Fox and Ridley Scott Clash Over Alien Prequels

Fox and Ridley Scott Clash Over Alien Prequels

Undoubtedly The Idiot Rothman Is Behind This!

News
By Robotpo - Oct 04, 2010 07:10 AM EST
Filed Under: Sci-Fi
Source: Script Flags

Apparently, the conflict in the upcoming Alien Prequels may come from more than those acid-spewing Xenomorphs. It seems as if director Ridley Scott and 20th Century Fox are butting heads over the scope and atmosphere in the currently in-development prequel duology: Scott wants the films to be epic and dark, while Fox evidently wants the films to be...cheap and easily accessible to teenagers.

"Ridley Scott is at odds with 20th Century Fox, the major studios behind the project over budgetary and creative differences, according to sources close to the production.
It would seem Scott wants a budget of around $250m to make it a sci-fi spectacular, and is also pushing for an 18-rated level of violence and horror. Fox, however, don’t plan on investing anywhere near that sum, and are keen to get a 15 rating to maximise the audience appeal".



Nice. Let's hope he can avoid another Alien VS Predator!
M3GAN Returns In A New Body In First Official Look At Next Year's Sequel
Related:

M3GAN Returns In A New Body In First Official Look At Next Year's Sequel
HIT MAN Star Glen Powell Spotted On Set Of Edgar Wright's THE RUNNING MAN; Movie's Logo Revealed
Recommended For You:

HIT MAN Star Glen Powell Spotted On Set Of Edgar Wright's THE RUNNING MAN; Movie's Logo Revealed

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2
jazzman
jazzman - 10/4/2010, 7:52 AM
this is old news also i cant blame FOX for this one. Ridley Scott is mad $250m budget for a R-Rated Alien movie, is he kidding no way that movie would make it money back. he has to lower the budget and he still can make a R-Rated film. $250m is too much for a R-Rated film.
marvel72
marvel72 - 10/4/2010, 7:58 AM
@ jazzman

what if he filmed both movies back to back for that money.

the alien movies have got to be 18 rated,look what happened to the alien vs predator movies,those movies sucked.

fox just give him the f*cking money you tight f*cks.
SeaSerpentine
SeaSerpentine - 10/4/2010, 8:03 AM
If Fox gets their way, I ain't seeing it.
P862010
P862010 - 10/4/2010, 8:05 AM
why you blaming Fox what type of moron expects a studio to go ahead with a 250 million dollar rated R movie

financial suicide is what that would be
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 10/4/2010, 8:14 AM
An ALIEN movie thats not R is financial suicide! : P
DLM
DLM - 10/4/2010, 8:32 AM
deadpool72@ Exactly, it's two movies, that's what he's planning. People need to remember that. It's $250m for both. Thats $125m each. Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me for a couple of EPIC Alien movies with a great cast.

Problem is, Fox want him to do it on the cheap. Like all there other Alien related movies. Alien Resurrection had the most at $75m.

Fox probably look at that as the limit in case it doesn't do well, so they don't loose to much. I say they probably want him to bring it down to $100-$150m ballpark for both.

I can see their point of view in that respect. Also the first two movies, which were the best by far and were made for $11m and $18m respectively (today with inflation is probably somewhere around $30m and $40m).

Thing is he looks at Avatar and wants to show the Aliens on that sort of scale (which would be amazing). The kink is Fox don't, they want some quick cash. If they don't back down, i can see him walking away.
jazzman
jazzman - 10/4/2010, 8:37 AM
@deadpool72

well if he film back to back its still abit too much for a Alien movie. if u add the first Alien movie budget to all its sequel. thats including Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection budget all of them add up to $149m thats still less then $250m.

what im reading from the site it only said Alien prequel so i guessing one prequel film until its a success then they make another film. if its for a first prequel film $250m is way too much for just for the R-Rated movie. budget like that is for a pg-13 movie studios wont send so much money on the first r-rated prequel of Alien. dont get me wrong i am not a major FOX Studio support when doing comic book movies or any other movies but this make sense that they want the budget lower.


remember Predators was released this year and its r-rated with a budget of $40m and it was released by FOX Studio. that movie made its money back now they planning a sequel.

@DLM

but he needs to realise Avatar was also a PG-13 and it was released in 3D. that movie had no problems making its money back for the studio.
P862010
P862010 - 10/4/2010, 8:52 AM
i say 80 million at the most because

AVP
AVP:R
and even Predators all made around the same - 130 million WW at the maximum

if recent alien predator films cant even make 200 million WW

then why should it get such gigantic budget
jazzman
jazzman - 10/4/2010, 8:56 AM
@P862010

i agree 80 million not $250 million his smoking that bad weed LOL
Robotpo
Robotpo - 10/4/2010, 8:58 AM
The thing is, IMO, that these films films need to be EPIC in order to save a franchise that has been going downhill since 1992.

If Fox just wanted to make the next installment on the cheap, they should have just done AVP 3...

So basically, they insisted that Ridley Scott direct the films himself, rather than just produce, in order to get Scott's distinctive vision, then proceed to tie his hands creatively?

BTW, sorry, was not aware this had already been posted.
jazzman
jazzman - 10/4/2010, 9:07 AM
what u mean it needs to be epic u can still have a lower budget and still make a epic movie. it only depends on how the director use the budget.

the first prequel having a $250 million and its R-Rated is a financial suicide for any Studio right now. no way Alien prequel would make its money back with a budget like that.
P862010
P862010 - 10/4/2010, 9:12 AM
WB might do it since they did give snyder a rated r 130 million watchmen film that was not a franchise
Robotpo
Robotpo - 10/4/2010, 9:17 AM
jazzman, I'm pretty sure he means that BOTH films will have a combined budget of 250 mil, which would mean each film on its own would cost 125, relatively cheap compared to such behemoths as Avatar, Transformers ETC.

If Scott is given the leeway he needs to make these films the events they need to be, they can easily gross something close to The Matrix sequels, which were rated R and made a combined over 1 billion dollars worldwide, each on a budget of $150 million. Why can't the eagerly awaited Scott Alien Prequels do the same?
jazzman
jazzman - 10/4/2010, 9:24 AM
@P862010

true but Watchmen did not make a huge success it only made $185 million plus. even that movie effected WB on thinking that they should make comic book movies into PG-13.

even Terminator Salvation they was going to release the movie R-Rated but because Watchmen failed financially they change the rating to PG-13 for Terminator Salvation. this was mention in this article in the link below

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6527&Itemid=99

@Robotpo

yes The Matrix sequels made about combined over 1 billion dollars worldwide but heres a thing they was done by Warner bros also the first movie was low budget, plus all the Matrix movies made huge money but Aliens movies never made the money like the Matrix sequels.

if its only 2 films with each have a budget of $125m and its R-Rated it will still have problem making money back.
DLM
DLM - 10/4/2010, 9:57 AM
Jazz@ I don't know. The first Alien movie did really well and was probably the most successful. Take inflation into account and it made nearly $300 on a $30m budget. Thats a pretty big profit margin.

But i do agree with you. In todays climate of movie making and the Alien fan base, he is asking quite a lot. He needs to think of either dropping the R and keeping the budget or Keeping the R and dropping the budget. I hope for the latter.

It may not be as 'space epic' looking as most would hope. But at least then it would be a proper Alien movie and not some watered down kiddie friendly version of one.
Robotpo
Robotpo - 10/4/2010, 10:20 AM
jazzman, the first Matrix didn't make that amount either...neither did Batman Begins and the first Pirates movie, yet their follow-us surpassed 1 billion. I think that Alien, having the legacy that it does, could pull that much in with the right advertising and freedom for Scott. Of course, it may not, but I think Fox needs to take the gamble. This is the studio that made the original Alien, Star Wars, and Planet of the Apes, after all.

Then again, Tom Rothman wasn't running Fox those days, so...
jazzman
jazzman - 10/4/2010, 10:54 AM

Matrix has made 400 + million
Batman Begins $370+ million
Pirates of the Caribbean $654,264,015

lets compare them to Aliens movies

Alien $104m
Aliens $131m
Alien 3 $159m
Alien Resurrection $161m

Alien individuals movies have not made huge money like other movies u mention. 250m budget for a Alien movie thats way too much even tho it has a legacy. FOX does really need to take a gamble cause R-Rated movie nowaday with a big budget does not make their money back so easy.

like it has been point out the new Predators was released by FOX Studio. it was a R-Rated movie that only had a budget of 40 million and it made back $125,406,789.
hbk82287
hbk82287 - 10/4/2010, 11:48 AM
I'm going to jump on Lees "Hate fox" train for this one... A good dark and gritty story is just whats needed. This shouldn't be held back over something like aiming for as many fans as possible. Hopefully they realize it will just make things worse if they want to continue the prequels.
Luigi
Luigi - 10/4/2010, 11:50 AM
It'll bomb if they make it for 250 million. Should be 100 million at MOST.
LEEE777
LEEE777 - 10/4/2010, 11:59 AM
hbk82287 @ I don't hate FOX lol!

Just FOX comic book movies!

Their Sci-fi movies etc are gr8, even TV!

Its just the crappy X-MEN movies etc! : p

But saying that, if this Alien Prequels a PG-13 it'll fail!

spider1489
spider1489 - 10/4/2010, 12:04 PM
i dont know why this is such a big deal! just make it into a pg13 movie for the theaters and when it comes out on dvd release the r rated version, that much money should cover that
Robotpo
Robotpo - 10/4/2010, 12:06 PM
jazzman, you have a point. But my point remains that the new Alien films COULD make much more then their predecessors, just as no Batman film made that much before Dark Knight, and so on.

Fox shouldn't go cheap with these; you have to spend money to make money. As Jerry Bruckheimer told Disney when they wanted to cheap-out on the first Pirates film, "Your competition is spending $300 million", referring to "Lord of the Rings", "The Matrix" and so on.

I'm more worried about the budget than the rating, personally. Gore is never what made Alien work, it was the atmosphere and sense of dread from the opening shot onward.

However, an R rating would certainly help an ADULT horror film!
StuckInPanels
StuckInPanels - 10/4/2010, 12:30 PM
Or you know, don't bother with prequels.
RIKSHAWRenegade
RIKSHAWRenegade - 10/4/2010, 12:32 PM
FOX just shot themselves in the foot again. They must go though prostetics like water at those studios! Now they have to destroy there Alien franchise!?! WTF are they thinking!!!!????!!!!

Oh yeah, Greed. How could I forget.
RIKSHAWRenegade
RIKSHAWRenegade - 10/4/2010, 12:35 PM
Poor Ridley Scott, having to deal with such a bunch of D-Bags. Good Luck with that project, your gonna need it. Fox should sell some of these properties and start saving there pennies. I've got a feeling they're gonna need em.
AlexDeLarge87
AlexDeLarge87 - 10/4/2010, 12:40 PM
Robotpo & Intruder@ Agree with you both!
RIKSHAWRenegade
RIKSHAWRenegade - 10/4/2010, 12:47 PM
If they make this movie for $250Mil, this movie would have to be a work of art and epic awesomeness! Buy watering it down to PG-13 and a weakass budget it will surely fail. There won't be any fans left cause it will come out as shit. Hollywood has gone soft, limp, and too greedy for there own good. Big change is in the air, I can smell it. Or maybe I have gas, Regardless this all does not boad well.
otakux3r0
otakux3r0 - 10/4/2010, 1:10 PM
$250 million sounds like a hell of a lot of money. I don't agree with the price tag, but if they pull any punches with this movie it will tank, and hard. The studio can not have it's way on this one. This is the last chance to get it right. If they blow it then were not gonna see another Alien movie ever, and forget AVP. Back off and let the man make a great movie!
Growler
Growler - 10/4/2010, 1:36 PM
Something that seems to be getting forgotten here is that the theatrical release is only the start of the earnings. All these quotes of how much these films made on release are somewhat irrelevant when you start to take into account the earnings they make on DVD/Blu-Ray. Can anyone give me a final figure on how much the Alien films have made since they first came out on VHS (God rest its soul) and subsequent DVD releases? The honest answer to that would be 'no' because these films are still being bought by the public and still making money for Fox.
Ultimately, Rothman is wrong to attempt to put these restrictions on Ridley Scott's artistic vision, as they will make money for Fox for many years to come and his short-sighted approach is damaging the prospect of greater long-term profits because he's hampering a director who is a true visionary, and the man who launched this (vastly profitable)franchise.
Let Ridley Scott make the film he was contracted to make. Fox will still be laughting all the way to the bank 20 years from now.
Talontd
Talontd - 10/4/2010, 1:40 PM
Some of you guys are so dense. Since some people on here just don't seem to understand:

He is asking for $250 Million for 2 Movies!

$250 Million / 2 = $125 Million per film


He is asking for $125 Million per film

For comparison GREEN LANTERN'S budget is $150 million.


Make sense yet?

jeez.
Talontd
Talontd - 10/4/2010, 1:46 PM
Oh, and rest assured.....FOX are the @sshole's here. Scott is trying to give us these movies they way they are supposed to be, FOX wants us to get some watered down bullsh!t. The only way to remain true to the source is for these films to be Rated-R.

Bravo, Ridley Scott for sticking to your guns.....Good Man.
Growler
Growler - 10/4/2010, 2:01 PM
@ MarsAmbassador - that's the point I was trying to make. I didn't realise there was an article to read on it though, so thanks.
jazzman
jazzman - 10/4/2010, 2:07 PM
@MarsAmbassador

i know about that but remember this is FOX Studio they dont want to spend money on r-rated film with a big budget.

@Robotpo

i agree it will make more money then the preivous movies. but im not sure FOX will give away a big budget on a r-rated film. maybe back in the days but nowadays the film industry has changed big time look with all these 3D movies.

LOL
LOL - 10/4/2010, 2:09 PM
face huggers, chest bursters, acid burns, horrifying human death scenes, ultra-violence.... translated as an 15-plus rated film??? What's Fox smoking? Seriously, what ARE they smoking?

...as for the budget... sci-fi films don't come cheap nowadays, especially with CGI and 3D (for those 3D fanatics)... but 250 mil is maybe too much unless its very CGI-heavy or its one long movie split into two, taking account different costs for the merchandising, advertising, and other media to produce to get that movie out of the gate included into that budget. Cameron should've done Aliens with Scott rather than Pocahontas in Space (Avatar) with the kind of tech they used for that movie.
LOL
LOL - 10/4/2010, 2:15 PM
PS... Fox rarely takes a gamble on their films and want to do things "dirt cheap" regardless of justification most of the time. A crap movie is what you get when execs take over a film rather than let the director and his creative teams have free reign. Spider-Man 3 is a good example of where it happened and Sam Raimi was blamed for it rather than the studio since he was at the supposed helm when it was a company decision that rained down on his head.
TheGeekFiles
TheGeekFiles - 10/4/2010, 2:16 PM
FYI, Fox have said this story is a load of crap and that the studio and Ridley are very much on the same page.

Didn't you all find it strange that some unknown site suddenly came up with this 'exclusive'? Stop believing everything you read.

So don't get too carried away with that nerd rage. This isn't worth smashing up your action figure collection for. Some of you are just looking for any reason to freak out, you need to deal with that internal anger so you don't end up as one those teenagers who marches into a school and shoots everyone. Chill people, chill.
Mk616
Mk616 - 10/4/2010, 2:41 PM
@the geek files
Never underestimate the stupidity of 20th century Fox.
1 2
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder