

"It's set in 2085, about 30 years before Sigourney [Weaver's character Ellen Ripley]. It's fundamentally about going out to find out 'Who the hell was that Space Jockey?' The guy who was sitting in the chair in the alien vehicle — there was a giant fellow sitting in a seat on what looked to be either a piece of technology or an astronomer's chair. Remember that?"
He continues, "And our man [Tom Skerritt as Captain Dallas] climbs up and says "There's been an explosion in his chest from the inside out — what was that?" I'm basically explaining who that Space Jockey — we call him the Space Jockey — I'm explaining who the space jockeys were.
"It's Weyland. Weyland hasn't joined Yutani yet, so they go and see Weyland. [The film] is about the discussion of terraforming — taking planets and planetoids and balls of earth and trying to terraform, seed them with the possibilities of future life.
... The main character [in the prequel] will be a woman, yeah. We're thinking it could go down that route, yeah. When I started the original "Alien," Ripley wasn't a woman, it was a guy. During casting, we thought, "Why don't we make it a woman?
... Yeah, the thing about "Alien vs. Predator" is, I know it's commerce, but what a pity. I think, therefore, I have to design — or redesign — earlier versions of what these elements are that led to the thing you finally see in "Alien," which is the thing that catapults out of the egg, the face-hugger.
Yeah, he's (Giger) still around. Once I get more serious and get going, and the big wheels start turning, we'll certainly talk. And maybe we'll come up with something completely different.
... We're hoping to have it in theaters in late 2011, or maybe the best date in 2012."
.
2 comments:
Why does anyone think a prequel to Alien or any movie that people love is necessary? It ruins everything. I can't find the right words to articulate what a stupid idea I think this is. Why can't someone stop them?
I recently rewatched both Alien and Aliens and was surprised by how well the former has stood the test of time while that latter is very much a child of the 80s. It's simply a better film and, oddly, feels more contemporary. So I'm willing to give Ridley Scott the benefit of doubt.
Post a Comment