So Ridley Scott is directing a Prometheus sequel... (The official Alien: Covenant Thread)

[publicist 4,643]

Never reason with ideology.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

8 hours ago, Richard said:

Nick, sadly, your last sentence sums up the whole discussion; the state of modern cinema.

Today, cinema is: MCU, DCU, SWU, KK/GU, X-MEN U, any other fucking U you care to mention, live-action remakes, and the fag-end of all these "gross-out", Amy Schumer vehicles.

What's left, when all the money has gone on that crap?

Once upon a time, our Ridley could choose his projects, and make them, with confidence, and originality. Nowadays, like most, if not all, directors, he is, simply, working for the man. If the man says "we want to see Matt Damon on Mars, thank you very much", then Scott puts Matt Damon on Mars, and art gets well and truly buggered. It's not Scott's fault; he's simply adapting to modern cinematic tastes. That he's lasted this long, is a miracle in itself.

 

Why is Ridley so subject to this kind of manipulation while some newcomers hold a great deal of autonomy?  No, I don't think your argument works.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Agreed. Scott can do what he wants if it's within reason and budget.

[A24 4,345]

It's like Dennie Christian said on TV last night, if people like you for a certain style, then studios expect you to continue that route forever. 

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

3 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Agreed. Scott can do what he wants if it's within reason and budget.

 

Perhaps. But when the budget gets big enough (i.e. almost anything Ridley Scott works on these days), the studio is going to want, and have, a say.

 

I don't even know which directors these days can work on a big film with NO studio interference? Spielberg. Maybe. Anyone else? I'm sure even Nolan has to take notes.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

For a director of Scott's stature this can never be an excuse.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

What I don't understand is why a director like Ridley Scott, who can pretty much do anything he wishes (as you said, within reason and budget) would choose to remake his own films. And then plan on doing at least one more. The guy only has so many more films left in him, so I'm not sure what his reasons are. Maybe he really has a renewed passion for the Alien mythology. Maybe it's the sure thing money.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Why did Roland Emmerich remake Independence Day as an inferior sequel? Rather shamelessly I'll add. And also aggressively pursue remaking Stargate until the financiers hit the brakes after IDR's abysmal returns? Not only is it a money thing, these old fogies want to recapture past glories to confirm their own hubris, some more successfully than others.

[A24 4,345]

15 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I don't even know which directors these days can work on a big film with NO studio interference? Spielberg. Maybe. 

 

Maybe not entirely the same but Spielberg complained about how he's not able to make every film he wants because studios expect him to make action spectacles. I think he gets money if he promises them to make another Indiana Jones movie. So no, Spielberg is not free.

 

Only the PTAs, Refns and Hanekes of the world are free.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

Hmmmmm. Well, given the type of movies he's allowed to make, I'd like to hear about the movies he's not allowed to make.

 

And Spielberg isn't really making action spectacles anymore (with occasional exceptions).  And lets face it, the films he's getting green lighted are the kind of films Hollywood really doesn't make much of anymore, and I doubt they'd get made, at least with the budget they get, without Spielberg's name attached. Was anyone clamouring for The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara? Bridge of Spies? Warhorse? Those are movies that only get made if Spielberg makes them.

 

But if he really has some films he wants to get made and cant (and I'm skeptical), he could go Lucas and finance his own stuff. Or I'm sure he wouldn't have trouble attracting non traditional financing like a lot of indie directors do (having been an Indy director himself).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Just now, Nick1066 said:

 

Hmmmmm. Well, given the type of movies he's able to make, I'd like to hear about the movies he's not allowed to make.

 

 

This is very much something Alex has made up for himself. There's no evidence whatsoever that Spielberg isnt allowed to make certain movies. 

[A24 4,345]

It was in an interview with Spielberg, Steef. I believe he had great difficulty for finding the money for Lincoln.

 

Oh, and about Ridley Scott and his so-called limitless power:

 

Like most high-profile religious pictures since Martin Scorsese’s 1988 “The Last Temptation of Christ,” “Exodus” became the subject of intense media scrutiny before Scott had ever exposed a frame of (digital) film on stages at London’s Pinewood Studios and on location in Spain. Much of the outcry online stemmed from his decision to cast white American, European and Australian actors in most of the key roles, no matter that the same could be said of “The Passion of the Christ,” “Noah,” “The Ten Commandments” and virtually any other big-budget Bible movies. “I can’t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such,” Scott says. “I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up.”

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's well known he had trouble funding Lincoln. Doesnt mean he's not allowed to make certain movies. And Lincoln did get made. Spielberg choses the movies Spielberg ultimately directs.

[publicist 4,643]

He probably until recent times wasn't used to asking for money at six different addresses. For a long time, Spielberg's royalty status meant studios came to him to do his bidding (in hope of another Jurassic Park). Now it's a wee bit different.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,552]

Bye-bye Spielberg; hello Johnson, and Trevorrow. 

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

18 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

It's well known he had trouble funding Lincoln. Doesnt mean he's not allowed to make certain movies. And Lincoln did get made. Spielberg choses the movies Spielberg ultimately directs.

 

Maybe the studios realized beforehand that Lincoln would be a dreadful bore.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It made a lot of money in relation to its budget.

[publicist 4,643]

It was a certified hit for Spielberg. Much more so than 'Tintin'.

[A24 4,345]

39 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 Doesnt mean he's not allowed to make certain movies. 

 

That's exactly what it means. No funding no movie. It's hardly rocket science, Steef. That's why Spielberg complains about the current superhero climate in Hollywood. It's superhero way or the highway.

 

29 minutes ago, publicist said:

He probably until recent times wasn't used to asking for money at six different addresses. For a long time, Spielberg's royalty status meant studios came to him to do his bidding (in hope of another Jurassic Park). Now it's a wee bit different.

 

Steef doesn't want to hear it but today that position is taken by Christopher Nolan. He's the golden boy of Hollywood now. 

[publicist 4,643]

Wait for 'Dunkirk'.

[A24 4,345]

I can already read the headlines: "After Nolan's Heaven's Gate (Dunkirk) the legendary director says he has a newfound interest in Batman!"

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Nolan and Joss Whedon, together at last!

[Quintus 5,399]

Wasn't Lincoln quite the success both financially and critically? I thought it even won some major awards. Only, I could have sworn there's the standard JWFan revisionism going on here. You know, where the usual suspects basically just talk a load of shit. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Only on JWFan is Lincoln unloved. It joins The BFG and Tintin in the list of utter crap the now talentless hack has been churning out. Betraying his fans!

[publicist 4,643]

I like 'The BFG'. Even 'Tintin' (if less so). 'Lincoln' is...a dusty cabinet.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

Spielberg hasn't made a truly great film since Jurassic Park. Though SPR came close, its flaws keep it from entering the best neighborhoods in Spiellbergia. 

 

Most of what he's done the past twenty years can be described as varying from decent to pretty good. Spielberg doesn't make bad films, he just doesn't make exceptional ones anymore. They're all the ultra competent work of a master, but rarely do they take flight. 

 

Who knows why, when he can presumably do anything he wishes,  he's limiting himself to directing projects better suited to Soderbergh or the master of mediocrity, Ron Howard. 

 

Still, I guess we should be grateful he's managed to carve out a niche among all the remakes, reboots, shared universes and gross out comedies. But it does beg the question... Wouldn't most of his stuff be better on TV? 

[publicist 4,643]

'Jurassic Park' was nothing more than a slick, well-oiled commercial spectacle without any pretensions - it's dinosaur angle catapulting it into a hit. 'Truly great' looks different (Spielberg might halfway agree, as he did the picture mainly to get a greenlight on 'Schindler'). 'Schindler', 'SPR', 'AI' and 'Munich' go way beyond such fluff. As for Sir Ridley, he's done an awful lot of workmanlike efforts since the mid-80's, some of them entertaining or remarkable in its mise-en-scéne on occasion but as gripping pictures? I don't know. I gave up on, i. e., 'Black Rain', 'G. I. Jane', 'A Good Year', 'Robin Hood' or 'Body of Lies' because they were just lame ('Prometheus' was much better, imho).

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

Well, JP is certainly not ET or Jaws or CE3K or Raiders. But I would call it a Spielberg classic. And I certainly think Schindler's List is one of his best. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Both Lincoln and Bridge of Spies are honest-to-goodness masterpieces. Among his best films.

[publicist 4,643]

I found both much too Hallmark-y and excruciatingly boring. Which suits 'Lincoln', at least, but 'Bridge of Spies': i mean what for the whole shebang? For a cool scene of a U2 plane crash (wholly gratuitous as it were) and that short exchange of glances between Rylance and Hanks that signifies...nothing really? It's a sequence of scenes in desperate need of weight and an original thought. 

[A24 4,345]

Nobody call Bridges Of Spies Spielberg's masterpiece, Stu. It's a glorified TV movie.

 

 

Alex - who hasn't seen Lincoln

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

Jaws, CE3K, Raiders (and to a lesser extent the two sequels) and ET are bonafide classics. I hope I don't have to defend their impact on culture and film here.

 

Jurassic Park, I'd submit, while not the equal of those films, is still among the top of Spielberg's cannon. The film, and music, are part of our culture, and the CGI representation of the dinosaurs was ground breaking. And still looks damn good. 

 

SPR will routinely sit toward the top of any list of war films ever made. It's look and style set the tone for war movies. It's first twenty minutes still have not been matched in terms of an on screen depiction of battle.  Similarly, Schindler's List speaks for itself.

 

So what else is there post JP? While I'm sure all have their defenders, as competently as they were made, and as well received they may have been at the time, no one cares or talks about Amistad, or Catch Me If You Can, or Bridge of Spies, or Lincoln, or Warhorse, or Tintin. or War of the Worlds, or Munich. I suppose you could argue Minority Report made some waves and was influential...but that would be about it.  AI is mostly remembered for what went wrong with it. Again, all those films are varying degrees of good, but none are timeless classics.

 

Think about it...Spielberg could make any film he wished, and he took the biggest star in the world at the time and made...The Terminal. Let that sink in. How many people became directors because of the The Terminal?

 

Again, someone is going to come along and talk about how powerful and important Munich was, or how well received Lincoln was, which is all true. So what. There are movies like that every year, and they're mostly forgotten by the time the next awards season rolls around. But their cultural impact is close to zero.

 

Alex is right, a lot of these films do feel like TV movies...which is really where the type of stories Spielberg is doing belong.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Sigh.  Obviously, I disagree.  I don't give a toss about the "cultural impact" of Bridge of Spies.  It was brilliantly told, with one Tom Hanks' best performances, and a story that stirs me deeply.  That crap about any kind of story "belonging" on TV is nonsense. 

 

The structure of Bridge of Spies as a film is just perfect.  The dialogue is perfect.  The movie is exhilarating for me to watch more than most action movies.  Not even a bit dull.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

I agree it's a good movie.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Don't get me started.  I could go on all day about how great Bridge of Spies is.  I hope his movie about the Pentagon Papers can come anywhere close to that.  Basically, whenever Spielberg attempts an "old style" Spielberg film, he kinda fails (KOTCS, BFG, or whatever) but his films that showcase his latter day "patient, craftsman" approach to storytelling are almost all brilliant.

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

Well for me the issue was which of Spielberg's films are "truly great" (to use my term).  I suppose you could use the term classic as well. And I don't think being a merely good, or even excellent, film, qualifies.  To me true greatness in film is a combination of quality+lasting cultural impact+influence. That's what makes a classic of cinema. There are a lot of well acted, well shot, well scripted movies that come out every year that are damn excellent movies that go on to win lots of accolades. Then they're forgotten. That doesn't mean they're not great films in their own right.

 

I'd submit that most of Spielberg's post JP output (again, with the possible exception of SPR) doesn't really measure up under that metric.  Though again, I don't disagree with any particular praise you've heaped on Bridge of Spies. And I don't regard the suggestion that the material is better suited as a TV movie as an insult. It's just that those kind of stories are landing on TV more these days than the cinema.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

My Top 10 Spielberg list as of last year 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,552]

 

What?! No EMPIRE OF THE SUN?!

Pish-posh, and fiddle-de-dee!

[crumbs 14,319]

In rather disappointing news, Charles de Lauzirika has revealed on Twitter that he's not handling any special features for Alien Covenant OR Blade Runner 2049. WTF!

 

Fans familiar with either film should be very well versed in his work on both franchises. Despite what you might think about Prometheus, his 3 hour documentary (The Furious Gods) tracking the production from the earliest script until release was absolutely sublime, as were the documentaries he produced for the other 4 films. A huge loss.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Just now, crumbs said:

In rather upsetting news, Charles DeLazurika has revealed on Twitter that he's not handling any special features for Alien Covenant OR Blade Runner 2049. WTF!

 

Fans familiar with either film should be very well versed in his work on both franchises. Despite what you might think about Prometheus, his 3 hour documentary (The Furious Gods) tracking the production from the earliest script until release was absolutely sublime, as were the documentaries he produced for the other 4 films. A huge loss.

 

Such a shame.  It deeply saddens me how studios are no longer willing to give real budgets to home video releases.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,552]

That is a shame. Does that mean that we'll be treated to more Lawrence Bozo?

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

That is disappointing. But not entirely unexpected. Sadly, the studios are getting away from lengthy, in depth "making of" features on DVD/BD, even for high profile titles.  

 

Along with the LOTR EE's and The Matrix, those Alien special features are among the best ever for DVD/BD.  

[crumbs 14,319]

More likely a bunch of fluffy, promotional puff-pieces with zero depth about the production, Ridley's creative process, or the development of the film. It'll probably include all the featurettes released online thus far and that's about it.

 

Fox will be wanting to keep everything to a minimum so they can fit everything on 1 disc (and save on manufacturing costs).

 

Sounds like it wasn't his decision either, so clearly this was a Fox money-saving directive. Fuck!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,552]

Geez, crumbs, baby, don't sugar the pill. Tell us what you really think.

[crumbs 14,319]

Well, I'd say what I really feel, but Jason might not appreciate the profanity on a family-friendly forum.

 

IIRC they made an idiotic marketing decision with Prometheus on BD; they only included CDL's 3 hour documentary on the 3D Bluray release. Who even has a 3D TV? And nobody in their right mind is paying extra to get a useless 3D disc of Prometheus just to acquire the documentary.

 

So clearly the sales tanked and the same genius who made that decision probably asked why they should bother funding another documentary for Covenant, given the last one made no difference to sales.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

33 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Well, I'd say what I really feel, but Jason might not appreciate the profanity on a family-friendly forum.

 

[A24 4,345]

1 hour ago, Richard said:

 

What?! No EMPIRE OF THE SUN?!

Pish-posh, and fiddle-de-dee!

 

Yep, his best one, no less. Shocking!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Spielberg's best

 

1. Hook

2. 1941

3. KotCS

4. The BFG

5. A.I.

6. WotW

7. Always

8. The Lost World

9. Bridge of Spies

10. Twilight Zone: The Movie

[A24 4,345]

Looks like a joke but it's not, right?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Empire Spielberg's best? Not even close for me, but I can certainly appreciate how people could love it that much.  It's 15th on my list!