So after months of being subjected to the same none-news about Prometheus 2 (all that Hell on Earth misinformation), we finally have a small piece of information from a reputable source – Total Film. One of the community members at Scified has posted a scan from the latest issue of Total Film in which they claim that filming for Prometheus 2 will start in January:
Click for a larger image.
Unfortunately the information doesn’t come from a quote of Ridley Scott and is just as part of the article so obviously this news can’t be taken as gospel but coming from a more reliable source than places such as Master Herald is more promising. Are you looking forward to Prometheus 2? What do you want to see from the sequel? Thanks to Ultramorph and Joel Foster for the tip.
I think we should save this for it's own thread. I apologize for derailing the thread and showing this unnecessary aggression towards Hudafuk, please forgive me and let us proceed on point more amicably this time.
Ofcourse I'm commenting on Blomkamp's batting average, he's had one good film the rest have been underwhelming. The stupid idea is opening up the franchise by resurrecting two dead protagonist. There is a wealth of options that the franchise has but moving backwards is the wrong direction in my opinion.
My comment about it being the fourth and fifth installments of the franchise's is based on my idea that if you don't have 3 parts to the story (beginning, middle and end) then it doesn't work. Ripley had that, we don't need a further film to satisfy people's disappointment. Just my opinion.
Here's my take on it, for what it's worth: A reboot is essentially a retelling of a classic story franchise. It doesn't have to borrow the exact details of the plot, even. Many episodes or movies have basic parts that you can swap out and still maintain the structure of the story (hero, villain, love interest, plot-twist, etc). What's important is that you have enough elements from a series to make it somewhat recognizable. So the new Star Trek has Kirk and Bones and Spock in it, even though the story itself is "original," in the sense that isn't an exact retelling of an old episode or film from the franchise. It is something "old" that has been adapted to modern audiences.
So, simply put, a reboot is an adaptation. It's Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the novel, versus Kenneth Branagh's film of the same name. It's Star Trek the 1960's TV show versus the 2009 J.J. Abrams film of the same name, and so on.
A sequel, on the other hand, is a continuation of a story or episode. It is Empire Strikes Back following A New Hope. It is The Fly 2 following The Fly. The stories are actually connected, and more than thematically. They are sequential and take place in the same universe, with the same exact characters, and are distinguished from one another chronologically.
Alien 5 is a sequel because it takes place in the same exact universe that Cameron created, with the same characters, following the events that transpired in Aliens, just as Aliens was a sequel for the same reasons in regards to Alien.
That's how I see it, anyways.
Not it doesn't. Star Trek 2009 is a reboot. In continuity terms, it wipes the slate clean and begins again. It's just an incredibly specific case whereby, thanks to the miracles of time travel, it does so in a way that allows them to say the previous films still happened in some way. Because if they'd literally tried to start over the Trek fans would've gone apeshit. But in terms of its story, and the story now ongoing in the subsequent sequels, it was a completely fresh start, done specifically to jettison the baggage of the previous movies. Sure, it's a very unusual case that comes with a notable 'but', yet it's still a reboot.
It has total relevance to film ever since the term reboot has become synonymous with the act of restarting a film franchise from zero.
The most rudimentary approach would be to use 'reboot' as defined in the original computer context, I suppose. Which means to reset and restart again from scratch. Exactly as I have been saying.
No, he/she was not proven incorrect. He/She just used a fairly new figurative term, people misunderstood, and then Shane clarified that it was not a reboot in the definition that they might have been thinking.
By literal definition the term has no relevance to film. By figurative we can see that nothing can be confirmed for it.
So under these circumstances I am sticking with the rudimentary approach to the word. Feel free to disagree with me.
And yet it agrees with every other source I provided.
We can confirm Shane Black is the man actually making the movie. I'm inclined to listen to his analysis of it over some reporter who's subsequently been proven incorrect in his/her statements
Ah yes, the press, also writers whom proclaim the definition for their own articles. I guess we can confirm that Shane Black is the vocabulary enforcer.
Something that happens too much now-a-days. There's too much of a confusion between reboot/remake and just plain sequel.
That said, the press seems to have a habit of throwing the term at any new entry in an established film series, regardless of whether or not it's warranted. Everyone was claiming Predator 4 was a reboot, until Shane Black himself pointed out it isn't.
I think we have come across a paradoxical noun that can only be fixed by someone with the authority on the matter.
This is why only the U.K should invent English words!
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2009/08/25/top-12-forthcoming-franchise-reboots
http://reboot.askdefinebeta.com/
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContinuityReboot
https://www.wordnik.com/words/reboot
The actual quote I posted is admittedly taken from Wikipedia, but it cites some of those links as sources, and it's the best one-line explanation I've come across.
None of which actually explains what a reboot is. Sure, a reboot can reinvigorate a series, but so can a straight-up sequel. Does that mean sequels are now reboots too?
Ah I see now; Wikipedia.
Although stated under types the definition is as follows:
When you reboot something, you switch it off and start again. "In serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning."
A remake is a retreading of the same plot. A reboot can restart a series without being a remake of any of the previous entries (e.g. Casino Royale or, again, Batman Begins).
By definition of Reboot:
Definition of Revive:
By definition of Remake:
A film can be a reboot and a remake at the same time.
Sources:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Remake&oq=Remake&aqs=chrome..69i57.1257j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=define+Reboot
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Remake&oq=Remake&aqs=chrome..69i57.1257j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=define+Revive
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Remake&oq=Remake&aqs=chrome..69i57.1257j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=define+Remake
No.
A reboot is a fresh start, wiping the slate of anything that has happened before and starting over afresh. See: Batman Begins. By definition it writes off the previous Batman films.
Simply being similar in story and tone or "making a franchise relevant again" does not make it a reboot. That isn't what a reboot is.
When I am refering to reboot I am speaking in the sense of making a franchise relevant again and not only remaking the plot from point A.
So far a lot of reboots have been successful during this decade. Maybe Alien 5 will be one of them?
The Admin quoted me!? He quoted me!
No... I am awaited... I am awaited in Valhalla!
One of the best movies of the decade. Miller really made audiences remember the values of practical effects.
How irate :/
Alien 5 has no ideas just a name... How could you perceive a film as stupid with nothing other than the fact that it's a sequel?
Neil is definitely NOT below average as a director. You might not like his movies but I for one believe that he is very skilled in his field and understands the roots behind a good Sci-fi film more so than a lot of our previous Sci-fi film makers.
As for Predator it has a lot of space and freedom in it's continuity to virtually do anything and pull it off. Predator even has more space and freedom than the Alien franchise does believe it or not.
The reason this happens is that by the time a film is sucessful enough to warrant a third or forth installment, the studio no longer has a blank slate to work with, they have a commodity. And a commodity is a loaded thing. People expect certain things from an Alien film, and that is where and how the Alien series went wrong. The studio and producers start insisting on certain things, certain degrees of intensity, certain vibes and that certain material be present. This is death to a writer and its why Im not in agreement with fans about Alien 3... Because I think they still attempted to do something in a different vein from the laat two while accomodating the producers... This is likely what also makes people dislike it because it still attempts to qualify with what happened before it but should have not tried and went off entirely on its own (like the wooden planet tried to do for better or worse). Of course, you take a gamble doing that because it may be different in a way fans dislike. But from A:R onward, minus Prometheus mostly, the franchise was eaten by people trying to restore its former glory instead of carving its own niche. The exceptions prove the rule. The best stuff in A:R is the stuff thats original, the things that ruin it are the things that attempt to be more like Alien and Aliens... Cameron was able to build on what came before his film but I worry when people start saying they want another 'Aliens like' or 'alien-like' film because that how these problems start. Because there are studi heads with some BS checklist going "It has to be like this..." And "This has to be like this but not too much of this..." Or even "we need it to have more action or less gore or blah-de-blah...
There are exceptions but in the case of these films there won't be. Alien 5 is directed by Blomkamp and Predator has the inherent problem of being liked because it was an Arnie film. No Arnie, No Predator.
Mad Max Fury Road (Mad Max 4) begs to differ. But generally speaking you're right, people seem to stop trying after the second or third film and just go through the motions.
Completely agree. I think that is when Prometheus took a turn for the worse - when Lindelof got involved. Convoluted doesn't equate to a high-brow film.
Indeed. Sequels doesn't equate to sinking low.
The biggest mistake with Prometheus was thinking that it would somehow be so groundbreaking that it would stop being a traditional thriller (where characters have always 99% of the time done dumb things for plots sake). Damon Lindelof isn't a great writer by any stretch, more of a hack, in my opinion.
General rule of thumb - don't trust this website.
http://masterherald.com/alien-5-and-two-more-alien-films-in-the-works-to-the-delight-of-all-fans/23265/
I can't find any other info on this so... take it lightly.
However, I personally want the AVP stuff to remain completely detached from the Alien franchise. I like AVP but don't want the mythologies to cross at all. MAYBE, on a TV show after at least 2 seasons of great ALIEN content.
I'd love to see an Earth-set ALIEN show that continues Ripley 8's storyline and finishes it for good in the first season, then continues onto the Engineers on Earth for a second season and then MAYBE for a third or fourth season throws AVP or PREDTORS into the mix - off world on a mining colony or something.
As much as I like Alien vs Predator, and the two sharing the same universe.. after PREDATORS and Prometheus, I don't think I want an AVP universe where Super Predators and Engineers exist too. Sorry for sounding like a broken record but... I'd rather the film series just be their own thing now. And then there is the whole revisionist history which Blomkamp is supposedly doing which... I'll admit, I'm not too sure on whether or not of being too keen on.
(As long as Ripley doesn't wake up to the sound of running water and finds Hicks taking a shower.. I maybe okay with that.)
In regards to Shane's movie, I wouldn't bank on the Xenomorphs making an appearance. As you said, that's just speculation and nothing more or less. I'm not sure where this rumor started, but do we know anything about the movie? No, so.. until we hear more from all fronts on all projects, I wouldn't take too much seriously.
Have you got a link?
There's nothing wrong with having continuity links between the films as long as it's not forced. And the downfalls of Fire and Stone aren't due to the continuity link, it was down to the story playing too much in Prometheus' sandbox and not being allowed to really do much in case of stepping on the film.
Isn't there a fanbase outside of AvPG for the Prometheus franchise?
Spoiler
It's a title that deserves to be it's franchise in my opinion.
I recently read that there is speculation the Xenos will appear in the PREDATOR reboot as well. Which means well, 3 Alien films coming.
Its concerning how much of Alien 5 and Prometheus 2 would have an influence on one another, such as Alien 5 having some form of reference to Prometheus 2 maintaining continuity. Its a worry that will these films be good enough to stand on their own, or be compromised all for the sake of forcing continuity and universe building by combing their Alien Prometheus brands.
Heck with Shane Black's new Predator 4 on the way its not out of the question that in several years maybe many more Fox will reattempt Aliens VS. Predator film by applying more MARVEL style continuity through multiple Aliens, Prometheus, Predator and Aliens Vs Predator films. They tried this with the Fire and Stone comics with mixed results. "Though if Fox were to do again Ridley Scott and Sigourney Weaver" would most definitely abandoned the franchise once and for all."
Yes! Its called Tent-poling. Its when they use a popular TV show or film is placed alongside a new or less hyped show so the more popular of the two (or three) is used to generate more interest in another. It doesn't really work in this case unless PROMETHEUS 2 comes out before ALIEN 5 precisely BECAUSE there will be more hype for ALIEN 5... So since Scott is producing both, its a smart thing to do from FOX's perspective. Especially if they can get people talking about how the developments in each film relate to the franchise overall.
Im actually very excited for it if it really moves into new territory and opens more doors. Especially now that FOX is moving forward with ALIEN 5... I think with both films doing their own thing they are really opening doors wide for expansion of the franchise and if they BOTH do well, we will hear about new chapters for the franchise for years to come.
If they are smart they will weave some new characters into ALIEN 5 to continue with in whichever sequels eventually weave the plots of both films together.
I'm also thinking that with Scott producing both, sorta back to back, some of the Production Design people, at the very least, will be present for both films.
Some things however, that I def don't want to see Scott do, is use all of the same people who worked on Prometheus on Pt2. Especially, the composer. One of my favorite things about the Alien films is that each film has a different composer. In this case, I kinda think he may end up using Mark Streitenfeld again.
Be awesome if he could snag Terry Rawlings to edit. His work on Alien and Alien 3 is some of my favorite editing ever. Also I wasn't happy with the editing of Prometheus so I hope we wont see him again but we most likely will cause he is Scott's guy - he uses him on everything lately.
Indeed. Hopefully the stories wont be too similar or it'll be like take 1 and take 2 but if they do share elements it'll greatly decrease the costs.