Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ridley Scott's Alien Prequel - Prometheus (2012)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • And explain to me again how the Aliens reaching Earth is a slap in the face to fans?
    So two characters getting killed off who were only in one film anyway is a huge slap in the face to fans... but the Aliens reaching earth which Ripley had spent 2 films trying to stop them from getting there wouldn't have been?

    You're just basing your entire view of the series on one film.


    Originally posted by Sea Hag View Post
    Right right, next you're gonna say (drag me to hell spoilers) Raimi intended for people to know Christine got the wrong envelope the exact instant her boyfriend gave it to her. (end spoilers)

    One of us is suffering from blind fanboy syndrome. (best american horror film in decades my ass)
    And that person is you. You were behind the film until you discovered that some people liked it more than The Mist, then you got all butthurt. Once that happened you went in to full rant mode against DMTH just to try keep The Mist up. Anybody can see that.

    If liking 3 out of 15 or so of Raimi's films makes me a fanboy I obviously haven't checked my dictionary lately.

    This whole Alien 3 sucks routine is just another example of you trashing down one film unfairly just to make your favorite shine brighter ( just like what you're doing with The Mist and DMTH in another thread). I have a lot of time for all 4 flicks and can't say I feel the need to do that to any of them.

    The fact you even bought that argument up again in here just further proves my point.
    Last edited by depecheanix; 06-15-2009, 01:14 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by depecheanix View Post
      So two characters getting killed off who were only in one film anyway is a huge slap in the face to fans... but the Aliens reaching earth which Ripley had spent 2 films trying to stop them from getting there wouldn't have been?

      You're just basing your entire view of the series on one film.
      Not for nothing Depeche, but are you being willfully dense? I never said killing off those characters was a slap in the face to fans. I even just said for a 2nd time that I wasn't against it in my last post. I was using what's their face's retarded rationale against him/her.


      And that person is you. You were behind the film until you discovered that some people liked it more than The Mist, then you got all butthurt. Once that happened you went in to full rant mode against DMTH just to try keep The Mist up. Anybody can see that.
      That is utterly fucking dumb and desperate of you man. I was championing the thing for months, absolutely pumped for it right up until I sat my ass in the theater. Holic's review had me geeking out as did all the positive reviews it got on Rotten Tomatoes. I was ready & wanting a great horror film. (like i did with let the right one in only that one actually delivered) Then I watched the thing and was like "that's the great horror film people are talking about?" And my gripes were/are completely valid as was/is my comparison to the superior better film. I'm not sure I'd even rank DMTH in top 5 of american horror films released this decade let alone the last two.

      Explain this one again:

      Originally posted by Sea Hag View Post
      Right right, next you're gonna say (drag me to hell spoilers) Raimi intended for people to know Christine got the wrong envelope the exact instant her boyfriend gave it to her. (end spoilers)
      If liking 3 out of 15 or so of Raimi's films makes me a fanboy I obviously haven't checked my dictionary lately.
      Who said I was referring to his entire filmography? I was talking about that one film jackass. (just like you did when you made that inaccurate aliens fanboys comment)

      This whole Alien 3 sucks routine is just another example of you trashing down one film unfairly just to make your favorite shine brighter ( just like what you're doing with The Mist and DMTH in another thread). I have a lot of time for all 4 flicks and can't say I feel the need to do that to any of them.

      The fact you even bought that argument up again in here just further proves my point.
      I was using your inaccurate fanboy comment (speaking for myself) against you like I did with what's their face's rationale. The fact that you even think that is surprising in all honesty. But after reading this misinformed post I doubt you read or even understood anything I've said.

      DVDs


      Recent Flicks
      Jurassic World - 7/10
      Speed - 8.5/10
      John Wick - 9.5/10
      The Omen III: The Final Conflict - 7/10
      Interstellar - 8/10

      Comment


      • The aliens coming to Earth would've been fucking terrible. As much as the Dark Horse comics are cool, the plot was corny and contrived. Alien films should take place in space (duh). The series is a space-opera, and how else are you going to maximize the fear of the unknown if its not in a place unfamiliar to us?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SirStoneyOfBow View Post
          Seriously, you really believe that?
          Alien: Resurrection was like an anime movie with some of the most limited action sequences in the entire series. It was completely comic-book like, and these movies arent to be enjoyed in that way. It doesnt exactly scare you or excite you and here's nothing great about the look or the photography in any case.
          I always thought it was well photographed, and has a feast of visual treats in it's imagery. It's one of the few things I like about the film; it is strong in that sense. While I've never seen Jean-Paul Jeunet's previously co-directed 'Delicatessen' and 'The City of Lost Children', but have seen his sole directed feature after (A:R), the exquisite looking 'Amelie', it's obvious he understands what it takes make a movie eye-candy.

          He applied this knowledge well here, and that can actually be seen in the action sequences; the brilliant underwater sequence being the highlight. In this respect 'Alien Resurrection' is bold and inventive in style. Admittedly, despite the action sequences having a certain visceral appeal, I agree with you that the problem with these set-pieces is that the tension is obligatory, and not unique. The aliens weren't scary anymore; their ability to shock and frighten was gone, and the gore galore was not going to compensate. 'A:R' tried to combine the claustrophobia of 'Alien' and the unique tension filled action set-pieces of 'Aliens', but ultimately fails.

          Also, Ripley wasn't really Ripley was she? She was no longer the multidimensional heroine from the first three films, and has been re-invented into a sinister, unsympathetic character. The previous aspects of her unique personality have been thrown out, for someone who is now amoral and comes out with nasty cynical one- iners.

          For a routine cheap thrills sci-fi action flick, it works OK on that level. But if your expecting something in the leugue of 'Alien' and 'Aliens' you will sorely be disappointed, 'Resurrection' is just leftover cannon fodder, which only compensates for a stupid weak story. Nothing spectacular, and really it's as bad as 'Alien 3', but for different reasons. It's not the depressing migrane like that latter mentioned film, but it was still another slap in the face of a once great series. Despite 'Alien 3' being an unsatisfactory ending, it did fill like it was the bookend of a trilogy, and should have been left that way; it really renders this film pointless.

          ** out of ****

          Alien 3 is a dark-edged horror movie that has some wonderful elements of symbolism and gives you a deep glimpse of the Xenomorph's evolved mechanics and it's superiority as a living being as not even Alien or Aliens delved into its biology(though it was often spoken about). Take the environment - a rusted, gutted lice ridden prison with no way out or a place to hide. Alien 3 is miles better than A:R.
          They're both as bad as each other. I think 'Alien Resurrection' is more visually rewarding, and I'm not knocking David Fincher as a visionary director (clearly illustrated by his later powerhouse body of work), as I do think he makes a claustrophobic, oppressive and isolated environment in 'Alien 3'. Much Like in Ridley Scott's first film; the oppressive setting with rules imposed on it's inhabitants. But unlike 'Alien', 'Alien 3' lacks the extremely suspenseful atmposphere, the supreme tension-filled moments, which are deliberately drawn out with slow pacing, the visceral thrills and shocks, and the added unique visual effects techniques.

          Wonderful symbolism?
          Are you referring to the pretentious religious symbolism? This was pointless and represented nothing as to what the 'Alien' films are about. If you deconstruct the sub-text of Scott's 'Alien', you will find sexually-charged symbolism and images, like the Xenomorph having both a phallic head and an open, dripping vaginal mouth, with a oral like penis weapon inside it. Of course in the film's most horrific and iconic scene, John Hurt 'impregnated' by the alien as a surrogate mother, 'gives birth' to the baby creature from his chest. There is the scene where Ash tries to kill Ripley with a kind of weird symbolic 'oral rape', by shoving a 'porno' mag (extension of a penis), down her throat. Also, the name for the starship's computer (2037) that awakens 'gives life' to the crew , is simply called 'Mother' (MU-TH-R 182). All this is wonderful symbolism!

          Well look at that, I love Alien, Aliens (but miss the point by not connecting with the wonderfully written characters) & Alien 3 - so you're right.
          Fixed.

          I'm not interested in seeing where the franchise would have gone with Hicks, Newt and Bishop because it in my opinion made sense they would be killed off in such a way as in the beginning of Alien 3.
          This is not my only gripe with the film, but it is a major one for me and the majority of fans of the first two films. You are in a minority where you fail to see the potential this series had after the mythologies set up by 'Aliens'. Most of us would have liked to see these mythos capitalized upon, and not be totally abandoned. This is something that the first three story arc in the Dark Horse comics did right. With the right creative team of filmmakers using this as source materiel , with no studio interference, we could have had at least a potentially great finale to the series - Alien earth war! Other than that there were many other possibilities to make this a much better film, like a mission to eradicate the species on their home world, etc

          Respected Science Fiction author Alan Dead Foster:

          Pasted from wiki:

          A novelization of the film was authored by Alan Dean Foster. His adaptation includes many scenes that were cut from the final film, some of which later reappeared in the Assembly Cut. Foster wanted his adaptation to differ from the film's script, which he disliked, but Walter Hill declared he should not alter the storyline. Foster later commented: "So out went my carefully constructed motivations for all the principal prisoners, my preserving the life of Newt (her killing in the film is an obscenity) and much else. Embittered by this experience, that's why I turned down Resurrection."

          It's wasn't just the illogical decisions by the writers to kill off these much loved characters, but they are unfairly killed off in the opening scenes. I suppose it's not them being killed off so much; it's that the audience were never allowed to say goodbye to them after what they went through with them in the previous installment. With some more time with them on screen in this film, and even If they didn't survive Alien 3's outcome, then at least it would have made their fight for survival in the last installment more significant. Also, the audience can take comfort in the fact they put up a good fight for survival.

          It was also the inability of the writers to create new meaningful characters for this film. I didn't give a fuck about on any of them! Except one; Clemens, an interesting character played by the brilliant and underrated Charles Dance. His portrayal of the former inmate turned facility's doctor was compelling. What happened when the audience was just getting to know him? The writers kill him off in a scene where he has just revealed his captivating backstory. Genius!

          The nightmare started again for Ripley - who was the only person who mattered in this Franchise at this period of time. Not only was she dealing with the loss of her friends, but was again fighting the Xenomorph as well as the scepticism of the convicted rapists and prison wardens - all in a race against time to deny the company it's capture.
          No. Ripley is the most important character yes, as she is the iconic mother savior of humanity, but with 'Aliens' three new important characters were introduced. These characters were much loved equally and should have been given a chance to grow throughout the series, or at least through one more film before meeting their demise after some heroics in dire situations. This story is just unsatisfactory to what could have, and what should have been.

          Never has a franchise, with so much to capitalize upon after the magnificent 'Aliens', fucked up like this! All this dampens the enjoyment of the climax of 'Aliens'. The film as a whole is just a depressing eyesore. When you think of all the great ideas there must have been, which could have expanded the mythology that was laid down with 'Aliens', it just breaks a film fan's heart.

          ** out of ****

          As for the remake: Ridley Scott will NOT save this franchise.
          He's directed some great movies over the years, but he's also directed some shit.
          So what! Every maverick director has some shit within their body of work. John Carpenter had a terrible 90's (except 'ITMOM'), and has yet to come good again. De Palma hasn't made a great film since 1993 (Carlito's Way). Ridley Scott, is one of the most dynamic and innovative directors of his generation. Anything he has done (expect G.I Jane) is better than 'Alien 3'.

          Originally posted by depecheanix View Post
          Those guys each have motives, motives for hating the film that you couldn't possibly share. Biehn was fucked out of what would have been a high paying role due to the script. Cameron was disappointed to see his characters killed off after all they went through, rubbing his mark off the 3rd one, but Cameron himself took a left turn with Aliens, why shouldn't Fincher with Alien3.
          Your reason for disregarding Biehn's dislike for 'Alien 3' is feasible yes, but a statement like that is also laced with cynicism. It's possible he was bitter for being fucked off for a nice plum role, but it could also be that the actor's artistic soul in him was disgusted with the way his character was treated.

          The difference with Cameron's left turn to the left turn made on 'Alien 3', was that Cameron's was a positive one. He made arguably an even more satisfying film than 'Alien'. And who said it was David Fincher's decision to take that left turn 'Alien 3'; he was a young director brought into a chaotic production at the last minute to direct an incomplete script.

          Not illogical decisions, but decisions you didn't like.
          No. Illogical decisions, that a huge majority of people do not like.


          Well then you're wrong because the first three are amongst my favorite horror films.
          Understand the first two.

          And I really dig the fourth too.
          Oh, depecheanix.

          And this will kill you to know but I like Alien3 more than Aliens.
          This is just getting worse all the time!

          Had they followed Camerons plan what would you have gotten except Aliens but bigger?
          Sounds great to me, and to a hell of a lot of other cheated fans as well!

          It's funny that you bring up the Dark Horse comics and then go on to bash the 4th film. Alien: Resurrection is absolutely a comic book style movie, in both plot (it brings in the mad scientist twist from the comics) and visuals. The biggest problem with the film is they were too scared to leave Ripley out.
          It may have been in comic book style, and I like a lot of the visual aspects of the film. But the ideas were badly executed, and it's nothing like them first three stories in the Dark Horse comics, which served as a continuation of 'Aliens'. They were faithful to the first two films, and it was exactly how fans of the franchise envisioned how the film series might go. 'A:R' was way out there, and has nothing in common with what was done in them comics.

          A better idea would have been to have the real Bishop from the end of 'Alien 3' clone Ripley.

          I think Joss Whedon was trying to write something faithful to the first two films. But because of the bad execution of his script, the film turned out to corrupt the series even more.

          Pasted from Wiki:


          Screenwriter Joss Whedon was unhappy with the final product. When asked in 2005 how the film differed from the script he had written, Whedon responded:

          "It wasn't a question of doing everything differently, although they changed the ending; it was mostly a matter of doing everything wrong. They said the lines...mostly...but they said them all wrong. And they cast it wrong. And they designed it wrong. And they scored it wrong. They did everything wrong that they could possibly do. There's actually a fascinating lesson in filmmaking, because everything that they did reflects back to the script or looks like something from the script, and people assume that, if I hated it, then they’d changed the script...but it wasn’t so much that they’d changed the script; it’s that they just executed it in such a ghastly fashion as to render it almost unwatchable."


          As for AvP, now that's a movie that should have used the Dark Horse comics as their starting point. That first TPB would've made a perfect film, but alas they wrote their own shitty script instead.
          I agree with you 100%.


          Originally posted by twiztidserealkilla17 View Post
          Everyone who understands the Alien series will know that that Alien 3 was the worst way to close out the franchise.
          Fixed.

          Originally posted by Sea Hag View Post
          Please... You may like it, yaddayaddayadda, but to say that was the best way to close out the series is pretty dumb. There were an endless amount of directions it could've went to make the third film a more satisfying conclusion and a singularly better film experience than what we had to settle for.

          I think with how the first two films played out a film epic in scope was in order for the third entry. A trip to the aliens homeworld to see how they behaved in their natural setting, (complete with a whole ecosystem of beasties) it could've taken place in a metropolis setting on earth, the list goes on.
          All good stuff there.

          Originally posted by Sea Hag View Post
          Hell, the biology of the aliens themselves creates endless story possibilities. What if their homeworld was once an ecosystem of alien creatures that they completely assimilated & instead of just having one alien or a horde of aliens you have a whole planet's worth of spider-like aliens, gorilla-like aliens, whatever one's imagination could come up with that originally inhabited said alien planet. And since they would be different from one another they wouldn't be all nesting together but spread out over the entire planet. (like skull island in kong)
          Again good stuff.


          And to keep a depressing vibe you could still have Hicks & Newt offed which in turn would give Ripley a plausible reason to be involved in another encounter with the beasts. (her daughter died while she was in hypersleep, her second daughter, newt, is killed, all the people she truly cares for are dead)
          Sorry, not with you on this one. Better to have kept Newt alive, so Ripley world be her adoptive mother fighting to save her life.

          Originally posted by SirStoneyOfBow View Post
          As far as I know, David Fincher dislikes Alien 3 and never acknowledges it which is great on his part. Considering the shambles that the production was, it was still fucking terrible.
          Fixed.


          Sea Hag:

          You found terror in Alien 3? Only thing I found was a regression to more of the same only with boring, unlikable characters, (not unlikeable in the sense that they were criminals, in the sense that they were just, blah) and scenes that are supposed to be suspenseful & scary that were neither. (at all) Subsequently the alien itself ceased to be scary or even that exciting to see onscreen. The scene where the inmates were trying to trap it by closing off its avenues as it moved (more regression to the first film) was supposed to be exciting & suspenseful?

          And by the time we got to the third film it was time to bring something new & fresh to the creature. Simply assimilating a dog just doesn't cut it.

          Using that retarded rationale you should feel that Alien 3 is a slap in the face considering the lazy manner in which the character (newt) who Ripley tried protect throughout Aliens was killed. And at its core Aliens is about a mother's love for her daughter. (one of the reasons why the final confrontation with the queen alien is so great, two mothers clashing)
          Yep.

          Originally posted by Sea Hag View Post
          Wait, I thought they were all about her trying to keep the aliens from reaching earth? You're better off not saying anything instead of backpedaling & throwing misplaced, condescending insults a 4 year old girl would say.
          Yep.

          You can't have Ripley's character & motivations at the forefront of a story that brings something new & fresh to the title creatures? Good luck with that narrow-minded thing you've got going on.
          Yet again, yep.



          I don't bother with 3 & 4. And wait, didn't you say just recently that you don't even acknowledge the 4th film? I see backpedaling is becoming a habit for you.
          Well what do know, another Yep.


          I have no problem exposing people as the narrow-minded rubes they try to pass themselves off as not being. You for instance.
          Repetition works: Yep.

          Originally posted by Sea Hag View Post
          100% agreed on all counts.. Something that should've be incredibly climactic turned out to be incredibly anti-climactic. It's such a shame too because it could've been pound for pound the best franchise of all.
          Best of the best, no doubt about it; what a crying fucking shame!


          Originally posted by depecheanix View Post
          So what they took a different turn and killed 2 characters off, Aliens itself was a radical turn aswell.
          'Aliens' was a radical turn for the best. 'Alien 3' was a different turn for the worst!



          Originally posted by superfry View Post
          And ALIEN3 lovers are cum drunk Fincher fanboys.

          Though even Fincher himself hates the fucking thing.
          Triple S: Sea Hag, Superfry & myself Slashtastic - the people who can see 'Alien 3' for the soul crushing dissapointment it is!

          Originally posted by Sea Hag View Post
          Ok Ok, your stance is that both of those motivations are the main focus of the films. Great, but that's not actually the case. In the first film she gradually became the hero but it wasn't about her character preventing the alien from getting to earth. It was about survival against a terror that is both alien to her & the audience. (pun intended) Essentially the first film is a slasher (the best possible one at that) that takes place in a gothic setting. And you're forgetting the fact that she wasn't the only one on the ship. There was a crew you know. A crew who was dealing with the same situation. (& it's not like they were in the background either)

          In Aliens, it's not about her dealing with the loss of her daughter. That part of the story wasn't even included in the theatrical version. But even with the added scene early on it's still not about that. I said previously that at it's core Aliens is about a mother's love for her daughter. And it is, and her daughter's Newt. The breakneck pace of the film (which is one of its strong suits) doesn't allow her time to dwell & cope with the loss of her biological daughter. And if it did focus on her dwelling on that we'd see an entirely different film. Her main motivation & focus in Aliens is to ensure the survival of Newt. Not to dwell on her biological daughter's death.

          And yes, the character of Ripley has reached icon status but not for nothing, an Alien film that didn't include Ripley has a way better shot of being good than one without, you know, Aliens But I didn't even mention that as an idea before when I gave examples of where the franchise could've went. I brought up the fact that it was vital for the third film to breathe new life into the title creatures (again, it's called aliens, not ripley) and that could've been done while keeping Ripley as the hero. But your narrowminded views prevent you from acknowledging such possibilities. Instead you say the blah that is Alien 3 is the best possible conclusion to the Alien saga, & that's absurd. (total lack of vision)

          And explain to me again how the Aliens reaching Earth is a slap in the face to fans? (another absurd statement) I bet you're one of those people who thinks remakes ruin original films.
          Yep, yep, yep.

          And while I'm not insane like Stoney & think T3 a better flick than T2, I enjoy it& think it;s pretty damn good.
          Yeah, straight jacket for that man now!

          none of that has changed & it's exacerbated by the fact that there were so many different & better directions it could've went. And I didn't say Alien 3 is a horrible film, just painfully mediocre & in alot of ways that's worse considering the high standard by which the first two films set.
          You hit the nail firmly on the head.

          Originally posted by depecheanix View Post
          So two characters getting killed off who were only in one film anyway is a huge slap in the face to fans... but the Aliens reaching earth which Ripley had spent 2 films trying to stop them from getting there wouldn't have been?
          She spent 'Aliens' trying to prevent them from getting to earth, not in 'Alien'; only survival mattered. Have you read the first three stories in the Dark Horse comics? It ends with 'Alien: Earth War'. The artwork in that last story is horrible, but the actual story is tops!
          Last edited by Slashtastic; 06-17-2009, 07:43 AM.

          Comment


          • When I get a spare hour, I might read your post.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SirStoneyOfBow View Post
              When I get a spare hour, I might read your post.
              I hope you do, so it was worth me writing it!

              Comment


              • Ridley Scott CONFIRMED to helm Alien prequel/reboot

                http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/16935

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rusted31 View Post
                  Ridley Scott CONFIRMED to helm Alien prequel/reboot

                  http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/16935
                  I know aye, thats the best fucking news I've heard for AGES! Good to see its finally going to take off.
                  A Maestro of Horror. A genre Master. And a legend of the Sliver Screen. Wes Craven 1939 ~ 2015

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxley View Post
                    I know aye, thats the best fucking news I've heard for AGES! Good to see its finally going to take off.


                    This is great news. I'm not really sold on the idea that this needs a prequel/reboot but at least Ridley is taking charge. Hopefully this will have the great atmosphere of the original.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rusted31 View Post
                      This is great news. I'm not really sold on the idea that this needs a prequel/reboot but at least Ridley is taking charge. Hopefully this will have the great atmosphere of the original.
                      Atmosphere like it, and action like the second. But I dont want them to get carried away with it. It has to be a HORROR movie.
                      A Maestro of Horror. A genre Master. And a legend of the Sliver Screen. Wes Craven 1939 ~ 2015

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rusted31 View Post
                        Ridley Scott CONFIRMED to helm Alien prequel/reboot

                        http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/16935
                        Originally posted by oxley View Post
                        I know aye, thats the best fucking news I've heard for AGES! Good to see its finally going to take off.
                        This is the best news I've heard in a longtime for this once great franchise. Along with Predator, these two awesome sci-fi/horror series, could be returning to the caliber of film-making that started them off. With Ridley Scott returning to the Alien films, and Robert Rodriquez being heavily involved in the Predator reboot/sequel as well, these franchises are due some respect again.

                        Thought I'd paste the actual news piece:

                        Twentieth Century Fox is resuscitating its "Alien" franchise. The studio has hired Jon Spaihts to write a prequel that has Ridley Scott attached to return as director.

                        Spaihts got the job after pitching the studio and Scott Free, which will produce the film.

                        The film is set up to be a prequel to the groundbreaking 1979 film that Scott directed. It will precede that film, in which the crew of a commercial towing ship returning to Earth is awakened and sent to respond to a distress signal from a nearby planetoid. The crew discovers too late that the signal generated by an empty ship was meant to warn them.
                        Last edited by Slashtastic; 07-31-2009, 03:51 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Slashtastic View Post

                          Thought I'd paste the actual news piece:

                          Twentieth Century Fox is resuscitating its "Alien" franchise. The studio has hired Jon Spaihts to write a prequel that has Ridley Scott attached to return as director.

                          Spaihts got the job after pitching the studio and Scott Free, which will produce the film.

                          The film is set up to be a prequel to the groundbreaking 1979 film that Scott directed. It will precede that film, in which the crew of a commercial towing ship returning to Earth is awakened and sent to respond to a distress signal from a nearby planetoid. The crew discovers too late that the signal generated by an empty ship was meant to warn them.
                          The only strike to it so far is that Weaver will probably be giving it a miss.
                          A Maestro of Horror. A genre Master. And a legend of the Sliver Screen. Wes Craven 1939 ~ 2015

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Slashtastic View Post
                            This is the best news I've heard in a longtime for this once great franchise. Along with Predator, these two awesome sci-fi/horror series, could be returning to the caliber of film-making that started them off. With Ridley Scott returning to the Alien films, and Robert Rodriquez being heavily involved in the Predator reboot/sequel as well, these franchises are due some respect again.

                            Thought I'd paste the actual news piece:

                            Twentieth Century Fox is resuscitating its "Alien" franchise. The studio has hired Jon Spaihts to write a prequel that has Ridley Scott attached to return as director.

                            Spaihts got the job after pitching the studio and Scott Free, which will produce the film.

                            The film is set up to be a prequel to the groundbreaking 1979 film that Scott directed. It will precede that film, in which the crew of a commercial towing ship returning to Earth is awakened and sent to respond to a distress signal from a nearby planetoid. The crew discovers too late that the signal generated by an empty ship was meant to warn them.
                            I wonder if it will tell the story of that other ship that was on the planet already when they arrived.
                            My review of The Skull over at Horror Movie Empire
                            http://horrormovieempire.com/reviews/?p=25

                            Follow my Tweets...
                            http://twitter.com/Horror_Crypt

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxley View Post
                              The only strike to it so far is that Weaver will probably be giving it a miss.
                              I would love to see a Ridley/Sigourney reunion but sadly, this won't happen.

                              Comment


                              • What about Giger? Without him this project won´t get very far. Sure Fox can push this project and hire some B-Grade artist or designer to replace him, in which case this movie will sink like the Titanic, with Mr. Scott aboard or not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X