A brand new Alien: Covenant still shows an armed Daniels. Entertainment Weekly has just posted a new still of Katherine Waterston as Daniels! The new still shows an armed Waterston channeling her inner Ripley in this Aliens looking costume. Alongside the brand new image are several comments by Waterston and Ridley Scott:
“If 2012’s kinda-sorta Alien prequel Prometheus was confusing, Scott says this film will provide some answers. “Covenant is really going to show you who did it and why.”
New Alien: Covenant still shows an armed Daniels
There’s nothing new really said in the other comments but you can check out the full article for the additional comments.
Waterson recently spoke about similarities between Daniels and Ripley, saying that: ““We [Ridley Scott] never really talked about it,” Waterston replied. “I mean, I — obviously I love her, and I love what she did,” Waterson explained, adding that there were “obvious parallels” to be found between the two characters. Waterston made sure to add, “But we never — we never talked about that.”
Keep a close eye on Alien vs. Predator Galaxy for the latest on Alien: Covenant! You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to get the latest on your social media walls. You can also join in with fellow Alien fans on our forums!
Perhaps Daniels isn't a natural leader or fighter, but through the story manages to mine reserves she didn't know she had.
Of course you're always gonna have the Ripley archetype that is an inevitable part of the franchise's box-ticking, but I thought they succeeded with Shaw in the last film (despite some abysmal dialogue) in carving out a new niche.
And if Daniels is paired with Danny McBride as some kind of beta male who has to rise to the occasion (I'm basing this on his affable schlubbiness and overcompensating with that Stetson hat), you could really end up rooting for them... That's assuming they don't get drowned out by an oversized cast and an overextended script...
Those guns were insane...
Loved that movie!
No, I was just pointing out you wouldn't expect to see any futuristic human tech in that film.
Furthermore, notice the weapons by the rebels being AK-47s and the like. AKs were first mass-produced in 1948. That gun is nearly seven years old.
The Steyr was produced in 1978, give or take. So in 70 years past that date, it'd still be in use in 2048.
In 2103, Covenant begins. That's another 53 years. I'd bet money people like the rebels in District 9 will still be using AKs in another 53 years, from now. It doesn't seem far-fetched for me to see the Steyr being used for another 53, past the initial 70 years, provided it is modified. Hell, if you think about it, the pulse rifle is essentially a modified WW2 Thompson sub-machine gun.
In other words, people are complaining about superficial details. I can't imagine firearms changing radically in the next 87 years, short of ray guns or something equally hyperbolic.
District 9 was set in the present day.
Spoiler
On the planet, I think the beasts will be different than the xenos of the past that we've seen, so I'm not sure how effective the weapons will be. Obviously they can't be very effective or there'd be no threat--unless Ridley pulls an Aliens:
In Aliens, Cameron's approach was to make the guns lethal to the aliens, but even then, they were ineffective against the hive, as a whole (ergo, Ripley's suggestion to take off and nuke the site from orbit); furthermore, Cameron even made the weapons' leathality a disadvantage to the marines, with the potential damaging of the cooling system of the atmospheric processor potentially resulting in a thermonuclear explosion. Adios, muchachos. He essentially said, in an old interview, that Zulu Dawn can be just as exciting as a slasher film with one guy running around the house, chasing someone with a knife. For all intents and purposes, his approach worked. Yes, those guns were effective against the aliens, individually, but even then, it wasn't safe to kill them--just ask Drake or Hicks. The weapons, even with their lethal effectiveness, still reaffirmed Parker's statement in Alien: "It's got a wonderful defense mechanism; you don't dare kill it." On top of that, in Aliens, even if you did kill a few of the beasts (or even most of them) the surviving members of the hive would do you in, assuming you didn't die from injuries sustained in the battle (acid, or, in Frost's case, friendly fire--pun intended).
Why? Maybe they simply aren't interested in reinventing the wheel for the guns. Furthermore, you say "the behind the scenes stills we've seen of creatures look great, that kind of care should be put into every part of the film." So clearly you have nothing to worry about as far as the creatures go (or the sets, for that matter, which all look fine, as we've been shown thus far:
Spoiler
However, I will say District 9 was a lot of fun with the alien weaponry and so on, but there were plenty of normal, conventional, modern, human firearms, too, in that film. So, just because you see one Steyr in a production pic doesn't for a second mean that's all we're going to get. Also, the production stills for movies, including Alien, show actors holding props that they don't actually use in the film, so perhaps we'll see something else in the arms of our new heroine?
Also, the comment of the pulse rifles in Alien 3 doesn't compute, for me. Covenant predates Aliens; how do you know when those weapons came into service? Scott isn't obligated to put them into the film (though I'd be perfectly happy if he did). There can be plenty of explanations for the visual differences in the different films (such as the sleek, futuristic look of the Prometheus versus the Nostromo, despite the latter existing after the Prometheus). For me, it'd seem strange if every person with a gun used all the same kind of gun. That's not how it works, on Earth, now, even. Cohesiveness or lack thereof doesn't necessarily translate to laziness if that lack can be explained.
Furthermore, this is Ridley Scott. Are you really worried about his visual style being lazy? If anything, the script or story is to be worried about, but how would you get that from them using a Steyr in a production still?
That thing was just a stupid kitbash knocked up for the marketing. It looks crap and its supposed functionality is ridiculously far-fetched.
It much rather see something more grounded, especially as this isn't a military ship.
It's not an extreme view at all. The behind the scenes stills we've seen of creatures look great, that kind of care should be put into every part of the film. This still and the security force still show us that the same amount of attention to detail isn't being put into everything, other wise we'd see these weapons dressed up.
Hell, in Alien 3 Fincher repainted the Pulse Rifles in order to keep things cohesive (and that production wasn't the best to begin with).
This was even floating around when Prometheus was the big Aliens topic, so at some point in Ridley's prequels we were supposed to see predecessors to the pulse rifle.
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi345.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp390%2FAkuze-Casualty%2F494b6ad1-392e-4c17-bf0b-680e6a5be77d_zpsrfskfgcc.png&hash=28f7911a8e6928e53872f55fd20e92a293f4808b
I never said it was going to be a bad movie because of this, I never said I hate the movie because of this. I said it seems lazy and it makes me worry other aspects of production are being treated the same way.
Holy shit, that's one of my favourite movies ever and no one else has ever heard of it!
Well I didn't automatically think Lance from Contra but I guess I should have considering I thought she was a guy at first.
I'm evil but I'm not that evil.
https://cdn.cloudpix.co/images/arnold-schwarzenegger/arnold-schwarzenegger-in-predator-muscles-352d1badd7a714146e2a13601cac0b4a-large-427277.jpg
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F199.101.98.242%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F55137-Contra_%28USA%29-9.jpg&hash=ccb4ce561484cbfc9a804dace7c8d8afd0bb334d
This is totally a good thing.
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joblo.com%2Fnewsimages1%2Felevator.jpg&hash=b3bc9a3423e11d4830e9aaac5444a08dfaccc4da
I'm sorry guys but the moment I saw that image I thought it was that one dude from Deep Rising, the dude in the middle with the gun... just to be super obvious.
Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answers to??
That's true, outside of Aliens, she only fires one shot in Alien Resurrection. Classic Ripley uses a flamethrower and is dressed in jumpsuit (with cat, not little girl). Aliens Ripley takes more after Rambo.
Woman with a gun is hardly a 'Ripley clone' anyway, just 'cos the actual Ripley used one for 20 minutes in one film. She didn't strut around the place posing with guns in the films - she used them when necessary. Even in Resurrection, she hands over her gun to Hillard, then throws the flamethrower away after torching the failed clones.
Shaw and Lex weren't Ripley clones at all.
Actually the only real Ripley clones are in Alien Resurrection.
I don't see 'Ripley clone' here except girl with a gun. Ripley didn't even have short hair in Aliens and she wasn't wearing a tank top. If she yells "Get away from her you bitch!" though I'm walking out of the theatre.
Outside of the merc fest... it was shit lol But at least it was FUN shit
But I REALLY doubt A:C is going to be a turd. For the most part these days, people are TOO harsh on films and expect WAY too much from them anymore. Instead of viewing them as a form of entertainment created by HUMAN BEINGS (to err is human) that is there for the sole purpose of viewing for 2-3 hours worth of enjoyment, weve all gotten to the point of such high expectations of EVERY piece of cinema we go see (at least it seems like it).
Oh sweet raptor Jesus, Katherine Waterson may resemble Ripley in being the heroine of the film (much like Shaw was in Prometheus)... BIG DEAL. She may have to put on her big girl pants and suck up the sense of fear to save her own butt (and possibly others) and look out, she might be toting around a machine gun and shotgun to shoot Aliens with... Make her an Ellen Ripley clone this does not. It just shows a female being bad ass and owning her shit!
I guess Im just super happy we finally get answers to the first film. We get to see characters we care about further evolve... and we get to see a creature weve all loved for the past (almost) 40 years get some kind of explanation as to what it might actually be. I choose to go into this film ignoring little details everyone here is nit picking and arguing about. Why not lose yourself in what the movie might be instead of your preconceived notions about whats wrong with it based on silly little details. Ridley Scott is finally giving us, what looks like, and amazing film that is the first of 3 before we go straight back into Alien again.
But then again... I tend to look at life in a little more positive way than most for the things I love and take interest in (never mind I write loud, evil and angry industrial music lol)
I don't think it "means" much of anything at this point, except that you might be jumping the gun, so to speak. So if you think the guns are "lazy" then everything will be? That's like saying that you don't like Aragorn's sword, ergo you think every other production aspect of LOTR will be just as "bad." That's a tad extreme, especially since guns might not be the focus of the film, even if some people want them to be.
Have you seen any of the other stills thus far? They don't exactly scream lazy to me, even if what's-her-face looks like Ripley and is holding a modified Steyr. I'm not willing to discount everything good that I've seen thus far on account that the firearm isn't decorated enough. To be honest, I'd rather have it look like a real gun than a silly toy. It looks like a gun that shoots bullets. Beats whatever the hell guns they had in Alien: Resurrection. Hell, just play Alien: Isolation. The shotgun in that game is based off a real gun. God forbid. Does that make the production "lazy" as a whole? Of course not.
That's pretty cool that you know this.
It's not that I'm hard to please, it's that it comes off as lazy and I'm afraid that means the whole production will seem "lazy" when I finally do see it.
What Hick's said here sums up how I feel.
AvP2 didn't suck because it had a Ripley clone in it, anymore than the second movie did for borrowing very generously from the first film in terms of tropes, texture and plot. AvP2 sucked because it was a bad film, period. Covenant could have a "Ripley clone" in it, or, you could look at it like "the strongest most resilient character surviving." To me, this just makes sense, and the gender and look is purely cosmetic. To fret about those matters is to fret about window dressing. What matters is the craft of the filmmakers.
So if the Covenant left at 2050, it would have taken guns but no gun factory nor would it take a development team that would create guns while they are traveling through space.
ah whatever just deal with it.
You seem hard to please.
That said, it's not going to kill the film. This isn't Aliens. We're not going to have a focus on the hardware and how impressive it is. There's going to be no "I'd like to introduce you to a personal friend of mine" kind of thing. That's just not what this film is going to entail.
Yeah, it's a little disappointing for those interested in the hardware but it's not going to kill the film.
again, i will say it... its like judging a fast and the furious movie simply based upon the wheels used on the cars in the film.
You mean the gun that can somehow shoot someone from like 35km away and is infinitely more futuristic than anything we see in Aliens?
Hick's shotgun was a personal weapon, that's something (based on dialogue) we can figure was personally owned by him. It wasn't a USCM issued weapon. I'd imagine the USCM issued shotgun would look more in line with the pulse rifle.
Vaz's pistol you can argue is also a personally owned weapon given the fact it's different from Goremans and can be easily identified.
Since these weapons are their personally owned weapons that means they were purchased via civilian means.
In keeping with the Vietnam logic though, it wasn't uncommon for soldiers to get weapons through unofficial channels or by family members sending them through the mail. I've read this was most often knives and smaller things, but in rare instances I've read WW2 weaponry could be acquired. Large weapons being sent to troops though was a common among snipers more so since the US Military didn't have an official sniper rifle during the beginning of the war. Personally owned or purchased hunting rifles were very common in the beginning of the war.
I know it's Ridley's movie, and I know he doesn't really have to follow anything after Alien, but keeping things a little bit in what was already established would be nice, or at least disguising the weapons a bit so they don't look like something you'd see a US or Australian military member with. It comes off as lazy to me.
So we can have super high tech crytubes but can't have the Pulse Rifle or anything else more futuristic?
And it seens like someone forgot about the Storm Rifle at Weyland Security time-line.
Ridley is getting nuts on Alien universe since Prometheus, now its for sure. Someone retire this guy.
You're making too much sense here lol
Cameron gave the Marines in Aliens VP70s, a gun that's been out of production for 27 years already, without bothering to even put any dressing on it. Likewise Hicks had an ancient (by the time) pump-action and Vasquez had a Smith & Wesson that was over 200 years old.
Suspend disbelief for a minute.