Neill Blomkamp's Alien Sequel Concept

Sad Professor

The reason the longer version of Alien 3 is called the “restored work print version” and not “director’s cut” is because there is no director’s cut. The theatrical cut was overseen by the studio and Fincher refused to do an extended cut for the DVD/Blu-ray. The "restored workprint version” was an attempt to re-create the last cut of the film Fincher was involved in. This work print was a rough cut completed just prior to re-shoots. Fincher actually did most of the re-shoots himself (changing the cow to a dog, etc), but since he never cut these new scenes himself the DVD producers felt they should be excluded from the longer cut.

The assembly cut is nice to have, but it’s a shame Fincher didn’t come back and do a proper cut.

ebbsy

Still remember coming out of the cinema after Alien 3, I have never been so disappointed.

I did enjoy Prometheus though.

shazzerman

Yeah, I never really liked Alien 3, even after reading positive reviews of the Assembly Cut and subsequently watching it after I bought the blu-ray set.

ebbsy

GAAman wrote: »

Hmmm so Hicks survived and Ripley didn't go through the events of Alien 3. That's a totally new concept *Cough, Dark Horse Comics* :pac:

In all seriousness, I want to see this.

I wish I had not gone through the events of 3 or 4.

Ridley

pixelburp wrote: »

Now, Hicks' death has already been retconned in Aliens: Colonial Marines you might say, but holy jeepers it was laughably executed and more than a bit fan-fiction'ish.

I'd rather not see some split timeline (or sutin) shenanigans but at least Blomkamp wants Ripley in his Aliens 2.

evosteo

new concept art recently released



seriously cant wait for this film

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/462669-neill-blomkamp-alien-movie-reveals-new-concept-art#/slide/1

Frank Bullitt

Hopefully we hear some more about this soon, even a title would be nice.

astrofool

Gintonious wrote: »

Hopefully we hear some more about this soon, even a title would be nice.

Would much prefer to hear virtually nothing till nearer release.

Dair76

Well, I would like it confirmed right now that Die Antwoord will play no part in procedings whatsoever.

the_monkey

Didn't know he was working on a new Alien film - a sequel to Aliens it appears

http://nerdist.com/neill-blomkamps-alien-concept-art-has-stolen-our-hearts/

And to make sure it doesn't interfere with Ridley Scotts Prometheus 2

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2015/03/25/ridley-scott-is-making-sure-alien-5-prometheus-2-can-coexist-2807934


I think it would be better if he just directed Prometheus 2 ... don't like the idea of discounting Alien3 ...

don ramo

the man is only getting worse as he goes along, chappie was terrible, elysium was kinda ok, he hit it outta the park with district 9, and has steadily got worse,

i dont think alien works well as a blockbuster film, anything that can be done has been done, unless you get a great creative team together, which they will not do,

the_monkey

Good point, I guess they will want to give it the PG13 rating to get more bums on seats, was Prometheus rated 15 tho ? I can't remember ..

geraardo

This will never work as PG13.

It needs violence and geared to an adult audience.

seamus

Prometheus got an R rating in the US, but 15's here and in the UK. Our censor has been getting more relaxed as the years go on. Alien was originally rated 18 in 1979 and then re-certified to 15 in 2005.

IMHO the idea of an Alien 2.5 is somewhat preferable to a new sequel that comes after 3 or 4. It means that they are limited to the constraints of what was established in 2 and 3 and aren't free to go off doing anything ridiculous like Resurrection.

Though the timeframe between those two movies is basically a few weeks, so unless they're planning some time-travel stuff (which would be a joke considering it's never been used in the franchise), I'm not sure what they could do that would be interesting.

don ramo

the_monkey wrote: »

Good point, I guess they will want to give it the PG13 rating to get more bums on seats, was Prometheus rated 15 tho ? I can't remember ..

it was rated R, cause of the part when shaw was operated on, other than that scene it would have been PG-13, only for scott and the studio head insisting on that scene remaining it would have been PG-13, i will say that scene had me squeaming, i was nearly curled in a ball on my cinema seat, and the film probably wouldnt have worked without it, it was a vital scene,

that is the problem with these films failing, their aiming them at the people who loved them as kids, like i watched the aliens, robocops and termintors in my teens, and they were all rated R, you simply cant make these film without the R rating, i got my R rating fix with films when i was young, i dont wanna sound old but im gonna, but with the **** 15 years olds have access to now would blow any R rated film i watched when i was 15 away,

out of the 3 franchises i listed, the only one that done well at the box office was Prometheus, and that was the only R rated film, so this R rated films dont make money statement doesnt really add up,

the funny thing is that all the great films made each year, the ones that win all the awards are generally rated R, Argo, American Beauty, The Kings Speech, No Country for Old Men, for **** sake One Flew Over the Cukoos nest was rated R, i dont understand why they cant make an R rated terminator,

don ramo

seamus wrote: »

Prometheus got an R rating in the US, but 15's here and in the UK. Our censor has been getting more relaxed as the years go on. Alien was originally rated 18 in 1979 and then re-certified to 15 in 2005.

IMHO the idea of an Alien 2.5 is somewhat preferable to a new sequel that comes after 3 or 4. It means that they are limited to the constraints of what was established in 2 and 3 and aren't free to go off doing anything ridiculous like Resurrection.

Though the timeframe between those two movies is basically a few weeks, so unless they're planning some time-travel stuff (which would be a joke considering it's never been used in the franchise), I'm not sure what they could do that would be interesting.

the problem is were relying on the american censors to approve a certain rating first, our censors can put what they like on it, but it need the get passed the american cansors first, which is a balls when a studio really want a 15 rating on the film, but the censors give it R, and then scenes are cut, i think in the hunger games they had to remove blood splatter to get the 13 rating,

deep space travel with life support issues generally sort out time and aging problems,

the_monkey

I think the only way is getting rid of Alien3 and beyond, hence Hicks being involved etc ..

johnny_ultimate

Lower ratings are a symptom, not 'the cause', of much wider, fundamental issues. These sequels or successors to beloved 70-80s franchises are failing because of the Hollywood machine stifling the capacity for creative, innovative experiments. With the inflated budgets attached to tentpole blockbusters these days, studios are afraid to take risks, and would rather turn out something safe and conservative and that will play to the largest possible audience. It doesn't help that there are fewer and fewer genuinely talented directors working the blockbuster arena - even Neil Blomkamp fans I'd imagine would be hard pressed to argue he has the vision or imagination of a young Ridley Scott (who himself has long since passed his creative peak), let alone Alan Taylor or *shudder* McG.

I have no doubt a truly great director could make a great PG-13 Alien film if he or she had to - minus one or two scenes of chest bursting viscera, the first film is after all about creeping, understated dread. I have less confidence any director, great or otherwise, is going to make a truly remarkable follow up with $100m budget and the weight of studio expectations upon them. Imagine an Alien sequel with a mid-tier budget in the region of $35-50m! Now that would be interesting.

Oh, and there's that whole thing of whether we need subsequent Terminator or Alien films, which of course we don't. Many of these follow-ups are rendered redundant and dead in the water by their mere existence, stuck with the impossible task of following up some of the most iconic and popular mainstream films ever made. The 'extended universe' and lore of Alien is largely dull and inconsequential compared to the primal terror and robust filmmaking that drives the first two films, and Scott and Cameron ensured there's not a whole lot more to say in that respect.

don ramo

i think they should just go back to the start with the alien films, recast everyone, whole new story, the idea is there, it just needs the right people,

Tony EH

don ramo wrote: »

the man is only getting worse as he goes along, chappie was terrible, elysium was kinda ok, he hit it outta the park with district 9, and has steadily got worse,

i dont think alien works well as a blockbuster film, anything that can be done has been done, unless you get a great creative team together, which they will not do,

I've been dubious (to say the very least) about this reboot/rewrite nonsense from the moment I heard about it, but what's firmly put me in the camp of "this should never happen" is Blomkamp's track record since 'District 9'. Frankly, if this abomination goes ahead, it'll make 'Alien: Resurrection' look like a good picture.

conorhal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Lower ratings are a symptom, not 'the cause', of much wider, fundamental issues. These sequels or successors to beloved 70-80s franchises are failing because of the Hollywood machine stifling the capacity for creative, innovative experiments. With the inflated budgets attached to tentpole blockbusters these days, studios are afraid to take risks, and would rather turn out something safe and conservative and that will play to the largest possible audience. It doesn't help that there are fewer and fewer genuinely talented directors working the blockbuster arena - even Neil Blomkamp fans I'd imagine would be hard pressed to argue he has the vision or imagination of a young Ridley Scott (who himself has long since passed his creative peak), let alone Alan Taylor or *shudder* McG.

I have no doubt a truly great director could make a great PG-13 Alien film if he or she had to - minus one or two scenes of chest bursting viscera, the first film is after all about creeping, understated dread. I have less confidence any director, great or otherwise, is going to make a truly remarkable follow up with $100m budget and the weight of studio expectations upon them. Imagine an Alien sequel with a mid-tier budget in the region of $35-50m! Now that would be interesting.

Oh, and there's that whole thing of whether we need subsequent Terminator or Alien films, which of course we don't. Many of these follow-ups are rendered redundant and dead in the water by their mere existence, stuck with the impossible task of following up some of the most iconic and popular mainstream films ever made. The 'extended universe' and lore of Alien is largely dull and inconsequential compared to the primal terror and robust filmmaking that drives the first two films, and Scott and Cameron ensured there's not a whole lot more to say in that respect.

One of the interesting things about the Alien franchise is the fact that it has (generally) done exactly what you suggest.
None were massive budget extravaganzas (with the exception of Resurrection that killed the franchise), Aliens cost 14 million dollars to make in 1986, adjusted for inflation it would probably come in at about 40 mill, alien 3 likewise.
The franchise has also traditionally taken a punt on young largely untested auteurs in the directors chair, I can think of no other blockbuster franchise that sports a list directors like Scott, Cammeron, Fincher and Jeunet (who while great may not have been the best cultural fit for the franchise).

I suspect the reason that so many of the current crop of action directors are so damn poor is down to two factors.
Firstly, as with comedy these days (where's our Billy Wilder?) it's seen as a job for journymen, we had a lot of competent journymen in our day too, the best of which was John McTiernan, but largely it's a genre that auteurs avoid.

The second reason is largely generational, a generation that came up directing MTV videos (Fincher excepted) who never learned their 'craft' in quite the same way just don't have the required vocabularly or knowledge of their predecessors. You get a sense of ever diminishing returns as a result.
Hitchcock influenced De Palma, but who infuences Blomkamp? It seems to me that he's been remaking the last third of Aliens for three movies now in what feels increasingly like a fanboy with some skills indulging in playing at making a movie. I think he'll prove to be a horrible choice for the series.

Sad Professor

The problem isn’t talent, it’s that the studio system doesn’t really make mid-budget films anymore. Marketing has become so costly that financially such films no longer make sense. If you are going to spend 60 million, you might as well spend 100-150 million. That might seem bizarre, but it’s the only way the film has any chance of making its money back. Otherwise a studio with a 50 million dollar film on its shelf might decide its not worth spending 80-100 million to release it. The safest bet is to spend even more, go over waay over budget, thus ensuring its gets the marketing funds necessary to ensure some return on the investment, if not now then a few years down the road. When that much money is at stake the studio doesn’t have to put pressure on the director. Unless he’s an idiot, he’s going to do whatever it takes to make the film appealing to mainstream audiences everywhere, which means less creative risks.

I think Bloomkamp could be a good director and could make a fantastic Alien 5 movie, with the right crew to back him up. Chappie, Elysium, and District 9 were all interesting stories, with high concepts, and good ideas, it's just that they're all somewhat flawed. I personally don't think that he's made a bad movie - they all had good parts, it's just that none could stand up to what District 9 was, but you'd have to wonder how much of that was down to having Peter Jackson as a producer. I don't think he had such a name on Elysium or Chappie.

Personally I think a Bloomkamp directed and James Cameron/Ridley Scott produced Alien 5 would be an absolute work of art.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally I think a Bloomkamp directed and James Cameron/Ridley Scott produced Alien 5 would be an absolute work of art.

Personally, going on Scott and Cameron's most recent sci-fi output, I think it would probably be absolutely gick.

the_monkey

Hey, I think I´ve asked this before but can anyone recommend some good Alien expanded universe comics - not AVP stuff though.

I think I read a book (Hive maybe ?) and it was really badly written, so when it comes to these stories I think I'd prefer a comic book style.

johnny_ultimate

conorhal wrote: »

The franchise has also traditionally taken a punt on young largely untested auteurs in the directors chair, I can think of no other blockbuster franchise that sports a list directors like Scott, Cammeron, Fincher and Jeunet (who while great may not have been the best cultural fit for the franchise).

The disappointing thing at the moment, ironically, is that giving films to largely untested young directors is becoming a big problem! As mentioned in other threads recently, there's all these directors making promising or impressive small-scale debuts - Colin Trevorrow, Gareth Edwards, Josh Trank etc.. - and then being thrown into the deep end without a hope of meaningfully building their own authorial voice. Don't get me wrong - I don't think any of them showed anywhere near the promise of a young Spielberg or Scott in the first place, but I think we're missing out on some potentially interesting things due to the disappearance of something between indie and big-budget. It's telling that somebody like Rian Johnson has managed to build a more substantial and fascinating (albeit short) filmography having been allowed progress as a rather more incremental rate.

Anyway, I have never thought all that much of Blomkamp TBF, even District 9 was ultimately let down by its fairly flavourless second half. I've only seen that and Elysium, but based on that I've seen little evidence he's the man to 'fix' Alien - even allowing for the fact IMO there's no actual need to fix it in the first place :pac:

the_monkey wrote: »

Hey, I think I´ve asked this before but can anyone recommend some good Alien expanded universe comics - not AVP stuff though.

I think I read a book (Hive maybe ?) and it was really badly written, so when it comes to these stories I think I'd prefer a comic book style.

Forget comics - all you need is Alien: Isolation. Who'd have thought the work with the most thorough understanding of the original's aesthetic, atmosphere and monster would be a video game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqmlNjPWNXA

conorhal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The disappointing thing at the moment, ironically, is that giving films to largely untested young directors is becoming a big problem! As mentioned in other threads recently, there's all these directors making promising or impressive small-scale debuts - Colin Trevorrow, Gareth Edwards, Josh Trank etc.. - and then being thrown into the deep end without a hope of meaningfully building their own authorial voice. Don't get me wrong - I don't think any of them showed anywhere near the promise of a young Spielberg or Scott in the first place, but I think we're missing out on some potentially interesting things due to the disappearance of something between indie and big-budget. It's telling that somebody like Rian Johnson has managed to build a more substantial and fascinating (albeit short) filmography having been allowed progress as a rather more incremental rate.

I think the difference is, as I suggested, that the current generation aren't the craftsmen that their predecessors are, Trevorrow to paraphrase Ian Malcom, is standing on the shoulders of a giant and failing to ask, just because I can direct a Jurassic Park sequel, should I?

Another difference is that the current generation of untested arteurs are being handed massive budget excercises in special effects show reels for tightly controlled superhero franchise brands, rather then being allowed to make actual movies.
When the directors of the Alien franchise came on board they were hired to bring their 'specific set of skills' to the movie making process to make mid budget genre films. Todays up and coming directors are constrained by (as you correctly noted) the huge size of their budget for these films and the fact that Marvel have a flow chart of release dates and a formula that they have to work to. The studio's want a product and simply hope that the talent they hire can give it a soul but they they really aren't interested in facilitating that.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Anyway, I have never thought all that much of Blomkamp TBF, even District 9 was ultimately let down by its fairly flavourless second half. I've only seen that and Elysium, but based on that I've seen little evidence he's the man to 'fix' Alien - even allowing for the fact IMO there's no actual need to fix it in the first place :pac:


Forget comics - all you need is Alien: Isolation. Who'd have thought the work with the most thorough understanding of the original's aesthetic, atmosphere and monster would be a video game

There's little evidence that he's the man for the franchise alright.
The simple fact that the least interesting, engaging and coherent parts of his films are the parts in which his characters jump into some power loader and re-enact the last third of Aliens should be a serious indicator that he is in fact the wrong man.

You're also right about Alien: Isolation. I've never been such a nervous wreck playing a video game.

Zubeneschamali

conorhal wrote: »

Trevorrow to paraphrase Ian Malcom, is standing on the shoulders of a giant and failing to ask, just because I can direct a Jurassic Park sequel, should I?

Why not? Spielberg made a big dumb summer blockbuster with CGI dinosaurs, it's not like making a sequel to Citizen Kane. Jurassic World is close to being as big a success as the original in tickets sold, more than double JP3, I'd say job well done.

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Forget comics - all you need is Alien: Isolation. Who'd have thought the work with the most thorough understanding of the original's aesthetic, atmosphere and monster would be a video game ]

I've had this game in my Steam list since Christmas and I haven't fired it up yet. I've no idea why.

Tony EH

conorhal wrote: »

There's little evidence that he's the man for the franchise alright.
The simple fact that the least interesting, engaging and coherent parts of his films are the parts in which his characters jump into some power loader and re-enact the last third of Aliens should be a serious indicator that he is in fact the wrong man.

There's that and the fanboi **** of "Let's bring back Hicks".

People die, get over it.

By all means, make an Aliens film, but there's no need to bring back long characters, or ignore previous entries in a series, no matter how "bad" one thinks they were. An 'Alien' sequel doesn't need Hicks, it doesn't even need Ripley. There's plenty of other people in the universe and loads of stories that can be used.

TheDoc

Tony EH wrote: »

There's that and the fanboi **** of "Let's bring back Hicks".

People die, get over it.

By all means, make an Aliens film, but there's no need to bring back long characters, or ignore previous entries in a series, no matter how "bad" one thinks they were. An 'Alien' sequel doesn't need Hicks, it doesn't even need Ripley. There's plenty of other people in the universe and loads of stories that can be used.

I think the Alien universe is rich enough (I say Alien universe, there is enough imagination in there) that there can be stories to be told without Ripley.

But Hicks was a great character, Michael Biehn is a fantastic actor, and I have no problem with it at all.

I've long urged for a project to come around to lure him out of indie film and the work he is doing(which is great) and get him back into the cinema.

Tony EH

Hicks was just a grunt..."no offence"

He wasn't really that great a character. He's a character that's in a thousand war films, pretty much the same as Hudson. There's nothing that special about him. Certainly nothing that warrants his return from the dead.

Regarding Biehn, I like him too. He was good in 'The Divide', but I just cannot see him getting back into the mainstream at this stage.

don ramo

star trek is in the same boat as aliens, their in love with the past, and want what came before but different, thats why we ended up with into darkness a terrible rehashed story about kahn, after the universe resetting of the 2009 film, is was just stupid beyond belief that they spent over 200 million retelling what is still a perfectly fine film,

these franchises are built to evolve and keep progressing, but they seem to have their feet stuck in the mud and keep going back to the start,

if you cant come up with a somewhat original concept for a good alien, star trek or terminator film, then maybe you shouldnt be trying to make one in the first place, all you need is some imagination, which seems a rare commodity these days in hollywood,

Sad Professor

don ramo wrote: »

star trek is in the same boat as aliens, their in love with the past, and want what came before but different, thats why we ended up with into darkness a terrible rehashed story about kahn, after the universe resetting of the 2009 film, is was just stupid beyond belief that they spent over 200 million retelling what is still a perfectly fine film,

They didn’t, though. Apart from a few things at the end, it’s a totally different story and plot from Wrath of Khan. Even the character of Khan himself bares little resemblance to the original. That was my major issue with the film, actually. The whole Khan twist felt like it was tacked on to try and make another poor villain into a bigger threat than he really was.

don ramo

Sad Professor wrote: »

They didn’t, though. Apart from a few things at the end, it’s a totally different story and plot from Wrath of Khan. Even the character of Khan himself bares little resemblance to the original. That was my major issue with the film, actually. The whole Khan twist felt like it was tacked on to try and make another poor villain into a bigger threat than he really was.

but they dipped into an old well was my point, instead of kirk roaring kahn name they had spock do it instead, just a lazy attempt at a star trek film, it was just idiotic anyway, the state of the art ship with the most advanced warheads ever made, which then get transported and detonated inside (inside) the ships hull, yet the ship survived that, 50 odd warheads that exploded inside it, ****ing ridiculous beyond belief,

to be fair even if kahn didnt appear in the film it was still ridiculous, problems within starfleet is also noting new, and a state of the art facility like that being built a stone throws from earth just doesnt work, maybe a solar system of two away, just lazy lazy lazy,

Skerries

new pulse rifle revealed by Blomkamp

SuprSi

They should make one of those that shoots paintballs, ideally with a little speaker to replicate the sound when the trigger is pressed

pixelburp

Well I wouldn't expect anything less from Blomkamp; whatever else about his films he always has a strong sense of technological world-building. I don't doubt the toys in this new film will look great, more worried about what the stuff happening around the toys will be like

Duggy747

The production team must be having a great time pricking about with this, Blomkamp does have a great eye for CGI use, world-building and scenery (though the use Sarf-African slums got old)

He has his critics and he does have a lot of faults but for an Alien film, and considering what's happening to other beloved franchises, they really could've picked a hell of a lot less suitable person to do this.

The guy obviously has Alien / Aliens as major influences on his films and now here's his chance to revel in it and prove his worth. He really needed a change as the past 3 films have felt way more similar than they should've.

Whatever the end result may be, at the moment, I think this is as good a chance as we'll get to a good Alien film since Alien 3 and to make the Xenomorphs a movie monster again.

The Facehuggers still fúckin' disgust me :pac:

Wedwood

Tony EH wrote: »

Hicks was just a grunt..."no offence"

He wasn't really that great a character. He's a character that's in a thousand war films, pretty much the same as Hudson. There's nothing that special about him. Certainly nothing that warrants his return from the dead.

Regarding Biehn, I like him too. He was good in 'The Divide', but I just cannot see him getting back into the mainstream at this stage.

I'll be glad to see Hicks and hopefully Newt back in the land of the living. Alien 3 while it had its moments, done a terrible disservice to the heroic ending of Aliens that really derailed the Alien story. Aliens gave Ripley effectively a new family in the form of Hicks and Newt which acts as a closure of sorts after she finds out earlier in the movie that her daughter had grown old and died. Alien 3 robbed the audience of that ending and instead gave Ripley nothing to live for and completely changed her heroic character.

This new film reminds me a bit of Superman 2 Richard Donner cut, which will set out an alternate sequel that will sit parallel with the previous sequels.

Tony EH

No. Sorry, but it's a stupid and completely unnecessary concept, with a director that has frankly, yet to prove he's not a one hit wonder.

This has pointlessness written all over it and will probably just be another nail in the Alien franchise coffin, which already has more than enough metal in its wood.

'Alien 3' killed Ripley (not to mention Newt and Hicks) and that's where the original trilogy and characters should have ended. I actually think one of the biggest problems here is Blomkamp, who will, more than likely, prove to be just as disappointing a director in this series as Jeunet was.

Belial

"Original trilogy"? If there's an original series then surely it's the first four films.

There's a lot to like in Alien 3, but storywise it was a total wrong turn. It'll be interesting to see an alternate take on an Aliens followup.

Zubeneschamali

Belial wrote: »

"Original trilogy"? If there's an original series then surely it's the first four films.

Four? There were only two Alien movies!

Tony EH

Belial wrote: »

"Original trilogy"? If there's an original series then surely it's the first four films.

There's a lot to like in Alien 3, but storywise it was a total wrong turn. It'll be interesting to see an alternate take on an Aliens followup.

That last abomination doesn't exist for me.

Like the Star Wars prequels, it has been wiped from my mind. I even prefer the Alien v Predator films over that piece of crap.

I don't think 'Alien 3' was a "wrong turn" at all. It's, in fact, very fitting with the two films that came before it and is simply an additional chapter. The "wrong turn" was 'Alien: Resurrection', because it was a fat disaster from beginning to end.

Not only that, 'Alien: Resurrection' came about from a fanboi desire to see Ripley again in an Aliens film, even though she died, and like that basic idea would suggest, it ended up being completely rubbish, helmed by an inappropriate director.

There's little doubt in my mind that this Blomkamp effort is going suck balls too, because the very idea is stupid and Blomkamp style is too bolted on. Also, Sigourney Weaver is an OAP now, which just cements the concerns that this really should be left alone.

'Alien: Blomkamp' is going to have to be absolutely fantastic, story wise, if it's to come off not looking idiotic. But, as we've seen with other Hollywood reboots / remakes, the producers of these "name rape" films don't really care about looking idiotic. It's simply about money.

In any case, I'll gladly eat my hat if it turns out to be any use. I was pleasantly surprised by how bloody good 'Mad Max: Fury Road' was. But that particular film was a complete reboot (and pretty much unconnected) of an old film series (which were fairly shaky to begin with). This Alien malarkey is merely an attempt at fanboi wish fulfillment.

Belial

Tony EH wrote: »

That last abomination doesn't exist for me.

Like the Star Wars prequels, it has been wiped from my mind. I even prefer the Alien v Predator films over that piece of crap.

In your mind. But in reality, there's no "original trilogy".

I don't think 'Alien 3' was a "wrong turn" at all. It's, in fact, very fitting with the two films that came before it and is simply an additional chapter.

I like Alien 3 too, but the film is legendarily an incoherent, indecisive mashup of different script ideas and clashing agendas that pleased no one. Nobody involved in the film liked it and nobody who saw it at the time liked it. Nobody was happy with the direction the story went, until a generation later when it got a reappraisal and developed a cult following based most likely on the quality of Fincher's subsequent films.

Not only that, 'Alien: Resurrection' came about from a fanboi desire to see Ripley again in an Aliens film, even though she died

Got any evidence of this? My understanding is it was the studio's idea. If anything, "fanbois" at the time wanted an AvP film, which was part of the reason Weaver insisted Ripley die in Alien 3.

Blomkamp style is too bolted on.

...? He hasn't even shot it yet.

Sigourney Weaver is an OAP now

Good. There aren't enough leading roles for women of her age.

This Alien malarkey is merely an attempt at fanboi wish fulfillment.

I don't see what the problem is here. Whose wishes should be taken into account when making the ninth entry in a genre franchise if not the fans'?

pixelburp

Belial wrote: »

[...]

I don't see what the problem is here. Whose wishes should be taken into account when making the ninth entry in a genre franchise if not the fans'?

Fulfilment shouldn't extend to (supposedly) resurrecting a dead character in Hicks, just because he was popular in that movie the fans like; it was bad enough when Ripley was brought back, demonstrating the franchise being creatively crippled by an inability to think beyond its own lead, but bringing Hicks back from the dead smells of straight-up pandering. If he makes it into the final script mind you.

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

bringing Hicks back from the dead smells of straight-up pandering.

Yeah, and Kirk is dead too, what's that about.

Skerries

just make a film adaption of Alien: Isolation - sorted!

Belial

pixelburp wrote: »

Fulfilment shouldn't extend to (supposedly) resurrecting a dead character in Hicks, just because he was popular in that movie the fans like; it was bad enough when Ripley was brought back, demonstrating the franchise being creatively crippled by an inability to think beyond its own lead, but bringing Hicks back from the dead smells of straight-up pandering. If he makes it into the final script mind you.

I don't see the problem in disregarding a story direction that nobody liked and picking up at a point before that to make the sequel people actually wanted to see in the first place. As I said earlier in this thread, it's not like ANYONE wants a sequel to Alien: Resurrection following the adventures of clone Ripley and android Winona Ryder on Earth. If people were clamouring for that film, then I could understand why this alternative one would be a problem, effectively nixing any possibility of an Earth-set Resurrection sequel. But nobody cares.

All the objections seem to be based on some weird principles. "You don't just bring characters back from the dead!" (Well, they're not, they're just picking up where they left off when he was still alive.) "You don't just disregard an established continuity!" (Ehh, yeah, you do, all the time, in all mediums, there's nothing unique about this case at all.) "You don't just do things to satisfy the fans!" (Huh? People spend their whole lives complaining that Hollywood fails to do this, and now they're doing exactly that and somehow that's also a problem...)

Tony EH

Belial wrote: »

In your mind. But in reality, there's no "original trilogy".

Yeh, I know...relax yourself.

Belial wrote: »

I like Alien 3 too, but the film is legendarily an incoherent, indecisive mashup of different script ideas and clashing agendas that pleased no one. Nobody involved in the film liked it and nobody who saw it at the time liked it. Nobody was happy with the direction the story went, until a generation later when it got a reappraisal and developed a cult following based most likely on the quality of Fincher's subsequent films.

I'm well aware of the difficulties that plagued 'Alien 3', but it gets a, frankly, stupid amount of flak from idiots that mostly just wanted a rehash of 'Aliens'.

I saw it at the time and I liked it and I certainly wasn't alone. In fact, I saw it more than once in the cinema and while it was certainly the lesser film of the trilogy :P, it was still a fine film. Which, has been improved some what by the existence of the so called "Assembly cut". Even so, it was a relative success at the BO at the time of release.

But, 'Alien 3' was never the "terrible" picture that some people made and continue to make it out to be.

BTW, Fincher himself along with Walter Hill, had an AWFUL LOT to do with the direction of the story as it actually turned out. What they wanted largely got to the screen, albeit with compromises, due to Fox's interference.

I don't know what the film would have been like if the original script had been shot. Maybe worse, who knows. Gibson's "Marxist's in Space" sounds crap to me, to be honest, and ultimately ends up like an 'Aliens' re-do. Subsequent writers seemed to be trying to shoehorn some sort of Cold War analogy into their scripts too, which would have severely dated anything on the screen. But, all of this was because of the studio's wish to deliver fan satisfaction, who were largely looking for 'Aliens Part II'. In the end, a decision was made to go back to the first film (which is the best in series IMHO) and reduce the scale. This was also part of Weaver's doing who wasn't on board for another "war epic" like 'Aliens'. So, the setting was changed to a prison planet and the guns removed, which in itself pissed off a lot of fans.

Belial wrote: »

Got any evidence of this? My understanding is it was the studio's idea. If anything, "fanbois" at the time wanted an AvP film, which was part of the reason Weaver insisted Ripley die in Alien 3.

I recall at the time, there was a lot of naysaying from fans about the death of Ripley, who felt it was a bad move (I didn't think it was great myself, although Hicks and Newt dying didn't bother me in the slightest). People were expecting more of a "happy" ending. The idea to bring back Ripley didn't come out of nowhere though. In fact, Sigorney Weaver was only front and centre in 'Alien 3', because Fox felt the film wouldn't fly with Michael Biehn as the star. Originally, Weaver wasn't interested in doing any more Alien films (she'd had a bit of Barney with Fox) and only agreed when they waved a massive wad of cash in her face and agreed to get rid of the guns. She was paid a million dollars just to get her head shaved. The bottom line though was that Weaver was sick of Aliens and Ellen Ripley. It may even have been her idea that she'd die in 'Alien 3'. But she was convinced to give one more go.

Either way, I recall reading at the time (probably in Fangoria) that Ripley's death at the end of the picture didn't go down well with fans, who like fans are always want to do, just needed to see their favorite film over and over again. When the central character of a series gets whacked, there's always a substantial number of people that are unhappy about it.

Studios being studios, when it came time to cash in again on the franchise, Fox only agreed to fund 'Alien: Resurrection' on the fact that somebody from the series would return in some way and settled on Newt, as Weaver had pretty much said she was done. This is where the "clone" idea came from (although it was suggested by Walter Hill IIRC). But, Fox, insisted that the clone be Ripley, as she was the centre of the series and they feared that fans wouldn't be interested without her. Plus, the lackluster response to the slower paced 'Alien 3', meant that Whedon's script had to include some sort of "war" based section, hence the Earth sequence at the end of his script. She liked Whedon's script (although personally I think he was completely wrong for the project) and Fox waved $10 mil at her too.

But either way, the whole project, as far as Fox was concerned was predicated on Weaver returning, because of their silly fear of fan outrage.

Frankly though, with or without Whedon, Weaver or Jeunet, 'Alien: Resurrection' was probably always destined to be awful.

Belial wrote: »

...? He hasn't even shot it yet.

If you've seen any of his films, you'll know what I mean.

Belial wrote: »

Good. There aren't enough leading roles for women of her age.

That's neither here nor there.

If rumours are to be believed and Blomkamp is going to somehow ignore 'Alien 3' and obviously 'Alien: Resurrection' and place his film as a sequel to 'Aliens', then Weaver is simply too old to play the character in the time frame that's being mooted. The very idea is stupid.

Belial wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is here. Whose wishes should be taken into account when making the ninth entry in a genre franchise if not the fans'?

Because they are the baying mob. They'll cry out for the same shit over and over again and then complain that there's nothing new. It's the misguided attempts to please fans wishes that has the Alien franchise in the mess that it is, which is a shame, because there are so many stories that can be derived from the Aliens universe, but what we end up with is recurring characters that should be left behind and 'Aliens vs Predator'.

If this thing goes ahead, what we're going to end up with, more than likely, is a subpar reshoot of 'Aliens', that will end up pleasing nobody.

As I said though, if it is good, I'll be happy to be wrong.