Rogerbee wrote:Prequels, ouch,
Ridley Scott acts like he gave birth to the Alien franchise and it's his to do with as he pleases. Wrong, it was the brainchild of Dan O'Bannon and Ron Shusett, he was merely hired as a director. His bungling around with prequels that have nothing to do with Alien is killing that franchise. We are still no nearer to knowing who or what set off that beacon that led the Nostromo to LV-426 or what they were doing here.
Neill Blomkamp's project showed promise, but, it will never get made thanks to Mr Scott.
Anyway, I suspect Geena won't be too hard to come by as I don't think many of the units that come out will get sold.
CHEERS!
I really enjoyed the first two
Alien films, but that were sufficient for me. Well before it had been combined with
Predator, I’d already felt rather Gigered out - and the latter actually lost me when it lost Arnold.
I can appreciate many such films strictly for their potential entertainment value; there are certainly far more banal ways in which one can waste 90 minutes…
As I have said here, however, everything seems to be taking place during a shift with regard to current technology. All that which
Lucasfilm had been able to accomplish with miniatures is now typically generated via CG, green screen projection and performance capture. The times are changing, and we’re within that very fluid moment as we speak…
It seems that everything is currently on the wheel - and Hollywood has always been somewhat enslaved to the revolutions of such. I suppose that it’s the
Cultural Product vs. Cultural Project argument; does one beget the other - and if so, in what order? Or are they both equally legitimate forces?
I have my own opinion, but it is rather
that question, most in particular, that has become a glaring one with regard to the tech; consider, for instance, the real-time effects and instantaneous ramifications of what used to have to travel turtle-back by word-of-mouth. In many ways, we, of a certain generational range, are still thinking in slow-motion.
But my point had been this: “
here” is not where we were yesterday, and will not be where we are tomorrow - and our ability to triangulate our present position is skewed by subjective relativity; all that we can really do is to note some apparent trajectory; however, keeping in mind that any accuracy regarding such calculations will be temporary at best - and therefore, where we are is ultimately indiscernible…
Because
one cannot step into the same river twice, proverbially…
And because the fish in the water has no vantage of perception for any actions ashore…
While it sounds deep and difficult, it’s really rather simplistic:
how could one ever say what the precise time is and be correct? Meaning, upon the instance of perception - let alone the duration of communication -
that moment has already passed… Again, the point that I had previously meant to make with regard to our perception of a current, apparent
trajectory - that of Hollywood, specifically, and of film-making, in general - is necessarily skewed by the warp that is this early Digital Age…
(Anyone who has not lost the focus of this discussion truly deserves a badge, or something...)
LOL.
But please don’t blame me; I just came here for the Geena…