James Cameron Calls Killing Off Newt, Hicks, and Bishop in ALIEN 3 the “Stupidest F*cking Thing”
One of the worst creative decisions in the Alien franchise was killing off Newt, Hicks, and Bishop at the beginning of Alien 3. It was a terrible way to follow up Aliens, and director James Cameron agrees. In fact, he had some pretty harsh words for the people responsible.
During a recent appearance on Michael Biehn’s podcast, Cameron shared his thoughts on David Fincher’s 1992 sequel, particularly the decision to immediately get rid of the characters audiences had grown attached to in his film.
Cameron said: “I thought that was the stupidest f-cking thing. You build a lot of goodwill around the characters of Hicks and Newt and Bishop. And then the first thing they do in the next film is kill them all off, right? Really smart, guys. And replace them with a bunch of f-cking convicts that you hate and want to see die. Really clever.”
I couldn't agree more with Cameron. I remember seeing Alien 3 for the first time, and when I realized what they had done to these characters, I was so pissed off! After everything Ripley and her fellow survivors went through in Aliens, the sequel just tossed them aside before the story even got going. It felt like a slap in the face.
Cameron had spent an entire movie making us care about these characters. Hicks, played by Biehn, was the last surviving Colonial Marine. Newt, played by Carrie Henn, had become a surrogate daughter to Ripley, while Bishop, played by Lance Henriksen, had earned everyone's trust. Their survival was a huge part of what made the ending of Aliens so satisfying.
Then Alien 3 comes along and kills Hicks and Newt off-screen when the Sulaco's emergency escape vehicle crashes on the prison planet Fiorina 161. Bishop is left badly damaged, briefly reactivated by Ripley, and eventually deactivated for good.
To make things even worse, Ellen Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver, sacrifices herself at the end of the movie after facing another Xenomorph, known as the Dog-Burster or Ox-Burster, depending on which version you're watching.
The entire movie felt determined to undo everything that made Cameron's film great. Of course, Alien 3 has gained more appreciation over the years, and for some reason, some fans like it. But when it first hit theaters in 1992, the backlash was intense. Even Fincher was unhappy with the finished film and reportedly wanted his name removed from the credits.
The project had originally been envisioned as a more direct continuation of Aliens, with a similar tone, before 20th Century Fox took the franchise in a much darker direction.
What makes the whole thing even more frustrating is that we almost got another chance to see Ripley and Hicks together.
Several years ago, District 9 and Chappie director Neill Blomkamp was developing a fifth Alien movie that would have served as a direct sequel to Aliens, ignoring the events of Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection.
The project would have brought back Ripley and Hicks, and the concept art that surfaced online got fans excited about the possibilities. Unfortunately, the movie never happened. When Ridley Scott returned to the franchise to direct Alien: Covenant, Blomkamp's project was scrapped.
Blomkamp has made it clear that he's disappointed things didn't work out. During a 2023 interview while promoting Gran Turismo, he quickly shut down a question about his canceled Alien movie and the future of the franchise.
It's a shame because I would have loved to see that version of the story. There was still plenty of potential in those surviving characters, and killing them off without giving them a proper continuation was such a waste.
I understand what Fincher's film was going for, and I can appreciate some of its ideas. But you can make a dark, brutal Alien movie without throwing away characters that audiences had invested so much in.
Cameron is absolutely right to slam that stupid decision. More than three decades later, it still bothers me, and I won’t change my mind about it.