With the release of the 3D conversion of Terminator 2: Judgement Day just around the corner at the end of August, James Cameron took part in a Facebook Live interview on the Terminator 2 page to promote the film.
Fielding an early question about the possibility of a 3D treatment of The Terminator and True Lies, Cameron revealed that pending a good reception to Terminator 2’s 3D release that Aliens would next on the agenda!
“We haven’t proven the business case yet so ask me again in a couple of weeks if T2 Judgement Day in 3D does well. I think the next title on my list, in terms of fan enthusiasm would probably have to be Aliens before I got to the other titles that you mentioned.
Aliens seems to really hold up in people’s minds and that would probably be my next one. But we’ve got to prove the business case here so people have to show up. So show up!”
James Cameron on the set of Aliens with Michael Biehn, Sigourney Weaver, Bill Paxton and Jenette Goldstein.
In addition to the upcoming Terminator 2 3D, Cameron also re-released Titanic in 2012 with a 3D treatment and in 4K resolution. While not a Cameron project, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first Predator also received a 3D re-release back in 2013.
Later on in the interview, Cameron was asked about his thoughts on Sir Ridley Scott’s recent Alien: Covenant and the direction that Ridley was taking the lore in.
“I thought that Alien: Covenant was a great ride. It was beautiful. I love Ridley’s films and I love his film making , I love the beauty of the photography, I love the visceral sense that you’re there, that you’re present.
It’s not a film that I would have made. I don’t like films where you invest in a character and they get destroyed at the end. I would not have made that film. I can’t comment on where Ridley is going with it but I think he is obviously trying to create a greater universe around it and more backstory with the Engineers and so on. I’ll show up for the next one, absolutely.”
Thanks to 0321recon for pointing out the interview! Keep a close eye on Alien vs. Predator Galaxy for the latest Alien news! You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to get the latest on your social media walls. You can also join in with fellow Alien fans on our forums!
Anyway, highly recommended, and I can't wait to buy it on blu-ray. I hope Cameron gets to give Aliens the 3D treatment - that shot of Gateway Station would be glorious.
Yeah I agree with you. Gladiator is a simple story when you break it down but the characters and motivations elevate it far above a simple revenge tale.
And it was definatley regarded as a huge risk at the time.
I agree 100%.
But like you said, it is all down to personal taste.
I love GLADIATOR and THE MARTIAN. I hate Titanic and Avatar.
Sword and sandal epics had been out of fashion for more than thirty years and Crowe was only really known for a supporting role in LA Confidential IIRC.
Personally I find the story in Gladiator a lot less simplistic than the framing fantasy fitted around Titanic. Titanic is full of faults, but it has spectacle. Likewise with Avatar. Gladiator also has spectacle but as a revenge story with interesting motivated characters it is pitch perfect. I guess it is all down to personal taste.
It's clear to see that Scott was greatly influenced by Kubrick. It's also clear to see Cameron was greatly influenced by Scott.
As for what SiL said about Aliens, he's absolutely right. Out of the two films, Aliens was the one that everybody copied to death. Here's a nice video to sum it up solely in the realm of video games:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYtQmayyDLA
To each their own.
Spielberg is too sappy and too melodramatic for my tastes.
That's a lie.
BLADE RUNNER and STAR WARS are far more copied and admired than any Cameron movie.
Cameron, Scott, spielberg are all great, legends who have made classic, timeless films.
Ridley's style is my personal favourite out of the three but Spielberg is the daddy. Neither Scott or Cameron's filmography stands up against his as a whole.
Good lord, I find myself agreeing with a Hide post here.
I don't think Ridlay has any bad movies except maybe GI Jane. He has a few films in genres I'm less interested in, but that doesn't make them bad movies. I think Scott has a better hit rate in terms of quality over Cameron. But that's my personal taste. I think that maybe you need to accept that Scott isn't your sort of film maker, I don't want to make assumptions on your behalf but perhaps it's just science fiction (of a certain type) that's your bag?
Alien is a masterpiece. It is up there with the great classics.
Sure aliens is a great movie, but it hasn't the great artistry that alien has.
But, Cameron hasn't directed a bad movie for about 30 years, the man knows how to tell a story.
And even if the story isn't that great or has been told before, like Avatar, he knows how to deliver a thrilling ride. He knows what works for the audience and what doesn't. He is a scientist of movie filmmaking.
Ridley has a lot more bad movies and failures than great one's, it's like he doesn't knows what he is doing all the time and works on a whim.
Prometheus and Alien Covenant are bad movies with great ideas.
They have problems that could have been very easily been fixed by an average director.
I don't know how Ridley managed to make a movie as bad as Covenant, maybe he was his intention to end the franchise. Who knows...
It's been like that for weeks, a lot of them are.
Not that it's relevant, because Scott himself isn't much of a risk-taker.
What does better mean.
If I'm on a desert island and have to pick a Directors catalogue, I'm taking Spielberg's after about 2 seconds of thought. That's even with Scott having two of my all time favourites.
I think Scott is better than Spielberg. But back to the topic, I mean it in the sense that both of them made small, dramas, big, thrillers, War, Suspense, Action, all kinds of genres, etc....
For example: both of them are releasing their new dramas this December in time for Oscars.
Nah, there's only one Spielberg.
James Cameron is Michael Bay with the Biggest Budgets of All Time.
Ridley Scott is Better. He is like Steven Spielberg. Both of them made ALL kinds of Films and in ALL Genres.
LOL
I forgot to mention that this was a sequel to a highly popular film at the time. R rated action films were much more popular in the 80s and 90s than they are now. It had everything in its favor from the outset.
I think that would be a backward step. I probably wouldn't be interested in that either.
You're right on.
It should go without saying, but we all want different things. Some want a slow-burner like Alien, others want marines, marines, and more marines, and some would like a more existential, character-driven horror film like Alien 3 (Alien:Resurrection. I choose to ignore). Prometheus and Covenant are thematically different from anything else in the series, but are just as consistent in tone as Alien and Aliens were; while still seeking to be their own thing. I, like you, am a fan and love both Prometheus and Covenant so I am quite content with the direction these films have taken. Personally, I love Aliens for what it is, but if that is the future a majority of fans would want then "you can count me out!".
Having read quite a few of the thread topics on this forum, I haven't got the faintest idea what the fans want. But I'm a fan and I like Covenant and Prometheus a lot, so I'm happy.
When?
$10m was not low budget at the end of the 1970s.
Perhaps the $100m they used was all they needed. Exodus and Robin Hood were both PG-13 rather than R, thus increasing the audience. Exodus was intended to draw in the religious crowd who dug stuff like Passion of the Christ. Robin Hood was pairing Riddles with Rusty Crowe again so I guess they hoped to emulate Gladiator.
The chance he took resulted in enough success for a sequel.
-Windebieste.
Alien was a low-budget film. They keep saying it over and over again on the Anthology.
As for your second remark I stand corrected. So how come Ridley only got such a (relatively) small budget for Prometheus and Covenant?
Did Fox lose faith in him or the Alien-franchise just because Exodus and Robin Hood didn't do that well at the BO? Were they expecting the same succes as Gladiator?
Imo Ridley should have just stormed out of the gates, guns blazing when he made Prometheus. He only had one shot to get the franchise back on track but he blew it. Prometheus was obviously meant to be a set-up for future films.
Now we got bald humanoid bodybuilders for Space Jockeys and alien eggs that are simply the result of a mere experiment by some random runaway droid, contadicting everything we've seen in the series.
Congratulations Fox / Ridley! You definitely know what your fans want....
Bruce Willis had Last Boy Scout and Hudson Hawk in the same year and both tanked.
Both want to make money and be successful. 99% of film makers do, its a business after all.
Cameron makes films that appeal to broader audiences because his tastes and ideas are more in line with them. I think that's why Ridleys biggest hits are the ones he has the least input on the story itself.
T2 hit all the right notes and I think Cameron instinctively knows what notes to hit. Hes shown that with just about every film hes made even if they haven't all worked for me.
Just because action movies were popular doesn't mean they were a license to print money
That's a big risk.
No it wasn't. It was an action film. Action films were the big budget blockbusters of the 80s and 90s; before superhero films came along.
And this isn't acknowledging how Cameron and Schwarzenegger were already household names at the time.
Indeed. I'm pretty sure John Carpenter responded with a similar answer when faced with the arty farty question about why the studio chose him... because they thought I'd make them a lot of money he responded.
Aliens has more intelligence in its first 30 minutes than the Frankenstein'd Covenant's total runtime. Classical musical, statues, and dialogue about creation don't automatically make a film intelligent. And having people shoot guns and say one liners doesn't make a film unintelligent.
Universal gave Riddles $200m for Robin Hood and Fox gave him another $200m for Exodus.
I also bet he'd like that, but the fact is he's not Cameron. He didn't direct the world-famous 'Titanic' or 'Terminator'. He just made a low-budget sci-fi horror movie in space about some Swiss monster which everybody loves nowadays...but not back then. I bet the majority of the general audience don't know any of his movies except for 'Gladiator'. You can't compare Ridley with Cameron, not only because Ridley doesn't have such a stable track record as the billion-dollar prodigy called Cameron , but also because Fox would never ever give him the same budget...which will severely limit him as a director. Please keep in mind that Covenant was made with a budget of only 100 million dollars; I was absolutely baffled when I first heard of this! But even so, it's a much better film than any of the AAA-titles released this year who had almost twice the budget. To me that's saying a lot about how well he knows his business.
My point is that any movie that has James Cameron in the credits would probably sell extremely well. But if he would have made Covenant it would have been another comicbook-like flick with big robots and simpleton soldiers to try to appeal to everyone between the age of 12 and 67 and it would have been forgotten pretty damn fast.
I highly doubt he'd ever use Michelangelo's David in any Alien-movie...
He started in advertising - he's all about the biz. I'm sure he'd be well chuffed to get Cameron numbers.
You're absolutely correct, but he's not trying to appeal to such a wide demographic as Cameron is what I'm trying to say.