Ridley Scott Regrets Choosing to Direct Alien: Covenant Over Blade Runner: 2049

[SiL]

Nope, still the same guy. Give him a good script to work from and he still works magic.

What a dull life to live 40 years and be precisely the same person with the same philosophies and perspectives and interests at the end of it.

[BenditlikeBeckum]

I get this feeling people sympathize with an elderly experienced professional that is Ridley, but some really express if not loath the fact that leaving a beloved sci-fi dream to someone who will not be with us towards the end of our lifetime to be something that we cannot leave to chance. Is it true we really want a new peace of mind in the form of a person that can take on the legacy of sci-fi fictional dream development? I think we are all to blame on being naive to leave this franchise to the pop-machine but here we are and Ridley isn't getting any younger.

These new directors are competent, at least I know the french guy is who directed Blade Runner. But how about the guy who directed that northern comedy series of sorts. Who do we really need? It leaves me in  a shugging state of mind. I'm sure its leaving you in that state too.

What if we left it to game producers? Wouldn't that be a holy shit situation! Considering that a lot of them hold a fair amount of responsibility to produce a product that would sell far more units than a person watching a movie. almost 4 times the amount?

[SiL]

I don't know anyone who worries about Ridley dying affecting anything.

The Ridley Scott of today would not make the Alien of 1979, which we know because he had two opportunities and didn't do it either time.

We also saw how he changed the film into what he thought might better appeal to modern audiences when he revisited it.

The world has changed, audiences have changed, and Ridley, as an artist who creates commercial works, has changed accordingly.

He's still a brilliant director. But he's not the same director.

[Local Trouble]

I'm not convinced that Ridley Scott of 1979 would have made a good sequel either. Was he ever not mercurial?

[littlesprout]

I'm not convinced that Ridley Scott of 1979 would have made a good sequel either. Was he ever not mercurial?

Agreed. I truly think if James Cameron didn't make ALIENS, Ridley would not have done well with making a sequel. But once again he would have never made the sequel because he has this weird love hate relationship with the alien franchise. Which again I think played a factor into his egotistical decision to never let go and think he was going to save the franchise after so many bad movies. Honestly feels like the characters playing god complex he so obsessively ties into all his movies.

The scene of David playing god and saying "Look on my works. ye Mighty, and despair." I literally think is Ridley Scotts inner thoughts.

The truth about his prequels is that they are good, but easily forgotten average films. Nothing special. Instead of saying the beast is cooked he should have had it as alien covenant : the beast I shall cook

With that being said still an all time director with some amazing films, but with how negatively he views and talks about the alien franchise he has no business trying to remain involved. Let the people who have a fresh take and passion for the universe deliver.

[SiL]

I'm not convinced that Ridley Scott of 1979 would have made a good sequel either. Was he ever not mercurial?

Yeah even his original sequel ideas seemed profoundly disinterested in the Alien itself.

But if you handed Scott Alien today - assuming he'd even look twice at such a b movie concept - you wouldn't get the same film at all. Even if key creatives were still alive, even if everyone was still available, he wouldn't make it as slow, he wouldn't give it the time to breathe. It would be a film tailored to a modern audience, not the classic we know.

Times change. People change with them.

[oduodu]

Ralfy extend the discussion. Some nice to and fro here. 

True. People age and have different takes on stuff. Just think he is visually unsurpassed. The 2 movies he made in sci fi alien and BR were never his own stories. Keep him away from the script. He creates concepts for stories. Cameron is like O bannon writer actor artist the whole caboodle. Where Scott is not. Sticking to the same recipe (which i find commendable and logical) ie. Same script writer same editor same production designer cast ditector doesnt always produce a great movie as Scott has tried. Too much leeway in the absence of a coherent vision like Cameron can do.

Have no idea how Villeneuve operates. But he must be a very good director. 2049 was good. Still is.

opinion

[SiL]

I feel the biggest difference between them is Villeneuve believes modern audiences have patience; Scott doesn't.

Covenant is breathless, powering from scene to scene, never giving anything the time and gravitas to sink in like the reveal and exploration of the derelict ship from the original.

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

Nope, still the same guy. Give him a good script to work from and he still works magic.

What a dull life to live 40 years and be precisely the same person with the same philosophies and perspectives and interests at the end of it.

Ridley was always changing, always evolving even at the beginning of his career. Have you ever seen any other director with such a varied cinematography? He was never "dull".

He also doesn't like to repeat himself. Had he made Alien 2 after Blade Runner, it would still have been a very different film to the first one. And the outcome would still have rested on the script.

He's still very much the same person in that he is always trying something new and his films still has his distinctive look and signature. And he still has the best eye in the industry. The issue is more that conservative Alien fans don't like the new stuff he is bringing to the table. And that probably wouldn't have been such a big issue if he had solid scripts to base his last two Alien films on.

Spaiths' scripts weren't good and Lindelof made it even worse. Covenant's script was much better but it wasn't a corker either. Also, at that point, there was no-one with enough bravado to shoot down Scott's iffier ideas anymore, as was the case on Alien when he was still a nobody in the film industry.

With Alien and Blade Runner he was fortunate enough to land two excellent scripts even before he became involved and uplifted it even further.

So again we come full circle, and it all rests on the script.

[littlesprout]

Nope, still the same guy. Give him a good script to work from and he still works magic.

What a dull life to live 40 years and be precisely the same person with the same philosophies and perspectives and interests at the end of it.

 And he still has the best eye in the industry. The issue is more that conservative Alien fans don't like the new stuff he is bringing to the table. And that probably wouldn't have been such a big issue if he had solid scripts to base his last two Alien films on.

Personally, I'm not sure I'd say he still has the best eye in the industry. Especially if he has to rely on the script to be perfected by the time it reaches him. Christopher Nolan is a prime example of someone who can do most of the development himself and is bringing fresh concepts into each new film. Ridley's films arguably have had a stagnant feel for the last 15 years but they're still an entertaining recipe. I mean hell, I'll still see any movie he makes.

Also, I guess I fall under "conservative" alien fan, although I prefer not to get political. Regardless, I think those films were going to fail. I'm all for the fresh take on the series and I still view Prometheus as a fantastic stand alone film, and if Alien Covenant just focused on the Neomorph without brining Xenos into it, I think it would have setup a beautiful introduction to having the alien we all know in the third film of the prequel series, and would have been widely more accepted.

But with that being said Scott still totally killed the mystery of the space jockey and how the alien eggs came to be. And ultimately had his AI robot obsession be responsible for the Alien. After 50 years I think it could have been executed way better than what we got and with him at the helm he deserves 100% blame.

But even with that being said i was still open to this new world he was creating all the way up until David created the xenomorph. Now you have the fan base even more divided of who is the creator of the alien, and while we speculate on fan sites such as this. It's clear that Scott wanted it to be David which is beyond dumb.

Not to mention how cheesy it was. My friends who aren't into the alien movies like me love the first 2 films (as everyone) and at least enjoyed most of the other ones. But even they were saying that scene of the alien being born was the dumbest thing they've ever seen. One of them even joked saying how did that make it into the script.

And it's just a few dumb scenes like that, that totally kill the recent entries by Scott. In Alien and Aliens every scene felt so perfectly executed and they still stand the test of time today. Something that hasn't been replicated in a while.

[Ingwar]

Scott hasn't exited for decades? What about Kingdom of Heaven (2005), American Gangster (2007), The Marian (2015) and The Last Duel (2021). They are superb craftsmanship of cinema.

Scott is dull? He's one of the most diverse director ever. What other director made sci-fi masterpieces like Alien/Blade Runner and then feminist classic Thelma & Louise? Then we have swords and sandals Gladiator, modern war Black Hawk Down, thriller Hannibal and ... black comedy/con movie Matchstick Men. He still wants to make pirate, Western and musical. Who is as diverse as him? Spielberg maybe.

Scott is at his best when the script delivers. After G.J. Jane he made Gladiator. He did Exodus and The Martian was next. As @The Eight Passenger said, he still has the best eye in the industry and his films still has his distinctive look and signature. Believe me, once he's gone you all will miss him. He's exceptional filmmaker. And I cannot wait for him to tackle Alien and Blade Runner TV series.

Christopher Nolan is a prime example of someone who can do most of the development himself and is bringing fresh concepts into each new film.

Scott (85) is first and foremost director. Nolan (53), like Tarantino writes his stuff. There is no wrong or bad, just different approaches. Also, Nolan as much as I respect him and like his movies, is a prime example of someone who makes "the same" movie and he can be dull as hell. I've seen Oppenheimer recently and I couldn't wait it to finish. It's highly overrated.

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

Personally, I'm not sure I'd say he still has the best eye in the industry. Especially if he has to rely on the script to be perfected by the time it reaches him.

By "best eye in the industry" I mean he still delivers visually. His production design and cinematography is still among the best, both departments where he has significant input and influence. Remember when the Prometheus trailer came out? Everyone was blown away. Unfortunately the subpar script and shoddy editing essentially scuttled the film for many.

Note, the term "best eye in the industry" with regards to Scott is not mine, it was coined by the big players in the film business.

But with that being said Scott still totally killed the mystery of the space jockey and how the alien eggs came to be. And ultimately had his AI robot obsession be responsible for the Alien. After 50 years I think it could have been executed way better than what we got and with him at the helm he deserves 100% blame.

I don't really mind the space jockey/engineers or David creating the Alien. They're both interresting twists, but I think it could have been executed better, which again boils down to the script. But yeah, Scott is a very experienced director and he should know a good script from a subpar script by now. Yet it still remains his Achilles heel after all these decades.

[RidgeTop]

Topic was already discussed days ago in the Blade Runner thread RidgeTop.

Eh, figured it was newsworthy and could use its own thread. It had been going around online.

Yeah there's no denying Ridley still knows how to direct well and put together incredible visual and design elements. Haven't seen his most recent films House of Gucci or The Last Duel but I heard good things. I think Covenant was a victim of failing as both a Prometheus Sequel and an Alien prequel, it tried to be both and just couldn't do it, in my opinion. Still was visually incredible but it certainly wasn't as critically acclaimed as 2049. Blade Runner is in an interesting place as after 2049 it's finally starting to get some new media and be built as a franchise a bit.

[Ingwar]

I think Covenant was a victim of failing as both a Prometheus Sequel and an Alien prequel, it tried to be both and just couldn't do it, in my opinion.

True, but it wasn't Scott's call. It was the studio, wasn't it?

[littlesprout]

They are superb craftsmanship of cinema.

Agreed.

Scott is dull?

No...

but they're still an entertaining recipe.

once he's gone you all will miss him. He's exceptional filmmaker.

Agreed...

I mean hell, I'll still see any movie he makes.

Also, Nolan as much as I respect him and like his movies, is a prime example of someone who makes "the same" movie and he can be dull as hell

Strongly, strongly disagree. But that could be discussed in another thread.

His production design and cinematography is still among the best

Absolutely, and I'm anxiously awaiting Napoleon. It looks like it could be one of his top films ever.

True, but it wasn't Scott's call. It was the studio, wasn't it?

This is what still baffles me, if what you infer is true. How at his age and experience/reputation is the studio jumping in for such big changes that directly could affect the entire film you're eventually going to get. Not small input but big changes like a script flip halfway etc...Nolan/ Tarintino (since we mentioned them earlier) are prime examples of full artistic control throughout the process.

And In regards to Scott needing a good script. I still think him as director he has the final say of what makes the cut and what doesn't, so the blame remains with him. It's like the decision to cut the egg morph scene...that would have completely changed the lure that most fans go by - even though some except both. But there were many more scenes he cut to ensure the film remained suspenseful and fit his vision and pace, not the script writers.