Ridlly scott at odds with Fox over alien movie

[Grimlock]

http://www.scriptflags.com/2010/09/alien-prequel-stalls-as-ridley-scott.html

I say give the man his bloody money and the rating he wants i don,´t and i repeat DON`T want another bloody PG 13 pussy version of Alien, i want the good old horror of Aliens back on the big screen NOW!

 

[televator]

If Ridley Scott wants to make a tough and gritty Sci-fi film, you don't question it. Just give the man his money, STFU, and let him create his vision.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Here's the thing I don't understand:

Here we have some executives with probably hit-and-miss records, against Ridley Scott with a decades-long career making excellent and profitable films, and they are going to question his vision? Really?

Time and again, directors like James Cameron prove that allowing an artist with a vision to helm a film leads to critical AND commercial success. Why would anyone fight Ridley Scott? The terrible "Alien vs Predator" films made a profit despite how terrible they were. A kick-ass Ridley Scott film released on the right weekend could make back its budget in 2-3 weeks.

 

[lrkun]

Fox has its reasons, Ridley has his. Which one will prove results? We'll see once the film hits the cinemas.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Fox has its reasons, Ridley has his. Which one will prove results? We'll see once the film hits the cinemas.

Any other tautologies to lay on us there LRkun?

 

[lrkun]

Fox has its reasons, Ridley has his. Which one will prove results? We'll see once the film hits the cinemas.

Any other tautologies to lay on us there LRkun?

Not at the moment. I'm sure both have their reasons for their positions. Quality vs. assurance.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Time and again, directors like James Cameron prove that allowing an artist with a vision to helm a film leads to critical AND commercial success. Why would anyone fight Ridley Scott? The terrible "Alien vs Predator" films made a profit despite how terrible they were. A kick-ass Ridley Scott film released on the right weekend could make back its budget in 2-3 weeks.

James Cameron seems to be a case in point on why not to trust formerly successful directors with a big budget. Give Ridley a cast of 8 and a 15 million dollar budget - he'll do fine.

Fox has its reasons, Ridley has his. Which one will prove results? We'll see once the film hits the cinemas.

Ridley's reason is far more sexy and intimidating than Fox.

(yes, Ridley is named in honor of Ridley Scott...)

Now personally, I don't know what he has in mind, but I'm all for it if he thinks he's gonna need $250m and an R rating for violence. I mean, it should be a call back to the original movie, actually frightening. After Aliens I've been rather disappointed with the series. Alien 3 was so-so, and the rest have been shit.

 

[nemesiss]

hmm, perhaps Ridlly Scott got in trouble because FOX thinks he is actually 'a marxist' and 'a communist' and all that blablabla...
think about, in the alien movies all the problems were due of "the company" (not sure if it actually had a name).

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[Doc.]

What did Cameron make after all, Titanic and Terminator? Ridley Scott made Gladiator(!), a good year, Hannibal, American Gangster, he is clearly a director of higher class than James Cameron will ever be. but sure he had his share of crappy movies, like Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[televator]

but sure he had his share of crappy movies, like Kingdom of Heaven.

I rather liked the director's cut version. Much better than the theatrical release.

 

[DepricatedZero]

What did Cameron make after all

Aliens

Scott only made the first movie.

But Avatar is a screaming example of why big budgets aren't necessarily good.

 

[Grimlock]

But Avatar is a screaming example of why big budgets aren't necessarily good.

That depends on how you see it.
Sure the movie itself isn,´t anything new and anything it does has been done before a gazilion times over.
However pure financially it was a giant success and in the end that might be all the studio thinks and cares about.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

But Avatar is a screaming example of why big budgets aren't necessarily good.

Really? You keep saying that, and you never say why. Avatar is an example of why big budgets in the right hands can be awesome. The movie isn't anything special from a story or acting standpoint, but it made a boatload of money and was really a technology demo reel in any case.

 

[televator]

That depends on how you see it.
Sure the movie itself isn,´t anything new and anything it does has been done before a gazilion times over.
However pure financially it was a giant success and in the end that might be all the studio thinks and cares about.

Plus it is actually a very fluid movie and manages to achieve an emotional connection with the 3D characters -- which is something of a myth in today's high budget extravaganzas.

Sure, it's your typical "Pocahontas" story, but just being successfully merged into a Sci-Fi setting made it much more endearing to me. Kinda like the Space-Western plots of works such as Firefly and Cowboy Bebop. Even Blade Runner is sort of your run of the mill "gumshoe/detective" story path.

 

[Doc.]

the only emotional connection I had with the characters was a small hope that the hero would get killed by the colonel in robot thing, and it didn't come true.

 

[lrkun]

Try enjoying the film instead of over analysing such. Just let it reach the first impression. It is, afterall, only entertainment. Hehe.

 

[DepricatedZero]

But Avatar is a screaming example of why big budgets aren't necessarily good.

Really? You keep saying that, and you never say why. Avatar is an example of why big budgets in the right hands can be awesome. The movie isn't anything special from a story or acting standpoint, but it made a boatload of money and was really a technology demo reel in any case.

That's a good point.

I don't actually have a good justification, I just think the movie was terrible and didn't at all live up to the absurd amount of overhype it received

 

[Doc.]

Try enjoying the film instead of over analysing such. Just let it reach the first impression. It is, afterall, only entertainment. Hehe.

I tried.

[rant] not all movies are just an entertainment, we just see more of those that are. but even in that, all movies that came out during last two years were just terrible (district 9 is the only exception I can think of). [/rant]

as for avatar, man that movie was annoying, granted it was pretty at places but overall it was terribly boring, the 3d stuff just hurt my eyes. Soon after the beginning I could predict everything without exception. I even guessed how would that macho blue guy die (well not in details of course). the only reason the avatar was successful was that it matched the oh-so-awesome 3D with the high-detailed animated world, everybody had the impression that they just HAD to see this in the theater, including me. It had nothing to do with director's talent or director whatsoever.