What would it take for the Alien prequel to be successful?

[finster1018]

If you are a die-hard Alien fan as I am, I put together some initial thoughts about how I would gauge the next Alien film as a success or a flop. Having Ridley Scott directing it was a step in the right direction.

1) Original story line aka one that does not feature what we have already seen. One that can stand on it's own with only slight references to it's predecessors.

2) A symphonic music score like Jerry Goldsmith's...maybe John Williams...not that midi stuff or 'noise' that the recent Star Trek used. The strings in the first film were just absolutely fabulous!

3) A set design that does not depart from HR Giger's original vision. No compromise either.

4) Leave the CGI at the studio...I thought the use of prosthetics, and use of clever camera angles and matte paintings and models as seen in the first film were quite creative and successful in achieving a dramatic film and realistic looking film. The CGI in all the others that followed really removed any sort of reality for me.

I'm sure I can think of others but these would be the big ones that I can come up with. I'd like to hear others' thoughts. I would especially like to hear from those who thought Aliens3 was not the disapointment that many have made it out to be.

[Elvis]

A Time Machine back to say 1977 and release it before Alien!

Come on we all know how these 20+ year later prequels go....they suck!

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by finster1018

1) Original story line aka one that does not feature what we have already seen. One that can stand on it's own with only slight references to it's predecessors.

2) A symphonic music score like Jerry Goldsmith's...maybe John Williams...not that midi stuff or 'noise' that the recent Star Trek used. The strings in the first film were just absolutely fabulous!

3) A set design that does not depart from HR Giger's original vision. No compromise either.

4) Leave the CGI at the studio...I thought the use of prosthetics, and use of clever camera angles and matte paintings and models as seen in the first film were quite creative and successful in achieving a dramatic film and realistic looking film. The CGI in all the others that followed really removed any sort of reality for me.

I like Alien 3. I really don't think, though, that any of the things you mention will necessarily lead to a good or bad prequel. As long as the story is good, then setting, music, effects can be used to positive effect--whatever they are--when used well by a competent filmmaker.

As for a prequel story, I would be curious to see more of the derelict alien species and also perhaps a what-did-they-know? and when-did-they-know-it? look at just how involved Weyland-Yutani has been in trying to obtain the Aliens (assuming the AvP films won't be treated as canon). In the first three films, the "company" is portrayed a little differently in each, so there's potential there I think.

[finster1018]

Originally Posted by ryan69969

I like Alien 3. I really don't think, though, that any of the things you mention will necessarily lead to a good or bad prequel. As long as the story is good, then setting, music, effects can be used to positive effect--whatever they are--when used well by a competent filmmaker.

As for a prequel story, I would be curious to see more of the derelict alien species and also perhaps a what-did-they-know? and when-did-they-know-it? look at just how involved Weyland-Yutani has been in trying to obtain the Aliens (assuming the AvP films won't be treated as canon). In the first three films, the "company" is portrayed a little differently in each, so there's potential there I think.

I think Aliens had a good story but the sets sucked, too much borrowed from the Terminator and the music or acting wasn't as effective. The sets also lacked vision. In the extended release, the family goes into the derelict spacecraft and there are wires and conduit hanging all over the place which made it appear too human inhabited...there just wasn't enough realism here to make me buy into it. A story that ultimately ties Weiland Yutani to either the race found in the derelict spacecraft or it's contents is one obvious place to go (not the orgin has inferred by the 1st AvP movie). The fact that there are so many ways to go with this really intriques me and doesn't necessarily have to involve references to any human characters in the later films. Thing is the other films in the series may have had one or more of the elements working for it, but it was only the first one that used all of them harmoniously to produce a creative venture, not just a movie. That's why it is so groundbreaking to me and I hope it's success serves as a roadmap for this film. This prequel has the opportunity to right the ship with it's fans of the series and Ridley is laying his reputation on this film. I'm thinking that the Yutani path seems logical being that Ridley seems so anti-establishment in all his other films. I think a redeeming storyline would be a reverse of Ridley's position that Yutani somehow discovered this species and set out to do something good or beneficial but over time, it's relevance changed and so did the company's reason for acquiring the species. (a metaphorical play on technology and it's application ... we often are in a race to discover but only later consider the ethical consequences of our actions after we have discovered or experienced the effects of the application of the discovery). However it will take all of Ridley's best efforts to pull this off to be successful and anything less than that than I am probably just setting myself up for disappointment. Anyone know who the cast is and who will be filming it?

[Pondosinatra]

- Directed by Ridley Scott
- No rap stars as actors
- Animatronic not CGI for Aliens
- No bloody tie ins to Burger King
- No rated PG crap!!!

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by finster1018

I think Aliens had a good story but the sets sucked, too much borrowed from the Terminator and the music or acting wasn't as effective. The sets also lacked vision. In the extended release, the family goes into the derelict spacecraft and there are wires and conduit hanging all over the place which made it appear too human inhabited...there just wasn't enough realism here to make me buy into it.

I hear what you're saying, but I really don't have a handle on your concept of "realism." The implication that Scott's vision of a Giger-esque, marooned alien spaceship is more "realistic" than Cameron's vision of said spaceship and adjacent space colony seems....well, facially absurd.

[finster1018]

Originally Posted by ryan69969

I hear what you're saying, but I really don't have a handle on your concept of "realism." The implication that Scott's vision of a Giger-esque, marooned alien spaceship is more "realistic" than Cameron's vision of said spaceship and adjacent space colony seems....well, facially absurd.

Cameron tried intertwining his vision with Giger's - but just didn't work and eventually his hubris destroyed everything that the original film had established. Cameron and Fox left Giger out of the picture a) because Giger didn't want to compromise, b) Fox didn't want to write a blank check and c) Cameron wanted his own vision and dismissed much of Giger's genious in favor of his own. In the end Aliens suffered because of it despite a HUGE potential. Giger's work was something most people have not seen and could pass as an alien world. Cameron's was a post 21st century world of a nuked L.A. Upsurd you say??? What work has HR Giger produced that you could define as 'worldly'? Cameron was on the technical side, Giger was more on the conceptual side. Giger 1, Cameron 0. Remember Cameron is a filmmaker, Giger is an artist. Sometimes Cameron thinks he his both. Despite Titantic's appeal and factual qualities, much of it lacked realism because it looked TOO clean.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by finster1018

Cameron tried intertwining his vision with Giger's - but just didn't work and eventually his hubris destroyed everything that the original film had established. Cameron and Fox left Giger out of the picture a) because Giger didn't want to compromise, b) Fox didn't want to write a blank check and c) Cameron wanted his own vision and dismissed much of Giger's genious in favor of his own. In the end Aliens suffered because of it despite a HUGE potential. Giger's work was something most people have not seen and could pass as an alien world. Cameron's was a post 21st century world of a nuked L.A. Upsurd you say??? What work has HR Giger produced that you could define as 'worldly'? Cameron was on the technical side, Giger was more on the conceptual side. Giger 1, Cameron 0. Remember Cameron is a filmmaker, Giger is an artist. Sometimes Cameron thinks he his both. Despite Titantic's appeal and factual qualities, much of it lacked realism because it looked TOO clean.

I don't recall the opening credits of Alien reading, "An H.R. Giger Film." Giger surely contributed some style to the first film, but it certainly wasn't his movie by any means.

My comment had more to do with the implication that somehow Scott's vision of a derelict alien spacecraft marooned on a distant planet centuries in the future is more "realistic" than that shown in Aliens is per se absurd because both settings are pure fantasy to begin with. Neither one is realistic.

Other than that, your post makes no sense to me. You distinguish Cameron as a "filmmaker" and Giger as an "artist" (not that I feel the two are mutually exclusive, necessarily), but you also compare/contrast each's merits as if no distinction exists. Impossible to follow dude. Moreover, you seem to presume that Alien is a given as the superior film--a presumption that I (and evidently others) do not automatically accept:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ht=aliens+poll

[rkolinski]

Well, here's an article from the Guardian (UK):

"It's the news that fans of the original Alien film have longed to hear – Variety reports that Ridley Scott is to return to the franchise he launched in 1979, taking the director's chair for a prequel.

Twentieth Century Fox's announcement is unfortunate news for Carl Rinsch, a TV adverts director who was Scott's original choice to take the reins on the new film. Some reports had suggested Fox was unhappy with the idea of an untried film-maker resurrecting the slasher-in-space series, and wanted Scott to step up from his original role as producer. It now looks like Fox has got its man.

The new film will be set before the events of Scott's 1979 film, in which the crew of a commercial towing ship respond to a distress signal from the empty ship, only to discover too late that the signal was meant to warn them.

The prequel will be Scott's first science fiction project since Blade Runner in 1982 and will be based on a script by Jon Spaihts, who seems to be Hollywood's sci-fi writer of the moment. Apart from the Alien prequel, Spaihts is also working on Shadow 19, which has Keanu Reeves attached; Reeves in turn has hired him to write "space journey epic" Passengers. Spaihts is also reportedly scripting Children of Mars for Disney.

Scott, 71, is currently filming Robin Hood, which appears to have dropped its original name, Nottingham – it stars Russell Crowe as the outlaw, with Cate Blanchett as Maid Marian.

There have been four films in the Alien series, plus two spin-off Aliens vs Predator films, which brought Scott's xenomorphs together with the extraterrestrial hunters spawned by John McTiernan in 1987. The prequel looks like it will be the first Alien film proper not to feature the iconic figure of Ellen Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver.

• This article was amended on 3 August 2009. The original gave Ridley Scott's age as 62. This has been corrected."

Also, if you check Ridley Scott @ IMDb and look up the Alien Prequel, you will notice that Dan O'Bannon is involved in the writing as well. He was involved with Scott in the making of the Alien!

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by rkolinski

Well, here's an article from the Guardian (UK):
...
Also, if you check Ridley Scott @ IMDb and look up the Alien Prequel, you will notice that Dan O'Bannon is involved in the writing as well. He was involved with Scott in the making of the Alien!

He damn well better be involved! I could care less about whomever the 'Hollywood screen writer of the day' is.

[finster1018]

"I get that sense from your self-provided responses that you might be looking at style (music, set design, special effects use) over substance."

What is your definition of substance? I'm saying that the sum of all these aspects would contribute to a sucessful prequel for me. ( and I'm looking to other's to offer their thoughts on a successful prequel). A good story doesn't necessarily make a good film. You need a competent filmmaker to use all of these tools (and more) to make something classic as Scott did. I'm not saying that Cameron's version wasn't good, but he can't tell his story without Scott's. And by bringing in an entirely different set of eyes and direction, Cameron's adaptation wound up being a convoluted hybrid of his and Scott/Giger's version...like he was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by finster1018

I'm not saying that Cameron's version wasn't good, but he can't tell his story without Scott's. And by bringing in an entirely different set of eyes and direction, Cameron's adaptation wound up being a convoluted hybrid of his and Scott/Giger's version...like he was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

It sounds as if you are, in fact, saying that Cameron's version wasn't good

Could we take the rationale even farther and say that Ridley Scott's adaption wound up being a convoluted hybrid of H.R. Giger's version (as many other artists and designers aside from Giger were involved in Alien)? Or, would we feel differently if Giger was similarly credited at the top of Aliens?

[Propellarhead9]

I would love it if when people make prequels to go and shoot the film using the same equip or older as the original and to only use effects and what not that were available back then.

[Grumpz]

When I first heard that Scott was onboard to direct the prequel, I was quite happy. The original movie was groundbreaking in all aspects. I'm sure if he does direct it, he will find the same type of ingredients that made the first one a masterpriece and bring credibility back to the franchise.

However, Fox has managed to screw up the Threatrical release of 3, arguably threw Resurrection to the wolves, and then gave up on the series on it's own to bring in the AvP spinoffs. If they don't give Scott 100% creative control on this project, it will likely become a complete disaster. Scott himself has signed up for a mile long list of movie projects so there's actually a chance he may not even be involved...

On the story side, yikes. What will they come up with that's original? We've seen a single Alien, an army of them, a single Alien, and a pack. Are we going to see a home planet? Are the Aliens actually a weapon that the "Space Jockey" civilization controls? There are a lot of directions this movie could go in, but clearly the success of this film hinges on the ability to give the fans a story that we want to gobble up!

So with that said, assuming Scott runs the show and Fox backs off, the casting of this film is crucial. Without Ripley, or any character from prior movies, which only makes sense, I feel we still need to have an emotional attachment to the characters. How are they going to pull that off? I don't know...it'll be tough. I sure as heck don't think this movie would float with no human presence and I quite confident fans don't want a prequel that's ultimately a remake of Alien.

Which bring us to the visual/audio side. To me, audio is just as important as visual. As a kid, I could watch anything put in front of me...on mute! As you've said, please don't try to pawn off some new tracks from Theory of a Dead man on us! It doesn't work for these types of movies. Remember when Brett goes looking for Jonesy, and tracks him down in the hanger? The water dripping...the chains dangling, then the faint sound of the heartbeat increasing in speed and volume, with Goldsmith's score in the background...amazing!

For video, CGI for the Aliens themselves didn't work in Alien 3 or Resurrection. Yes they've gotten better, a lot better, but not good enough to replace Giger's vision of the Alien. The creature is a thing of beauty. The only way it should be seen is in the flesh. They hid the fact that the Alien was "just a man in a suit" for Alien with amazing editing. In Aliens, it was hidden again mulitple ways, including puppets and miniatures. It all worked. I say bring on the KY jelly just like they did in the original!

So I guess the long and the short of it is, this movie is on one hell of slippery slope...but no matter what happens, I'll be one of the first people in line to shell out my $10 bucks!

[lutefisk69]

I am going to go with the Space Jockey Storyline. And no CGI. Back to the old Giger vision.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by lutefisk69

I am going to go with the Space Jockey Storyline. And no CGI. Back to the old Giger vision.

lol.Lutefisk,have you ever taste that?Take a fish,put it into poison for a long time,then dilute it in water until it's not poisenous and voila! But digressing.

I hope they incorporate the story of the ship which they found the eggs in the original alien.Was kind of hoping another director was going to be assigned,but hope they don't CGI it death,nor strobe-light scenerychange shoots it like the second Jason Bourne movie.Hope they return to the horror genre.Felt only the first movie was a horror movie.

[TheZoof]

I want a focus on story telling. I want a focus on characters. I want a focus on the creature's mystery rather than action or violence.

Alien and Aliens were amazingly good movies because they let your imagination go to what was happening. Aliens although had a lot of action had the ability to mix the fear of the creature from wonderful characters point of view.

This is the only way this movie will be successfull. They need to focus on 1970's film making and forget the go for a buck 2009 model we have now.

[finster1018]

Originally Posted by Grumpz

For video, CGI for the Aliens themselves didn't work in Alien 3 or Resurrection. Yes they've gotten better, a lot better, but not good enough to replace Giger's vision of the Alien. The creature is a thing of beauty. The only way it should be seen is in the flesh. They hid the fact that the Alien was "just a man in a suit" for Alien with amazing editing. In Aliens, it was hidden again mulitple ways, including puppets and miniatures. It all worked. I say bring on the KY jelly just like they did in the original!

So I guess the long and the short of it is, this movie is on one hell of slippery slope...but no matter what happens, I'll be one of the first people in line to shell out my $10 bucks!

funny that I just read that the original suit for the alien cost $250,000 to make.

[master_8ball]

Wow I just checked out Giger's gallery, looks pretty amazing.

For a new Alien to be GOOD it should have Scott/Giger/Zimmer as well as real special effects with minimal CGI and a R rating.

[spolcyc]

Originally Posted by finster1018

If you are a die-hard Alien fan as I am, I put together some initial thoughts about how I would gauge the next Alien film as a success or a flop. Having Ridley Scott directing it was a step in the right direction.

1) Original story line aka one that does not feature what we have already seen. One that can stand on it's own with only slight references to it's predecessors.

2) A symphonic music score like Jerry Goldsmith's...maybe John Williams...not that midi stuff or 'noise' that the recent Star Trek used. The strings in the first film were just absolutely fabulous!

3) A set design that does not depart from HR Giger's original vision. No compromise either.

4) Leave the CGI at the studio...I thought the use of prosthetics, and use of clever camera angles and matte paintings and models as seen in the first film were quite creative and successful in achieving a dramatic film and realistic looking film. The CGI in all the others that followed really removed any sort of reality for me.

I'm sure I can think of others but these would be the big ones that I can come up with. I'd like to hear others' thoughts. I would especially like to hear from those who thought Aliens3 was not the disapointment that many have made it out to be.

Easy answer.... NOTHING!!! Prequels suck!! My opinion if you want to start a movie franchise start with what would be a prequel. I have seen all Ailen movies and I don't really care about a prequel, just like the Star Wars prequels, Wolverine, Underworld, etc, etc.. they were unnecessary and a total waste of time. Much like my post!