IGN Germany asking Ridley the questions we want to hear...

[Xenomrph]

Did they force him to play it????

[TheBATMAN]

He's also seen at least some of Resurrection as he's mentioned before how he couldnt believe the Alien was trapped inside a cage. That was part of the reason he felt the beast was played out.

[Keyes]

I'm pretty sure he's seen Resurrection, as one of the bonus features on the Quadrilogy/Anthology had him talking at a Q&A in 2001 about the Newborn's demise being how he wanted the alien to go in the first film.

[Highland]

I think it's safe to assume he's just old and forgets things. He probably speaks to thousands of these people.

[lv_226]

Well, I don't know what to make of these replies. On the one hand, I am really glad to see someone ask Ridley the "tough" questions. On the other, I am disappointed with his answers. I am not sure when this happened, but Ridley seems to think that Alien is his baby. Don't get me wrong, he did a hell of a job directing it, but Alien was a collective effort. Yeah, most of the people originally attached to Alien have since passed on, but still... give credit where it is due. Oh, and his opinions on 2049... so disappointing; that was the best movie of the year by a f**king mile!

[Scorpio]

Ridley is just joking around, he says "I don't give a shit" and laughs, he gave a more political answer in other interviews.  But why should he give a shit?  He directed the first movie, as he said.  He has well and truly earned it.

[Xenomrph]

Ridley is just joking around, he says "I don't give a shit" and laughs, he gave a more political answer in other interviews.  But why should he give a shit?  He directed the first movie, as he said.  He has well and truly earned it.

Counterpoint: George Lucas directed the first 'Star Wars'.

[Gash]

Ridley is just joking around, he says "I don't give a shit" and laughs, he gave a more political answer in other interviews.  But why should he give a shit?  He directed the first movie, as he said.  He has well and truly earned it.

Counterpoint: George Lucas directed the first 'Star Wars'.

And very little else.

[Xenomrph]

Ridley is just joking around, he says "I don't give a shit" and laughs, he gave a more political answer in other interviews.  But why should he give a shit?  He directed the first movie, as he said.  He has well and truly earned it.

Counterpoint: George Lucas directed the first 'Star Wars'.

And very little else.

Just saying, "he directed the first one" doesn't automatically mean the person gets a free pass forever. Just like with 'Star Wars', there was a whole lot more going on that made 'Alien' great than just Ridley Scott's direction.

[Scorpio]

That kind of undermines the importance of a director.  Hundreds of people work on these movies and all their contributions matter, but the director is the most important part.  Otherwise Alien would have been a cheap Roger Corman movie. 

t: George Lucas directed the first 'Star Wars'.

Why is that a counterpoint?

[Gash]

Ridley is just joking around, he says "I don't give a shit" and laughs, he gave a more political answer in other interviews.  But why should he give a shit?  He directed the first movie, as he said.  He has well and truly earned it.

Counterpoint: George Lucas directed the first 'Star Wars'.

And very little else.

Just saying, "he directed the first one" doesn't automatically mean the person gets a free pass forever. Just like with 'Star Wars', there was a whole lot more going on that made 'Alien' great than just Ridley Scott's direction.

Most people that worked on ALIEN, including Giger and O'Bannon cited Scott as the man that made their material shine.

[OpenMaw]

Why is that a counterpoint?

Because it wasn't George Lucas that ultimately made Star Wars what it turned into. It was budget restrictions that forced the pairing down of ideas, and the editing done by other people that saved his movie.

Most people that worked on ALIEN, including Giger and O'Bannon cited Scott as the man that made their material shine.

Ridley argued to stay true to O'Bannon and Shusetts original script and not go with the generic bio-weapon. Ridley fought for the Jockey interiors. Ridley fought for Giger's involvement. All very true. Ridley was at the top of his game and he wanted criss-craft top of the peak quality in everything.

But he needed everyone from O'Bannon to Giger, to Dickens to Goldsmith to make the movie that became the classic. If you take Giger out of the equation, or you eliminate the initial novelty of O'bannons script, you're losing large percentile portions of the success.

[Xenomrph]

Hundreds of people work on these movies and all their contributions matter, but the director is the most important part. 

The counterpoint, as I mentioned, is the original Star Wars, which was a success in spite of Lucas' involvement, not because of it. The director is important, but they are not the be-all end-all of a movie's production, and whether they're the "most important" can vary from project to project. I know a lot of people who were less than enthusiastic with Prometheus and Covenant, and feel that the films' good qualities are in spite of Ridley Scott's involvement, not because of it. Similar to George Lucas, I've seen plenty of people compare Scott's 'Alien' prequels to Lucas' Star Wars prequels, in the sense that one powerful individual running the whole show does not make a good movie.

I don't know that I'd personally go that far, but there are certain elements from both movies that I feel were big mis-steps and detrimental to them, if not to the Alien series as a whole. If Ridley Scott is the sole arbiter of the film's quality as you seem to say he is, then that door swings both ways and he gets to take credit for the movie's faults, too.
There's a reason why Prometheus and Covenant aren't as highly regarded as 'Alien', and it's because you can't just take one facet of a good movie, even one as important as the director, and expect an identical result with future movies.

But he needed everyone from O'Bannon to Giger, to Dickens to Goldsmith to make the movie that became the classic. If you take Giger out of the equation, or you eliminate the initial novelty of O'bannons script, you're losing large percentile portions of the success.

Exactly this. Many times, movies that are regarded as classics become so because of serendipity, or are lightning in a bottle because of the combination of people who worked on them. 'Jaws' is a memorable thriller not just because Spielberg is a good director, but because the actors were excellent, John William's score is unforgettable, and the special effects didn't work half the time meaning Spielberg couldn't show the shark nearly as much as he originally intended. His artistic vision was compromised by things outside his control, and the movie was better for it.

Moviemaking is way, way more collaborative process than people give it credit for.

[Local Trouble]

Why is that a counterpoint?

Because it wasn't George Lucas that ultimately made Star Wars what it turned into. It was budget restrictions that forced the pairing down of ideas, and the editing done by other people that saved his movie.

to wit...

http://fd.noneinc.com/secrethistoryofstarwarscom/secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html

[Scorpio]

I don't buy these narratives.

Without Lucas there would be no Star Wars.

Without Ridley Scott, Alien would be a low budget Roger Corman movie.

Yes, it was a collaboration, but I don't buy that Ridley is destroying Alien or Lucas destroyed Star Wars.  This is just people mad that they did not get what they wanted.