Thats fucking ridiculous he doesn't need that.
As for the rating, he's Ridley Scott, if he doesn't get the rating he wants he'll walk.
Goddamn it, skip this movie and work on Brave New World...
Though it depends on how much they want to cut it down to. But I mean, if the man wants a 250 mil budget then he must have something truely big in mind, and he's Ridley fucking Scott so he'll do it right.
$250 would make this tie for the third most expensive movie ever. Even avatar managed a lesser budget, though not by much, with $237 million.
Superman returns still holds the most expensive movie title right?
They'd better not make it a PG-13. No way would they be able to make another Alien film that stood a chance of competing with the originals if they made it with a PG-13 rating.
5/25/2007 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End $300,000,000
5/4/2007 Spider-Man 3 $258,000,000
7/15/2009 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince $250,000,000
12/18/2009 Avatar $237,000,000
6/28/2006 Superman Returns Warner Bros. $232,000,000
they spent three hundred mil on that pile of garbage PotC3?
hahahahahahahah what a delightful waste of money.
aaaaaand spider man 3
yeah but they could have spent that money NOT producing a terrible film
I hate 3D, but I love Ridly Scott.
Ridley wouldn't do the "gimmicky shit that pops out at you and charge an extra $5"
It would be another Avatar-esque experience if he did it.
Personally, if Scott had a lower budget, he'd still make an excellent film.
I might be late but it better be rated R Because It's not an ALIEN Movie without Headbites,Molecular acid burning through some poor sucker's flesh
And bits of brains flying from the head when an alien pierces the skull with their pharyngeal jaws(for those who don't know what that is it's a fancy word for a second pair of jaws)
Seriously guys, do some fucking research before making posts. These new prequels are A) going to cover when humans and aliens make contact for the first time B) the origin of the space jockey C) the rise of The Company thing. Ripley will not be in this, she will not even be mentioned, nor will the lead role be an ancestor of her or any of that stuff. This is 100% original.
I kinda want the space jockey to remain unknown, it added to the mystery of the Alien, but then again im desperate for more Alien movies.
A movie about either the corporation or the jockeys would be sweet.
Would be a pretty good opening for an ending too i guess, a jockey sitting down in that chair to die, fade to black, splashing sound.
It cheapens it.
Alien has very little gore. Sure the chestbursting was nasty but aside from that, you had a bit of blood flashing on the screen for a split second when Parker was killed, and you see Lamberts foot with a bit of blood on it.
Thats pretty much it.
Gore isn't scary.
Apparently logistics is outside your purview.
He wants 250 million for two movies shot with stereoscopic lensing for true 3d and completely practical effects, which isn't even midrange for two projects.
Alien was the goriest movie made to date at the time, and test audiences reacted so badly to Parker's original minute long death scene where the Alien literally pulled half his brain out that people literally ran screaming from the test theater, which prompted FOX, not Scott to shorten it to what it is now.
Research be thy friend and ally.
Any actual article about the movies, such as the group at Io9. Both are being shot back to back, which is why Scott wanted Rinsch, who has a hell of alot more time to shoot, and a lot more familiar with bleeding edge film techniques.
Fox being upset over a budget of $125, plus the way everyone's been freaking out over the number doesn't make much sense. Them being upset over one film costing $250 million sure does. Even the article this was originally reported on never states that it's for both prequels together.
Plus last I checked we were told the two films aren't being shot back to back. When did that change?
Months and months ago, when the final new Lindelof-edited script was delivered. The logistics of shooting in stereo on sets built specifically for that purpose also factored in to the decision. Scott doesn't have the time or inclination to go back to mothballed sets 6-18 months later and speaking of ridiculous money, FOX isn't going to lay out capital to rent out lots for the same amount of time while they aren't being used.
PG-13 = wider variety of audiences = more money.
Essentially, they want another AVP. But, it's Ridley Scott, he will kindly tell them to go fuck themselves. Plus, when FOX uses Alien as one of their 75th anniversary posters, I think Scott should get to do whatever he wants.
Look at that. It says 75 years of screams. That must mean that FOX has no problem with R rated horror/gore films, and Alien wouldn't work on any other level.
Also, Alien Director's Cut ftw.
Alien and Aliens are really good movies, and I hope these prequels will be on the same wavelength.
PG13 Alien? The hell Fox?
If it has a PG13 rating, I am not watching it.
Also Pg-13=wider audience=more money
could also be:
R=movie sells well and gets good reviews=good Blueray/DVD sales=
And I still say that Alien was the best movie in the entire franchise and is one of the pinnacles of design and cinematography in movies.
If they deliver something like Aliens and it's all actiony and over the top and completely not scary I'll send them very angry letters.
I want an Amnesia: The Dark Decent, not a Dead Space.