Alien Resurrection: Hybrid Theory


“It was important to me to restore the Aliens’ superiority, their elegance and ability to sense what people are going to do even before they did. I really wanted to bring back what the Aliens were about in the first movie.”
~ Sigourney Weaver, Starlog #247, 1997.

One complaint regarding the third movie’s Alien was the abandonment of its modus operandi. The creature, fans complained, made no effort to secure hosts for its Queen, nor were there scenes to parallel the Alien’s mysterious appearances in the first movie. Originally, the creature was to cocoon its victims just as its forebearers did, but, according to Tom Woodruff, “the plug was pulled because Fincher’s idea was that the creature simply kills to eat.” And so instead, it gored and chewed on its victims, tugging at their carcasses like a rabid dog.

“What I loved about the first one,” said Sigourney Weaver, “was that there was just one Alien and it was so incredibly smart. And we’ve tried with the Alien Resurrection script to get it back to the idea of that the Aliens are not just eating machines, which they never were. Why would they want to eat us? They would use us for purposes much more horrible. If you’re just afraid of them eating you, then they’re like tigers.”

Alien Resurrection screenwriter Joss Whedon had the same concerns and criticisms. “I think the fans were robbed in the third one,” he stated. “They actually had a scene where people we didn’t know were killed by the Alien. That’s Jason, that’s bullshit, because nothing is more boring than people you don’t know being killed.”

His script, from its earliest incarnations, always stressed the inevitability of the Aliens breaking from the confines imposed upon them by the Auriga’s scientists. No amount of behavioural conditioning can break their will; no amount of steel and glass can keep them from eventually finding escape — but there was more to their ‘character’ than mere rampage and slaughter. The inclusion of a Queen, around which the Aliens can construct their society, would allow audiences some insight into the Aliens’ motivation (even if, technically, said motivation was nothing new.) “They’re breeding,” Ripley 8 states in the first draft. “They’ve got new bodies to work on.”

Since Resurrection was the first movie to show the Aliens in captivity, there are some attempts in the various scripts to elaborate on their abilities. Brad Dourif’s Dr. Gediman explains (in one of Ripley’s dream sequences) that the Aliens communicate “through ultrasonic soundwaves. Sort of like bats.” Though this information is imparted through one of Ripley’s nightmares, she later tells Call that she can feel the Alien presence “In my head. Behind my eyes” much in the same way. We learn more about the Aliens’ sensory abilities throughout the drafts, such as their ability to “smell fear” and to adapt situationally to threats. In one scene, we find that some caged Aliens have been observing Dr. Gedimen as much as he has been observing them: once his attention slips they launch an attack on one of their own, spilling its intestines upon the steel flooring, melting it and providing an escape. The Aliens swiftly incapacitate the scientists and elimate the military personel so effectively that commanding officer General Perez can only liken it to a “military strike”.

“I don’t quite know how to express it. The Alien, to me, is a symbol of evil.”
~ Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Starlog magazine, 1997.

The various Aliens in the film were conceptualised by a dearth of artists including Sylvain Despretz, Jordu Schell, and Chris Cunningham. The costumes and props were again built by Amalgamated Dynamics, with Tom Woodruff returning to portray the Alien as he had in the third movie. The creatures would be more angular and spindlier in design, rendered in ochre and blacks, stripped of their metal piping and bones, with the animal design elements magnified. “What we were trying to do was give a little more character to these Aliens, and also do something that was more threatening,” Alec Gillis told Fangoria in 1997. “We were given a little more leeway to do some redesigning than perhaps we had been able to do on the last film.”

alien warrior sketch by Sylvain Despretz

“The biggest change that we did to the Alien was to make him seem more cunning or more vicious,” Woodruff explained on the Quadrilogy’s special features. “In terms of the way to do that, design-wise, was to look for more directional lines, sharper angles, and a lot of art elements that went into it. We had the dome, for example, [which] is more pointed this time around; the chin is more pointed and brought forward. We’ve exaggerated the shoulders; elements of the ribcage appear to stand out more and help reduce the forms around it. It’s like a process of honing, refining something each time you go through it.”

A multitude of animals were studied for the Alien’s various movements and actions, including sea iguanas and sharks for the underwater scenes which showcased the Aliens’ maneuverability. A fin was added to the tail to aid with swimming, and the elongated head of the Alien even resembles a cockroach shell. For rendering the CG Aliens VFX co-ordinator Kerry Shea told VFX HQ that Blue Sky Studios were contracted due to their rendering of cockroaches for 1996’s Joe’s Apartment. “We were looking for Alien effects that were sort of insect-like,” she said, “and they had done such a terrific job on the cockroaches.” Tom Woodruff told Strange Shapes that, “It was never a pointed intention to duplicate a cockroach, but yes, the design element of the insect world is always prevalent in each design iteration.”

The most notable design change was the fleshier aspect of the Aliens’ bodies, a result of the imperfect human-Alien DNA mixing process. In one undated draft, it is noted that there is “some genetic mix” between the Aliens and Ripley that may lead to “further mutation” (an early hint at the Newborn creature) but other drafts and the film focus more on Ripley’s altered mental and physical state than that of the Aliens, with the Newborn appearing rather unnanounced at the end. “The cloning process would naturally be contaminated,” Gillis explained, “so the Aliens would have slightly messed-up DNA and be somewhat different. We thought this was the perfect opportunity for us to do something like give them longer arms and other subtle things. Our belief was that the design from the first movie was very successful, and you don’t want to fix something that ain’t broke. So all our effort went into improving it and making it look more organic, having more of a bio-mechanical exoskeleton feel, instead of going for the easier route of combining car parts into the clay before we cast it.”

The slime was also revised to look heavier and more viscous: “Rather than just putting a glazing coat of slime on the Alien, we mixed up a viscous slime that made the creature look like it was under half an inch of mucus — much wetter and sleeker than in the past.”

Compounding this new look was cinematographer Darius Khondji’s careful lighting. “He at times built almost a ‘cage of fluorescence’ around the Alien,” explained Alec Gillis, “so that you get a million of little [reflections on] the slime. He kept going back to us, asking for thicker slime, because the stuff we had used in the other movies was too runny for him — he wanted a quarter of an inch build up, so we started going for a slime that was almost like gel; and it really had a different look.”


By the end of the film we discover that the genetic gambling that the Auriga’s scientists partake in results in an entirely new creature altogether, an amalgamation of human and Alien DNA that takes the form of a spindle-limbed albinoid called the ‘Newborn’. Born in the murky bowels of Waste Tank No. 5 and ripping itself from the Alien Queen’s egg sac, the Newborn quickly rejects and murders the Queen before seemingly imprinting itself on Ripley, whose scent it recognises as being neither entirely Alien nor human, much like itself.

In the first draft the Newborn is described as being almost as big as the Queen, with four forelegs and two thick haunches, pincers on its head and a webwork of red veins that cover its long eyeless head, like hair. In this draft, the Newborn drains the blood from its victims through its tongue, tries to attack Ripley, and is staunchly defended by the hive. Aided by ‘drones’, the Newborn chases Ripley throughout the ship, rides the Betty down to Earth, is bombarded with rocket-fire from Call, immolated in the Betty’s thrusters, and goes on the run across Earth’s landscape where, after being fought by Ripley, it unfurls a pair of “batlike, leathern” wings that drip with slime. After another battle between the Newborn and a futuristic combine harvester (piloted by Call), the creature is shoved into the propelling blades by Ripley herself.

The second draft also features a battle on Earth between the Newborn and the Betty crew, and though it is less bombastic and outrageous than the first draft, it does come with further embellishments to the Newborn as a character: it now laughs after using DiStephano as a human shield, it “sighs in quiet ecstasy” as it surveys the Earthly city before it (Paris), it licks its lips as it hones in on a band of children, and expresses outrage when it mistakenly devours some of Call’s android blood, which is revealed to be, somehow, magnetic. The Newborn, with Call’s blood in its belly, finds itself stuck to an electromagnetic crane, dropped into a compactor, and finally crushed and impaled.

The Newborn.png

The Newborn’s death in the film resembles one planned demise for Lambert in the original Alien, but there was another hull breach in the Resurrection screenplays that has one of General Perez’s soldiers being “sucked through a hole no bigger than his fist” after he ill-advisedly shoots an Alien onboard the Auriga. This simple but gruesome gag replaced the high-octane chases and battles that Whedon had originally planned for his finale, and the finale is probably the better for it: as ill-received as the Newborn was, its death throes were horrifying and touching: it is hard to not pity it, as revolting as it is.

Ultimately, the creature was not well received. “The Newborn, I think, is an interesting idea,” said conceptual artist Sylvain Despretz. “Chris Cunningham […] was asked to draw the Newborn that appears at the end of Alien Resurrection and did some gorgeously spooky paintings of semi baby-like Aliens with human skin, bones and ribcages, that bizarre black head, you know. And it’s very subtle stuff that works if interpreted as on the painting […] Unfortunately by the time you saw the final Alien, you just kinda got a Creature from the black lagoon with a terrifying skull, and you have to have a skull in there otherwise people won’t be scared. You sort of go, what did go wrong, you know, you’ve got these beautiful paintings. How hard can it be to just make a model of that?”


Before the film’s release producer Bill Badalato opined that “The Aliens are truly characters in the story and not just background. The characters interact with the Aliens in a way that we haven’t seen before in an Alien film. It’s extremely effective.” But Weaver, whose mission statement had been to portray the Aliens in a more eldritch and frightening manner, expressed some disappointment at the results. “I was surprised by how much monster movie there was in Resurrection,” she admitted to Starlog.

She was, however, happy with ADI’s animatronic Newborn. “For me, playing opposite the Newborn was like playing opposite Lon Chaney Sr.,” she said. “This creature could do everything. It was immensely moving and all of my interaction with it came out of improvisation, not from the script. The Newborn was a creature operated by 14 puppeteers. They gave it energy. It was very eerie.” Conversely, many fans disliked the new creature, and complained that the Aliens themselves largey vanish in the third act.

Controversy about the film’s Alien designs arose when HR Giger discovered that he was not credited at all for the fourth film’s design elements. A campaign called ‘Alien Insurrection‘ lobbied Fox to restore Giger’s credit, with Giger himself writing in his first campaign letter that “The creatures in Alien: Resurrection are even closer to my original Alien designs than the ones which appear in Aliens and Alien 3.” This was a sentiment that he also expressed to journalist Javier Martinez de Pisón in an 1999 interview where he saw fit to add, “The Aliens themselves were not well sculpted or sharply defined. It seemed as if no molds had been made and as if the creatures were roughly shaped with mud.” In his second letter he further asserted his rights over the Alien and that the Newborn had been pilfered from one of his own designs. “In regards to the new Alien development called the Newborn,” he wrote, “it is just another Giger design, which you will realize when you look beneath the shell of the adult Alien head, as seen in the photos on page 60 of my book. The human skull under the face has been exposed and the creature’s sinewy body has been contaminated by deformed features. Fox, however, tries to deny HR Giger’s influence.” 

Giger continued that “Woodruff, an excellent effects specialist, said about his ‘Alien Viper’s Nest’: ‘It is like an HR Giger’s painting come to life.’ Yes, it is. It has been newly stolen from my book Necronomicon. As photographed from above, you will see that it is a section of my painting Passagen-Tempel/Eingangspartie (Passage Temple/entrance section) Work #262. This painting existed three years before the first Alien movie had even started to be filmed.”

Fox, in the end, restored Giger’s credit for Resurrection‘s home release, but this did not spare them from the artist’s pointed thoughts on what the studio had done with his Alien after taking it out of his hands.

“I always wanted my Alien to be a very beautiful thing, not just something disgusting, not just a monster, but something aesthetic. Throughout the creature’s evolution what they’ve done is change it from something aesthetic to something that looks like shit – I mean literally, it looks like a turd.”
~ HR Giger, Alien Evolution, 2001.


Filed under Alien Series

26 responses to “Alien Resurrection: Hybrid Theory

  1. Great stuff, as ever. 10/10

  2. Thomas Buxton

    Another great article, Nice to see a new one keep it up.

  3. Balaji Imperial

    Giger is right on the money here: the main obstacle to enjoying Resurrection is how utterly fugly the aliens are.

    • BillTed

      Not only the unfortunate newborn design, but every time AD redesigns the Alien it keeps loosing shape and detail and looking more and more like tom woodruff covered in steaming boogers.

      I wonder if they’ll be doing the aliens in the new prometheus.

  4. BillTed

    “…because nothing is more boring than people you don’t know being killed.””

    That sounds like another terrible movie in the aliens franchise.

  5. Lee Medcalf

    Great article about a terrible movie.

    And once again my dislike of Wooodruff and Gillis legacy upon the alien films.

    Giger was bang on the money when he said they made it look like a turd. The only thing he got wrong was they made it look like a turd back in Alien 3 (seriously that thing changes from skinny puppet to fat bloke in a suit)

    The line in the article about Woodruff wanting to improve on the alien still makes me cross. Because it’s utterly idiotic and deluded especially once you see the KY bathed crap he and Amalgamated came up with. And I’m not just talking about the newborn but the aliens themselves, which looked like someone had tried to make a monster out of some old half chewed bubblegum.

    My one wish is that an Alien film will simply reuses a Giger alien replica rather than smoothing the blasted thing off further and thinking a dome, exposed ribcage and slime makes the creature what it was back in 1979

  6. S@ti

    It’s just horrifying to imagine the difference between how Whedon envisioned the movie and what we’ve got. From Jeunet to the effects artists, they all just… horribly butchered this script into oblivion.

    Joss Whedon should have directed this, plain and simple.

    • The final film is better than the script. Budget cuts necessitated some action scenes be cut (Ripley having a fight with an Alien when she meets the Betty crew, rather than simply blowing its head off, for example), but a lot of appallingly bad Whedon dialogue in the script was mercifully cut. And no one else but Whedon was responsible for those scenes where they just stand around and have a chat, thus draining the tension out of the thing.

      I love Whedon’s Avengers flicks – both of them – but the first was a very predictable paint by numbers script where everyone spoke in much the same voice, with much the same sense of humour. I think the guy is talented, but ultimately over-rated. And blaming everyone but himself for Resurrections flaws, as he has in the past, screams ‘hack’.

  7. Another top post, thanks Valaquen

    I always felt Whedon had a bit of a nerve making those comments about characters we don’t know getting killed in Alien 3 considering the amount of expendable grunts that buy it in Resurrection. What’s sauce for the goose is apparently not sauce for the gander.

    Similarly I have never understood his comments regarding how Jeunet executed his script ‘wrongly’. It looks like what it is on the page – comic book characters in a comic book story. It was his mistake to try to adapt a mature and elegant series into an adolescent fantasy where the laws of Newtonian physics don’t even apply (dodging bullets and the like) and characters have cartoon sensibility.

    Incidentally in case anyone is interested I have blogged about film critic David Thomson’s alternate version of Resurrection here:

    • I think there’s only two nameless grunts really that get killed by Aliens – on screen at any rate. Not counting those shot by Christie.

      He did have a point about Alien 3. Even many supposed fans of that film can’t tell the bald Poms apart 25 years later. Which certainly wasn’t the case in Resurrection – even if they could be cartoony, at least you could tell them apart.

      I remember Thomson’s take on Resurrection being pretty painful, but I’ll definitely give your piece a read.

  8. Alex

    Been awhile since I’ve been here. It’s nice when you randomly click on a page like this and find new content. Still looking forward to the article on David Twohy’s Alien 3 script.

  9. Uh-oh, is Valaquen delving into the mess that is Alien Resurrection? While I would thoroughly enjoy his customary dissection and analysis, I fear that the task of making sense of that film may prove to be a mountain too high……..

  10. I think it shows maturity to delve into a film you don’t like and come out with an article largely devoid of snark.

    AvP next. 🙂

  11. Grimmlok

    There’s a short video where the guys from Amalgamated Dynamics address the whole “look of the alien” in Resurrection, basically saying “There are lots of people people who hate it, but we really did just deliver what the director wanted. He wanted them to look that way, he wanted them 1 inch deep in goo, he wanted the smoke breathing and gurgle roaring. That was our job, to deliver what he wanted and we did.”

    • Balaji Imperial

      Okay, now we know who’s most deserving of our pitchforks!

    • Fran

      The execution was great. I think the creatures looked pretty good from a technical point of view. It was the concept design what was a bit off. However, given the theme of the movie, it makes sense that they don’t look like the Giger’s xenomorph.

  12. Pingback: エイリアン種類と生態

  13. Mr Alexander Van Beethoven

    Alien: Resurrection is my favorite of the franchise so far. I thought that at 8 years old and I think that now. The combination of being in space, the heavy metal confines of the ship, that old VHS/tape/DOS feel to all the key pads, consoles, and computers – as well as, of course, the distinguished ALIENs on board, threatening the survival of the humans just set such a magnificent atmosphere that I could remember and relive it even after over one and a half decades. The fact that Ripley was super human was just an added bonus for me. However, as I’ve ventured through the internet, I’ve discovered that I might be a minority. People seem to dislike this movie – their majority-mass barking not helping me understand their case. Or perhaps I was just finding the wrong comments, on the wrong websites. A few commenters mentioned some rational and logical points, and their opinions are theirs, rightfully. Notwithstanding, there’s no love lost for the poorly written comments that vaguely (at best) portrays the movie as, and I quote, “sh!t,” (censored and abridged for respectable audiences). I’m counting down the days until Alien 5 is released. I hope it is released. I hope that, whatever happens, it has the same atmosphere as the older movies. I’ve got a collection of Alien movies and games going on! Don’t keep me waiting long now!

Leave a Reply to BillTed Cancel reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s