August 31, 2004 | by Vic Holtreman 

Counterpoint to Paul Anderson’s AVP comments

You may have heard that Paul Anderson has been complaining that the studio tied his hands in certain respects in regards to the production of Alien vs Predator. He has stated that his cut of the film would have been much better than the studios version, and has hinted that it will be available on the upcoming DVD.

Well, Peter Briggs (who wrote the first draft of Alien vs Predator) is here to tell you that Anderson is full of it, and the reason the film wasn’t very good (I gave it a qualified decent review) was all on Anderson, and no one elses fault.


Among the highlights are the fact that there were not many drafts of the script before Anderson came on board and there’s nothing in the script to indicate that there’s a “real” version of AVP that’s better than what’s on the screen.

Briggs opinion on the film pretty much echoes my own. Click below for the full interview.

Source: Bloody Disgusting

Related Posts with Thumbnails


Tags: alien vs predator,

sponsored links
Ads by Google
  • Yup, combining two franchises is usually about hype. It's been done for YEARS in the comic book industry but it's a much more expensive (and riskier) proposition to do it on the big screen.

    I actually kind of liked F vs. J up until that stupid cop-out ending. I also would have loved to have seen the much talked about but destined to never be made Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash (from the "Evil Dead" series). :D

    Vic
  • TRENT
    Can anyone please tell me what hybrid films in the past have worked? AVP, Freddy v.s Jason, all highly-anticipated busts. It's just a marketing tool and a bad one at that.
  • Vic
    The point of the linked article is that Anderson did not in fact have a "better" version. Blaming others is a game that in the end will bite one in the ass.

    Vic
  • Brian
    Like the old saying goes, you can't polish a turd.

    The studio will always make it difficult for writers and directors to bring their true vision to the screen; it's their job to play the game with the studios and reach a fair compromise. Anderson may indeed have had a stellar concept (although with his track record, I doubt it), but he can't blame the studio for his failure, even if there was some meddling on the studio's part. It's the studio's money; why shouldn't they get a say in the matter? It was Anderson's job to play "traffic cop" on his movie, and he blew it.

    Even so, blaming others for your own screw-ups is a tried-and-true path to success in many walks of life, so Anderson seems to be ambitious, if nothing else.

    Brian
blog comments powered by Disqus