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

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34284
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#31 Post by AndyDursin »

When you hear the story about how much 20th Century Fox screwed up that film and what Fincher's original vision for it was... Wow.
But Fincher really had no original vision for that movie. The movie was so far along in production when he got onboard, with dozens of drafts of the script and other directors having worked on it, that from a narrative standpoint he had little input in the grand scheme of things. Ripley's death and all those "audacious" aspects were added by other writers long before Fincher had anything to do with the film.

Had Fincher been able to make an ALIEN movie from scratch, especially now, it'd be a much different film than ALIEN3 turned out to be and likely a more impressive one from a storytelling angle. That movie had way too many cooks in the kitchen, and reeks of being "assembled" from different parts of other writers and directors.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34284
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#32 Post by AndyDursin »

This angle was in EW last week. Surprised it took Harry Knowles and the rest of the world to pick up on it, but if it's true, I wouldn't think this project is as much of a go as the Scott brothers do.

Scott plans to produce and had handpicked commercial director Carl Erik Rinsch — whose ads for German electronics company Saturn are known for their futuristic flourishes — to make his feature debut. Rinsch's selection is complicated by the rumor that he's romantically involved with Scott's daughter, Jordan, also a commercial helmer. (Reps for both Jordan Scott and Rinsch did not respond to calls to confirm.)

Sources at Fox, however, tell EW that the studio is not interested in greenlighting a prequel unless Scott himself directs. Scott and his reps didn’t respond to calls for comment


http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20283385,00.html

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#33 Post by JSWalsh »

AndyDursin wrote: But Fincher really had no original vision for that movie. .
That's completely untrue. Weaver describes her first meeting with him as being what really got her excited about the part. It's not like all directors come in at the embryonic stage of a movie, and Fincher's complaints about how the movie happened aren't necessarily about how THAT movie happened but how ALL movies happen in terms of studio involvment. One can't seriously look at all of his films and say there is nothing of Fincher in Alien 3--it's definitely a Fincher movie, and his choice of how to shoot it (which is what the director DOES to put his stamp on a movie more than anything else) is right there, down to the point where he agreed on the change of cinematographer after filming began. (And Alex Thomson recalls that Fincher kept saying "Keep it dark!"--can anyone argue Fincher didn't get his way?) He's also praised the production design, and if one looks at the writing of his subsequent movies--well, Fincher isn't a writer, that's all there is to it, and what's great in his movies isn't the screenwriting. Also, the script wasn't even finished until weeks into filming--so where's this idea that the script was dumped in his lap as a done deal? Here's a guy who spent hours on the briefest of shots, so the claim that his stamp isn't all over this movie is completely without backup.

Fincher was more let down by the post-production than anything else, and in fact was very pleased with much of what they'd accomplished right up to the point where he got money for reshoots, but didn't get everything he asked for. It's interesting how in interviews Fincher says he hates the movie, for what the suits did, and this is somehow used as "proof" that it is a bad movie, when on every other movie the Alien 3 haters will champion the right for everyone to have an opinion--in THIS case, the director hated the post-production meddling, therefore the fans of the film are deluded. It's amazing how when it suits some people, movie directors are these honest, un-self-serving, wonderful folks who can determine what is an enjoyable movie-watching experience for the audience. (In fact, history is loaded with stories of artists who actively HATED what they were doing in the creation of entertainment.) For the haters of this film to pretend he just kind of wandered on after all the decisions were made is ludicrous.

The desire of people to say that Fincher didn't have a massive impact on this movie, oddly enough, comes from a lot of people who are auteurists, when in fact Fincher had as much impact on the creative end of this movie than 90% of directors do on ANY movie. But they don't like this movie, so they have to come up with some special reason why THIS movie is somehow worse.
John

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#34 Post by JSWalsh »

This is from a great article published at the time--I have a magazine copy.

As you can see in the first line, Fincher certainly was involved in the pre-production, though as we know sets were under construction.

http://www.movie-list.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7415

With Fincher signed, Fox hired Larry Ferguson to do a four-week emergency rewite on the script. The plot Fincher came up with on his own, prior to the hiring of Ferguson, left the suits aghast. “They said, ‘My God, this is four f***ing hours, it’s $150 million.’ And they were absolutely right.” He laughs. “I was just so taken with the legacy that it had to be….Apocalypse Now.”

Fincher: In the draft Larry was writing, she was going to be this women who had fallen from the stars. In the end she dies, and there are seven monks left – seven dwarfs.
Q: You’re kidding.
Fincher: Seriously. I swear to God. She was like….what’s her name in Peter Pan? She was like Wendy. And she would make up all these stories. And in the end, there were these seven dwarfs left, and there was this f***ing tube they put her in, and they were waiting for Prince Charming to come wake her up. So that was one of the endings we had for this movie. You can imagine what Joe Roth said when he heard this. “What?! What are they doing over there?! What the f**k is going on?!”

When Ferguson turned in his draft, the movie almost fell apart. Fox coughed up $600,000 or so for Hill & Giler to do an emergency rewrite. The producers scraped Wards wooden planet and moved the action back to Twohy’s prison setting. Since both Fincher and Weaver were taken with the religious element of Ward’s story, they made the prisoners what Giler terms as “your basic militant Christian fundamentalist millenarian apocalyptic” types. In just three weeks they had a first draft. The studio liked it, Weaver liked it. But alas, Fincher had a few reservations.

The start date was pushed back to January 14 1991, and for the next 2 months, Hill, Giler, Fincher and the studio fought over the script, budget, the sets – even as more sets were being constructed. Hill calls the period “brutal, a real battle royal.”

In a tense meeting between Fincher, Michael London, Tom Jacobson and line producer, Ezra Swerdlow, Fox cut the shooting schedule down from 93 days to just 70. Fincher would only get 25 SFX shots (less than half what Aliens had). The filmmakers ended up working eighteen-hour days and six-day weeks, just to try and met the stop date. At one point, when an explosion effect backfired, five crewmembers got burned, one badly enough to go to hospital.

Once more last minute fight cost Fincher the goodwill of his producer-writers. Over the Christmas holidays, Hill & Giler were going to take a ten-day vacation, and a writer named Rex Pickett was hired for one more bit of rewriting. Fincher took Pickett out to dinner and told him all the problems he was having with the script. “I said, ‘Am I crazy? Am I totally insane?’ ” Fincher recalls. “And he said ‘No, this makes sense. Maybe you’re just not communicating it well.’ ”

It all blew up when Pickett wrote a memo savaging Hill & Giler’s script. Giler read the memo and exploded. “I was p***ed, absolutely furious,” says Giler. Hill said the thrust of the memo was “that we were fools not to recognise the merit of the ideas the director had.” Although Pickett’s rewrite was thrown out (he wouldn’t comment), the irate producers left London and never came back.
John

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34284
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#35 Post by AndyDursin »

The desire of people to say that Fincher didn't have a massive impact on this movie, oddly enough, comes from a lot of people who are auteurists, when in fact Fincher had as much impact on the creative end of this movie than 90% of directors do on ANY movie.
Then if that's the case he's probably more responsible for that film being a mess than I thought otherwise.
Also, the script wasn't even finished until weeks into filming--so where's this idea that the script was dumped in his lap as a done deal?
Cinefantastique had an entire issue on it and that was essentially the gist of their reportage. I'm going on what I read, that's all.

That script was always gestating, that's true...but the specific plot points you continuously attribute to Fincher and his POV were there long before he was.

At any rate, if he DID have that much input in how that movie turned out, I'd be more critical of him than I have been. My take has always been that he did the best with what he was given, in a really bad situation.
He's also praised the production design, and if one looks at the writing of his subsequent movies--well, Fincher isn't a writer, that's all there is to it, and what's great in his movies isn't the screenwriting
That's certainly the case with ALIEN3, no question about it. "You don't want to know me lady, I am a murderer and a rapist of women!"
Last edited by AndyDursin on Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mkaroly
Posts: 6218
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

#36 Post by mkaroly »

AndyDursin wrote:
"You don't want to know me lady, I am a murderer and a rapist of women!"
Lol...I must admit that's a dumb line...Dutton's reading was great. He summed up his life in one sentence! Lol... : )

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#37 Post by JSWalsh »

The thing about that scene was that I kept thinking 'Can we pull back a little from all these giant heads on the screen?" I was sitting in the very front row and it was like looking at the balloons in the Macy's parade while sitting on the curb.
John

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#38 Post by JSWalsh »

AndyDursin wrote: That script was always gestating, that's true...but the specific plot points you continuously attribute to Fincher and his POV were there long before he was.?
What are you refering to here? Fincher is a director, I never claimed he was a screenwriter. (That's pretty clear from some of the whoppers in his movies in the writing stage.) I think some of the confusion comes from the idea that the director has complete say over everything in a movie. Whatever the Entertainment Weekly and Entertainment Tonight personality-oriented stuff says, that just ain't so. Fincher accepted the job offer, and he applied his talents to a script that was still in the writing stage when he came along, so of course he had some influence, as all directors do, and as this article shows. But I'm confused when you say I attribute plot points to him--which plot points?

You really need to read the article I linked to if you want to see the whole story. The CInefantastique article is a bullet-point memo compared to this one, which is more detailed about how the movie got to be the way it is, and was published in Premiere, which has more visibility in the industry and often printed letters from movie makers it discussed. I trust this article more than Cinefantastique, and the fannish revisionism that has Fincher being some victim.

Like the movie or not, that is neither here nor there. The point is, it is very much a Fincher movie.
John

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7066
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#39 Post by Paul MacLean »

JSWalsh wrote: I think some of the confusion comes from the idea that the director has complete say over everything in a movie. Whatever the Entertainment Weekly and Entertainment Tonight personality-oriented stuff says, that just ain't so.
It depends. Obviously the director does not create everything you see on screen, but directors sometimes have a very large hand in "directing" the writer's ideas at the script stage (for instance Chinatown was a mess of a script until Roman Polanski sat down and did a re-write with Robert Towne, yet Polanski received no screenplay credit).

I don't know much about David Fincher's role on Alien3, but a director's creative influence guides everyone on the production, including, in many instances, the writer.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34284
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#40 Post by AndyDursin »

You really need to read the article I linked to if you want to see the whole story. The CInefantastique article is a bullet-point memo compared to this one, which is more detailed about how the movie got to be the way it is, and was published in Premiere, which has more visibility in the industry and often printed letters from movie makers it discussed. I trust this article more than Cinefantastique, and the fannish revisionism that has Fincher being some victim.
He's certainly not a "victim", but at the same time, the movie has so many problems (at least it does for me) that I can't possibly blame him for them all. Given the film's history, I still contend he was not in a great situation to make that picture and very much did the best he could under the circumstances. I'm not saying he didn't have any input at all, but I think it's undeniable that, at that stage of his career, he wouldn't have had nearly the creative freedom he does now to make what he wants. BENJAMIN BUTTON might be a great-looking but dramatically empty work, but it IS his work -- I don't feel the same way about ALIEN3. That movie, for me, reeks of being a pastiche of about a half-dozen other writers and filmmakers -- Fincher being one of them. Is it "his" movie? I suppose it is. But it's not "his" movie the way SEVEN, FIGHT CLUB, PANIC ROOM, etc. all are. And I'm not even a Fincher "fanboy" -- I hated SEVEN, found FIGHT CLUB overrated, PANIC ROOM a piece of studio fluff, and found BUTTON to be a gorgeously composed waste of time. ZODIAC is really the only film of his that struck me.

Either way, I've pretty much exhausted my interest in talking about ALIEN3...any more talk from me will be about this new project, if it comes to pass (everyone else -- go ahead and continue to talk, it's still a hot button issue!). And I'm not entirely sure it's going to happen either, if the EW report is correct.

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#41 Post by JSWalsh »

Of course a director has influence on a movie, I never argued otherwise, but the point is, a movie is so complicated, that, for example, when a costume designer asks "Which of these designs based on our discussion do you like, 1,2 or 3?" that's a matter of guidance. How many times have we each read of situations where a director asks for something, gets something else, and has little choice but to accept what he gets? (Didn't the director of Star Trek First Contact ask for a brooding, dark main title?)

I am not an auteurist. I think it's one of the biggest piles of crap unloaded on an unknowing public in all of film history. But I don't know how one can look at Fincher's work and the evidence from multiple press reports--and know that in Hollywood everyone is ready to pass on taking responsibility when it fits them--and not see that A3 fits right in.

I used to like Fincher a lot more than I do now. I think Fight Club is fun and creative, but I've also encountered more than one rabid fan who's proven to me that Fincher didn't properly communicate the material in the book and script. I found Zodiac highly overrated, though technically well-made, and for me, A3 and SEVEN are his best movies, which I fear he won't better.

As for the subject of the Alien prequel, it's funny, this is something I might have been interested in long ago, but now, I don't care. Hollywood's feeding on itself has burned me out.
John

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7066
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#42 Post by Paul MacLean »

I am not an auteurist. I think it's one of the biggest piles of crap unloaded on an unknowing public in all of film history.
Well obviously the director does not "create" everything. As William Goldman once said "The director is not the sole creative force, and Vincent Canby would rather die than know that."

On the other hand I think it is fair to classify some writer-directors as "auteurs", like Peter Hyams, who writes the script, produces, directs and photographs his films. Or Stanley Kubrick, who produced, directed and co-wrote 2001, closely micromanaged the photography (having photographed his earlier films himself), handpicked the musical selections and even designed the effects shots. More recently there is Robert Rodriguez, who writes, directs, photographs, scores and I believe edits his films as well.

But even someone like Ridley Scott, who may not write the script but selects his own projects, supervises the writing, largely designs his films and personally operates the camera, deserves "auteur" status.

But I wouldn't call a "hired gun" brought in by a producer or star to direct a script by someone else to be an "auteur".

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#43 Post by JSWalsh »

Paul MacLean wrote:
On the other hand I think it is fair to classify some writer-directors as "auteurs", like Peter Hyams, who writes the script, produces, directs and photographs his films.
This is a misreading of the auteur theory, actually, though it's one everyone does. The auteur theory has been misinterpreted quite a bit, and a "writer-director" would actually have been excluded from the 'inner circle' by the original auteurists because the whole point of the theory ISN'T that the director is the "author" of the movie per se (though that's probably what it means now, in this perversion of the concept). The auteur theory actually is about how the director's style is revealed not in the script (that's the writer's area) camerawork (that's the cinematographer), music (composer) etc, or even the overall movie (that would be considered the producer's "work"), but in the "frisson" (or whatever fancy word they want to use) created by the "tension" between the director's sensibilities dealing with the script.

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

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7066
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#44 Post by Paul MacLean »

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.

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#45 Post by JSWalsh »

Paul MacLean wrote:
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. 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 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.
John

Post Reply