Moviefone Editorial

Tag: ridley-scott

  • Mark Wahlberg Paid $1.5M for Reshoots, But Michelle Williams Paid Under $1K: Report

    Premiere Of Sony Pictures Entertainment's 'All The Money In The World' - Red CarpetWeirdly enough, they are represented by the same agency. Not for long?

    Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams costar in “All the Money in the World,” which went through some quick reshoots when Kevin Spacey was dropped as J. Paul Getty and Christopher Plummer stepped in.

    Michelle Williams, Christopher Plummer, and director Ridley Scott went on to be nominated at this past weekend’s Golden Globe Awards.

    Williams plays Gail Harris, the mother of the kidnapped John Paul Getty III, with Wahlberg as the former CIA operative who works as her advisor. She actually has top billing. But USA Today just reported that Wahlberg was paid $1.5 million for reshooting his scenes while Williams was paid an $80 per diem totaling less than $1,000.

    When reports came out about the reshoots, Ridley Scott had told USA Today the crew got paid, and Plummer got paid, but the other actors “all came in free.” (“Free” meaning just the union minimum, which is around what Williams was paid in that per diem.) However, USA Today just reported that they “since learned Wahlberg’s team actually negotiated a hefty fee, with the actor paid $1.5 million for his reshoots. Williams wasn’t told.”

    She wasn’t told. Maybe they didn’t tell Ridley Scott, either? You could fairly suspect Wahlberg just had a better agent, but here’s what USA Today added on that front:

    “Wahlberg and Williams are both represented by the William Morris Endeavor agency. Actors pay a team of agents, managers and lawyers an average of 10% of their salaries to advocate for them.”

    Reps for the agency and the director didn’t respond to the outlet’s request for comment.

    Social media was not happy with the situation:


    Wahlberg has his defenders, with fans arguing he just used his leverage to get money; Williams could’ve demanded money but offered to work for nothing to keep the film’s costs down and support the message:

    Such a Slytherin answer, but it’s true. Weird that no one told Michelle Williams, though. Or her agents in the same company? And maybe Ridley Scott didn’t know when he said in interviews that they all came back for free.

    In related news, Wahlberg was recently named 2017’s most overpaid actor, by Forbes:

    “Thanks to a string of box office disappointments, Wahlberg is this year’s most overpaid actor: His three wide releases prior to June 1, 2017, returned just $4.40 at the box office for every $1 he was paid on them. With disappointments including 2016’s oil spill drama Deepwater Horizon, which barely out-earned its estimated $110 million budget, Wahlberg’s multi-million dollar paydays look mighty expensive.”

    He must have the best agent ever. Forbes added that the 2017 ranking was “dominated by stars such as Wahlberg whose historic success has warranted eight figure quotes, even when their recent movies fail to perform.”

    At some point, though, you’d think that would stop.

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

  • Ridley Scott Might Direct ‘Merlin Saga’ for Disney

    Sir Ridley ScottHe’s already given us the fantasy film “Legend” and a British folk hero in “Robin Hood.” Now “Alien” director Ridley Scott might be giving us his take on Arthurian wizard Merlin.

    Variety reports that the “All the Money in the World” director is in talks to take on “The Merlin Saga” for Disney, with Philippa Boyens (co-scripter of the “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy) as the writer.

    While the Merlin movie most people remember is Disney’s animated 1963 feature “The Sword in the Stone” (based on the book “The Once and Future King” by T.H. White), this one will be based on the series by T.A. Barron. It’s an origin story that follows Merlin from his youth to his becoming a trusted advisor to King Arthur.

    Disney is also working on a live-action version of “The Sword in the Stone,” which Scott was also consulted about, according to Variety.

    Merlin was lasted played in a 1998 NBC miniseries by Sam Neill and in the BBC series by “Humans” star Colin Morgan.

    For the movie version, may we suggest… Christopher Plummer? (In the later years, of course.)

    [Via Variety]

  • Ridley Scott: ‘Blade Runner 2049’ Bombed Because ‘It’s Slow’ & ‘Way Too Long’

    Ridley Scott is that guy who’ll just tell you when you look fat. At least he’ll wait until after you ask him how you look. And then he’ll call himself “a bitch” for being so blunt.

    Ridley Scott directed the first “Blade Runner” film, which came out in 1982, loosely based on a novel by Philip K. Dick. Ridley did not direct the 2017 sequel “Blade Runner 2049,” although he was heavily involved with the script. Instead, “Arrival” and “Sicario” director Denis Villeneuve took the helm. “Blade Runner 2049” got rave reviews from critics, but underperformed big time at the box office.

    Ridley is now on the promotion circuit for “All the Money in the World,” and while getting candid about those reshoots, he got candid about Villeneuve’s film.

    At the end of this video, Al Arabiya’s William Mullally asks Ridley about “Blade Runner”:

    Al Arabiya: “Blade Runner 2049 was a wonderful movie.”

    Ridley Scott: “Yes.”

    Al Arabiya: “But it didn’t perform to expectations.”

    Ridley Scott: “No.”

    Al Arabiya: “What would you attribute that too, personally?”

    Ridley Scott: “Um, it’s slow. It’s slow. Long. Too long. I would have taken out half an hour.”

    He said something similar — but with more f-bombs — to Vulture.

    What did you make of the way Blade Runner 2049 was received?
    [Whispers] I have to be careful what I say. I have to be careful what I say. It was f*cking way too long. F*ck me! And most of that script’s mine.

    After going into detail about the script, and his ideas, Ridley eventually stopped himself, saying, “I shouldn’t talk. I’m being a bitch.” That whole Vulture interview is gold — including talk about “Star Wars” and the “Bohemian Rhapsody” mess.

    But it’s true that Ridley probably shouldn’t talk, since there are seven different versions of his “Blade Runner” out there, including a U.S. theatrical cut, an international cut, the director’s cut, and a final cut, among others. And “Blade Runner” was hardly a smash at the box office in its initial release either, with it too being called “slow” (even at 117 minutes vs. “2049” at 163 minutes.) The “misunderstood” film earned cult status, and was only accepted as a masterpiece over time.

    Denis Villeneuve talked to Yahoo Entertainment about the reviews vs. box office disparity:

    “I’m still digesting it. It had the best [reviews] of my life. I never had a movie welcomed like that. At the same time, the box office in the United States was a disappointment, that’s the truth, because those movies are expensive. It will still make tons of money but not enough. The thing I think is that, it was maybe because people were not familiar enough with the universe. And the fact the movie’s long. I don’t know, it’s still a mystery to me.”

    “Blade Runner 2049” just came out on digital this week, with the 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray, Blu-ray, and DVD arriving on January 16. And then maybe we’ll get half a dozen more versions later.

    [Via: Bleeding Cool]

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

  • See Christopher Plummer as Kevin Spacey’s Movie Replacement in New Trailer & Poster

    Hot damn, that Ridley Scott works fast.

    “All the Money in the World” was already done, and director Ridley Scott was just finalizing the music, when all of the allegations against Kevin Spacey came out. Spacey had completely transformed to play J. Paul Getty in the movie. But Scott told Entertainment Weekly, after thinking about it, he realized they couldn’t go ahead with Spacey. “You can’t tolerate any kind of behavior like that. And it will affect the film. We cannot let one person’s action affect the good work of all these other people. It’s that simple.”

    A flurry of phone calls to agents took place, and Scott flew to New York to meet with Christopher Plummer. Plummer and the original cast members — including Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams — gathered to reshoot scenes, with Plummer in Spacey’s role as J. Paul Getty.

    This was just a few weeks ago. All the while, Scott insisted he could make the film’s December 22 release date. He’s still confident — even thrilled, it sounds from the EW interview — that he can put it all together in time.

    A new trailer just came out today, featuring Plummer, briefly, as Getty:Compare that to the previous trailer, released in September, featuring a heavily made-up Spacey:Plummer’s Getty is also shown in a new character poster, via EW:


    Plummer does seem to be a natural fit for this cold, rich patriarch role.

    For the record, Scott said he and Spacey haven’t talked about all of this. He said if Spacey had called him, he still would’ve replaced him, but they would’ve had a conversation before moving on.

    “All the Money in the World” comes out December 22 in theaters.

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

  • Christopher Plummer to Replace Kevin Spacey in Ridley Scott Movie Coming Out in 6 Weeks

    13th Annual Monte Cristo Awards - InsideWow. Can they really pull this off?

    Director Ridley Scott‘s movie “All the Money in the World” was already done. It’s still planning to keep its current release date of December 22. But it does not want to keep Kevin Spacey anymore, after the multiple sexual misconduct allegations against him. So they’re really going to do something wild — replace Spacey with Christopher Plummer in the role of J. Paul Getty, once the richest man in the world.

    “All the Money in the World” — costarring Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg — is about the kidnapping of Getty’s grandson, with the billionaire reluctant to pay the ransom. (FYI, the 16-year-old grandson is played by Charlie Plummer, but there seems to be no relation to Christopher Plummer.)

    Since they aged Spacey and really made him stretch for the role, it does seem like Christopher Plummer could probably step in, skip the hair and makeup transformation, and fill the role of the cold patriarch with ease. This is in his wheelhouse.

    Ridley Scott’s movie was pulled from the upcoming AFI Fest thanks to the Spacey allegations, and they clearly don’t want to be attached to those headlines anymore. So they’re erasing him from the film in the eleventh hour.

    After the replacement news came out, the Internet had a little bit too much fun with the idea:

    According to Entertainment Weekly, “All the Money in the World” reshoots are expected to begin soon, and even though we’re only six weeks out, they still plan to release the movie starting Friday, Dec. 22.

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

  • 22 Things You Never Knew About ‘Blade Runner’

    Given how vastly influential “Blade Runner” has been over the 35 years since its release (on June 25, 1982), it’s hard to remember that the movie wasn’t a hit. Neither critics nor audiences were certain what to make of Ridley Scott‘s visionary adaptation of a mind-bending Philip K. Dick novel; nor were they used to seeing Harrison Ford get his ass kicked.

    Still, “Blade Runner” was a milestone, one that created the template for how movies would visually depict the urban future, introduced Dick’s brain-twisting storytelling to movie audiences (making possible the likes of “Total Recall” and “Minority Report“), and offered early career boosts to such actors as Sean Young, Daryl Hannah, and Edward James Olmos. Now, with a sequel on the horizon (October’s “Blade Runner 2049“), it’s worth going back to learn how Scott, Ford, and the rest of the “Blade Runner” team overcame personal differences and pre-CGI effects challenges to create a lasting vision of the future.
    1. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” drew Hollywood interest when it was published in 1968. At one time, Martin Scorsese hoped to direct it. It would take 14 years before Dick would see a screenplay that didn’t make him want to punch the screenwriter in the face.

    2. Hampton Fancher, who wrote a Dick-approved script, got the title from William S. Burroughs’ book “Blade Runner: A Movie,” an adaptation of Alan E. Nourse’s novel “The Bladerunner.” Neither book had anything to do with Dick’s story, but Ridley Scott liked the name so much he optioned the film rights just to keep the title.
    3. Scott had already turned down the project once; instead, the “Alien” director had been developing a version of Frank Herbert’s sci-fi epic “Dune.” When that fell through, he returned to “Blade Runner.”

    4. Harrison Ford wasn’t the first or second choice to play replicant-hunting detective Rick Deckard. Initially, Fancher wrote the part with Hollywood legend and film noir veteran Robert Mitchum in mind. Scott spent months meeting with Dustin Hoffman, but the actor ultimately declined.
    5. Many other stars were on the short list, including Sean Connery, Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Tommy Lee Jones, Paul Newman, Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, Burt Reynolds, and Arnold Schwarzenegger (who’d eventually play the lead in the Dick-derived “Total Recall”). Ford got the part on the recommendation of Steven Spielberg, who’d just finished directing him in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”

    6. The movie’s striking visuals, which have influenced so many movies made since, drew inspiration in turn from Fritz Lang‘s silent classic “Metropolis” (another futuristic nightmare where the wealthy live in towers while the workers live below), French comic-book artist Moebius, and “Nighthawks” painter Edward Hopper.
    7. For antagonist Roy Batty, Scott cast Rutger Hauer without ever having met him; he simply knew he wanted the Dutch actor after having seen him in several Paul Verhoeven movies.

    8. The eerie, atmospheric, layered, neon-lit look of the film was created in-camera, using a technique called multipass exposures. A scene would be shot with the camera guided by a computer; then the film would be rewound and re-exposed as the computer guided the camera along an identical path, but with new lighting or new visual elements introduced. Some scenes used as many as 16 passes.
    9. Ford and Scott have both acknowledged that they clashed often on set. Scott has chalked this up to his own inexperience as a feature film director (“Blade Runner” was his third movie), dealing with a leading man who was a 15-year Hollywood veteran with several landmark movies on his résumé. For his part, Ford grumbled about having to shoot 50 straight nights in the rain.

    10. What really irked Ford, though, was recording the voiceover narration, which was forced on the filmmakers by panicky producers after test-screening audiences found the movie confusing.
    11. Ford thought the voiceover dialogue, meant to evoke the classic film noir movies that had been inspirations for “Blade Runner,” dumbed down the film, and he called recording the narration a “f***ing nightmare.”

    12. Dick was just 53 when he died of a stroke in March 1982, three months before the first film based on his work was released. But he got to see about 20 minutes of “Blade Runner” and praised the sets, effects, and Hauer’s appearance as exactly what he’d had in mind.
    13. Today, the “spinners,” the flying cars (above), would probably be created digitally, but for “Blade Runner,” Scott’s production crew built life-size spinners that weighed several tons each. To simulate flight, they were hoisted by cranes. The constant rain effects helped hide the cables.

    14. If the footage at the very end of the movie, with its helicopter shots of an idyllic countryside, look familiar, that’s because they’re leftover second-unit footage from “The Shining,” which Scott obtained from Stanley Kubrick.
    15. Producer Alan Ladd, Jr. picked June 25 as the release date for “Blade Runner” because the 25th of the month had proved lucky at the box office for two of his previous sci-fi releases, “Star Wars” and “Alien.”

    16. “Blade Runner” cost at least $23 million to make; some sources say $28 million. It made back just $27.6 million in North America.
    Sportsphoto Ltd./Allstar17. The release date turned out to be not so lucky after all, since it came at the tail of a month-long sci-fi glut that included “The Road Warrior,” “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial,” and “The Thing.”

    18. The Academy nominated “Blade Runner” for two Oscars, for art direction and visual effects. Incredibly, it lost both, the former to “Gandhi,” the latter to “E.T.”
    19. There have been at least seven different cuts of “Blade Runner” put forth before the public over the years. The three best known versions start with the initial domestic cut, with the voiceovers and countryside ending. Then there was the 1992 “Director’s Cut,” with the voiceover and countryside footage removed, for a more ambiguous telling of the story. Despite the name, however, Scott has said his involvement in this release was minimal. He eventually oversaw a fully restored print of the film cut to his liking, the 2007 “Final Cut,” which includes some violent scenes previously shown only to international audiences, as well as the full-length unicorn dream sequence that suggests Gaff (Olmos) believes Deckard to be a replicant.

    20. The Domestic Cut and Director’s Cut left it up to the viewer to decide whether Deckard was himself a replicant or a natural-born human. Ford himself believed Deckard to be human, but in 2007, Scott said he’d always considered Deckard to be a replicant.
    21. In a 2001 online chat with fans, Hauer called “Blade Runner” his favorite among his own films. As he put it, “‘Blade Runner’ needs no explanation. It just IZZ. All of the best. There is nothing like it. To be part of a real MASTERPIECE which changed the world’s thinking. It’s awesome.”

    22. Scott and Fancher spent years trying to develop a sequel or prequel to “Blade Runner.” After several abortive attempts, we’re finally getting one this October. Directed by “Arrival‘s” Denis Villeneuve, “Blade Runner 2049” will be set 30 years later, with Ryan Gosling in the lead role and an appearance by Ford.

  • Here’s Why ‘Alien: Covenant’ Is a Box Office Disappointment

    If you saw “Alien: Covenant” this weekend, you probably have a lot of questions. Some involve plot holes big enough to pilot the Covenant colony spaceship through, and some involve whether or not you’ll ever be able to get the image of Michael Fassbender kissing Michael Fassbender out of your head. (Or if you even want to.)

    This column can’t answer any of those — sorry — but it can answer those regarding the movie’s razor-thin victory over “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” at the box office. The latest “Alien” prequel claimed an estimated $36.0 million debut, keeping “Guardians” from a three-peat at No. 1 by a margin of less than $1 million.

    Going into the weekend, “Alien’s” projections were near $40 million, but a Friday to Saturday dip crushed those hopes. Still, what does this photo finish mean for the franchise, its director and stars, its studio, and a summer movie season that has hobbled out of the gate? Let’s break it down.

    “Guardians” is holding up very well after three weeks; it just crossed the $300 million mark on its 17th day in theaters, and it’ll almost certainly surpass the $333 million total earned by the first “Guardians” within the next several days. Plus, Ridley Scott‘s previous “Alien” prequel — 2012’s confusing “Prometheus” — may have squandered a lot of the franchise’s good will.
    Nonetheless, anticipation for “Covenant” was keen, reviews were good-ish (73 percent at Rotten Tomatoes), word-of-mouth was just okay (as measured by a B grade at CinemaScore), and the R-rated sci-fi/horror installment was able to deliver gore, thrills, and chills that franchise fans have come to expect over the last 38 years. Plus, it’s competition among new wide releases skewed a lot younger, so it didn’t have to worry about losing viewers to teen romance “Everything, Everything” or family comedy sequel “Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul.” No wonder people 25 and older made up 66 percent of the “Covenant” audience.

    Is “Covenant’s” Opening Weekend a Triumph or Disappointment?
    The argument is leaning toward the latter.

    It’s a lot less than the $51 million debut of “Prometheus,” but no one expected it to open anywhere near that big anyway. After all, anticipation for “Prometheus” was even greater, since that marked the beginning of Scott’s prequel series, as well as the celebrated director’s return to the franchise he launched in 1979, after a 33-year absence.

    Some pundits predicted that “Covenant” would premiere with as little as $35 million, though others predicted it would open as much as $40 million. So $36 million is within the range of expectations, and — assuming the weekend estimates hold up when final figures are released Monday — “Covenant” will claim bragging rights as the movie that dethroned “Guardians.”

    Is Katherine Waterston the Next Sigourney Weaver?
    It’s not clear whether her role as the plucky “Covenant” heroine will make her as famous as the original “Alien” made the then-unknown Weaver. But certainly, Hollywood is trying its darnedest to make her a star, between this and her recent supporting-lead role in the Harry Potter franchise-reviving “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.”

    Still, in “Covenant,” she has to compete for the spotlight against not just one but two Michael Fassbenders, as well as a large ensemble cast, so she’s probably still a few movies away from a breakthrough role.

    Is “Covenant” Going to Make a Profit?
    That could depend on what it cost, which in turn depends on who you ask.

    Trade reports cite Fox as saying the movie cost $97 million, but the typically blunt and candid Scott has said $111 million. Both figures seem remarkably low for an effects-heavy space opera, especially since “Prometheus” cost a reported $130 million five years ago.

    Then again, Fox is reporting that “Covenant” has already earned $81.9 million overseas, so its global total of $117.9 is above even Scott’s figure. Of course, once you add marketing costs and subtract the theater owners’ take, “Covenant” is going to have to gross as much as $450 million just to break even.

    That’s not impossible. Scott’s previous “Alien” prequel grabbed $403 million from earthling ticketbuyers, and that was at 2012 prices. In any case, what will save “Covenant,” like nearly every other big-budget Hollywood release this year, will be the foreign audience. The domestic release was always going to be just gravy, which is another reason why Fox shouldn’t be too disappointed by $36 million North American debut.

    What Do This Weekend’s Results Say About the Summer 2017 Movie Season
    Don’t forget, even if domestic box office is an afterthought these days, summer sales still traditionally make up 40 percent of the year’s take, or about $4.5 billion at the North American box office.
    The current summer movie season is just three weeks old, but already, it’s seen “Covenant” do “meh” business, “Guardians 2” slightly underperform them, and “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” bomb outright. The box office for the year to date is just slightly ahead of this time last year (by 2.4 percent, or about $102 million). That’s not much of an edge; a couple more shaky debuts or massive flops and this year’s box office will fall behind and struggle to catch up with previous years. There’d better be a lot of gold in Wonder Woman’s lasso.

    Scott has said he has at least one and as many as four ideas for future “Alien” installments. As long as the 79-year-old’s health holds out, and as long as the $1.4 billion franchise keeps delivering solid worldwide numbers like “Covenant” has, those facehuggers and chestbursters should keep coming back to terrify us for years to come.

  • 6 Things You Need to Know Before Seeing ‘Alien: Covenant’

    You’d think at some point the residents of the “Alien” universe would learn to stop traveling to remote worlds where hungry Xenomorphs are waiting to eviscerate them. Oh well. Their loss is our gain, as franchise returns to theaters with “Alien: Covenant.”

    If you’re not sure where this latest film falls on the increasingly complicated “Alien” timeline, fear not. We’re breaking down everything you need to know about “Covenant, from how it connects to 2012’s “Prometheus” to what to expect from this new crew of unfortunate souls/future chestburster incubators.

    1. It’s More of a Sequel to “Prometheus” Than You ThinkWhile it’s not actually called “Prometheus 2,” “Covenant” is a follow-up to that 2012 “Alien” prequel.

    Set ten years after the events of that polarizing prequel, “Covenant” will reveal (sort of) what became of Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and the damaged android David (Michael Fassbender) after they left LV-223 in search of the Engineers who created humanity. The film will also feature Guy Pearce reprising his role as the late Peter Weyland (despite having suffered a violent death last time around).

    2. You’ll Meet Mostly New CharactersWhile it’s a continuation of “Prometheus,” “Covenant” looks to be focusing more on a new cast of characters. The film revolves mainly around the crew of the Covenant, who are responsible for ferrying a group of interstellar colonists to their new home. This crew is the latest in a long line of Weyland-Yutani teams to run afoul of the ruthless Xenomorphs (HR and legal must love these workman’s comp claims).

    The crew includes terraforming expert Daniels (Katherine Waterston), first mate Christopher Oram (Billy Crudup), chief pilot Tennessee (Danny McBride), and security officer Sgt. Lope (Demián Bichir).

    Fassbender will be pulling double duty this time around, as he’ll also be playing the Covenant’s helpful (and kind of badass) android, Walter.

    3. The Film Goes Back to Its RootsNot all “Alien” fans were thrilled with the direction in which “Prometheus” pulled the franchise, complaining about director Ridley Scott‘s emphasis on philosophy and fleshing out the origins of the Xenomorphs with complicated and convoluted mythology, rather than finding a worthwhile way of exploring those questions by way of the claustrophobic horror — and character-driven stakes — that made the first two “Alien” films so memorable.

    Luckily, early reviews suggest that “Covenant” is bringing the franchise back to its roots. Expect more emphasis on horror and bloodshed this time around, as the Covenant crew slowly come to grips with the deadly threat awaiting them when they detour to an undiscovered planet while en route to their new home.

    4. There’s Even More Mythology
    Despite the “back to basics” mentality of this prequel, “Covenant” will still feature some of the philosophical elements of “Prometheus.” The original title of the film was actually “Alien: Paradise Lost,” which gives you some idea of where Ridley Scott is drawing inspiration from.

    “Covenant” goes deeper into the world of the mysterious Engineers while expanding on what the black goo is that seems to have birthed both humanity and the Xenomorphs.

    5. There’s a New Xenomorph
    It wouldn’t be a proper “Alien” movie without at least one new variation on the Xenomorph. “Covenant” will introduce the Neomorph, a smaller, more feral version of the iconic monster. The Neomorphs are native to the seemingly idyllic world the Covenant crew discover in the film, created after the Engineers’ black goo interacted with, well, you’ll have to see for yourself.

    Traditionalists needn’t worry — the film will also feature plenty of the classic “Big Chap” Xenomorph we know and love. But rather than a tall guy in a rubber suit, the Xenomorphs are now mostly computer-animated creations, making them quicker, deadlier, and more flashy than ever.

    6. “Covenant” Starts a New TrilogyWe can only hope “Covenant” recaptures the appeal of the first two “Alien” movies, otherwise, it might be the last entry in the franchise. Scott intends “Covenant” to be the first part of a new trilogy of films that will progressively shed more light on David and his plans to continue a more deadly version of what the Engineers started.

    The goal is to eventually link this trilogy to the events of the original “Alien.” Scott already has developed screenplays for both sequels, with production on “Alien: Covenant 2” hoping to begin in 2018.

    “Alien: Covenant” hits theaters May 19. Get your tickets here.

  • 14 Things You Never Knew About the ‘Alien’ Franchise

    As “Alien” fans know, the xenomorph has acid for blood, is a relentless hunter, breeds parasitically inside human hosts before killing them, and has a tremendous hunger for cash. It’s eaten up some $1.4 billion in earthling movie-ticket money over the past 38 years and seven films. And Fox is hoping it will gobble hundreds of millions more when the eighth film, Ridley Scott‘s second prequel “Alien: Covenant,” is released May 19.

    Over the years, Moviefone has learned a lot of wonderfully disgusting facts about the franchise (read this if you want to know what the alien’s innards and mouth-slime were made of, or this if you want to know how Lance Henriksen nearly chopped Bill Paxton‘s finger off performing his knife trick), but in honor of “Alien: Covenant,” we’ve dug up a few more things you didn’t know about the scary space series.
    Alien (1979)Directed by Ridley ScottShown: Sigourney Weaver1. Sigourney Weaver was an unknown when she auditioned for “Alien,” but that anonymity proved an asset. “We felt that if Ripley was a big name, she would lose part of her mystery,” producer David Giler recalled in 1991. Weaver claims she got the part because 20th Century Fox studio chief Alan Ladd Jr. showed her screen test to his secretaries, and the ladies gave her audition the thumbs-up.

    2. Weaver earned about $30,000 for the first “Alien,” $1 million for “Aliens,” $4 or $5 million for “Alien3” (plus a percentage of the profits), and $11 million for “Alien: Resurrection.”
    3. A scene cut from “Aliens” might have explained how Ripley developed her maternal urge to protect the orphan girl Newt. In the scene (above), shortly after she’s awakened from her decades-long sleep, Ripley is shown a picture of the daughter who was ten when she first left on her mission, and who has since grown old and died. The prop was actually a picture of Weaver’s own mother. The studio reportedly trimmed the scene because it slowed down the movie’s pace and delayed Ripley’s return to space.

    4. David Fincher disavowed 1992’s “Alien 3,” even though it was his feature directing debut. “A lot of people hated ‘Alien 3,’” he said a decade later, “but no one hated it more than I did.”
    5. Weaver said she felt that Fox had undermined the first-time filmmaker, first by having him start shooting without a finished script, then by micromanaging him. “They started off telling him they wanted ‘Hobbit in Space,’” Weaver recalled. “Midway through, they’re saying they want an E-ticket ride of a movie. It was a mess.”

    6. Similarly, Joss Whedon disavowed 1997’s “Alien: Resurrection,” even though he found it a fairly faithful adaptation of his screenplay. “It wasn’t so much that they’d changed the script,” he said in 2005. “It’s that they just executed it in such a ghastly fashion as to render it almost unwatchable.”
    7. In the early 2000s, “Aliens” director James Cameron was working on an origin-story prequel — the germ of the idea that eventually became “Prometheus,” — but he abandoned it when he learned Fox was developing the “Alien vs. Predator” crossover films. To this day, Ridley Scott claims not to have seen the two “AvP” movies.

    8. “Alien vs. Predator” director Paul W.S. Anderson claimed that Arnold Schwarzenegger had agreed to appear in a cameo in the 2004 film as Dutch, his character from the original “Predator,” on the condition: that he lost the California gubernatorial election, which he did not. Also, Anderson said, Schwarzenegger had wanted to film the cameo at his own house.
    9. In 2012’s “Prometheus,” when the snake-like “hammerpede” alien bursts forth from Rafe Spall‘s corpse, Kate Dickie‘s screaming reaction is real and spontaneous. She didn’t know what she was about to see: the sudden emergence of an alien puppet manipulated by the director. It was the same exact technique Scott had used to scare the actors in the original “Alien” when they first saw the “chestburster” force its way out of John Hurt‘s torso.

    10. To create the sounds made by the glistening cave’s ice crystals, the “Prometheus” sound effects artists used Pop Rocks candies, sprinkling them on hard surfaces and then spraying them with water to make them crackle.11. Originally, the filmmakers sought Max Von Sydow to play ancient tycoon Peter Weyland, but they went with Guy Pearce instead in order to be able to show the character as both young and old.

    12. The old-age makeup Pearce wore in “Prometheus” took five hours to put on and another hour to take off. In character as the younger Weyland, Pearce appeared in a short promo clip, supposedly giving a TED talk in the year 2023. The clip, directed by Luke Scott (Ridley’s son), marked the first time the TED curators had licensed their brand to makers of a fiction feature.
    13. There was much talk, as recently as summer 2016, that Weaver and “District 9” director Neill Blomkamp were moving ahead with a fifth Ripley movie, one that would have pretended that the third and fourth movies never happened and would have kept Newt and Corporal Hicks (Michael Biehn) alive. But in April 2017, Scott (who would have executive-produced the Ripley movie), said that Blomkamp had never written more than a 10-page story pitch, and that Fox had nixed the project.

    14. “Alien: Resurrection” went through many drafts, especially in regards to the film’s climatic ending. At one point, Whedon wrote a draft where the Betty crashes on an Earth forest. Here, once she realizes they and the newborn albino alien are too close to a populated city, Ripley takes action. Armed with a grenade launcher, she flies around in a futuristic combine harvester vehicle to finish the newborn off in a very cool — but ultimately too expensive — sequence.

  • Ridley Scott Says Neill Blomkamp’s ‘Alien’ Sequel Isn’t Happening

    Neill BlomkampWere you holding out for that Neill Blomkamp-directed “Alien” sequel? Well, it’s never gonna happen, says Ridley Scott.

    In 2015, Blomkamp, the director of “Elysium” and ” District 9” shared some concept art for an upcoming “Alien” film that featured Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and a disfigured Hicks (Michael Biehn), who apparently didn’t die in “Alien 3” after all. At the time, he said, “‘Alien’ going very well. Love this project.”

    But Scott now says that film is DOA. He told French web site Allocine (via The Playlist), “I think it will never see the light. There was never a scenario, just an idea that evolved into a pitch of 10 pages. I had to participate as a producer, but it did not go any further because Fox decided that they did not want to do it.”

    You can start debating now whether this is because “Chappie,” Blomkamp’s most recent film, was a critical and box-office disappointment, or because Scott wants to keep making any and all “Alien” films himself.

    Blomkamp hasn’t yet commented on the news. He did share a tweet on #AlienDay, saying he was excited for Scott’s upcoming “Alien: Covenant.”