| Author | Message | ||
     Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.143.129.110 |
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100426/ten-ridley-scott-to-make-alien-prequels-5f8 abb3.html | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.182.229.104 |
"Of course, it'll be 3D". Of course. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 147.252.230.148 |
Even 3D doesn't put me off this! A dream come true. Thinking about it, though, it's really the first half of ALIEN that's so mesmerising. Imagine if the alien is born of John Hurt's twitching body and the film just ended there. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
I relish the thought of 3D for this! If the film is done as well as the first two 'Alien' films - with those amazingly scary sequences which they had - I reckon it's *made* for 3D! | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
I have a very bad feeling about this and can't help wishing they would leave well enough alone. Of the entire 'Alien' franchise only the first two films are truly worthwhile and it's been steadily downhill ever since. What made the concept so memorable was its very simplicity - the claustrophobic terror of being shut in with an implacable killing machine. Any attempts to broaden this out into some kind of heavy duty sci-fi epic is almost bound to fail, even with Ridley Scott back at the helm (and long since past his best). Think 'The Chronicles Of Riddick' compared to 'Pitch Black'... sits back and waits for a tirade of abuse. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Ah, but I agree with you in a way, Stevie. Note that I said "if they're done as well as the first two". If they're not, then it'll surely be an Alien too far.  | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.237.52 |
The Alien 'franchise' has become laughable of late, though I do think Alien 3, though flawed, was worthwhile. Put a man in a suit or don't do it at all I reckon. gcw | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.182.229.104 |
...though I do think Alien 3, though flawed, was worthwhile... Definitley agree with you there, mate. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.182.229.104 |
"definitely"... | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.232.127 |
The first one is still the best of the lot. I remember seeing this in a local cinema with my father just after my mother's death. We're both into sf so this was a treat, especially after the teddybear alien in ET (which I hated). We loved the look of the film, especially the Nostromo. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Alien 3 is excellent. | ||
| Steve Bacon (Stevebacon) Username: Stevebacon Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 90.210.209.136 |
I like Fincher's version, too. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
In order of excellence: Alien (just beautiful) Alien 3 (almost as beautiful) Aliens (it hasn't aged well, I'm afraid) Alien Ressurection (a bit shit, really) | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.237.52 |
Alien Ressurection (a bit shit, really) Something of an understatement that.....! gcw | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.90.191 |
I agree with your list, Zed. ALIENS is great when you're a teenager - one of the best action films ever made, which the '80s did so well - but it has no depth. As Terry Rawlings said, ALIEN 3 should be considered the real sequel to ALIEN. I love every frame with Charles Dance in it. And the planet - a mournful rusted purgatory. And that magnificent score. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.182.229.104 |
Zed - you mad film genius - you've got it right as far as I'm concerned - I've long felt that the first and third films are my favourites, and that the second was a great rollercoaster ride but ultimately very shallow. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Hmmm, I have a recollection of thinking Aliens was the best of the lot. Mind you, it's ages since I've seen either of them so my memories have faded. I never bothered with Alien Resurrection when I thought Alien 3 had taken the franchise too far. Might be time I revisited them ... | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Proto/Mick - yes, you've hit the proverbial nail on the head regarding Aliens. It was indeed amazing when you were a teen, but is ultimately a rather shallow experience. I still enjoy it, of course, but Alien and Alien 3 have so much more to offer. I honestly think Alien 3 is a marvel: dark, brooding, elegiac, and Weaver's performance is immense (she's in almost evert frame; she owns the film). Time for a rewatch, methinks! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.165.34 |
I rewatched The Abyss the other night . . . and it looked shit. [Yours courtesy of The Weekend Erudtion Org TM.] | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
I like The Abyss a lot - haven't seen it for quite some time, but it still resonates in my mind. Ed Harris's enraged underwater charge to save his wife is incredibly powerful. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.143.129.110 |
The Abyss is poor now. I watched it the other week and it felt quite lame, like a seventies cartoon serial. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.165.34 |
Cameron's films really are brittle. Magnificent first-watch spectacles. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.143.129.110 |
They have an innocence that can sometimes be hard to appreciate as you get older. Titanic is the one I can watch the most and enjoy each time(and I'm not trying to get us all talking about that one again!) | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Magnificent first-watch spectacles. I agree. Their merits dimish with age, unfortunately. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.165.34 |
But there are some things in life we don't need to re-experience. They're as valuable as the rewarding stuff we can keep coming back to. As I term it in my psychological work: the Cameron and curry doctrine. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.142.146.96 |
As always I have to agree with Zed, my brother-in-horror, in these matters. I, too, think Alien 3 is a marvellous, grim, atmospheric piece that didn't deserve the lambasting it got on its original release. I've certainly seen it more times than Aliens because it has more substance that keeps drawing me back to it. And Vincent Ward's orginal treatment may have been even better. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
As I term it in my psychological work: the Cameron and curry doctrine.  Hear-hear, Lord P. The Vincent Ward treatment is one of those films I really wish we could have seen. I remember when a lot of Alien 3 was being shot up in the North East, I used to play five-a-side with an extra on the film (he suffered from alopetia, so was perfect for the role...but his scenes ended up on the cutting-room floor) and he kept saying that Fincher was being slated by the press and given a really hard time by the studio, but he personally thought the guy was doing a great job. Even then, he told me that the film we finally saw would be a hugely compromised vision. My mate was also offered tens of thousands of pounds to act as a spy on the (heavily guarded) set by the Sun newspaper. He told them to fuck right off.  | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
The first two 'Alien' movies worked as cohesive wholes in completely different and equally entertaining ways whereas the third movie, for all its obvious potential and great scenes and bravery, was hamstrung by studio interference and misguided attempts to broaden the franchise instead of playing wholly to its claustrophobic strengths imho. It's very good but it isn't the classic it could (and should) have been had David Fincher been allowed free rein. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Wasn't Alien released three years before ET? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.132.173.248 |
The third was too sweary. For some reason sweariness stops me feeling like I'm in the film. I can't understand it either. Also it felt like bits were missing. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
The sloppy editing was the most glaring evidence of studio interference, Tony, and distracted badly from overall enjoyment of the movie. It was so frustrating because you could see the film it should have been shining through but, who knows, maybe one day Fincher will be allowed to restore his vision in some kind of director's cut. We can only hope. As for the fourth film it was a complete mess from start to finish and don't even mention the populist shite that came after that! | ||
| Matthew Fryer (Matthew_fryer) Username: Matthew_fryer Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 90.202.180.84 |
Yeah, 3 could've been truly great. I love the first 2, although I agree that Aliens hasn't aged so well (definitely more 80s than the future!) Even Michael Wincott and that wonderful swimming aliens scene couldn't save the fourth. The whole hybrid idea didn't really work for me. Does anybody read the spin-off series of Bantam novels? Some of those are excellent. | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.237.52 |
To me, the greatest flaw in Alien 3 was the use of CGI for the alien...It just killed it really, a man in a suit, in the shadows, fast cuts...that's the way I reckon. gcw | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Good point! I remember thinking at the time that the Alien somehow didn't have the same presence as in the first film and realise now that was why. Another casualty of unconvincing CGI effects. By contrast the scenes that used solid animatronics were by far the most memorable in the film e.g. the sequence in the medical lab. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Yes, of course! That's what did it for me too! Give me animatronics and a man in a suit any day, as opposed to CGI. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 147.252.230.148 |
The ALIEN prequel is dead! I have strong, mixed feelings about this. http://www.nme.com/movies/news/ridley-scotts-alien-prequel-morphs-into-prometh/2 02901 | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I'm hoping that Scott can regain his form with this one - it has the potential to be rather special. I'm certainly glad the 3D Alien sequel didn't happen... | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.2.31 |
Oh, I'm not. The 3D isn't a problem - that'll probably be on the fad scrap heap with swingball and fondue by the time 2012 comes along. I'd love to see a different story set in the ALIEN universe. Perhaps one with no aliens. It's just such a terrible thing to set up expectations of Scott/Giger making a new ALIEN film and then cancel it. Scott hasn't done sf in 29 years. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.151.150 |
The bastard! I laughed at his 'this genre that is so close to my heart'; when he made Alien it was because he wanted to make a Star Wars - until then sci fi held no interest for him whatsoever. I'm not trying to say he didn't go on to love it, mind, just that it's funny he should say it. I was looking forward to the 3D, btw. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I'm not a Ridley fan. Blade Runner, Alien, The Duelists, and even Gladiator, oh, and Kingdom of Heaven, were great films, but the rest just seem like other versions of better movies with great photography and excellent actors. He's too much about the style. People criticize his brother as the lesser, MTV styled popcorn fodder director, but to be honest, I don't see much difference between the two. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.151.150 |
Have you seen his short films? Boy on a Bicycle was quite magic, and filmed not far from where i live. It's probably on youtube. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
This news is such a relief to me. I just hope the project doesn't end up another 'Avatar' - all style, no substance. Ridley Scott can be very hit-and-miss and is a director long past his prime anyway imo. | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
"with great photography and excellent actors" Dunno about that - the worst thing about Kingdom of Heaven was the pairing of Orlando Bloom and Eva Green as the vapid main couple - a black hole down which the rest of the film promptly swirled. As far as the death of the Alien prequel goes, I have mixed feelings. If it must be a franchise, then I would rather it fell back into the hands of A-list directors like Ridley Scott as opposed to being further shat upon by a succession of straight-to-DVD hacks. However, I don't think ALIEN needs a prequel. The unanswered questions, the mystery of the space jockey, kind of make that film for me. As with any prequel, solidifying the events around its origin and crash would ruin it. Much as I like ALIENS, I still hate it a little bit for turning the enigmatic creature of the original into little more than an overgrown insect with little or no intelligence (I still like to think that the original alien was simply working to a plan we couldn't understand). Similarly, if during the development of this film it has become clear to Scott and his co-writers that it isn't an Alien film and doesn't need to be one, I think they've made the right step in removing that expectation from the film. If the alien tropes don't fit, then they shouldn't cram them in. It remains to be seen if Scott can make something of the quality of ALIEN or BLADE RUNNER, but the results should be interesting at least. As long as we don't end up with another AVATAR, a film best described by the word 'functional'. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.241.93 |
AVATAR merely fulfills a description I heard of the function of the modern Hollywood film: "selling popcorn and renting a seat". | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.151.150 |
People would like Avatar more if had been less a success. We are, I think, frowning at the fact something ok should be so lauded. It's like a crowd cheering the building of a nice lego house; the building of a lego house is very sweet and lovely, but to have all that fuss...? | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Nicely put, Tony. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
'Avatar' was built up to be the next big development in serious sci-fi cinema, a '2001' for the new millennium, but what we got was a souped up Disney cartoon imo. I superficially enjoyed it in 3D on the big screen as a pure spectacle but came away knowing I would never, ever watch it again. I expect more from cinema... | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.115.64 |
I'm pretty sure that my opinion of AVATAR isn't influenced by how much money it made. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I loved Avatar. Watched it 3 times now and still think it's brilliant. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
'Avatar' was built up to be the next big development in serious sci-fi cinema, a '2001' for the new millennium Hmmm...I'm not sure what PR you saw, but I saw the film hyped up as exactly what it was: a big, daft, thrilling, Hollywood SF extravanganza with an ambitious use of 3D technology and a vague "message"; low on plot, high on visual excitement. It's honestly one of the few films of this type I've seen that lived up to the distributor's promises. | ||
| Mbfg (Mbfg) Username: Mbfg Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 212.219.63.204 |
I enjoyed Avatar. Shamelessly boggle-eyed I was, and loving the spectacle. I allowed myself to be utterly manipulated by the story and willingly subjected myself to all the emotional mechanics of the piece cynically designed to bring a lump to Tel's throat. Wow, I feel better for that confession. Cheers Terry | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Big, daft, empty... that was my final take. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I mean 'Avatar' was sold to me as the next big evolutionary jump in sci-fi cinema special effects that would engage the brain as much as the senses and appeal to a mass audience. '2001 : A Space Odyssey' achieved all those things way back in 1968 and, I would contend, so did 'Inception' for a modern audience. 'Avatar' was a vacuous dead-end that in no way justified the years of technical expertise and vast amounts of money spent on it. | ||
| Mbfg (Mbfg) Username: Mbfg Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 212.219.63.204 |
2001 was one of those rare sf films that was actually of it tiem rahher thn behind. What I mean is that the kind of sf stories that pervads most sf film is 1950s to alry 1960s. Avatar is like a thousand sf tales from way back when and reminded me of the first segment of A E vanVogt's "The War Agaisnt the Rull" when Jameison was standed on a jungle-covered alien planet. I tlso brought Burrough Carson Napier on venus books and also Aldiss's Hothouse. Even Alien (great as it is) really does resemble the Ixtl segment from vanVot's "Voyage of the Space Beagle". | ||
| Mbfg (Mbfg) Username: Mbfg Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 212.219.63.204 |
sorry about the spllning in the abvoe, in a uhrry | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.151.150 |
S'it KO. Avatar was a billion dollar Thundercats episode, no richer than that. Shame, really. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.54.251 |
a big, daft, thrilling, Hollywood SF extravanganza with a vague "message"; low on plot, high on visual excitement That's more or less what the critics said about 2001 back in 1968 . . . | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.151.150 |
But 2001 was puzzling and felt pretentious to them. This one was criticised almost for being the opposite. Maybe it'll age and be loved one day, like the Sound of Music or something (which my youngest son recently described as being 'more frightening than The Evil Dead', something he seriously meant because of the rising of the nazis in it.) | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.54.251 |
Not to mention all those people bursting into song all the time  |