this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
260 points (84.8% liked)

movies

1779 readers
401 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
UKFilmNerd@feddit.uk
Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de
maegul@lemmy.ml
Blaze@lemm.ee
orangeNgreen@lemmy.world
neidu2@feddit.nl
Emperor@feddit.uk
TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
maegul@lemm.ee
260
Please stop making Alien movies (www.spectator.co.uk)
submitted 2 months ago by Emperor@feddit.uk to c/movies@lemm.ee
143 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Anyway, Alien: Romulus is the seventh film about these particular monsters. According to the producers, the film takes the franchise ‘back to its roots’. So we get a group of grimy crew-mates piloting a big rust-bucket of a spaceship who pick up an extraterrestrial stowaway and end up having to use their wits and courage to survive as it gobbles them up, one by one.

And it’s not a bad film. It’s nicely creepy, the special effects are good, the acting is perfectly serviceable. In fact, I could give you a normal review of Alien: Romulus, but just writing this is making me feel a little crazy. It’s not a bad film, but it’s also a direct copy of a much better film that already exists. That film is called Alien, and it came out in 1979. It had Sigourney Weaver in it. It hasn’t vanished. If you have a Disney+ subscription or a torrent client, you can watch it tonight. Why have we made it again? What’s the point? Why have we spent the past 45 years – which is longer than I’ve been alive – making seven different versions of the same film? What on Earth is going on?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If a movie is good, I'm not sure how I follow that it is "unnecessary ". Nothing is necessary, outside of base needs.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Because it's not better than the original and it costs millions of dollars to make. It'd be better to spend that time and resources on something that's actually new.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So every movie needs to be better than the movie before it? If I were to talk about movies that were a waste of money, I wouldn't be focused on the decent ones. Like 95% of movies made are total schlock.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not at all. I'm just saying that if it's a remake, there should be a reason for making it other than just money, ideally.

[–] soul@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

For which there clearly has been. Some people made the various sequels because they had a story to tell, some because there is an audience that wants more from the IP, some because they wanted a chance to take part in such a project, some because they saw them as an opportunity to share their particular craft.

Movie making is a massive group effort. I can assure you that there is not a single movie where the sole reason it gets made is for money. In fact, most of them go into the project thinking it'll be a losing prospect from an accounting point of view.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I can assure you that there is not a single movie where the sole reason it gets made is for money.

And that's my cue to leave. Thanks for the laugh.

[–] soul@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There is far more nuance in real life than the myopic view your comment reflects. The amount of effort it takes to make a movie is not small. Even low-budget arthouse films take a handful of people to make and those tend to be far less focused on profit than major Hollywood big-budget blockbusters. By logic, this means that there are even more reasons for the movie being made because there are more people involved, each with their own motivations.

Additionally, I didn't say that money doesn't play a role or even that it wouldn't be the primary driver for the project moving forward. What I said was that it's never the only reason.

Also, there's no reason to be a condescending prick.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl -1 points 2 months ago

The amount of effort it takes to make a movie is not small.

That's precisely why I would favor original work over remakes.

By logic, this means that there are even more reasons for the movie being made because there are more people involved, each with their own motivations.

Not necessarily, no. The people working on a film might be doing it just because it's their job. Not everything is a passion project. Also, when discussing a big studio production such as this one, the people that greenlight the movie are also expecting an ROI. Lots of big movies are just a product that produces money.

Also, there’s no reason to be a condescending prick.

Not being condescending. It's just that wishful thinking just gets a chuckle out of me.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If the actors, crew and other businesses benefitted from making the film that's ok with me. Let them spend their money. Though I'm sorry if you feel cheated when you pay to see the movie.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 1 points 2 months ago

I never said that.