ALIEN Remake Coming Our Way -- from producer Ridley Scott?

[JSWalsh]

That Peter Hyams is considered an auteur says all that need be said about this theory, to me.

I am not saying Hyams' movies are necessarily great art, but the fact that he personally executes most of his films' key artistic tasks, gives him a degree of authorship that few others can claim (particularly in commercial cinema).

Whether or not that fits in with the tenets of the autuer "theory" I don't know. I just know that Hyams' films, good or bad, are an example of films which are primarily the work of one man.

But they're not primarily the work of one man--I mean, this may come off as glib, but have you seen the lists of credits in his movies? (I'm reminded once again of William Goldman's brief and on-target dissection of the idea that Jaws is Spielberg's movie, no matter how great the direction.) He is a director who also is a cinematographer, and a plain director and an undistinguished DP, and an undistinguished screenwriter, to be kind. Notably, he has only produced one of the movies he also directed. shot and wrote, and if you look at the credits, there are a whole lotta people helping him express this "vision" of his, and there is little evidence of anything like a "style" there--which is what the auteur theory is all about. But since you aren't interested if this fits with the theory which started the whole cult of the director as we know it (something we agree on), the quality of Hyams' movies definitely speaks to what it means to "author" a movie. I mean, seriously, if the guilds allowed it, I bet Ridley Scott, Spielberg and many other directors could claim to be DPs, and Hitchcock probably could have taken a writing credit, at least a "story co-written by" credit. So indeed, the quality of the work on-screen is a lot more important than the written credits.

[AndyDursin]

So indeed, the quality of the work on-screen is a lot more important than the written credits.

Why do they need to be great movies in order for him to be an auteur? He's made several films I would classify as being "good" at any rate, at least early on in his career, and I find there is definitely a prevailing visual style to Hyams' films. As far as discrediting the ownership he has over a lot of his movies -- how do you know that? Were you there? IMO Hyams IS a hands-on filmmaker. On 2010 the entire movie was his, written, PRODUCED, photographed, directed and (judging from the material that was written about it) supervised every aspect of its production. It doesn't mean his movies are great works of art, like Paul wrote, but they are HIS movies. He wrote most all of his early works, he shoots all of them...I don't understand how you can say Spielberg or Scott's movies are obviously the work of auteurs and Hyams aren't. Nobody is saying Hyams is a filmmaker of the same caliber, but it's pretty obvious to me from watching his films they are uniquely his works.

[Paul MacLean]

But they're not primarily the work of one man--I mean, this may come off as glib, but have you seen the lists of credits in his movies?

I don't dispute that the art department, composer and other creative team members bring something unique to a film. I am just saying that a director like Peter Hyams, who writes, produces, directs and photographs his films can legitimately claim a great degree of authorship on a movie, even if he also hires a production designer, composer, editor, etc.

Many artists employ the assistance of others in bringing off their vision. For instance, the music for Alien was orchestrated by Arthur Morton, conducted by Lionel Newman, performed by 80 London session players, engineered by Eric Tomlinson, and written to fit the images of a movie made by other people. Yet no one disputes it is "a Jerry Goldsmith score".

[JSWalsh]

So indeed, the quality of the work on-screen is a lot more important than the written credits.

Why do they need to be great movies in order for him to be an auteur? He's made several films I would classify as being "good" at any rate, at least early on in his career, and I find there is definitely a prevailing visual style to Hyams' films. As far as discrediting the ownership he has over a lot of his movies -- how do you know that? Were you there? IMO Hyams IS a hands-on filmmaker. On 2010 the entire movie was his, written, PRODUCED, photographed, directed and (judging from the material that was written about it) supervised every aspect of its production. It doesn't mean his movies are great works of art, like Paul wrote, but they are HIS movies. He wrote most all of his early works, he shoots all of them...I don't understand how you can say Spielberg or Scott's movies are obviously the work of auteurs and Hyams aren't. Nobody is saying Hyams is a filmmaker of the same caliber, but it's pretty obvious to me from watching his films they are uniquely his works.

2010 was based on a novel. (And even used, in part, sets designed by people long before Hyams stepped onto the lot.) It also had two associate producers, and was a studio production--the property was bought before Hyams touched it. How that means it was Hyams' creation, I have no idea.


You have to remind yourself that I think auteurism is BS. When you have CE3K "Written and Directed by Steven Spielberg" after his producers chased FIVE writers away from taking screen credit, you have to be very careful of basing assumptions on the studio's version of things.

Auteurism--and I'm sorry, it DOES matter what the word means, not just what it's been debased to mean, when it's a specific theory of film we're discussimg--is all about assessing the quality of a work. The theory is a crackpot idea that's been used to push the BS that directors are the film equivalent of writers, when it's a completely bonkers concept. A writer has editorial engagement on a book, but the writer makes the decisions; a director, even a powerful one, has to bow to so many other opinions that it's a silly, lazy way of assigning "credit".

Just because people WANT a word to mean something doesn't mean it does. And again, these aren't HIS movies. Look at the credits.

[JSWalsh]

But they're not primarily the work of one man--I mean, this may come off as glib, but have you seen the lists of credits in his movies?

I don't dispute that the art department, composer and other creative team members bring something unique to a film. I am just saying that a director like Peter Hyams, who writes, produces, directs and photographs his films can legitimately claim a great degree of authorship on a movie, even if he also hires a production designer, composer, editor, etc.

Many artists employ the assistance of others in bringing off their vision. For instance, the music for Alien was orchestrated by Arthur Morton, conducted by Lionel Newman, performed by 80 London session players, engineered by Eric Tomlinson, and written to fit the images of a movie made by other people. Yet no one disputes it is "a Jerry Goldsmith score".

Because the gap between the artistry of Goldsmith and what emerges from the speakers is so narrow compared to that between a director and the finished film. Are you seriously trying to argue that when Goldsmith wrote a score which had to then be transcribed and then recorded that that's the same thing as having hundreds of other people have creative, interpretive input on a movie script Hyams cooked up while working with a producer, lighting and art directors, etc?

Writers and composers write material which others interpret. Directors interpret. Thus, they aren't authors. Simple as that.

[JSWalsh]

BTW, if one wants to apply the label auteur to Hyams, Ed Wood and others, it really does show what a silly label it is. As a term invented for use in film studies, it is so without foundation in the realities of filmmaking in the age of movies that are as much "crafted" by post-production standards defined by the studios as to be useless as a tool for assessing the "real" voice behind a movie. Because the fact is there isn't one in 99% of movies, no matter the ridiculous "A So and So Film" label. As Orson Welles (an "auteur" whose films were often train wrecks without the heavy input of talented others) said, a director is actually "directing" accidents. Anyone who's shot even on the amateur level as I have knows that you can sketch out shots, tell everyone what you want them to say and do, and STILL most of the good things in your work are the result of a shadow you didn't expect, an actor's unplanned flinching, and an on-set mispronunciation. These are things an actor, a producer, an editor or a composer can then make into gold...but you, the director, sure didn't create them.

I guess I'm an auteur because I once shot a family event with a film camera. That means me and Peter Hyams are on the same level!

And if you argue that Hyams has his movies released in theaters, that has nothing to do with the term as it's being used here and in its usual debased form these days--as the author of a film.

For the record, I think Spielberg and Scott leave their personal imprint on a film in ways that define a personal style beyond the silly repeated motifs and images idea of the original auteurists. That doesn't make Speilberg or Scott the "authors" of their movies, either, but so many are into the cult of director personality that they are repulsed by the idea.

[AndyDursin]

2010 was based on a novel. (And even used, in part, sets designed by people long before Hyams stepped onto the lot.) It also had two associate producers, and was a studio production--the property was bought before Hyams touched it.

Wow -- two associate producers? lol, you're right -- he DID have a lot of help!

For someone who has talked about how much creative input David Fincher had on ALIEN3 -- a movie with a dozen writers (if not more), a whole host of producers, directors who previously worked on the movie, designs and concepts and a cast and a studio and everything else in place before he stepped foot in that production -- how you brush off Hyams' creative involvement in something like 2010, which was documented in several different places beyond the credits which you say you pay no attention to, is plain baffling to me.

[Paul MacLean]

As a term invented for use in film studies, it is so without foundation in the realities of filmmaking in the age of movies that are as much "crafted" by post-production standards defined by the studios as to be useless as a tool for assessing the "real" voice behind a movie.

Any filmmaker with a solid track record is going to have final cut, or at least considerable say over the post production details.

Anyone who's shot even on the amateur level as I have knows that you can sketch out shots, tell everyone what you want them to say and do, and STILL most of the good things in your work are the result of a shadow you didn't expect, an actor's unplanned flinching, and an on-set mispronunciation. These are things an actor, a producer, an editor or a composer can then make into gold...but you, the director, sure didn't create them.

To reiterate, I AGREE that a director is not the sole creative force on a film, but to me it sounds as if you are saying that a director is little more than a figurehead who takes credit for "happy accidents".

I can only speak of what I saw when working on Hollywood features. They are planned down to the finest detail. There is no luxury of waiting for serendipity. And while happy accidents can occur, the reality is that directors do multiple takes in order capture what they envisioned, not mistakes which prove "unintentionally brilliant".

I guess I'm an auteur because I once shot a family event with a film camera. That means me and Peter Hyams are on the same level!

In the sense of authorship, yes. I am not saying that a writer/director's authorship equals quality. The Musketeer is not as good a movie as Lawrence of Arabia, and Peter Hyams would agree I am sure. I am just talking about how the extent of a writer-director's influence on a movie can make it legitimately "his" film, whether the movie is good or bad.

Are you seriously trying to argue that when Goldsmith wrote a score which had to then be transcribed and then recorded that that's the same thing as having hundreds of other people have creative, interpretive input on a movie script Hyams cooked up while working with a producer, lighting and art directors, etc?

Obviously there are more variables on something as complex as a movie. I am just saying that many artists involve the input of multiple people, and those people do affect the outcome.

And when you include the musicians -- who, like actors, are performers -- that is hundreds of people. The National Philhamonic gave a considerably different reading of a Goldsmith score then the Hungarian State Symphony. John Williams has said that writes the lead trumpet parts differently when he knows Maurice Murphy and the LSO will be recording his music, so obviously other artists influence his creativity.

While Jerry Goldsmith's orchestrators were mostly just transcribers, in the case of The Omen, Arthur Morton's input on the choral arrangements was, by Goldsmith's own admission, considerable. A different orchestrator would have brought a different sound to the vocal parts. Eric Tomlinson's recording of Alien and Night Crossing are acoustically much, much different from John Richards' recording of The Secret of NIMH and Under Fire. And Dan Wallin's recording of The Illustrated Man and The Swarm is different from either of them.

Goldsmith's score for Star Trek: The Motion Picture contains several cues composed by Fred Steiner, yet it is still considered "a Jerry Goldsmith score".

Further on the topic of music, many of Gustav Holst's and Bela Bartok's works were arrangements of folk tunes. Yet they are regarded the composers of those works.

Writers and composers write material which others interpret. Directors interpret. Thus, they aren't authors. Simple as that.

Once again I am not talking about DIRECTORS. I am talking about WRITER/DIRECTORS. And more particularly a writer/director/cinematographer like Peter Hyams.

[AndyDursin]

Going back to this, Scott is actually going to DIRECT this film, never mind produce it.

Info in a new interview here...

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=26153

It’s a brand new box of tricks,” said Sir Ridley. “We know what the road map is, and the screenplay is now being put on paper. The prequel will be a while ago. It’s very difficult to put a year on Alien, but [for example] if Alien was towards the end of this century, then the prequel story will take place thirty years prior.”

[Eric W.]

Going back to this, Scott is actually going to DIRECT this film, never mind produce it.

Info in a new interview here...

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=26153

It’s a brand new box of tricks,” said Sir Ridley. “We know what the road map is, and the screenplay is now being put on paper. The prequel will be a while ago. It’s very difficult to put a year on Alien, but [for example] if Alien was towards the end of this century, then the prequel story will take place thirty years prior.”

My enthusiasm for this just went up a notch or two.

I just hope Ridley brings on as good of a music composer as possible for this.

[mkaroly]

I like the idea of a prequel....a lot.

[AndyDursin]

What difference does it really make if it's a prequel though? I mean, the mistake Fox made with ALIEN 3 and 4 was continuing to focus on Sigourney Weaver and forget the process of coherent storytelling and developing "the franchise."

This movie should be a standalone tale, if it's a prequel, who cares if it has nothing to do with Ripley (which I'm hoping it doesn't, and obviously won't).

[Monterey Jack]

What difference does it really make if it's a prequel though? I mean, the mistake Fox made with ALIEN 3 and 4 was continuing to focus on Sigourney Weaver and forget the process of coherent storytelling and developing "the franchise."

This movie should be a standalone tale, if it's a prequel, who cares if it has nothing to do with Ripley (which I'm hoping it doesn't, and obviously won't).

I have this nightmare vision of an eight-year-old Ripley running around squealing "Yipee...!"

[Eric W.]

What difference does it really make if it's a prequel though? I mean, the mistake Fox made with ALIEN 3 and 4 was continuing to focus on Sigourney Weaver and forget the process of coherent storytelling and developing "the franchise."

This movie should be a standalone tale, if it's a prequel, who cares if it has nothing to do with Ripley (which I'm hoping it doesn't, and obviously won't).

I have this nightmare vision of an eight-year-old Ripley running around squealing "Yipee...!"

So do I.

I like the idea of a prequel....a lot.

This aspect of it I don't.

I'm long since tired of prequelitis and reboots. It just reeks of lack of imagination, creativity, fresh ideas, or any kind of real effort at all. I'm sick of it.

The only reason I have any confidence in this project at all is because of Scott's involvement and what we've been reading here lately.

Besides, I don't think this can or will be worse than either of the Alien vs. Predator movies.

[AndyDursin]

I'm also tired of calling movies which are for all intents and purposes either SEQUELS, PREQUELS or REMAKES terms like "re-imaginings" and "re-boots," as if they're somehow "more high minded" than those other, more basic terms. Unless it's STAR TREK, which they set up an alternate universe situation, we know what these movies are.

My thing is -- the universe is a big, vast place. The aliens could be anywhere. So unless it has something to do with Ripley or "The Corporation," does it really matter if it's a sequel or a prequel? What difference does the year make? If these characters have no connection with the later ones, why bother making it a prequel?

Scott probably needs this movie for money. He's been on a stretch of box-office disappointments (and pretty mediocre films) for a while now (To wit: MATCHSTICK MEN didn't connect, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN was a flop, A GOOD YEAR bombed, and BODY OF LIES was a big-time disappointment both creatively and financially as well. AMERICAN GANGSTER did make money, as it should have, but was generally deemed a disappointment). An ALIEN film that's pushed as being as a "serious sequel" with him being attached ought to do well.

The ironic thing though with that is -- none of the ALIEN movies, originally, were THAT huge financially. ALIEN was a solid hit, and ALIENS was too, but neither was a blockbuster. I recall specifically that Fox was hoping ALIENS would do even better than it did when it was first released (not that it was a disappointment by any means, as it got rave reviews and made money, but it was not a massive box-office blockbuster the way people seem to recall it being). ALIEN 3 and 4, as we know, both underperformed at the box-office. (I'm not classifying the AVP series as part of this either -- the first movie having been a big hit, the second movie a disappointment in terms of dollars).