interesting convergence of philosophies since Ripley is suddenly stuck in a prison with supposedly some of the worst scum in space turned good or trying to become better people. And as soon as the alien comes into play they become the victims and need to team together in order to kill it. Also, something about how Ripley sacrifices herself that elevates this film too. She is exhausted and sick of fighting this thing, and it's probably the most heroic action she does in the entire series.

This is not the reason people think it's the weakest. Not by a mile, and I really don't understand how or who fabricated it as a reason. The only reason I've heard dumber than this is that the cast was British. Well, it failed in the UK, too.

The film changed hands creatively several times before Fincher even got there, who was only known from music videos at the time. Part of the reason he was selected is as a first project he would be likely to follow studio directives. Fincher later all but disowned the film, saying it had been heavily changed in editing - but even if we got Fincher's cut, which the Assembly Cut is not, it would still be a heavily flawed film.

I don't understand the sentimentality of judging a film by its final cut. I judge it by what what went into it. Intention is everything to me, and it was intended to be more or less exactly what we got: a sequel's sequel. There were people in pre-production who wanted it to be a floating sphere-city filled with monks who had shunned technology and lived a medieval lifestyle. There were people who wanted to avoid more dark corridors and jump scares at all costs. There were ideas to have Ripley feel real shame and be in a very dark place emotionally because she would perceive the deaths of the marines and colonists in Aliens as her fault, and she would find redemption in this monastic environment.

We didn't get that, 'cos Brandywine and Fox wanted a live-action Doom level set in a penal colony. Then the writers tried to fit in all the elements not removed by the studio and you get complete tonal disparity and a dozen characters you can never really tell apart and certainly can't come to sympathize with.

It doesn't help that the CGI was third-rate even at the time, and it looks just as bad today. Jurassic Park's mix of CGI and practical effects still looks fine 25 years later, and that was a contemporary film, so there's no excuse there.

Corporal Hicks doesn't appear because Michael Biehn tried to negotiate a higher salary. Fox wrote him off. Biehn still kicks himself today for not taking the paycheck.

As for Ripley's death, as heroic as it may seem, the reason it's there is Weaver had it inserted into her contract at the outset. Her appearing in another Alien film was predicated on the creators killing her character off.

So I don't care about the finished project, which is merely forgettable. It's a cynical cash grab that was gutted at every turn to sell tickets and toys more safely. No risk, no reward.

This is not the reason people think it's the weakest. Not by a mile, and I really don't understand how or who fabricated it as a reason. The only reason I've heard dumber than this is that the cast was British. Well, it failed in the UK, too.

Well, I don't think it's a dumb reason at all. Two, actually three, well respected and lovable characters died, AND their deaths happened off-screen, so yeah I get that. But that doesn't have to be the only reason. It could even be the weakest reason but it's not dumb.

The film changed hands creatively several times before Fincher even got there, who was only known from music videos at the time. Part of the reason he was selected is as a first project he would be likely to follow studio directives. Fincher later all but disowned the film, saying it had been heavily changed in editing - but even if we got Fincher's cut, which the Assembly Cut is not, it would still be a heavily flawed film.

I understood all of this already. Sure, the film could have been better but it isn't terrible because of what happened and what could have been.

tonal disparity and a dozen characters you can never really tell apart and certainly can't come to sympathize with.

Tonal disparity? Can you elaborate? So a movie is awful to you if you can't tell characters apart? Have you heard of 'cross-race effect'? That maybe happening to you. I'll agree you don't sympathize for any of the characters in this one but I don't think the point is to sympathize. This isn't a sad movie. It's an action-thriller that takes nihilism head on. And THAT is what also justifies a written off-screen death for Hicks and Newt and Bishop. Their deaths set the tone for the entire film. SO that big "EFF YOU" people were feeling was kinda meant to be that way. They were suppose to think, "Oh *beep* Ripley went through all that hell in the previous movie just do have them be dead anyway... great." It's a *beep* feeling but that's the way those who made the movie ended up going with. Those rapist-murdering British guys who you can't tell apart that end up getting killed add to the nihilism. You don't sympathize with them because maybe their lives really don't matter.

It doesn't help that the CGI was third-rate even at the time, and it looks just as bad today. Jurassic Park's mix of CGI and practical effects still looks fine 25 years later, and that was a contemporary film, so there's no excuse the

Not that awards mean anything, but wasn't this nominated for Best Visual Effects that year? I don't think they're that bad. To each his own, I suppose. It's not that different from the first two films in this regard, is it?

Corporal Hicks doesn't appear because Michael Biehn tried to negotiate a higher salary. Fox wrote him off. Biehn still kicks himself today for not taking the paycheck.

This is fine, but I think it was justified with the nihilistic perspective.

As for Ripley's death, as heroic as it may seem, the reason it's there is Weaver had it inserted into her contract at the outset. Her appearing in another Alien film was predicated on the creators killing her character off.

So that makes her death less heroic?

So I don't care about the finished project, which is merely forgettable. It's a cynical cash grab that was gutted at every turn to sell tickets and toys more safely. No risk, no reward.

It seems like you don't care because it's a cash-grab and because things were in a shambles behind scenes, not because the movie is all that terrible. You are allowed not to like it. I'm not trashing you for that. I just don't see much in those reasons you've listed so far. Thanks for posting, hombre

Different strokes. If I like a film, but I find out it was good on accident (for example, finding out there was no artistic integrity behind having Ripley die), it's not as good to me anymore. But it works both ways, sometimes a film succeeds despite great production difficulty, and that inflates my opinion of it; I'll like it more, because now it's something special.

At no point in this process do I forget how I felt about the film itself on a blind viewing. Alien 3 is not a good film, but it is only middling-bad. The question you asked us was, why is it hated? It's hated (even though honest evaluations are it's middling) for all the reasons I stated.

It plays a part, at least for me.

Yes we shall agree to disagree. It's all good. I know what i asked you and your answers definitely have helped me gain some insightas to why people may fislike it so it's appreciated!

It's actually my favorite of the franchise.

I love the atmosphere. And I love that it tackles pretty unique themes.
Especially the first half more or less up until the "Burial by Fire" scene.

I love the atmosphere. And I love that it tackles pretty unique themes.

Same here. What's your favorite part of the film?

Alien is amongst my top 30 films.

Alien 3 is amongst my top 180 films.

Aliens is not.

Alien is a sci-fi thriller masterpiece, featuring one of my all time favourite characters of cinema in Parker.

Aliens is a generic, hard bodied heroes, machismo filled shoot 'em up. It lacks depth. It is not complex. It's just a film about gung-ho marines boasting about how they are going to slaughter some more xenomorphs, then cowering and making an idiot of themselves when they fail. It is the most reminiscent of a B movie of the first three Alien films.

Alien 3 is a good film. Better characters, more atmospherically brilliant, tense, revitalising the slow, suspenseful thriller element of the first film. The cast is much more sophisticated than the cast of Aliens, and it features not one but two of the greatest single film characters of the franchise in Dillon and Morse. It has a dystopian clan or cult-like dynamic too, which I think is very cool.

I think to be honest, there is simply an abundance of people who prefer shallow, generic, hard bodied hero and machismo filled shoot 'em ups to a slower, more sophisticated, suspenseful film with actual layers and depth.

Aliens is a generic, hard bodied heroes, machismo filled shoot 'em up. It lacks depth. It is not complex.

There's no action in the film until an hour into the run-time. Before that Cameron takes his time developing Ripley's dilemma and her chemistry with the supporting cast.

Even if the marines appear macho at first, they are quickly disproven once the aliens destroy them. This acts as Cameron's allegory for Vietnam. There's also the themes of motherhood (Ripley/Newt and Queen Alien/hive) and technophobia (Ripley's distrust of Bishop after dealing with Ash) and you'll see that Aliens is quite a bit more complex than your usual sci-fi action movie.

I don't even think you've seen Aliens. Alien 3 sucks.

Alien 3 is a good film. Better characters, more atmospherically brilliant, tense, revitalising the slow, suspenseful thriller element of the first film. The cast is much more sophisticated than the cast of Aliens, and it features not one but two of the greatest single film characters of the franchise in Dillon and Morse. It has a dystopian clan or cult-like dynamic too, which I think is very cool.

I agree with you. I'd even say Clemens is a pretty great character too.

Aliens is definitely more of an action flick. Maybe some good characters? I do like Bishop quite a bit.

I don't hate Alien 3, but I don't like it as much as the first two for the following reasons:

- writing out Hicks and Newt off-screen. I don't have a problem with the writers killing them off; it's the lazy manner in doing it. There's no way the Queen from Aliens put a couple eggs there without her ovipositor and given how paranoid Ripley was about reliving her past experiences, you don't think she'd do a thorough scan?

- weak supporting characters. Relating to my previous point, if you're going to write out two of the surviving main characters from the previous film, come up with equally compelling characters in their place. Alien 3's supporting cast features many talented actors, but most of them are wasted as a.) they all look alike, so it's hard to tell them apart and b.) they're all violent criminals who act as mindless fodder for the monster. Charles Dance and Charles S. Dutton are good, but even they aren't given much to work with (Dance is even written out too early).

- the sequence in the tunnels. The big fight against the creature involves trapping it through the tunnels, but the whole thing is confusing because you can't tell which character is who and the weird camera angles make it more chaotic than thrilling.

As to which version is better, the theatrical or Assembly? I personally go with the Theatrical since it's better paced. The Assembly makes the film longer, but you might like the new additional material, so it's really a personal preference.

The Assembly Edition is better by a significant margin.

A lot of it comes from that it wasn't the continuation of the story that fans were looking for. Personally, I was sad that after all the battles and wonder from Aliens, they all just died in an accident while they were sleeping and Ripley was forced to join a depressing prison colony. The fact that Newt and Hicks just died like that after all they went through was a huge middle finger to fans.

Looking back, it's mostly just boring and suffers from extreme rewrite syndrome. It's very obvious that this film went all over the place either mid shoot or in the editing room. The Assembly cut is much, much better and makes things way more clearer.

1. The movie fails to create any tension or suspense whatsoever
2. Almost every character is annoying and unlikeable
3. The cgi alien is terrible looking
4. Poor acting
5. The story is a bore
6. Bad directing (a handful of scenes are unintentionally funny) and inconsistant cinematography (some parts look good and other parts look generic).

The best thing about the movie is Charles Dance and his death scene is the one part that actually feels like Fincher directed it. It is a great scene.

Assembly cut is bad too imo.

I hated because of it killing Hicks and Newt in an manner that makes the sense of relief after all the tension in Aliens obselete. Aliens is among my favourite films. I saw Alien 3 a few days after I saw and loved Aliens for the first time it seriously pissed me off. Rated it a 2/10.

I am curious to re-watch it now though and judge it as a separate entity that isn't a sequel to Aliens.

Its incredibly misleading teaser that promised Aliens on Earth didn't help win any hearts also I guess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk_x9W1xKng

Alien 3 is the biggest mistake in movie history because it followed 2 masterpiece movies with a steaming turd. The entire premise is fundamentally flawed since anyone who saw AlienS knows there is no way to explain how the egg that killed Newt could have magically teleported onto the Sulaco. Therefore, the movie begins by ruining AlienS with an impossible scenerio. Garbage movie on every level should have never been released.

I agree with you on Alien 3, though the original is far and away the best in the franchise for me.

IMO the Assembly Cut trumps the theatrical for A3. I can't recall if Pete has more screen time, but there is generally more character development and screen time for most of them, so possibly.

The entire opening sequence is also different in the Assembly and I vastly prefer it. For me it's the 2nd best in the series, while the Cameron film is the outlier (blockbuster action as opposed to horror )

In my opinion it's just somewhat boring with a very dull looking location and no real sense of direction. I don't hate the film but I don't think it's good either. Resurrection definitely was a step up.

Aliens 3 is great, 8/10

No idea what the assembly cut looks like, sorry.