In Space, No One Can Hear The box Office Sales

If i win the euro lottery im planning on spending the lot on an independent sc fi.

well its roger corman films for me every time lol.... camerons stable guy.

i think that everything below the 100 millions worldwide will be considered a failure and then probably no more movies will be produced ...however Ridley Scott have an history to not have made sequels of very succesful movies . ( if made by someone others movies like Bladerunner , Alien ,black rain , the gladiator would have spawned an immediate sequel with the same director ) ...his statement that they had to squeeze two prequels into one can maybe say that there will not be a Prometheus sequel .

I kinda agree and disagree with you there Frantz... Rather than spread his ideas across two sequels it does look like Ridley is throwing all of his ideas into this one basket, so to speak. And as such his desire to make a sequel will be almost non-existent. However I think that the "new direction" that this movie is alleged to head toward could open up a new franchise parallel to Alien, but different in its approach, most likely with sequels headed by other directors (as per Alien). I just hope they, being Fox, are a little more restrictive as to who is chosen and what ideas are added, so as to avoid a repeat of what happened with the latter installments of the Alien franchise.

did you watch pandorum snork ?

hi Snork. Love your dp. I think you both have really valid points there, I just hope that fox, if its a success, don't milk it dry like they have with the original franchise. We do want some mysteries left as to the origins of the alien and the Jockeys, that was what attracted me to the originals. A little back story is ok, just to fuel ones imagination, but we all know how notorious fox and every other film distributors are when it comes to churning out pointless sequels just to make a quick buck, which effectively kills the creations we adore so much. I hope its a one off, with some true originality, which is hard to come by in major Hollywood films these days.

I did Frantz... Its quite a layered film. I guessed they were already on the planet half way through the film, but didn't figure out who Quaid really was which I thought was done quite cleverly. I do wish they had explored the mutants more, but aside from that a good film that sits along my many sci-fi DVD's proudly, thanks mate for the suggestion. Hey there PO

I shall have to watch Pandorum. I'm honestly not over keen on modern day sci-fi movies. i think the last one I saw that I actually enjoyed was district 9,

District 9, good film, that guy makes me laugh in A-Team trying to jump start a car with a defib "Clear" lol.

@Frantz - Less than 100million would be a failure?? Apparently this movie has cost near 200million to make I've read somewhere. . . This film will be FAR better than Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit but will obviously make less at the box office, due to them 2 movies being more "commercial". Althought The Hobbit looks terrible. . . I think Prometheus will make around $500-600million worldwide.

And dont forget the dvd sales and new alien box sets with prometheus added. fox will be patting themselves on the back I reckon, all new directors commentary on every movie due to the revelations which were unknown about the alien mythos until prometheus. I think a lot of long time fans will be urged to buy the new box sets again. and the double disk special features laden edition. I know I will

I think as long as the film recuperates its cost twice over the studio will be happy, anything more that that will be a bonus.

I quite don't understand people who want this (Prometheus, I mean) to be a new franchise or something like that. I want eerie standalone movie, not a pg franchise that is created just because some assholes want their money. I don't need this to answer all my questions, I want this to give me even more questions and thoughts about this whole thing.

I have to agree with you there, Ruth

Ruth; I second that and frankly I couldn't agree more. I hate the fact that we're burdened with so many terrible ALIEN sequels and spin offs, and more to the point I hate it when people refer to ALIEN as a franchise. ALIEN isn't a franchise, it is a work of art with countless poor imitations. You're completely right; Prometheus needs to stand alone! Please God, no one call Cameron for the sequel!

Alien may well not have been a franchise when it began, yes, it is a work of art, but it sure as sugar is a franchise now. And the Ali-verse encompasses a whole lot more than just one movie. And there was nothing wrong with Cameron's sequel. sure, he changed the un-official cannon of the creatures life-cylce, but he was well within his rights to do so, as the egg scene was not released in the final version we saw in theatres. IMO. Agreeably, Camerons work these days leaves a lot to be desired but there's no doubt about his sci fi credentials at the beginning of his career. Also Ridleys work these days isnt the greatness it used to be. And the guy who wrote the scrip for this movie as only ever worked on lost. I'd much rather have a Cameron script, tbh. Lost was just awful after its initial pilot episode, lol Like I said before, they should have asked Abrams to do the script as the star trek reboot isnt half bad at all.

If you want PROMETHEUS to be a tough, thought provoking movie forget about big box office. GLADIATOR is a simple revenge movie with lots action: Big Box Office. ROBIN HOOD & KINGDOM OF HEAVEN are more subtle movies with heavy duty political themes: So-so box office. AVATAR earned big box office because it is basically a BRAVEHEART in Outer Space. LORD OF THE RINGS is basically LAWRENCE OF ARABIA meets Dragons & Dungeons. All are war movies at heart. Unless PROMETHEUS is LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in Outer Space with humans siding with Space Jockeys in a war to bring down the Mad Gods, I would say PROMETHEUS would earn so-so box office. Remember as popular as ALIEN was in 1979, its number is more STAR TREK VOYAGE HOME (approx $200 million +) instead of AVATAR ($750 million).

@Frantz Yea i saw PANDORUM, very nice twist in the end. But the movie needs better plot & characters.

Whoa...wait...hold up....you're kidding, right, PefrectOrganism2? There's nothing wrong with Cameron's sequel? 1st, there's the total plot rip from the first film.....travelers in space (marines this time) investigate a deserted complex (the derelict the 1st time), only to find themselves attacked by the alien species, to be unable to escape them, have to improvise a means to defend themselves, plan to use a shuttle for escape (Narcissus the 1st time, drop ship the 2nd), confront the alien (in this case, the queen), escape the exploding atmospheric processor (or Nostromo the 1st time), escape by the skin of their teeth only to have the alien hitch a ride (this time, the queen), have a battle to the death on board the escape vessel and blow (in both cases) the alien out the airlock (which, is ridiculous and unrealistic the 2nd, because who really believes Ripley would have the strength to pull herself out of an open airlock and do so with no oxygen to breathe, because.....oh, wait.....the vacuum of space would have instantaneously depressurized the Sulaco's loading bay and completely removed every last molecule of air)......so there.....there's that. 2nd, as to you're "he changed the un-official cannon" statement........you're use of the term unofficial bothers me, because...by definition...'Alien' sets up all the rules as "official". Whenever you write a story, you are setting up the rules of the world you are creating as you go, whether you're aware of them or not. Now, you can bend those rules, but to break them is to ruin the integrity and credibility of the story you're writing. Good writer's understand and respect this principle and also understand and respect that when you take over/work with someone else's material, you're beholden to the rules they set up for the world in which you're working.....and Cameron failed to do this in many respects that we have covered in numerous, previous, threads. 3rd, as I've written, and I have no idea how many times at this point, Cameron morphed the genre from a sc-fi/horror to a sci-fi/action adventure because it suited his comfort zone.... 'Alien' made it very clear what it was...sc-fi/horror...there's no mistaking that. It's in the movie's DNA, to borrow Ridley's 'Prometheus'-'Alien' characterization. The sequels, starting with 'Aliens', morphed from sc-fi/horror into sc-fi/action adenture. AND BECAUSE CAMERON FELT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH ACTION, not because it suited the material. Cameron and every director that followed (Fincher did come back to horror somewhat), seemed to miss that aspect of the original's identity. 'Alien' is a horror film at its core. And you must look at it that way. A flim's genre is, comparatively, the overriding structure of its individual fingerprint. To alter the genre of a story from one film to its sequels is to rob it of its identity and that, for a storyteller, is basically a sin...it's a bastardization...it's wrong. By the way, totally agree with you Ruth and Mentos.

Well seeing how much more AMAZING Ridley Scott is, I can see Prometheus being nothing like a stereotypical Cameron movie. I'm not dissin' him, as Terminator 2 was amazing. But Avatar is the worst excuse of a "sci-fi/adventure" film I've ever seen in my life. Alien will always outclass Aliens as an overally movie, originality aside I mean!

[b]@PerfectOrganism2[/b] I disagree (partially). ALIEN isn't intentionally part of the franchise, it was just burdened with a selection of tag-alongs afterwards. Cameron's film is very enjoyable to watch and I genuinely like ALIENS but I don't consider it to be the sister of ALIEN. ALIENS is a completely different film (and I respect that). Although I personally think ALIEN is a much better film (for various reasons) I don't discount Cameron's work. But I wouldn't be particularly upset if it never existed in the first place. On a slight side note, I have a personal issue with different directors having a bash at the same source material. In the case of ALIEN it opened the flood gates for the rest of the tosh that came after ALIENS.

You are, of course, right @Mentos with all of what you just said. I too enjoy 'Aliens', I consume it many times over before I ever managed even to see 'Alien' for the first time...I just get passionate about that opinion, because I'm purist about this sort of thing. I don't like it all when I see people take up the work of someone else and mess with it...know what I mean?

I think Ridley asked for 200 million but *only* got 150 million. I agree that the studio wants the movie capable of bringing in at least 300 million, which means pandering to the masses. I don't think it will reach that, I think more 250 million is a feasibility - but that missing 50 million buys you a cerebral story and enough darkness to convey the essence of an Alien film. BTW, I enjoyed Avatar in 3D. It does well as an escapist thrill ride, albeit playing the formulaic "the one prophesized" plot line.

You aren't going to like this chaps, as much as I love Alien, I saw Cameron's first and fell in love with it, so to me, the second one will always have the highest place in my love of the Alien saga. Closely followed by the original. As far as finchers movie goes, he had never directed a movie before he was taken on to do the third film in the saga, and despite all the grief from Fox, he did a stand up job. Its just a shame we didnt get the intended directors cut which places Alien 3 up there among the classics its predecessors' were, in my very modest opinion. As much as I dislike Res, it was still a worthwhile add on to the saga, albeit with no plot or substance yet it still has some great lines and acting in it from sigourney and the rest of the cast, apart from Ryder. My point is that as great as the original is, the following movies always added something new or different to the continuing story of Ripley and the Alien. Without these subsequent movies, the saga wouldn't be half as popular as it was in its peak. i have to admit I'm happy they are using scott for the prequel but in my humble opinion, Alien was the only worthwhile movie he ever made. I know I'll cop it in the neck for this but Blade-runner was a travesty of a movie. I mean, how many different cuts of it were there, ffs? Far too many for my liking. Cameron is a far more consistant director, at least at the beginning of his career and knocked out some top notch sci fi epics, termi 1 and 2, Aliens, abyss.... And please dont get me started on the most expensive cartoon ever made, avatar. I was just thinking though, that the blue mutant guy in the prometheus trailer kind of looks as though scott ripped him right off the avatar set! So now who is stealing from who? lol Just saying.....

also, Gladiator was ok. But with studio constraints, I'm kind of sceptical in Scott's ability to pull off a worthy prequel/spin off/tie-in, which no one can seem to agree on, lol, to Alien. I really want it to be good, but as I have said before, this movie will be made for a mainstream audience, With Fox's intention being re-igniting the money train that is the Alien franchise. I think it was Frantz who said that everybody seems to be placing Scott on a pedestal and giving him far more credit than he may actually be due. And with Lindeloff as the script writer(never wrote a film before and Lost is terrible) I have my doubts on how good this movie will actually be. Dont get me wrong though, I have my fingers crossed as much as the rest of you do.

If Scott is so 'amazing', then why is every film he has made since Alien crap? One hit wonder, springs to mind........ And dont forget, without Gigers design, and dan's script, I doubt we would all be kissing Ridleys backside as much as we seem to be. Perhaps we should give more credit to HR.

When Cameron says ,"gimme 200 million", the studio says, "sure thing, and here's 100 million on top!". When Ridley says, "gimme 200 million", the studio says, "well, why don't we put down 150 million, and be creative". Make of that what you will.

"My point is that as great as the original is, the following movies always added something new or different to the continuing story of Ripley and the Alien. Without these subsequent movies, the saga wouldn't be half as popular as it was in its peak." @ PefectOrganism, I have to agree with you on this statement man 100 percent. Every film in the Alien series contributed to the overall saga. There has been spin offs and parodies from at least one scene from Alien to Alien Resurrection. They were all great films and I loved them all. Alien and Aliens were fucking marvelous films and debate them as you will but Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection gave the series even more of a sicker take on the story and Ripley. Alien 3 was Ripley facing hell itself. Alien Resurrection was Ripley facing deformed incarnations of the hell she faced previously. They contributed to the overall story of Ripley and the plot of the Aliens. You can't just leave them out which so many people claim to do. All I hear is people saying "Prometheus, Alien and Aliens are the REAL Alien trilogy...screw the rest of the films." But why? Ripley is the consistent conduit running from Alien to Aliens to Alien 3 and finally to Alien Resurrection. It's a saga consisting of 4 films that I personally have an emotional investment for. You can hate Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection all you want but either way they are part of that string of Pro's. They gave new life to the series. They expanded the character of Ripley and the bond she carried from story to story. Just because someone doesn't like Alien 3 or Alien Resurrection doesn't mean they automatically are void from having connection from the series. Opinions are really JUST opinions. They aren't the factual evidence. Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection are part of that franchise that embraces Alien and Aliens. You just can't leave out the rest of the story.

This is my biggest problem: [i]"continuing story of Ripley"[/i]. I'll put it out there right now; I think Ripley was one of the least interesting characters in the film, and to be honest if I had it my way I would've canned her first. More screen time from the other characters (especially John Hurt) would have been welcomed with open arms. ALIEN is about so, so much more than Ripley, and to be honest its one of the reasons why I don't really care for any of the sequels too much. She's pretty inconsequential, the story is about the struggle of the human crew when faced with this terrifying beast not Ellen Ripley. In terms of the popularity of the saga? I don't really think popularity is an issue, ALIEN was a ground breaking sci-fi; a film that re-defined the genre irrespective of the sequels/spin offs. And to be honest even if it wasn't, I wouldn't mind, I'd be able to appreciate the film with a small number of individuals. Its mainstream appeal has nothing to do with how good the film is or how much I like it. As for Cameron? Comparing Cameron and Ridley is like trying to compare Beer and Spirits, it isn't really possible, everyone's opinion will come down to personal preference. In terms of skill level I prefer what I've seen from Ridley, although I haven't seen the full filmography of either director. I'll also second you on Avatar, I think it was an over rated mess. The so called [i]"incredible"[/i] fx used don't really hold weight when the creature deign is that bloody bland. And finally...I wish I could disagree but GOD I hope the blue guy isn't the SJ!

Starbeast, errrrr, the studio is more confident in Cameron's directing abilities than they are with Scott's????? just kidding