That's clearly a bit overboard. But they certainly should've had that idea nixed.
So many stories, so little time.

It's not lazy storytelling. Keeping them in because some people can't handle them dying right away, that is lazy story telling. It's integral to the story, the movie's themes and its metaphors/ symolism that they die and that Ripley wakes up on the planet alone, having to hold her own against these criminals and cope with Hicks' and Newt's death.

Why would we've been better off if she was kept alive a little bit and then be killed in Alien3? First of all, it still would make her surviving Aliens just as 'pointless', she gets killed only a couple of days later than as is the case in the Alien3 we got Second, it would be a lot more horrible for little Newt. As it is, she died 'peacefully' in her sleep; if she died regularly later on in Alien3 she wouldn't. So then it all would've been pointless. As it is, Newt survived Aliens to not die horribly, but peacefully. Which of the two ways would you prefer dying?

Would've been better if the characters were in the movie somewhat then died halfway through, not just practically written out, its lazy story telling, imagine if Return of the Jedi just killed off Hn Solo while he was in carbonite, stupid right?

Why? On the contrary, it opens a great deal of depth and psychological questions like the unfairness of life, why does Ripley keep on living? Why is this beast hellbent on destroying everything she loves? And so much more.