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.