User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Petition for those who want Blomkamp's Alien 5  (Read 3342 times)

Toxic34
Oct 31, 2017, 05:10:37 PM
Reply #30 on: Oct 31, 2017, 05:10:37 PM
Q
Well, it appears that despite initially dropping from discussion, Blomkamp revealed in a recent article about the projects OATS is making that The Gone World is still his next full-length film, and that Fox is still the distributor. In addition, with the recent revelations about the Terminator series' upcoming new installments retroactively erasing everything after T2 and Jim Cameron's involvement in this upcoming series, there is talk that he could easily work to use his clout to convince Fox to come back onboard with Blomkamp's film, and in the way that he had intended. If that was done, there is still the talk of whether Fox will let Ridley finish his (ever-shifting and increasingly floundering) vision for the Covenant sequel, or just yank his chain. I guess time will let us see where things go.


adambeyoncelowe
Nov 02, 2017, 01:34:32 PM
Reply #31 on: Nov 02, 2017, 01:34:32 PM
Q
Ridley needs to stop with his pseudo-philosophising bro-wank with Fassbender. He still hasn't realised that David is the number one problem with the films. He's a preposterous proxy for the auteur's own amateur intellectualising. And even explaining the adolescent mess of it all makes those sentences sound as absurd as his films inevitably are.

As a standalone film about hubris and the Chariots of the Gods pseudoscience (which I've always considered a rather post-Enlightenment piece of crap--because why on Earth can't we just accept that earlier cultures weren't as primitive as we'd like to portray them?), it would be bad enough, but we'd be free to ignore it. Instead, he paints an Alien veneer on it and makes it even more garbled than it was to begin with.

I'm pretty sure Blomkamp won't be the salvation of Alien. But at least he can kickstart a new series of movies that take us back where we want to be: focussing on the alien and W-Y, not some nauseating dross about pasty cosmic gods who hate us.

There's plenty of mileage left. What about the hive and the ecosystem it may eventually develop into? That could yield some interesting revelations. And the alien homeworld, if we forget about the Engineers, could present other lifeforms that have existed alongside the alien, including predators and prey. Perhaps we can finally see eggmorphing at work, and how a queen actually develops. We can make it weird again without throwing out the rules and using the black goo as a deus ex machina.


BigDaddyJohn
Nov 03, 2017, 09:53:13 PM
Reply #32 on: Nov 03, 2017, 09:53:13 PM
Q
Ridley needs to stop with his pseudo-philosophising bro-wank with Fassbender. He still hasn't realised that David is the number one problem with the films. He's a preposterous proxy for the auteur's own amateur intellectualising. And even explaining the adolescent mess of it all makes those sentences sound as absurd as his films inevitably are.

As a standalone film about hubris and the Chariots of the Gods pseudoscience (which I've always considered a rather post-Enlightenment piece of crap--because why on Earth can't we just accept that earlier cultures weren't as primitive as we'd like to portray them?), it would be bad enough, but we'd be free to ignore it. Instead, he paints an Alien veneer on it and makes it even more garbled than it was to begin with.

I'm pretty sure Blomkamp won't be the salvation of Alien. But at least he can kickstart a new series of movies that take us back where we want to be: focussing on the alien and W-Y, not some nauseating dross about pasty cosmic gods who hate us.

There's plenty of mileage left. What about the hive and the ecosystem it may eventually develop into? That could yield some interesting revelations. And the alien homeworld, if we forget about the Engineers, could present other lifeforms that have existed alongside the alien, including predators and prey. Perhaps we can finally see eggmorphing at work, and how a queen actually develops. We can make it weird again without throwing out the rules and using the black goo as a deus ex machina.

I agree, the peudo-metaphysical, not subtle at all stuff done by people who think it's subtle and clever has been going on since way too long now, maybe it's time for something else. I don't know if Blomkamp can pull it off, but even though Fassbender can be good in the role, it could be time for change.


adambeyoncelowe
Nov 04, 2017, 01:32:57 PM
Reply #33 on: Nov 04, 2017, 01:32:57 PM
Q
Exactly. Ridley thinks he's being terribly clever, but it's all been done before. Prometheus was just Blade Runner, Alien and The Thing all mushed together. Covenant was slightly more Alien, slightly more Blade Runner, slightly less The Thing, with added Milton. But the created destroying or overtaking the creator has been done to death--and he did it better in Blade Runner.


Alionic
Nov 06, 2017, 04:05:08 AM
Reply #34 on: Nov 06, 2017, 04:05:08 AM
Q
When is Blomkamp going to film 'The Gone World' for 20th Century Fox? He has to know by now that his future with the Alien series solely depends on how well that film does both critically and financially.


Scorpio
Dec 02, 2017, 03:10:13 AM
Reply #35 on: Dec 02, 2017, 03:10:13 AM
Q
Exactly. Ridley thinks he's being terribly clever, but it's all been done before. Prometheus was just Blade Runner, Alien and The Thing all mushed together. Covenant was slightly more Alien, slightly more Blade Runner, slightly less The Thing, with added Milton. But the created destroying or overtaking the creator has been done to death--and he did it better in Blade Runner.

Everything has been done to death, but you can approach the same thing from a different angle and make it interesting again.


HuDaFuK
Dec 02, 2017, 10:39:17 AM
Reply #36 on: Dec 02, 2017, 10:39:17 AM
Q
Sure you can.

Sadly Ridley opted instead for an uninspired and decidedly uninteresting rehash.


Perfect-Organism
Dec 02, 2017, 01:39:24 PM
Reply #37 on: Dec 02, 2017, 01:39:24 PM
Q
I would say that Ridley's lack of passion for the Alien drove Covenant's mediocrity.  Say what you will abou Blomkamp and his Alien idea, but it was driven by passion and an earnest, honest desire to do good by Scott and Cameron.  To honour their works...



Corporal Hicks
Dec 02, 2017, 03:25:17 PM
Reply #39 on: Dec 02, 2017, 03:25:17 PM
Q
AvPR had it's hands tied in other ways, unfortunately.  :-\ They were glued to that silly small town concept from the start.


HuDaFuK
Dec 02, 2017, 08:00:25 PM
Reply #40 on: Dec 02, 2017, 08:00:25 PM
Q
Sure, and I certainly wouldn't expect Blomkamp to produce anything like as bad as Requiem.

But the point stands - passion and earnestness don't necessarily equal a good movie, because the Strauses wouldn't shut up about how passionate they were.


Corporal Hicks
Dec 04, 2017, 09:25:51 AM
Reply #41 on: Dec 04, 2017, 09:25:51 AM
Q
True, true. I don't believe being a fan automatically equates to a good film. I would give Blomkamp a bit more benefit of the doubt as I really enjoyed District 9 and I remember liking Chappie well enough. Blomkamp has also spoke about how Isolation had effected his approach and his interest in the sexual elements of Alien too.


Perfect-Organism
Dec 04, 2017, 05:58:40 PM
Reply #42 on: Dec 04, 2017, 05:58:40 PM
Q
I agree.  Sheer passion and enthusiasm aren't sufficient ingredients to make a great Aliens film.  One needs to take into account the whole picture.  I think Nlomkamp has many more checkboxes ticked off than the Brotgers Strause ever did.  He's go good cred.  The only thing that gives me pause for concern is Ripley in the Alien suit.  There is no way I can ever see that working well...


Russ
Dec 05, 2017, 10:56:31 AM
Reply #43 on: Dec 05, 2017, 10:56:31 AM
Q
There's also this (it's a great book even if you're not interested in screenwrting per se, its just a funny and accurate take on the "studio movie")

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ReWKqVUDmsQC&pg=PT79&lpg=PT79&dq=why+do+studio+movies+suck+donkey+balls&source=bl&ots=juZavrrdZg&sig=Z-BaioNxDQvZz1o2E4qm7VnjqLk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI7MWt2PLXAhXHAsAKHfyQBK8Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=why%20do%20studio%20movies%20suck%20donkey%20balls&f=false

It basically saying what we already know: Pretty much every studio movie ends up being done by committee (there are exceptions of course) so we'll never know how much of NB's concept stuff would make it into the final movie.

I'm reminded of the superhero / fighter pilot thing that was leaked the other day. I can't remember where I saw it now, but it was WB person saying how Green Lantern got made - essentially an exec was fixated on the idea of a superhero who was also a fighter pilot. He wanted Batman ret-conned to be a fighter pilot and someone pointed out that GL was actually a fighter pilot. And that's how it got made.

Basically, I think it's always going to be nip and tuck with the Alien franchise going forward as the returns (Prometheus aside) seem to be diminishing and that warrants more "eyes on" from the studio.

Taking risks doesn't seem to be working does it - I think Blade Runner 2049 was very much the director's vision. Brilliant movie that's under-performing apparently. I really hope it makes up its numbers, but is this going to be a trend towards the safe?


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed