Ridley Scott on the Alien franchise

Started by Nightmare Asylum, Nov 07, 2024, 04:11:51 PM

Author
Ridley Scott on the Alien franchise (Read 1,878 times)

Nightmare Asylum

Quote from: Still Collating... on Nov 08, 2024, 06:32:36 PMI wouldn't have anything against him being a consultant of the visuals of the films and series', and even then, it's not like he's the only director with a good eye... But he should have no creative control IMO on the direction of the stories, no veto power and don't let him cut a film, for the love of Giger, please no. Generally, let the new blood try their hands freely at making their vision on this series, without interference from previous directors.
I like what Fede did, but his reverence towards Scott is felt in the film, ignoring some of the obvious purely original Fede faults in the film. And while I'm happy we're getting a sequel, this franchise was built by new directors giving their own take on things.

OK, but Fede's reverence towards Scott is just that: reverence towards Scott. Ridley didn't force Black Goo or an Engineer-adjacent beastie or the Prometheus theme tune or anything else on Romulus. That was Fede's own doing, because that's what he wanted to do with the canvas he was given to paint on. Fede was just as blatantly reverent towards Cameron in Romulus.

There isn't some secret agenda on Scott's end, hijacking the work of those he produces for to force them to conform to his every whim. If that were happening, we wouldn't have Noah Hawley openly talking about going against the intention of Scott's prequels, and being allowed to do so.

TheBATMAN

To be fair if I had a CV like Scott I'd be pretty arrogant too. He has absolutely nothing to prove, he's still churning out top quality films and he's in his mid-80s. No f**ks given anymore and I don't blame him.


SiL

SiL

#17
I get not liking Scott or many of his films but someone trying to argue his movies didn't have any cultural impact is... wow.

SM

SM

#18
"Other directors are good so Ridley should shut the f**k up."

Oasis Nadrama

Like, most directors in the world would DREAM to bring a cornerstone such as Alien to cinema history. Ridley brought MULTIPLE ONES: Alien, Blade Runner, 1492: Conquest of Paradise, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven are all legendary works studied in every movie school. And the rest of his filmography is not exactly anecdotical either.

You can hate the guy, you can hate his work, but please don't pretend his movies are not amongst the most influential of the late 20th century and dawn of the 21th. He is a director of Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron or Zemeckis caliber.
Not to mention in the interview, he doesn't make the "comparison" (it's not much of a comparison when you are in the same order of magnitude than the examples), the interviewer starts "Do you have relationships with other top iconic directors like Steven Spielberg and James Cameron?". Ridley merely answers the question.

SM

SM

#20
He is way, WAY beyond Zemeckis.

Kimarhi

I don't really have a problem with Scott outside of the Alien movies.  I even like movies of his nobody else does. 

Its just Alien.  Some of the worst movies in his expansive rolodex of films are in the Alien franchise. 

BigDaddyJohn

I myself love to take jabs at Ridley every now and then, but it's mostly due to his career post 2010. Before that, the guy's the shit. Respect.

Nightmare Asylum

I'd argue that Ridley's been on a pretty damn great hot streak from 2015 on.

Still Collating...

Quote from: Nightmare Asylum on Nov 08, 2024, 06:45:59 PM
Quote from: Still Collating... on Nov 08, 2024, 06:32:36 PMI wouldn't have anything against him being a consultant of the visuals of the films and series', and even then, it's not like he's the only director with a good eye... But he should have no creative control IMO on the direction of the stories, no veto power and don't let him cut a film, for the love of Giger, please no. Generally, let the new blood try their hands freely at making their vision on this series, without interference from previous directors.
I like what Fede did, but his reverence towards Scott is felt in the film, ignoring some of the obvious purely original Fede faults in the film. And while I'm happy we're getting a sequel, this franchise was built by new directors giving their own take on things.

OK, but Fede's reverence towards Scott is just that: reverence towards Scott. Ridley didn't force Black Goo or an Engineer-adjacent beastie or the Prometheus theme tune or anything else on Romulus. That was Fede's own doing, because that's what he wanted to do with the canvas he was given to paint on. Fede was just as blatantly reverent towards Cameron in Romulus.

There isn't some secret agenda on Scott's end, hijacking the work of those he produces for to force them to conform to his every whim. If that were happening, we wouldn't have Noah Hawley openly talking about going against the intention of Scott's prequels, and being allowed to do so.

I agree there, that was all just Fede cause he had a deep respect for Scott and that's how Fede envisioned his own film. I'm not saying that Scott has some grand agenda, of course, and I really hope he's open on cooperation for future Alien projects, but comments on wanting to lock up and basically in a way own Alien just doesn't sit right with me. I mean, I'm generally not a fan of too much control of a movie franchise being given to one person, cause no single film was made by just one person.

And even though there are elements from Aliens, Romulus is a lot more Alien than Aliens, by a far margin IMO, which makes complete sense knowing that Cameron's involvement was just one phone call.

Quote from: SiL on Nov 08, 2024, 07:46:38 PMI get not liking Scott or many of his films but someone trying to argue his movies didn't have any cultural impact is... wow.

That is not even close to what I said. We all know the impact of his films, I just said that the other aforementioned directors have had a greater cultural impact and financial success with their films, which is why I understand them having control over their movie properties (even though I still believe such control is unnecessary), but Scott is just late to the party here. I just find it hypocritical that the man who said the beast is cooked now states how he wanted to revive the Alien property, with a film that focused on everything but the Alien.

He is extremely prolific in his old age and I admire his energy. Though quantity never implies quality. He has made great films, he's a great director, but I don't find him untouchable and legendary. Cause he has also made a good number of commercial and financial flops, even with his recent films like Napoleon. He is ambitious and impactful definitely, and I even like the prequals to an extent, but I personally find him overrated in the sense that I don't find him untouchable or the best of the best.

Quote from: SM on Nov 08, 2024, 08:57:54 PM"Other directors are good so Ridley should shut the f**k up."

Really? A strawman argument? There are other ways to disagree with someone... My opinion is just that this franchise doesn't need one of the film creatives themselves to be a steward for everything going forward. This isn't Star Wars or Marvel, the beauty of the first 4 films, to me, was all of the unique perspectives from each new director and creative team. If we see Noah's stuff go against some of the stuff shown in the prequals by chance, for better or worse, and just has Scott's name slapped onto it, I'll be relived knowing that Scott isn't closing doors for people to try something different from his interests.
I really do hope that's the case, and I suspect it is (since the execs are already talking hypotheticals with AvP), cause I want the possibility of a Giger terrain planet, maybe colonial marines, seeing the Queen again and even a different, more alien interpretation of the Space Jockeys on screen one day.

If he's a producer with minimum input here and there, I won't complain, but I personally wouldn't want to see him direct another Alien film for the reasons I've stated multiple times already.

SiL

SiL

#25
Quote from: Still Collating... on Nov 08, 2024, 06:32:36 PMTheir films are better rated by the public, have a huge, widely known cultural impact on the general public and their films have certainly made a lot more money than his did.
You said their films had a huge, widely known cultural impact - implying Scott's don't. You didn't say "greater" (which would be impossible to gauge, and stranger to argue.)

Local Trouble

Quote from: Oasis Nadrama on Nov 08, 2024, 09:10:08 PMHe is a director of Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron or Zemeckis caliber.

What about Luc Besson?

kwisatz

Quote from: SM on Nov 08, 2024, 09:28:03 PMHe is way, WAY beyond Zemeckis.

I'd argue he's way, maybe not WAY beyond Lucas too.

SiL

SiL

#28
Lucas is not particularly known for his directing calibre.

kwisatz

Imo still with three masterpieces in his vita and pulling off Star Wars was huge.

So I can understand where ON is coming from

(and that's why not WAY  ;) )

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News