Tagged: alien

First teaser trailer for “Prometheus”

It’s all trailers, all the time around the Web this week. The latest is our first look at “Prometheus,” Ridley Scott’s quasi-prequel* to “Alien.”

This highly-anticipated film (which was preceded by not one but three teasers hyping the release of this 69-second teaser) marks Scott’s return to sci-fi, we will be told approximately 4,000 times over the next few months. That’s great and all, although if you count the myriad versions of “Blade Runner” as distinct Ridley Scott films, the guy is actually a prolific sci-fi director and the “return to sci-fi” thing isn’t really a big deal.

The teaser itself is quite good. We don’t know much more about the storyline, but we know enough. We know there will be all sorts of technically stunning shots and sequences. We know the cast is stellar (Charlize Theron, Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Idris Elba and Guy Pearce). It evokes both the initial “Alien” teaser as well as that film’s great trailer. The movie involves Damon Lindelof, so I expect the third act to be a monstrous letdown, but I will try to stay positive.

The embedded teaser below (though you can and should watch it in high-def over at Apple):

* I say “quasi-prequel” because Scott has denied that it’s an out-and-out prequel to “Alien,” and has in fact said it only contains “strands of ‘Alien’s’ DNA.” He has also said the last eight minutes of “Prometheus” turn into an “Alien” movie, basically, which makes sense because prequels generally lead into the films they are technically preceding. So nobody knows for sure if it’s a full-on prequel or if it’s a movie set in the same universe that happens to share a few elements or if it’s something else entirely. (Well, we know it’s not something else entirely, because it is most likely an “Alien” prequel of some sort. So let’s just stick with that until we see otherwise.)

Share

The “Alien” prequel transforms into an original movie, decreasing its odds of sucking

The long-rumored “Alien” prequel is no more. From its ashes rises “Prometheus,” a sci-fi movie from Ridley Scott that will open on March 9, 2012.

BEGIN DIGRESSION THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ACTUAL NEWS

This is very good news, because prequels are terrible. There’s no upside to a prequel. Your ending is already set, and the film is required to meet a series of strict and stringent story obligations in order to match up with what came before. The odd fascination with prequels has spawned the “X-Men” prequel series, which so far oozed out “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” and has “X-Men: First Class” due this summer (Darren Aronofsky’s “The Wolverine” is due next summer and will reportedly be a stand alone film, which means it might also not be awful), “Hannibal Rising” and idiotic attempts to preface “The Exorcist,” “Dumb and Dumber,” “The Flinstones” and “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.”

There are two reasons for this: George Lucas and money. The former informs the latter; the most famous prequels in existence are the three “Star Wars” prequels Lucas released between 1999 and 2005, and they largely validate every negative stereotype and viewpoint of the prequel format. But they made SO much money that other studios decided to look into their vaults and see what they could dust off. That’s where money comes in. It’s the same logic behind why “X-Men” transformed a perfectly decent franchise into a prequel factory: Why pay all of the expensive stars of “X-Men” (or any other film) when you can just hire younger-looking actors and cash in on the brand name for a quick buck? In the case of “Wolverine,” they focused on the one star they wanted to keep; in the case of “Dumb and Dumberer,” they just gave two actors similar haircuts and costumes to Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels.

The only prequels that have really worked are the ones that aren’t prequels at all. Reboots like “Batman Begins,” “Casino Royale” and “Star Trek” rewound their stories to the beginnings, but instead of bending over backwards to lock into what came later they instead started new franchises that progressed forward naturally (which was particularly important with “Star Trek,” given that franchise’s labyrinthine plotting and fanatical devotees). “The Godfather, Part II” was half-sequel, half-prequel, and the prequel bits actually served as a mirror to the modern day story, which is part of why it’s probably the best sequel ever made. (For my money, “Star Wars: Episode III” was also a good prequel, because it delivered enough of what people actually wanted to see from that trilogy, but I may view it more fondly than necessary because of what came before it.)

END OF THAT DIGRESSION; NOW HERE’S THE ACTUAL NEWS

Given that prequels are terrible, and particularly given the blatant needlessness surrounding this project in particular, I haven’t been awash in optimism for an “Alien” prequel. I mean, the first “Alien” was a classic, inspired countless knockoffs, innovative and terrific, put me to sleep when I was younger, et cetera, et cetera. Did we really need one (or two) movies just to explain how they found that initial alien? Apparently not.

The film’s script began with writer Jon Spaihts and is now a collaboration between eternally self-satisfied Damon Lindelof and Scott. It turned from an “Alien” prequel into “a new, grand mythology and universe in which this original story takes place,” Scott told Deadline. “The keen fan will recognize strands of ‘Alien’s' DNA, so to speak.” In other words, when there are people in space and aliens and things like that, you might suspect this thing started out as an “Alien” prequel.

The first actor in the cast is Noomi Rapace (she played Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish “Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” films and co-stars in December’s “Sherlock Holmes” sequel). Charlize Theron and Angelina Jolie are reportedly interested in the other female lead.

This is welcome news all around. An “Alien” prequel was unnecessary, while a new sci-fi film from Ridley Scott is actually a nifty prospect. And given that his two main characters are going to be played by women, it’ll be a welcome respite from the male-dominated big-budget sci-fi arena. There’s no word yet on what the rest of the story involves, so we’ll have to wait and see on that front.

Share

The “Alien” prequel you don’t need or want is chugging along

So there’s going to be this prequel to “Alien.” You remember “Alien.” Ridley Scott movie, came out in 1979, very big deal, everybody saw it. James Cameron’s sequel, “Aliens,” was my favorite in the series, but I am partial to action-horror movies over horror-suspense ones. The ensuing films — David Fincher’s infamous “Alien3,” whatever the hell “Alien: Resurrection” was, two “Alien vs. Predator” debacles — have not remotely approached the qualitative level of the first two “Alien” movies.

Fox wants to make an “Alien” prequel, because it’s a known brand and a known quantity and it’s either that or a third “Garfield,” so let’s count our blessings. And Ridley Scott wants to be involved! Bully! Jolly good news. Returning to the franchise, et cetera. Except…why?

I don’t mean that literally. I understand the general idea, that a prequel to “Alien” from Ridley Scott will have built-in marketing cache, and that that is very helpful for studios when greenlighting films with $150 million dollar budgets (and tens more millions to be spent on advertising). I get that studios want known names (in the title, in the director’s chair, on the screen). I just mean it in the sense of wondering who in the hell wanted an “Alien” prequel?

I’ve seen the first film. (Confession: I fell asleep the first time I saw it. Yes, mock my movie nerd bonafides if you want. The goddamn thing moves like they edited it while on Ambien, and I was 15, and shut up.) I’ve seen Cameron’s film and the one with Winona Ryder and most of the David Fincher one, though never sequentially nor intentionally, and I’ve avoided all but a few glimpses of the “Alien vs. Predator” films. What the hell is left for the franchise to explore with a prequel?

Were there really unanswered questions? With the “Star Wars” prequels, I got the general idea: We would (ostensibly) see Darth Vader transform into a bad guy, and also George Lucas needed to buy another few countries. With this one, it’s…where did that ship at the beginning of “Alien” come from? That’s it? We need a whole prequel (two, if rumors that Scott wants to make a two-chapter prequel are to be believed) to explain something that seems pretty obvious?

(And oh, by the way, Damon Lindelof wrote the “Alien” prequel, which is good news insofar as who they could get to script something with tension and suspense and vague overtones of dangerous things lurking about; that much appears in Lindelof’s wheelhouse. But if they are tackling unanswered questions from the first film, as Vulture reports, maybe one of the co-creators of “Lost” is not your ideal guy if you want enjoyable and actual resolution. Unless the “Alien” films were all set in purgatory, SURPRISE.)

(Though, I must say, if the prequel is meant merely to set up the intriguing questions already answered by “Alien” — if it’s meant to merely set up the tension and mysteries without resolution — yes, Lindelof is your guy. That’s a masterstroke of writer and material right there. The dude was meant to set up engaging questions.)

I’m generally hesitant about the idea of prequels in general. When you know where things are going, it’s tough to get fully engaged in a story. With “The Hobbit,” at least we know there’s a whole story there apart from “Lord of the Rings,” though I feel the same way about Peter Jackson doing those prequels as I do about Ridley Scott making this one: They’ve been there, done that, and should be moving onto bigger and better things. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong with the film or the story, but I can’t help but wonder why — when they could make a sequel with new characters and new ideas — they are already boxing themselves into a corner.

Share