I’m not very protective of the film franchises I love. I’m certainly capable of fanboy-level obsession for some of them, but I’ve never been of the “George Lucas raped my childhood” variety. Poor sequels and remakes and reboots and all that jazz typically have no impact on me because you can always go back and watch the original. Their existence doesn’t alter that fact.
That said, I wish like hell Ridley Scott would stop talking about the untitled Alien Prequels already. I actually wish he wasn’t the one making the films (previously attached commercial director Carl Rinsch was a godsend match for the universe, but he had to vacate the director’s chair when Scott decided he wanted to do more than produce), but since he and Fox are both resigned to making this thing a reality, I just wish he would get on with it. Every time he opens his mouth to talk about it, the fanboy inside me sinks deeper and deeper into the “on a computer in mom’s basement” breed of fanboy — and I do NOT want to go to that dark, lonely place. I’m starting to think that may be unavoidable, though. What with all the words of veritable discouragement that keep spilling from his maw.
It wasn’t so bad in the beginning. I like the idea of the prequels being set thirty years prior to the events of the first landmark film. I’m all for having Ripley-less films, too. But then came confirmation that this new pair of films will focus on explaining who the Space Jockey is. Now, if you’re not a big Alien fan, the Space Jockey is the name given to the giant alien that the crew of the Nostromo find laying with his chest burst open in an equally giant chair aboard the crashed UFO housing the field of leathery alien eggs. There are a number of brilliant things about the depiction of the Space Jockey and they are all owing entirely to the enigma surrounding him.
Who is he? What is he? Why are the Earthlings not only unsurprised to find his spaceship, but why are they equally unfazed by the discovery of his dead body? Are aliens capable of interstellar travel commonplace in the future? These are all questions best left unanswered. But no. Of course they will be answered so long as Fox can make a buck in the process.
Now normally I wouldn’t be so pessimistic about Ridley Scott’s ability to make good on delivering answers that fit snugly into the world of Alien, but a few more of his recent comments have broken me in that regard. Firstly, Scott had to ask someone who was interviewing him how many Alien sequels there are. Now I’m not sure if he’s being a jackass or if he really is just ignorant to such a small piece of common knowledge, but either way I don’t like his answer because it shows an alarming disregard for the franchise that he helped create, a franchise that has been deeply influential in the film industry even beyond the first film.
Finally, and this is the nonsense that really finds my inner fanboy wanting to descend those metaphorical basement stairs with a 12 pack of Mountain Dew and a crate of Ham and Cheese Hot Pockets: The films will both be in 3D. I, like many, I fear, am already beginning to get burned out on the extra dimension, but that’s not even the problem here. The problem is Ridley Scott told Collider that he doesn’t “really give a shit” (his exact words) how the film ends up in 3D. That’s basically a problem for other people to figure out. This saddens me greatly because the Ridley Scott I know and love is the Ridley Scott that makes technologically magnificent films. If he doesn’t really give a shit whether the films are shot in 3D or converted into 3D in post-production, then we very well could have another Clash of the Titans on our hands.
I can tolerate the movie if it tells a story I’d rather be left untold, but it’ll be unforgiveable if it looks like a piece of crap in the process. Ridley Scott’s films aren’t always perfect, but they are always worth watching thanks to his distinct, larger-than-life style as a director. But if his plan is to just make the Alien Prequels as he would any other film, except they happen to be in 3D (which is exactly what it sounds like he’s doing), then we can certainly expect another film that’s cheapened by a need to conform to a new trend. Say what you will about Avatar, but the reason Cameron’s 3D looks better than any other 3D film on the market is because he slaved over how to best use the medium. I’ve no doubt that Scott is capable of such a feat, but this apparent assumption that the 3D will just fall in line is only more evidence that the entire film — a film that should be slaved over — is merely falling in line.
