The Thing prequel/remake

[drterror666]

Are you sure Ridley wasn't being a bit British and a bit tongue-in-cheek. I can't imagine him going into a film without a script. He did say that he'd based the film around an idea that he feels the fans missed in the original film, though.

[rlr]

Are you sure Ridley wasn't being a bit British and a bit tongue-in-cheek. I can't imagine him going into a film without a script. He did say that he'd based the film around an idea that he feels the fans missed in the original film, though.

sadly not, i am from the same town as him and didn't spot any taking the proverbial. the interview was all around the time of Avatar being declared the greatest film of all time (imo it is not even in the top one thousand) so perhaps he was under some pressure to "make a 3D film" like everyone else was.

the approach seems to be "i want to make a 3D film and Alien will do" rather than "i want to revisit Alien, and i might as well make use of this 3D technology". a big difference, which is causing me to lower my expectations.

blessed be Christopher Nolan for not only refusing to use 3D ("artists are supposed to create depth, not have a computer do it" were his exact words) but also for having a guarantee from Warner that they cannot under any circumstances convert his films.

[Kel E]

I think it may well be a paycheck for him and his only shot at doing a sci-fi film (since the studios wont pay for anything that isnt attached to a brand name). Seems that the fight he is having is about whether it will be R rated or PG-13 and how much of a connection to Alien there is-which probably isnt much.
Some of his films do have less than stellar scripts (Gladiator) and yet were visually interesting so I expect about the same here. Sounds like he is going for a Chariots of the Gods concept somewhere in it based on things he has said. But he already talked of a sequel so there we go again--film isnt even out yet and yet its not the complete story. I miss the old days when a movie didnt automatically have a sequel to go before the first one was out.

[TheRoadWarrior]

I think it may well be a paycheck for him and his only shot at doing a sci-fi film (since the studios wont pay for anything that isnt attached to a brand name). Seems that the fight he is having is about whether it will be R rated or PG-13 and how much of a connection to Alien there is-which probably isnt much.
Some of his films do have less than stellar scripts (Gladiator) and yet were visually interesting so I expect about the same here. Sounds like he is going for a Chariots of the Gods concept somewhere in it based on things he has said. But he already talked of a sequel so there we go again--film isnt even out yet and yet its not the complete story. I miss the old days when a movie didnt automatically have a sequel to go before the first one was out.

That whole sequel thing is interesting, because they started making sequels, two at a time, just to save money/time/sets....

It almost sounds like the model is becoming.... "this has got to be good enough to go into sequel" to be worth backing in the first place.

I remember when Alex Cox was doing Moviedrome back in the day, and he was always talking about movies not having to cost a whole heap of cash, but that's all we seem to see nowadays.

I like both of the early versions of THE THING.

Always think of the way it contributes to the atmosphere of HALLOWEEN, along with Forbidden Planet playing on that background B&W set.

[Kel E]

I read an article that said movie studios are now mostly run by marketing teams that base their decisions on how it appeals to certain demographics and they plan the marketing a year or two in advance. Its all pseudo-scientific calculations and detached from the idea of making a movie because it may be fun or interesting. Creative decisions get influenced by this-thus they stick young people into roles they may be too young for (i.e. Lois Lane in the last Superman movie). As older directors like Scott disappear, they will be replaced by people who came out of commercials I bet-since they would understand the mentality of marketing philosophy the most. They dont make a movie and then find the audience for it--they make the movie to appeal to a certain audience-but its all devoid of traditional creative thinking so it comes across mechanical and devoid of spirit. Lowest common denominator etc.

[TheRoadWarrior]

I've read some of the books on Movie Money, I think there's a book by that name, and I had it once and got rid of it, anyway, on how HW works and it's full of the stuff in your post... Have you read William Goldman's book 'Adventures in the Screen Trade', it's a little dated now but I think most of it probably still stands. Nothing new under the sun.

[Kel E]

Heard of it havent read it though.

[drterror666]

No wonder I tend to stick with films from he 90's going backwards. Modern stuff can be so crap. I really hope Scott does a good job with Prometheus, though. It's supposed to be the first part of a two part prequel.

[Kel E]

Well Prometheus will apparently have a PG-13 rating so Scott lost the argument and there are toy tie-ins for the movie(although I dont think that is such a big deal-the original ALIEN had an action figure). But I think its disappointing as I have seen the other 4 in theaters and now I dont think I want to see one unofficial edited version then see the R rated one later.

[TheRoadWarrior]

No wonder I tend to stick with films from he 90's going backwards. Modern stuff can be so crap. I really hope Scott does a good job with Prometheus, though. It's supposed to be the first part of a two part prequel.

Never thought I'd reach a time where I'd give up on flim, and go into reverse.

I still remain open-minded and watch flims from post-2000, but ahh, I don't know, the style, the editing, apparently Halloween is slow and boring now.

It's not that those shots down a street with leaves blowing about and Carpenter's score is creepy and menacing, no... it has to be edited into overdrive, speeded up, the way I see it is something like this -- in Halloween there's a palpable sense of menace, there's something very dark, bad, evil, call it what you will, in those suburban streets, we are looking at something in tone and vibe that just bristles out of the screen, even though there's "nothing happening" there's more happening than if we track through quickly, and give it all away, explain it all in exposition, if made now, it would be all upfront, and cut, cut, cut.... no time to estab. mood.

Any risk that somebody would walk out becauase of pacing, or even 'not get it', probably scares HW execs to death. They're not dumb, in fact they're probably very smart, but they need to keep their jobs.

I know that there are many 70s films that are trite and dull, or do suffer from pacing problems, but that's not the same thing. It could be because they are heist movies, and so that demands very quick movement or a style suited and developed for that genre, car chases for example, French Connection.

I don't know, this is just my opinion, something's gone very wrong, the technology is better than ever, so that should help. Or maybe nothing is better than 35mm and sets.

[Kel E]

The last Hollywood movie I recall that I felt really scored on all fronts for me was the Mask of Zorro which wasnt something I thought I would like in re-viewing and I am not really a big Zorro fan but I thought it had a lot of energy even when it was recycling old territory and very low-tech. Since then I havent seen anything that I consider so engaging--a few comic book movies are ok but not really things I get blown away by.
I did like Rambo 4 and Rocky 6, but I had some minor problems with both.

Dan Curtis mentioned in an interview on the Night Stalker dvd how television companies had changed by the 2000s-when he tried pitching ideas they didnt want to do anything that might be a risk and didnt care if an idea sounded fun. I think book and magazine publishers are the same--but in that case the fees collected by writers have gone way down, not up, and the markets have diminished. I think corporate takeovers were the worst thing to happen to production companies.

[drterror666]

So, I suppose we come back to the illegal downloading argument. Why should any film company create films that are risky when they can just rehash older films and stick to the teen-friendly formula? The films are just going to be downloaded illegally anyway, which means lost revenue.

Are the people who are downloading illegally moaning that films today are boring and the same old crap?

[Kel E]

I think its a false argument. The studios inherit audiences, they dont create them and they also dictate what people watch, not the other way around. If they made five risky movies a week instead of five lowest common denominator films the teenagers would go see whatever one sounded the most appealing I bet since they want to get out and do something. I think the people who bemoan new movies the most probably stop watching them, or wait years to finally see them (speaking for myself).

Someone who would take the time to download a new movie-even a bootleg-is a sucker for punishment!

[thehamish]

I read an article that said movie studios are now mostly run by marketing teams that base their decisions on how it appeals to certain demographics and they plan the marketing a year or two in advance. Its all pseudo-scientific calculations and detached from the idea of making a movie because it may be fun or interesting. Creative decisions get influenced by this-thus they stick young people into roles they may be too young for (i.e. Lois Lane in the last Superman movie). As older directors like Scott disappear, they will be replaced by people who came out of commercials I bet-since they would understand the mentality of marketing philosophy the most. They dont make a movie and then find the audience for it--they make the movie to appeal to a certain audience-but its all devoid of traditional creative thinking so it comes across mechanical and devoid of spirit. Lowest common denominator etc.

But Ridley Scott came out of a commercial background??. What you really mean is people who will be pleased to be part of a machine, and have NO creative ideas of their own, thus be willing to pander to the LCD, see Micheal Bay, McG, etc.

[Kel E]

Scott came out of commercials and television dramas. Not commercials exclusively.

[drterror666]

Anyway, with that...

...wasn't this thread about The Thing prequel?

[thehamish]

Sadly, yes it is.....

[drterror666]

It seems a bit like a Marmite film. Some people love it and others hate it. I'll watch it when it comes out and see what I think.

[jockfun28]

I actually really like the film sure it has a couplee of problems, but visually it is stunning, predict we will still be debating the merits of this one in 30 years time a prequel to a box office disaster that became mammoth in the home video market xxx

[anyendup]

cant they do someting else instead of doing remakes prequels it does my heaD IN.