Is Sigourney Weaver Back For More Aliens?

[IAMTHESYSTEM]

Here's the blurp that Ellen Ripley might return to her favourite franchise.

https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/exclusive-sigourney-weaver.html?fbclid=IwAR0xlVNPYSz2DQLz4OVPMnRtW-efbDl5smlBOVNsC7OVKiT2ru4xjvpWWKw

[paddykafka]

Well, I'm just throwing this concept into the ether to see who bites: An alien spaceship crash-lands in a Disney theme park. Cue absolute mayhem, with chest-bursting dwarves etc. Ripley - currently employed as a tour guide in the park - has to save the day.

(I shall now sit back and relax, as I wait for the inevitable multi-million dollar option rights to come my way.) 

[wedgeski]

"Sigourney Weaver is currently 72 years old, which is definitely older than she was when she first starred in Alien."

That's some quality insight right there!

[The Legendary Shark]

Alien: Geriatrica.

[milstar]

At least she is not older than Harrison Ford. Will Hollywood move for once onto a new franchise instead of milking older and juiceless ones?

[repoman]

They need to stop making Alien, Predator and Terminator films.  It's done. 

I can't quite put a finger on why this is but it is impossible to make a good film in any of those franchises now. 

[IndigoPrime]

For me, it’s because they remain slavishly tied to the original continuity, in a manner that too often erodes the mystery in the original films, overcomplicates matters, and also stops new writers from doing anything interesting.

[pictsy]

They need to stop making Alien, Predator and Terminator films.  It's done. 

I can't quite put a finger on why this is but it is impossible to make a good film in any of those franchises now.

Dark Fate worked for me.  As far as I'm concerned it's the third film in the Terminator trilogy.  But still, I agree, no more.

[CalHab]

For me, it’s because they remain slavishly tied to the original continuity, in a manner that too often erodes the mystery in the original films, overcomplicates matters, and also stops new writers from doing anything interesting.

I used to quite enjoy the Dark Horse Aliens comics, they often did interesting things with the material. Maybe its the format?

The Marvel Aliens comics I've read have been very poor.

[IndigoPrime]

Perhaps it’s a combination of format, flexibility and creative teams. Certainly, movies lack the space to do a great deal with a concept. TV shows provide more breathing room and comics even more so, given that your ‘budget’ is effectively unlimited. That said, comics are no guarantee either. Firefly should have been an obvious comics hit: fill in the gaps from the end of S01 to Serenity and then forge ahead. But almost every comic I’ve read in that universe has been utter shit.

[CalHab]

Budget is a good point. There's more willingness to take a creative risk on a comic when, at most, you'll lose thousands of dollars, not tens or hundreds of millions if you fail. The dead hand of committees and executives will stifle creativity.

[pictsy]

Budget is a good point. There's more willingness to take a creative risk on a comic when, at most, you'll lose thousands of dollars, not tens or hundreds of millions if you fail. The dead hand of committees and executives will stifle creativity.

This probably hits closer to the truth.  They are viewed as Intellectual Property... emphasis on Property.  It's an asset to make money from.  It's viewed in terms of risk and reward.  Creativity is hardly a consideration or a necessity because a name can get bums on seats.  Let's face it, plenty of cinematic masterpieces have been flops and plenty of creatively-devoid piles of garbage have been blockbuster hits.  So why would it matter if they keep pumping out piles of garbage if it's still making them money?

[Colin YNWA]

Budget is a good point. There's more willingness to take a creative risk on a comic when, at most, you'll lose thousands of dollars, not tens or hundreds of millions if you fail. The dead hand of committees and executives will stifle creativity.

Some of the great comics runs have been from comic being on its knees, about to fold and a creator - often young - being pulled in and told to do what they want as no one is particularly paying attention to that dead horse. Claremont (joined by Byrne) on X-Men, Frank Miller on Daredevil; Walt Simonson on Thor (I think) all fall in as classic examples of that.

The same just can't happen with movies as the cost of a pitch hit is too much these days.

[Barrington Boots]

Budget is a good point. There's more willingness to take a creative risk on a comic when, at most, you'll lose thousands of dollars, not tens or hundreds of millions if you fail. The dead hand of committees and executives will stifle creativity.

This probably hits closer to the truth.  They are viewed as Intellectual Property... emphasis on Property.  It's an asset to make money from.  It's viewed in terms of risk and reward.  Creativity is hardly a consideration or a necessity because a name can get bums on seats.  Let's face it, plenty of cinematic masterpieces have been flops and plenty of creatively-devoid piles of garbage have been blockbuster hits.  So why would it matter if they keep pumping out piles of garbage if it's still making them money?

Definitely this. There's more bad than good films in all three francises nowdays, but with such marketable IPs they'll keep churning out the cinematic equivalent of McDonalds burgers.

Agree re. the old Dark Horse comics, I've still got a bunch of these somewhere plus a reprint where all the film characters names have been changed because at that time these weren't huge franchises.

[Funt Solo]

Firefly should have been an obvious comics hit: fill in the gaps from the end of S01 to Serenity and then forge ahead. But almost every comic I’ve read in that universe has been utter shit.

Agreed. They're too reverent, and end up being terribly bland. The show's dated quite a bit, as well - having Reynolds call Inara out for her profession every two minutes because he "loves her" is icky poo nasty.