Slashdot Mirror


Ridley Scott Abandons Alien Prequel

An anonymous reader writes "With Ridley Scott and 20th Century Fox announcing that the much-vaunted 3D Alien prequel has now mutated into an original SF film project called Prometheus, starring Noomi Rapace, the author of this article recalls his 2007 interview with the late Dan O'Bannon, who presumably is happy about the news, wherever he is. Asked what he'd like to see happen to the xenomorph franchise, the Alien co-creator said: 'I'd like to see it stop. A horror movie's a fragile thing, and once you've gotten past the original, it isn't scary anymore. So you do a bunch of sequels to a horror movie, all they do is drain any remaining impact out of the original...it's not as effective as it would have been if you had just left it alone.'"

36 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. Applies to all movies by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you do a bunch of sequels to a horror movie, all they do is drain any remaining impact out of the original

    I'm sure this applies to any hit movie. I mean, the first time they made Scary Movie, it was a guilty pleasure. Now it's, well, just dull. There are few exceptions. Empire Strikes Back thematically seems better than Star Wars. The revelation of the relationship between Luke and Darth Vader was good enough to be parodied by Toy Story (was it 2 or 3?). But the Star Wars prequels? Maybe the producers should take a hint.

    1. Re:Applies to all movies by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think that I really agree. Nobody is forcing you to watch the sequels or prequels. I still haven't seen Alien 3, even though I've liked all the other ones. I just treat them as different movies rather than different parts of the same movie and I win.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Applies to all movies by Tobenisstinky · · Score: 2

      I think that Aliens was a far better movie than Alien. That said, I also wouldn't class it as a horror movie, more of a really intense action movie. But good sequels are few and far between - it's been said many times here, a good movie is not about the special effects, it's the story that matters.

      --
      wha'? where am i?
    3. Re:Applies to all movies by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The first movie might have been a horror movie, but I'd classify the other ones as "action thrillers". In my opinion future movies could still succeed as action thrillers even though it'll be hard to do a new horror movie based on aliens (since a part of horror is in the unknown, and the aliens and their limits are now mostly known).

      --
    4. Re:Applies to all movies by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2

      And remember how good the Matrix seemed when we first saw it, and then how bad it seems in retrospect after seeing the rest of the Wachowski brother's "vision"? That's a movie whose impact was actually lessened by the sequels - it was better when we filled in the blanks with our imagination than when we saw what passed for the "answers" presented in Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions (the truly horrid mess of the series).

      The original Star Wars movies are, thankfully, separated enough in time and form from the later prequels that many of us can still view them as they were originally (well, assuming you can find a copy of them without George Lucas' idiotic revisions) and simply pretend that the dull drivel made years later doesn't exist.

    5. Re:Applies to all movies by Sulphur · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you do a bunch of sequels to a horror movie, all they do is drain any remaining impact out of the original

      I'm sure this applies to any hit movie. I mean, the first time they made Scary Movie, it was a guilty pleasure. Now it's, well, just dull. There are few exceptions. Empire Strikes Back thematically seems better than Star Wars. The revelation of the relationship between Luke and Darth Vader was good enough to be parodied by Toy Story (was it 2 or 3?). But the Star Wars prequels? Maybe the producers should take a hint.

      How about a cowboy version : Use the Horse Luke.

    6. Re:Applies to all movies by yakumo.unr · · Score: 2

      Alien 4 deserves half a star for the swimming alien scene and that's all.

      I was really hoping this prequel would be a return to greatness, as otherwise you're right, 3 was a bit off a dropoff, but the rest were pure shlock cash in :(

    7. Re:Applies to all movies by nine-times · · Score: 2

      I don't think it applies to other genres as much as it applies to horror movies, though. A lot of what makes a movie scary is mystery and uncertainty. A monster is never as scary as when you don't see it, don't know what it is, and you have no idea how to protect yourself. By the time you hit a sequel, it's all old hat. You know what the monster is, you've gotten a good look at it, and you've seen someone stop it. It may be interesting or fun, but it will never give you the same sene of dread.

    8. Re:Applies to all movies by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2

      This is why I never watched the two Matrix sequels, and I never will.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    9. Re:Applies to all movies by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It certainly applied to how the Borg were handled in the star Trek franchise.

    10. Re:Applies to all movies by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 4, Informative

      That dull drivel has some entertainment value though not at all due to the efforts of Lucas and Co. Might I direct your attention to reviews (with a meta-story among these and other reviews) of The Phantom Menace, The Attack of the Clones, and The Revenge of the Sith? These are video reviews and very much NSFW (but still very analytical and all the movies are thoughtfully picked apart). They are also rather long, each over an hour.

    11. Re:Applies to all movies by Dogtanian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think that Aliens was a far better movie than Alien.

      I agree- or rather, I'd say that personally I much preferred Aliens to Alien. I initially put that down to having seen Aliens first (possibly spoiling some of the surprise and effect of the original), but when I later heard Alien described as a "horror movie in space", I realised that that was also the reason. Horror movies just don't work for me, however much I'd like them to.

      That said, I also wouldn't class it as a horror movie

      Which is probably why I enjoyed it better though...

      more of a really intense action movie.

      ...I'm not really that much into action movies either, but I still enjoyed it! Anyway, Aliens probably worked and felt fresh because they *weren't* trying to copy the original or out-do it, but managed to keep its spirit while doing something different.

      Alien 3 was dull though, and while Alien Resurrection was somewhat more enjoyable, its French "comic book" feel clashed with the more realistic style of the original films, mitigated only slightly by the time that was meant to have passed between them.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    12. Re:Applies to all movies by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think it's better. Alien still is an incredibly effective horror film, a sort of space-based locked room mystery. Aliens was more of a military SF-style movie, so in a way they are considerably different films. I enjoy them both, but they are almost in two different genres.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Applies to all movies by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Indeed. It's one of the reasons the later Jaws movies never really worked. The first Jaws movie uses a similar approach to that of Alien, to slowly over the length of the whole film reveal the monster, and in fact spending most of the film keeping the bomb under the table (an allusion to Hitchcock's bomb theory of suspense). In fact, I'd say these movies owe an incredible amount to Hitchcock's methodology. Look at a movie like Psycho or Vertigo, and I think you see the playbook that good horror/suspense films like Jaws and Alien played into; permitting the audience only unsettling glimpses, using the psychological effects of fear sink in rather than just bludgeoning us over the head with horrifying scenes.

      Even by the time of Aliens, we knew the principle attributes of the monster. Yes, they added a few elements; making the monster a hive species with a bad-ass queen, but in essence the nasty things the monster does had already been established by the end of the first film.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Applies to all movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that Aliens was a far better movie than Alien.

      I agree- or rather, I'd say that personally I much preferred Aliens to Alien.

      This. If you're going to have an objective view on the merits of something, personal opinion shouldn't enter into it. Aliens is the more entertaining film, watching the original remains an extremely unpleasant experience. The chest-burst scene is one of those rare defining moments in cinematic history, the entire film a nightmarish artistic triumph. Aliens is just a dumb popcorn flick with quotable, cliched B-movie dialogue.

      You can't make statements about something being "better" based on subjective criteria like entertainment value. The production design on Alien and Blade Runner is enough to secure their places as important and influential artifacts of late 20th Century popular culture. They (along with Kubriks 2001) will outlive many films that viewers found more entertaining.

    15. Re:Applies to all movies by F34nor · · Score: 2

      Basically none of the other movies are horror movies so he's not wrong.

    16. Re:Applies to all movies by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Well yeah, I think a large part of the reason that Aliens still worked pretty well is that it sort of reintroduced mystery by changing the nature of the monster. Instead of having another lone alien creeping in the darkness, you have an overwhelming army of aliens backed by an alien queen. At the beginning of the movie, you're back to being uncertain of the nature of the danger you're facing.

      You can't just do that ad infinitum for several sequels, though. Adding more aliens doesn't do much, since you've already seen an overwhelming force of them. Making them overwhelming-er doesn't really change the nature of the danger. You also can't just put a little twist on things by mutating the monster a little, since you're not substantially changing the nature of the danger. You still pretty much understand what the monster is.

      But even with as good a job as Aliens did in changing the nature of the danger, it still couldn't really be a horror movie to the same degree. I'd argue that Aliens worked not only because it was moderately successful in changing the horror elements, but it also made up for the horror shortcomings by becoming more of an action/adventure movie than the original was.

    17. Re:Applies to all movies by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Funny

      In my opinion future movies could still succeed as action thrillers

      I have to agree. What the Alien franchise really needs is a badass superhero type with witty one liners and a catchphrase, maybe "yipee ka yay" or something, and an emo teenage sidekick who can complain throughout the movie but saves the day when the Alien queen is about to bite off the hero's head. And a chihuahua alien hybrid who can do funny tricks (for the xmas merchandising).

  2. Good news by calzakk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, this is very good news. Alien and Aliens will never be bettered, fact. The rest (including A vs P) either ok or poor. Anything new will be guaranteed disappointment.

    Who actually wanted to know where the xenomorphs came from? Whatever happened to imagination?

    1. Re:Good news by Barny · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The original Alien was horror, true suspenseful horror. The reason it worked, despite a lack of modern special effects was that they didn't show too much, they let your imagination fill in the blanks as only a good horror story will.

      The human imagination can still come up with things a hundred times more scary than special effects can achieve, if only because they are tailored to that persons one fears. This is doubly so these days when pretty much every kind of scary thing has been shown to us on the big screen with crazy high definition special effects, anything new either has to be so picture perfect its not funny (see district 9) or, as with alien, leave us jumping in our seats at some perceived scary part.

      Another good example is the ear cutting scene (or lack thereof) in reservoir dogs.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    2. Re:Good news by Scrameustache · · Score: 2

      The original Alien was horror, true suspenseful horror. The reason it worked, despite a lack of modern special effects was that they didn't show too much

      You misspelled "because of".

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Good news by LongearedBat · · Score: 2

      Whatever happened to imagination?

      I think he was killed in the 3rd movie.

  3. A new Sigourney by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · · Score: 2

    Well, does this mean they're building up a new Ripley (the character played by Sigourney Weaver in the Alien franchise)?

  4. Creating a movie vs. creating a franchise by TreeInMyCube · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Larry Niven wrote a series of novels with consistent backstory, physics, and an evolution over time -- the Known Space series. J. K. Rowling knew there would be 7 Harry Potter books, and J. Michael Straczyinski (sp) planned Bablyon 5 to have a story arc over 5 seasons. Asimov intended the Foundation Trilogy as a cohesive whole; I think that his later additions to that universe, including the tie-ins to the "I Robot" universe were motivated more by publishers than by his original vision. Perhaps Dan O'Bannon never wanted to create a universe, or a self-consistent backstory... he just wanted to make a scary movie with a surprising powerful alien. The second movie also worked as a suspense/thriller, even though we knew what the aliens' abilities were.

    1. Re:Creating a movie vs. creating a franchise by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Larry Niven wrote a series of novels with consistent backstory, physics, and an evolution over time -- the Known Space series. J. K. Rowling knew there would be 7 Harry Potter books, and J. Michael Straczyinski (sp) planned Bablyon 5 to have a story arc over 5 seasons. Asimov intended the Foundation Trilogy as a cohesive whole; I think that his later additions to that universe, including the tie-ins to the "I Robot" universe were motivated more by publishers than by his original vision. Perhaps Dan O'Bannon never wanted to create a universe, or a self-consistent backstory... he just wanted to make a scary movie with a surprising powerful alien. The second movie also worked as a suspense/thriller, even though we knew what the aliens' abilities were.

      The real difference is each of those authors were in much more control over the franchise than most movie director/writers/producers are. Authors generally don't have to worry about what a star wants, dealing with ego of a big producer who has his or her own 'vision', etc. They also have the luxury of not having to tell a story in a little over an hour. TV shows may be easier because you can build a story arc - and it has been successful even if individual episodes are weak - such as in the Sopranos and The Wire - so it's less of a sell; where as each movie is a one shot deal that stands on its own.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. From TFA by Suki+I · · Score: 4, Funny

    Prometheus will star Rapace as scientist Elizabeth Shaw (cast by Scott after the director was impressed with her work in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo), with Charlize Theron and Angelina Jolie mooted as possible co-stars in a script that previous rumours have outlined as featuring a female-manned spaceship crew with a distinctly lesbian atmosphere.

    Now, what was wrong with the old outline?

    1. Re:From TFA by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Funny

      And what the hell is a "distinctly lesbian atmosphere"? 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% oestrogen?!

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  7. sequels are usually worse by Jodka · · Score: 5, Informative

    As this graph shows, regardless of the genre, sequels are usually worse than the original.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Re:Alien in 3D? by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 3, Funny

    "My Dinner With Andre" in 3D? Inconceivable!

  10. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    District 9 had nothing to do with Halo. Peter Jackson was going to do a Halo movie at the time, but it fell through, so he instead created District 9, based on the short film Alive in Joburg.
     
    Even if D9 were inspired by Halo, how does that have anything to do with TFA?

  11. the problem with sequels by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's no compelling story to tell.

    We can't use Lord of the Rings as an example because it' really one big film in three parts. But we can use Empire as an example. The first film told a proper story and Empire continued it. It was good drama. Same goes for Terminator 2. There was room in the universe to tell another story. But after two time travel stories, the only possible room left in that universe was to tell the story of the future war. No time travel. Just Judgement Day, John Connor putting his military together, the fight against the machines. Some people might say this is essentially a prequel since these events were already established as having happened beforehand but I think there's still room to tell an interesting story. There was certainly no need for another fucking time travel story like T3. T4 was almost the story they should have told but executed in the most ham-fisted, talentless fashion imaginable.

    The Matrix, on the other hand, was a movie where a sequel was completely impossible. Neo had already won. The war was over but for the fussy details. There is simply no possible way that anyone could do a sequel of any good with that movie. You have one movie, it told the whole story. There's no room for any sort of sequel, period.

    Something like Pirates, that could do with sequels. The original movie shouldn't have been any good in the first place, being based on an amusement park ride and a completely transparent excuse to make money. But it happened to be light, enjoyable fun, really fun. Kudos for them. So then they went at the sequels with a vengeance and hate-fucked every last bit of fun out of the whole thing. You could have had three nice, all ages adventure movies like Indiana Jones. Instead it was just limp, lifeless shit.

    Could someone tell another good story within the aliens universe? Of course they can. The question is will they? Not likely. Every movie is put out there to make money but there's a difference between something greenlit in the hopes of making some money versus something that's now seen as a cash cow and, more importantly, something that is now a formula. They'll let you play around with first movies but once they think you have lightning in a bottle, they won't let you change a thing. Mass produce it and see if we can suck all the milk out of this teat. There will never be another good aliens movie or another good predator movie because the suits will never release enough control for it to be any good.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:the problem with sequels by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Matrix, on the other hand, was a movie where a sequel was completely impossible. Neo had already won. The war was over but for the fussy details.

      I don't think that's the problem. The problem was that a major factor in The Matrix's success was the look and atmosphere of the film. There hadn't been anything like it at all in mainstream western cinema - but by the time the sequels hit the streets, "bullet time" and extreme martial arts had become cliches.

      Its the same reason that there should never be a sequel to Blade Runner - the plot of which was nothing to write home about, but it completely re-defined the look of on-screen SF. (I'd pay to see a "straight" re-make of the novel, but I doubt it would be commercially viable).

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    2. Re:the problem with sequels by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Matrix, on the other hand, was a movie where a sequel was completely impossible. Neo had already won. The war was over but for the fussy details. There is simply no possible way that anyone could do a sequel of any good with that movie.

      Look, we're all annoyed that they never made any sequels to the Matrix, but I could tell you tons of good stories to follow up on the adventures of Neo vs the Machines.

      Neo can hack their world, but they have the hardware and the source code, they can split the matrix into separate cells so his influence is limited, he'd have to log in to each network one after the other and they would each have a different universe in them, with a modified code he'd have to re-hack each time. Then there's the fight in meatspace, that could be interesting, with Neo hacking Squids so their eyes turn blue and the serve humans. The people in the Matrices wouldn't all want to be liberated, they'd be more willing to make a deal with the Agents for steak, they could know that the devil named Neo was coming to rip them from their world to force them to be his servants in a cold gray world where they would never see the sun... etc.

      But maybe you're right, maybe if they made a sequel it would suck, and they would end up just being a stupid shoot 'em up with transparent pandering to the religious crowd.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion