• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

P R O M E T H E U S |OT| Ridley Scott goes back to Building Better Worlds

Status
Not open for further replies.
GhaleonEB said:
That's like saying Cameron should never do a film involving water again after Piranha 2: The Spawning.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Cameron was fired after just under a week and was only reinstated with director title once he became a name. Cameron hardly has any claim to that movie.

FOX pushed the same pressure to buckle and compromise onto Fincher that they pushed onto Cameron with Titanic. The difference is that the former caved more.
 
Scullibundo said:
wZgOI.jpg
Click to expand...

Would you have agreed if I suggested Spielberg?
 
Scullibundo said:
FOX pushed the same pressure to buckle and compromise onto Fincher that they pushed onto Cameron with Titanic. The difference is that the former caved more.
Click to expand...

Your statement is patently false. The situations and amount of creative freedom they had is hardly similar.
 
omnomis said:
Your statement is patently false. The situations and amount of creative freedom they had is hardly similar.
Click to expand...

That's true, if only because Cameron was more of a name at the time. But when Cameron was told to make cuts and meet them for meetings he was notorious for telling all execs and studio chiefs to fuck themselves.

Fincher was also difficult to work with, but ended up bending a lot more since it was his first feature.

Nappa - No, I don't think Spielberg would be right for this universe.
 
Scullibundo said:
That's true, if only because Cameron was more of a name at the time. But when Cameron was told to make cuts and meet them for meetings he was notorious for telling all execs and studio chiefs to fuck themselves.
Click to expand...

Titanic didn't have like a dozen writers and directors on the project before Cameron. Comparatively, he was handed an enormous budget and freed to make his singular vision as writer/director. Fincher wasn't just "under pressure to buckle and compromise". Cameron was under pressure to not spend half a billion dollars to make his movie. Fincher was under pressure with Alien 3 to have practically no directorial stamp on the finished product.
 
omnomis said:
Titanic didn't have like a dozen writers and directors on the project before Cameron. Comparatively, he was handed an enormous budget and freed to make his singular vision as writer/director.
Click to expand...

Yes, okay. I will concede that.

But it is just as if not more ridiculous to compare Fincher's experience shooting Alien 3 - which he shot and was involved with the entirety of from the start of principal photgraphy, with Cameron's experience of Piranha II where he wasn't even really the director for most of the film (he was director for about six days and was locked out of the editing rooms).
 
I ask again... Langley IMAX. Purchase tickets early. Can I?

You guys think that Blade Runner, Alien, and Prometheus could all share the same universe? That Replicants are even further advanced androids? I came across this amazing (and very spoilery) trailer for The Final Cut of Blade Runner. That movie is so visually beautiful (even though I was a little let down the first time I saw it... GAF hype, but great film nonetheless).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQuZig7GuMg

Deckard and Rachel's sex scene is still weird.
 
I guess to be fair to Fincher the film was destined to fail. It was his first big film and he went in with things already in a mess (failed attempts). Fox was a pain in the ass and he had little control of the situation.
 
Scullibundo said:
Yes, okay. I will concede that.

But it is just as if not more ridiculous to compare Fincher's experience shooting Alien 3 - which he shot and was involved with the entirety of from the start of principal photgraphy, with Cameron's experience of Piranha II where he wasn't even really the director for most of the film.
Click to expand...

I think ghaleon was making a casual connotation of their directorial debuts not being not indicative of Fincher or Cameron's later career. I don't think he was labeling them as equivalent levels of input.
 
Scullibundo said:
Not exactly. Cameron was fired after just under a week and was only reinstated with director title once he became a name. Cameron hardly has any claim to that movie.
Click to expand...
I know that. I was simply saying that it's not reasonable to draw conclusions about how Finicher would handle the same universe based on an unpleasant experience on his first film, no more than from Cameron's (brief though his role was). They are accomplished directors now, not making their first (shitty) films. Crude analogy.

FOX pushed the same pressure to buckle and compromise onto Fincher that they pushed onto Cameron with Titanic. The difference is that the former caved more.
Click to expand...
Reasonable point, but to be fair, Cameron had more clout to push back with. He wasn't making his first big film.
Scullibundo said:
Yes, okay. I will concede that.

But it is just as if not more ridiculous to compare Fincher's experience shooting Alien 3 - which he shot and was involved with the entirety of from the start of principal photgraphy, with Cameron's experience of Piranha II where he wasn't even really the director for most of the film (he was director for about six days and was locked out of the editing rooms).
Click to expand...

You're taking it too literally.
 
omnomis said:
I think ghaleon was making a casual connotation of their directorial debuts not being not indicative of Fincher or Cameron's later career. I don't think he was labeling them as equivalent levels of input.
Click to expand...

I know, but I think it's ridiculous anytime it is insinuated that Piranha II is Cameron's first film when it wasn't really his film at all. The Terminator is Cameron's first (feature) film.
 
Scullibundo said:
I know, but I think it's ridiculous anytime it is insinuated that Piranha II is Cameron's first film when it wasn't really his film at all. The Terminator is Cameron's first (feature) film.
Click to expand...

Sigh. I didn't insinuate hit was Cameron's first film, or at least I didn't mean to. I was saying it was just as unreasonable expect Finisher to fail as hard at a film in the same universe now as it would be to draw a similar conclusion about Cameron after his first (aborted) director role.

It was a flippant comment to what I thought was a silly assertion.

VVVV

:)
 
Man said:
Scott has also straight out said he wants to make Prometheus 2.
Click to expand...

He's also said he wants to revisit the Blade Runner universe and make The Forever War.

I would LOVE to see him revisit the Blade Runner universe with a film totally removed from the original's storyline and characters.
 
Ah, I see we're making the rounds of the usual MovieGAF topics.

Hey, you know what movie sucked? John Carter. What a complete failure to understand basic dramatic convention!
 
And Cowboys vs Aliens? What a load of shit! You can tell John Farveau signed on for that movie because it sounded like a cool idea, not because they had a great script. Kurtzman and Orci strike again! How the fuck does those two keep getting work? They have yet to write a single good screenplay!
 
As I said in the last thread, I really hope the R rating doesn't mean Rock of Ages takes number one. "Campy" musical tribute to 80s hair bands starting Tom Cruise? Mainstream fans will eat that up.
 
Fincher and Whedon are two good, but diametrically opposed storytellers. I cannot see both of them existing in the same place. One will eventually override the other(usually the guy writing the script)
 
ViewtifulJC said:
Fincher and Whedon are two good, but diametrically opposed storytellers. I cannot see both of them existing in the same place. One will eventually override the other(usually the guy writing the script)
Click to expand...

Whedon doesn't really fit the Alien universe anyway. He's too imbedded in his humor to let the horror show through.
 
ViewtifulJC said:
Kurtzman and Orci strike again!

They have yet to write a single good screenplay!
Click to expand...

Man, I reeeeally hate those two. I didnt get the initial widespread love for Star Trek 2009, it felt more like a goofy, big budget SNL skit than a franchise reboot (Abrams gotta share blame too, he really doesn't come off as sincere all the time and a lot of the sentiment in Super 8 felt forced). I hope they don't get attached to Legendary's Godzilla reboot, I was sooooo relieved that Michael Bay didn't get attached to it, can you imagine? Godzilla with a PRO-military slant? shudders
 
I just think that Whedon's strengths, that he can build dramatic consequences out of love and humor, would eventually be stomped out by Fincher's harder, cynical style. The tone of the film would be all wrong, and since Fincher sometimes can't even get that right in his own films as the sole creative force('sup, Fight Club), I hate to see how that partnership would work, or not work in this case.

Oh, and Star Trek 2009 works because of it's simply great direction and impeccable cast of actors, and in spite of it's shitty screenplay.
 
ViewtifulJC said:
I just think that Whedon's strengths, that he can build dramatic consequences out of love and humor, would eventually be stomped out by Fincher's harder, cynical style. The tone of the film would be all wrong, and since Fincher sometimes can't even get that right in his own films as the sole creative force('sup, Fight Club), I hate to see how that partnership would work, or not work in this case.
Click to expand...

lol


Oh, and Star Trek 2009 works because of it's simply great direction and impeccable cast of actors, and in spite of it's shitty screenplay.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ridley Scott says Hollywood is “drowning in mediocrity”
2 3
112
1K
Men_in_Boxes replied
Keanu Reeves goes through his entire action film career with Scott Adkins
15
411
OmegaSupreme replied
RIP Scott Adams
2
61
661
negator2vc replied
Xzbit goes to Russia
25
1K
Porcile replied
Whose back to work??
44
523
Tomorrow replied
Top Bottom