trickfred wrote:I hated the fact that Hicks and Newt were killed off immediately - she spent the last movie saving their asses, and that totally ruins the movie for me right off the bat, not even taking into account the dozen other problems I had with it.
But if Hicks and Newt had been around, it wouldn't have been the same movie. Try this -- take Alien 3 out of the context of the other Alien movies. You don't know who Newt is, it doesn't really matter. Assume that she has been introduced in a Star Wars style scroller, and is now dead. Would you care, then? The script is far from perfect, and the film is flawed, but it is not, in my opinion, the travesty that so many people think that it is. You are judging the film based upon what you think it should have been -- as a part of the Alien series, and based upon another script -- not on what it is. Try watching it again, but forget what you know about its background. It is not a perfect movie, but it is entertaining, and really isn't that bad.
(I won't even TOUCH ST:TMP, other than to say at least it wasn't as bad as ST5
I think that the same thing applies. ST:TMP would probably be considered one of the better sci-fi made, if it were not set in the Trek universe. It has a great story (even if that story is taken from a Trek episode), the FX are fairly spectacular for the time. The only problem is that the acting is so sup-par. Though that same criticism could be made of all of the Trek films with the original cast.
Now, I am not going to argue this, because it is a matter of taste, and there is no accounting for that, but I really think that you should try to seperate both of those films from the franchises that they represent. You might enjoy them more :)