Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am now going to play the Roddenberry Card! Since the true "creator" (Panzer) died in 2007, there is no one with the proper vision to make this story a proper Highlander tale! Besides, everyobe knows the proper way to do this is to do a Prequel Reboot!

$$ They do it for the money$$,IMO Hollywood lacks any real creative vision and basicly churns out what ever garbage they belive will draw in the raisenette munching morons and their cash.

dietrich wrote:This sounds like a regular problem with Hollywood - and that is Hollywood. Why did Alien 3 end up like it did? Hollywood, because the suits thought they couldn't make an Alien movie without Weaver, so she got all her demands (and she's an anti-gun person, so they had to take out all the firepower). They wanted a 'new' director, so they hired Fincher (who's ok, but this was his first film, iirc), and my guess is that was mostly so he'd be cheap.

It was his first movie, but his selection has nothing to do with price. The Alien films had previously chosen young directors in James Cameron and Ridley Scott, who had each brought the franchise a lot of success. Note that despite the disappointment of Alien 3 they still continued to give the franchise to a director with no English speaking movies to his name with Alien 4.

The big issue with Alien 3 was the involvement of countless backroom folk. They loved the idea of giving the franchise to a talented young director, they just weren't actually willing to take any of the risks that would entail. So you get a strange hybrid script that's no-one is really entirely responsible for, and a film with a three hour running time cut to a largely incoherent two and a bit for final release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote: $$ They do it for the money$$,IMO Hollywood lacks any real creative vision and basicly churns out what ever garbage they belive will draw in the raisenette munching morons and their cash.

Why would Hollywood want or need creativity? People don't go and watch creative movies. They watched the latest instalment of franchises and films starring famous people.

Hollywood is pure capitalism, and they follow the dollars ruthlessly. If you've noticed that most movies are pretty dreadful ideas, that's because they're the dreadful ideas that people go to see. It is our fault.

I seem to remember reading that Fincher fell out with the studio so was totally removed from the editing process. As a result the final product was really rather far removed from Finchers original vision. This is a real pity as we all know what a great director Fincher is and I can't help but feel that even without the guns if Fincher had been allow to keep control we could have had a great movie on our hands. A better script writer would have helped as well, or at least someone that had paid attention to the first 2 films. Since when did the Alien 'kill on sight'?

As for Alien Resurrection, I think it's a great film, right up until the last 20 minutes which ruin it completely. Even Joss Wheedon was pissed off with that apparently.

temprus wrote:I am now going to play the Roddenberry Card! Since the true "creator" (Panzer) died in 2007, there is no one with the proper vision to make this story a proper Highlander tale! Besides, everyobe knows the proper way to do this is to do a Prequel Reboot!

How is Panzer the true creator?

LuciusAR wrote:I seem to remember reading that Fincher fell out with the studio so was totally removed from the editing process. As a result the final product was really rather far removed from Finchers original vision. This is a real pity as we all know what a great director Fincher is and I can't help but feel that even without the guns if Fincher had been allow to keep control we could have had a great movie on our hands. A better script writer would have helped as well, or at least someone that had paid attention to the first 2 films. Since when did the Alien 'kill on sight'?

Yeah, given Fincher’s other movies, I think he has a sensibility that could have produced an excellent Alien movie. Unfortunately the studio had changed and wasn’t capable of giving free reign to a young director any more, and Weaver’s much publicised interference.

I don’t think the guns issue was much of a problem though, fighting an Alien without weapons sounds like a pretty solid concept to me. Most of the failings of the film were in the mess of secondary characters that were nearly impossible to tell apart and the woeful pacing (both of which are direct results of the studio wanting a different movie than the one Fincher had made).

As for Alien Resurrection, I think it's a great film, right up until the last 20 minutes which ruin it completely. Even Joss Wheedon was pissed off with that apparently.

Yeah, it’s a really excellent movie up until that last twenty minutes, which I’d argue makes the whole experience worse. I mean, if you’re eating poo cake you’re kind of prepared for the fact that you’re eating poo. Alien vs Predator (the first or second film, it doesn’t matter which) is clearly poo cake from the beginning. Alien 4 is more like a delicious mudcake, but the last bite is actually poo. Here you’re not prepared at all for the poo, and maybe the shock is worse than eating a whole cake of poo.

If anyone read that whole analogy I’m impressed because it was very silly.