Following Alien: Covenant’s big impact at SXSW last weekend, we’re still seeing more information being released! Talking recently to Vanity Fair, Sir Ridley Scott has spoken about the opening scenes of Alien: Covenant.
“We start Covenant,” he continues, ”with a really clever prologue that settles—once and for all—who David really is.” The sequence begins on a “big beautiful blue eye—you see every vein” and over that shot audiences will hear footsteps approach. “How do you feel?” a voice asks. “Alive,” the owner of the eye responds. Scott explains that the prologue reveals Guy Pearce’s Prometheus character, Peter Weyland, as a younger, 40-year-old man (Pearce wore heavy old-age make-up for the 2012 film) whom the newly-born David calls “father.” Scott promises this sequence will “really get people going because it’s fucking smart for a change.”
If you think that sounds familiar, you’re not wrong. Back in October 2016, Alien vs. Predator Galaxy revealed the details of this opening sequence when we announced that Guy Pearce would be returning for Alien: Covenant. We’ve also saw brief parts of this opening scene in the very first trailer.
“The sequence begins on a “big beautiful blue eye—you see every vein” and over that shot audiences will hear footsteps approach.” – Ridley Scott talks beginning of Alien: Covenant in new interview with Vanity Fair.
Some fans have noticed some aesthetic similarities to 2001: A Space Odyssey in that briefly glimpsed sequence in the trailer and the latest #MeetWalter viral marketing. This is no coincidence:
“Scott drew inspiration from a viewing of 2001: A Space Odyssey when, he says, as a young man he “gawped and gawped” at Hal’s famous, unblinking red lens. “You see nothing but the eye” of this creature, Scott marveled.”
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!
You guys maybe interested in this:
Skip forward to 18:20 mark. For the bit about the biomechanical look.
Not to reignite well worn arguments. Because even though I'm a bigger fan of Alien than Aliens. I was never one of those who agreed that Cameron ruined the Alien by turning it into a giant "space-bug." Because the Alien obviously always drew significant influence from insects. Whether it was O'Bannon being inspired by parasitic wasps for the Alien's lifecycle, or RS referring to the Alien as a beautiful biomechniode insect, wanting it to behave like a Praying Mantis. The insect elements were always there.
However, I do think "Big Chap" was the only "true" biomechniode Xenomorph we've had in the entire series and I can't help but think that the sequels wasted the potential to really explore the Xeno's biomechanical traits; by looking into how a seemingly organic creature would acquire synthetic characteristics. The focus instead shifted onto the insect side of things, which I always found less interesting and somewhat generic of sci-fi horror of the past. A little too close to the atomic age creature features of the 50s, that although Alien drew some inspiration from, was suppose to be the antithesis of, in the way that it was made.
The toning down of the biomechanical aspects is also one of my annoyances with Prometheus. Whether it was Arthur Max removing the bio aspects from the ampule room and juggernaut bridge. Or the Deacon, as an ancestor to the Xeno, being stripped of a biomechanical appearance, despite coming from a biomechniode host.
That's why I'm really hoping for a greater focus on the biomechanical in the coming sequels after Covenant. Because the Alien draws its uniqueness from Giger. Without the Giger elements, its just another movie monster struggling to stick out from the crowd.
That's largely irrelevant to the theory about D8 somehow getting impregnated.
We don't need them to literally get gestated inside of a machine to gain a biomechanical aesthetic, any more than terrestrial arthropods do.
It's of a different magnitude, sure, but the principle is the same. Nature creates some wonderful and terrifying things and they're all organic. There are some ants and beetles which literally shoot acid at their enemies. Just because the Alien is different, structurally, doesn't mean it's impossible to be completely organic.
On the contrary, it would have to be. They typically gestate inside an organic host. It doesn't have a source to have gained metal from (and certainly isn't showing any as a chestburster).
It didn't have the materials, unless you're suggesting Kane was secretly a robot who had more metal inside him than Ash did?
I realise this, but at no point does Mother actively nurture or protect the Alien. It's nesting inside of where Mother is housed (Mother is not the same as the Nostromo, after all), sure, but at best, that makes for a parasitical analogy, not a parental one.
In the same way a computer programmer would think of a successful project as 'my baby', sure.
But they don't look alike. Nor is DNA necessary when you're creating a synthetic being's appearance.
I honestly don't see any resemblance, whatsoever, between Vickers and David 8. No relation, whatsoever, aside from being jealous of her biological father's favouritism. Fictional characters like Vickers, who have daddy issues (feeling someone/something else was taking their father's attention/approval away), are ten a penny.
That's more down to 'Alien Resurrection' deliberately featuring hybrids, not true Aliens. In 'Alien 3', the puppet is a lot more authentic to Giger's usual biomechanical aesthetics than the suit was.
There's no technical reason for the A3 creature to have appeared less biomechanical than its brethren on LV-426. It's meant to have come from the same Queen.
Possible, but I don't see the point of making an android believe it's human.
Especially when, if it felt it needed to see a medical specialist for some reason (even just for check-ups), the illusion instantly gets shattered.
it secretes acid from its skin to break down the bones and then reabsorbes the nutrients etc etc through its skin .
it then lays LOTS of eggs .
totally reminds me of the scene lambert Dallas and Kane walk into with the derilict
I got nothing to say about that!
God i hope he delivers
It's like poetry, it rhymes!
Don't get me wrong, I love Ridley he is a true artist and his visuals are second to none, he made my favourite movie of all time but when it comes his track record of what he says vs what is the actual outcome I've become cautious.
Completely agree, actually I find the negativity quite funny to be honest. Covenant will be an excellent film and will be up there with Alien and Prometheus as some of the finest sci-fi/horror films ever made. It simply cannot be everything every fan wants, however. All Scott CAN do is make the film he wants to make. And I will be very happy with it.
The absolute best comments are those attacking Scott for *gasp* SAYING STUFF to promote his movie! What was he thinking?!
I fully expect David to be some other explored immortality device for Weyland, which would be a retcon and hugely unoriginal.
Let's hope I'm wrong though.
"Alien vs. Predator Galaxy can clarify that the intent of this scene is that David is responsible for the creation of these particular eggs. The origins of the Alien species as a whole is not explained in any clear cut manner. As has been noted in several of the recent set reports the Aliens in this film have a deliberate lack of biomechanical in the design because, as Production Designer Chris Seagers explained, "we're sort of edging into that."
I dont understand why we're having this dialogue. I didn't write the material. Its no more a matter of opinion that the Alien is biomechanical than it is that I am biological or a car is mechanical. Its not my fault that this stuff isnt the way you thought it appeared to be. I dont understand why you read less into it. It appears the way it is meant to be understood. Why shouldn't it? Why should we look at a car and say, "It's only aesthetically a machine." This would be even stranger if it occurred in a film with no indication that it should be questioned. In this case the BIOMECHANICS are the draw. They are what makes the creature interesting in Alien.
Again, I didnt write it.
The Alien is biomechanical. The Art Director of the films and Ridley Scott himself have said this is where its going. They have deliberately taken the mechanical element out to make this creature different from the biomechanical BIG CHAP.
We have even heard that the Alien is now able to
Spoiler
Acidic stomach acid to break down food is not the same thing as having molecular acid for blood that can burn through reinforced steel but not whatever you are using for skin. The Alien doesn't have an Exoskeleton apart from its dome on its head.
It hides in machinery and blends in with it NOT BY changing its looks but because it was literally made by the designer to be made of the same materials.
As for the rest, I think you are confusing what Im saying is subtext with what Im saying is text. The ship 'Mother's' the Alien SUBTEXTUALLY, not literally (although now it may end up being literal if the rumor was true about it communicating with the ship.). Im also saying the same thing you are about David and Weyland. He considers him a son, and has modeled his looks off his DNA. This is why Vickers and David appear to be related. I hope David has no part of Weyland in him.
I would also argue that the sequels after alien systematically show the creature losing its biomechanical traits.
Metal is organic everything physical in the universe is organic if you mean its formed of elements and stuff. Metal isnt just a solid lump its an intricate design of so much more hence Liquid metal mercury (something that can be solid and liquid at the same time). Is it possible for fleshy cell like matter to be connected in unison with metalic technological matter. In human terms 2012 A.D no way but if your a superior race with 1 billion years of technology behind you Peace of cake. Its like going back 2000 years to guys giving sermons on mounts with clay tablets and saying to them you can show them how to give sermons on mounts with liquid crystal high res graphic ipads, they would look at you and go "how the hell did that get built" your answer "2000 years of research" Biotech, Nano tech is the ability to crack open a molecule and reprogram it so that instead of a cells producing a body that just fleshy it could produce a body with sulphuric blood, metallic parts ingrained in its flesh and so forth, its beyond our thinking today but in 2000 years will be a peace of cake.
I don't regard the Nostromo's computer as protecting anything. It's got need-to-know orders, sure, but that's not the same thing as what Ash was doing. It's an automoton and is just following its programmed directives.
As for Weyland calling a David 8 his son, he essentially did that in the first film, too. He even clarified it as terming it "the closest thing" he had to an actual son, proving it was no different to any other engineer/creation thing. You have shipbuilders calling their boats affectionat enames, too. It doesn't mean they've physically got organic material stuffed in there.
Keep in mind, also, that there were a lot of David 8s out there. They were a mass-produced commercial venture.
Yes, and I hope they dont do this. Its very FANCIFUL. No one really knows the source of consciousness. However, it could be BELIEVABLE that WEYLAND used some of his DNA to model DAVID'S skin and physical features.
I could be wrong but I think someone has revealed that Weyland may actually call him his "SON." So maybe David has some Bio-tissue over his Android body and/or he is just meant to look like Weyland's child would - so he considers him his 'son.'
First let me say I get why people don't like this idea, as it seems rather quaint. But RS is very interested in the idea of creating artificial life, biological and mechanical.
The Biomechanics in the ALIEN film are meant to be there. Its present in the Space Jockey and the Engineers and the Alien itself - which certainly has mechanical features. The ACID for blood and steel-like strength, and tubes and metal teeth... Its not just an aesthetic. I suppose you could force it to be that way in your own way, if you ignore a lot of detail, but its even in the subtext, with the Computer 'MOTHER' NURTURING the Alien and ASH sorta protecting it. They behave as it's parents.
We heard from the Art Dept on PROMETHEUS that RS deliberately asked them to separate the BIO from the mechanics in the design of the sets.
We are hearing from the art dept on this film that we are seeing a biological version of the creature and are working our way toward introducing the mechanics so - -I respect and totally understand why you may not like the idea of this happening. I can see why it seems quaint. But Im not making this up.
Im only trying to draw attention to the fact that you cannot explicitly say in this series that there is no such thing as biomechanics and not create plot hole.
Like I said, spiritual or mental. It's nothing to do with DNA.mEven the Alien, which somehow has 'genetic memory', wiuldn't be able to perform this: Memories aren't someone's consciousness, either.
Biomechanics were an artistic aesthetic Giger specialised in.
For the Alien, it's not literal. Kane, after all, was not a machine with which his chestburster somehow merged (and the chestburster, it must be said, was decidedly fleshy, not mechanised). For the Alien, it would most logically be extrapolated by the hardening exoskeleton.
Go and look at electron microscope close-ups of insects and arachnids. They tend to look very machine-like, but they're not literally constructed of metal. It's their natural exoskeleton.
Then again, neither are the synthetics... Ash and Bishop seemed to have electronics, but no indications of having any metal endoskeletons. David 8, too. So, if this theory were even true, an Alien would somehow have to gain literal external mechanical components from a being which doesn't even have any.
This whole business with Weyland's consciousness being downloaded into David is just a fan theory, right?
There is evidence to suggest that the neurotransmitter GABBA may be intricately linked to consciousness. Not to spoil your SPIRITUALITY stuff. Its not the strongest evidence.
If the SPACE JOCKEY turns out to be WEYLAND's consciousness, downloaded into David, who makes the Aliens and then gets facehugged and crashes the derelict on LV426 - That would make the STAR WARS Prequels, a masterpiece in comparison. God help us.
As for an Android getting facehugged, we have to accept that there is some way in this series that BIOMECHANICS work. This involves ORGANIC MATTER GROWING ON and WITHIN MACHINES. Now, Im not saying having this happen specifically is the only way this should occur, but in truth, SAYING ITS NOT POSSIBLE DIRECTLY, would be creating kind of a plot hole, because the entire design of the ALIEN is BIOMECHANICAL which means, there has to be a way to merge machine and organic matter... That an ALIEN can do it, is sorta already a thing. How its done it, is a mystery, and MAYBE IT SHOULD STAY THAT WAY, but its biomechanical features are not really something we can exclude without reason and as they said "Its getting there."
Perhaps a better way to consider this is: We dont understand the mechanics of biology. And it makes sense that our creators would, so - it also makes sense that they could have a way to do this.
It's too bad that they had to rip David's head off in Prometheus and show he was a synthetic. IMO it would have been an interesting twist if David had ended up being a cyborg instead of full synthetic. At that point you could make his story about the search for the perfect organism to replace his dying organic body. Or better yet.. Part Synthetic and part replicant
DNA has nothing to do with consciousness. That would be spiritual (or at least mental), not genetic. Otherwise, identical twins would always have a shared consciousness.
We already see David 8 standing happily unmolested amidst lots of eggs, which only react to the living character who reacts by leaning over one in curiosity.
There would also be nothing organic to allow the embryo grow. D8 is a machine.
By having David 8 saying it feels 'alive'? That's hilariously ambiguous.
Besides which, 'Prometheus' already established that D8's did nothing in Weyland's presence to convince the guy it's anything other than the robotic servant it is.
He does.
Right and now David has seen what humans would do to 'PERFECT' androids. Its insight humans have never had about our creators because we've been removed from them. Maybe this is why they stopped interacting - the Engineers/our creators. Because it would have affected us to see that they may want to make changes to fix what they didn't like. If you consider that the Engineers may have known THEIR creator wanted to change them - its explains the bioweapon.
They made it, because they knew their creators would change them dispassionately, the same way we would change an android.
I think the idea is also that we are 'Perfecting' and 'recreating' David in Walter. This isn't a mistake. I think this reflection is what Ridley Scott is interested in. David is recreating/perfecting his creation, much in the same way we are recreating/perfecting the androids. Perhaps the idea is for us to question why we make the changes we do to the David model - to make it LESS human, to make people less uncomfortable. In David's case, he is also making the monster less animal, and more - - ?
I think this is why scott keeps talking about what our creation would create. And who made it and why? I think he is also meaning for us to ask, why we create things the way we do and why would we make the changes we'd make. From David to Walter - Does this make us more like Gods or Monsters? What if our gods wanted to make changes to us? What does that make them? And then trying to suggest that Gods and monsters are created within the same dilemma of the perspective and needs of its creator and not clouded by morality.
If we can just go back and take the humanity out of the Android. What does that make us to the android? A God? A Monster? IN this case DAVID is said to be more human than before. What message is that sending to our creation, if we don't care about taking away its humanity? And how would that affect David's decisions when he decided to create something?
Its interesting.
Well, to be fair, if they didn't bother smoothing out Fassbender's (allegedly!) booze-tattered face with some CGI to make him look as he did in Prometheus, Pearce playing 40 at 50 ain't no thang. ;-)
I think he may be referring to the overall point/message and subtext of the scene and not just the visuals.
Unless there's something in addition to that scene, none of it sounds 'clever' or 'smart', so much as artistic. I'm fairly sure I've seen a number of films where it pulls back from a character's eye to segue into some verbal exposition.
In Prometheus they made Pearce much older and now they had to make him slightly younger that he really is.
It's going to be AWESOME, MOTHERF**KERS!!!!
Maybe he's natural blonde? and changes it to brown? then back to blonde?
lol...
Yes, I see that you are correct. I am willing to let this one slip.
This means that scene would be around 2033? If Peter is around 40 no?
So david is *one of the firsts* to be made, if that is true and he was new in 2033 that would mean David is very old... in terms of tech/hardware and he's still running?
Bit odd it never explained this in Prometheus (we all thought david was built in the 2080/90's no?
Well, remember in Prometheus he dyes his hair blond. I'm guessing they filmed the viral stuff quickly and in the midst of shooting the film, so no one gave a second thought to changing Fassbender/David's hair back to brown to keep consistent (though I'm certain they used a wig anyway, so even sillier).
For some reason this quote makes me cringe... cuz it's not especially smart, maybe?