"Alien" prequel on the way with Scott as producer?

[Spaceman Spiff]

I really cannot for the life of me remember this hybrid. I thought the movie was pretty cool when I first saw it (when it came out), even though I knew it wasn't as good as the masterful first two.

[Morris Schæffer]

What's so bad about the design of the hybrid? I've always been puzzled by the ire it inspires.

I'm with you. I thought it looked rather neat, very ghoulish, but perhaps it's the action sequences that fail to use the creature in a convincing manner.

[Skitch]

It's not the director's cut of Alien 3, it's the producer's cut. Fincher had nothing to do with it.

I tried to tell 'em.

Also, Alien Resurrection is fun as hell, its hybrid-sequences included. As I've said before, I'll watch it over Jeunet's lifeless City of Lost Children almost any day.

In-fucking-deed.

[Grouchy]

What's so bad about the design of the hybrid? I've always been puzzled by the ire it inspires.

Seriously? It has nothing to do with Giger's style and designs. It's basically the most generic monster ever, absurdly filmed and played for laughs.

The entire movie is despicable, but that's the worst part.

[Rowland]

I thought the design effectively communicated the newborn's nature as a bastardized hybrid of the two species. It wasn't supposed to look terrifying, but rather pathetic, which it absolutely does, and I thought it was an amusing touch to replace the phallic-heavy facial design of the Aliens with an erect clitoris for its nose.

And despicable? Maybe if I took the series really seriously, I'd be offended by the heavy doses of offbeat eccentricity and all-around baroque sensibilities Jeunet infuses the film with, but I found it all very amusing, without negating its emotional beats that work more often than not. And hell, it works just fine as a dopey actioneer as well, with its Poseidon-inspired trajectory, beautiful visual design, coherently orchestrated action sequences, and oodles of slime.

[Grouchy]

I think I take the series pretty seriously and I loved the ending of Alien 3. Instead of eccentric, I find the fourth movie just dumb and without any themes or a good exploration of the character, I just got bored. I don't know what good action sequences you're speaking of, all I remember was a very ugly-looking underwater scene.

Maybe I'm being too bitter towards it for two reasons:
a) like I said, I'm a big Xenomorph nerd.
b) I only like Jeunet movies when he's coupled with Marc Caro.

[Rowland]

Instead of eccentric, I find the fourth movie just dumb

Matter of perspective I suppose. Mind you, there are some days when I consider Alien 3 my favorite entry in the series, warts and all, but I find the approach taken in A:R rather refreshing after that film's grimly po-faced existentialism. Indeed, I rather enjoy how every entry in the series is so deeply imbued with the singular artistic sensibilities of their individual creators. Just as some fans of the original film (perhaps rightly) deemed Cameron's militaristic approach to the sequel a bastardization of Scott/O'Bannon's austerity, and likewise fans of the first two largely dismissed Fincher's take on the series as irredeemably blasphemous crap, Resurrection was approached with the same scalpel. There is very little in the way of a unified vision connecting the Alien universe, and I find this a trait worth celebrating.

and without any themes or a good exploration of the character

I thought its exploration of nature vs. nature was unique to the mythos, and Jeunet goes apeshit with the psychosexual/reproductive anxieties of the series.

[Dead & Messed Up]

My thoughts on Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection from a thread I did for RT a few years ago. My sentiments remain very much the same:

Despite assurances from a Company representative who claims to be the real Bishop, Ripley throws herself into the molten lava and kills herself. Effective, yes, but it would’ve felt even more tragic and meaningful if she’d been more proactive. The film’s deepest line reminds us to die on our feet, not on our knees, begging. A terrific sentiment, and one worthy of ending the franchise. So why does Ripley stand by passively while someone else says it?

Alien 3 is a beauty to look at, and there are scenes where it works as well as the previous two. The shift in tone gives it a different texture, and most viewers should decide for themselves whether the new tone is fresh or jarring. I think the film is a worthwhile one, a rewarding film for the more ambitious viewer. Ultimately, however, Alien 3 still feels like a work in progress.

The Newborn isn’t the least of Alien: Resurrection’s problems, but it’s one of the most telling. The creative team just can’t keep things fresh anymore. Perhaps it’s an inability to be imaginative with such an important franchise. Reflect on how Ripley is part-Alien, but that notion slowly regresses until it’s just a convenience to the plot. How might things have been if Ripley occasionally lost rational thinking and went Alien-crazy? What if she could communicate with the Aliens? What if she wanted to be part of them, but they rejected her? There’s the scene where she finds the other clones of her DNA, and we get some honest-to-God pathos. But that is dismissed quickly, with an awkward gag by Johner: “Must be a chick thing.”

Alien: Resurrection is an interesting misfire, and a highly watchable one, but it’s still a misfire. The saga’s heart died when Ripley died at the end of Alien 3. What’s here is visually intriguing and idiosyncratic (and quickly paced), but the story is rarely compelling. It’s an amalgam of good intentions and flaccid results. While it’s nice to see that Ripley’s finally come back to Earth, it’s regrettable she had to slog through this goofy mess to get there.

[EvilShoe]

Scott about the prequel:

"It's set in 2085, about 30 years before Sigourney [Weaver's character Ellen Ripley]. It's fundamentally about going out to find out 'Who the hell was that Space Jockey?' The guy who was sitting in the chair in the alien vehicle — there was a giant fellow sitting in a seat on what looked to be either a piece of technology or an astronomer's chair ... Our man [Tom Skerritt as Captain Dallas] climbs up and says "There's been an explosion in his chest from the inside out — what was that?" I'm basically explaining who that Space Jockey — we call him the Space Jockey — I'm explaining who the space jockeys were ... [The film] is about the discussion of terraforming — taking planets and planetoids and balls of earth and trying to terraform, seed them with the possibilities of future life."

No surprise there. I like the space jockey thing as it is. Lame.

[Spun Lepton]

Scott about the prequel:

No surprise there. I like the space jockey thing as it is. Lame.

This sounds worse and worse as more info is released.

[megladon8]

I don't see what sounds bad about that.

That sounds pretty neat.

[transmogrifier]

I'm no Ebert fan, but he was dead right when he said that it's not what a movie is about, but how it is about it. I never understand how hearing plot details could possibly impact one way or the other about how good the film is going to be.

I've seen some pretty cool premises wasted, and some pretty basic stories hit like a tonne of bricks. It's all in the execution.

It makes more sense to be turned off by a genre, as genre is often intertwined with execution, but less so with plot, I think.

[Morris Schæffer]

Just some news:

The LA Times' Hero Complex festival has been taking place over the weekend, at which Ridley Scott turned up to screen Blade Runner and Alien, and do some Q&A business. Oddly, Hero Complex haven't blogged the results so far, so the news comes from the quick-off-the-mark Collider that Sir Ridley has confirmed the Space Jockey angle for the new Alien prequels, as well as teasing some further details.
This is no great surprise, as it's been largely assumed since the project was announced that the elephantine, crashed, calcified creature glimpsed in the first Alien was a likely subject for attention. Scott says he was always "amazed that nobody explored the back story of the 'Space Jockey' in the sequels", and that he always wondered about it.*
On the question of the project being a pair of films, Scott explains that the timeline takes place long before the first movie, so there's plenty of space for new history. He also says that, "Once you learn how the Jockey encountered the aliens, you’ll also want to learn about how he got there..." Does that mean the films' chronologies will be backwards? A prequel, followed by a prequel to the prequel? Our heads hurt.
Finally, Scott reveals a wealth of knowledge on the practicalities of terraforming (taking mankind to the stars!), and says the new films have involved "a lot of underwater research". So what does that mean? An ocean planet origin for the jockeys? Extended sequences like the rather good one in the flooded kitchen in Alien: Resurrection?
More questions than answers then: clearly the slow-drip of Alien intel will continue for a long time to come. John Spaihts has written the screenplays, and the current due date for part one is late 2011.

[Morris Schæffer]

Scott in juicy morcel-revealing shocker:

The anticipation for his next project is building to fever pitch: it will be a two-part prequel to Alien, shot in 3D. Scott was never asked to make a sequel to Alien; that honour went to James Cameron, before a further two sequels and two Alien vs Predator spin-offs milked the franchise dry. But with the Lost co-creator Damon Lindoff polishing the first prequel's script, you can sense the competitor in Scott, desperate to put his stamp back on the film series that launched him. "Jim's raised the bar and I've got to jump to it," he says, in a friendly jibe at Cameron. "He's not going to get away with it."
Set 30 years before the 1979 original, so with no room for Sigourney Weaver's Ripley, the prequels will explore the origins of the deadly aliens. "The film will be really tough, really nasty," he notes. "It's the dark side of the moon. We are talking about gods and engineers. Engineers of space. And were the aliens designed as a form of biological warfare? Or biology that would go in and clean up a planet?"
It's a bold move, one that could taint Scott's earlier contribution to the series if it goes wrong. But Scott loves a gamble, whether it's taking on the sequel to The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, or resurrecting an unfashionable genre with Gladiator. "Everyone sniggered because they thought I was going to do a sandals and toga movie," he remembers. Given the success he's had since, Scott has had the last laugh.

[Dukefrukem]

Two part prequel? Two movies?

Also, doesn't this setup the fact that no one survives either story? When Alien takes place, it's a complete mystery how they got there.

[megladon8]

If the rumors of Gemma Arterton getting a role in this film are true, I will lose a lot of interest.

She's dreadful.

[Morris Schæffer]

If the rumors of Gemma Arterton getting a role in this film are true, I will lose a lot of interest.

She's dreadful.

She's got a new movie now, Tamara Drewe for which, at least I believe, she is getting good reviews.

But I admit I'd rather see someone else.

[Irish]

For the second time Scott proves he knows both jack and shit about his own movies.

[Dukefrukem]

"Ridley Scott saw '[The Disappearance of] Alice Creed' and loved it. He wants me to meet for 'Aliens: The Remake', or something,"

[Dukefrukem]

So I guess Scott is going batshit insane?

According to Script Flags Scott is at odds with 20th Century Fox, the major studios behind the project over budgetary and creative differences. 
It would seem Scott wants a budget of around $250m to make it a sci-fi spectacular, and is also pushing for an 18-rated level of violence and horror. Fox, however, don't plan on investing anywhere near that sum, and are keen to get a 15 rating to maximize the audience appeal

[megladon8]

That budget is ridiculous, but I see no reason why this shouldn't be an 18-rated movie.

[Grouchy]

If a movie about a slimy monster who impregnates its victims with Alien babies that burst out of their stomachs can't be rated R, then... I don't know how to finish this sentence.

[megladon8]

If a movie about a slimy monster who impregnates its victims with Alien babies that burst out of their stomachs can't be rated R, then... I don't know how to finish this sentence.

Plus, Alien was such a perfect blend of both off-screen suspense and on-screen ultra-violence.

Not that the gore makes the movie, but it's very much a part of the whole universe and the discomfort that it causes in the audience - it's ooey, gooey and gross.

The alien itself abuses its victims in the most personal way. Its attacks (as both chestburster and then full-grown alien) are rape.

It needs to be rated R.

[D_Davis]

You can get away with a lot more in a PG-13 these days. As long as they don't say "fuck" too many times.

[megladon8]

You can get away with a lot more in a PG-13 these days. As long as they don't say "fuck" too many times.

And every curve of a woman's naked body can be shown, but you sure-as-hell better not show a nipple!