User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Alien Prequel No Longer An Alien Film  (Read 87335 times)

SiL
Jan 28, 2011, 06:15:47 AM
Reply #555 on: Jan 28, 2011, 06:15:47 AM
The cast of Star Beast is asexual, as noted in the script itself (Any role could be male or female).

And it was O'Bannon's idea to hire Giger.


Sharp Sticks
Jan 28, 2011, 06:19:23 AM
Reply #556 on: Jan 28, 2011, 06:19:23 AM
O'Bannon admitted he never expected the lead to be female, so I'll give G&H that. Despite being dicks.


Kimarhi
Jan 28, 2011, 06:31:31 AM
Reply #557 on: Jan 28, 2011, 06:31:31 AM
but to put it bluntly his story wasn't that good.
Yet we wound up with fundamentally the same story.

Hill and Giler cleaned O'Bannon's execution up, yes, but from a plot level their only major contribution was Ash and the Company. All of Alien's memorable sequences are right there in Star Beat, just cheesier.

Okay the story is pretty much the same.  But then again.  Alien is pretty much the same story as Voyage of the Space Beagle.  Monster in a tin can has been done hundreds of times before and after Alien.

If you want to be technical about it, the "script" is where the difference lies.  Both version have monsters eating people.  One version portrays this in a believable way.  The other is just a way for a creature to eat some people and provide cheap thrills.

Had O'bannon's "script" made the movies, we wouldn't be talking about anything that has helped keep the movie alive over the course of 25+ years.  No social commentary, no feminist hero's (regardless of whether it was intentional it happened), no calling out of rampant commercialism.  Even broader themes the series ask about artificial intelligence, sacrifice, etc wouldn't have come to light if O'bannon's "script" had been made because there wouldn't have been any sequels.  At least any worth a damn.

One "script" is much more contextually deeper than they other.  Thats what sets them apart.

You can boil any movie down to its bare bones and make them sound the same.  In that regard Alien isn't that much different than Xtro II.  Of course we know which one is quality.


SiL
Jan 28, 2011, 06:45:42 AM
Reply #558 on: Jan 28, 2011, 06:45:42 AM
Both version have monsters eating people.  One version portrays this in a believable way.
Which one, cos I've clearly never read it, and it clearly never made it to the screen.

Quote
Had O'bannon's "script" made the movies,
Why the quotation marks? Is this some critical elitism where something can't be given a particular label unless it reaches some arbitrary level of quality?

Obviously Hill and Giler's re-writes are better than what O'Bannon produced, but that doesn't mean they deserve more credit any more than ADI deserves more credit than Giger for creating Aliens out of better materials and more advanced technology.


Valaquen
Jan 28, 2011, 11:04:06 AM
Reply #559 on: Jan 28, 2011, 11:04:06 AM
Every major scene in the final movie, bar Ash, is in O'Bannon's script, [read the final 'battle' in both scripts, the wording is almost exact - this happens numerously throughout the scripts]. Every character is there [again, albeit Ash], albeit with a different name and different lines [Giler said they excised all of his lines - false, they re-worded a lot of it and switched the characters speaking them around]. Ripley is not so far removed from Ripley - he's the cautious one who won't allow anybody to break the rules, he won't allow the Dallas character back on the ship when the Kane character is infected, etc. The Parker character is still a man more concerned with his end of the bargain, and on, [I think Giler and Hill rounded out Melkonis/Lambert a lot more, or at least shaped her character].

Kudos to Giler and Hill for Ash and the Company, though their script was also pulled back a little - in their draft, the Company created the Alien themselves, there was no real, truly 'alien' presence in the movie at all. Further drafts excised this [actually, it would have been dropped due to budget, but Scott was focused on showing the pyramid, not the Company Cylinder. O'Bannon recalled that when Scott read the original script he wanted to go back to the original idea ie pyramid. But the budget and time concerns nixed that idea].

Ideally, the credit should include all of their names. According to O'Bannon on the Anthology, he expressed the idea that it should, but Hill was dismissive. The two producers don't help themselves much by being constantly slanderous towards the guy, whereas O'Bannon praises those around him that helped out with the story [Shusett, Cobb]. I can see why he'd hold a grudge towards the two. I probably would. And of course, Giler and Hill pulled the same thing on Cameron with his Aliens treatment, bumping his name to third and taking all of the money for it: Walter and David got a check for my treatment, and I got nothing. I was pretty pissed off about that one - James Cameron.

It's a dirty biz'ness.


Sharp Sticks
Jan 28, 2011, 07:17:25 PM
Reply #560 on: Jan 28, 2011, 07:17:25 PM
Filthy mind velociraptors. They hunt in twos.


Kimarhi
Jan 29, 2011, 06:22:08 AM
Reply #561 on: Jan 29, 2011, 06:22:08 AM
Both version have monsters eating people.  One version portrays this in a believable way.
Which one, cos I've clearly never read it, and it clearly never made it to the screen.

Eating, killing, mercing.  All the same shit in the hood. 

Quote
Had O'bannon's "script" made the movies,
Why the quotation marks? Is this some critical elitism where something can't be given a particular label unless it reaches some arbitrary level of quality?
[/quote]

Because I'd figure you mofo's wouldn't get caught up on the label "story" vs "script" in the first place anyways. 

The credits should read: O'bannon story, Giler & Hill script.

 




WeaN
Feb 09, 2011, 07:43:18 PM
Reply #563 on: Feb 09, 2011, 07:43:18 PM
The prequel was aborted ? Good news ! It was meant to fail anyway. Leave the saga to rest, it should have ended at 3.
Actually, there are only 3 Aliens movies to me. The rest should have never existed.
I'm glad the whole Derelict part of the plot will remain a mystery. That's what made its charm.


Peakius Baragonius
Feb 10, 2011, 12:54:10 AM
Reply #564 on: Feb 10, 2011, 12:54:10 AM
The prequel was aborted ? Good news ! It was meant to fail anyway. Leave the saga to rest, it should have ended at 3.
Actually, there are only 3 Aliens movies to me. The rest should have never existed.
I'm glad the whole Derelict part of the plot will remain a mystery. That's what made its charm.

You're right, there are only three Alien movies: Alien, Aliens, and AVP.  ;) (Okay, I'll give Alien Cubed and Alien Resurrection one chance, one, you hear me fans?)

AVPR just flat out sucked, and not even hard enough to be enjoyably bad, thus making it even worse.

If a/the prequel is going to succeed, then it's got to return to the mystery of the original installment, that 2001-ish atmosphere, one awed, mystified, afraid, and excited at the same time about exploring the vast, open universe....

Only then can the film succeed, by making us wonder. 


WeaN
Feb 10, 2011, 01:22:22 AM
Reply #565 on: Feb 10, 2011, 01:22:22 AM
Quote from: Peakius Baragonius
You're right, there are only three Alien movies: Alien, Aliens, and AVP.  ;)
Please. AvP can't even begin to compare to Alien³ ... there's a lot more to it than meets the eye. People were just expecting Aliens 2 and so were disappointed.
This movie had a really interesting artistic direction, and awesome characters. And its (theatrical) ending was spot on, as far as I'm concerned.
As for Resurection... I'd say it had a good director and actors, but too much of a flawed plot for them to make up for. Also, the ending looks like something they made up at the last minute.
I guess this was debated enough already ...

I just think prequels are usually a bad idea (just look at Star Wars...), it takes a lot of skill and luck to have it not fail. Even if Scott made a masterpiece back then, it doesn't mean he still has it.
Oh well ... we'll never get to check anyway. At least not any soon.


Mr. Clemens
Feb 10, 2011, 04:12:24 AM
Reply #566 on: Feb 10, 2011, 04:12:24 AM
its (theatrical) ending was spot on, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I'm with you there. I love the Assembly Cut to pieces, but we need to see that chestburster emerge at the end.


Kimarhi
Feb 10, 2011, 05:36:55 AM
Reply #567 on: Feb 10, 2011, 05:36:55 AM
I don't think so. 

I'm with Fincher, her death is more symbolic if she sacrifices herself without the Alien emerging. 

That way she isn't just doing it because there is no time for the company to remove it.

Its just pure sacrifice in the Assembly Cut.



SM
Feb 10, 2011, 05:58:37 AM
Reply #568 on: Feb 10, 2011, 05:58:37 AM
The theatrical cut is the best of both worlds.

Quote
The credits should read: O'bannon story, Giler & Hill script.


So Ronnie S gets shafted?

« Last Edit: Feb 10, 2011, 08:26:46 AM by SM »

SiL
Feb 10, 2011, 06:22:29 AM
Reply #569 on: Feb 10, 2011, 06:22:29 AM
O'Bannon and Shussett for story; Giler, Hill and O'Bannon for the script.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube RSS Feed