Neill Blomkamp to direct an Alien movie

[drizzle]

It's all summarized here:

http://twitchfilm.com/2015/02/neill-blo ... ery.html#1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kinda mixed feelings on this. Dude makes ill scifi-action movies but burdens them with half-hearted allegories and ineffective social commentary. If they can limit his conscious side or make it work better here this could be the best Alien jawnt in ages. But I don't wanna see some shit where cyborgs sent to collect the xenomorph eggs represent the plight of mexican day laborers or some similar nonsense.

[stupidregister]

Is this one gonna be about food stamps or some shit?

District 9 was pretty dope but fuck this dude and his heavy-handled bullshit. How about you worry about making a good movie first and then worry about abortion second.

Oh shit, that's it. It's about aborting alien fetuses, isn't it? Because they're black.

Mannnnnnnnnnnnn.

[Tommy Bunz]

I love District 9 and Elysium. All for this.
He's been talking about his design concepts for this for a while.
Can't be worse than Resurrection at least.

[zombie]

this is going to be fucking sick and the anticipation is going to kill me.

[zombie]

It's all summarized here:

http://twitchfilm.com/2015/02/neill-blo ... ery.html#1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kinda mixed feelings on this. Dude makes ill scifi-action movies but burdens them with half-hearted allegories and ineffective social commentary. If they can limit his conscious side or make it work better here this could be the best Alien jawnt in ages. But I don't wanna see some shit where cyborgs sent to collect the xenomorph eggs represent the plight of mexican day laborers or some similar nonsense.

wasnt the original alien filled a shitload of social commentary and allegories though?

i wouldnt mind the mixture of the two.

either way, im excited

[Larry2times]

Kinda liked Resurrection tbh

[Spartan]

Sold.

[Versive]

I love District 9 and Elysium. All for this.

Kinda liked Resurrection tbh

[darkwingduck]

why does ALIEN 3 get shit on so much?

I freak'n loved it.

[Krook]

why does ALIEN 3 get shit on so much?

I freak'n loved it.

me to ..I loved them all

[EMCEE DARTH MALEK]

Great news. I expect working within a franchise will force him to reign in his writing tendencies.

[Jayou Ayen]

It's all summarized here:

http://twitchfilm.com/2015/02/neill-blo ... ery.html#1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kinda mixed feelings on this. Dude makes ill scifi-action movies but burdens them with half-hearted allegories and ineffective social commentary. If they can limit his conscious side or make it work better here this could be the best Alien jawnt in ages. But I don't wanna see some shit where cyborgs sent to collect the xenomorph eggs represent the plight of mexican day laborers or some similar nonsense.

Wasn't the social commentary an intricate part of his first two films?
Do you not like that in general, or is it apartheid and the mexicans that you don't have the stomach for?

I have faith that he can make an movie worthy of the lineage of the first three Alien movies. Considering how terrible the story in Prometheus was, a Blomkamp screenplay is something I'd definitely welcome.



39

[zombie]

what mexicans are you guys talking about. i must have missed that movie

[drizzle]

Wasn't the social commentary an intricate part of his first two films?

Well that's the thing, he starts with that intention but the execution of it is flimsy and unsatisfying, and he drops it half way in favor of just straight action. D9 is a great example because there's a clear point where all the pretense of the faux-documentary and allegory about immigrants is completely sidelined in favor bitchin shootouts. And the shootouts end up being by far the best part of the thing, I love those parts.

I'm not against social commentary but it's gotta be done well otherwise it becomes clunky and transparent and burdens the movie with unnecessary baggage that prevents the movie from just being a fun genre exercise.

Zombie made a good point above, og Alien def has a share of it too, but the key elements are executed subtly and unobtrusively. F'er instance... Alien is a direct counter to stuff like Space Oddyssey because it shows space travel and exploration as a laborious and un-glamorous blue collar activity, the protagonists are not handsome scientists but instead working grunts doing a shitty lonely job for some faceless conglomerate. And that's a really great point and it explores exactly the kind of connection between the present and the projected future that elevates good scifi. But all that is mostly in the background, nobody ever shoves the camera in Stanton's face and then flashes a pic of a 20th century trucker or miner and explicitly explains LOOK THESE ARE THE SAME THING #MESSAGE. Which is more or less exactly what Blumpkincamp does in D9.

[EMCEE DARTH MALEK]

it worked in D9 imo. the fadeout from documentary was masterful.

the social commentary you're talking about in the first alien is way more low key. blomkamp's style of commentary is more comparable to the colonial marines=US forces in vietnam theme from the second movie.

[Versive]

Wasn't the social commentary an intricate part of his first two films?

Well that's the thing, he starts with that intention but the execution of it is flimsy and unsatisfying, and he drops it half way in favor of just straight action. D9 is a great example because there's a clear point where all the pretense of the faux-documentary and allegory about immigrants is completely sidelined in favor bitchin shootouts. And the shootouts end up being by far the best part of the thing, I love those parts.

I'm not against social commentary but it's gotta be done well otherwise it becomes clunky and transparent and burdens the movie with unnecessary baggage that prevents the movie from just being a fun genre exercise.

Zombie made a good point above, og Alien def has a share of it too, but the key elements are executed subtly and unobtrusively. F'er instance... Alien is a direct counter to stuff like Space Oddyssey because it shows space travel and exploration as a laborious and un-glamorous blue collar activity, the protagonists are not handsome scientists but instead working grunts doing a shitty lonely job for some faceless conglomerate. And that's a really great point and it explores exactly the kind of connection between the present and the projected future that elevates good scifi. But all that is mostly in the background, nobody ever shoves the camera in Stanton's face and then flashes a pic of a 20th century trucker or miner and explicitly explains LOOK THESE ARE THE SAME THING #MESSAGE. Which is more or less exactly what Blumpkincamp does in D9.

Yeah, but the average idiot at the movies needs that to happen in order to get the message at all. And movies that deal in subtleties like the ones you're describing rarely fill the seats these days, right?

Personally, I didn't feel hit over the head by the allegories in those films because IMO there was enough cool onscreen shit, whether action-oriented or just tech/set/costume shit, that kept it moving. And the characters were very convincingly portrayed, even if archetypical.

But then again, I liked Alien III and Resurrection. And I like Prometheus a lot. Basically I like every movie. So I'm not much of a film critic.

[drizzle]

Yeah, but the average idiot at the movies needs that to happen in order to get the message at all. And movies that deal in subtleties like the ones you're describing rarely fill the seats these days, right?

Good movies rarely cater to the average idiot. And the need to put the message in there in the first place is driven by the writer's choices. I don't get the sense he's trying to make heady things easier to digest for the lowest common denominator of an audience, his stuff is just not that conceptually smart to begin with. And not for nothing, it is possible to do really hammy obvious satire and have it work (Startship Troopers, They Live), but his approach is too self-serious for that.

This is starting to look like I'm going out of my way to shit on the dude but I actually enjoy his movies a whole lot as straightforward scifi action. I just think they would be better if he stuck to just that.

Chappie looks like it's less action-oriented, we'll see how that goes...

[Versive]

Yeah, but the average idiot at the movies needs that to happen in order to get the message at all. And movies that deal in subtleties like the ones you're describing rarely fill the seats these days, right?

Good movies rarely cater to the average idiot.

I disagree. Just about every film, particularly every scifi film, has at least one moment of exposition designed for that exact purpose - spelling out what people with imagination and/or deductive reasoning capacity can infer on their own.

I don't deny that D9 and Elysium were a bit heavy-handed at times, but I really don't think those movies would have worked as well were it not for the social commentary wrapped up in them.

But then again I thought the Damon revolution speech at the end of Elysium was fucking awesome, so I probably am the average idiot when it comes to movies.

[drizzle]

I disagree. Just about every film, particularly every scifi film, has at least one moment of exposition designed for that exact purpose - spelling out what people with imagination and/or deductive reasoning capacity can infer on their own.

That's not really true. For just the most obvious recent examples, see Under The Skin or Upstream Color. Really great movies show, not tell, or at least they are supposed to. There's a reason why people hated the voice-over version of Bladerunner and why at the end of Space Odyssey somebody doesn't helpfully pop up to explain what exactly is full of stars.

[zombie]

I really liked Prometheus as well, so maybe I'm not a "credible" critic either.

[zombie]

And I also agree that there was a time when movies didn't need to hold the audience's hand in order for them to understand their film. But that time is long gone. A lot of movies that were classics, if they were made today, would bomb hard in my opinion.

Today, everything is spelled out. Even the best of the best of movies. It has to be that way because the movie watching crowd has grown and its not just for "intellectuals" so unfortunately for these movie makers to continue making movies they need to make money and in order to make the most money they need to grab ALL the audience, not just a niche, and by doing that they have to dilute the film with "here let me explain this to you a couple times JUST in case you missed it the first two times due to you being on your stupid fucking iPhone get fucked faggot"

[Echo Leader]

Will definitely check.

[Versive]

I disagree. Just about every film, particularly every scifi film, has at least one moment of exposition designed for that exact purpose - spelling out what people with imagination and/or deductive reasoning capacity can infer on their own.

That's not really true. For just the most obvious recent examples, see Under The Skin or Upstream Color. Really great movies show, not tell, or at least they are supposed to. There's a reason why people hated the voice-over version of Bladerunner and why at the end of Space Odyssey somebody doesn't helpfully pop up to explain what exactly is full of stars.

Do you think that a movie like Bladerunner or 2001 could be made today, or that it would be a commercial success if it was? Under the Skin is easily my favorite movie of 2014 and Upstream Color is up there for 2013. But those movies didn't make the kind of money that a franchise film like Alien or a blockbuster like Elysium is expected to make.

I'm not arguing with you about the tenets of good storytelling. I'm just talking about what Hollywood does and what the typical audience member wants.

But then again, I'm a disgrunted copywriter who works for a marketing agency and has no direct knowledge of film-making so I could be totally full of shit in case you didn't get that already from my two other "But then again"s.

Today, everything is spelled out. Even the best of the best of movies. It has to be that way because the movie watching crowd has grown and its not just for "intellectuals" so unfortunately for these movie makers to continue making movies they need to make money and in order to make the most money they need to grab ALL the audience, not just a niche, and by doing that they have to dilute the film with "here let me explain this to you a couple times JUST in case you missed it the first two times due to you being on your stupid fucking iPhone get fucked faggot"

I hate to be one of those people who's all back in the day it was this, and today it's this, but dude is right.

[zombie]

trust me I don't like being "that guy" either.

But lets face it, i mean are most of us in our late 20's/ mid 30's/ older?

We have to watch the same movies 15-18 year olds have to watch.

[EMCEE DARTH MALEK]

hollywood fell off when they excommunicated mel gibson

[Y@k Bollocks]

But lets face it, i mean are most of us in our late 20's/ mid 30's/ older?

We have to watch the same movies 15-18 year olds have to watch.

Never thought about it like that. How depressing.

[ric]

really want to see district 9 but haven't yet.
that said. alien 1 has social undertones but they don't really drive the movie. the movie is driven by feeling like you're one of the characters. like you're there with them watching this happen. the little details of what is happening and how they deal and all those obstacles and questions drive the movie.
alien 2 is much more narrative driven but that's James Cameron for you. always a lesson or some shit. not that that's stupid. alien 2 is awesome but it's saved by how they create the conflict and military involvement and fighting and alien hive etc. more character shit.
if this alien is mere social garbage at least it will be better than ressurection but I think the point is that it may not really belong in the alien canon where the thing that is awesome about the movies is how they do the alien stuff.
which is one reason why prometheus is a little off. some of the alien stuff is awesome. some of it is kind of dumb even though it's a unique take
at least resurrection had cool alien shit going on even if Ripley was a bit much at times

[Spartan]

Do you mind delving a bit further about the "social undertones", ric?

[ric]

@spartan
Oh you know like in alien 1 just basic/minor stuff like soulless corporations suck, there are issues in re artificial intelligence/robots and questions about space exploration etc. but like I said it's just kinda there a little bit. there's clear opinions but it's not like the whole movie is a gigantor statement against or for any given thing aside from some anticorporate shit. like alien 2 is start to finish an anti corporate + feminism thing. they even have the fucking queen being pushed into space. which reminds me. grease is a great support actor to a 'strong lady' character

[ric]

Prometheus - First time seeing it since the theater. If you can pull this thing out from under the rubble of collapsed expectations, you get an extremely good looking and entertaining scifi jawnt with moments of occasional stupidity. I have a feeling time will be more kind to it than the initial reactions were. BUT, with that said, there are two alternate scenes on the DVD which do a better job of explaining some plot details then the versions included in the film, and that kind of shit again brings you back to the point where you get UMAD about what this movie could have been in theory

just rewatched this did a thread search. this is the best I can find but yeah agreed that the movie is better than the initial reaction pegged it as. that said. upon rewatching the best way to watch this movie is to stop giving a shit about what it's about if that makes any sense which leads me into the point that the storytelling is not sweet which actually when you look at the entire history of alien movies (and really most movies made when the guild writers are writing) the storytelling is soooo much better. even resurrection which sucks but at least there's a decent story to everything. it doesn't even make sense to call this character driven. it's really more like... concept driven drivel that you watch play out and hope they do something that's cool.

which brings me to this point here. I've never seen lost but the writing must be horrible. like vickers loves and hates dada waylon. and vice versa. fucking why? no reason. why does vickers go on the quest? what kind of d grade bullshit is that? the Shaw lady is a fucking archeologist how does she know about dna and shit but the captain of the ship only knows about commanding shit and the boyfriend doesn't know shit about anything he just had an idea that worked out and suddenly he's the boss?

anyway like I said earlier in post. concept driven drivel that you hope turns out cool and that ridley probably said 'I need xyz to happen and I need you to take it from place to place' and then he wanted an update to the morality shit and this is what came out of the lost guys mouth. just some slimy black shit that wriggles around