For me, the abrupt tonal shift from Aliens was exacerbated by the fact that the story ended up being a boring variation on the original (bunch of folks without weapons trapped with an alien). But since Ridley Scott's film did it so much better this third one became an inferior imitation.

Further, Ripley isn't very Ripley like in this one. I mean, if you were watch all 3 in a marathon you'd see her character changed too much in the third. And it's not all down to her post-crash/loss of Newt frame of mind in the story... I hate to say it, but Sigourney Weaver's performance feels forced and phoned in - rather like Harrison Ford's in Return of the Jedi. I get the impression that she was tiring of the role and longed for it to be over.

Kirk died?

Huh.

Interesting, I thought the General's death in Arection was one of it's worst moments. The whole sequence feels off, and is much better as it was written in an earlier script (which frankly is superior in almost every way to the finished product, it completely removes all the inane newborn-Ripley relationship).

Arection had the wrong director and the wrong crew behind the design. It might be stylish but unfortunately this particularly quirky style only makes the film feel even more insubstantial. That the plot is essentially Jurassic Park on a space ship with aliens does it no favours either.

Ironically, the approximate premise, the concept of humans trying and failing to exploit the aliens, is the direction that Alien3 should have gone. But then I'm a big believer in the idea that sequels should expand on what has gone before, not regurgitate (which is why I don't think Terminator 2 and 3 are as good as the first).

My favorite commentaries are the movies where there are mixed feelings, and everybody has a slightly different view to bring to the table. Getting as off topic as the commentary did, I loved the conversation about the original studio system, but I wonder, why can't the new digital filmmaking wave be just like those early days of cinema? Someone has an idea for a movie, gets a camera, gets some actors, maybe a tortilla factory, and makes a movie. Then they can put it on youtube for the world to see. Nobody has to give them permission.

Also, you left out one of the biggest reasons Hollywood chooses movies the way it does. Sure, there's development people middling around, executives who think "Die Hard in a building" is a fresh idea, and there's the conservative choices anyone would make when putting a hundred million dollars on the line, but there's also exhibition contracts:

Maybe this isn't true across the board, but what I heard during the time I worked at a theater was that studios get the highest cut of the opening weekend grosses. The second weekend, they get a smaller percentage, and it diminishes after that.

Think about how this ruins everything. To maximize profits, studios actually want a movie that's going to open huge based on the title alone, or the fact that it's 3-d, and then bomb when people realize how terrible it actually is. That way, people will forget about each one in time for the next blockbuster. They don't want word of mouth to spread so the numbers can peak later in the release, when those ticket sales are going to the theater owners instead. There's financial incentives against making good movies, except to save appearances when awards are on the line. It's better business for the studio to have one absurd flashy and forgettable train wreck for every week of the year.

As a side effect of this practice in filmmaking, movie profits bottom out before theaters can make their profits, so the only way they're able to stay open is on concessions. That, boys and girls, is why they charge us seven dollars for a box of Red Vines.

To be fair, though, killing off Dumblydore was only really shocking the first time they did it … in Lord of the Rings. When he was named Gandalf.

I think I need to be more explicit about when I'm expressing a sincerely held opinion and when I'm being facetious because I'm feeling silly.

That? Was the latter.

The Gandalf/Obiwan/Mr. Miyagi/Merlin/President Bartlet/Benjamin Franklin/The Oracle/Dumbledore archetype is a very old one indeed. Sometimes he dies, leaving the hero with a thousand faces to rise to meet his destiny alone. Sometimes his death is merely metaphorical; sometimes it's literal. Sometimes he comes back, sometimes he doesn't, whatever. The fact that it's an archetype doesn't diminish the individual exemplars' power as characters in their respective stories … except when it does, because some stories suck.

Also? I like the Harry Potter books. I have them all in hardcover. The movies are generally pretty poor adaptations, though, unfortunately.