Latest News

Alien Prequel Is No More?

According to an article from Deadline.com, the Alien Prequel has now become an entirely new film called Prometheus that has resulted from Ridley and co’s work on the prequel:

“First, it started out as an Alien Prequel. But then it morphed into something “more original”, an insider tells us — even though Hollywood kept referring to the project as “The Alien Prequel” right up until today when Twentieth Century Fox officially announced the new Ridley Scott production as Prometheus is now bound for worldwide release on March 9th, 2012.”

The article also confirms Scott cast Noomi Rapace. So it sounds like we won’t be getting a new Alien film. Thanks to Brother and Mikey for the news.



Post Comment
Comments: 594
« Newer Comments 123456789101112 Older Comments »
  1. Kimarhi
    @ Val

    But then again, the story of Alien 3 had become Ripley centric, thanks to James Cameron's use of the Ripley character as the centerpiece for Aliens. 

    You didn't need to pay attention to anybody besides Clemens, Morse, Dillon, 85, and Ripley.  Since Ripley has now become the series primary character and the others there merely help her story for the third film come to an apex and close.

    Alien 3 took it a step further and made it a story arc.  That said Alien 3 isn't about all those other characters.  Its about whether a person would sacrifice their life for the good of a whole.  Even if they don't deserve it.  You don't need to have that many characters to tell that story.  The disposables were merely there to show the threat of the Alien and of the collateral damage caused by rampant unchecked capitalism.

    Ripley in alien 3 is just a representation of the best of mankind.  The Alien is merely the tool that would cause the fall of mankind should the true series villian (the company) get its hands on it to pop a few dollars.

    On a sidenote: I'm also fond of the Gibson Alien script, but not as an Alien movie.  The changing of the species ability to do things they didn't originally is one of the things that led to the fall of the EU media.  If you can't make the same creatures dangerous in the future, don't add random shit to make them more dangerous.  Stop writing about them.  They'll become something they aren't otherwise.

    Definately think it could've worked as something else though.  It reads somewhat like Dead Space (except the virus can change living host instead of reviving dead ones) now that I think of it.
  2. Sharp Sticks
    Been too long for me to remember much beyond the shitty spores.

    It was a first draft, it obviously needed work. Gibson got Ripley and Newt out of the way in a way that was believable enough and shifted the focus to Hicks and Bishop instead. The script is dated by the Cold War references, but it's still a good read, and personally, I prefer it to what we got.

    Helps that I'm a Gibson die-hard, though. Plenty of bias here.
  3. Valaquen
    Quote
    Yeah, 'cause that was the only option for the story to go. Aliens was about what Ripley lost and rebuilding a life from that. Alien 3 was about rehashing the whole trauma and, on the account of the writers and Weaver, just ending the damn franchise.

    Sounds like more of that eighties generic hollywood commonstance bullshit to me.

    Could Newt and Hicks deaths had more weight in Alien 3?  Yeah.  But Ripley, Newt, and Hicks running around as the Untouchables in the Alien Universe would've been more damaging to the franchise than James Cameron's sentry guns.  We don't need invincible characters in the Alien universe.  Thats what made the original so great.  Nobody had script immunity.  The three of them retiring in the sunset would've been too perfect.  Something that would seem entirely out of place in the Alien universe.

    By the third film, even Ripley's luck had run out.

    I infinately prefer the third film to that happy go lucky bullshit.  It feels real.  It feels grounded in reality.  It fits the franchise. 

    Or maybe people prefer the ending that if I go to McDonald's I can see Hicks feeding Newt a Chicken Nugget while Ripley opens her kid's meal toy like nothing happened.  Because thats believable.
    Or, you know, not find a contrived way to have Ripley wake up around an Alien again. No idea why everyone assumes Alien 3 with Hicks/Newt would be a happy space adventure. Die or be the Jetsons? Talk about a false dilemna. The one thing Alien 3 did need was a little more weight. You couldn't have known who most of the characters were if they were wearing nametags.
  4. SM
    Ripley's pod was smashed.  If water got in through the hole it could just as easily get out.  Newt's tube would've filled slower because it was cracked and therefore not " broken just like Newt's".  As such it would've emptied slower.

    "Ergo, she drowned."

    Quote
    It's contrived.  It's old. It's cliche.  It's predictable. 

    The same could also be said of other horror series, where the survivor of the previous film is bumped off in the first few minutes of the sequel.

    That said, I immediately rationalised the carnage at the start of Alien3 as "This universe is a cruel and nasty place".

  5. chupacabras acheronsis
    I think the way they were killed off was lazy. they could have played it much classier, and speaking about script immunity; why did Ripley's pod survived? the rest got crushed, but she, even though hers was broken just like Newt's, didn't drown.

  6. Kimarhi
    That came off as a bit harsh.

    I supposse I'm just tired of the hollywood generic ending that gets constantly slapped on any series longer than two movies.  It's contrived.  It's old. It's cliche.  It's predictable. 

    I'm thankful for something that at least tries to be different. 

    I went into Alien 3 with all my previous movie knowledge telling me that Hicks, Ripley and Newt were going to survive.  Imagine the kick in the nuts I got at the beggining of the film.  By the end of the movie the story had taken so many turns that I wasnt even close to my original projection of what was going to happen (I saw all these movies before internet kids). 

    Nobody predicted that.  Nobody predicted Ripley killing the queen to save humanity by sacrificing herself. 

    It's different.  The Alien itself had become stale, but the drama itself had been revitalized with some interesting takes.  In otherwords it was a complete 180 of what I expected it to be.  And what I originally expected seems to be what most everybody else wants it to be.  With a minimalized Alien threat in the background nuked by Ripley and her team of do gooders as they rediscover the joys of humanity while sailing toward a promising new terraformed world to start anew.

    Blech.

  7. Peakius Baragonius
    Quote
    Yeah, 'cause that was the only option for the story to go. Aliens was about what Ripley lost and rebuilding a life from that. Alien 3 was about rehashing the whole trauma and, on the account of the writers and Weaver, just ending the damn franchise.

    Sounds like more of that eighties generic hollywood commonstance bullshit to me.

    Could Newt and Hicks deaths had more weight in Alien 3?  Yeah.  But Ripley, Newt, and Hicks running around as the Untouchables in the Alien Universe would've been more damaging to the franchise than James Cameron's sentry guns.  We don't need invincible characters in the Alien universe.  Thats what made the original so great.  Nobody had script immunity.  The three of them retiring in the sunset would've been too perfect.  Something that would seem entirely out of place in the Alien universe.

    By the third film, even Ripley's luck had run out.

    I infinately prefer the third film to that happy go lucky bullshit.  It feels real.  It feels grounded in reality.  It fits the franchise. 

    Or maybe people prefer the ending that if I go to McDonald's I can see Hicks feeding Newt a Chicken Nugget while Ripley opens her kid's meal toy like nothing happened.  Because thats believable.

    I'm at a loss for words.

  8. Vertigo
    It could have added more weight to Ripley's sacrifice if saving Newt was on the cards. It would have given a likeable face to the people she's saving - all we see of humanity in Alien 3 is a bunch of crims and the corporate wetworks.
  9. predxeno
    Alan Dean Foster, author of the Alien 3 novelization, wanted to have it so that Newt also survives the crash, but her cryotube was too badly damaged for her to be awoken safely so they had to keep her in suspended animation until technology upgraded enough to remove her; this would have added extra value to Ripley's resolve to destroy the Alien.
  10. Kimarhi
    Quote
    Yeah, 'cause that was the only option for the story to go. Aliens was about what Ripley lost and rebuilding a life from that. Alien 3 was about rehashing the whole trauma and, on the account of the writers and Weaver, just ending the damn franchise.

    Sounds like more of that eighties generic hollywood commonstance bullshit to me.

    Could Newt and Hicks deaths had more weight in Alien 3?  Yeah.  But Ripley, Newt, and Hicks running around as the Untouchables in the Alien Universe would've been more damaging to the franchise than James Cameron's sentry guns.  We don't need invincible characters in the Alien universe.  Thats what made the original so great.  Nobody had script immunity.  The three of them retiring in the sunset would've been too perfect.  Something that would seem entirely out of place in the Alien universe.

    By the third film, even Ripley's luck had run out.

    I infinately prefer the third film to that happy go lucky bullshit.  It feels real.  It feels grounded in reality.  It fits the franchise. 

    Or maybe people prefer the ending that if I go to McDonald's I can see Hicks feeding Newt a Chicken Nugget while Ripley opens her kid's meal toy like nothing happened.  Because thats believable.
  11. Space Sweeper
    I can't stand it that everyone complains about Hicks and Newt getting killed. They died, so what? It added to the dark tone of the movie. What do you want, Ripley and Hicks get married, adopt Newt, skip happily through a meadow shooting aliens, proving that good will always overcome evil, and that everyone will live happily ever after? Is that what you want? It's an ALIEN film, not Disney. The series is about what Ripley lost and had to sacrifice to stop the company from getting the Xenomorphs.

    We don't want that.  They can kill of both Hicks and maybe even Ripley if they wanted, just don't kill Newt.
    What? I think the only real problem comes in the way that it is done in which case there is no real build up, or dramatic moment- they just f**king crash, and that's that. Magically, Ripley survives. And ironically, I think it would have been a more entertaining movie to see Hicks survive, and Ripley and Newt die earlier, but in a way that at least had a dramatic tone. As for the rest of the movie? I found it to be quite good.
  12. predxeno
    I can't stand it that everyone complains about Hicks and Newt getting killed. They died, so what? It added to the dark tone of the movie. What do you want, Ripley and Hicks get married, adopt Newt, skip happily through a meadow shooting aliens, proving that good will always overcome evil, and that everyone will live happily ever after? Is that what you want? It's an ALIEN film, not Disney. The series is about what Ripley lost and had to sacrifice to stop the company from getting the Xenomorphs.

    We don't want that.  They can kill of both Hicks and maybe even Ripley if they wanted, just don't kill Newt.
  13. Valaquen
    Hicks and Newt aren't, weren't, never have been, and never will be, "the franchise".
    You're right, though I don't feel that Ripley was either.

    I can't stand it that everyone complains about Hicks and Newt getting killed. They died, so what? It added to the dark tone of the movie. What do you want, Ripley and Hicks get married, adopt Newt, skip happily through a meadow shooting aliens, proving that good will always overcome evil, and that everyone will live happily ever after? Is that what you want? It's an ALIEN film, not Disney. The series is about what Ripley lost and had to sacrifice to stop the company from getting the Xenomorphs.
    Yeah, 'cause that was the only option for the story to go. Aliens was about what Ripley lost and rebuilding a life from that. Alien 3 was about rehashing the whole trauma and, on the account of the writers and Weaver, just ending the damn franchise.
  14. DiabloGuapo
    Alien3 was good, but the main thing that made me hate it was the fact that they killed off Hicks and Newt at the start.
    Aliens had such a good ending with the 4 of them surviving and all.
    Alien 3 killed it all. Ruined the franchise for me.
    But they are and will always be generally-loved characters that Alien3 just made short work of.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOPZMLwnKa0#
    I can't stand it that everyone complains about Hicks and Newt getting killed. They died, so what? It added to the dark tone of the movie. What do you want, Ripley and Hicks get married, adopt Newt, skip happily through a meadow shooting aliens, proving that good will always overcome evil, and that everyone will live happily ever after? Is that what you want? It's an ALIEN film, not Disney. The series is about what Ripley lost and had to sacrifice to stop the company from getting the Xenomorphs.
  15. samoht
    Quote from: Peakius Baragonius
    You're right, there are only three Alien movies: Alien, Aliens, and AVP.  ;)
    Please. AvP can't even begin to compare to Alien³ ... there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. People were just expecting Aliens 2 and so were disappointed.
    This movie had a really interesting artistic direction, and awesome characters. And its (theatrical) ending was spot on, as far as I'm concerned.
    As for Resurection... I'd say it had a good director and actors, but too much of a flawed plot for them to make up for. Also, the ending looks like something they made up at the last minute.
    I guess this was debated enough already ...

    I just think prequels are usually a bad idea (just look at Star Wars...), it takes a lot of skill and luck to have it not fail. Even if Scott made a masterpiece back then, it doesn't mean he still has it.
    Oh well ... we'll never get to check anyway. At least not any soon.

    Alien3 was good, but the main thing that made me hate it was the fact that they killed off Hicks and Newt at the start.
    Aliens had such a good ending with the 4 of them surviving and all.
    Alien 3 killed it all. Ruined the franchise for me.
  16. Kimarhi
    I don't think so. 

    I'm with Fincher, her death is more symbolic if she sacrifices herself without the Alien emerging. 

    That way she isn't just doing it because there is no time for the company to remove it.

    Its just pure sacrifice in the Assembly Cut.

  17. WeaN
    Quote from: Peakius Baragonius
    You're right, there are only three Alien movies: Alien, Aliens, and AVP.  ;)
    Please. AvP can't even begin to compare to Alien³ ... there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. People were just expecting Aliens 2 and so were disappointed.
    This movie had a really interesting artistic direction, and awesome characters. And its (theatrical) ending was spot on, as far as I'm concerned.
    As for Resurection... I'd say it had a good director and actors, but too much of a flawed plot for them to make up for. Also, the ending looks like something they made up at the last minute.
    I guess this was debated enough already ...

    I just think prequels are usually a bad idea (just look at Star Wars...), it takes a lot of skill and luck to have it not fail. Even if Scott made a masterpiece back then, it doesn't mean he still has it.
    Oh well ... we'll never get to check anyway. At least not any soon.
  18. Peakius Baragonius
    The prequel was aborted ? Good news ! It was meant to fail anyway. Leave the saga to rest, it should have ended at 3.
    Actually, there are only 3 Aliens movies to me. The rest should have never existed.
    I'm glad the whole Derelict part of the plot will remain a mystery. That's what made its charm.

    You're right, there are only three Alien movies: Alien, Aliens, and AVP.  ;) (Okay, I'll give Alien Cubed and Alien Resurrection one chance, one, you hear me fans?)

    AVPR just flat out sucked, and not even hard enough to be enjoyably bad, thus making it even worse.

    If a/the prequel is going to succeed, then it's got to return to the mystery of the original installment, that 2001-ish atmosphere, one awed, mystified, afraid, and excited at the same time about exploring the vast, open universe....

    Only then can the film succeed, by making us wonder. 
  19. WeaN
    The prequel was aborted ? Good news ! It was meant to fail anyway. Leave the saga to rest, it should have ended at 3.
    Actually, there are only 3 Aliens movies to me. The rest should have never existed.
    I'm glad the whole Derelict part of the plot will remain a mystery. That's what made its charm.
  20. Kimarhi
    Both version have monsters eating people.  One version portrays this in a believable way.
    Which one, cos I've clearly never read it, and it clearly never made it to the screen.

    Eating, killing, mercing.  All the same shit in the hood. 

    Quote
    Had O'bannon's "script" made the movies,
    Why the quotation marks? Is this some critical elitism where something can't be given a particular label unless it reaches some arbitrary level of quality?
    [/quote]

    Because I'd figure you mofo's wouldn't get caught up on the label "story" vs "script" in the first place anyways. 

    The credits should read: O'bannon story, Giler & Hill script.

     

  21. Valaquen
    Every major scene in the final movie, bar Ash, is in O'Bannon's script, [read the final 'battle' in both scripts, the wording is almost exact - this happens numerously throughout the scripts]. Every character is there [again, albeit Ash], albeit with a different name and different lines [Giler said they excised all of his lines - false, they re-worded a lot of it and switched the characters speaking them around]. Ripley is not so far removed from Ripley - he's the cautious one who won't allow anybody to break the rules, he won't allow the Dallas character back on the ship when the Kane character is infected, etc. The Parker character is still a man more concerned with his end of the bargain, and on, [I think Giler and Hill rounded out Melkonis/Lambert a lot more, or at least shaped her character].

    Kudos to Giler and Hill for Ash and the Company, though their script was also pulled back a little - in their draft, the Company created the Alien themselves, there was no real, truly 'alien' presence in the movie at all. Further drafts excised this [actually, it would have been dropped due to budget, but Scott was focused on showing the pyramid, not the Company Cylinder. O'Bannon recalled that when Scott read the original script he wanted to go back to the original idea ie pyramid. But the budget and time concerns nixed that idea].

    Ideally, the credit should include all of their names. According to O'Bannon on the Anthology, he expressed the idea that it should, but Hill was dismissive. The two producers don't help themselves much by being constantly slanderous towards the guy, whereas O'Bannon praises those around him that helped out with the story [Shusett, Cobb]. I can see why he'd hold a grudge towards the two. I probably would. And of course, Giler and Hill pulled the same thing on Cameron with his Aliens treatment, bumping his name to third and taking all of the money for it: Walter and David got a check for my treatment, and I got nothing. I was pretty pissed off about that one - James Cameron.

    It's a dirty biz'ness.
  22. SiL
    Both version have monsters eating people.  One version portrays this in a believable way.
    Which one, cos I've clearly never read it, and it clearly never made it to the screen.

    Quote
    Had O'bannon's "script" made the movies,
    Why the quotation marks? Is this some critical elitism where something can't be given a particular label unless it reaches some arbitrary level of quality?

    Obviously Hill and Giler's re-writes are better than what O'Bannon produced, but that doesn't mean they deserve more credit any more than ADI deserves more credit than Giger for creating Aliens out of better materials and more advanced technology.
  23. Kimarhi
    but to put it bluntly his story wasn't that good.
    Yet we wound up with fundamentally the same story.

    Hill and Giler cleaned O'Bannon's execution up, yes, but from a plot level their only major contribution was Ash and the Company. All of Alien's memorable sequences are right there in Star Beat, just cheesier.

    Okay the story is pretty much the same.  But then again.  Alien is pretty much the same story as Voyage of the Space Beagle.  Monster in a tin can has been done hundreds of times before and after Alien.

    If you want to be technical about it, the "script" is where the difference lies.  Both version have monsters eating people.  One version portrays this in a believable way.  The other is just a way for a creature to eat some people and provide cheap thrills.

    Had O'bannon's "script" made the movies, we wouldn't be talking about anything that has helped keep the movie alive over the course of 25+ years.  No social commentary, no feminist hero's (regardless of whether it was intentional it happened), no calling out of rampant commercialism.  Even broader themes the series ask about artificial intelligence, sacrifice, etc wouldn't have come to light if O'bannon's "script" had been made because there wouldn't have been any sequels.  At least any worth a damn.

    One "script" is much more contextually deeper than they other.  Thats what sets them apart.

    You can boil any movie down to its bare bones and make them sound the same.  In that regard Alien isn't that much different than Xtro II.  Of course we know which one is quality.
  24. Sharp Sticks
    The story barely changed, in its essence and themes. Giler and Hill just made Roby a babe, changed all the names, played up the corporate aspect and added a Soviet spy twist called Ash. Good screenplays don't leap out fully formed, they require revision and different perspectives. Ultimately it's thanks to the unforgettable texturing that the filmmakers provided that Alien isn't remembered as a Roger Corman debacle, but the foundation is the story, and the story is O'Bannon's.

  25. Kimarhi
    I take the somewhat unpopular opinion that Hill and Giler, douche's that they are, deserve far more of the credit for the finished product than O'bannon does.  O'bannon was a guy you wanted to root for, because he WAS wronged (with giler and hill trying to take credit for his ideas), but to put it bluntly his story wasn't that good.

    You put that shit out and nobody but saturday evening horror aficionado's know what it is.  It'd be the Leviathan of the seventies.

    Don't get me wrong.  I like cheese ranging from the aforementioned leviathan to JCarpenter classic cheese like Ghost of Mars.

    But I can also recognize that on every level Alien trounces those movies.

  26. Sharp Sticks
    Someday doesn't have much appreciation for Metal Hurlant.

    Starbeast rules. Sure, it was hella cheesy (not a bad thing in 70's sci-fi) but the core of Alien was always there. It got refined, the way all good screenplays do. The result was Alien. Yay.
  27. Kimarhi
    Have you even read Starbeast?  Shit was ridiculous.

    Only good scene,  the ONLY good scene was the chest bursting scene because it was new, and it also didn't involve some incredibly lame idea like a crewman transforming into a monster or a monster simply sneaking aboard the spacecraft.  The rest was the same shit you'd seen in a hundred films before with even more cheeze.

    It's terrible.  O'Bannon definately deserves credit, because to put it simply, the chest bursting idea is one of two things that define the Alien (the other being Giger's design), but his story was god awful. 

  28. redalert51
    Get smeone else to direct it , Alien was 1979, most of what
    Now it is 2011 . Alien 79 was a happy accident and Ridley
    Scott became the new kid on the block,but a lot has change
    I just hope Fox find some else and since the passing of
    Dan O' Bannon who was Alien ............
« Newer Comments 123456789101112 Older Comments »
Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed