What if... Alien was remade?

I was always under the impression that the term "reboot" was just another way of saying "remake."

"Inspiration doesn't equate to reboots."

I didn't claim it does.

"It denatures and devalues the original. Alien is one of those rare gems, for the time in which it was created, it still holds up today as a masterpiece."

If that is the case, and it is, how is a remake going to devalue it?

"Remakes are a waste of time, effort and money, at least imo."

Robocop made nearly $250m. The Spider-Man reboots made over $700m each.

'Reboot' vs. 'remake' - reboots are generally used for franchises, that have either faltered or been inactive. They might reference previous instalments or they might not. Predators was an attempt to reboot the franchise.   Ditto Alien Resurrection. Neither were remakes. Shane Black's Predator film could be seen to be another attempt at rebooting.  Also Alien Covenant.

I agree with the majority above, in saying no to remakes ... reboots on the other hand are like a refresher for people who were'nt around when the originals came out ... so it's like catch up for those people ... and yes it's a money making enterprise ... I don't mind the reboots so much but a remake? ... hmmm ... not Alien, that's for sure ... doesn't need it, imho nor does others for that matter ...

I'm with Lone regarding the classics though ... you listed my favs also ... I actually love those oldies because of the atmosphere they produce, while watching them ... the orignal 'Thing from Another World' is gold ... and 'Forbidden Planet' my all time fav ...

I'm still building the fence regarding the reboot/remake topic ...

How does remaking old classic films change the original? Do they have "less atmosphere" because someone remade them?

S.M - I find your assertion lacking. We as a species have always communicated. By what you have stated, our imagination has begun to fail since the moment we began engaging one another. That is flawed. Our imaginations have grown since the moment in which we began to share new ideas and see new points of view. How do you explain the moments of grand artistic and theatrical achievement that have dotted the history of mankind?

I didn't say it had begun to fail.

Technology and politics - even in their most basic forms - have always influenced the course of our imaginations, however. 

S.M - Right you are. I posit that we should not allow such factors to muddy the waters of creativity. There is no benefit to such action other than an attempt at control by the individual(s) interested in extolling their views. We should imagine things beyond the scope of our every day struggles or use those struggles to inspire - not bludgeon one-another over the head with them while exclaiming our moral high ground. It is foolishness that can only give rise to a dearth of creativity. Even now, the world is poised on the brink of horrifying censorship; we must not allow it to fall.

What censorship is this?

And such things don't 'muddy the waters of creativity'. Technology is the tools and medium you use to express creativity; politics influences your creativity.  They're not the forces of evil.  They just are.

S.M - Ah, now we can get to the heart of the matter! You are quite right; politics influence creativity. However, they do not have to unless you allow them to do so. As you have so eloquently stated: "They're not the forces of evil. They just are." A fire will burn and divest thousands of their homes. Yet it is not evil. A man may speak what he believes to be the unbiased truth and bring about the death of others. Regardless, he is not evil. Warriors will go to battle for country and religion, and in so doing lay waste to cities. To those for whom they risk they're lives, they are not evil. However, is there a negative effect brought about by each such instance? Of course there is. Politics belong in political films; I happen to be a great fan of them! With that being said, our world's politics do not in any way belong in fantasy and other works that look to step beyond the ugliness that is all-too-often present across the globe. As for technology: once again, you are very right. Stepping back, however, I see fault in the overreliance on technology to tell our stories. If you no longer need to imagine what a terrible monster looks like as it has been presented to you in full realistic horror, what need do you have to continue imagining? We are very much aural and visual learners gifted with incredible powers of envisionment. As such, if we are given hyper-realism over and over again, our minds will become bored. Ask yourself if you would rather be thrilled by a the reading of a book that elicits emotion by allowing you to use your mind's eye or have your imagination temporarily replaced by visuals on a screen.

"With that being said, our world's politics do not in any way belong in fantasy "

Someone might want to tell George Orwell...

One would argue that George Orwell dabbled with social politics, not world politics.

S.M - I am extremely pleased that you have mentioned Orwell! The works he presented were warnings about the very notions about which I have been speaking. We can lose ourselves to our societal cages and in so doing lose everything - including the ability to express in fashions that are not permitted. Is it possible that government has attempted to control through technology? Of course. The most beneficent and dangerous things on the face of creation are ideas. The beneficent ones can uplift and enlighten. The dangerous ones can subjugate and debase. 

Not sure how all that relates to an Alien remake.

"One would argue that George Orwell dabbled with social politics, not world politics."

Or Russian politics with talking animals...

S.M - Hahaha! Very true. We may have wandered a bit further down the rabbit hole than we originally intended. Regardless, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to debate with you. You are quite intelligent and fun to engage! Thank you ever so much for the thought-provoking dialogue! :) 

You're too kind. :) Back at ya.

No thanks, there have been too many re-makes already and besides I don't see how they could improve the quality of the movie.

Necronom4: Thanks for the Father Ted images. I like that show.

I don't really see how it would be a bad idea.

Remake is bad- Still have the great original

Remake is good- Now you have 2 enjoyable movies.

It's not like any movie is so perfect there's nothing that could be improved upon in any way.

You guys have given me much to think about.  I usually like to see "re-makes" or whatever term you wish to use, but I define that as the exact same movie, done with better visual presentation.  Some of you have taken that view to task, and I can acknowledge your objections as valid;  you are re-hashing the same material, and possibly denigrating/ not showing respect the original.  What I am seeking is merely a better visual presentation of the original idea; not a new interpretation of it.  But, granted this COA is fraught with peril.  A new director will possibly abuse his power and go off on another tangent/ interpretation. 

What really struck a cord with me is the comparison to reading a classic book.  You "minds eye" will always trump any visual presentation produced, regardless of the tech involved.  And that gave me pause to think.  If you always insist on "up-dating" each classic movie, to match the visual presentation of the period, you would in all probability lose the original essence of the story. 

So point taken.   

And yes, I agree, Ridley did a brilliant job, working with what he had at the time.  The fact that it is now dated does not take away from this accomplishment.