why kill of hicks and newt in alien 3

Have you read the alien earth war comics??? Sort of I different direction to alien3 in which hicks and newt survive and the the aliens overrun earth they're pretty good and a storyline similar would have better for alien 3 they definetly died 2 easily

They killed them off because it wasn't Ridley or James who directed the film, the screen writer wanted to take the franchise back to the survival horror with just Ripley like in the first movie and I think they couldn't Afford Hicks because he asked for too much money....the actor actually got paid loads just for using his picture at the beginning of the film when they explain that he was killed.

The intention, before Alien Resurrection, was for Alien 3 to be the final act of Ripleys story. The underlining theme to the story is the "inevitability of fate". Ripley faced this thing twice before and beat it twice before, thus her story of being a host leads her to sacrifice her life - had Newt and Hicks survived Ripley would have had reason to live and thus would not have made that sacrifice. Also how can you have the "perfect organism" that one single woman can easily, time and again defeat, hence the "inevitability of fate" theme.

They probably couldn't use the same actress for Newt as she would have grown up and changed considerably since Aliens. This would've been illogical as she was supposed to be in hyper sleep.

I agree I loved hicks is character!I felt sad for ripley when she was told her daughter was dead then she sorta got her back with newt!The cast for alien 3 actually sucked compared to aliens!The movie was oood loved the scene where they had the alien locked up then it gets out !which version u like better the one where the alien pregnates the dog or the dead steer?

The dog alien was cool. Alien 3 was about completing Ripleys Story. And the ultimate ending for any that come in contact with the aliens. Death. Hicks while i loved the character from aliens wouldnt have worked in alien 3 as it takes away from the only woman in a world of lonely men threat that was there. the orginal Triology was great. Resurrection was suppose to start a new triology. Resurrection / Insurrection / (forget the last title) (problem with movie 5 is Directors wanted it on earth / Weaver Refuses to do a movie on earth)

Ripley's character had to be stripped down to nothing. She had to have nothing to live for in order for her sacrifice in the end to work. After Hicks & Newt died Ripley is lost again, back to nothing but just nightmares of a horrible series of events.

@ deano - While I certainly don't view ALIEN 3 and ALIEN RESURRECTION with the same fondness that I do the first 2 instalments for various reasons, I find there's still enough in them to give them a re-watch every once in a while. Mainly due to some of the performances...and just because, y'know...they're 'kinda' ALIEN-related, albeit in a goofy way. But both movies went in a very different direction from what I'd really hoped for after ALIENS (and some of the great 'Dark Horse' stories)...so that like certain other fans, I can only really bear to look on them as merely 'nightmarish dreams' that Ripley suffers during her 'hypersleep' home! Lol. Which is why I've got plans afoot to hopefully get these movies 'fan-edited' with a few tweaks I came up with, so that I can re-watch them in a more 'acceptable' way - [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1O-ace_iPM]Your text to link here...[/url] However, as well as showing this notion in a manner that I'm really pleased with, a big part of the fun in wanting to see these projects produced sometime, is to totally re-edit certain scenes throughout them both to include my favourite shots (and remove certain ones) from each of their current versions. I still prefer the 'dog-burster' footage from the original ALIEN 3 for instance. And I'd certainly include the atmospheric shots of the grown version chomping on a victim as fire rages near it (sure wish that had been included in the first place). And BOTH versions of Ripley falling at the end were done in a certain 'stylistic' series of shots, but neither satisfies me. I have a combination from both in mind that I'd prefer to see. I've plenty of little re-arrangements worked out for my ideal version of RESURRECTION too, especially where tweaking the scenes of the 'Newborn' is involved. So we'll see how things turn out, and if they can be made available at some future time for anyone interested. I'll certainly let this forum know at some point, if so. Unfortunately, I feel that PROMETHEUS has ended up needing a nip and tuck here and there too, but I haven't got around to my own write-up about the movie yet. Sadly, I'm disappointed to say it'll be ending up in the 'Prometheus Reviews (Disliked)' section eventually! However, there seems to be some slight hints now that the 'Theatrical' version was possibly cut for time considerations amongst other things, so I hope any additional scenes on a future 'extended' cut may improve things slightly. Either way, there's certain stuff I'd prefer to see removed altogether... :(

I thought that Alien 3 lacked imagination and a sense of fairness to the characters and audience in killing off Newt and Hicks in the crash (if ONLY their escape pod, had braking thrusters like the ones on the Prometheus had (decades earlier :p ) Could have seen Ripley tear up a WY boardroom, while Hicks leads a well armed bughunt to LV 223. Who wouldnt' have liked THAT as the third installment? Instead we got an attempt to clone the first movie, and simply bury Hicks and Newt and imagine that Ripley can endure anything, no matter what's piled on her. I found that just too incredible for her character. Being strong in adversity is part of Ripleys character but surely after surviving the Nostromo, then hypersleep, during which the entire life of her daughter passes, and reluctantly going back to LV426 to a nightmare, and finding Newt and Hicks... it asks to much that she wouldn't simply crack up at the point where they die in a ridiculous plot device, and Ripley just sucks it up like some kind of comic book superhero. What was great about her character in the first too films is that she was realistic and didn't try to be Rambo in space.

@Hadley's Hope I disagree about her being "out of character" in this film. I think she was the most in character. She reached a peak. She had lost EVERYTHING. She was at rock bottom like the rest of the inmates there. She was a strong woman who had gone through the unthinkable two times over and now faces it one last time. She was never being rambo. She had fear, plenty of it. She also had her strength to persevere and fight against this horror once more. Once she found out she was pregnant with one she immediately tried to end her life, she knew the stakes. Even at the end you see SOME hesitation to die when Bishop's maker offers her a life. She wants that, she is human, but she knows better... her strength mixed with her desire to make sure this species is forever lost motivates her to shut the gate and jump into the furnace. I thought ALIEN and ALIEN 3 were Sigourney Weavers finest performances as Ripley. I loooooove ALIENS, but she was just an action hero there. Still a great, true to character, performance, just not as soulful as in ALIEN and ALIEN 3. I really liked how she developed throughout the series and I think SW did a phenomenal job crafting that development on screen. Minus Alien: R. of course... ugh. Horrible.

wasnt there a director change half way through alien 3 maybe thats why its a bit wrong

@trisg_2000 When he found out he had been killed off in Alien 3 he was unhappy, but got progressively more miffed when he found out the Alien was supposed to come from him. They offered him whatever amount of cash he wanted but refused. He let them use his picture under the same 'whatever you want' circumstances though, and was given what he earned through working in Aliens. But from what he said, i'm assuming his paycheck in Aliens wasn't large at all, so the photo cost helped even things out. Biehn isn't exactly a big-name actor (as much as I wish), so he isn't on the same pay grade as Sigourney was. It was never a matter of money to get him on, simply an artistic choice.

I have to admit I was very saddened by the death of Hicks and Newt (the point?), but I think you have to ask yourself where does the story go if they survive? You have Ripley, Hicks, and Newt (a nuclear-family now) facing survival on a planet full of violent male prisoners. I think Hick's motive now becomes "okay, how do I keep all theses guys from gang-raping my new wife and daughter?" So in every scene we have HIcks and Ripley and newt just terrified of everyone, forget the alien-STOP. Why did we bring them down here in the first place? Back up. Forget Fiorina161. Let's keep them on the ship. So where do we go from here? We either have to decide: 1. Is this a story about a new "Alien family," with Ripley, Hicks, and Newt? Now they all have to survive (a tall order). 2. Is at least Ripley going to survive again? (believability getting thinner with each movie). 3. Is this going to be another guns movie? Because once you have weapons (the Sulaco was strapped), the problem is sort of solved. Or at least the problem becomes less about the human aspect of alien. I think once you decide that the series should end (a different subject), the easiest way to do that is to kill Hicks and Newt right away. Keeping them alive a little while only makes their deaths more painful and distracts from the new characters. Besides, them dying plays right into the whole theme of Aliens (fear, death, loneliness, survival, etc.).

I think 3 gets a pretty bad rap. It's got a lot of disappointment and makes me feel like the entirety of everything done in the last movie was for nothing, but on it's own, I enjoy it. I like the cast, I like the setting, I like the look of everything and it's not that bad of a story. Considering all the garbage that went down behind the scenes, it turned out phenomenal. (the key word is considering there. Not phenomenal.) But did it have to end the way it did? I don't think so. You all say it couldn't have been any different, but the reasons you state are based on what that movie was ABOUT. It didn't need to be about that. Now, I personally don't have any better ideas, other than Ripley, Newt and Hicks taking on Weyland-Yutani and the Xenos in some fashion, but there's endless possibilities for where that story could've gone without killing the character that everything was done FOR in Aliens. It seems completely pointless for her to have risked her life multiple times for Newt and then she just drowns anyway.

Why they must always make trilogy? Look at Terminator 1 & 2 but T3 flop. Alien1 & 2, 3 flop. Some movies don't need sequel anymore.

The characters getting killed off helps the film to reach a darker story for the main character (Ripley). Alien 3: Most of the characters getting killed off, Ripley is questioning herself is it worth it to live or to die and how the story is becoming more darker building up to a conclusion at the end. Other Examples: Harry Potter: DH part I and II, Transformers: DotM Yes it sucks the characters die off but it leads into a darker story and questioning of what happens to the main character if everyone he/she knew was lost.

The script for alien 3 was rewritten countless times and was originally suppose to take place on earth. Watch the teaser trailer. It was super rushed and David finch did an awesome job with what he had to deal with. Basically cleaning up all the crap. That movie was a pre production mess. I still like it but the CGI ruins a lot of scenes.

1. Sigourney Weaver want more time on the screen.

2. She didn't want to share this time with anyone else.

3. She want story only about Ripley.

4. Producers want easy money.

5. Producers themselves do not know what they want (in story context).

6. Lack of a strong director.

7. Alien3 was a production hell.

8. Stupid writers - they nothing know about Alien universe and too lazy.

 

Well, it is not all reasons, but main. I must say that at that time Alien3 was adopted much worse than the Covenant at moment. This is not bad movie, but definitely worst Alien movie.

Thanks for a Spam Bumb!

I never commented on this, i totally agree with Gavins Assessment

The main REASON could simply be down to Time Past since Aliens, as in order to have Newt Alive they would have to Cast someone else to play Newt as Carrie Henn would have been about 15 when shooting Alien 3,  she would have been 6 years older and so they would have had to cast someone else to play the 9-10 year old Girl.

Sometimes this happens....  if we was to go for a Blomkamps Alien 5, Ret-con of Alien 3, then they simply could not have this movie be a direct sequel taken a matter of weeks or months latter due to the age of the cast at present.

The Alien Franchise could face similar again if Disney Decide to not make any Alien Prequels for say 15 years, and then they go to make a Alien Covenant Sequel....  then we have Fassbender who would have to play a Android who surely would not have aged 15-20 years since Prometheus....   But alas nowadays and in 15 years we could just do some CGI work and make Davids role less....

But if Special Effects was at the level it was in 1991, then obviously pulling of a David and making him look 15 years younger would be hard to achieve.... but then they could cast a different Actor... but its the case of is this the right thing to do with the Franchise?

And so i feel similar problems had arose with Alien 3, would it had been better to do any Look-a-likes to Newt?  That limits you back in 1991 to also finding a Actress who can do the role Justice too.

While on the Subject of Look-a-likes...  If a Blomkamp  30 years latter Ret-con was made and the Torch was to be passed to Newt, as a New Action Heroine...  i certainly know ONE Carrie Henn Look-a-like.