Slashdot Mirror


New X-Files Movie

An anonymous reader writes to let us know that a new X-Files movie is in pre-production, directed and written by Chris Carter and starring David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson. Duchovny said in an interview that his understanding is that filming will start in November for a summer 2008 release. The article notes that in an earlier interview, Anderson said the film "would stay away from the series' (and first film's) sometimes tortured mythology" (quoting the article, not Anderson).

48 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Wow! by j0nkatz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I want to believe!

    --
    Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
  2. Wait, what?! by LordPhantom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, so if the 2nd movie will be staying away from the "tortured mythology" of the series and the first movie.... how is it an X-Files movie?

    God help us if this turns into some John Cusak-esque romantic comedy (with a dash of aliens).

    1. Re:Wait, what?! by aichpvee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Better than what I first read. I was still groggy from a nap and read "New X-Men movie starring starring David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson." Worse still, my first thought at that wasn't that I'd read something wrong but rather "who cares if Solid Snake isn't writing this one?"

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    2. Re:Wait, what?! by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2, Informative

      It will be like the monster of the week episodes. There'll be some monster/mutant/ghost/miscellaneous paranormal phenomenon/entity to center the movie around, but no extraterrestrials or global conspiracy covering up said extraterrestrials .

    3. Re:Wait, what?! by redanzl · · Score: 3, Funny

      I just hope they don't cast Gary Shandling as Muldur's long-lost sister.

      --
      I'm gonna do what I want and I'm gonna get paid -- Tom Waits
    4. Re:Wait, what?! by arivanov · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least you did not read it as "X-File themed episode of Red Shoe Diaries" starring David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Wait, what?! by S.O.B. · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least that might be worth seeing.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  3. Oh man, I Think I Just.... by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Had a geekgasm!

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Oh man, I Think I Just.... by SpaceballsTheUserNam · · Score: 2, Funny

      Meh, I'm waiting for The Lone Gunmen prequel.

      --
      \.
    2. Re:Oh man, I Think I Just.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sick, dude! The truth is out there. And it just made me puke in my mouth a little bit.

    3. Re:Oh man, I Think I Just.... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Had a geekgasm!

      Not as big as a beowulf orgy, though.

  4. Aliens won't probe anymore by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gillian Anderson has got to be pretty old by now. The fun may be gone.

    1. Re:Aliens won't probe anymore by karnal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Makeup and plastic surgery, son. Makeup and plastic surgery.

      --
      Karnal
    2. Re:Aliens won't probe anymore by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 4, Informative

      she only going to be 40. She's not that old.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    3. Re:Aliens won't probe anymore by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Funny

      >Gillian Anderson has got to be pretty old by now.
      Well I wouldn't climb over her to get to you.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    4. Re:Aliens won't probe anymore by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Funny

      she only going to be 40. She's not that old.
      This is /. where any woman over 25 is considered a MILF. If she's lucky.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. Lost its edge by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Part of the fun of the original series was the non-closure (no solid proof or clarity) and the tension between believer and skeptic. They drifted away from this later in the series, and even the first movie. At the end of the series, Scully became the believer and the new guy the skeptic, but it never quite worked right. For one, there was no sense of sexual tension between the new dude and Scully like there was in the original pair.

    1. Re:Lost its edge by lendude · · Score: 2
      What are you talking about? My wife loves it!

      Yours sincerely,

      Robert Patrick

      --
      "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
  6. The Lone Gunmen die! by tylersoze · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh wait, was I suppose to put a spoiler alert first?

    1. Re:The Lone Gunmen die! by tylersoze · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah it's a reference to this infamous Slashdot article: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/22/022222 1 I thought it was especially appropriate given the previous Harry Potter spoiler article.

  7. It will never reach the cinema by david_craig · · Score: 3, Informative

    As someone who shares a flat with an avid X-Files (or more correctly Gillian Anderson) fan, I've been hearing rumours about this for, oh, at least two years now. And even now it sounds as though the script hasn't even been finalised yet, and they might not have all the funding they require at this point. Because the series finished so long ago, and (even according to a significant portion of fans) lost it's way over the final couple of series I think this movie is going to be a hard sell for a mainstream audience. Which I think will result in budgeting problems for the producers, which could mean delays or the filming not even being completed. I'd love to seen another X-Files outing, (and not just to watch my flat mate explode in the ecstasy of a celluloid Anderson experience) however I'm a very long way from getting my hopes up.

  8. So what's the point? by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    said the film "would stay away from the series' (and first film's) sometimes tortured mythology"

    So what's the point, other than to cash in on the franchise? Way bother to have an X-files move if you don't folow the X-files back story in it? It would be like taking some scifi space move that was completely unrelater to the star trek universe, casting a couple of aging trek actors, and slappimg the Star Trek name on it.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:So what's the point? by g0at · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what's the point, other than to cash in on the franchise?

      In the film industry, sequels get created precisely for that purpose: to cash in on the franchise.

      Executive producers greenlight these types of films because they're virtually guaranteed a certain audience.

      -ben
      (BCIT Film)

    2. Re:So what's the point? by niin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some of the best episodes had nothing to do with the mythology. 'Home', for example, was great, and had nothing to do with aliens. That specific episode wouldn't make a good movie, but still, there really were very few episodes that had to do with the main mythology.

  9. Re:well, the aliens left by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

    a movie about the return of the sideshow freaks might be good

    Oh, that was funny as shit! X-files was one of the few series that both my wife and I watched (normally, we have very different tastes). After the sideshow episode, we both starting using the cliche, "Don't worry, somebody ate the problem".

  10. Duchovney & Anderson by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Meh. I never really liked Fox Mulder, Dana Scully was hot initially, but over time she got older, and whinier, and then the whole hooking up with Fox, and the child and the.... oh man, totally sucked the hot right out and replaced it with booooring.

    An X-Files movie would be great. But you don't need Fox or Dana to do it. Fresh faces, fresh talent, less annoying. Although, if they could get W. B. Davis back as the C.S.M in a major plot part that would be fine by me, I liked that guy. It could be a pre-quel, before the X-Files, examining some aspect of the origins of the whole back story. That'd be cool.

    --
    NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    1. Re:Duchovney & Anderson by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Funny

      An X-Files movie would be great. But you don't need Fox or Dana to do it. Fresh faces, fresh talent, less annoying.

      Yup. Other movie ideas I'm having along the same approach:

      X-Men movie but swap the DNA mutations for emo culture and hard metal/rock underground.
      Batman movie without costumes and gadgets, about the struggles of a billionaire Bruce Wayne to increase his company revenue.
      James Bond prequel. Like, how his parents met up and married or something?
      Toy Story movie about alcoholic toys in mid-life crisis, sexual problems and physical abuse.
      Star Wars movie set in the wild west.
      Jurassic Park, but instead of real dinosaurs, it turns out Dr. John Hammond hired ILM to make elaborate fake computer dinosaurs and escape abroad with hundreds of millions of investor funding.
      Saw 4, where it turns out everything in Saw 1, 2, 3 was a dream sequence of a poor patient dying of cancer, and telling the story of a cancer patient finding true love in his last days of life.

  11. Re:Lost is better by chebucto · · Score: 2

    What? IMNSHO, Lost stinks of focus groups and cash-cow milking. It's been treading water since the first season; since then, they've thrown out a new scrap of mythology every couple of episodes, which more often than not bears no reference to what came before (eg the six toed statue), while spending the rest of the time on pointless flashbacks and love triangles.

    The X-Files had a planned story arc that should have lasted seven seasons; stupidly, Chris Carter let himself be bribed, and tried to extend things for another couple of seasons. For those first seven seasons, things did go somewhere with the X-Files; mythology was built by adding information about the conspirators, the alien invaders, the black oil. That mythology is the main reason why X-Files was so good.

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
  12. Re:Lost is better by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
    For a start: the story actually goes somewhere in Lost. They actually did some story writing ahead of time instead of just tossing out some meaningless obscure crap every now and then. The suspense in Lost means something because you know it's eventually going to be dealt with

    My god, you're trusting. Did you ever watch Alias, JJ Abrams' previous series? It had a lot of mysterious backstory, involving the magical Rambaldi devices and several -- I lost count -- rival secret spy organisations, and everybody related to and alternately saving or betraying each other. It ended in a disappointing, confused pile of nonsense worse than the X-Files finale.

    If Abrams has an ending planned, it's going to use a lot of "it was just a dream/illusion" etc, to paper over the cracks.

  13. Anderson is back by mk_is_here · · Score: 2, Funny

    Welcome back, Miss Anderson. We miss you... Oops, sorry, wrong movie quote.

  14. "hot" women by caitsith01 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dana Scully was hot initially, but over time she got older, and whinier, and then the whole hooking up with Fox, and the child and the.... oh man, totally sucked the hot right out and replaced it with booooring

    If you want consistently "hot" women then try watching porn, that's what it's for.

    Scully's character was very complex and brought a vital part of the main dynamic of the x-files (faith/spirituality versus objectivity/rationality) to life. On matters of the paranormal, she represented science and objectivity against Mulder's sometimes irrational desire to believe. Yet on matters of spirituality, she supported religion in the face of Mulder's skepticism. Over time their roles would intertwine, invert, and revert. When Mulder left and Agent Doggett took over, Scully became the 'Mulder' type character with a belief in the paranormal and Doggett the unbeliever.

    In summary: Scully was/is a great and interesting character who drove the series beyond the usual two-dimensional sci-fi claptrap. If you stopped watching because she isn't "hot" to your standards, then you are a fool of the highest order. I note that you did not make similar remarks about Duchovny's character, when he has aged quite a bit too (apart from his hands, which remain perfect).
    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:"hot" women by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you want consistently "hot" women then try watching porn

      The truth really *is* out there.
      I just didn't expect to find it on Slashdot.

    2. Re:"hot" women by LarsWestergren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Umm so whats special about Duchovny's hands?

      You would have to have seen Zoolander to get that joke.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

  15. it's funny by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There has always been a big division amongst fans.

    Myself, I have always loved the conspiracy arc in the x-files, and I know a lot of others who feel the same way. Although it got rather convoluted with the bees and so on, some parts of it (such as Tunguska and all that stuff with Krycek, and the shifting role of the Cancer Man/X/Deep Throat/Bill Mulder) were fascinating and were definitely what kept me tuning in week after week.

    Yet some people hated that stuff, and loved the "locals tell of the mythical swamp monster... and here it is!!!!11!!!1!" type episodes, the "monster of the week" as someone called it here (also "serial killer of the week" at times). Personally I feel like those episodes were frequently poorly done, and the sfx never really carried the silly plotlines adequately. There are some notable exceptions of course (I loved the Loch Ness Monster episode, but of course that was great mostly because they never show the thing).

    Of course some of the better episodes had a bit of both - a "monster of the week" which turned out to be part of the broader conspiracy arc, or segued into it.

    My perception is that more hard core fans tend to prefer the aliens, casual fans prefer the wolf-man stuff. Maybe it's an attention span thing too. It will be a shame if the new episode does nothing to move the conspiracy arc forward - of course, it may well be set earlyish in the series, rather than at the end.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:it's funny by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Non-fans - that is, people who don't have loyalties to series but simply look for quality stories - will want a good film that stands on its own, instead of engaging in self-absorbed world-building.

      I'm really getting to hate fan-think. It's cheapening the way we think of narrative. Too much adolescent desire to inhabit an imaginary world, not enough use of art/narrative to think reflectively about our own world and lives.

      I normally wouldn't be so abusive, but the way that you framed it actually valourized escapism over the creation of powerful cinema, and accused those of us who weren't playing as-if of having poor attention spans.

    2. Re:it's funny by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think your portrayal of those intrigued by fictional worlds as "self-absorbed" is just a nasty a slight as the person to which you're replying.

      While meandering about a library once I picked up some book vaguely related to Lord of the Rings or Tolkien or some such and read a bit of it wherein Tolkien was lamenting the popular (at the time of his writing) disdain for fictional worlds as works of art in their own, and the insistence that all fictional stories serve some allegorical purpose of illustrating something about some particulars here in the real world. (If anyone can cite the passage I'm trying to recall I'd much appreciate that!) Of course all stories, no matter what "world" they're set in, will touch on and illustrate themes about "human" nature, whether or not the characters are actually human, because for the story to be engaging at all they've still got to be recognizable as people and thus will have (and act according to, and suffer the consequences of) psychological traits just like humans in the real world do. But the War of the Rings doesn't have to be an allegory for World War II; Sauron's Orcish army doesn't have to be a representation of the German war machine; Gandalf is not Jesus Christ come to guide the West against the forces of evil! Certainly real-world events and history can influence the creation of a fictional world - e.g. Tolkien's mythology draws clear inspiration from real-world mythology, both Christian and pagan - but that doesn't mean the fictional world has to be somehow a proxy for the real one. Maybe someone just wanted to tell a cool story against a cool backdrop. Or maybe, as was the origin of Middle-Earth, maybe someone just wanted to create a cool backdrop. Reading real-world mythology isn't always that engaging, but it paints an interesting and sometimes beautiful picture of the world.

      This debate seems to me like arguing whether portraits or landscapes make for better paintings; or more accurately, whether representational painting (of real things that actually exist before the painter) is better than purely imaginative painting (of things that exist nowhere but in the artist's mind). Each sort requires a different kind of talent and is useful to different ends: a representational painter must be able to accurately reproduce the details of the real things before him, and as such talk about the details of his painting, if it's well done, can serve as proxy for talk about the real thing. But an imaginative painter who creates fanciful images from whole cloth has a level of creativity and inspiration that someone who can only paint representationally lacks, and such fanciful art is great for - you said it - escapism, which is a perfectly fine recreational activity. Likewise with portraits vs landscapes - different levels of scope, different levels of detail, both valid art forms.

      Some people like vast, epic stories that flesh out grand worlds; some people like close, character-driven stories instead; some people like stories set in the real world, during real events, with which the reader is familiar to some extent; others like stories created ex nihlo which transport you into a wholly original, novel experience. All of these things have their appeal, and arguing for one over the other is as silly as arguing over favorite colors or ice cream flavors.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    3. Re:it's funny by Curien · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He was refering to the themes and morals, not to the mechanics or plotpoints. Obviously, the world being created and guided by a paganesque pantheon wouldn't mesh well with Catholicism. If you see a clash between Islam and Chritianity (or the Middle-east and Europe or whatever) when you read Tolkien, that says a lot more about you than it does about Tolkien.

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    4. Re:it's funny by cHALiTO · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the work of tolkien you refer to at the beggining is his essay "On Fairy-Stories" published in "Tree and Leaf".

      At some point he says something about fantasy and world creation (or sub-creation) being not so much 'escapism' as in a deserting soldier (a rather demeaning word), but rather as in a prisoner escaping to freedom.

      Highly recommended reading.

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    5. Re:it's funny by Himring · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are some notable exceptions of course (I loved the Loch Ness Monster episode, but of course that was great mostly because they never show the thing).

      There was not an actual episode on the Loch Ness monster that I remember. It was rather an episode on 'a' lake monster (one like nessy). And they did indeed show it, at the very end of the episode after Mulder and Skully finished a great dialogue wherein Skully compared Mulder to Ahab and his quest the white whale. They leave the lake area and then the thing pops up.

      I re-watched the entire series recently. The running mythos episodes were indeed good ... at times. Rather, they were good until the movie. The "jump the shark" episode for the x files is arguable, but to me the movie was it. The mythos worked until that point, but afterwards you could sense Carter losing a grip on things. The writers actually admitted to killing off the syndicate because it made no more sense and they couldn't keep up with all the complexities themselves.

      You must remember, the mythos migrated from uncovering the government hiding aliens, to bees being used to inject the black oil alien and enslave the human race (no, wait, they were going to be used to inject the green stuff from the movie and convert all humans to sleestacks -- see my point?), to a government plot in building super soldiers, to all sorts of junk in-between.

      Carter fell into the trap of keeping a series alive by never really revealing anything, but making fans think you were gonna -- the "revealing for revealing's sake." Underneath all the mystery and revealing, there was nothing there. There was no big "aha!"

      Were the mythos episodes good? Yes, at first, but they fell apart and the last couple of years -- the super soldiers episodes -- were taxing at best. Now, what were always good about the mythos were some of the characters. CSM, Krychek & TLG were awesome no matter how sucky the mythos episode.

      The stand-alone episodes were always up in the air, but by-and-large had staying power. Some were incredible and, yes, some sucked. To me, my best memories of x-files are from these stand alones. The Chung episode, the genie episode in the last year of Mulder, even the Burt Reynolds episode. These are some of my favorites.

      I have always suspected, though, that Carter was inspired by Oliver Stone's JFK. I re-watched it a few years back and the scene between Costner and Southerland's character is like watching Mulder talking to Mr. X or the CSM. "You're closer to the truth than you realize" says Southerland to Costner. My gosh, put that into any x-files mythos episode.

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  16. Re:Lost is better by largesnike · · Score: 2, Funny

    did at least promise that it wouldn't be a "it was all a dream" or a "they're already dead" ending Oh God, if he did that, I'd personally bust his kneecaps!
    --
    "Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
  17. Yeah, by MrCopilot · · Score: 2, Funny
    I miss Mulder. I miss Scully. I missed the last freakin episode. It was just so hard to stay till the end with that Terminator guy and the Baby and agent Reyes.

    Scully and Reyes Sex scene now we are talking Box Office Gold.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  18. Re:The conspiracy stuff.... by packeteer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The weird sci-fi ones were the best. I liked the one where the bugs would come if they didn;t have light, or the arctic research lab with the worm that made people go nuts, or even the one on the dead tanker where the water was poisonous. Those episodes are the ones that were really scary because it was a "what if" kind of effect. It was plausible that it could happen and so it was interesting. Thats good science fiction to me. Don't get me wrong, space operas like star wars are cool and all but thats all people see as sci-fi these days.

    --
    unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  19. but as I always say... by misanthrope101 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Beauty is only a light-switch away.

    Age aside, I lost my fascination with Sculley when they made her vulnerable and emotional. The ice-maiden thing was quite the draw, but when I saw her crying and needy...hell, I can find that anywhere. Cerebral and aloof? Sign me up.

  20. Surprise by Big+Nothing · · Score: 3, Funny

    David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson in a new X-Files movie? That's a surprise, now that their individual, off-x-files careers have skyrocketed so completely!

    "Evolution" is the only non-x-files movie I can remember having seen either of them in, and belive me; I'd rather I forgot.

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  21. Nope (was Re:Aliens won't probe anymore) by Ganesh999 · · Score: 3, Informative

    > Gillian Anderson has got to be pretty old by now. The fun may be
    > gone.

    Nope. She was recently in a UK TV production of Bleak House.

    She's certainly less gamine, but still *gorgeous*, at least to my taste (to me Sigourney Weaver's hotter in Alien Resurrection than the original).

    Conrad

  22. The plot (spoiler warning!) by Cervantes · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm glad this is happening, the world was crying out for a new X Files movie. I'm glad all my protest letters to Fox finally had an effect.

    Now that it's starting, I can tell you all the plotline. In the first half of the movie, Scully and Mulder will travel deep into the artic to find the lost alien mothership that contains the special brand of bees needed to resurrect the Lone Gunmen.
    In the second half of the movie, Scully and Mulder will try to save the world from Zombie Lone Gunmen.

    --
    If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
  23. Galaxy Quest by Derrikex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was kinda hoping if X-files ever returned it would be in a parody/tribute to itself, a la Galaxy Quest. Duchovny is a pretty funny guy.

  24. Yay! Two More Hours! by Spellvexit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think too much time has passed to try and re-indoctrinate folks to the "tortured mythology" of the X-files, and the monster-of-the-week episode could really work, because many of those types of episodes still stick out in my mind (like, as one user mentioned, the critter/sporeling in the arctic research station which admittedly was something of a rehash of The Thing).

    However, the problem I've always had with TV-to-movie transitions is that nowadays, the production values are so good in the episodes that there's little a movie can do to add to the prestige of the original series. TV serial formats have the advantage of hours and hours of lore and backstory, while movies, though typically a bit better crafted and with bigger explosions/effects, have approximately two hours to get EVERYTHING across.

    Serenity was at least an opportunity for Joss to get closure on his murdered television series, but I smell a cash cow and little else with this new X-Files flick (and maybe Duchovny's realization that his vanity exceeded his aptitude when he left the series aloft the marketing of his own name).

    --
    The moon may be smaller than the earth, but it's much farther away!