Discussion:
Weaver Talking About Alien 5
(too old to reply)
ADWatts
2006-01-06 00:54:02 UTC
Permalink
This is probably old stuff (couldn't find a date for the
interview), but it's the first time I'd seen it, and it was
pretty interesting.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigourney Weaver on Alien Future

During the Village junket, Sigourney Weaver got asked her requisite Alien
questions, and seemed to say two different things. Some reports said she was
done with the series, others said that she would do one more. Now, Weaver
clarifies.

"What I was saying probably was that Ridley Scott and I had talked about
doing one more where we go back to the original planet and see what these
creatures came out of, but I think that it would be probably unlikely that a
major studio would go for it only because one of the lead characters would
be a 55-year-old woman," Weaver said. "I don't think the audience would care
at all because I don't think we're as ageist as the business is. So I think
that we'd be game."

That said, some heavy production work would have to be done before she could
get involved. "We're both so busy that I'm not going to sit down and write
the whole script. And I didn't rush to see Alien vs. Predator which looked
awful to me, like a video game. But I just hope that the alien won, because
predator is such a stupid looking creature."

When told that in fact the aliens lost, Weaver got dramatic. "I'm offended.
I need to take a shower." Still, she had one nice thing to say, "The actress
who played the Ripley character, I saw in 'Raisin in the Sun'. She's
wonderful. Sanaa Lathan."

But would a studio really resist the opportunity to get Ridley Scott and
Sigourney Weaver back together for an Alien movie? "It would have to be Fox
because they own it. I think Ridley would have to stamp his foot a few
times, but would they do it? I don't know. Maybe they would give us a pretty
low budget to do it. The first one, we made for $14 million. Of course, that
was the dark ages in 1978, but I don't think it takes a lot of money. You
just have to think. I don't know, I'm never out here long enough to call
Ridley and say, 'So, what's happening.' But we do feel there's no rush
really. The planet will still be there. I just have to be unemployed long
enough to come up with a good idea. It's fun. I miss those clothes."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I still don't hold much hope for it happening, but it would
be so great to see Ridley Scott back at the helm of an
Alien film.

I can dream anyway . . .

Loved her comments on AvP, too. :-)

Ahmed
USCM Mike
2006-01-06 03:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ADWatts
Loved her comments on AvP, too.
Agreed!

Mike
--
remove SPAMSUCKS to reply

/#BB, D7###a
B4W5G ?`_4E@
BgW#? ~. ,+ >gg##V
`"4#a___ agggg__2ggg_ ___2#4"
""@gg92___JJ22"***@4"
_a@#####@ggegp#####a
ggg*4@#J]P___7WQ22B%########qg____
j#@#_ A#***@9#99WG._########B ,W@##@
[M4" `######B#@g#######M#" `@#BB@

http://www.scifimilitary.com
http://p220.ezboard.com/fthealienslegacyfrm2
Sandman
2006-01-07 08:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by ADWatts
I can dream anyway . . .
Loved her comments on AvP, too. :-)
Well, she is pretty ignorant. I dislike the holier than thou attitude where she
somehow has some Alien authority. Note that she said she liked the woman who
played "the Ripley character". Duh?

I pretty much agree with the crowd that says that any new Alien movie should
exclude Ripley by now.

I'd love to see Ridley Scott back behind the cam, or even Cameron. But the
script is the critical part anyway. Derelict! Somewhere right after A3.
--
Sandman[.net]
Tracy
2006-01-07 10:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sandman
Post by ADWatts
I can dream anyway . . .
Loved her comments on AvP, too. :-)
Well, she is pretty ignorant. I dislike the holier than thou attitude where she
somehow has some Alien authority. Note that she said she liked the woman who
played "the Ripley character". Duh?
Weaver forgets she co-produced the diabolical Ar(se) - she *knows* it
was crap but is in complete denial and then has the cheek to slate
another movie (albeit correct!).
Post by Sandman
I pretty much agree with the crowd that says that any new Alien movie should
exclude Ripley by now.
Agreed.
Post by Sandman
I'd love to see Ridley Scott back behind the cam, or even Cameron. But the
script is the critical part anyway. Derelict! Somewhere right after A3.
SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story!
SJ story!
Sandman
2006-01-08 09:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracy
Post by Sandman
I'd love to see Ridley Scott back behind the cam, or even Cameron. But the
script is the critical part anyway. Derelict! Somewhere right after A3.
SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story!
SJ story!
Hmmm, but I still want humans in the story...
--
Sandman[.net]

"Apple beat Wintel to market with 64 bit personal computers"
- Edwin
Tracy
2006-01-08 09:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sandman
Post by Tracy
Post by Sandman
I'd love to see Ridley Scott back behind the cam, or even Cameron. But the
script is the critical part anyway. Derelict! Somewhere right after A3.
SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story!
SJ story!
Hmmm, but I still want humans in the story...
Then we can have a time traveller or two perhaps? And the twist could
be a relative of Ripley's????? Another kick-ass muvver!!
Sandman
2006-01-09 12:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracy
Post by Sandman
Post by Tracy
Post by Sandman
I'd love to see Ridley Scott back behind the cam, or even Cameron. But the
script is the critical part anyway. Derelict! Somewhere right after A3.
SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story!
SJ story!
Hmmm, but I still want humans in the story...
Then we can have a time traveller or two perhaps?
Only if it's Michael J Fix and the time machine is a DeLorean! :)
--
Sandman[.net]

"Kudos to Apple for being the first to bring affordable 64 bit
computing to the PC market"
- Edwin
Tracy
2006-01-09 14:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sandman
Post by Tracy
Post by Sandman
Post by Tracy
Post by Sandman
I'd love to see Ridley Scott back behind the cam, or even Cameron. But the
script is the critical part anyway. Derelict! Somewhere right after A3.
SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story!
SJ story!
Hmmm, but I still want humans in the story...
Then we can have a time traveller or two perhaps?
Only if it's Michael J Fix and the time machine is a DeLorean! :)
I want Emmett Brown, then!!!!!!!!!!
Covenant
2006-01-09 20:15:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracy
Post by Sandman
Post by Tracy
Post by Sandman
Post by Tracy
Post by Sandman
I'd love to see Ridley Scott back behind the cam, or even
Cameron. But
the
script is the critical part anyway. Derelict! Somewhere right after A3.
SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story!
SJ story!
Hmmm, but I still want humans in the story...
Then we can have a time traveller or two perhaps?
Only if it's Michael J Fix and the time machine is a DeLorean! :)
I want Emmett Brown, then!!!!!!!!!!
Freaky !!!

I just watched the trilogy at the weekend!

(New *ultimate* release, £15.95 at Tescos!)
--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
John Redman
2006-01-10 22:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracy
Post by Sandman
I'd love to see Ridley Scott back behind the cam, or even Cameron. But the
script is the critical part anyway. Derelict! Somewhere right after A3.
SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story! SJ story!
SJ story!
You're not going back there to study them, right...but to wipe them out?

That's what we need...it's time to locate the homeworld...
w***@yahoo.com
2006-01-13 04:05:13 UTC
Permalink
I'm wondering if the homeworld is more of a multilayered home structure
of alien design than a world
a***@yahoo.co.uk
2006-01-08 20:14:33 UTC
Permalink
I don't think they should have made any more after Aliens
Tracy
2006-01-09 15:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
I don't think they should have made any more after Aliens
Oh, I agree, but we have to face facts that two more came after it, the
last one being nothing but AR(se).

The grapevine indicates the possibility of an Alien 5, so the
story/actors have to make up for the decline!

If we could have an A5, what storyline would you like to see?
a***@yahoo.co.uk
2006-01-08 20:11:55 UTC
Permalink
I don't think they should have made any more after Aliens
Tracy
2006-01-09 17:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Nice answer - please call again!
w***@yahoo.com
2006-01-13 04:21:06 UTC
Permalink
they shouldn't have made any more after Alien until they could come up
with a story that offered something new
Tracy
2006-01-13 09:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@yahoo.com
they shouldn't have made any more after Alien until they could come up
with a story that offered something new
Wasnt it 'Aliens' that set the precedent for all the other film-makers
to go with the military style mavericks kicking ass with monsters?

Maybe not an original idea, but it had style and we were entertained by
all of the characters in one way or another.

I guess we could include John Carpenter's 'The Thing' (4 years before
'Aliens') but they werent expert military guys fighting the monster!

Dont get me wrong - ALIEN is the best and will always be the best.

Just to satisfy us fan(atic)s, a story line based on what happens
before the Nostromo's encounter (origins of the Alien and the Space
Jockey) would make for an interesting and hopefully exciting film - if
done well, with lots of thought and love gone into it. Feedback from
the fans would be a very good idea!!

Which one of us is gonna write to Scott and Cameron, then? :P
Adam Cameron
2006-01-13 12:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracy
Wasnt it 'Aliens' that set the precedent for all the other film-makers
to go with the military style mavericks kicking ass with monsters?
Hmmm. I'd be hesitant with that assertion.

How about the original "The Thing" (1951)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/combined.

Or "Them!" (1954)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/combined.

These kinda fall into that category, don't they? The original The Thing
more so than the (better, IMO) 1982 one, I think, as the main characters
*are* military types.

I haven't seen "Them!" in ages, but seem to recall it involving military
types trying (and for most of the film failing) to dispatch the giant ants.
OK, so "giant ants" aren't "alien", but the aliens in Aliens are, for all
intents and purposes, giant ants ;-)
--
Adam
Tracy
2006-01-14 12:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Cameron
Post by Tracy
Wasnt it 'Aliens' that set the precedent for all the other film-makers
to go with the military style mavericks kicking ass with monsters?
Hmmm. I'd be hesitant with that assertion.
Yes, guessed you would! :)) I was being a little pre-emptive in that
I kinda said that to spark off a debate - the place is stagnant and
hoped to inspire a little reaction. Honest!
Post by Adam Cameron
How about the original "The Thing" (1951)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/combined.
Not wishing to split hairs, but the guys in both versions were not
military, they were scientists.
Post by Adam Cameron
Or "Them!" (1954)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/combined.
Yes, military were called in to exterminate the bigguns - but I think
the difference with our B-movie military characters of then, compared
to today, is that in those days we didnt have a personal connection
with the soldiers. We never got introduced to them on a personal
level. They all got killed off, yes, but with Aliens, we get to know
each and every character, almost indepth.

Of course, I can think of another film that involved military (and the
local bobby's) One of my fav films of all time: "Quatermass and the
Pit" (preferred the '67 version to the '58 one) - a very spooky film.
But as with these older films, there always appeared to end up being
two main characters/survivors, the hero and his female interest (her
usually completely dependent on him). The female Ripley took this one
step further by replacing the male role.
Post by Adam Cameron
These kinda fall into that category, don't they? The original The Thing
more so than the (better, IMO) 1982 one, I think, as the main characters
*are* military types.
I haven't seen "Them!" in ages, but seem to recall it involving military
types trying (and for most of the film failing) to dispatch the giant ants.
OK, so "giant ants" aren't "alien", but the aliens in Aliens are, for all
intents and purposes, giant ants ;-)
Didnt we all debate this before?? :P
Covenant
2006-01-14 13:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Cameron
OK, so "giant ants" aren't "alien", but the aliens in Aliens are, for all
intents and purposes, giant ants ;-)
heh heh heh.....
--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Covenant
2006-01-14 13:25:55 UTC
Permalink
"Tracy" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
....> Dont get me wrong - ALIEN is the best and will always be the best.


<phew>

You had me worried there!!!
--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
w***@yahoo.com
2006-01-14 22:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Maybe I might have been happier if James Cameron had directed Starship
Trooper instead. For me at the time, Aliens seemed amusing because it
was picking up on the Vietnam war theme that was prevailent at the time
because people wanted to talk about that, and films such as Full Metal
Jacket were coming out too.

I suppose maybe if I wanted a story line based on the origins of the
Alien and the derelict pilot, I probably would not want to keep them
defined as recognisable 'aliens' or 'space jockeys'. After all their
appearances in comic books, any recognisable idea about them seems
almost hackneyed, but the journey to find the most unknown thing about
them could be a tortuous endless thing unless the right writer woke up
one morning with the right inspiration. But one gets people who come
out with claims that they've got the ultimate explanation, and they
write their books like Alien: Original Sin and get it published by Dark
Horse and have it advertised as the book with the answers, and it
doesn't say too much other than make use of mythos that ties in with
some knowledge about the Greys in UFO lore, and five minutes later,
this does not seem inspiring in the slightest. I don't know if there is
an ultimate sequel to Ridley Scott's original vision, unless you just
pulled it away from the direction where these Alien movies have been
going and well possibly disappoint many fans of the series because of
the confusion that it would create.

Then it seems to be hard to make a film that is interesting these days
because of the money men. I'm wondering if Ridley would be the sort of
person who would even want to have typical aliens around en masse in
one of his movies, and so I wonder how much a new design for an alien
creature would deviate from the old one. I wonder if a space jockey
wouldn't work as a character in a movie as anything other than a still
corpse with a story to tell or maybe a barely living thing linked up to
an even bigger life support machine, unless of course it was a vicious
killer on the loose
Tracy
2006-01-16 09:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@yahoo.com
Maybe I might have been happier if James Cameron had directed Starship
Trooper instead. For me at the time, Aliens seemed amusing because it
was picking up on the Vietnam war theme that was prevailent at the time
because people wanted to talk about that, and films such as Full Metal
Jacket were coming out too.
I suppose maybe if I wanted a story line based on the origins of the
Alien and the derelict pilot, I probably would not want to keep them
defined as recognisable 'aliens' or 'space jockeys'.
I am convinced that the origins of the Alien and Space Jockey would be
of interest to avid fans of the trilogy. The cult followings would
recognise the connection. On a commercial basis, maybe it wouldnt fire
peoples interest as much, in general. But to us avids, I think it
would be an interesting and hopefully exciting prospect. Of course,
the writers and director are going to go with a popular theme -
something they think everyone will want to watch and "the needs of the
many....." an' all will come first!

I always imagined SJ as quite heroic - his intention was to take the
remaining Alien species as far away as possible, dump him and them on a
derelict planet, sacrificing himself in the process but intent on
destroying the vicious critters once and for all. There
would have alot of pathos surrounding the hero but lots of kickass
action stuff going on on his or the alien planet before he heads off
into the unknown to take the remaining enemy with him. The irony is,
with all his struggles and self-sacrifice, the Nostromo still picks
up the distress signal and the ending would be the voice of Ripley
saying: "Ash tell Dallas that Mother speculates its some kind of
warning".....






After all their
Post by w***@yahoo.com
appearances in comic books, any recognisable idea about them seems
almost hackneyed, but the journey to find the most unknown thing about
them could be a tortuous endless thing unless the right writer woke up
one morning with the right inspiration. But one gets people who come
out with claims that they've got the ultimate explanation, and they
write their books like Alien: Original Sin and get it published by Dark
Horse and have it advertised as the book with the answers, and it
doesn't say too much other than make use of mythos that ties in with
some knowledge about the Greys in UFO lore, and five minutes later,
this does not seem inspiring in the slightest. I don't know if there is
an ultimate sequel to Ridley Scott's original vision, unless you just
pulled it away from the direction where these Alien movies have been
going and well possibly disappoint many fans of the series because of
the confusion that it would create.
Not everyone reads the comics or books (me included) so if we were to
go in that direction, it may be too much for people who have only
relied on the movie aspect.
Post by w***@yahoo.com
Then it seems to be hard to make a film that is interesting these days
because of the money men. I'm wondering if Ridley would be the sort of
person who would even want to have typical aliens around en masse in
one of his movies, and so I wonder how much a new design for an alien
creature would deviate from the old one. I wonder if a space jockey
wouldn't work as a character in a movie as anything other than a still
corpse with a story to tell or maybe a barely living thing linked up to
an even bigger life support machine, unless of course it was a vicious
killer on the loose
I guess the SJ as an enigma does give rise to many theories.
Personally, I think we should stick with the hero theme. Benevolent
creatures (warrior-like of old) but the warrior in them is awoken when
they encounter Alien.
w***@yahoo.com
2006-01-25 14:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracy
I always imagined SJ as quite heroic - his intention was to take the
remaining Alien species as far away as possible, dump him and them on a
derelict planet, sacrificing himself in the process but intent on
destroying the vicious critters once and for all. There
would have alot of pathos surrounding the hero but lots of kickass
action stuff going on on his or the alien planet before he heads off
into the unknown to take the remaining enemy with him. The irony is,
with all his struggles and self-sacrifice, the Nostromo still picks
up the distress signal and the ending would be the voice of Ripley
saying: "Ash tell Dallas that Mother speculates its some kind of
warning".....
My own vision would have been that the Space Jockey came to a planet
where victims would have been found, he would have landed, infected
himself, given birth to an 'alien' . The survivors of disaster on the
planetoid would have come to the shop and in the bottom chamber beneath
the derelict, they would have given up their physical lives and become
"turned" into spores by the Alien, since there was no other escape.
This would have been a horrid thing to happen, but they were saving the
DNA of workers of some kind of factory on the planet that would have
been destroyed by something. It would have been seen as a ritual and
maybe there would not have been a way to get home because a stargate
had been destroyed during a war and there was an assumption that they
would break through again through another wormhole about a hundred
thousand years down the line. And that idea will change with time. Or
no one was allowed to leave the planetoid because of some kind of
deadly virus on the planet so the derelict stayed with it's pilot.

My first impression when i saw the poster as a child was that the criss
crossing structures at the bottom of the poster were people all lying
down face down as if dead with their arms stretched out to the side as
if in the position of a cross, and they were giving in to the ultimate
doom coming before them that was this Alien egg, then I realised these
were not at all humans at the bottom but some kind of organic lattice
work to represent something from a Giger painting. But in a way the
feeling reminded me of a cult suicide of some kind.
Post by Tracy
Not everyone reads the comics or books (me included) so if we were to
go in that direction, it may be too much for people who have only
relied on the movie aspect.
well, it wouldn't help top rely on comic books or books because
obviously they can't make up their minds especially with their new
attempt to answer the mystery, but the idea of intergrating the mythos
regarding the Greys from UFO lore seems to be getting more and more
reasonable because the first movie mentioned Zeta II Reticuli, probably
inspired by the Betty and Barney Hill alien abduction case that was
made popular at the time. There are still some ideas interesting to me
coming through in relation to the Greys still to this day. But it is
still an exploration of ideas, and I just feel sorry for the writer of
Original Sin. I think that human ways of understanding about things
such as the Greys has also entered into Giger's work unconsciously as
well.

Of course in the original Alien script, it was simply an explorer whos
curiosity got the better of him and led to his doom, and when Giger's
biomechanics came along, this character got absorbed into an unforeseen
scenario that is yet to be explained. If Giger hadn't designed the
creature's remains, we might well not be so interested, or at least
maybe I would have no interest at all in it. O'Bannon was quite content
with one of the earlier renditions of the space creature by another of
the artists, I believe it was Ron Cobb, and he loved a Foss designed
derelict very much.

If we go along with what Ridley Scott has stated though in his
interviews, over the years , the space jockey has come to be a member
of a race involved in carrying what we would call biological weapons
with the intention of using them on other races and indeed being
involved in an intergalactic war. But still that might for me to be too
much of a humanisation of whatever the events the ET was involved in
because, they are not humans.
Post by Tracy
I guess the SJ as an enigma does give rise to many theories.
Personally, I think we should stick with the hero theme. Benevolent
creatures (warrior-like of old) but the warrior in them is awoken when
they encounter Alien.
I suppose maybe there would be an interest in exploring a relationship
between the jockey and the alien that would possible be intellectually
enigmatic and bring us to ask further questions rather than humanising
the entity to any great degree.

But then since we are dealing with a movie which might rely on a set of
events that can be appreciated by a mass audience. It might require an
outwardly humanly understood creature who might be displaying
warrior-like heroism like the scenario which you're imagining. And
maybe I would if I were the writer be aiming for that to be a mirage
leading to something more unexplainable and unknown, possibly touching
on some of the menacing feelings of the moment.


Dom

Vigil
2006-01-19 21:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
I don't think they should have made any more after Aliens
Your opinion is WRONG.
--
.
Loading...