Quote from: acrediblesource on Aug 01, 2012, 10:50:51 PM
Terrible movie? yet nobody HERE compares it to anything else other than itself. Its a gem.
A gem infers it was shiny, polished and considered valuable to all. Whether you liked it or not, I think the troubled controversy surrounding its release demonstrates it far from qualified for that description.
And it got compared a
lot to the other films in the series. I'm unsure what you mean by claiming otherwise.
Quotepeople may not agree on the details and thats pretty much it. The details.
Like Hitler and Stalin disagreed "on the details"? I mean, there's a fairly huge gulf between its fans and critics... Some proclaim it to be a masterpiece and others call it a travesty. It's not people quibbling over a few minor plot points.
Quote from: orchidal on Aug 01, 2012, 11:38:47 PM
Exciting news. There was no question that a sequel needed to be made.
Hope they get the mood of the film right this time around.
But do we really need this to be a trilogy? I mean really?
It never "needed" a sequel to be made. It's clear from all the interviews, so far, that they were partly making it up as they went along and don't have some grand, '
Babylon 5'-style masterplan of where to steer it in the future.
This may be a good thing. It may also equally be bad.
We're in for a bit of a quirky ramble, no matter what happens. At least, if Sir Ridley of the Scotts is involved in any capacity other than producer. If he's the director, we'll be getting more of the same. Don't go holding your breath for greater inclusion of Giger, authentic biomechanical aesthetics, genuinely scary psychosexual horror or any of the rest - if he wanted to have included that, it would have been in this one and he's already said that he's happy with the edit we saw.