As Ridley Scott prepares two new Alien prequels, he tells James Mottram why, at 72, he isn't ready to slow down yet

The epitome of self-made success, Ridley Scott is talking about his career. And, as you might expect from the 72-year-old director, he's not one to hold back. "Alien is a landmark," he says of the film that launched his Hollywood career. "One of the really good science-fiction films. Then Blade Runner's pretty good, too!" He reaches the 1985, Tom Cruise-starring Legend, a monumental flop at the time. "That I thought was [a landmark] but I jumped the gun and simply started doing fantasy 25 years too soon. But it's a pretty good movie."

He continues, clean forgetting Black Rain, Thelma & Louise and 1492 as he rattles through his CV. Someone to Watch Over Me and White Squall "are both really nice little movies", he adds, before understandably skipping over GI Jane to get to his most recent phase. Alighting on the Oscar-winning Gladiator, American Gangster and "the best war film of the last few years", Black Hawk Down, he allows himself a wry smile. "I'm doing pretty good, if you think about it."

While some might flinch at this un-British boasting, the South Shields-born Scott is one of the few home-grown directors of his generation to have wrestled with Hollywood and come out on top. In the last decade he's made nine films, from Gladiator to this year's Robin Hood, which took a chunky $300m globally. Of those, only the con-artist tale Matchstick Men and the Provence-set A Good Year could be considered small-scale. "I've gradually realised that what I do best is universes," he says. "And I shouldn't be afraid of that."

Even when he has fallen foul of the system, he has often won out in the end. While Twentieth Century Fox trimmed his 2005 Crusades drama, Kingdom of Heaven, by more than an hour, only to see it flop, an extended Director's Cut of the film was later released on DVD to much acclaim. It wasn't the first time. Scott famously re-edited Blade Runner (initially for a 1992 Director's Cut) after poor test screenings of the 1982 original saw him forced to add an explanatory voiceover and a "silly ending".

Scott gives the same treatment to Robin Hood. The DVD and Blu-ray release will see a Director's Cut, featuring 17 minutes of unseen footage, sit alongside the theatrical edition. Partly, no doubt, this is to counter the mixed reviews the film met with; Variety, for example, said it played like "a joyless corrective to Robin Hood's prior screen adventures".

As is typical of the bullish Scott, he's rather dismissive of these "prior screen adventures", in which the likes of Errol Flynn, Sean Connery and Kevin Costner played the Nottingham outlaw. "There have been 80 [Robin Hood films] made over the years. It's the kind of thing I used to enjoy as a kid, but when I revisit them, they're not very good. I'm trying to think of the last good one." He pauses before selecting a surprising choice. "Mel Brooks's Men in Tights! I thought that was the best one."

By casting Russell Crowe as a straight-arrow Robin Longstride, Scott was clearly hoping to repeat some of the magic they conjured on Gladiator. Robin Hood is now the fifth film they've made together, making the gruff Australian Scott's preferred leading man. "He's a bit of a buddy, really," Scott says of the actor, with whom he shares an agent. "He's Australian and there's something akin to British – particularly northern British. They were convicts, after all."

Though proud of his northern roots, Scott has rarely attached himself to projects set in Britain, which makes Robin Hood a novelty in his career. While he and Tony Scott, his younger film-maker brother, purchased a controlling interest in Shepperton Studios in 1995, Ridley seems set apart from the British film industry. Certainly, it's hard to imagine he shed many tears over the recent announcement that the UK Film Council is to be dismantled. Since making his 1977 debut, The Duellists, Scott has never been the sort of British director to go cap-in-hand for funding.

Scott began his career at the BBC, working as a production designer and helming episodes of Z Cars and Adam Adamant Lives!. He left in 1967 and, within a year, formed Ridley Scott Associates (RSA), a company dedicated to producing high-quality commercials. Scott estimates that he has directed more than 2,700 spots, the Hovis ad being fondly remembered. This earned him a financial freedom that helped his film career flourish. "In a way that was a huge advantage, because I was able to take my time choosing my film subjects. I wasn't relying on having to work."

Shortly after founding RSA, he recruited his brother Tony (whose 1983 feature debut was the vampire flick The Hunger) with a promise of riches. "I said, 'Come with me and you'll get that good car.'" Which was? "A Ferrari. Seriously dangerous." This willingness to keep it in the family has ensured that RSA, which now has more than 50 directors on its books working out of offices in New York, LA, Hong Kong and London, still thrives. Scott's three children – Luke and Jake, from his first marriage, and Jordan, from his second – all cut their teeth at RSA.

Scott, who has been divorced twice and now spends his time with the Costa Rican actress Giannina Facio, takes some credit for the fact that his offspring have become directors. "They watch me do what I do. They see me sitting in my study at 5.45am, working over a script. So they see it's a passion, not a job. Of that, they've taken to that passion." While Jordan saw her feature debut, Cracks, released last year, Jake recently completed his second feature, Welcome to the Rileys, starring Twilight's Kristen Stewart. Does Scott ever offer advice? "Are you kidding me?" he spits. "I wouldn't dare."

Perhaps he doesn't have the time. Scott Free Productions, the film and television production outfit he formed with Tony in 1995, has branched out lately to make films outside the family circle. This year alone, aside from Robin Hood and Tony's upcoming thriller Unstoppable, it has backed The A-Team and the wry comedy-drama Cyrus. Written and directed by another sibling team, Mark and Jay Duplass, Cyrus is about a divorcee (John C Reilly) who must contend with his new girlfriend's grown-up son (Jonah Hill). A million miles from the spectacle of Scott's own work, it proves his tastes are wide.

One only has to look at Scott Free's films in development for further proof. Alongside an adaptation of the Monopoly board game sits a new version of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, a Gucci biopic with Angelina Jolie attached as the female lead, an adaptation of Justin Cronin's vampire novel The Passage and a remake of television's Red Riding trilogy. Boasting the energy of a man half his age, Scott says he has no intention of slowing down. "I think there's nothing worse than inertia. You can be inert and study your navel, and gradually fall off the chair. I think the key is to keep flying."

The anticipation for his next project is building to fever pitch: it will be a two-part prequel to Alien, shot in 3D. Scott was never asked to make a sequel to Alien; that honour went to James Cameron, before a further two sequels and two Alien vs Predator spin-offs milked the franchise dry. But with the Lost co-creator Damon Lindoff polishing the first prequel's script, you can sense the competitor in Scott, desperate to put his stamp back on the film series that launched him. "Jim's raised the bar and I've got to jump to it," he says, in a friendly jibe at Cameron. "He's not going to get away with it."

Set 30 years before the 1979 original, so with no room for Sigourney Weaver's Ripley, the prequels will explore the origins of the deadly aliens. "The film will be really tough, really nasty," he notes. "It's the dark side of the moon. We are talking about gods and engineers. Engineers of space. And were the aliens designed as a form of biological warfare? Or biology that would go in and clean up a planet?"

It's a bold move, one that could taint Scott's earlier contribution to the series if it goes wrong. But Scott loves a gamble, whether it's taking on the sequel to The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, or resurrecting an unfashionable genre with Gladiator. "Everyone sniggered because they thought I was going to do a sandals and toga movie," he remembers. Given the success he's had since, Scott has had the last laugh.

'Cyrus' opens on 10 September. 'Robin Hood: Director's Cut' is out on DVD and Blu-ray on 20 September

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 68888.html

I know we've a few Scott fans here so I thought I'd post this

Hope he can pull the Alien films off as opposed to killing them off

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

Robin Hood (2010) - Not seen it
Body of Lies (2008) - Not seen it
American Gangster (2007) - Not seen it
A Good Year (2006) - Not seen it
All the Invisible Children (2005) - Not seen it
Kingdom of Heaven (2005) - Seen it = Utterly Woeful
Matchstick Men (2003) - Not seen it
Black Hawk Down (2001)- Seen it = Meh
Hannibal (2001) - Seen it = Cash Cow Dross
Gladiator (2000) - Seen it = Overrated
G.I. Jane (1997) - Seen it = Brainless entertainment
White Squall (1996) - Not seen it
1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992) - Not seen it
Thelma & Louise (1991) - Seen it = Alright I guess
Black Rain (1989/I) - Seen it = Meh
Someone to Watch Over Me (1987) - Not seen it
Legend (1985) - Seen it = Awesome
Blade Runner (1982) - Seen it = Flawless
Alien (1979) - Seen it - Flawless
The Duellists (1977) - Not seen it
Boy and Bicycle (1965) - Not seen it

...or to put it bluntly, his best days are behind him.

Thanks for the list Snowy, I have a lot of time for Ridley's films, obviously they're not all classics but I do think he's one of the better directors out there still, I'll be making a note of this list and ticking a few of the more interesting ones off. Black Hawk Down get's a big meh from me too, but I recommend American Gangster, some very good performances in that one.

I liked Black Hawk Down, but apart from that snowy's point is taken....it's a long time since Ridley came out with a must-see film.

None of those films can be considered flops though, really, can they?
Just getting a film made - there should be an award for that!
I think I've enjoyed, to a greater or lesser degree, most of those films. A couple I haven't seen, and of the rest I've never thought 'FFS, this is dreadful.'
There are many, many other directors who are far less capable. So, yeah, I think Ridley can say 'He's doing pretty good' if he wants to.
He's certainly doing better than, say, Eli Roth... Uwe Boll...

Codswallop - Cabin Fever was awesome! But yes, his significantly smaller portfolio hardly stands up to Ridley's...

Do Fox And Sir Ridley Scott Disagree About The ALIEN Prequel?

Earlier in the week, we learned that Arthur Max, longtime Production Designer for Sir Ridley Scott, was holed up in Pinewood designing Sir Ridley's forthcoming ALIEN prequel. You can find more on that matter HERE.

Yesterday, I posted a trailer for SKYLINE - a new movie from The Brothers Strause - who brought us AvP: REQUIEM. In that piece, I alluded to the inherent difficulty of jumping into a big franchise, and how troubling it can sometimes (often?) be to make pictures at Fox (the Strauses faced both obstacles on AvP: R). SKYLINE details HERE.

Now, unfortunately, it seems these two factors may be colliding in a way that's causing trouble for the ALIEN prequel mentioned above. THIS report at SkyMovies says that Sir Ridley and Fox are at odds over the film's budget and target rating. Scott's said to be looking for an enormous budget of around $250 million and and a hard rating (i.e. "R") - Fox wants the title to have a softer rating and considerably less budget. And, until these misalignements are worked out, seems the production is "stalled."

Hmmm.

Well, I'll be the first to express my disdain for many of the decisions Fox has made overt the last two decades...but with today's production capabilities...and with today's technology...$250 million for an ALIEN movie does seem like A LOT of [LIFTED] money. UNLESS Scott was planning to shoot two ALIEN movies sequentially or concurrently (a notion that has been rumored), at which point $250 million still seems high - but not altogether irrational. It's hard to know how to fully assess the situation without being clear on Scott's plans or intents.

As for that rating matter? I've talked about this a billion times and this conversation gets old quickly. There is a quantifiable difference in the "vibe" of a PG-13 movie compared to an R rated film. The studios spin their PG-13 preference as a matter of economy - amidst that argument it's easy to lose sight of the fact that PG-13 -vs- R is also artistic consideration/dictation, one which would almost certainly rub Scott the wrong direction. It's not just a matter of who can see the movie, but it's pointedly an issue of exactly what movie a filmmaker is allowed to make. Obvious? Yes. But it's often an overlooked factor in theses discussions. Which bodes the question - why work with a filmmaker like Ridely Scott if you're not going to let him make the movie (thematically, atmospherically) he's interested in making?

This said - the PG-13 rated AvP made north of $172 globally. REQUIEM, it's R rated sequel, made close to $129 million. Was this difference really due to the film's ratings? What other factors played into the imbalance? Hard to tell - and a very tricky matter to mull.

In the meantime, I'm really hoping Scott -vs- Fox gets worked out equitably and quickly. I'm looking forward to seeing Sir Ridley revisit his old stomping ground with a considerably more seasoned approach, and a fresh perspective. Also, all indications point towards Scott & Co. wanting to make a "real" Science Fiction film to boot. For which we're long overdue, and this one could really be something to behold.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46828

Anyone know what the 'average' cost of a blockbuster is these days, if there is such a thing?

There's always the Babylon 5 factor of course...

If you have the Quadrilogy box set, crack open the discs for Alien 3 and watch the production videos. They are very, very telling on how Fox managed to piss off a lot of people. David Fincher was brought in probably because they thought he was inexperienced enough to manipulate him. With all the crap and baggage he had to deal with, he managed to pull off a decent film (if you watch the Special Edition version). IIRC, they managed to royally piss of HR Giger. You really don’t want to do that to the man who made the Alien aesthetic.

All this said, I liked the bits in the Aliens production videos where they were complaining about the tea lady turning hp and all the crew stopping for tea and sausage sandwiches. The Americans really didn’t get the idea of tea breaks.

They were allowed to make another film after AvP2? Looks desperately unoriginal too.




I can understand the wish for a smaller budget - $250 million is ridiculous - where's Scott going to film this? Mars? But the idea of a watered-down PG-13 Alien movie is worrying and makes the film pretty redundant from the word go IMO. The problem is that the two AvP films did make a lot of money, especially the first which IIRC was the most financially successful of the Alien or Predator franchises at the box office.




Indeed. I got a copy of his book Necronomicon just before Alien came out and was stunned by Giger's work....it was truly alien and a completely original viewpoint influencing virtually every SF/Horror film for years afterwards. I hope they are able to bring him back on board; he seemed to have a lot of respect for Scott and vice-versa.

AvP2 was on the telly the other day. I watched it for the first time. TBH, it didn’t stray too far from the bits of the Alien Vs Hunter film The Asylum made. I really felt it was desperately unoriginal and naff. I felt that both AvP films were a criminal waste of what was a pretty good idea.




Scott has said in relation to his prequels that the Alien shape is tired. It has become the defacto way for anyone to depict such a creature, and it has been reahsed in 5 sequels, as well as parodied and copied ad nauseum.

So, the thing is this: what will we see in the prequels? Is Giger on board (I jolly well hope so)?

AvP2 is up there with Transformers 2 as one of the worst sequels of all time... The fact there's a character called Dallas shouting, 'Get to the chopper!' says it all, really

I agree that the Alien has been overused (it takes a really good director for the Alien to be anything other than a mere footsoldier these days), but Scott's gonna have a hard time selling the film to anyone, retarded studio included, if he goes for any half-measures either way

Have to say though, the thought of an Alien jumping out in 3D has a certain appeal

Alien is the film that gave Ridley his big break in to Hollywood. I seriously doubt he's going to take half measures with it.
Take Blade Runner (yes yes yes, I know) as an example. As I've said, it crashed and burned at the cinema upon initial release, but he poured his time and money in to the remastering and restoration of that film (even going as far as to hire Harrison Ford's son to stand in for his dad in a key reshoot).
I don't think Ridley Scott knows how to do anything of his films in half-measures.

Mark