For Those Who Have Now Seen It...

[Xenomorphine]

I've steered clear of all the major spoilers, because I'll be seeing it on the weekend, but...

Remember when this was meant to be a direct 'Alien' prequel, not directed by Ridley Scott, but by his son-in-law-to-be? I recall people posting up some links to adverts he's directed and they looked fairly impressive. I remember several of us saying that, while a prequel felt unnecessary, we were intrigued to see how it would look.

If you've seen it, would you say it could have been a visual improvement if the other guy had directed it? Or would it have been on a similar level?

This is purely about aesthetics, of course. Not whether the story or characterisation might have been better/worse - no way to know.

[And stuff]

More visually pleasing than a Ridley movie?  That exists? 

[NGR01]

I know the work and style of Carl Erik Rinsh.
He would have done a more stylized movie, i mean stuff like Snyder does.
Slow mo, liberated cam, impossible shots.
More show off maybe.
Ridley comes from a more classical way of shooting.
I would have liked to see Rinsh movie.
He's good, he's got a good eye and great taste in design.

[Le Celticant]

Ridley Scott ain't Kubrick.

That sums up everything.

[Virgil]

Ridley Scott ain't Kubrick.

That sums up everything.

What does that summarise exactly? 

[Le Celticant]

Ridley Scott ain't Kubrick.

That sums up everything.

What does that summarise exactly?

Ridley and most director nowadays rely exclusively on story.
They had their good time and made awesome movies in the past but it's not anymore the case.

Unlike Kubrick, they can't give an impressive film by just working the visual.
Like coding every inch of the screen and having all the elements with a purpose.

[Kimarhi]

But on the flipside, I would've only wanted a Kubrick Alien film had he focused on a group of Marines slowly losing their shit facing down evil communist Xenomorphs on Acturus prime.

[Virgil]

Thanks for the reply, Le Celticant.

It's a good point you raise, though Scott and Kubrick are similar in some respects (great cinematic craftsmen who are not writers), I believe Scott just does not have the luxury to tell a purely visual tale. No major studio would dare finance a project along the lines of 2001 anymore. Saying that, I personally believe Ridley has given us many visual pieces in his body of work that easily match the level of Kubrick.

There is a very recent (and rare) exception to my argument above, The Tree of Life. Stunning film (for me anyway  ).

[Xenomorphine]

I know the work and style of Carl Erik Rinsh.
He would have done a more stylized movie, i mean stuff like Snyder does.
Slow mo, liberated cam, impossible shots.
More show off maybe.
Ridley comes from a more classical way of shooting.
I would have liked to see Rinsh movie.
He's good, he's got a good eye and great taste in design.

This is what I was wondering, thanks.

Am curious if we'll ever hear what his version would have been like/about.

No major studio would dare finance a project along the lines of 2001 anymore.

Depends what it's about. Especially if it's a fantastical CGI project (doesn't have to be fast-paced to be CGI). Zemeckis has been really pushing the technology in recent years and I thought 'Beowulf' looked amazing.

[Le Celticant]

Thanks for the reply, Le Celticant.

It's a good point you raise, though Scott and Kubrick are similar in some respects (great cinematic craftsmen who are not writers), I believe Scott just does not have the luxury to tell a purely visual tale. No major studio would dare finance a project along the lines of 2001 anymore. Saying that, I personally believe Ridley has given us many visual pieces in his body of work that easily match the level of Kubrick.

There is a very recent (and rare) exception to my argument above, The Tree of Life. Stunning film (for me anyway  ).

You're welcome and I totally agree concerning the Tree of Life.
Malick is definitely one of the great but he lacks something that Kubrick had which is find the balance between the "indie" and "mainstream" if I could say even if this means really nothing. But I guess you know what I mean, not everyone can stand to Tree of Life.
But I disagree concerning Ridley Scott. He has easy ways to give his messages but he isn't digging enough and most of his stuff fell pretty random. There's probably ALIEN which has the most meaning but he ain't playing enough with the shapes and structures of the elements.
Anyway in Prometheus:

Spoiler

he felt like every random director and everyone could have made what he did with the script in the hands. It was nothing exceptional and felt even uninspired.

[close]