“Alien” Prequel
Who’s Behind It?: 20th Century Fox, director Ridley Scott, screenwriters Damon Lindelof and Jon Spaights.
What Is It?: Reportedly, the intentions of Scott are to take the series back to its roots, specifically the haunted original film that introduced the murderous xenomorphs as a parasitic alien race emerging from the shadows to kill. This planned two-film prequel, which deals with the Weyland-Yutani corporation developing terraforming technology, would also primarily showcase what happened to the spacecraft explored by Ellen Ripley and company in the first film, particularly the deceased Space Jockey, whose remains have been speculated on by a legion of fans.
Why Should This Be Made?: “Alien” is a popular series that has spanned six movies and several videogame, comic book and novel tie-ins. It was only a matter of time before Fox got the ball rolling on another film in the franchise, so why not take a chance with Ridley Scott? Scott’s had a number of hits since “Alien,” but most feel that as the architect of the franchise, he made the best “Alien” film yet. Furthermore, there is iconic resonance of the Xenomorph creatures, one of the few genuine monster movie icons in the last forty years. While later films in the series emphasized the science fiction trappings of the story, Scott’s original film was something of an outer space slasher, so it’s clear someone needed to restore the creature to its monstrous origins before it lost relevance, giving the franchise a new lease on life and re-igniting interest in the earlier films as catalog titles.
Why Shouldn’t It Be Made?: Scott has apparently suggested a $250 million budget would be necessary for these films. While it remains unclear if he was suggesting $250 million for each film or $125 per, that’s still a very steep price. None of the “Alien” films have even crossed $100 million domestic (“Alien Vs. Predator” is the biggest worldwide moneymaker at $172 million) so if the two films, in total, carried a quarter of a billion price tag on production alone, they would most assuredly have to make $600-$800 million worldwide for a theatrical profit. If they cost $250 million each, then a billion dollar gross is the starting point. That is, of course, if the first one doesn’t flop, turning the second film into an albatross. Of course, being a franchise, the value will lie in ancillaries, but how many times can you re-release “Alien Resurrection” on Blu-Ray? Scott’s also demanding an R-rating, and the list of $600 million-grossing R-rated movies isn’t very big – just “The Matrix Reloaded” and “The Passion of the Christ.”
Scott also isn’t the filmmaker he used to be, alternating between dull, expensive epics with varying degrees of financial success. His name doesn’t have the cachet it did ten years ago when “Gladiator” won Best Picture, and he’s coming off “Robin Hood,” the most successful (and expensive) of Universal’s recent expenditures, and only because it barely eked out a profit, and only because Europe loves their period epics, as domestic grosses reflected a willing but apathetic core audience. His talk about returning to the roots of the first film sound promising until you realize the budget he’s demanding suggests a film that would be nothing like the claustrophobic original.
And finally, it’s a prequel. Of course, Fox is a business, and they want to keep revitalizing this brand name every few years, but after two “Alien Vs. Predator” movies, this brand is damaged goods. It would take a lot of marketing power to get people into the theaters to see this monster again, and even then, why? Why must we know exactly what happened with the Space Jockey? That moment in “Alien” carries power because of the horrifying fates we imagined the crew suffered at the hands of their attackers, and it’s already been diluted by all the sequels. Two prequel films would render it irrelevant.
Similar Films: Fox knew the “Predator” franchise was damaged by its team-ups with the “Alien” characters, so they were wise to allow Robert Rodriguez to shepherd the title back to the screen in a film that was part sequel, part remake, and part reboot. “Predators” was cheap, and released in the middle of summer, it grossed $52 million domestically, $125 worldwide.
Final Word: Fox was developing this project under the aegis of frosh director Carl Erik Rinsch, but once they decided to take a shot at making something a little bigger, they requested Scott take the helm. He’s since requested a two-film commitment at that hefty budget, which lends some doubt as to whether the project will happen. It’s possible this could become a co-production between Fox and another heavy hitter, or that a super-producer (James Cameron?) might lend the project some extra heat. Or it’s possible Scott doesn’t actually want to make the movie, and is torpedoing the studio efforts with unrealistic demands. Whatever the case, it’s a dubious proposition to make tent pole blockbusters at ever-unreliable Fox, especially if the budget is that out-of-control. They had the right idea in “Predators,” which was to work fast and cheap, and hope that a strong DVD showing paves the way for a bigger sequel. At this point, Ridley Scott is not the filmmaker needed to examine the possibility that previous “Alien” films weren’t galactic blockbusters because of too-small budgets.
Should It Be Made?: No.
Superman: The Man Of Steel
Who’s Behind It?: Warner Bros., director Zack Snyder, producer Chris Nolan, writer David Goyer
What Is It?: Warner Bros.’ sixth big screen attempt at bringing Superman to the masses, though the plot is being kept under wraps. It is said to be a reboot of the franchise, so no attachment to previous titles is expected, though it will feature the Man of Steel in combat with Kryptonian super villain Zod, and may have a strong Clark Kent angle.
Why Should This Be Made?: Warner Bros. and DC Comics are smarting at their failure to launch films based on their stable of comic characters while Marvel Films flourishes, but they still have a large pool of marketable entites to utilize. And there’s none bigger on either side than Superman, a pop icon like no other who hasn’t shined on the big screen since “Superman II” in the early eighties. Superman is the most instantly recognizable superhero available, with an unforgettable look and an origin story that most know by heart. There is no ancillary product with a big red “S” that you can’t sell. Should be a slam dunk, right?
Warner Bros. trusted Bryan Singer on “Superman Returns” and were burned by his stately, mannered take on the character that valued reverence and thematic knottiness to crowd-pleasing action sequences and high drama. They made the safe choice in allowing the next Superman project to reach the screen under Nolan, who has provided the architecture for the current onscreen DC universe with “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight.” He skewed conservatively as well by involving Snyder, who adapted two other comic properties for the WB thus far, with mixed but mostly positive success.
Furthermore, despite the negative reputation of “Superman Returns,” it grossed $400 million worldwide. Regardless of profit, when a property brings in that level of cash, its foolish to ignore the earning potential of the brand name. Audiences clearly have a hunger for costumed adventurers, and Superman’s image has survived partly due to the characters’ malleability. The Last Son Of Krypton means something different to everyone, so there’s reason to believe Snyder and Nolan’s vision will differ greatly from the Man of Steel brought to us by Singer or director Richard Donner.
Why Shouldn’t It Be Made?: As conservative as this new approach may be, cost still factors in. A “Superman” film isn’t going to have less than a $200 million production budget, so you’re looking at a necessary worldwide number of $600 million to break even right off the bat. This would mean the new “Superman” film would have to be much bigger than the previous one, and while money talks, “Superman Returns” tepid DVD showing suggests a franchise picture that no one truly liked, furthering the chasm between the appeal of the big blue boy scout and the more risqué, socially relevant adventures of Iron Man and the X-Men. This means a gargantuan marketing budget to get audiences burned six years ago back into the theater.
There’s also the possible torpedoing of D.C.’s cross-pollination plans. Seeing Marvel’s intentions for “The Avengers” have made the company eager to use their characters to populate each others’ universes, in essence using Superman to sell the Flash, using the Flash to sell Wonder Woman, and so on. Nolan has unfortunately gone on record saying that he dislikes this blueprint, and would prefer to have both Batman and Superman exist in completely isolated universes. While DC is adding a few outer-universe references in next summer’s “Green Lantern,” it would be much easier to tie an already-established heavy hitter like Supes or Batman into the larger superhero world. But Nolan already killed the George Miller “Justice League” movie that was set to go in front of cameras on the eve of the writer’s strike, and that was pre-“Inception.”
And why Nolan’s judgment need not be questioned previously, Zack Snyder? The overeager hitmaker has reflected a dullard’s mindset in his theatrical pictures thus far, emphasizing empty thrills over thematic intent. In adapting “300” and “Watchmen,” he created empty, meaningless dioramas posing as motion pictures, and while DVD numbers on the latter are hard to find, the film needed to do gangbusters business to compensate for a mediocre theatrical showing. Snyder’s gone on record about being offered the director’s chair for “Superman” and turning it down, so accepting it so quickly after the first weekend failure of his animated “Legend of the Guardians” speaks volumes about his next picture, “Sucker Punch.”
Similar Films: Universal and Marvel tried to reboot the “Hulk” franchise after the dismal showing of 2003’s “Hulk,” and while 2008’s “The Incredible Hulk” grossed a similar amount ($263 million over $245 worldwide), there was strong skepticism over presenting a different version of the character with another actor. While “Incredible” was a popular catalog title, Marvel has no plans for a third “Hulk” adventure (we’d be hard-pressed to believe what they’ve told Mark Ruffalo), opting to recast again for the upcoming “Avengers” film.
Final Word: It’s uncertain if the development on the new “Superman” picture has anything to do with the lawsuit against the WB regarding ownership rights of the character. They spent time in court justifying their treatment and marginalization of the character on film, so turning around and making another big budget adventure is suspicious. They might be required to get a film in theaters by 2012 to retain the character, as per the lawsuit’s requirements, and are likely putting their best foot forward. Ideally, the best financial decision would have been to agree upon a massive settlement and joint ownership, but either that wasn’t in the cards and/or the studio realized they could make billions of dollars in profit by relaunching a “Superman” franchise. Even if the new film is a break-even, a quality picture that audiences like goes a long way towards guaranteeing the longevity of the character in future installments. Snyder on his own doesn’t seem to be the right fit for that plan, but with Nolan exerting strong creative control, there’s reason to believe this is a step in the right direction.
Should This Be Made?: Yes.
