When do you think 'Alien' will be remade?

[wmmvrrvrrmm]

And having listened to the entire 20th anniversary commentary again (I don't mind - It's probably my favourite movie commentary), I can say Scott never refers to Alien as "boring" in it.

I've got the whole thing transcribed by myself somewhere, maybe I should do a search for the word

[Deathbearer]

A riot would probably break out if they f**ked up Alien.

[wmmvrrvrrmm]

A riot would probably break out if they f**ked up Alien.

I often think it might just be taken as nothing but another sequel that wasn't good. And we're used to remakes that aren't as good as the originals and we don't get so worried. The original Alien movie will still be on sale.

[Sprout]

Remakes are seldom done for artistic reasons. Ususally they want to collect and decide to pander to anyone they can.

[Carnal Calligraphy]

Okay, I debated with myself for a long time on whether or not I should respond, because basically this conversation is over and there's really no reason to continue this debate. But I decided that if we keep this civil, being as though we're not merely discussing Ridleys opinion and rather the worth of his opinion, that it would be okay. So...

Yeah, that makes total sense, thanks.
I suppose my point is that wouldn't Ridley Scott (or any other award-winning filmmaker) be able to make a similar assessment of, say, a movie, given the facts and common knowledge they've been taught? That's why they have "film-making schools", to teach aspiring filmmakers the "facts" of movie-making. If it were all strictly subjective ethereal opinion that varied greatly from person to person, how could such a school even exist?

I've actually been to film school, and most of them don't have just one integrated class, they have classes for each aspect of film making. For instance... screenwriting. If any information on how to keep the content of the movie from being boring was taught, it would more than likely be "taught" in that class. Film Schools are not very informative on how to make a fun, enjoyable movie. They mostly teach you the mechanics of film making.  They may teach those striving to be directors how to maintain pace, but ultimately that is the writers job. There are no "facts" in the film-making community in terms of making a good movie, there are formulas and they all work in their own way if done right. Those formulas are plain and simple and the screenwriter has control over all of it. There are guidelines writers use to keep the movie on track and from possiblly being boring. Don't write a scene that doesn't either establish information about a character, or move the story along. Those are only guidelines and while most writers follow them for the most part, they tend to ignore them every once in a while. That's why there are almost always deleted scenes in films. Of course, the general audience doesn't care whether a scene builds up character or progresses the storyline as long as it looks cool, but this is the standard in hollywood.

While I agree that Ridley Scott didn't write 'Alien' (obviously), he has creative control over trying to make it "not boring" by omitting superfluous scenes during filming or during the editing process. He doesn't control the dialogue itself, but he controls:
- the execution of that dialogue by directing the actors
- the potential omission of dialogue (or whole scenes) based on how he wants the pacing of the movie
The fact that 'Alien' has deleted scenes is a testament to this.

You're right that he has control over at least three things that might make a film better, and with Alien he did all three. He cut any scenes that may have seemed unnecessary (which omitted dialogue obviously falls under), and he was adamant about the best execution of dialogue from all of the characters. If he was taught how not to make a movie boring, why wouldn't he have put it to use during actual production of Alien instead of just reminiscing about it? Oh, he did. There are no scenes in Alien that don't either build the characters or move the story along. That's all he can do and he did it well. By the way, omission of dialogue and superfluous scenes are the writers job, and a director is made familiar with certain writing techniques. Not to keep the film from being boring, but to keep a handle on the budget. Like I said, the writer doesn't have a set of rules, just a set of guidelines that make it easier for a production company to pick it up. Production companies like structure and they dislike anything that seems unnecesary, so obviously screenwriting guidlines are going to shape themselves based on what executive type producers want. If you look at screenplays for independent movies they can be very different, which adds to my point - Films don't have to have any set structure to be enjoyed. Which makes any ideal in film making subjective.

Think about it this way: I find '2001' to be a horrible movie. I find it far too drawn out and abstract, and the only scenes that are worthwhile are the ones with HAL in them. I feel the book by Arthur C Clarke is awesome and does a much better job of conveying the same ideas than the movie does.
That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
I'm also in the vast, vast minority when it comes to '2001', especially among professional critics and filmmakers. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while '2001' doesn't jive with my personal movie tastes, that there IS some sort of objective basis for professional filmmakers finding merit in '2001', I simply lack the ability (or knowledge/training/whatever) to appreciate it.

I don't see how this takes away from my point. If anything it adds to it. Different strokes for different folks.

[Xenomrph]

If he was taught how not to make a movie boring, why wouldn't he have put it to use during actual production of Alien instead of just reminiscing about it? Oh, he did. There are no scenes in Alien that don't either build the characters or move the story along.

My point was that if (hypothetically speaking), 20 years later a director realizes he may have made a mistake and that some aspects of his movie may actually be boring in his estimation, I don't see the problem with that assessment, and I'm much more inclined to agree with his viewpoint than a random dude on the internet.

Your insight into film school is fascinating, though - I was sort of speaking from ignorance, not knowing much about the details of film-school. Thanks for correcting me.

[Carnal Calligraphy]

My point was that if (hypothetically speaking), 20 years later a director realizes he may have made a mistake and that some aspects of his movie may actually be boring in his estimation, I don't see the problem with that assessment, and I'm much more inclined to agree with his viewpoint than a random dude on the internet.

Thank you for clearing that up for me and, frankly, I agree 100%. I must say that I, too, am more inclined to agree with the actual director's appraisal of a film than anybody else's, and this is especially true in the case of "Alien". I still would not consider their opinion to be more "credible" or "relevant", PER SE, than I would the opinion of anyone else. Even that of someone with whom I completely disagree.

When it comes to relying on an opinion, credence in the judgment of the individual responsible for the conception of whatever the "conceived" may be (especially in terms of retrospective critical awareness only achievable by that individual) is irrefutably sensible to say that least. I couldn't agree more in that aspect. I do, however, believe (and I think you agree now) that no ONE opinion is indefinitely considered any more valid than another in the film making community. No matter whose it is. I will always put more stock into Scotts opinion than I do, say, "some random dude's on the internet", but I acknowledge that my doing so is entirely subjective. In the same respect, however, I will always consider that "dudes" opinion just as relevant.

Your insight into film school is fascinating, though

Thank you. I'm flattered that someone finds that fascinating. You just made my day.

I was sort of speaking from ignorance, not knowing much about the details of film-school. Thanks for correcting me.

To be perfectly honest, I'm almost positive that I've argued in favor of your exact sentiments with someone in order to illustrate a point before. Of course ( and I'm sure everyone has done this at least once before) at that point I was grasping at straws because my ego was just too inflated to entertain the idea of losing a debate over something on which I passionately disagreed.

- I am in no way implying that you were grasping at straws, by the way. You've done a much more effective job than I.

Anyway, I think ignorance is too harsh an adjective in this case. I think a better example would be misinformed. The important thing is that we agree that Ridley Scott is the foremost authority on the goliath of a film, "Alien".

It's been fun Xeno. We need to do this more often. I love truly competitive debates like this.

[Weasel]

It won't. I promise. (You can trust me)