If Chris Nolan did an Alien movie....

Richard Dower

What would it be like?...and would the fanboys rave about it even before it's made?

Well at least we'd see small models and animatronics used

krudler

Chris? awfully personal ain't ya, I prefer Steve Spielberg anyway.

rednik

Rid Scott fan myself.

Dempsey

No doubt it have a non linear timeline and Michael Caine in it

don ramo

Dempsey wrote: »

No doubt it have a non linear timeline and Michael Caine in it

well someone needs to call the alien a "cheeky bugger":D

S.M.B.

Half of the film going public would think it was a masterpiece and his best work yet while the other half would think it had major flaws thus not being as good as some of his previous tighter films.

It's all one big merry-go-round!

Jumpy

don ramo wrote: »

well someone needs to call the alien a "cheeky bugger":D

You were only supposed to claw the bloody doors down!

johnny_ultimate

Bit of a random question tbh.

You could put any directors name before a franchise and ask the same question, and it'd still be random. Director's should pick and choose what they want to be attached to: obviously some directors would be more reliable than others, but you can't simply thrust a director into a random franchise and hope their vision will gel with the original concept.

Like what if Michael Haneke film did a Big Momma's House film? Well, it'd probably still be a steaming pile of ****, but at least it would be a pretentious pile of ****.

Orizio

rednik wrote: »

Rid Scott fan myself.

Have you not watched any of the films he has made in the last two and a half decades then?

rednik

Orizio wrote: »

Have you not watched any of the films he has made in the last two and a half decades then?

I most certainly have. I personally have watched the following,
Thelma and Louise,Gladiator,Black Hawk Down, Body of lies, American gangster and Matchstick men which I would consider all good movies. Sure he has made dross but from your post I take it that you don't think he has made any good movies or am I wrong.

Otis Driftwood

Pointless thread is pointless.

Decuc500

Orizio wrote: »

Have you not watched any of the films he has made in the last two and a half decades then?

Most of them are quality movies. Black Rain, 1492, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, Body of Lies. No Ridley Scott means a less exciting movie world.

Duggy747

Don't forget about Hans Zimmer either if Nolan is directing.

It will be filmed in IMAX (or at least a few key sequences)

Sporadic editing during the action scenes.

It will be "dark", "gritty", "back to basics", all that usual bullshìt terminology.

Empire Magazine will be **** over it with pointless features for months leading up to the movie.

EPIC trailers too.

I say let Uwe Boll have a crack at the Alien franchise :pac:

krudler

Orizio wrote: »

Have you not watched any of the films he has made in the last two and a half decades then?

American Gangster, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven? all great movies. Sure hes a bit hit and miss at times but hes still one of the most visually exciting directors around, and I even liked Hannibal :pac:

Orizio

krudler wrote: »

American Gangster, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven? all great movies. Sure hes a bit hit and miss at times but hes still one of the most visually exciting directors around, and I even liked Hannibal :pac:

Ummmm...no? Average to good movies at a push. After Avatar, Gladiator is the most overrated movie in the last decade and a half.

Blade Runner and Alien however are his only great, memorable movies.

Dempsey

Orizio wrote: »

Ummmm...no? Average to good movies at a push. After Avatar, Gladiator is the most overrated movie in the last decade and a half.

Blade Runner and Alien however are his only great, memorable movies.

Not a chance, anyways Slumdog Millionaire has that accolade

Orizio

Dempsey wrote: »

Not a chance, anyways Slumdog Millionaire has that accolade

Slumdog Millionaire is pretty good, if overrated - Gladiator is very vacuous, lots of average acting and very average dialogue. At the very least Slumdog Millionaire is more original and more challenging, rather then a rip-off of older classics (see: Spartacus). Scott's newer works are always too generic, in stark contrast to his early 80's work while some of his very very new stuff is simply woeful.

Dempsey

Orizio wrote: »

Slumdog Millionaire is pretty good, if overrated - Gladiator is very vacuous, lots of average acting and very average dialogue. At the very least Slumdog Millionaire is more original and more challenging, rather then a rip-off of older classics (see: Spartacus). Scott's newer works are always too generic, in stark contrast to his early 80's work while some of his very very new stuff is simply woeful.

Most people go to the cinema to be entertained and go to college to be intellectually challenged :pac:

Syferus

Orizio wrote: »

Ummmm...no? Average to good movies at a push. After Avatar, Gladiator is the most overrated movie in the last decade and a half.

Blade Runner and Alien however are his only great, memorable movies.

Gladiator seems to be one of those unfortunate films that gets signifcant grassroots backlash nowerdays but it was both a fantastic historical epic and a film that brilliantly refreshing a genre that hadn't seen much popularity or indeed vitality since the says of Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments. Rome, a brilliant series in its own right, 300, Spartacus and even games like God of War owe Gladiator a huge debt for making their creation even possible. Whatever anyone disputes, the fact it is an important film is without question.

I loved it when it came out and I still do now, but for differing reasons. First it was the sense of scale and action and now I appreciate the cinematography which is, as is typical for Scott, beautiful and for crafting a story that is both easy to grasp and buy into (it being an epic, not a stage play adaptation) but also a great excuse to explore some of the most fascinating aspects of Ancient Rome. Hans Zimmer also delivered one of his 'on' scores, Zimmer being someone who manages to alternate between the most mundane of soundtracks to some of the most interesting blockbuster scores.

And I'll put my head on the block and say Kingdom of Heaven is perhaps my personal favourite Scott film. Even more so than Blade Runner, at least when I judge it on enjoyment and investment in the world. I even loved it based on the theatrical cut, but as is almost cliche at this point, the director's cut expands on the original cut and washes away almost all of the flaws leveled at it. For me it's Scott's hidden gem and it will likely end up being a forgotten one, something that it really doesn't deserve.

Even if people diagree with me on those, I think we can all agree that the fact Scott has delivered two to three masterpieces makes him more than worthy of his place at the top table.

Rabidlamb

If Christopher Nolan was directing Ready Steady Soggy Biscuit we'd still all go to see it.
The man has it at present, whatever "it" is.

Orizio

Dempsey wrote: »

Most people go to the cinema to be entertained and go to college to be intellectually challenged :pac:

Rather missing my point. Completely actually.

Orizio

Syferus wrote: »

Gladiator seems to be one of those unfortunate films that gets signifcant grassroots backlash nowerdays but it was both a fantastic historical epic and a film that brilliantly refreshing a genre that hadn't seen much popularity or indeed vitality since the says of Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments. Rome, a brilliant series in its own right, 300, Spartacus and even games like God of War owe Gladiator a huge debt for making their creation even possible. Whatever anyone disputes, the fact it is an important film is without question.

I loved it when it came out and I still do now, but for differing reasons. First it was the sense of scale and action and now I appreciate the cinematography which is, as is typical for Scott, beautiful and for crafting a story that is both easy to grasp and buy into (it being an epic, not a stage play adaptation) but also a great excuse to explore some of the most fascinating aspects of Ancient Rome. Hans Zimmer also delivered one of his 'on' scores, Zimmer being someone who manages to alternate between the most mundane of soundtracks to some of the most interesting blockbuster scores.

And I'll put my head on the block and say Kingdom of Heaven is perhaps my personal favourite Scott film. Even more so than Blade Runner, at least when I judge it on enjoyment and investment in the world. I even loved it based on the theatrical cut, but as is almost cliche at this point, the director's cut expands on the original cut and washes away almost all of the flaws leveled at it. For me it's Scott's hidden gem and it will likely end up being a forgotten one, something that it really doesn't deserve.

Even if people diagree with me on those, I think we can all agree that the fact Scott has delivered two to three masterpieces makes him more than worthy of his place at the top table.

I don't really want to get into a debate about popular importance. I mean Avatar was important in the sense that it has hugely popularised 3D but that doesn't make it any less of a horrible film with awful acting and awful dialogue. Gladiator isn't as bad but the fundamental facets of the film - the acting, the writing, the rather generic and borrowed feel of the whole thing - aren't that great. Also, being partially responsible for 300 is not a good thing.

I actually rathered like Kingdom Of Heaven, but regardless the point is that Scott's newest work doesn't match his old work (not even close) and his newest newest stuff is either very lazy or downright awful. Which is why I have little to hope in him directing the new Alien.

Syferus

Orizio wrote: »

I don't really want to get into a debate about popular importance. I mean Avatar was important in the sense that it has hugely popularised 3D but that doesn't make it any less of a horrible film with awful acting and awful dialogue. Gladiator isn't as bad but the fundamental facets of the film - the acting, the writing, the rather generic and borrowed feel of the whole thing - aren't that great. Also, being partially responsible for 300 is not a good thing.

I actually rathered like Kingdom Of Heaven, but regardless the point is that Scott's newest work doesn't match his old work (not even close) and his newest newest stuff is either very lazy or downright awful. Which is why I have little to hope in him directing the new Alien.

I wasn't passing judgement on things like 300 or Spartacus, as I've seen neither. The point about its importance is only on the fringe of the issue, though. The central point for me is that Gladiator is one of the best and clearest epics ever made, it reads as much as a parable in it's elegant simplicity as Blade Runner.

The magic in Scott's films has always been in the themes, the unsaid, the masterful understanding of film for what it is first and foremost; a visual medium. Gladiator suceeds on the same terms Scott's other bests do.

Orizio

Yeah I seriously disagree, but I'm sure we can 'agree to disagree' as any good gentlemans would, as I've watched 'Alien', 'Balde Runner' and 'Gladiator' multiple times and my opinion on all three is unlikely to change.

BopNiblets

nedtheshed wrote: »

Pointless thread is pointless.

You could say that about the whole internet!

But anyway, I imagine it would be dark and focus on the aliens struggle after arriving on Earth, discovering the local inhabitants as violent and untrustworthy, and then retreating to a faraway place, to train with a mysterious man in the stealthy arts of ninjitsu, only return to his home city and attempt to rid the streets of cri... oh crap I may be thinking of another film...

mikhail

Orizio wrote: »

Slumdog Millionaire is pretty good, if overrated - Gladiator is very vacuous, lots of average acting and very average dialogue. At the very least Slumdog Millionaire is more original and more challenging, rather then a rip-off of older classics (see: Spartacus). Scott's newer works are always too generic, in stark contrast to his early 80's work while some of his very very new stuff is simply woeful.

More challenging? Hey, look at the little brown kid do well on a western gameshow because he learned all of the answers by pure coincidence? It's poverty porn.

Renn

Another excellent thread brought to you by Richard Dower.