Actually, I think Aliens is far more derivative of Alien than A3. It even has the exact same fourth act...
I find A3 a far more interesting film because of the unlikable characters and the (muddled) ideas. Aliens, while a perfectly fine movie, suffers from Cameron's "in your face" morality play approach. His movies are simply very obvious and overt in their "messages", which makes them a bit patronising, IMHO. I'm not saying they're bad (well, maybe Avatar, which is just sooooo sugary it's borderline condescending of its audience), but I am saying they are usually very simple popcorn films. Very well made, of course.
I know I am in the minority, but I just find characters like Dillon, David and Morse more interesting than the (IMO) walking clichés Hudson or Gorman. Sure, they have cool one-liners and they sacrifice themselves in the end, but they can become infuriating upon repeated viewings.
Is Aliens a better crafted movie than A3? Yes, certainly. Is it better as a movie? Does it stand the test of time or repeated viewings better? I'm not so sure... I do know that I enjoy watching A3 more than Aliens.
And I get that people liked Hicks and Newt, and wanted the happy ending to continue, but as I sat in the theatre and watched the opening sequences of A3, and later Newt's gut-wrenching autopsy, and Dillon's eulogy, I felt an emotional depth to the movie that neither Alien nor Aliens had.
To me Bishop's "I would never be top of the line again" is so much more powerful than "not bad for a human".
