Alien prequel 100% confirmed by Ridley Scott

Post by **King of Creation** » Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:53 am

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/16980/ ... en-prequel

Director Ridley Scott ("Gladiator," "Robin Hood") tells MTV News that after years of talking about it, script work on the "Alien" prequel is well underway with a fourth draft currently sitting on his desk.

"It's a work in progress, but we're not dreaming it up anymore. We know what the story is. We're now actually trying to improve the three acts and make the characters better, build it up to something [we can shoot]. It's a work in progress, but we're actually making the film. There's no question about it, we're going to make the film... Now it's a matter of, how good can I get the screenplay in the next few weeks so I can get a good ballpark figure of what it will cost. I've already got people working graphically on designs" says Scott.

Surprisingly Scott was more forthcoming than expected about the story which will be set in 2085, 30 years before Ellen Ripley is born, but will have a female lead. Of the story Scott says he's finally going to solve the mystery of a key scene in the 1979 original.

"It's fundamentally about going out to find out 'Who the hell was that Space Jockey?' The guy who was sitting in the chair in the alien vehicle - there was a giant fellow sitting in a seat on what looked to be either a piece of technology or an astronomer's chair... I'm basically explaining who that Space Jockey â€” we call him the Space Jockey â€” I'm explaining who the space jockeys were." says Scott.

For those who don't remember or have never seen Scott's original, the story followed the human crew of the starship Nostromo touching down on the unexplored planet LV-426 to investigate a signal. They come upon a crashed spacecraft containing the fossilised remains of the pilot (the Space Jockey) and a vast cargo hold full of alien eggs. Despite being from an obviously different alien species to the titular xenomorphs, the Space Jockey's origins are never explored or really talked about onscreen outside of that scene.

Scott adds the film's 'company' won't be the Weyland-Yutani company yet - just Weyland. Also the story will deal with their early attempts at terraforming planets.

Scott says that he'll likely have to redesign the creatures "I think, therefore, I have to design - or redesign - earlier versions of what these elements are that led to the thing you finally see in "Alien," which is the thing that catapults out of the egg, the face-hugger. I don't want to repeat it. The alien in a sense, as a shape, is worn out."

Release date wise, Scott says "we're hoping to have it in theaters in late 2011, or maybe the best date in 2012."

Update: More details have emerged from HitFix where Scott confirms they'll film in 3D and the project isn't one but two films - "Prequels. Two films." The movies however will NOT be shot back-to-back, it's the first one that is following the release plans above.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:25 pm

Eww, I should be excited, but I'm sure it'll be crap.

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:06 am

Ridley Scott will, without a doubt, cock-up the only truly great film he ever made.

Kickstand27 · Post by **Kickstand27** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:13 am

ya bladerunner was shit, right?
its only being introduced into the library of congress.

i dont really like the idea of changing the face huggers though.. its supposed to be set 30 yours prior to Alien, but they are gonna go with a completely different "larva" type?
dont AVP this!

ekkaman · Post by **ekkaman** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:18 am

Why 3-D?

Post by **Manoil** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:28 am

Agreed. This has potential to be decent, but potential to be shit if he decides to fuck up the species' canon. Why don't they show any more of the different mutations caused by alternate hosts?
Why don't they just show a historical depiction of the Jockeys creating the Xenomorphes for their intergalactic civil war?

Why doesn't anyone consider making a Predator: Concrete Jungle movie?

Yonmanc · Post by **Yonmanc** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:28 am

ekkaman wrote:Why 3-D?

PICS REMOVED

wtf is wrong with you

ekkaman · Post by **ekkaman** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:15 am

That last pic is disturbing, hot but disturbing.

Post by **Retlaw83** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:23 am

Kickstand27 wrote:ya bladerunner was shit, right?
its only being introduced into the library of congress.

You do realize the Library of Congress contains everything ever filed for copyright in the United States, right?

Kickstand27 · Post by **Kickstand27** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:44 am

Retlaw83 wrote:
Kickstand27 wrote:ya bladerunner was shit, right?
its only being introduced into the library of congress.
You do realize the Library of Congress contains everything ever filed for copyright in the United States, right?

See also: National Film Registry, smart ass

Post by **Manoil** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:54 am

Yonmanc · Post by **Yonmanc** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:12 pm

Yonmanc wrote:
ekkaman wrote:Why 3-D?
PICS REMOVED

wtf is wrong with you

That's sum bewlshit dawg

Seriously though, whover removed my pictures is a fagg0t with no sense of humour and really needs to get laid, probably with a woman but that's not likely to happen now is it lol

Post by **Retlaw83** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:54 pm

Kickstand27 wrote: See also: National Film Registry, smart ass

Have you tried saying what you mean right off the bat, instead of miscommunicating then acting like the people who can't read your poor excuse for a mind are the assholes?

Kickstand27 · Post by **Kickstand27** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:00 pm

Retlaw83 wrote:
Kickstand27 wrote: See also: National Film Registry, smart ass
Have you tried saying what you mean right off the bat, instead of miscommunicating then acting like the people who can't read your poor excuse for a mind are the assholes?

wow, . go tell the editor for USA today that their writers need firing for not distinguishing which facet of the library of congress Blade Runner was inducted into.
or better yet, dont jump to conclusions over such trivial shit, if thats possible.

Either way, my point stands. Blade Runner is a great movie.

Yonmanc · Post by **Yonmanc** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:36 pm

I havn't seen it. Sounds good though from what I've heard, you recommend it Kick?

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:39 pm

Blade Runner was not the shit. No. It wasn't. It really, really wasn't. Visually and conceptually it was important, but it was all a little artfag if you ask me. "Am I real?", crying in the rain, doves are symbolicals and shit, homosexual gay. It was all a bit of critic bait, and they seem to still be eating it. I haven't seen a cut of it yet that I could call compelling outside of the visual style.

It is kind of like watching Roshomon, you know it is important, and why, but aside from the narrative innovation it is a bit unwatchable, and saying it is one of your "fav films" makes you a horrible, horrible cunt. Same with Kane. Astounding visual innovation, but there are a lot more flaws than most "serious" people would care to acknowledge. Anyone watching it outside of an educational context should be shot in or around the asshole with a large caliber pistol.

Yonmanc · Post by **Yonmanc** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:41 pm

So I shouldn't watch it is what you're saying?

Kickstand27 · Post by **Kickstand27** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:45 pm

indeed, I would..

as far as "critic bait" it didnt do well with critics originally..

sorry if you cant see any meaning in the movie, or if its not fast paced enough for you.

Yonmanc · Post by **Yonmanc** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:46 pm

Run through the premise, what's it about?

Aonaran · Post by **Aonaran** » Tue Apr 27, 2010 7:50 pm

Yonmanc wrote:Run through the premise, what's it about?

Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer are two cyborgs from different sides of the tracks who want to buttfuck each other but it just isn't in the cards. This makes Rutger Hauer sad so he cries a bit while stroking white doves.