Ridley Scott's Prometheus (2012) - Alien prequel

The amount of twisting and trying to read into the very simple plot of the movie Alien that is going on in this thread is hysterical.

They get a distress call land on a planet. Ash has orders to grab anything they might happen to stumble upon that maybe useful to the company. There was no premeditation or big pre-planned conspiracy.

 

No - I think "Alien3" is a pretty good movie. Flawed, but good. The fourth one is the weakest but even it has some positives.

I like all of the first four "Alien" flicks - with "Aliens" being easily my fave. I didn't think much of the "AvP" movies, though...

 

Well, not in terms of that movie - as this thread indicates, it's still viewed as a bad film by many. (Most?)

For me - and plenty of others - Fincher became a "hero" in 1995. Everything he's done since then has simply strengthened his position as a major director.

Though I thought "The Game" was a big disappointment and "Benjamin Button" was probably his least interesting movie. Fincher can't do warm 'n' sentimental, IMO...

 

I just read it yesterday. He denied all connection to Alien. Google it and find it yourself if you don't believe me. Obviously, it was disinformation, but his statements are out there.

 

I've seen most of Scott's flicks but don't think he's done anything that'd qualify as better than "pretty good" since... "Thelma and Louise"? "Blade Runner" and "Alien" are his only genuinely great films, IMO, and I think he's been running on fumes for a while.

Look, I'll be there first day for "Prometheus". I love everything "Alien" - I'd see "Alien Makes a Ham Sandwich" - but I'm not optimistic about "Prometheus" because I don't trust Ridley Scott...

 

I think Alien3 is pretty much unwatchable, but Alien Resurrection is decent, and in its expanded guise, it's almost good. On the other hand, the first AvP is not "pretty much unwatchable," it's unwatchable, period. I never bothered with the second AvP flick. Of all of them, Alien is my favorite, with Aliens trailing pretty close behind (and again, it is a much better movie in its expanded guise, IMHO).

 

I agree. I liked Alien3 when I saw it in the theatre and liked it even more when I saw the expanded cut on the Blu-ray. It's a deeply flawed film, but what made it to the screen is very good - this history of the different scripts is fascinating.

I never liked the fourth one, and re-watched it recently and still didn't like it. The series should have ended with Ripley's sacrifice.

 

I agree. There's a hint of what Fincher wanted to truly accomplish in "Alien3" and it's pretty impressive. "Alien 4" with it's strong element of satire is an acquired tasted but I enjoy it for what it is.

The expanded edition even without the involvement of Fincher (which, as I recall, uses his earliest cut, notes, etc. to assemble it) improves the film in many respects. I'd give it another chance. You may still not like it but I appreciate what he wanted to do even though he was stopped by Fox and harrassed within an inch of his life during every element of production and locked out (as I recall) during the final editing.

 

I thought Gladiator and Black Hawk Down were his best behind Alien. Even if you don't like those, you have to admit he successfully recreated ancient Rome and 1992 Mogadishu and got very good performances out of his actors in the process....no easy feat. I never warmed to Blade Runner, but that's a polarizing film. People seem to either love it or hate it.

I am optimistic about Prometheus. Scott knows how to entertain and he will stay a lot more true to the tone and tenor of the original Alien than any of the sequels did. I can't agree that any of them are worth watching or rewatching, even the second one.

 

You won't get an argument from me on that point except that he HAS occasionally created stuff that has approached his best work--the expanded version of "Black Hawk Down" and a couple of other movies.

I will say that I've liked a lot more of his films than I've loved them compared to earlier in his career.

I think the biggest problem for Scott as a director has been that HE'S in charge as producer for a lot of his work as well as director. The best stuff he's directed had a solid script in place before he came on board (even though "Blade Runner" went through massive rewrites).

He's best as a director when he has strong collaborators that can say "no" to him.

He's wildly inconsistent as a director but when he's on he's exceptionally good I think that he ends.

The first hint to me that he was more a style over substance kind of director was "Legend" a movie that's often stunning to look at but narratively as exciting as an inert gas.

I'm always excited when I see a new Scott movie is coming out even if I'm disappointed by the end result.

I think the fact that Scott is revisiting something related to his greatest triumph will help inspire him.

Scott doesn't have the depth as an artist or director as a Hitchcock, Welles, Coppola (and he's done his fair share of turkeys as well) but he's STILL far more talented and interesting than Michael Bay. He doesn't fall into the treacly chasm that often consumes Spielberg's more interesting work even if Spielberg's work is better realized as a whole.

His best work didn't originate with him but came to him more fully formed.

 

Here's an interesting breakdown of the trailer. Lots of spoilers if they are accurate in their assessment:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/12/23/closer-look-at-trailer-for-prometheus/

Here's another one:

http://io9.com/5870560/frame+by+frame-breakdown-of-the-prometheus-trailer-who-is-that-man/

 

I like the first and the fourth Alien films, don't need the middle two. I'm really looking forward to this, because I think I like Scott more than many here seem to. Bladerunner is one of my top films, though of course the fact that I've long been a fan of Philip K. Dick and I have a letter from him telling me to look out for a movie based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep has a bit to do with that. I'm not that crazy about Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, but I do think Kingdom of Heaven is a fine movie. He's been moving more and more into a light clean look which will make this an interesting movie I think, perhaps a nice contrast to the gritty darkness of the original Alien.

 

Looks like Ridley has finally gone CGI. Oh well. That doesn't make this a dud film. I just hope he maintained the beautiful artistry and atmosphere of the first film - which made it all the more shocking and creepy. This was totally lacking in the blunt sequels which were basically just well done action flicks.

 

Can you elaborate a little on why you don't trust Ridley Scott?

 

I read that there is little CGI in this movie, and most FX were done with traditional model work.

 

Plenty of CGI in Gladiator, nothing new for Scott.

 

That trailer had a nice creepiness to it, that was reminiscent of the one for his first film in the ALIEN series. So far so good! The summer movie season can't come any faster!

 

Agreed.

 

I think the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven was one of his best films.

 

I'm mostly in agreement with you here -- especially the "Alien Makes a Ham Sandwich" part -- but I have some optimism about this movie because a) I think the story has a lot of potential, and b) Giger is involved again, even if it's just in some small part. While it's unlikely the film will break new ground cinematically, I like the idea behind it.

 

Agreed. Scott is a very talented director but I think that Colin (and this is just my interpretation) feels that he's promised more than he's delivered with his films and, as a result, been disappointing but I think part of that is related to what WE expect--Scott genre hops and he never seems content doing quite the same thing twice or if its the same genre in the same way.

He's brilliant at his best but also inconsistent because he takes a lot of risks and tries a variety of different genres/stories, etc.

I would also add "Black Hawk Down" (the director's Cut) as one of his finest later films.

Many people feel that he peaked early in his career and disappointed after but he seemed to be a little lost after his experience on "Blade Runner" and stumbled a bit and it took a while to find his groove again as a director.

I agree based on the "Ain't It Cool" observations, some of my own just from thinking about the film after seeing the trailer and then seeing Damon Lindeloff's interview on the project, I believe that Scott has returned to the same universe to "reclaim" something he pioneered so-to-speak in a unique and different style AND with a story that while related to "Alien" is not about THE "Alien" allowing for a richer, deeper story that had been tapped out long ago.

 

I can get onboard with this theory. Though it seems that Ridley Scott and James Cameron have slightly different interpretations of the Space Jockey (I would be inclined to side with with Scott)

From the Alien Wikia aritcle.

" The derelict ship contains several thousand Alien eggs. It is suggested by Ridley Scott in the director commentary to the film that the Space Jockey's ship was an "aircraft carrier or battlewagon of a civilization, and the eggs were a cargo which were essentially weapons. Like a large form of bacterialogical/biomechanoid warfare." The eggs, which are kept in the ship's hold, could presumably be dropped on an enemy planet, and the Aliens would proceed to kill the population as they spawned. "The Space Jockey was...the driver of the craft who is now, after many ages...has started to look like a perfect example of...where does biology end and technology begin, because he seems to have grafted...into what essentially was...a pilot's seat. But clearly from here, this is where the transmission would eminate from probably in an automatic transmission. So this creature obviously had experienced, maybe one of the eggs had been disturbed and a creature had got out, had attacked the rest of the crew...but let's say he was a part of the civilization he came from and now had melded into his seat." The Nostromo's computer, Mother, starts to translate the Space Jockey's transmission and it appears to Ripley to be a warning. "

" According to James Cameron, the Space Jockey's craft picked up Alien eggs and the pilot became infected by the dangerous cargo; the ship landed or crashed on LV-426 and the Space Jockey transmitted the signal as a warning. It is also suggested the Space Jockey encountered the Aliens on LV-426 and that it was their home planet. It is also said Space Jockeys are the Predators' enemy as well as the Aliens. "

 

Just how did the "space jockey" get its silly name? IIRC, in the Alien script, the fossilized figure is only referred to as the "pilot."

 

Any true director's cut usually restore notes missing from a symphony.

Studios tend to remove all white notes from films, having the illusion the tempo might be faster. Try removing all white notes from any hit of your favorite song, and you'll get the feeling.

 

Never mind, I just read that Scott referred to the creature as the "Space Jockey" in one of the Alien DVD commentaries.