Latest News

Ridley Scott Says No To Director’s Cut

Ridley Scott was reportedly offered the chance to do a Director’s Cut of Prometheus by 20th Century Fox but refused according to Blu-Ray producer Charles de Lauzirika. This news was initially posted on BleedingCool a couple of days ago who attended a press event but now DigitalSpy have a direct quote from him. 

DVD and Blu-ray producer Charles de Lauzirika, who directed the epic 220-minute Making Of documentary The Furious Gods, confirmed to Digital Spy that Fox offered Scott the chance to re-cut the film for its home entertainment release. “It was discussed quite a bit, the idea of an extended cut,” de Lauzirika said. “But the theatrical cut is Ridley’s director’s cut.” Fox very kindly offered him the opportunity to create a new cut of the film, and he said ‘No, this is my cut, and I’ll give you thirty-something minutes of deleted scenes on the side’. “It was that simple, there was really no debate and no argument.”

Never say never. Plenty of films have gotten Director Cuts or Extended Cuts years after they have been released so we may still get one eventually. Thanks to Valaquen for the news.



Post Comment
Comments: 131
« Newer Comments 123 Older Comments »
  1. Toy
    What if things had to be a certain way? Characters are not being portrayed badly, but the characters themselves are all portraying themselves falsely...

    David is secretly the most real... his twitchy nature makes him more human than the humans of the story. He secretly displays more emotion than the subdued emotion/acting and fake personalities of the crew.
    What if even if the actors could have improved their performance, Ridley made everyone minus Shaw and David tone down, or alter their normal acting style slightly... forcing the characters to use cliches that are all incredibly old by that point in the timeline... a culture that may have gone stale like the Engineers. Because Weyland gave them everything and rules like a king. They're all his subjects. Tools.

    In some basic ways it's a lot like American Beauty where David=Lester. In American Beauty it's made out to make Lester appear as a somewhat bad guy responsible for all his own problems when you first watch it. If you dig deeper into the movie you realize Lester is trapped in a situation and it's the only reason he acts out irresponsibly. As a way to escape the miserable life he's trapped in. As much as Lester can't take control of his situation completely, or change it; it's the others around him who are also at fault and secretly more crazy than Lester appears to be. The wife drove him to his misery/actions. At the end his death is a misunderstanding caused by the father of the boy next door who he was only smoking pot with, and the father of the boy has serious issues. All the characters in the story except Lester have been adding to his inability to escape the situation and his breakdown. Here it would be all of the characters except Shaw and Janek who are secretly less real and more crazy than David...

    We have to remember this is Ridley's vision of the future, plus the quotes Lindelof said about getting inside David's head and the "robot's perspective."

    David subtly indicates he may want to kill his parents. There may be a reason for that.

    He hates his parent-- the unjust king who forces him to do his evil bidding... as well as the culture he's been born into.

    These are not colony born humans living out in space.
    They've been directly under Weyland's rule as king for a very long time.

    These characters were born into the culture Weyland helped shape and morph-- giving them all the answers, making them dependent on him as a leader. Portraying himself as a god.

    It's a nature/nurture thing after David's birth. The characters are the way they are because they've lost their true selves, true emotions, and are less real than David/Fassbender.
    Ironically David is becoming a "real boy" and Shaw and Janek are the only others who come close to being "real". With Vickers she pretends to be in control and emotionless, but hides her own unbalanced emotions, panic, fear, and risk aversion based emotions for the most part.

    And there's something very different about most of the Earth-born humans of this time minus the above characters.
    It's like people like Ford and Jackson are a little bit emotionless and a little bit too unthinking/obedient and unquestioning.
    Holloway connects with his emotions too much, unlike the rest, but has major ego and false ego problems as well.
    The characters' "fakeness" could be a reflection of Weyland's chaotic rule over the timeline. More so than that each character may be hiding their own full views and perspectives, agendas, and true nature. So the emotions they display on the surface are fake... David is actually becoming emotional... more human than the humans he's with.
    The humans of the story can't even take care of themselves or respond logically and instinctively at the same time to either run away or fight the situation. This is displayed partially by Millburn's inability to control the situation(though he pretends he can) or even to simply run away (flight response). They've lost some of their survival instincts...

    On one level David is absolutely telling the truth when he says to Shaw: "I didn't think you had it in you, poor choice of words"... because there are multiple meanings to this statement. Meaning on one hand that her survival instincts are impressive compared to the rest, although he could still be being sarcastic and is disappointed he was wrong about all humans, "not too close I hope". Her true logic and intuition/emotion combined in a way that leads her out of the situation. Her "realness"... She's different from the other humans he's grown to despise. There's a reason he says "parents (plural)" and only has the one closest thing to a father... again it's a nature/nurture thing and he sees his other parent as all of humanity. Possibly just the company, because he may have a pseudo-subconscious desire to replace his parent and become King... he feels superior to Weyland and humanity... A lot of Weyland rubbed of on him. More than the preference for Lawrence of Arabia...

    He may actually be admiring Shaw's ability to go against Weyland's programming, but at the same time it's a poor choice of words because he's revealing he can lie. He had full knowledge that "it" was inside her in his other meaning.
    He may also have a little respect for Shaw because she taught him to choose what to believe when he was watching her dream, which is how he lies and deceives-- choosing to remain vague throughout the entire movie.

    The characters are all too egotistical, greedy, unable to see other perspectives, unable to connect with their emotions and intuition properly, semi-uncaring, fake, semi-unquestioning, and semi-emotionless because of Weyland's influence over the culture they were born into. A lot of it rubbed off on them because he's the parent of Vickers and David, and like the King of the culture for the rest. Even David may become like his father, like the father he hates, wanting to be a creator as our first near-immortal character of the story. "Sometimes to create one must first destroy". He's an android head that gets to keep living without anyone having to plug anything in or trick it into thinking it's alive again. David's head is immortal in a way that the later Androids aren't. The old order at Weyland corp is completely destroyed and begins to disintegrate when the King is killed and the Weyland lineage is severed.

    There's something going on in David's head. Look at the early posters that focus on David, and the links between all the head themes become more apparent. The focus on David in general and how Fassbender came across as one of the best things in the movie should provide some clues that a lot of the series will be about David.

    In the beginning we see Millburn using a different accent when conversing with Fifield for the first time. He later switches to trying to impress him when Fifield turns out to be not so tough. Millburn tries to impress Fifield and foolishly believes in his abilities/act enough to try to pretend he has the situation in control. He almost accesses his flight response when he almost backs away, but his false ego takes over and he goes forward thinking/believing what he says.. That it's mesmerized and he can handle it. But he really has no clue what he's doing.

    Janek is the natural captain and leader but he purposely gives up control of situations sometime prior to the events of the movie, he "just flies the ship" but at the end Ravel or Chance (can't remember) reveals that he's a "shit pilot". It takes a long time for Janek to take charge of the situation but he makes the call Vickers couldn't make and Ravel and Chance stick by him. They believe he's right-- they're both betting on him...

    And of course after the deleted scenes and all we know Janek may be almost entirely right with his view of it being a weapons facility, because of his past experiences and having been in situations where tough calls had to be made.

    They're supposed to be acting like irrational, illogical morons at times who can't properly combine logic and intuition/instinct/emotion anymore to begin looking for evidence in the right directions.  Because of Weyland's influence over the culture. As a king, as almost a dictator.

    David is breaking free from what most humans from Earth are like at this point and in the future of the series. "Earth, what a shit-hole"

     
  2. Valaquen
    Ridley wanted everything exactly his way, and got it, so how brave do you have to be to start changing up the lines on your own if you're some of these lesser-known actors?

    Fassbender did ad-lib a bit - the much disputed '36 hours' line was like a hot potato between Spaights and Lindelof with both claiming that it wasn't penned by them.
    ... hm, I'm sure I saw Spaihts or someone saying it was intentional?

    EDIT: Here we go: http://whatculture.com/film/prometheus-writer-jon-spaihts-confirms-36-hours-plot-hole-was-deliberate.php
  3. Darth Vile
    I don't think Scott has changed his approach to actors, he built the sets and stop-gap visualisations for the benefit of a more 'real performance, and is still pulling tricks to keep actors on their toes.

    But then, personally, I still feel that Prometheus - in parts - conveys a more 1970s feel than any other sci-fi film I've seen in years. Moon being another rare example.

    Yes, I will definitely agree with "Moon".  But then again, Sam Rockwell would still be interesting to watch if he was just reading a telephone directory.  But yes, Duncan Jones and Sam Rockwell definitely captured that naturalistic dialogue and character interaction which seems to be so lacking in modern Hollywood cinema.

    Often, the delivery of the dialogue is so precise and unnaturally fluid, it is like watching a tennis match from the judges stand.  Back -- forth --back -- forth.  Rinse and repeat.  In real life, people don't converse and interact so mechanically.

    Ultimately, what makes the "naturalistic" approach (for lack of a better word) so appealing to me, is the perceived spontaneity. Again, using "Alien", or "Close Encounters" as specific examples...the illusion that is created is:
    a)  The person speaking has literally just constructed, in their mind, what he/she is about to say, for the first time.
    b)  The person listening and receiving the dialogue has literally just heard it for the very first time.

    Obviously, this is not an easy thing to pull off...and it takes very talented actors, and more often than not, an equally talented director to accomplish this.  Of course, allowing the actors to do a certain amount of creative, freestyle ad-libbing, while still hitting all the critical, key "notes" of a given scene, greatly helps in this process.
    Being "naturalistic", whilst it clearly has its place, is just one choice for the director. Hand held camera work helps a sense of naturalism, but it's use or none use doesn't automatically make a film superior or inferior. I'd agree that this technique adds to the films you mention (probably because it helps build tension and a sense of empathy) but there are many examples of poor films that try and be "naturalistic".
  4. RagingDragon
    Yes, I will definitely agree with "Moon".  But then again, Sam Rockwell would still be interesting to watch if he was just reading a telephone directory.  But yes, Duncan Jones and Sam Rockwell definitely captured that naturalistic dialogue and character interaction which seems to be so lacking in modern Hollywood cinema.

    Often, the delivery of the dialogue is so precise and unnaturally fluid, it is like watching a tennis match from the judges stand.  Back -- forth --back -- forth.  Rinse and repeat.  In real life, people don't converse and interact so mechanically.

    Ultimately, what makes the "naturalistic" approach (for lack of a better word) so appealing to me, is the perceived spontaneity. Again, using "Alien", or "Close Encounters" as specific examples...the illusion that is created is:
    a)  The person speaking has literally just constructed, in their mind, what he/she is about to say, for the first time.
    b)  The person listening and receiving the dialogue has literally just heard it for the very first time.

    Obviously, this is not an easy thing to pull off...and it takes very talented actors, and more often than not, an equally talented director to accomplish this.  Of course, allowing the actors to do a certain amount of creative, freestyle ad-libbing, while still hitting all the critical, key "notes" of a given scene, greatly helps in this process.

    Yes, your posts are like f**king fine wine.

    It's hard to tell if it's simply poor acting or weak dialogue.  I know many actors will simply ad-lib, or say what comes naturally in the scene after they've learned the dialogue and understand the character.  Harrison Ford does this, I'm sure many good actors do because they can tell what is appropriate for the character; they know what good acting is. They can command their character to push it to its fullest potential.  But how studly of an actor/actress do you have to be to have that sort of freedom, especially working with a director like Ridley Scott?  Even Fassbender is a relatively new actor in the Hollywood scene. I think Guy Pearce probably has the longest-running career of anyone in the film, besides maybe Charlize.

    Also, at what point do you get into a script, as an actor, and say "this guy is just written this way, and I can't change a few lines without changing his entire character?"  I mean, in a film like Prometheus, some people literally have only a handful of lines, just minutes on-screen.  This makes each line pretty critical in defining any sort of character before the imminent death.

    And Ridley wants a certain vision so adamantly. That's all many of the actors seemed to talk about.. which kind of sounds like Ridley wanted everything exactly his way, and got it, so how brave do you have to be to start changing up the lines on your own if you're some of these lesser-known actors?  I'm just curious. Many of them were probably intimidated by Ridley and, as Lindelof so elegantly put it, "just tried not to get fired."
  5. Deuterium
    I don't think Scott has changed his approach to actors, he built the sets and stop-gap visualisations for the benefit of a more 'real performance, and is still pulling tricks to keep actors on their toes.

    But then, personally, I still feel that Prometheus - in parts - conveys a more 1970s feel than any other sci-fi film I've seen in years. Moon being another rare example.

    Yes, I will definitely agree with "Moon".  But then again, Sam Rockwell would still be interesting to watch if he was just reading a telephone directory.  But yes, Duncan Jones and Sam Rockwell definitely captured that naturalistic dialogue and character interaction which seems to be so lacking in modern Hollywood cinema.

    Often, the delivery of the dialogue is so precise and unnaturally fluid, it is like watching a tennis match from the judges stand.  Back -- forth --back -- forth.  Rinse and repeat.  In real life, people don't converse and interact so mechanically.

    Ultimately, what makes the "naturalistic" approach (for lack of a better word) so appealing to me, is the perceived spontaneity. Again, using "Alien", or "Close Encounters" as specific examples...the illusion that is created is:
    a)  The person speaking has literally just constructed, in their mind, what he/she is about to say, for the first time.
    b)  The person listening and receiving the dialogue has literally just heard it for the very first time.

    Obviously, this is not an easy thing to pull off...and it takes very talented actors, and more often than not, an equally talented director to accomplish this.  Of course, allowing the actors to do a certain amount of creative, freestyle ad-libbing, while still hitting all the critical, key "notes" of a given scene, greatly helps in this process.
  6. Gash
    I don't think Scott has changed his approach to actors, he built the sets and stop-gap visualisations for the benefit of a more 'real performance, and is still pulling tricks to keep actors on their toes.

    But then, personally, I still feel that Prometheus - in parts - conveys a more 1970s feel than any other sci-fi film I've seen in years. Moon being another rare example.
  7. RagingDragon
    Of all people, Ridley Scott had all of my votes when it came to pulling incredible performances from actors, and actually improving the acting in his film through close involvement with the actors and a balls-to-the-wall, passionate vision for what he wanted.

    Seems like with Prometheus, all of that passion was applied to the visuals, and the actual acting and characters were somewhat of an afterthought outside of representing these huge, obvious, and often revisited 'grand themes.'

    I remember watching the extras for Black Hawk Down, and some of the actors talk about random things that Ridley would do to make the performances more geniune, like having random explosions going off around them that they had no clue about.  Apparently that was back in the day when he really paid attention to what the performances looked like on screen.

    I don't know whether to blame some modern trend or oversight on Scott's part.  In the end, though, I think the general audience noticed.
  8. Virgil
    To me, what makes the original Alien film rise above the shooting script (which wasn't bad, mind you), was the naturalistic acting and dialogue that Ridley Scott captured.  You used to see this in great '70s movies.  The actors are talking back and forth like real people do, in the real world.  Many times, people talk over one another, or get cut off.  It makes you pay attention because the dialogue is so dynamic.  It seems effortless and extemporaneous, and never does it appear that we are watching actors read from a script.

    Another film that did this wonderfully was "Close Encounters of the Third Kind".  Earlier films like "Serpico" and "Dog Day Afternoon" are similar examples.

    I don't know why directors have moved away from this realistic "verite" style.

    Anyways...this is one of my favorite aspects about the acting and directing of "Alien".

    Couldn't agree more, Deuterium, I've been thinking this for quite a while now. Another film, IMO, that really manages to capture that dynamic would be Jaws. Some of Lars von Trier's movies too.
  9. Deuterium
    To me, what makes the original Alien film rise above the shooting script (which wasn't bad, mind you), was the naturalistic acting and dialogue that Ridley Scott captured.  You used to see this in great '70s movies.  The actors are talking back and forth like real people do, in the real world.  Many times, people talk over one another, or get cut off.  It makes you pay attention because the dialogue is so dynamic.  It seems effortless and extemporaneous, and never does it appear that we are watching actors read from a script.

    Another film that did this wonderfully was "Close Encounters of the Third Kind".  Earlier films like "Serpico" and "Dog Day Afternoon" are similar examples.

    I don't know why directors have moved away from this realistic "verite" style.

    Anyways...this is one of my favorite aspects about the acting and directing of "Alien".
  10. Shmiggins
    Not my fault if he chose a dumb way to make his point.
    Not really; I got his point, I suspect others did too. Your post didn't contribute a whole lot other than point out a pedantic "mistake" and ignore his point entirely.

    Good thing you were around to correct his mistake, eh?

    I've been watching a fan edit with most of the material back in and it still a the same boring but pretty film as before. A extended cut will not help this movie. It's the same as the AvP extended cut, nothing can make up for a bad script.

    I have also been watching a fan edit with the deleted and extended scenes re-inserted and I respectfully disagree.

    Some of the smaller scenes, like "We are no longer alone", "Our first alien", "skin", and the like bring a greater sense of continuity to the film, making latter actions taken now make sense in terms of the broader narrative, instead of being things that just happen.

    Janek Fills Vickers In and The Engineer Speaks both bring a sense of depth to the film that was missing before, and the latter just about changes the entire point of the film.

    Extended scenes like the King Has His Reign scene between Vickers and Weyland bring character to those that had little.

    The alternate Fifield Attacks brings a sense of consistency across the title's creature design that I didn't realize the film was lacking until I saw it.

    And that's just the ones I remember off the top of my head.

    I definitely think an extended cut is the better cut of the film.
    I agree with pretty much everything you've said, although I disagree on the bit with the Engineer speaking. As much as I dislike the direction they took with the Engineers, I think it works a whole lot better if he's silent.

    Out of all the deleted scenes, I think the engineer speaking was one of the good ones!  well.. maybe not the engineer speaking, but weyland talking about gods.  About how he was like god because he created David. About how gods deserve to live forever.  I felt like this was the "tears in rain" moment, and I think it's a shame they cut it out. It actually gave me chills when i watched it. :(
  11. Valaquen
    I thought Alien's script, both versions [O'Bannon/Giler & Hill] were great reads. O'Bannon's for what could've been and a nice, comic book sort of thing, and Giler and Hill's for this clipped, harder version of what O'Bannon wrote. The script was bare, but not bad. To me :)
  12. SiL
    The script for Alien is the only script I've read that's actually creeped me out. Even O'Bannon's early drafts gave me a great sense of atmosphere while reading it.
  13. Xenomrph
    To be fair the script for 'Alien' isn't exactly remarkable. In fact I'd say it's the weakest part of the movie. If it wasn't carried by the excellent acting, direction, creature design, etc, I don't think the movie would have been nearly the phenomenon it ended up becoming.
  14. echobbase79
    Out of curiosity name me one movie where a movie with a bad script that has actually turned out good. Yes, I can say some movies have been okay. Films Like the Phantom Menace, the Transformers films, the latest Indiana Jones film have terrible scripts but they're actually a lot of fun to watch. I guess Prometheus can go under that category to some people but I was just bored with it.
  15. bobcunk
    I've been watching a fan edit with most of the material back in and it still a the same boring but pretty film as before. A extended cut will not help this movie. It's the same as the AvP extended cut, nothing can make up for a bad script.

    I have also been watching a fan edit with the deleted and extended scenes re-inserted and I respectfully disagree.

    Some of the smaller scenes, like "We are no longer alone", "Our first alien", "skin", and the like bring a greater sense of continuity to the film, making latter actions taken now make sense in terms of the broader narrative, instead of being things that just happen.

    Janek Fills Vickers In and The Engineer Speaks both bring a sense of depth to the film that was missing before, and the latter just about changes the entire point of the film.

    Extended scenes like the King Has His Reign scene between Vickers and Weyland bring character to those that had little.

    The alternate Fifield Attacks brings a sense of consistency across the title's creature design that I didn't realize the film was lacking until I saw it.


    And that's just the ones I remember off the top of my head.

    I definitely think an extended cut is the better cut of the film.

    Okay I'll give you those two, but the other scenes didn't add much IMO.

    Its not just about the script its more how its filmed. lots of great movies have the same boring scrips and plots but the acting , filming and mood of the movie is wat makes it good.
  16. Gash
    I can understand why the skin scene got cut. You don't go about claiming that your film is not an X movie and then go and put in one of the original X movies most recognisable tropes.

    Although it was always an X movie, and as soon as the Jockey chair appeared in the trailer the bluff was called.

    To be brutally honest I thought they cut the skin scene cos it looked like Milburn was examining Lisa Riley's thong.
  17. ChrisPachi
    I can understand why the skin scene got cut. You don't go about claiming that your film is not an X movie and then go and put in one of the original X movies most recognisable tropes.
  18. echobbase79
    I've been watching a fan edit with most of the material back in and it still a the same boring but pretty film as before. A extended cut will not help this movie. It's the same as the AvP extended cut, nothing can make up for a bad script.

    I have also been watching a fan edit with the deleted and extended scenes re-inserted and I respectfully disagree.

    Some of the smaller scenes, like "We are no longer alone", "Our first alien", "skin", and the like bring a greater sense of continuity to the film, making latter actions taken now make sense in terms of the broader narrative, instead of being things that just happen.

    Janek Fills Vickers In and The Engineer Speaks both bring a sense of depth to the film that was missing before, and the latter just about changes the entire point of the film.

    Extended scenes like the King Has His Reign scene between Vickers and Weyland bring character to those that had little.

    The alternate Fifield Attacks brings a sense of consistency across the title's creature design that I didn't realize the film was lacking until I saw it.


    And that's just the ones I remember off the top of my head.

    I definitely think an extended cut is the better cut of the film.

    Okay I'll give you those two, but the other scenes didn't add much IMO.
  19. Xenomrph
    Not my fault if he chose a dumb way to make his point.
    Not really; I got his point, I suspect others did too. Your post didn't contribute a whole lot other than point out a pedantic "mistake" and ignore his point entirely.

    Good thing you were around to correct his mistake, eh?

    I've been watching a fan edit with most of the material back in and it still a the same boring but pretty film as before. A extended cut will not help this movie. It's the same as the AvP extended cut, nothing can make up for a bad script.

    I have also been watching a fan edit with the deleted and extended scenes re-inserted and I respectfully disagree.

    Some of the smaller scenes, like "We are no longer alone", "Our first alien", "skin", and the like bring a greater sense of continuity to the film, making latter actions taken now make sense in terms of the broader narrative, instead of being things that just happen.

    Janek Fills Vickers In and The Engineer Speaks both bring a sense of depth to the film that was missing before, and the latter just about changes the entire point of the film.

    Extended scenes like the King Has His Reign scene between Vickers and Weyland bring character to those that had little.

    The alternate Fifield Attacks brings a sense of consistency across the title's creature design that I didn't realize the film was lacking until I saw it.

    And that's just the ones I remember off the top of my head.

    I definitely think an extended cut is the better cut of the film.
    I agree with pretty much everything you've said, although I disagree on the bit with the Engineer speaking. As much as I dislike the direction they took with the Engineers, I think it works a whole lot better if he's silent.
  20. HybridNewborn
    I've been watching a fan edit with most of the material back in and it still a the same boring but pretty film as before. A extended cut will not help this movie. It's the same as the AvP extended cut, nothing can make up for a bad script.

    I have also been watching a fan edit with the deleted and extended scenes re-inserted and I respectfully disagree.

    Some of the smaller scenes, like "We are no longer alone", "Our first alien", "skin", and the like bring a greater sense of continuity to the film, making latter actions taken now make sense in terms of the broader narrative, instead of being things that just happen.

    Janek Fills Vickers In and The Engineer Speaks both bring a sense of depth to the film that was missing before, and the latter just about changes the entire point of the film.

    Extended scenes like the King Has His Reign scene between Vickers and Weyland bring character to those that had little.

    The alternate Fifield Attacks brings a sense of consistency across the title's creature design that I didn't realize the film was lacking until I saw it.

    And that's just the ones I remember off the top of my head.

    I definitely think an extended cut is the better cut of the film.
  21. SM
    Not my fault if he chose a dumb way to make his point.

    Just perpetuates the myth the Fox forced Riddles to keep it under 2 hours.

    Lucky he has you to defend him though, eh?
  22. echobbase79
    I've been watching a fan edit with most of the material back in and it still a the same boring but pretty film as before. A extended cut will not help this movie. It's the same as the AvP extended cut, nothing can make up for a bad script.
  23. Gash
    so sad.

    clearly an evidence, that scott became senile.


    Oh I dunno. I expect he can still capitalise his sentences.

    Seriously? Is that all you could think of to say? Of all the constructive arguments and ideas floating around here, you decided to poke at his capitalization?

    Grow up.

    Whoooosh!


    No, just at the hypocrisy. But hey, apparently it's fine to call someone senile in your world. Nice.

    But if you can think of a constructive argument or idea to counter what I'd consider basic abuse please enlighten me with your mature analysis of why you support the theory that Scott is in fact senile.

    Evidently not then?
  24. orchidal
    Resurrection blows Prometheus out of the water.

    ...

    Yeah I said it. :laugh:  I just give it more points for being a complete story and having less noticeable plot holes.  Not trying to bait anyone, you sensitive asses. :P  I was also honestly more moved by parts of Resurrection, like Ripley facing her clones, than Prometheus, and some parts scared me a lot more than anything in Prometheus.

    Res would've been in a different league had the newborn been something wicked awesome.



    Fair enough.  In my mind, Res doesn't exist because the concept is silly and the series ended perfectly with Alien 3.

    But different strokes for different folks and all that. 8)

    Res? Alien 3? What are these movies you speak of?

    As far as I am concerned, Ripley and the others are still floating around in space.

    In my mind it's ripley and jonesy float in space.



    In space, no one can quench your thirst like a Ripley and Jonesy Float™
  25. fiveways
    Resurrection blows Prometheus out of the water.

    ...

    Yeah I said it. :laugh:  I just give it more points for being a complete story and having less noticeable plot holes.  Not trying to bait anyone, you sensitive asses. :P  I was also honestly more moved by parts of Resurrection, like Ripley facing her clones, than Prometheus, and some parts scared me a lot more than anything in Prometheus.

    Res would've been in a different league had the newborn been something wicked awesome.



    Fair enough.  In my mind, Res doesn't exist because the concept is silly and the series ended perfectly with Alien 3.

    But different strokes for different folks and all that. 8)

    Res? Alien 3? What are these movies you speak of?

    As far as I am concerned, Ripley and the others are still floating around in space.

    In my mind it's ripley and jonesy float in space.
  26. T Dog
    I think 3 worked nicely thematically.

    It will always be a flawed but interesting film. It has a lot of great ideas but I don't think it flows amazingly. It gets a bit stuck in places.

    Too bad poor Michael Biehn didn't get that starring vehicle for 3 and create that team of rebels fighting the company.
    I thought the first Dark Horse stories set up the characters nicely with him being shell shocked and having some nasty facial burns. Newt was in an asylum. Would be interesting ways to start the characters off instead of being dead.
  27. Space Sweeper
    Fair enough.  In my mind, Res doesn't exist because the concept is silly and the series ended perfectly with Alien 3.

    But different strokes for different folks and all that. 8)
    This. Though I would have prefered Ripley's story ended at Aliens, presumably headed back toward Earth, if there was going to be another movie with Ripley to tie it up, Alien3 was the best possible outcome in my mind.


    Not to mention I personally like Prometheus a lot more than Resurrection.
  28. samoht
    Resurrection blows Prometheus out of the water.

    ...

    Yeah I said it. :laugh:  I just give it more points for being a complete story and having less noticeable plot holes.  Not trying to bait anyone, you sensitive asses. :P  I was also honestly more moved by parts of Resurrection, like Ripley facing her clones, than Prometheus, and some parts scared me a lot more than anything in Prometheus.

    Res would've been in a different league had the newborn been something wicked awesome.



    Fair enough.  In my mind, Res doesn't exist because the concept is silly and the series ended perfectly with Alien 3.

    But different strokes for different folks and all that. 8)

    Res? Alien 3? What are these movies you speak of?

    As far as I am concerned, Ripley and the others are still floating around in space.
  29. T Dog
    I used to loathe Resurrection, I still think it's silly but as a sci fi movie it's decent.

    It very much feels like it could be a Dark Horse story and I think it's successful if looked upon on those terms.
    All of Joss Whedon's writing feels very comic bookish and A:R is no exception.

    It's pretty much a spin off at this point anyway. I doubt there'll be a sequel and with all love and respect Sigourney seems too old now.

    But if they want to make more Alien films all they have to do is make some poor unfortunates stumble across some eggs. Bingo.
  30. SpeedyMaxx
    I quite like AR.  It is what it is.  And it's a total departure, and it works for me, though it is certainly very flawed.  But after 3, you had to do something wild and different.

    I also think Sigourney Weaver gives one of the best performances of her career as Ripley 8.  Very animalistic, spellbinding to watch.  I wish she'd gotten to play that Ripley again.
  31. Rick Grimes
    On the topic of A:R, I don't like the movie much like anyone does. After watching a lot of episodes of Firefly, and thinking about Joss Whedon's A:R script, you can see a lot of resemblance with the Betty crew and that of Serenity. 
  32. T Dog
    Resurrection blows Prometheus out of the water.

    ...

    Yeah I said it. :laugh:  I just give it more points for being a complete story and having less noticeable plot holes.  Not trying to bait anyone, you sensitive asses. :P  I was also honestly more moved by parts of Resurrection, like Ripley facing her clones, than Prometheus, and some parts scared me a lot more than anything in Prometheus.

    Res would've been in a different league had the newborn been something wicked awesome.
    Quote
    AR, while very different from the first three, isn't really a bad movie. Its weird, it unnecessary, and its a bit disappointing, but I wouldn't call it bad. Its interesting in an absurd, very out there way. And the Newborn design is great, given that it is supposed to be an abomination and all.

    I agree with these statements.
  33. Hudson
    Quote
    Fair enough.  In my mind, Res doesn't exist because the concept is silly and the series ended perfectly with Alien 3.

    But different strokes for different folks and all that.

    Some people say that about the Holocaust. You can't change history though.  :P
« Newer Comments 123 Older Comments »
Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed