As for Hicks and Newt, IIRC, in the commentary by David Fincher for A3, he said Biehn was paid more for the use of his likeness in a 2 second flash on the screen than he was for doing all of Aliens. Was killing off Hicks, Bishop and Newt a good idea? I don't know, but I think it's fair to say that fans had invested in those characters and should they have been killed off in the BEGINNING of the film versus at another point in the film is a very good question. The death of a major character should have some emotional resonance on the audience. You don't kill big characters just to kill them, you kill them to make a point, to drive the story, to give the protagonist conflict, to ramp up the idea that no one is safe. When and how you kill them ( a point I think many are making) is just as important as if you kill them. Alien is a franchise, even if you don't like the earlier movies, it's essential in the story telling that there is some continuity of themes and story arcs from film to film. You are just not telling one story in a franchise, you are a creating a world. The relative value of Hicks and Newt means nothing to Aliens 3 alone, but it does mean something if you step back and consider the continuity of the franchise.
GG
