The Shrine

Scott's working on it

http://www.mania.com/scott-talks-alien- ... 22122.html

It's set 30 years before the original flick and will focus on that huge alien they found on the ship with his chest blown out

I am very very excited...but cautious. Ridley Scott is the fucking man though, so I've got nothing but confidence.

I honestly don't believe it's possible to make another good Aliens movie.

Alien was boring, it was kinda cool, because the monster was cool and you didn't know that much about it.

Aliens took the time to establish Ripley, and the Marines, and the little girl and the build up to the Alien encounter. You get to the planet, and you see signs that the Aliens have been there, this created tension. You send the unprepared Marines into a nest of Aliens, because they didn't know any better, and they get raped. Then it becomes a fight for survival on even ground since for the most part both sides know what to expect from the other. By the end you're introduced to another unknown element in the Alien queen.

Alien 3 was a boring rehash of Alien, and was mildly interesting mainly because nobody had any weapons, by this point you know everything there is to know about the Alien, so you don't really care all that much.

Alien Resurrection was like an open book on the Aliens. It tried to introduce a new element in the hybrid Alien, and hybrid Ripley(Which I will admit was cool). But Ripley was the only interesting thing in the movie. She kinda carried the entire show.

I won't get into the garbage Alien vs Predator movies, these are just bad.

But even Predator had a similar Aliens formula that made it interesting starting out, you didn't know what the fuck it was, and you learned about it's motivations, strengths and weaknesses as you watched the films unfold.

I don't think it's possible to make either series really interesting again because we already know just about everything there is to know about these two monsters at this point.

Eric wrote:I honestly don't believe it's possible to make another good Aliens movie.

Alien was boring, it was kinda cool, because the monster was cool and you didn't know that much about it.

Aliens took the time to establish Ripley, and the Marines, and the little girl and the build up to the Alien encounter. You get to the planet, and you see signs that the Aliens have been there, this created tension. You send the unprepared Marines into a nest of Aliens, because they didn't know any better, and they get raped. Then it becomes a fight for survival on even ground since for the most part both sides know what to expect from the other. By the end you're introduced to another unknown element in the Alien queen.

Alien 3 was a boring rehash of Alien, and was mildly interesting mainly because nobody had any weapons, by this point you know everything there is to know about the Alien, so you don't really care all that much.

Alien Resurrection was like an open book on the Aliens. It tried to introduce a new element in the hybrid Alien, and hybrid Ripley(Which I will admit was cool). But Ripley was the only interesting thing in the movie. She kinda carried the entire show.

I won't get into the garbage Alien vs Predator movies, these are just bad.

But even Predator had a similar Aliens formula that made it interesting starting out, you didn't know what the fuck it was, and you learned about it's motivations, strengths and weaknesses as you watched the films unfold.

I don't think it's possible to make either series really interesting again because we already know just about everything there is to know about these two monsters at this point.

You didn't like the first or third Alien flicks? Wow.......

And there's one thing that you don't know about the aliens: how did they get on the spaceship in the first film?

Eric wrote:But even Predator had a similar Aliens formula that made it interesting starting out, you didn't know what the fuck it was, and you learned about it's motivations, strengths and weaknesses as you watched the films unfold.

Hey, don't knock Predator 2. It was still a damn cool movie, especially the ending.

Zeus wrote:You didn't like the first or third Alien flicks? Wow.......

I'm about the same way. The 3rd one was alright (like Eric said with the lack of weapons), but really the 2nd one was the only awesome one. Resurrections was horrible.

Zeus wrote:

Eric wrote:I honestly don't believe it's possible to make another good Aliens movie.

Alien was boring, it was kinda cool, because the monster was cool and you didn't know that much about it.

Aliens took the time to establish Ripley, and the Marines, and the little girl and the build up to the Alien encounter. You get to the planet, and you see signs that the Aliens have been there, this created tension. You send the unprepared Marines into a nest of Aliens, because they didn't know any better, and they get raped. Then it becomes a fight for survival on even ground since for the most part both sides know what to expect from the other. By the end you're introduced to another unknown element in the Alien queen.

Alien 3 was a boring rehash of Alien, and was mildly interesting mainly because nobody had any weapons, by this point you know everything there is to know about the Alien, so you don't really care all that much.

Alien Resurrection was like an open book on the Aliens. It tried to introduce a new element in the hybrid Alien, and hybrid Ripley(Which I will admit was cool). But Ripley was the only interesting thing in the movie. She kinda carried the entire show.

I won't get into the garbage Alien vs Predator movies, these are just bad.

But even Predator had a similar Aliens formula that made it interesting starting out, you didn't know what the fuck it was, and you learned about it's motivations, strengths and weaknesses as you watched the films unfold.

I don't think it's possible to make either series really interesting again because we already know just about everything there is to know about these two monsters at this point.

You didn't like the first or third Alien flicks? Wow.......

And there's one thing that you don't know about the aliens: how did they get on the spaceship in the first film?

It probably involved stupid humans. :p

I didn't say I didn't like Alien, or Alien 3, I said I found them a bit on the boring side, In Alien you had this monster stalking you that you had no idea about, so it added to the tension, I liked it though because I was learning about the monster, and it was just cool. In Alien 3, you know everything about said monster, and the only reason there's tension is because nobody can defend themselves due to lack of weapons. I remember watching Alien/Aliens the same year Terminator 2 came home to VHS? So I was like...9 or 10 at the time. So when you watch Terminator 2, then you watch Alien, then you watch Aliens....well, one of these three is not like the others. Same could be said about Alien 3 after watching Aliens, it's just a disappointment.

For me Aliens > Alien > Alien 3 => Alien Resurrection > Anything after that. Again Alien Resurrection gets flack, but I loved Sigourney Weaver's hybrid Alien/Human thing she had going on.

Resurrection was a poor film. There were some good parts but overall a very big disappointment over the rest of the series.

I pretty much agree with your ranking of the series but I place Alien and Alien 3 as very, very good films with Aliens being just awesome. Also, you have to watch the extended version of Alien 3 that came with the Best Box Set Ever (Alien Quadrilogy). They add about 20 minutes to the film and make it much better. They finally allowed Fincher to make the version he wanted to.

Zeus wrote:Resurrection was a poor film. There were some good parts but overall a very big disappointment over the rest of the series.

I pretty much agree with your ranking of the series but I place Alien and Alien 3 as very, very good films with Aliens being just awesome. Also, you have to watch the extended version of Alien 3 that came with the Best Box Set Ever (Alien Quadrilogy). They add about 20 minutes to the film and make it much better. They finally allowed Fincher to make the version he wanted to.

I had a problem with my Quad box and had to take it back to best buy for a refund. I'll have to pick it up.

Imakeholesinu wrote:

Zeus wrote:Resurrection was a poor film. There were some good parts but overall a very big disappointment over the rest of the series.

I pretty much agree with your ranking of the series but I place Alien and Alien 3 as very, very good films with Aliens being just awesome. Also, you have to watch the extended version of Alien 3 that came with the Best Box Set Ever (Alien Quadrilogy). They add about 20 minutes to the film and make it much better. They finally allowed Fincher to make the version he wanted to.

I had a problem with my Quad box and had to take it back to best buy for a refund. I'll have to pick it up.

It's dirt cheap now and still, IMO, the best box set released. The extras are amazing

Getting back on subject I'm torn with Scott doing a prequel. Here are my reasons.

1) Robin Hood got TERRIBLE reviews, Body of Lies wasn't that good, American Gangster, with all of Denzel's glory was too long and felt like it had no direction. Now I will note that all three of these films had Russell "fucking" Crowe in them. I like Russell though. I think he is a talented actor and he works with Scott because no one else will hire him. Will one of the two prequels (yes I said two according to IMDB) have him in it? It might be worth it but...

2)...it has been 7 years since I thought Scott did some of his best work (Matchstick Men) and 9 years since he got Josh Hartnett and Ewan McGregor to actually ACT (Blackhawk Down) [Save Tom Sizemore! He was fucking epic in that movie!]. None of those films had Russell Crowe in them.

3) Scott hasn't directed a Sci-Fi film since Bladerunner in 82 (No Legend is not sci-fi and Kingdom of Heaven starred Orlando Bloomin Onion so those don't count). Now this could be a good thing. He's had a long hiatus from the genre and really wants to get back into it. Maybe he will go back over his notes in Bladerunner and maybe the producers will actually let him create the film like he wants too (a la the directors cut and final cut). Who knows but I'll give him that he has left Sci-fi alone for 20 years and he left it on an astounding note.

4) But, this is where I equate Scott to Dick Vermeil of the Rams. You Retire on top with the eagles to be brought back to the Rams and win yet another Super Bowl. Then you go to the Chiefs and dismantle the team even though your running game is excellent. Scott retired from Sci-Fi direction with Bladerunner and now comes back to his roots with the Alien series where it all began. Let's hope he does the same and hit this one out of the park but there are a few things going against him here. A) No Star Wars dominance of the box office like when Alien and Bladerunner came out. He's doing Sci-fi in a fantasy dominated market right now (Twilight, Harry Potter...) C) His favorite cinematographer from Blade runner is dead. D) This is a prequel.

5) Who cares about the Alien in the chair? Is Scott trying pull a Cameron here and do something Avatar-esque where there are no humans? I guess I have too many questions from his interviews about what this is going to be about. I have high hopes but I don't want it to be turned into some Navi CG bukake love fest here. Hopefully Scott can step away from the CG-crutch a lot of directors rely on and use some miniatures like in Blade runner. Those look way better than CG anyway.

Now I'll admit I'm a bit biased here. Yes I've referenced Bladerunner probably one to many times but shit, you don't get much better sci-fi than the early 80s. I want this to work but there are probably more obstacles here than there were with the Original Alien. Just my two cents.

For the record, I thought Robin Hood was more "Meh" than terrible.

Also, if you liked Black Hawk Down, read the book by Mark Bowden. It redefined "gripping" for me when it comes to a book. The movie was good, but it felt like a movie. The book gave me more an impression of being a witness to the events.

Imakeholesinu wrote:A) No Star Wars dominance of the box office like when Alien and Bladerunner came out. He's doing Sci-fi in a fantasy dominated market right now (Twilight, Harry Potter...)

Fuck the dominance! There isn't enough sci-fi out there, but there's plenty of demand for it. Hell, if James Cameron wrote German poop porn, there would be millions of people watching it and talking about how heartfelt it was and it would hundreds of Oscars, Tonys, Grammys, etc. So, Scott would have no trouble with "picking the right genre" for the people.

Although, I do agree with you about both Robin Hood and Crowe. I had no interest in seeing Robin Hood, as Costner already did a good job of it 10-15 years ago, and there was no point in remaking it. It would be like remaking Braveheart now. It was pointless and it's probably going to be a forgettable movie for most everybody, just like the new Clash of the Titans.

The recent Robin Hood was very different from the Kevin Costner one. I had no problem with the idea of doing Robin Hood again - it's an old legend, no one "owns" it. Hollywood has done many takes on Robin Hood over the years, this was just another one. It was competent, but it just didn't "wow" me.

SineSwiper wrote: Fuck the dominance! There isn't enough sci-fi out there, but there's plenty of demand for it. Hell, if James Cameron wrote German poop porn, there would be millions of people watching it and talking about how heartfelt it was and it would hundreds of Oscars, Tonys, Grammys, etc. So, Scott would have no trouble with "picking the right genre" for the people.

See that's my point Sine. Without the dominance and the excitement of Star Wars, Sci-fi in the 80s would never have taken off like it did so Scott is essentially in new territory since it will take Cameron 10 years to poop out another Avatar-like film. So my point is there is demand but there is not enough going on to stir the masses like Star Wars did 33 years ago which made it possible for the likes of Alien, Bladerunner and Dune to see the light of day.

Well, my point is that Scott is a good enough director that he should be able to do a sci-fi movie without fear of a lack of audience. However, an Alien prequel is another matter. If he was going a new sci-fi, I'm sure he would have no problems with it, but milking that dead cow seems like a lost cause.

Also, never mention the Dune movie. That movie never existed, except for a joke about a pug and Captain Picard.

http://io9.com/5548253/the-best-year-in ... ction-1977

i09.com agrees with me. WIN!

SineSwiper wrote:Also, never mention the Dune movie. That movie never existed, except for a joke about a pug and Captain Picard.

You do realize that the '84 Dune movie was relatively well liked by the nerds, yes?

Kupek wrote:The recent Robin Hood was very different from the Kevin Costner one. I had no problem with the idea of doing Robin Hood again - it's an old legend, no one "owns" it. Hollywood has done many takes on Robin Hood over the years, this was just another one. It was competent, but it just didn't "wow" me.

It really didn't feel like a "Robin Hood" movie to me, lacking as it did so many iconic elements of the character. I wrote a review up here.

RentCavalier wrote:

Kupek wrote:The recent Robin Hood was very different from the Kevin Costner one. I had no problem with the idea of doing Robin Hood again - it's an old legend, no one "owns" it. Hollywood has done many takes on Robin Hood over the years, this was just another one. It was competent, but it just didn't "wow" me.

It really didn't feel like a "Robin Hood" movie to me, lacking as it did so many iconic elements of the character. I wrote a review up here.

That's kick ass sir.

Zeus wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:Also, never mention the Dune movie. That movie never existed, except for a joke about a pug and Captain Picard.

You do realize that the '84 Dune movie was relatively well liked by the nerds, yes?

No, it wasn't. And the fact that you say that means you have never ever read the books. (Or even Wikipedia: "Lynch's Dune (1984) was a critical and commercial dud; it cost $45 million to make, and grossed a mere $27.4 million domestically.") The '84 Dune movie was a fucking horrible piece of shit, and David Lynch should have fell on a sword for having made it.

It fucking RAINED on Dune! You had this stupid "sonic" weapon that never existed, and there's Fremen roaming around WITHOUT THEIR STILSUITS! And of course, Capt Picard holding "the family pug" while escaping with a gun in his hand. The whole movie was a fucking joke and it spat on the book. Not to mention David Lynch just didn't know how to deal with all of the complex material in a 2 hours period, so he fucked the whole thing up and there was a sudden shift from the first 1/3rd of the movie to the ending.

On the other hand, Sci Fi's Dune mini-series was brilliant, and totally accurate to the book. It gave it the six hours the book deserved. Their Children of Dune followup mini-series had some changes and time-compressions, but was otherwise pretty honorable to the 2nd/3rd books.

So, no, the 1984 Dune movie DOES NOT EXIST! It was never created, and you should never fucking mention it ever again!

Sine, you sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between what I label as my opinion and what is an observation or sharing of facts I've come across. I never said that I liked or disliked the '84 Dune film (it was fun and a neat 80s flick but pretty disjointed) or whether or not the Sci-Fi (or should I say Scy-Fy?) series was or was not better or more loyal to the story line novels (it certainly was from what my wife tells me; I never read the books). That may be so but it certainly doesn't mean that the 80's films was disliked. Do you know how many movies that have failed at the box office over the years are well-loved and have eventually become quite successful? Wizard of Oz, Princess Bride, Austin Powers, and Starship Troopers are just a few.

Well, you are saying that without backing it up and faced against evidence to the contrary. So:

You do realize that the '84 Dune movie was relatively well liked by the nerds, yes? [citation needed]

If you insist: http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Dune_%281984_movie%29

Read the last sentence of the top part

Still without a citation. At least I can prove my sales totals. (Not to say that sales totals are a rate of quality.)

In any case, you should just go ahead and read the books. It's about the only book series I know of that successfully bridges the gap between fantasy and sci-fi. That and it's really fucking good. I'd admit that I've only finished the first three books, but those are really to important ones to tackle. (The fourth book is 5000 years in the future and just hard to get into, because of the lack of recurring characters.)

I read all of the original Frank Herbert Dune books. I wish they'd make the 4th book into a mini-series. I think it'd be really cool.

Also, I've never seen the '84 one, but I've heard how bad it was. The TV series was close to perfect.

Yeah, someday I'll get back into God Emperor.

I think it would have been cool if the Sci-fi CoD mini-series actually had the children as 10 years old, like they were supposed to be (instead of 16 or so), but I could see why that would be creepy and weird for everybody.

I would recommend watching the '84 Dune movie once just to show how bad it is. It would be like somebody who actually read Battlefield Earth (which I hear was a good book) watching the movie. There are some laughable moments that only a book-learned individual would truly appreciate, and others that are just laughable for everybody.

Yeah, the only thing I wish they had covered a bit more in the 2nd series was just how much "pre-knowledge" the kids actually had.