Blomkamp is officially making an Alien film

[OmegaZilla]

Right. He's using his creative freedom to be lazy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

He's using it to bring to the screen what he creatively feels the right choice is. It's exploration.

[SpreadEagleBeagle]

Right. He's using his creative freedom to be lazy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

He's using it to bring to the screen what he creatively feels the right choice is. It's exploration.

He is using his creative freedom to be lazy so that he doesn't have to explore the possibilities. No Hicks, no movie.

[OmegaZilla]

But he is exploring a possibility.

[SiL]

He's using it to bring to the screen what he creatively feels the right choice is. It's exploration.

Right, and what he feels is the right choice is a lazy cop-out.

How is this not getting through? Just because it's his right to do what he wants doesn't mean what he wants isn't lazy. The two are not mutually exclusive. "He's the director, it's his creative vision!" doesn't mean that anything he comes up with is a beautiful font of wonderfully realised creativity, imagination, and effort. Anderson had creative freedom, can we not criticise his movie because it was his right to explore his creative choice?

f**k no. Same with literally any other shitty movie idea ever.

Yes, he has the right to do what he wants. Yes, he can explore.

Now please tell me how any of that actually means it's not still lazy?

I can exercise my creative freedom to just copy-paste Aliens's script, write my name on it, and change some character names -- is it not lazy because I explored the creative option of re-writing someone's script to see if anyone would notice?

Spoiler alert:

No.

[marrerom]

hahaha oh my god I cant breathe!   

[SpreadEagleBeagle]

But he is exploring a possibility.

No, he ditched what had been established in order to film an official fan fiction movie. He's not interested in the Alien movies, he's interested in telling his fanboy story, not giving a damn. Why even make a sequel if your incapable if making a sequel? If retcons, reboots and remakes are valid sequel, then what's the point in even calling it a sequel? Is at an ego thing? The money? Fanboy megalomania?

He's using it to bring to the screen what he creatively feels the right choice is. It's exploration.

Right, and what he feels is the right choice is a lazy cop-out.

How is this not getting through? Just because it's his right to do what he wants doesn't mean what he wants isn't lazy. The two are not mutually exclusive. "He's the director, it's his creative vision!" doesn't mean that anything he comes up with is a beautiful font of wonderfully realised creativity, imagination, and effort. Anderson had creative freedom, can we not criticise his movie because it was his right to explore his creative choice?

f**k no. Same with literally any other shitty movie idea ever.

Yes, he has the right to do what he wants. Yes, he can explore.

Now please tell me how any of that actually means it's not still lazy?

I can exercise my creative freedom to just copy-paste Aliens's script, write my name on it, and change some character names -- is it not lazy because I explored the creative option of re-writing someone's script to see if anyone would notice?

Spoiler alert:

No.

Nailed it.

[Crazy Rich]

You sure like to throw the word fanboy around as if you yourself aren't being one right now.

I just don't see it as lazy. He's exploring another possibility, an alternate timeline and series of events that occur after Aliens (as far as we currently know).

[OmegaZilla]

You're only calling it lazy because you don't like the particular direction the film is going in. Otherwise -- no, there isn't anything categorically lazy about such decision, similar types of which have been taken before.

[SiL]

He's being lazy by ignoring the single biggest creative hurdles for the sake of shoehorning his idea into existence. And that's absolutely his creative right, but that is lazy. That does not require effort. He doesn't need to make his story flow with what already existed because he's given himself carte blanche to ignore what he chooses and do whatever he feels like. That is minimal damn work for your story.

It was Gearbox's "creative right" to explore with A:CM, they did, and it was shit, but we don't tell people to stop bitching about it because Gearbox was entitled to do whatever they wanted. And they were lazy as hell getting Hicks back in. "That's a longer story," next scene.

I'm not calling it lazy because I don't like it -- I call it shit because I personally don't like it -- I'm calling it lazy because it is lazy. Just like every other time something like this has happened.

[OmegaZilla]

He's being lazy by ignoring the single biggest creative hurdles for the sake of shoehorning his idea into existence. And that's absolutely his creative right, but that is lazy. That does not require effort.

It does require effort of a different kind, though again, there isn't anything categorically lazy about it. Some may think of it that way, but the fact remains that it started as a certain vision that would otherwise be hindered -- thus stripped of its original intention -- were it not to happen this way.

It was Gearbox's "creative right" to explore with A:CM, they did, and it was shit, but we don't tell people to stop bitching about it because Gearbox was entitled to do whatever they wanted. And they were lazy as hell getting Hicks back in. "That's a longer story," next scene.

That was after the product was published, though, no?

[SiL]

Some may think of it that way, but the fact remains that it started as a certain vision that would otherwise be hindered -- thus stripped of its original intention -- were it not to happen this way.

So his vision is lazy. It can't be worked in with certain challenges, so rather than alter the vision or work harder to make it fit, just ignore the roadblocks and pretend like everything's fine.

Why are you using "creative vision" as some sort of shield? That it is a creative vision doesn't make it impervious to comment or criticism, nor does it mean that it's something we must respect or cherish. The whole thing comes down to creative vision and sometimes that creative vision is lazy, or terrible, or contrived, or whatever else.

It's like saying I can't criticise a sandwich, because it's a sandwich. It doesn't make sense.

That was after the product was published, though, no?

People were complaining about Hicks and, well, basically all the other bullshit long before the game actually came out.

[OmegaZilla]

So his vision is lazy. It can't be worked in with certain challenges, so rather than alter the vision or work harder to make it fit, just ignore the roadblocks and pretend like everything's fine.

It would stop being what it originally was. Can't really see how one could "work harder to make it fit" when the very concept of it contradicts the last two films. It's no different from Alien 3 and 4 erasing the comics that came before them. They were free to do so, and they did.

Why are you using "creative vision" as some sort of shield?

I'm using it as a label -- what are you going to call it? Sandwich?

I think there's been a misunderstanding as to what we were actually discussing. My point is not that you can't call it lazy or think of it as lazy -- you can see it any way you want, it's irrelevant -- but rather that "there's no other way around it" is a false assertion.

[SiL]

It would stop being what it originally was. Can't really see how one could "work harder to make it fit" when the very concept of it contradicts the last two films.

And what it originally was requires for certain inconveniences to be ignored so it can be exist. When you need to ignore hurdles just for the idea to be valid to begin with, it's coming from a very lazy place. "I want to tell this story, but these other ones interfere with it. But if I just ignore them, everything's fine!"

It's no different from Alien 3 and 4 erasing the comics that came before them. They were free to do so, and they did.

It's different because the different mediums were considered differently. The movies still followed the other movies. Fincher liked Alien, but didn't erase Aliens. They wanted Ripley back, but they didn't ignore Alien3, they built on it.

My point is not that you can't call it lazy or think of it as lazy -- you can see it any way you want, it's irrelevant -- but rather that "there's no other way around it" is a false assertion.

At its heart it is lazy, is the counterargument. It can't exist with what exists already, so it has to ignore them. AR wanted Ripley back, but worked from Alien3, not in spite of it. That's the difference.

[OmegaZilla]

It's different because the different mediums were considered differently.

Selective reasoning; it being a different medium is hardly relevant. The concepts for the films contradicted the sequel comics massively -- comics that by all means were part of the continuity before the last two sequels happened -- but they did not bother in even considering their existence. "Oh it's a comic, who cares." It can be viewed as lazy writing, or simply as favouring the integrity of the idea over transforming it (thus stripping it of its original identity) to adapt it to other things. And here goes everything I have said so far.

[Local Trouble]

I can exercise my creative freedom to just copy-paste Aliens's script, write my name on it, and change some character names -- is it not lazy because I explored the creative option of re-writing someone's script to see if anyone would notice?

I would like to read this script.