Has Ridley Scott "Caved?"

I believe there will be a R rated Directors cut release on DVD for certain. It is just about getting enough profit so they will get to do the second part right now. Don't worry, it will work out IMO.

I'm a little sick of this debate myself...until we see the product on the screen, there's no real reason to comment.....either way you set yourself up with expectations....that rarely ends well.

The rating that they slap onto it doesn't matter nearly as much to me as whether or not they produce a quality storyline, believable performances, and advance the mythos of the Alien universe. I will be happy if it's on the same quality-level with Alien and Aliens; which were the only quality pictures in the entire franchise. Everything else was utter garbage.

Define "caved"? The article positions the trade-off very well: In Soho: Ridley Scott is in an Editing Suite in the difficult position of being an Artist [i]and[/i] a Business Man - with a responsibility for Return on Investment for probably in the region of $200 Million - of somebody else's money? I don't know what you're suggesting that you think he is supposed to do? Cut films in favour only of his vision where he [i]knowingly[/i] reduces the likelihood that sufficient money is made on the investment, thereby hurting the Business that allows him to be creative in the first place, everybody else involved, and audiences - because the result will be that Studios will stop wanting to back those kinds of film? Or, does he try and reach the best compromise he can between two Masters? It's an impossible position. I wouldn't call that "caving". I would call that being responsible and doing his job. At the end of the day, everyone needs to consider whether they would like these kinds of movies funded appropriately or not. If Scott cuts the movie he may want and it doesn't make enough cash, you and he can forget the follow-up. So what does he do? In some ways, he's as much a pawn in the game as the audience. It's a bit too much to paint him as in absolute control of these aspects, because he isn't - it isn't his $200 Mill. Plus, I don't understand why you wouldn't wait at least until you've seen the product [i]before[/i] you cast an opinion on the man's integrity, that really seems quite a strange position to take.

I don't know about caved but what has me on pins and needles is -- and this is my own opinion and I am not looking for arguments or converts here just my opinion-- that I just haven't liked the vast majority of Scott's flicks. A couple of decent ones since Legend, but overall . . . pretty lame. How does Gladiator get nominated for any Oscars outside of design, effects, sound? I know, I know, I am in the minority on this one. But Scott is no Bergman or Kubrick. The latter is particularly relevant. Scott apologists keep bringing up the whole "he's gotta be a businessman and an artist." Precisely why Prometheus will NOT be a 2001, no matter how many fanboys say otherwise. And if I am wrong, then great. I hope so.

@allinamberclad For real. Seems people have a hard time understanding that you don't just get to go out and be an artiste' with someone elses 200 million. You have a responsibility to make smart choices that will result in a return on investment, which include not alienating a whole lot of people, being accessible. I'm sure Ridley asked for that kind of budget, knowing and planning on making compromises.

@Biehn_Bandit And other people seem to have a hard time understanding that Bergman, Kubrick, and a few other truly greats didn't give a damn. Admire Scott for what he is, but what he is not is an auteur, or at least hasn't been for sometime.

Bergman and Kubrick never made 200 million dollar movies, not even adjusted for inflation. You better believe the studio would have their say, and more, on the kind of content that went into either of those director's movies at that price range. You don't get to be an artiste' for that amount of money. The greatness of an artist means little in the face of economics. They'd trust Michael Bay with a larger budget than any of the directors mentioned here,

let me just say this about that, Scott is one of the very select few men or women on this planet that can say to FOX..."Screw You, "I'll produce it myself with my own money" then walk away and do exactly that. I don't need to go on any further right?

Man......I think there's a very good chance the naysayers are going to go quiet in a couple of months. The man directed not one, but [i]two[/i] of the greatest sci-fi movies from the last half-century. How many "auteurs" can say that?

@dallas!dallas! I'd be interested to know how, [i]exactly[/i], stating that Scott has to be an, "Artist as well as Business Man", is being an, "apologist"? If that is not the simple fact of the matter, I'd like to know what the simple fact is - according to you. Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what on Earth you can imagine anyone who states that apparently simple fact would be apologising [i]for[/i]? And to [i]whom?![/i] You haven't liked the majority of Scott films? As a matter of fact, neither have I... And who has compared Scott to Kubrick - or Bergman, for that matter? I'm not completely sure what you're talking about. Are you?

Again, I fully hope Scott proves me wrong. I am getting into this movie with as much goodwill as i can muster because I like Alien and like, no love, his first four films.

@allinamberclad "I'd be interested to know how, exactly, stating that Scott has to be an, "Artist as well as Business Man", is being an, "apologist"? If that is not the simple fact of the matter, I'd like to know what the simple fact is - according to you." First, I am using apologist in the classic sense as in singing the praise of, not making excuses for. I [i]apologize[/i] for my esoteric language that is not to your taste. You may not have been singing the praises of Scott/Prometheus but many are. The simple fact is that, if you take a few minutes and read the various threads here and elsewhere, along with statements from the filmmakers, you may see that many are shouting paeans of joy to this movie as raising a new tentpole for sci-fi in the way that 2001did, and the direct comparison to 2001 type influence is from others, not me. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But if the simple fact is that it is a given that Scott will have to do what his masters say to some degree, and I agree that it is, and folks are hoping for a "follow-up", then the idea that this will be somehow a deeper or more intelligent movie than, say, something like the much maligned Cameron's Avatar is questionable. As I clearly said, I am hoping to be wrong on this. I see nothing wrong with lamenting the fact that this is the current state of filmmaking. But the difference with filmmakers that many place Scott with ("auteur" was a quote from Fassbender regarding Scott as one our last living auteurs) i.e. Kubrick, is only in degree. Kubrick, Tarkovsky had pressures from studios and, in Tarkovsky's case, governments, during their careers. Do you make a film with franchise in mind or not? Do you make a movie, if you're a Scott at this stage in your career, trying to please the studios or not? I would say a Scott does. A Kubrick doesn't. Again, naming Scott as an auteur places him in company with Bergman and others. I could have just as easily used some other director.

@allinamberclad "I'd be interested to know how, exactly, stating that Scott has to be an, "Artist as well as Business Man", is being an, "apologist"? If that is not the simple fact of the matter, I'd like to know what the simple fact is - according to you." First, I am using apologist in the classic sense as in singing the praise of, not making excuses for. I [i]apologize[/i] for my esoteric language that is not to your taste. You may not have been singing the praises of Scott/Prometheus but many are. The simple fact is that, if you take a few minutes and read the various threads here and elsewhere, along with statements from the filmmakers, you may see that many are shouting paeans of joy to this movie as raising a new tentpole for sci-fi in the way that 2001did, and the direct comparison to 2001 type influence is from others, not me. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But if the simple fact is that it is a given that Scott will have to do what his masters say to some degree, and I agree that it is, and folks are hoping for a "follow-up", then the idea that this will be somehow a deeper or more intelligent movie than, say, something like the much maligned Cameron's Avatar is questionable. As I clearly said, I am hoping to be wrong on this. I see nothing wrong with lamenting the fact that this is the current state of filmmaking. But the difference with filmmakers that many place Scott with ("auteur" was a quote from Fassbender regarding Scott as one our last living auteurs) i.e. Kubrick, is only in degree. Kubrick, Tarkovsky had pressures from studios and, in Tarkovsky's case, governments, during their careers. Do you make a film with franchise in mind or not? Do you make a movie, if you're a Scott at this stage in your career, trying to please the studios or not? I would say a Scott does. A Kubrick doesn't. Again, naming Scott as an auteur places him in company with Bergman and others.

Not again another "i fear Prometheus Will be pg13 and therefore cannot Be a good movie for adults" thread. The US rating does not always refect The real content of a movie. Sometimes it overrates or underrates The level of violence of a movie. so just chill and wait until u watch the Movie!

For those of you complaining about run times, let's not forget how Michael Bay screwed up the Transformers trilogy(and Bad Boys 2) with his lack of skill at creating a cohesive story. All Bay is good for is action scenes and comedy. He was given well over two hours on each film, and he did nothing with it! Ridley Scott is a master craftsman that Bay could never be, no matter how hard Bay tried. Ridley knows how to put a film together, no matter how much time you give him and makes a damn fine product as a result. Prometheus is going to be awesome!

Very good point Lord Ennio

Yeah, the rating question is useless. However, the question whether Scott is going to turn out a [i]great[/i] pg-13 or R or NC-17 or G or whatever it ends up being rated is still up for debate i think. Not so much because the studio is going to cut gore or this or that bloody sex scene, but because the content may be dumbed down or slicked up (which are not always synonymous but often are).

I think its also important to remember that alien was originally intended to be a horror movie and prometheus is way more along the lines of sci fi as we can all see from the topics written into this film....its gonna be a great ride

My feeling, "Don't you worry one little bit this thing is gonna disturb and scare the "BaJesus" out of everyone !!! Few months from now we will laughing at all the splinter protest groups that have popped up complaining it's "Blasphemous".