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?

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    174·
    2 months ago

    Couldn’t disagree more. I loved this movie. I could critique aspects of it, but it was fucking stellar overall.

    • potustheplant@feddit.nlEnglish
      85·
      2 months ago

      You’re missing the point. They’re not saying it’s a bad movie, just that it’s an unnecessary remake.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        172·
        2 months ago

        If a movie is good, I’m not sure how I follow that it is "unnecessary ". Nothing is necessary, outside of base needs.

        • potustheplant@feddit.nlEnglish
          64·
          2 months ago

          Because it’s not better than the original and it costs millions of dollars to make. It’d be better to spend that time and resources on something that’s actually new.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.worldEnglish
            93·
            2 months ago

            So every movie needs to be better than the movie before it? If I were to talk about movies that were a waste of money, I wouldn’t be focused on the decent ones. Like 95% of movies made are total schlock.

            • potustheplant@feddit.nlEnglish
              42·
              2 months ago

              Not at all. I’m just saying that if it’s a remake, there should be a reason for making it other than just money, ideally.

              • soul@lemmy.worldEnglish
                32·
                2 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.

                • potustheplant@feddit.nlEnglish
                  22·
                  2 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·
                    2 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.

          • wildcardology@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            If the actors, crew and other businesses benefitted from making the film that’s ok with me. Let them spend their money. Though I’m sorry if you feel cheated when you pay to see the movie.