• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Ridley Scott talks his 3D, 2-part Alien prequel

Status
Not open for further replies.
AFter hearing about the PG-13 confirmation...

industrian said:
I'll wait for the Special Edition Ultimate Director's Final Cut.
Click to expand...

.

Ridley Scott's Director's Cuts are mostly always better than their originals (eg. Kingdom of Heaven & Blade Runner:Final Cut)
 
Scullibundo said:
Forget it. FOX has already accepted a PG13 good to go script from Lindelof for the film. Not hyped for the movies at all anymore.
Click to expand...
Late to this news, but fuck the prequels. No point now.
 
ymmv said:
2005 Kingdom of Heaven - budget $130 mil - worldwide gross $211 mil (broke even in cinemas, profit on DVD and Blu-Ray)
2006 A Good Year - budget $35 - worldwide gross $42 (lost money in cinemas)
2007 American Gangster - budget $130 - worldwide gross $266 mil (made money)
2008 Body of Lies - budget $70 - worldwide gross $115 mil (broke even in cinemas, profit on DVD and Blu-Ray)
2010 Robin Hood - budget $200 - worldwide gross $310 mil (small profit in cinemas)

The only actual commercial disappointment was A Good Year, all of Scott's other movies were profitable or broke even when they were first released in cinemas and therefore were quite profitable on DVD and Blu-Ray. I think Ridley's still doing fine.

I don't think Ridley Scott's the problem with a new Alien movie, but the Alien franchise itself.
Click to expand...
*spit take*

Robin Hood cost HOW much?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even including the (very heavy) marketing budget, that's an incredible waste of money. Fox is being downright generous by not kicking his sorry underperforming ass out of the building. Wow.
 
So is Ridley Scott going to direct this? Last I heard he wanted a ton of money and an R rating and Fox said no. What's the source for people saying it's confirmed PG-13?
 
Yasae said:
*spit take*

Robin Hood cost HOW much?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even including the (very heavy) marketing budget, that's an incredible waste of money. Fox is being downright generous by not kicking his sorry underperforming ass out of the building. Wow.
Click to expand...

He still made a sizeable profit in theatres, factor in DVD/Bluray sales and its a pretty successful movie.

Anyway wheres the confirmation on the PG-13 rating coming from?
 
What can you get away with at PG-13? I imagine quite a lot really, if it's a thriller/horror, they might be able to push it pretty far, if they don't swear, don't show nudity, etc.
 
Fuck that.

If you were being hunted down by xenomorphs, you'd be swearing up a storm. I know I would.

There's no way they'll be able to do a decent chest-burster scene in a PG-13 film. None of the deaths will be visceral in the slightest. While it's possible to do a lot of things off camera, the whole goddamn movie shouldn't be shot that way.

PG-13 is going to backfire. Hard. Fox is just cementing its reputation as the worst studio in the entire world.
 
Wish Cameron were making this now. He could command a huge budget and an R rating, and Fox would be on its knees begging to fellate him.
 
I'm happy they are finally going to show the space jockeys. Ever since I first saw ALIEN way back in 2004 I have been wondering what they look like alive and what their deal is.
 
StuBurns said:
What can you get away with at PG-13? I imagine quite a lot really, if it's a thriller/horror, they might be able to push it pretty far, if they don't swear, don't show nudity, etc.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Ridley Scott had gone on record saying that the film they had written was a hard R and 'really nasty'. To then follow reports of him fighting with FOX about the rating and then hearing news that FOX has accepted a PG13-approved script from Lindelof doesn't really inspire confidence.
 
I have no doubt that if Scott scaled it back to only 1 film with a 100 mil budget, he could get an R without problem

I'm not really seeing why this has to be spread over 2 movies.
 
Scullibundo said:
The problem is that Ridley Scott had gone on record saying that the film they had written was a hard R and 'really nasty'. To then follow reports of him fighting with FOX about the rating and then hearing news that FOX has accepted a PG13-approved script from Lindelof doesn't really inspire confidence.
Click to expand...
This whole predicament is starting to recall the production house dictatorship from Alien 3.

Then again, that movie was done for about 45 million and still made money.
 
Dead said:
I have no doubt that if Scott scaled it back to only 1 film with a 100 mil budget, he could get an R without problem

I'm not really seeing why this has to be spread over 2 movies.
Click to expand...

Because apparently Scott doesn't know how to get the dollars on screen anymore. I'd be willing to give him $400 mil to re-invigorate the Alien franchise though. Its not like over 2 movies they wouldn't make it back. Plus the franchise would be worth more again after the fact. But yes, either he doesn't know how to use his budgets effectively anymore or the sets he would build for the prequels would be truly awe-inspiring.
 
Scullibundo said:
The problem is that Ridley Scott had gone on record saying that the film they had written was a hard R and 'really nasty'. To then follow reports of him fighting with FOX about the rating and then hearing news that FOX has accepted a PG13-approved script from Lindelof doesn't really inspire confidence.
Click to expand...

So basically they replaced the script that Ridley wanted to shoot with a completely different and much tamer script?

Fuck.that.shit.
 
Yes YES YES

More alien is always a good thing. I was even able to enjoy the thoroughly shitty AVP films. It's such a great mythology, I'll never get tired of it.

The good thing is that this time I won't have to submit myself to mediocrity to enjoy my favorite creature. Ridley is going to fucking bring it, regardless of it's rating or status as a 3D gimmick.
 
BertramCooper said:
I can't think of a studio who has fucked up a once-brilliant film series more than Fox has with Alien.

It's sickening.
Click to expand...

A bunch of no-talent hacks in suits thinking they know how to make a movie better than a visionary director. It really is sickening.
 
Lime said:
Ridley Scott's Director's Cuts are mostly always better than their originals (eg. Kingdom of Heaven & Blade Runner:Final Cut)
Click to expand...

Except for his Alien special edition, coincidentally.
 
In the studio's defense, they couldn't give two shits about making a good movie. They're a business. All they want is to make money. If the movie is R-rated then people under 18 can't see it which cuts out a big chunk of their potential audience, thus PG-13 movies tend to make more money. And they also balked at Scott's supposed demand for a $250 million budget, which is a lot for any movie and is being handicapped by the fact that Scott wants it to be R.
 
If they make it PG-13, a lot of the adult audience who would line up to see this movie are going to stay home and just torrent it or something.
 
Puddles said:
If they make it PG-13, a lot of the adult audience who would line up to see this movie are going to stay home and just torrent it or something.
Click to expand...

While I may be underestimating the general population, I don't believe a sizable portion of the movie-going adult audience even knows what a torrent is.
 
Netflix then.

If they make it R, they'll lose a lot of teen viewers, sure.

If they make it PG-13, they'll lose a lot of fans of the first two films who would probably get excited for the film when they hear that Scott is on board.
 
Lime said:
AFter hearing about the PG-13 confirmation...



.

Ridley Scott's Director's Cuts are mostly always better than their originals (eg. Kingdom of Heaven & Blade Runner:Final Cut)
Click to expand...

PG-13?!?!??!?

Fuck that shit. Director's cut then.
 
The problem is that they're now working from a script that has been toned down, rather than working from the original draft Lindelof wrote and then trying to tone it down in the editing room.
 
Scullibundo said:
The problem is that they're now working from a script that has been toned down, rather than working from the original draft Lindelof wrote and then trying to tone it down in the editing room.
Click to expand...

yes, probably.

Shit, Alien series died after Alien 4 was released.

2 all: don't try to get "fixed" that post, Alien 3 was fucking awesome. And I don't care that Fincher walked out.
 
subversus said:
yes, probably.

Shit, Alien series died after Alien 4 was released.

2 all: don't try to get "fixed" that post, Alien 3 was fucking awesome. And I don't care that Fincher walked out.
Click to expand...

Correction, Alien 3 Directors Cut was fucking awesome. It actually made sense, unlike the theatrical release.
 
I trust Scott but the Pg13 doesn't sit well. Did Fox not watch and learn from Rodriguez' Predators?

Also, completely baffled at Robin Hood costing $200 million. What. The. Fuck. That didn't show. At all. Petersen made Troy for $25 million less and that was some epic shit going on (kinda shitty movie, sure, but so was RH).
 
Whatever excitement I had for the prequel just went down the drain. PG-13? TWO PARTS? Dear lord.
 
Speedymanic said:
Correction, Alien 3 Directors Cut was fucking awesome. It actually made sense, unlike the theatrical release.
Click to expand...


The only thing I like about Director's Cut is that they edited the final scene.

Well, other scenes were decent too, but I'm not that guy who is too keen on picking details and then screaming IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. Once the Alien got into the prison the movies are pretty much the same and it's this part that matters to me.

Also I read the thread and saw no official confirmation of PG13 rating. So it's just a rumour, right? RIGHT?

DECK'ARD said:
I have literally no hope for this.

And would prefer they leave the mystery of the first film alone anyway.
Click to expand...

also this
 
I'm looking for confirmation on the PG-13 rating. Is it set in stone at this point? All the sources I can find are just speculation.
 
Synth_floyd said:
In the studio's defense, they couldn't give two shits about making a good movie. They're a business. All they want is to make money. If the movie is R-rated then people under 18 can't see it which cuts out a big chunk of their potential audience, thus PG-13 movies tend to make more money. And they also balked at Scott's supposed demand for a $250 million budget, which is a lot for any movie and is being handicapped by the fact that Scott wants it to be R.
Click to expand...
For two movies that's 125 a piece, which isn't cheap or terribly expensive. It's fair. For one movie that's downright insane. It would suddenly be up there with Spiderman 3 (a huge waste of resources, despite being moderately successful) and Avatar (expensive but made its money back almost ten fold.)
 
Puddles said:
I'm looking for confirmation on the PG-13 rating. Is it set in stone at this point? All the sources I can find are just speculation.
Click to expand...

yes, I think it's a knee jerk reaction. I hope so.


anyway he should have opt out for a smaller budget.
 
Yasae said:
For two movies that's 125 a piece, which isn't cheap or terribly expensive. It's fair. For one movie that's downright insane. It would suddenly be up there with Spiderman 3 (a huge waste of resources, despite being moderately successful) and Avatar (expensive but made its money back almost ten fold.)
Click to expand...
Spiderman 3 ended up grossing over $800 thousand no? I'd put that down as being REALLY successful.
Edit: On second thought, looking at Wikipedia, it was definitely budgeted way too highly.
 
While there's no official confirmation it's going to be PG-13, Fox 'insiders' have been pretty vocal about spending close to $200m on an R rated movie...

Still, the news of an 'Alien' prequel shooting for a PG-13 lingers over this project like a dark, noxious cloud. The "insider spin" is that ...

"...if the original Alien were released today, minus the F-bombs, you could still get a PG-13. Alien is a very Jaws-ian movie: There's no sex, and while there's lots of violence, most of it is off-camera. Maybe you'd have to cut away from certain scenes two seconds earlier, but it could be done."
Click to expand...


http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/10/13/alien-prequel-natalie-portman-pg-13/
 
subversus said:
Could you imagine Alien without f-bombs?
Click to expand...

Nope, who wouldn't drop an f-bomb or two when confronted with a 10ft beast who only wants to tear you apart? :lol

Anyway, surely a more pertinent question would be...could you imagine an Alien movie with the chest burster scene happening off camera and the camera going back to reveal a torn shirt with a little stain of blood and a clean alien baby running off?

That's the problem here, you have a movie where Aliens are sent to terraform planets as well as kill? any lifeforms on that planet. And then there's the final scene when they alien bursts through the SJ chest, can you really imagine that happening off camera? Not to mention any deaths amongst the SJ people when/if the aliens escape.

:/
 
we'll wait and see.

If it is that bad, then I'll wait and see what people say about Director's Cut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ridley Scott says Hollywood is “drowning in mediocrity”
2 3
112
2K
Men_in_Boxes replied
Scarlett Johansson in talks to join The Batman: Part II
2
71
1K
March Climber replied
Keanu Reeves goes through his entire action film career with Scott Adkins
15
560
OmegaSupreme replied
RIP Scott Adams
2
61
1K
negator2vc replied
Matt Reeves shares the first camera test shots for The Batman: Part 2
47
362
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Top Bottom