In the Alien films, a xenomorph is a monstrous, all-consuming life form that exists only to make more and more copies of itself. Once the first xenomorph appears, it’s only a matter of time until all those gleaming chrome walls will be covered in creepy black goo and the humans suspended lifeless from the ceiling

Anyway, Alien: Romulus is the seventh film about these particular monsters. According to the producers, the film takes the franchise ‘back to its roots’. So we get a group of grimy crew-mates piloting a big rust-bucket of a spaceship who pick up an extraterrestrial stowaway and end up having to use their wits and courage to survive as it gobbles them up, one by one.

And it’s not a bad film. It’s nicely creepy, the special effects are good, the acting is perfectly serviceable. In fact, I could give you a normal review of Alien: Romulus, but just writing this is making me feel a little crazy. It’s not a bad film, but it’s also a direct copy of a much better film that already exists. That film is called Alien, and it came out in 1979. It had Sigourney Weaver in it. It hasn’t vanished. If you have a Disney+ subscription or a torrent client, you can watch it tonight. Why have we made it again? What’s the point? Why have we spent the past 45 years – which is longer than I’ve been alive – making seven different versions of the same film? What on Earth is going on?

  • soul@lemmy.worldEnglish
    32·
    3 months ago

    For which there clearly has been. Some people made the various sequels because they had a story to tell, some because there is an audience that wants more from the IP, some because they wanted a chance to take part in such a project, some because they saw them as an opportunity to share their particular craft.

    Movie making is a massive group effort. I can assure you that there is not a single movie where the sole reason it gets made is for money. In fact, most of them go into the project thinking it’ll be a losing prospect from an accounting point of view.

    • potustheplantEnglish
      22·
      3 months ago

      I can assure you that there is not a single movie where the sole reason it gets made is for money.

      And that’s my cue to leave. Thanks for the laugh.

      • soul@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        3 months ago

        There is far more nuance in real life than the myopic view your comment reflects. The amount of effort it takes to make a movie is not small. Even low-budget arthouse films take a handful of people to make and those tend to be far less focused on profit than major Hollywood big-budget blockbusters. By logic, this means that there are even more reasons for the movie being made because there are more people involved, each with their own motivations.

        Additionally, I didn’t say that money doesn’t play a role or even that it wouldn’t be the primary driver for the project moving forward. What I said was that it’s never the only reason.

        Also, there’s no reason to be a condescending prick.

        • potustheplantEnglish
          12·
          3 months ago

          The amount of effort it takes to make a movie is not small.

          That’s precisely why I would favor original work over remakes.

          By logic, this means that there are even more reasons for the movie being made because there are more people involved, each with their own motivations.

          Not necessarily, no. The people working on a film might be doing it just because it’s their job. Not everything is a passion project. Also, when discussing a big studio production such as this one, the people that greenlight the movie are also expecting an ROI. Lots of big movies are just a product that produces money.

          Also, there’s no reason to be a condescending prick.

          Not being condescending. It’s just that wishful thinking just gets a chuckle out of me.