That was quick.

A few weeks back, the internet community was salivating at the curiously timed release of director Neill Blomkamp’s sketches regarding a possible fifth Alien film, one that features an older Ripley and, intriguingly, acid scarred Hicks.

To say I, like many others, was intrigued is an understatement.  I love the first two Alien films but felt the series made a very bad turn with Alien 3, which in the opening minutes cancelled out all the good that Aliens had accomplished by mercilessly -and, to my mind stupidly- killing off both Newt and Hicks, the only other human survivors of Aliens.  Alien Resurrection, to me, was a decent enough film which was neither terribly good or bad…but very mediocre.

So when Mr. Blomkamp’s ideas surfaced, the idea that the studios would have the -let’s face it- balls to consider a new Alien film that (it had to, right?) effectively ignore the events of Aliens 3 and Resurrection felt daring, fascinating, and quite bold.

Fox Studios took note of the fan reaction and, in short order, Mr. Blomkamp reported that his next film would be this new Alien feature, and there was much rejoicing.

But lost in all the hoopla was the fact that Mr. Blomkamp had a new film about to come out, Chappie.

As I said above, the release of all this Alien stuff was “curiously” timed.  After all, rather than push a new project, wouldn’t Mr. Blomkamp want to push his new project and get it to succeed before he starts jumping on his next project?

Beneath the excitement over this potential new Alien film, some started to question why the director was turning the chance to promote his to be released film into a push for his next one.

There grew a feeling that Chappie, like Mr. Blomkamp’s previous film Elysium, wasn’t all that good and Mr. Blomkamp and the studios knew it and that’s why he was pushing his next work.

Well, Chappie’s been released and the critical reviews haven’t been all that good.  Rottentomatoes.com currently has the film hovering in the 30% range for critics, a pretty dreadful score.  Audiences, however, appear to like it more, giving it a far better 67% positive.

Still the word of mouth doesn’t appear all that strong and it doesn’t look like Chappie will survive too long in its release.

Which has created a noticeable shift in opinion among many regarding Mr. Blomkamp’s Alien film.  People who were clamoring for Mr. Blomkamp’s take on the Alien franchise are, quite suddenly, ambivalent regarding his involvement.  Mr. Blomkamp has made three films so far, the well received -and successful- District 9 and followed that up with Elysium and Chappie, both of which appear to be disappointments.

Has the bloom left the rose?

I think it has.

The first sign of trouble was this intriguing article from Jeremy Smith and published on Ain’t It Cool News.  Now I know there’s a lot of nonsense published on that site, but now and again they present some articles that offer you food for thought, something Mr. Smith certainly has.  Read it for yourself:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/70604

Perhaps the most hard hitting lines from that article are these.  I’ve bolded the statement that really hit home:

That last bit from Blomkamp (that he feels his talents aren’t best utilized as a director) comes courtesy of an interview with Uproxx’s Mike Ryan (which was conducted before the “ALIEN 5” deal was announced), and I think it’s a huge red flag. Given that Blomkamp now admits he “fucked up” ELYSIUM, and is so enamored of his latest movie, CHAPPiE, that he spent a good chunk of the press tour promoting his involvement in a new ALIEN flick, I’m not sure he should be getting a shot at a major franchise that could give a passionate filmmaker – i.e. one who believes with absolute certainty that he/she is a director – a significant career boost.

Ouch.

If Chappie winds up being a huge bust, I wouldn’t be surprised if Fox changes their mind about doing Mr. Blomkamp’s Alien.

Given what’s gone on, perhaps, just perhaps, that’s not such a bad thing.

Still, I would love to see someone give us a Alien film that brings back Ripley, Hicks, and Newt.

As always, we’ll see.

A short while back, director Neill Blomkamp (District 9, Elysium) made considerable waves among the movie fandom community when he presented images of an older Ripley and a disfigured Hicks, late from the movie Aliens, and noted he had worked on an idea for a sequel to that film that would complete the Alien/Aliens saga.

The images (you can see them here) clearly got peoples’ attention at Fox Studios as this film has been green-lighted and will be Mr. Blomkamp’s follow up to Chappie.

One thing that people wondered, of course, was where this film might fit in the Alien cinematic universe timeline.  Alien 3, after all, essentially took place “immediately” after the events of Aliens and clearly showed both Hicks and Newt were dead.  The images Mr. Blomkamp presented, though, had an elderly and disfigured Hicks standing alongside a more mature Ripley.

What gives?

Well, it now appears this new Alien film might well ignore the events presented in both Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection:

http://www.slashfilm.com/blomkamps-alien/

Since learning of this there have been some commentaries pro and con regarding the need -if there even is one- to follow “continuity” or ignore it.  Given the fact that few hold either Alien 3 or Alien Resurrection in as high regard as the first two films, I suspect it will be easier for audiences to accept the idea of ignoring these later two Alien films.

Continuity, I find, is a curious thing.  If you’re into comic books, continuity can be a blessing as well as a curse.  The Superman who appeared in Action Comics #1 way back in 1938 is not the same Superman as is presented today.  Sure, he still sports the Clark Kent “disguise” and has the hots for Lois Lane (both ideas present in that first Superman story) and he is from Krypton, but there are noticeable difference.  That Superman, for instance, couldn’t fly.  He jumped very far.  He was also a no-nonsense bad-ass who wasn’t adverse to “eye for an eye” type justice.  In that very first story, if memory serves, he beats a woman beater!

In movies, too, there have been series that featured continuity “glitches”.  In the James Bond film You Only Live Twice (1967) Sean Connery’s Bond comes face to face with Blofeld (played by Donald Pleasance), his S.P.E.C.T.R.E. nemesis.  Yet in the film that follow this one, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, not only is Connery replaced with actor George Lazenby, but Bond once again comes face to face with Blofeld (this time played by Telly Savalas) yet the two do not appear to recognize each other!

Then there’s the fact that the original Star Wars, before George Lucas made all the big and little changes to it, clearly had Luke Skywalker fall instantly head over heels for Princess Leia who, in the very next film, is revealed to be his twin sister!

The bottom line for me is that I don’t have much of a problem ignoring either Alien 3 or Resurrection.  While I felt neither film was “horrible”, considering what came immediately before, these last two films in the series were much weaker.  I’m curious to see what Mr. Blomkamp is up to, though having seen his first two films he’s only batting 500.  I enjoyed District 9 but didn’t like Elysium much at all.

Hopefully, his Alien film will be more in line with District 9.