Will there ever be an Alien 5?

[PrayforMojo]

I think you're being too kind. Watch the introduction on the director's cut if you get the chance. It's not on for long, just a minute or so. But he does say after reappraising the film that he wanted to make adjustments. Admittedly mostly minor things, apart from the scene mentioned previously. I mean, nothing would surprise me about Fox forcing someone's hand, but after watching the introduction, it does appear that Scott was a quite willing accomplice. My fear is that he has about the same regard for preserving film history and plot continuity as Lucas had for Star Wars.

[Darwock]

Hasn't Ridley Scott gone off ranting numerous times about how the studios force him to make "director's cuts" that he doesn't want to do? I read somewhere that his DVD intro to Kingdom of Heaven was pretty much him saying "here are some parts of the movie that I threw away, the studio thought you might find them interesting". I'm sure he has also said that the original Alien was pretty much as perfect as he could get it. I know he was obviously happy to do Bladerunner but I'm not sure anything changed subsequently was part of his plan.

[eastyy]

i really liked what they added with the aliens special edition like the whole new opening and the auto smart guns

Random question but something i wanted to know in regarding to movies......when the movie is made and put together.....but not actually cut how long would films be ?

[dvdmike]

Depends on the movie, anywhere up to 6 hours for some.
Alien was not a directors cut at all, Scott had final cut on alien. The DVD/dvhs was just something for the fans.
Aliens is a special edition, cameron has final cut on all his movies, he was happy with the cinema cut. The special edtion was just some cool stuff he wanted to add

[PrayforMojo]

Hasn't Ridley Scott gone off ranting numerous times about how the studios force him to make "director's cuts" that he doesn't want to do? I read somewhere that his DVD intro to Kingdom of Heaven was pretty much him saying "here are some parts of the movie that I threw away, the studio thought you might find them interesting". I'm sure he has also said that the original Alien was pretty much as perfect as he could get it. I know he was obviously happy to do Bladerunner but I'm not sure anything changed subsequently was part of his plan.

I've always found it rather curious that Lucas and Spielberg are lambasted for re-editing their past work, yet Ridley Scott has always received a free pass time and time again for the same thing. How many films of his have been released in alternative versions, again? I dunno for sure but I'm guessing it's a lot. I have no doubt studio interference has a lot to do with it, but Scott has always seemed a little too eager to go back and change things for my liking. Slippery slope, that's all I'm saying.

I had a listen to the cast and director's commentary on Alien last night. Interesting to hear Scott elaborating on the Space Jockey and the Alien. His enthusiasm for the subject is very engaging. Apparently, the Alien was based on a grub that really exists, which burrows into the bark of a tree, and then lies in wait for an unfortunate victim to wander by so it can use it as a host to lay its eggs. He then describes the Space Jockey as a pilot on a mission to drop the alien eggs onto an unknown enemy. I had always thought the Alien's life cycle to be a massive design flaw - how it requires another species to reproduce, which I have to say is not strictly true according to Scott, but it got me thinking, if it was designed to be used as a weapon, then it's not a design flaw at all, it's actually quite ingenious. They send it in somewhere, it lays waste to everything, then it goes into a type of hibernation..and waits, perhaps for thousands of years, before being called into action again.

Damn it! I change my mind more than a woman. I'm actually slowly coming round to the idea of a prequel again. I'm sure there is a story in there somewhere.

One of Scott's other ideas regarding the Alien was laughably bad, though. At one point, Scott had the idea of the Alien killing Ripley aboard the escape pod, then the Alien mimicking Ripley's voice to broadcast an SOS to Earth. It took a phone call from a studio executive for Scott to wisely abandon that idea. Frightening to think how things could've been so different if it wasn't for that phone call, eh?

[Dogg Thang]

[SIZE=2]I've always found it rather curious that Lucas and Spielberg are lambasted for re-editing their past work, yet Ridley Scott has always received a free pass time and time again for the same thing.

It could be just because I don't know enough about Scott's alternate cuts but I have seen nothing from him even remotely approaching the same league or even the same planet as Lucas' butchering of Star Wars and Spielberg's walkie-talkie incident or even cutting Jaws (and possibly other movies) while nobody was watching. Lucas goes out of his way to bull**** over his changes and would pretend the originals never existed if he could.

I've seen nothing like that from Scott. I've seen him re-edit Blade Runner a couple of times. One restoring it to the way he wanted it and another seemingly just to warrant a rerelease that probably would have happened with or without him and that cut changed very little of substance. And the quote on the Alien cut makes sense to me. There would have been another version of that film with cut scenes restored whether he was involved or not.

The only issue I had with what he did, and it may not have even anything to do with Scott, is that the theatrical cut of Blade Runner was unavailable for so long.

[dvdmike]

I've always found it rather curious that Lucas and Spielberg are lambasted for re-editing their past work, yet Ridley Scott has always received a free pass time and time again for the same thing. How many films of his have been released in alternative versions, again? I dunno for sure but I'm guessing it's a lot. I have no doubt studio interference has a lot to do with it, but Scott has always seemed a little too eager to go back and change things for my liking. Slippery slope, that's all I'm saying.

I had a listen to the cast and director's commentary on Alien last night. Interesting to hear Scott elaborating on the Space Jockey and the Alien. His enthusiasm for the subject is very engaging. Apparently, the Alien was based on a grub that really exists, which burrows into the bark of a tree, and then lies in wait for an unfortunate victim to wander by so it can use it as a host to lay its eggs. He then describes the Space Jockey as a pilot on a mission to drop the alien eggs onto an unknown enemy. I had always thought the Alien's life cycle to be a massive design flaw - how it requires another species to reproduce, which I have to say is not strictly true according to Scott, but it got me thinking, if it was designed to be used as a weapon, then it's not a design flaw at all, it's actually quite ingenious. They send it in somewhere, it lays waste to everything, then it goes into a type of hibernation..and waits, perhaps for thousands of years, before being called into action again.

Damn it! I change my mind more than a woman. I'm actually slowly coming round to the idea of a prequel again. I'm sure there is a story in there somewhere.

One of Scott's other ideas regarding the Alien was laughably bad, though. At one point, Scott had the idea of the Alien killing Ripley aboard the escape pod, then the Alien mimicking Ripley's voice to broadcast an SOS to Earth. It took a phone call from a studio executive for Scott to wisely abandon that idea. Frightening to think how things could've been so different if it wasn't for that phone call, eh?

Scott is only second to Gillingham to being mesed around for his final cut, he had Blade Runner and Kingdon Of Heaven taken out of his hands.
As for the Lucas Speilberg thing, Scott does not remove all previous versions fron history

[dvdmike]

The fact you could not find the OG version of blade runner was down to warner bros, the directors cut was not even a real dc as he had no input at all.
The assembley was taken from a mid range workprint.

It could be just because I don't know enough about Scott's alternate cuts but I have seen nothing from him even remotely approaching the same league or even the same planet as Lucas' butchering of Star Wars and Spielberg's walkie-talkie incident or even cutting Jaws (and possibly other movies) while nobody was watching. Lucas goes out of his way to bull**** over his changes and would pretend the originals never existed if he could.

I've seen nothing like that from Scott. I've seen him re-edit Blade Runner a couple of times. One restoring it to the way he wanted it and another seemingly just to warrant a rerelease that probably would have happened with or without him and that cut changed very little of substance. And the quote on the Alien cut makes sense to me. There would have been another version of that film with cut scenes restored whether he was involved or not.

The only issue I had with what he did, and it may not have even anything to do with Scott, is that the theatrical cut of Blade Runner was unavailable for so long.

[PrayforMojo]

It could be just because I don't know enough about Scott's alternate cuts but I have seen nothing from him even remotely approaching the same league or even the same planet as Lucas' butchering of Star Wars and Spielberg's walkie-talkie incident or even cutting Jaws (and possibly other movies) while nobody was watching. Lucas goes out of his way to bull**** over his changes and would pretend the originals never existed if he could.

I've seen nothing like that from Scott. I've seen him re-edit Blade Runner a couple of times. One restoring it to the way he wanted it and another seemingly just to warrant a rerelease that probably would have happened with or without him and that cut changed very little of substance. And the quote on the Alien cut makes sense to me. There would have been another version of that film with cut scenes restored whether he was involved or not.

The only issue I had with what he did, and it may not have even anything to do with Scott, is that the theatrical cut of Blade Runner was unavailable for so long.

Granted, nothing in Scott's alternative cuts are as bad as Greedo shooting first, or the walkie-talkie thing, but I have always had a soft spot for the much maligned theatrical cut of Blade Runner. Hell, I even liked the voice-over. But while I did like the other versions, I always thought some of the poignancy was lost from them. I think it's mostly because I grew up with that version, so that's why I will always have a preference for it, even if Scott, Ford, or most other people for that matter, weren't particularly happy with it. I suppose it's perfectly understandable for a director to re-do something the way he originally intended years later. Personally, I just find it a little sad that things can be changed and those moments can be lost in time...like tears in the rain.

[dvdmike]

Looked into it a bit more and talked to some peeps and :

The 1979 theatrical version of Scott's ALIEN is his actual Director's Cut, depsite the fact that Fox gave his 2003 re-release the "director's cut" moniker.

The 1991 Special Edition of ALIENS is Cameron's preferred version. Although he does'nt despise the 1986 theatrical cut.

The 1997 theatrical version of ALIEN RESSURECTION is Jeunet's final cut. The 2003 Special Edition version was simply an added DVD bonus for fans of the film.

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, Scott pretty much said as much in that quote I got from wikipedia. But I'm surprised by Cameron and his preferred cut of Aliens. While the added sequences in the extended version are well done, I can see why they were cut and the film, to me, is a much more solid journey without the prelude bits.

And Mojo, I too like the theatrical cut of Blade Runner.

[dvdmike]

I like all cuts of blade runner, above all the workprint.
Maybe it's from spending god knows how many years hearing about it