What if... Alien was remade?

NO!

@GAVIN Maybe not a Reboot but perhaps a Revitalization; my main regards about how it could be done is in this Discussion I started last month: 

Translucent Coated Big Chap

I think this movie begs for a re-make.  Taking all the advances in FX technology and making the ultimate sci-fi horror film.  When I re-watch it, the movie definitely shows it's age, and the time period the actors came from.  I think we now have a much more up-dated vision of the future of space travel, and the movie needs to be up-dated to reflect current standards.

Of course it needs to be a Scott Free production, so it stays true to the original story, but I'd like to see an up-dated look to it, more in line with Prometheus than the classic Alien franchise. 

It's hard to see Prometheus with it's slick, modern look, and then go "back to the future" and see Alien with it's lame by comparison sets and FX.

After all the follow-on movies are done, connecting us back to the original film, I'd love to see a re-make that does the original credit but updates it to current standards.

This is one of the problems in dealing with films of the future.  You are taking a shot at a moving target, namely technology, where advances are so rapid, that in a few years time, the portrayal of future tech is laughable.  Take a look at sci-fi films from the 50's, 60's, and 70's.  Most of it is pretty absurd compared to today.

With Alien, you have a movie made just on the cusp of the computer power explosion.   The creepy artwork of Giger set it apart, yet in the end, you had a guy in a rubber suit.  Imagine how much better it could be with what we have today, the GCI and so forth.      

Bollocks! The whole premise of Reboots is fucking lazy! It's basically theft.

If ALIEN was to ever be rebooted it would be a massive slap in the face to H R Giger who put his heart and soul into the original!

Please don't disrespect his legacy!

That's a lot of melodrama in a single post.

O'Bannon freely admitted to stealing from a whole bunch of different things (and was taken to court about things he didn't admit to stealing from), but apparently reboots are theft.

A reboot would not effect the original one iota.

If they ever remake A L I E N, it better be after I am dead and gone....I would go ape-shit, they would have to put me in a straight jacket!

There are lots of 50's, 60's and 70's era Sci-Fi which are considered classics. Many are highly enjoyable, and the era they come from gives them a truly unique quality.

I adore Forbidden Planet, THEM, It Came From Outer Space, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Invasion of The Body Snatchers, The Thing From Another World, Planet of The Apes, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Silent Running, [the original] Solaris, etc,etc....

A few have had successful remakes/reboots- Invasion of The Bodysnatchers (1978), THE THING (1982), and both Rise and Dawn of The Planet of The Apes. Overall, I think classics should be left alone, unless an exceptional studio, writer and director can work together.

Diz- To me A L I E N never grows old. Something truly outstanding was achieved with very little money. There is a lot to be said for retro styling and practical effects. Just you wait and see what Ridley and co come up with for COVENANT! Yes, he has more budget and CGI at his disposal, but I'd bet you anything that wherever possible, he will use practical effects over digital, to astonishing effect! 

@S.M. You're talking out of your arse.

O'Bannon didn't reboot anything. He just took inspiration from a few things like everybody does.

I do agree with you regarding the melodrama though. I tend to get very defensive when it comes to ALIEN and Giger.

But, regardless, you're still talking out of your arse :)

Care to join me in a padded cell Necro? XD

Hahahaha we could curse Cameron, FOX, Giler, Hill, ADI all day, every day!

GAVIN SINGLETON - A "reboot" of the original Alien would be catastrophic. I do not require updated graphics and "current" political leans drowning the film's imagination. Since when did we, a species of dreamers and wanderers, decide to allow technology and politics to determine the course of our imaginations? Sir Scott and many others certainly did not. I say we follow that very wise guidance and use our ability to envision with the help of visual aid - not give that ability away for better computer generated imagery.

"O'Bannon didn't reboot anything. He just took inspiration from a few things like everybody does."

“I didn’t steal from anybody,” he explained, “I stole from everybody!” 

"I do agree with you regarding the melodrama though. I tend to get very defensive when it comes to ALIEN and Giger."

What are you defending it against?

"Since when did we, a species of dreamers and wanderers, decide to allow technology and politics to determine the course of our imaginations? "

Around the time we started communicating.

"“I didn’t steal from anybody,” he explained, “I stole from everybody!”

It's his way of saying that he took inspiration from everywhere, which every screenwriter, artist and filmamaker does.

"What are you defending it against?"

You've got me on that one :D

So if inspiration = theft and reboots = theft; what's the problem?

Keep in mind folks, "reBOOT" and "reMAKE" are two very different terms. They essentially already rebooted Alien with Prometheus and are continuing to do so with Alien: Covenant, its inevitable sequels and Blomkamp's Alien 5. I'm all for a reboot, because all that means is a reinvigorating approach to a dormant franchise.

A remake however, I would be totally against. It would tell he same story, with new cast. Remakes are predictable, silly and unnecessary unless you royally fudged up the original.

Prometheus / Alien: Covenant = Reboots

RoboCop / Spider-Man = Remakes

If they're entertaining - who cares?

There's a clear difference between someone taking inspiration from certain elements of something else and incorporating those accumulated elements into their own work but changing the whole composition and design.

As opposed to someone taking an entire story, design and adding a few modern effects and calling it their own?

Inspiration doesn't equate to reboots.

Anthony Gormley was inspired by artists such as Michelangelo but he doesn't "re-create" Michelangelo's work.

H P Lovecraft was inspired by the works of Edgar Allen Poe but he doesn't "re-write" Poe's work.   

I can totally appreciate not wanting to see classic work "overwritten". It denatures and devalues the original. Alien is one of those rare gems, for the time in which it was created, it still holds up today as a masterpiece.

Remakes are pointless and rarely if ever garner the same level of "entertainment" as the original. The new RoboCop? Terrible. The infinite Spider-Man remakes? Boring and predictable. Remakes are a waste of time, effort and money, at least imo.

I was always under the impression that the term "reboot" was just another way of saying "remake."

"Inspiration doesn't equate to reboots."

I didn't claim it does.

"It denatures and devalues the original. Alien is one of those rare gems, for the time in which it was created, it still holds up today as a masterpiece."

If that is the case, and it is, how is a remake going to devalue it?

"Remakes are a waste of time, effort and money, at least imo."

Robocop made nearly $250m. The Spider-Man reboots made over $700m each.

'Reboot' vs. 'remake' - reboots are generally used for franchises, that have either faltered or been inactive. They might reference previous instalments or they might not. Predators was an attempt to reboot the franchise.   Ditto Alien Resurrection. Neither were remakes. Shane Black's Predator film could be seen to be another attempt at rebooting.  Also Alien Covenant.

I agree with the majority above, in saying no to remakes ... reboots on the other hand are like a refresher for people who were'nt around when the originals came out ... so it's like catch up for those people ... and yes it's a money making enterprise ... I don't mind the reboots so much but a remake? ... hmmm ... not Alien, that's for sure ... doesn't need it, imho nor does others for that matter ...

I'm with Lone regarding the classics though ... you listed my favs also ... I actually love those oldies because of the atmosphere they produce, while watching them ... the orignal 'Thing from Another World' is gold ... and 'Forbidden Planet' my all time fav ...

I'm still building the fence regarding the reboot/remake topic ...

How does remaking old classic films change the original? Do they have "less atmosphere" because someone remade them?

S.M - I find your assertion lacking. We as a species have always communicated. By what you have stated, our imagination has begun to fail since the moment we began engaging one another. That is flawed. Our imaginations have grown since the moment in which we began to share new ideas and see new points of view. How do you explain the moments of grand artistic and theatrical achievement that have dotted the history of mankind?

I didn't say it had begun to fail.

Technology and politics - even in their most basic forms - have always influenced the course of our imaginations, however. 

S.M - Right you are. I posit that we should not allow such factors to muddy the waters of creativity. There is no benefit to such action other than an attempt at control by the individual(s) interested in extolling their views. We should imagine things beyond the scope of our every day struggles or use those struggles to inspire - not bludgeon one-another over the head with them while exclaiming our moral high ground. It is foolishness that can only give rise to a dearth of creativity. Even now, the world is poised on the brink of horrifying censorship; we must not allow it to fall.

What censorship is this?

And such things don't 'muddy the waters of creativity'. Technology is the tools and medium you use to express creativity; politics influences your creativity.  They're not the forces of evil.  They just are.

S.M - Ah, now we can get to the heart of the matter! You are quite right; politics influence creativity. However, they do not have to unless you allow them to do so. As you have so eloquently stated: "They're not the forces of evil. They just are." A fire will burn and divest thousands of their homes. Yet it is not evil. A man may speak what he believes to be the unbiased truth and bring about the death of others. Regardless, he is not evil. Warriors will go to battle for country and religion, and in so doing lay waste to cities. To those for whom they risk they're lives, they are not evil. However, is there a negative effect brought about by each such instance? Of course there is. Politics belong in political films; I happen to be a great fan of them! With that being said, our world's politics do not in any way belong in fantasy and other works that look to step beyond the ugliness that is all-too-often present across the globe. As for technology: once again, you are very right. Stepping back, however, I see fault in the overreliance on technology to tell our stories. If you no longer need to imagine what a terrible monster looks like as it has been presented to you in full realistic horror, what need do you have to continue imagining? We are very much aural and visual learners gifted with incredible powers of envisionment. As such, if we are given hyper-realism over and over again, our minds will become bored. Ask yourself if you would rather be thrilled by a the reading of a book that elicits emotion by allowing you to use your mind's eye or have your imagination temporarily replaced by visuals on a screen.