CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › FOX PLEASED WITH CHEAPER ALIEN SCRIPT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FOX PLEASED WITH CHEAPER ALIEN SCRIPT

post #1 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:30am
Thread Starter 
Possible PG-13 Alien prequel.

More...
Reply
post #2 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:36am
There is no way in hell a pg 13 Alien film could work. It boggles the mind that Fox would even consider it.
Reply
post #3 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:40am
Interest gone.
Reply
post #4 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:41am
I just puked in my mouth, this series doesn't lend itself to a PG-13 rating. A creature raping your face is PG-13?
Reply
post #5 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:43am
Natalie Portman as a tough Colonial Marine General.

I'll say that again: Natalie Portman as a tough Colonial Marine General.

Welp.
Reply
post #6 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:45am
Let´s just pray that Aronofsky pays very close attention to this development at Fox.
Reply
post #7 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:46am
Yup, nothing says tough Colonial Marine General like a 25 year old supermodel's face.
Reply
post #8 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:50am
Fuck this movie. A PG 13 Alien? Fuck no.

Many would say that the original wouldn't need to have much trimmed to get PG 13 anyway but I say fuck that. If a movie comes to its rating organically, so be it. Cutting and changing stuff to reach a rating, especially in a movie like fucking Alien is one more sign that it will disappoint.
Reply
post #9 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:51am
Hopefully Ridley nixes this and moves on to something else.
Reply
post #10 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:53am
oh, wait, Natalie Portman is wanted to play a soft female character, who suddenly toughens up at the end, and becomes the hero. Wow, that is original. MGM needs to use Foxs toothbrush so Fox catches whatever illness MGM has right now.
Reply
post #11 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
Hopefully Ridley nixes this and moves on to something else.
Second that. I don't need another ALIEN, and neither does Ridley. I'd much rather see him make something else.
Reply
post #12 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
Natalie Portman as a tough Colonial Marine General.

I'll say that again: Natalie Portman as a tough Colonial Marine General.
Well fuck me with a chainsaw.
Reply
post #13 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:54am
They Lost me at Lindelof. <---Awful, I know.

Portman's great, but hard to see her as a Weaver precursor. Maybe if she brought along her Wonder Emporium edge.

Anyway, haven't they shit apart this franchise enough?
Reply
post #14 of 57
10/13/10 at 10:55am
Why bother in the first place? Is the franchise that profitable to be a tentpole project in 2012 (or whatever).

If Sir Ridley bails, I'm betting this rotts in development hell for years...
Reply
post #15 of 57
10/13/10 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
Natalie Portman as a tough Colonial Marine General.

I'll say that again: Natalie Portman as a tough Colonial Marine General.

Welp.
You took the exact wording and structure right out of my mouth. I like Portman and all, but man... get a hold of yourself, Hollywood.

Also, might, might be good to not try to do the whole female hero thing again. Might.

Also: fuck these developments. If a PG-13 rating just happens to organically fall out of this thing, then fine. But don't go shoving it on Scott (assuming he wants anything to do with this new treatment, which we have to presume isn't even in script stage).


Also, if Lindelof has his finger in it, maybe lots of mystery will be preserved after all?
Reply
post #16 of 57
10/13/10 at 11:24am
It actually makes a ton of sense for Fox to go after Portman for the lead role, since the Oscar buzz for Black Swan should make her a very hot commodity in a matter of months, but I say (since Fox will definitely listen to me on an internet forum) rewrite the main part for a rising talented actor like Alden Ehrenreich to carry the film, we don't need a retread of the Ripley character again, god dammit. Still, everything about this project seems like it could easily slide out of control and turn into a hunk of poo. Fuck that PG-13 talk in the ass, Fox. Nobody wants that. They are reverting back to their classic "fuck artistry - show me the money" philosophy, which I thought they were starting to turn away from when they are hiring really artistically driven auteurs for some of their upcoming blockbusters (Vaughn, Aronofsky, etc.).
Reply
post #17 of 57
10/13/10 at 11:42am
Casting Natalie Portman reminds me too much of the casting of Winona Ryder in 'Alien Resurrection'. I don't want to see another waif fighting off aliens.
Reply
post #18 of 57
10/13/10 at 11:44am
Maybe they meant Colonial marine officer, not necessarily general. Because, yeah Portman seems way too young to be able to pull that off.

And I still don't know if she'd be right for that role. Michelle Rodriquez? Hehe.
Reply
post #19 of 57
10/13/10 at 11:47am
Well, this can't be good news. If Ridley can't steer the boat on this one he'd probably be better off just letting it go. It's apparent that we don't NEED another one of these, but another Alien flick from Ridley Scott, on HIS terms and as tough and nasty as he wants it to be, would definitely be worth seeing. I'll definitely be looking out for more news on this one as it develops (or falls apart).
Reply
post #20 of 57
10/13/10 at 11:54am
Wasn't it a $250 million budget he was after?
Reply
post #21 of 57
10/13/10 at 11:57am
Yeah, this fucking sucks. I know I'll still see it even if it's released as a PG-13, because I'm me, and I love the Aliens franchise, but this just blows.

The budget was $150 million? I thought Fox was making a big stink over it costing $500 million? $150 million should be like $10 million to them. Give Sir Ridley carte blanche with the $150 million to make his nasty movie.
Reply
post #22 of 57
10/13/10 at 12:05pm
Here we go, Mr. Murphy's off by $100 mil. If it were $150m, I doubt they'd have an issue.

http://www.chud.com/articles/article...CEY/Page1.html

Sucks that we're going to get a neutered version, but that doesn't mean the movie's going to suck. Except for one chestburster scene each, the first two movies weren't exactly gore fests. It's the harsh language I'll miss....

EDIT: Rene, you may be thinking about The Hobbit with the $500m budget.
Reply
post #23 of 57
10/13/10 at 12:16pm
Going back to the well of having a female lead whether she's playing a bad-ass Marine or someone more akin to Ripley in the first film is just stupid and kind of misses the point. I remember seeing a documentary about Alien and when it was released and how big of a surprise it was for audiences that a woman the the survivor and heroine of the story. Now having a female lead is par for the course for the franchise and the more similar you make it to the previous entries the more you're asking for unfair comparisons. As much as I would like to see Ridley Scott create another horror/sci-fi hybrid I'm just not too interest in all the baggage this franchise brings with it at this point.
Reply
post #24 of 57
10/13/10 at 12:33pm
I'm getting real tired of the lame attempts at shoehorning continuity into these "prequel" films. First, we got the stupid idea of putting Aliens on Earth during modern day, but that was W.S. Anderson so it figured. This, though, sticks in my craw.

So, if this is a prequel, and there are Colonial Marines discovering the ship before the Nostromo, why then the bull headed denial from the company about the creature's existence? Not to mention undercutting the feeling in Alien that they were disturbing something that had laid dormant for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. It begs the question: WHY make this a prequel? What is gained from redressing Portman (or similarly waifish actress) as Ripley, except before Ripley?
Reply
post #25 of 57
10/13/10 at 12:37pm
It's like, DESTINY, man.
Reply
post #26 of 57
10/13/10 at 12:39pm
With Lindelof, you know there will be literary allusions and twists. I predict that the alien ship's name is Phurg O' Torry, which is a red herring because the aliens were ghosts the whole time.
Reply
post #27 of 57
10/13/10 at 12:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeypants View Post
It's like, DESTINY, man.
Where's that hammer?
Reply
post #28 of 57
10/13/10 at 12:50pm
Just enjoy next month's box set, and spend your time thinking about where the space jockey came from, what the aliens really are, where did they come from, where the Company came from, where Ash's programming came from, and then NOT MAKE A FUCKING MOVIE ABOUT IT. That's what I plan on doing.

Sorry Sir Scott. I'm out.
Reply
post #29 of 57
10/13/10 at 12:50pm
I doubt they will kill Portman off either. So how do you have a character survive, yet not remember what transpired...

Fox,.... Rothman, a little help here? How can me make this prequel work.

"Memory Erasing Bullets"

there you have it.
Reply
post #30 of 57
10/13/10 at 12:54pm
Where's the story in an Alien prequel? Why refuse to expand on the world they've created by answering certain questions, like who and what are the species represented by the dead pilot of the derelict ship in the first film? What's the point of retreading old ground and doing a simple scare flick? And when they have expanded the story in the past, why have they gone the cheap and silly route of exploring the artificial tie-in with the Predator series? If they can do that why must they never explore the more interesting question of why there is no effort to make contact with an intelligent alien species when there is obvious evidence one or more of them exist?

Why are the humans always so interested in a hive-species with animal intelligence that can be turned into a bio-weapon, and never at all interested in learning about an entire other civilization that has advanced technology and space travel. WTF is up with the priorities of people in this future?
Reply
post #31 of 57
10/13/10 at 12:57pm
A worse decision than casting Reiko Aylesworth as a tough US soldier?
Reply
post #32 of 57
10/13/10 at 2:06pm
Is there a way to bookmark this thread? I want to bring it back when production news and photos start leaking and you all change your opinions on this.
Reply
post #33 of 57
10/13/10 at 2:12pm
In firefox, it's Bookmarks --> Add Bookmark.
Reply
post #34 of 57
10/13/10 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
Is there a way to bookmark this thread? I want to bring it back when production news and photos start leaking and you all change your opinions on this.
I've been checked out of this franchise since 1998. Short of the teaser trailer for this being the cinematic equivalent of getting a blowjob from Christina Hendricks, I don't see any reason to check back in.
Reply
post #35 of 57
10/13/10 at 2:16pm
If Portman does end up getting cast in this film, I'm hoping they pull a swerve and kill her character off at the beginning of the 2nd act. If they do care about perserving the cannon of the film, I can't see any "good" guy surviving. Film has to end with Weyland Yutani finding out about the species, and that would be another cool swerve in having the slimy company guy, survive.
Reply
post #36 of 57
10/13/10 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor View Post
In firefox, it's Bookmarks --> Add Bookmark.
I love you.

Not crazy about this idea. I wish Scott would do something newt.
Reply
post #37 of 57
10/13/10 at 2:29pm
My interest in this just frittered away. A PG-13 Alien? And I think Natalie Portman is the bees knees and cute as a button, but as a Ripley-type action chick?

What is she, 100 lbs soaking wet? She and Hit Girl/Chloe Moretz look about the same size; I mean, unless Fox is going for tongue firmly in cheek Kick-Ass type action here, I don't get it.
Reply
post #38 of 57
10/13/10 at 2:29pm
I think that the Alien franchise should stay rated R, even though in principle I have no problem with PG-13. Most of it has to do with how psychologically scary the films should be, as opposed to graphic violence. But also, I actually think that an R rating would help the film financially. Rightly or wrongly, casual fans would see it as more of a genuine sequel as opposed to some watered-down cash-in.
Reply
post #39 of 57
10/13/10 at 2:50pm
Much of my thoughts have been aired already, but this pissed me the fuck off:

Quote:
"The thinking," explains one insider, "is that if the original Alien were released today, minus the F-bombs, you could still get a PG-13. Alien is a very Jaws-ian movie: There’s no sex, and while there’s lots of violence, most of it is off-camera. Maybe you’d have to cut away from certain scenes two seconds earlier, but it could be done."
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There's a lot of borderline R-rated films that have come recently: Cloverfield, The Dark Knight, and Drag Me to Hell for starters, but none of those had ANYTHING as graphic as the chestburster scene, which is more graphic than anything in the movies I just mentioned. Also, do you really think a malfunctioning android spewing a substance that heavily resembles SEMEN is going to get a PG-13? No.

Also, Jaws wouldn't even pass for a PG-13 today, nor would Philip Kaufman's Invasion of the Body Snatchers (which features one of the single most frightening images on film EVER), Prophecy, or even the friggin' Manitou. End of story.
Reply
post #40 of 57
10/13/10 at 2:57pm
Yeah, ALIEN's an R. These days, it's a pretty solid R. Dude gets teethed in the brain, and whatever's happening to Lambert and that alien... tail? certainly doesn't sound pleasant. The chestbursting scene, that goes without saying.

ALIENS is an R. People get killed, set on fire, chestbursted, exploded, acid-burned, children get terrorized, and there's a few F-bombs to boot.

ALIEN 3 is a spectacular R. One guy gets his whole face 'sploded. People get munched on, someone plays whack-an-ear with human Bishop's head, and Ripley gets chestbursted. There's a near-rape, and more blood than in ALIENS.

I don't like to think of ALIEN RESSURECTION much, but I remember a bizarre Ripley/alien love scene, weird nude Ripalien hybrids (with tits and pubes!), lots of goop and blood, and one guy gets killed when a chestburster goes through him out of another guy.

These films are R for a reason. It's thematic. You're gutting the meaning of these films by downplaying that aspect of it. Hell, ever seen Giger's paintings? They're full of violence and fuck.
Reply
post #41 of 57
10/13/10 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
ALIENS is an R. People get killed, set on fire, chestbursted, exploded, acid-burned, children get terrorized, and there's a few F-bombs to boot.
ALIENS is scary, but aside from the Chestburster/Colonist bit before the Marines get wiped out is it really that gory? It's more chaotic and noisy than anything else.
Reply
post #42 of 57
10/13/10 at 3:06pm
Of the four, ALIENS is the one that could squeak closest to a PG-13, I'll agree. With some editing and dropping of the f-bomb, it definitely could be. I'd hate for any f-bombs to be dropped though. Hudson's last "FUCK YOU!" as he's dragged down... can't cut that, man!
Reply
post #43 of 57
10/13/10 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
ALIENS is scary, but aside from the Chestburster/Colonist bit before the Marines get wiped out is it really that gory? It's more chaotic and noisy than anything else.
Do you not remember the marine who gets a Alien mouththing to the head?
Reply
post #44 of 57
10/13/10 at 3:11pm
The whole psychosexual subtext is what made Alien such an effectively horrifying, and inherently adult, R-rated affair. It's not even the gore, which in this day and age probably would garner a pg-13.

This news, if correct, dampens any interest I had in the project. And I wasn't really enthused about all of the mystery of the original film being stripped away in the first place.
Reply
post #45 of 57
10/13/10 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
Do you not remember the marine who gets a Alien mouththing to the head?
You mean the dropship pilot? Closeup of mouth thing extending, then cut to hands flailing on window, smearing blood. Tame stuff. Aside from the chestburster scene and the swearing, Aliens could be shown on TV these days.
Reply
post #46 of 57
10/13/10 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
Of the four, ALIENS is the one that could squeak closest to a PG-13, I'll agree. With some editing and dropping of the f-bomb, it definitely could be. I'd hate for any f-bombs to be dropped though. Hudson's last "FUCK YOU!" as he's dragged down... can't cut that, man!
they allow one F-Bomb, so the MPAA would give you that.

Both AvP films showed that making a film to garner a certian rating is a mistake. As much as we complain about the PG-13 rating, the Hard R rating in AvP:R didn't improve the film, nor add anything to it. Instead, AvP:Rs constant push of gore, and swearing made it a unintentially funny. It did do the impossible though, and make AvP look better.

I'm of the opinion, write the script with no rating in mind, and whatever the rating is, so be it.
Reply
post #47 of 57
10/13/10 at 4:01pm
I think aiming for any specific rating right off the bat is a mistake, but if the movie ends up being PG-13, then so be it. I'm more concerned with other things beyond the amount of gore or fucks.

As for the casting, I'd love to see Noomi Rapace get the role over Portman. I love Portman to death, but Rapace has a toughness that Portman doesn't have, and It'd be awesome for her to get some exposure state side.
Reply
post #48 of 57
10/13/10 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli View Post
Natalie Portman as a tough Colonial Marine General.

I'll say that again: Natalie Portman as a tough Colonial Marine General.

Welp.
Yeah, the idea of her in an Alien film doesn't work for me really... much less the idea of her as a Marine (or a General.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick View Post
They Lost me at Lindelof. <---Awful, I know.
Please don't excuse this kind of thing. It's what makes The CHUD Show The CHUD Show... and anything reminiscent of that is a good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
ALIENS is scary, but aside from the Chestburster/Colonist bit before the Marines get wiped out is it really that gory? It's more chaotic and noisy than anything else.
This is a very good point. There are moments of gore, of course, but arguably the goriest moment (Bishop's unrequested halving) doesn't feature "blood" but gooey android* innards. A lot of the other stuff is restrained - in a good way - with plenty of implied horror and megapain.

* Sorry, "artificial person."

(*insert your own political correctness gone mad joke here.*)
Reply
post #49 of 57
10/13/10 at 5:08pm
I love that she is a colonial marine. I thought the "shake and bake" colonies happened after Alien, so why are their colonial marines before off planet colonies?
Reply
post #50 of 57
10/13/10 at 5:08pm
Somebody needs to coach Portman on how to believably hold and fire an automatic weapon.

She looked rediculous trying to "shoot" droids in episode two.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › FOX PLEASED WITH CHEAPER ALIEN SCRIPT