As a lifelong Alien fan, here are my thoughts on a reboot (don't be mad ;) ...

[TC]

How about rebooting the franchise into more of an "Alien Extended Universe" (AEU). Seems to be the studio "thing" these days.

Not that such a reboot hasn't been mentioned before, usually in the guise of a TV series, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). To me that means lots of story-lines in their own unique titles (like Iron Man, Capt America, Thor etc) that mesh together in various ways but retain a common story environment.

TC

[OmegaZilla]

3) Focus on an impregnated female crew member instead of male. I get that it's far more disturbing to see women in pain but thats the whole point of this creature.

even though O'Bannon was clearly specific about a man being raped/impregnated/then giving birth?

Even besides that, this is an oddly specific point.

[Olde]

Alien had an extremely visceral quality. It was the first for a lot of things. Nowadays people go into Alien movies expecting facehuggers, expecting aliens to violently pop out of people, expecting the double-mouthed, dome-headed, insectoid, man-sized extraterrestrial eviscerator.

An Alien reboot can simply never re-capture the first time audiences saw something so visceral, unexpected, and shocking. Now Ridley Scott's Prometheus/Covenant movies are pathetically commonplace. So Shaw has a squid removed from her belly and it impregnates an Engineer. *Yawn.* So a new alien type bursts from a dude's back. *Snore.* It's a case of been there, done that. Nothing is shocking anymore, especially in today's age of filming where the gore is significantly ramped up than where it was in the 70s. Hell, we have Human Centipede 2 and 3.

The thing that made Alien so compelling is the constant pushing of the unexpected, of the mysterious, and of the shocking. Now we know so much and have seen so much of the aliens that I just can't see a reboot recapturing the magic of, say, the first sight of the space jockey, or the iconic dinner table scene, because we've seen it all before. We're going in expecting it. So if there's one thing I'm thankful for with the Ridley Scott prequels, it's that at least he's trying something somewhat different.

[SM]

Nowadays people go into Alien movies expecting facehuggers, expecting aliens to violently pop out of people, expecting the double-mouthed, dome-headed, insectoid, man-sized extraterrestrial eviscerator.

They expected all that decades ago.  Richard Edlund said of the compromise ending of Alien 3, at the time, that people expect the chestburster to burst out of Ripley, and would be let down if she she just fell in.

[Olde]

But Alien 3 isn't a remake. And it's sub-par, partly because it's a re-tread of things we've seen before and its lack of pushing the boundaries (amongst many other things).

[SM]

That's besides the point.  With an Alien film people expect certain things.

[The Cruentus]

Hi guys,

I know most folks these days just detest rebooting classic films but I can see Alien being one of those films that just *might* work well with a reboot. I'm a super fan so hopefully I nailed some of the core elements here. Here are a couple thoughts I had:

1) Go back to the claustrophobic, industrial feel of the original trilogy. One of these issues I have with Prometheus and A:C is that these folks are using technology far more advanced than what we got in the first installment. Granted I can see the frame of thought in using more current technology so the newer films don't seem overly retro, but all of the LCD/LED monitors and holographic technology is a bit too "avatar-ish" for me and I thought the 80's computer-style fit the original film well, especially in scenes with MUTHR and the main "contact room".

2) THE ALIEN IS NOT A RAPTOR. I remember RS saying a few years ago he thought the "big guy" was played out and no one would find him scary any more because too much of him has been seen, yet he continues on a path of showing the creature in broad daylight with some (imo) VERY questionable CGI. I want to see the human-esque, bio-mechanical monster lurking in the shadows. I get CGI is cheaper, but when you look at the box office losses for A:C one might go back and wonder if practical effects might have made all the difference thus driving more crowds to the theatre.

3) Focus on an impregnated female crew member instead of male. I get that it's far more disturbing to see women in pain but thats the whole point of this creature. It has no morals, no ethics and no feelings for who it hurts. I love the distress John Hurt goes through and you can obviously tell he's suffering before the creature is born. I want to see a strong female actress really play that part out. Not a 5-second Oram burster, but a slow burn that really makes you feel for the loss of the character. A:C came close IMO with Ledward, but once again the CGI ruined that scene for me.

4) I would like to see other aspects of the creature described such as how it sounds, smells, etc... I think I read RS saying something along the lines of feeling that big chap must have smelled just terrible, or at least produced a very recognizable and pungent odor. It's not just the resin slime that could give it away to the audience, utilize other ways this creature affects our senses.

5) KILL EVERYONE! I strongly believe that RS never meant for Ripley to be the iconic character that she has become (driven largely by SW) and in this time of lacking actors and actresses, I would say just kill everyone in a way that you just don't see coming. I'm not a script writer but some kind of twist that gives everyone a toe tag would really drive home how dark and hopeless encountering the alien is. I love the so-called alternate ending of the original where the alien kills Ripley and then mimics her voice to sign off. Imagine how f**king creepy that would be if done right. You don't even need to see the Alien, just the voiceover as the ship hurtles into space would be enough.

A director like Fede Alvarez would be f**kING perfect for this. If anyone has seen the Evil Dead remake, as well as Don't Breathe that man knows how to create a terrifying environment.

Anyways, let me know what you guys think. Thanks for taking the time to read!!!!

1. Alien is not meant to be set in a retro-future like fallout, the film crew just used what they could to make it futuristic, admittedly I enjoyed seeing it again in Isolation. I think in-universe, certain ships and stations used old tech due to budget reasons and emphasis on safety over cosmetics/upgraded tech. I mean as long as the computers and monitors function as needed, they do not need to be holographic or touchscreen.

Not sure what to say about the claustrophobic part as it worked for the first film and they went back to it in the third film. It is good to keep to some roots but rehashing can be bad. Aliens is successful in part because it was a different genre/setting than Alien and Alien: Isolation was successful because it did not emulate Aliens which all previous games did.

2. It is funny you should say that because one of the names given to the Alien wasIntervicus Raptor or something like that. Anyway, it is good that they can make the alien move much more inhumanly but I too prefer practical effect, especially when the Alien is not doing anything that requires cgi. Covenant reminds me of the Thing prequel, in that they actually did have decent practical effects/props but used cgi on top them.

3. Kane, a male, was deliberately chosen by O'bannon to make the male audience feel uncomfortable, it was a good change because 70s sci-fi horrors were notorious for exploiting women to the point that some films could actually be considered stealth porns, so Alien turned the tables onto to the male audience.

4. This is somewhat already alluded to in the novel of covenant, where the egg chamber apparently smelled of pure ammonia. From a stealth standing point, the Alien would not be as sneaky if you could smell it coming from a good distance away.

5. To be fair this is a cliche amongst horror films these days, where the antagonist either wins by killing everyone or simply survives. Its true it has been done in the Alien franchise yet though I believe Requiem was originally going to have the soldiers kill the survivors in the end. When I watch modern horrors, I pretty much expect everyone to die or at very least the film having a "downer" ending.

[TC]

An Alien reboot can simply never re-capture the first time audiences saw something so visceral, unexpected, and shocking
...
Nothing is shocking anymore, especially in today's age of filming where the gore is significantly ramped up than where it was in the 70s

I agree, and yet I see the way forward by looking at Cameron's sequel.

What Cameron didn't do is play by the rules laid down by Scott. He could have simply upped the ante - even more blood, even more perversity, even more violence. In other words, had he followed the traditional approach to making a sequel, he would tried to out-Alien Scott's "Alien".

Of course, Cameron was obliged to insert a certain amount of horror if his film was to honourably trade on the Alien title, but he flavoured it with added suspense, not added gore. Layered on top of that was Cameron's fascination with the military, and far more importantly, a deeper exploration into character. (Really, by comparison "Alien" is like a high school student's effort when it comes to character insight).

What Cameron did was make a sci-fi film that would have been a creditable movie even if all connections to its "Alien" predecessor weren't there. (We know that it was based on a story he had written called "Mother" years earlier).

Fans of "Alien" that went to see "Aliens" and enjoyed it (like me), did so because even though it bypassed the formula that Scott had set up, we recognized that it was great science fiction in its own right. And that's really the crack in the door that an "Alien" reboot has to slip through if it's to be successful. It doesn't have to have better Giger designs, or more shocking sexual allusions, or more brutality or more extreme sadism. Horror, yes, but after that it can follow its own path. Just do it well.

Before I close off, I'll add that I'm well aware that in the Alien fandom I'm in the minority. Just as hardcore X-Men afficionados hate Hugh Jackman's rendition (he's too tall, doesn't wear the yellow suit, or the mask), and Scarlet Johanssen in "Ghost in the Shell" is, likewise, a bastardization (she isn't Japanese, not properly nude enough), most hardcore Alien fans don't want something different - they want something that accurately portrays what they've already fallen in love with. I get that.

So if there's one thing I'm thankful for with the Ridley Scott prequels, it's that at least he's trying something somewhat different.

I kind of agree and disagree at the same time. I suspect that the real purpose behind the caesarian scene in Prometheus was precisely what I was referring to above: Scott wanted a scene that would out-do the chestburster in "Alien". He knew very well that if there was one thing that anyone anywhere in the world remembered from that film, it was the chestburster. He wanted that kind of notoriety to "sell" his prequel. And I think he thought it was the Alien "brand" that needed to be reproduced and "improved".

Personally, I think he's wrong about that. To me, the chestburster scene was not the standout scene in "Alien". I far prefer Brett's demise, actually. Or Ripley fleeing to the shuttle. Or the alien confronting Lambert.

And yet, in the prequels Scott is trying to do something different. Just like Cameron made his genre-shift, as did Jeunet, (Fincher not so much), I think Prometheus was an attempt to turn the B-movie that was "Alien" into a serious, thoughtful discussion on the origin of human-kind. The fact that (in my opinion) this was more pretentious than good science fiction is beside the point. He had the right idea even if the results were a bit of a let down.

Sequels and reboots are tricky. They have to be same but different. Too much sameness and people ask, what was the point? Too much different and you dishonour the subject matter. The only solution is to make it good. That way, even if the established fans are unhappy with the changes, you stand a chance of picking up a new audience.

TC

[PierreVW]

An Alien reboot can simply never re-capture the first time audiences saw something so visceral, unexpected, and shocking
...
Nothing is shocking anymore, especially in today's age of filming where the gore is significantly ramped up than where it was in the 70s

I agree, and yet I see the way forward by looking at Cameron's sequel.

What Cameron didn't do is play by the rules laid down by Scott. He could have simply upped the ante - even more blood, even more perversity, even more violence. In other words, had he followed the traditional approach to making a sequel, he would tried to out-Alien Scott's "Alien".

Of course, Cameron was obliged to insert a certain amount of horror if his film was to honourably trade on the Alien title, but he flavoured it with added suspense, not added gore. Layered on top of that was Cameron's fascination with the military, and far more importantly, a deeper exploration into character. (Really, by comparison "Alien" is like a high school student's effort when it comes to character insight).

What Cameron did was make a sci-fi film that would have been a creditable movie even if all connections to its "Alien" predecessor weren't there. (We know that it was based on a story he had written called "Mother" years earlier).

Fans of "Alien" that went to see "Aliens" and enjoyed it (like me), did so because even though it bypassed the formula that Scott had set up, we recognized that it was great science fiction in its own right. And that's really the crack in the door that an "Alien" reboot has to slip through if it's to be successful. It doesn't have to have better Giger designs, or more shocking sexual allusions, or more brutality or more extreme sadism. Horror, yes, but after that it can follow its own path. Just do it well.

Before I close off, I'll add that I'm well aware that in the Alien fandom I'm in the minority. Just as hardcore X-Men afficionados hate Hugh Jackman's rendition (he's too tall, doesn't wear the yellow suit, or the mask), and Scarlet Johanssen in "Ghost in the Shell" is, likewise, a bastardization (she isn't Japanese, not properly nude enough), most hardcore Alien fans don't want something different - they want something that accurately portrays what they've already fallen in love with. I get that.

So if there's one thing I'm thankful for with the Ridley Scott prequels, it's that at least he's trying something somewhat different.

I kind of agree and disagree at the same time. I suspect that the real purpose behind the caesarian scene in Prometheus was precisely what I was referring to above: Scott wanted a scene that would out-do the chestburster in "Alien". He knew very well that if there was one thing that anyone anywhere in the world remembered from that film, it was the chestburster. He wanted that kind of notoriety to "sell" his prequel. And I think he thought it was the Alien "brand" that needed to be reproduced and "improved".

Personally, I think he's wrong about that. To me, the chestburster scene was not the standout scene in "Alien". I far prefer Brett's demise, actually. Or Ripley fleeing to the shuttle. Or the alien confronting Lambert.

And yet, in the prequels Scott is trying to do something different. Just like Cameron made his genre-shift, as did Jeunet, (Fincher not so much), I think Prometheus was an attempt to turn the B-movie that was "Alien" into a serious, thoughtful discussion on the origin of human-kind. The fact that (in my opinion) this was more pretentious than good science fiction is beside the point. He had the right idea even if the results were a bit of a let down.

Sequels and reboots are tricky. They have to be same but different. Too much sameness and people ask, what was the point? Too much different and you dishonour the subject matter. The only solution is to make it good. That way, even if the established fans are unhappy with the changes, you stand a chance of picking up a new audience.

TC

That's more easy to said than create.

Who could be this new and genious Director?.

JC isn't interested and NB is too mediocre for a reboot.

[Jango1201]

I have this terrible feeling that the prequels are going to become so convoluted that Alien will have to be rewritten and rebooted.

[The Cruentus]

Its definitely on an odd track that is for sure, I liked covenant but I'm not happy with the direction it went and where its going.

[irn]

Alien does not need rebooted. Doing so would most definitely be the end of the franchise. It has took a hell of a beating over the years but somehow against all odds has managed to retain some integrity. That speaks volumes of the first two or three films.

What the franchise needs is solid talent in writing and directing. The prequels had the rest of the film making process down brilliantly but were let down by the fundamentals of script and direction. It doesn't even need a big budget if done the right way.

Chasing Aliens glory should be avoided too. It's what destroyed the Terminator franchise by every sequel trying to be the next T2 instead of its own thing.

[OmegaZilla]

What the franchise needs is to S T O P

shouldn't have had anything after 1997. A final sequel to Resurrection, at best.

[windebieste]

That chestburster scene - along with a lot of content in the orginal 1979 movie and the social conditions it appeared in - can NEVER be repeated.   

You can't shock audiences the way 'ALIEN' did any more.  They've already seen it all before.  What is it you expect from a reboot, anyway?

-Windebieste

[monkeylove]

I'm a lifelong Alien fan, too, but I don't see the point in a reboot or requiring Ripley to show up in any more movies.

They could have probably come up with something noteworthy for the prequels, but that would have required lots of thought and preparation for the story, and likely limited to only one movie.

For any sequels, I'd consider one more just to finish off the movie part of the franchise. Whatever they still want to re-imagine, they can do it through other media, such as TV shows, comic books, and video games.