User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: The Neomorphs  (Read 27234 times)

System Apollo
Oct 27, 2016, 08:43:48 PM
Reply #210 on: Oct 27, 2016, 08:43:48 PM
Q
Hicks, since you're our "in-man", do you happen to know whether Scott has a scientific advisor on Covenant like he had with the Martian? Prometheus suffered a lot because of "bad science" and foolish scientists but then Scott goes on to make the Martian which was pretty much hard sci-fi with a coat of cinematic fantasy to keep the plot flowing.
I kind of feel like a person whom runs on a playground telling children how Santa doesn't exist by saying this, but; all of the Alien films suffer from bad science. And what is with this "Fifield and Milburn are not realistic scientists" nonsense that is always considered one of the most critical aspects of the film? If anything Matt Damon's character as a botanist not realizing that there is no soil on Mars is a critical inaccuracy of its own yet it is overlooked because the plot needed the dust to act like soil. How he punctured a hole in his suit to propel himself like Iron Man was another big innaccuracy. Yet when a geologist gets lost or a biologist gets close to a specimen while high this is considered the largest sin in sci-fi history.


HuDaFuK
Oct 27, 2016, 08:45:26 PM
Reply #211 on: Oct 27, 2016, 08:45:26 PM
Q
And what is with this "Fifield and Milburn are not realistic scientists" nonsense that is always considered one of the most critical aspects of the film?

Because they're supposed to be expert scientists. That's literally the only reason they are brought along. So having them act like morons is ridiculous.


System Apollo
Oct 27, 2016, 09:00:02 PM
Reply #212 on: Oct 27, 2016, 09:00:02 PM
Q
And what is with this "Fifield and Milburn are not realistic scientists" nonsense that is always considered one of the most critical aspects of the film?

Because they're supposed to be expert scientists. That's literally the only reason they are brought along. So having them act like morons is ridiculous.
Okay then, why not take it back a step further and ask why Millburn was on the expedition when they knew the enviroment was inhospitable? Aside from picking up soil samples which anyone could have done in replacement of Milburn. Or how come Fifield was on the expedition when all that was needed from him was to press a button on two silly machines that do almost everything that was needed of him?
Expert scientists are exempt from behaving the way that they did? Under what precedent do we relate this to? This is why I can't actually take this critical aspect seriously, we're better off saying that they shouldn't have been there period.


Dangerous_D
Oct 27, 2016, 09:00:09 PM
Reply #213 on: Oct 27, 2016, 09:00:09 PM
Q
I'm hoping that someone will be able to do the designs of the alien creature that HR Giger brought us, sadly these movies won't be the same without his artwork


HuDaFuK
Oct 27, 2016, 09:23:41 PM
Reply #214 on: Oct 27, 2016, 09:23:41 PM
Q
Okay then, why not take it back a step further and ask why Millburn was on the expedition when they knew the enviroment was inhospitable?

Inhospitable to human life maybe.

Besides, they didn't know what the environment was until they got there.

Or how come Fifield was on the expedition when all that was needed from him was to press a button on two silly machines that do almost everything that was needed of him?

He was a geologist. Who knows what interesting extraterrestrial geology they might find and want to study?

There were perfectly good reasons to take a biologist and geologist along. In fact they're exactly the kind of people you would take on a mission like this. But the fact they were total morons undermines the believably of the whole thing.


Kurai
Oct 27, 2016, 09:38:08 PM
Reply #215 on: Oct 27, 2016, 09:38:08 PM
Q
There's a difference between Science Fiction, where cinematic flair is used to propel the plot, and plain stupidity. The characters made incredibly unbelievable mistakes that easily lead to forehead slapping.

I'm normally one to defend Prometheus for its' failings but, it would be nice to know whether Ridley Scott took lessons learnt while making the Martian to heart. Prometheus was heavily criticized for its' depiction of science, the scientific method and common sense. Despite its' scientific failings, the Martian was critically acclaimed for its' "hard sci-fi" approach.

Having a scientific advisor on hand during script writing and filming can do nothing but help the film. Cinematics trumps science, but it's still nice to have science in a sci-fi.


System Apollo
Oct 27, 2016, 09:47:10 PM
Reply #216 on: Oct 27, 2016, 09:47:10 PM
Q
Quote
Inhospitable to human life maybe.

Besides, they didn't know what the environment was until they got there.
Genuinely, this is the first thought that comes to mind in terms of Sci-Fi. But inhospitable to human life is generally looked at as all life considering that anything carbon based is likely to function similar to us in which hydrogen, nitrogen (maybe) and oxygen is a necessity. As for them not knowing doesn't excuse them stepping out for the expedition.

Quote
He was a geologist. Who knows what interesting extraterrestrial geology they might find and want to study?

There were perfectly good reasons to take a biologist and geologist along. In fact they're exactly the kind of people you would take on a mission like this. But the fact they were total morons undermines the believably of the whole thing.
But to step out of the security of the ship and jump onto the terrain of an unknown planet to an unknown architecture which belongs to an unknown intelligent lifeform?

They could have easily just done their job within the confines of the ship but that didn't happen.

This is what does not make sense. Them acting moronic is just a distraction of an obviously bigger plot hole.


Dill-On
Oct 27, 2016, 10:02:50 PM
Reply #217 on: Oct 27, 2016, 10:02:50 PM
Q
Wow, "ALIEN COVENANT" will be even worse than Prometheus, congratulations.
This thing looks like bottlenose dolphin.

 >:(

« Last Edit: Oct 27, 2016, 10:15:59 PM by Dill-On »

System Apollo
Oct 27, 2016, 10:08:47 PM
Reply #218 on: Oct 27, 2016, 10:08:47 PM
Q
Wow, "ALIEN CONVENANT" will be even worse than Prometheus, congratulations.
This thing looks like bottlenose dolphin.

 >:(
I feel that AVP will have a lot less to work with when Scott is finished.

There's a difference between Science Fiction, where cinematic flair is used to propel the plot, and plain stupidity. The characters made incredibly unbelievable mistakes that easily lead to forehead slapping.
Yet the plain stupidity was the cinematic flair needed to propel the plot in this circumstance. I understand what they did was stupid and unethical but believing that being stupid and unethical doesn't happen with expert scientists is just so inaccurate on so many different levels.

Quote
Having a scientific advisor on hand during script writing and filming can do nothing but help the film. Cinematics trumps science, but it's still nice to have science in a sci-fi.
Agreed but it wouldn't save it.  :(

« Last Edit: Oct 27, 2016, 10:23:31 PM by System Apollo »

Dill-On
Oct 27, 2016, 10:24:06 PM
Reply #219 on: Oct 27, 2016, 10:24:06 PM
Q
Quote
I feel that AVP will have a lot less to work with when Scott is finished.

Totally.

I'm waiting for a good ALIEN movie since nineties.
For now I have a feeling that every next movie is worse than previous.
In my opinion they should change title to "Return of the Black Goo".


« Last Edit: Oct 27, 2016, 10:26:41 PM by Dill-On »

whiterabbit
Oct 27, 2016, 10:31:11 PM
Reply #220 on: Oct 27, 2016, 10:31:11 PM
Q
And what is with this "Fifield and Milburn are not realistic scientists" nonsense that is always considered one of the most critical aspects of the film?

Because they're supposed to be expert scientists. That's literally the only reason they are brought along. So having them act like morons is ridiculous.
Being an expert in a field doesn't mean having common sense. Maybe fifield has a phobia of living things. The dude said he loved rocks. Oh and Milburn was the crocodile hunter who couldn't help but play with danger. Also, no offense but have you seen the last couple of generations here on Earth at this very minute? Morons is polite.



windebieste
Oct 27, 2016, 11:21:35 PM
Reply #222 on: Oct 27, 2016, 11:21:35 PM
Q
I can accept that these characters have personalities,  they need that.  On the other I never saw any indication that either Fifield or Milburn were 'the best in their field'.  There's wasted opportunities throughout their screen time to provide us with evidence - but it never happens. 

Let's take the Geologist for example, because he's the easiest by a mile and more importantly, is presented with the earliest opportunity to demonstrate his professional capacity and validate his presence aboard the Prometheus.  During the descent to the surface, one of the characters (I forget who... Holloway?) comments on the markings on the surface of the planet and words to the effect 'Nature does not work on straight lines'.  How much more appropriate would it have been if the geologist made this remark?  ...or at the very least, AGREED?

Gone is also any parallel  we witness in 'ALIEN' where Ash analyses the surface using instrumentation and discusses the 'Rock lava base' composition of the planet they just landed on and its atmospheric conditions.  Wouldn't it be great if Prometheus' geologist actually offered some information based on his professional experience in a similar way? 

Then on the actual surface he does nothing.  NOTHING.  A BIG FAT NOTHING!!!  He doesn't comment on the mountain ranges.  He offers no advice on the integrity of the surface (for all we know, the surface could be soft, like pits of loose material and not safe to walk on).  He makes no comment about the obvious roads not being natural - or asked for his opinion on them.  He fails to pick up a single rock.  There's so many excellent opportunities for a geologist to demonstrate his capacity for such specialised knowledge - which is why he was aboard the Prometheus in the first place - but none of them are taken. 

I'm sorry, but if the character can't fulfill the expectations of his Profession - especially when he's reputed to be 'The Best in the Field' - then no amount of inane dialog such as "I love rocks" will help convince me he's adequately written as a character.  If during the approach to LV-233, Fifield had f**k all to do except look out the window and talk shit to other crew members simply because he's a planetside specialist; but then his demeanor change to a more professional one on close approach to the planet's surface when his knowledge kicks in, then yes.  That would be realistic.  That's how professional people do behave.  When the occasion arises, a Professional, in top of his game will put aside all other considerations and demonstrate his true worth.  We see none of that happen in 'Prometheus'.

Unfortunately, Fifield's character as we have it is in the wrong movie.  When a professional's dialog amounts to "I love rocks" and "I'm only in it for the money" then he would have been better placed in a movie like 'Idiocracy' rather than the symbolism laden background and existential investigations that 'Prometheus' attempts to deliver but is mired by inanities such as Fifield's character - and other stupid shit.

...Milburn is no different.  But for the sake of keeping this post at a decent length, you can apply the same prinicpals to him as well.  You'll find the results are more or less the same.   

-Windebieste.


System Apollo
Oct 27, 2016, 11:31:23 PM
Reply #223 on: Oct 27, 2016, 11:31:23 PM
Q
And what is with this "Fifield and Milburn are not realistic scientists" nonsense that is always considered one of the most critical aspects of the film?

Watch the entire thing:


Already seen it. Once again I stand by my statement that the scene was a distraction from a larger plot hole.
Do you have a video that goes through Alien? I always wanted to see Alien picked apart for inaccuracies.


fiveways
Oct 28, 2016, 12:33:54 AM
Reply #224 on: Oct 28, 2016, 12:33:54 AM
Q
And what is with this "Fifield and Milburn are not realistic scientists" nonsense that is always considered one of the most critical aspects of the film?

Because they're supposed to be expert scientists. That's literally the only reason they are brought along. So having them act like morons is ridiculous.

I always felt if you add in the deleted scenes they work better as characters since they provide at least a touch of justification for their actions.  They still work shit as scientists, but for me I am not sure that matters as I am firmly on the "don't let science get in the way of telling a good story" side of the argument.  Not that Prometheus is a great story, still..

Prometheus's main fault was really really shitty editing and them moving around scenes late in the day.  It feels like a most constructed mostly in post.  There is actually a really good movie in there, you can see traces of it when you re-watch it.  I need to sit down with the fan edits sometime.  I also don't know how much control Scott had of the editing stage.  The way most of the action sequences looked to play out, it was gonna be first half mood, second half action beats like the original Alien.  Does Fox think a movie with that kinda budget would sell in 2012 or did they move scenes around the have something exciting happen every 10 minutes to "keep the audiences attention" (as we all know studios really get off on talking down to their audience in 201X.  I also understand that maybe these cues play better to certain international markets)

The script writer should have been consulting with an expert on what they would do on an alien planet.  What they would point out.  This is why you hired science consultants.  Just, no one cared.  They are fodder to move the story forward, and I am typically ok with that is you set up and justify their insane actions at least a touch.

The other factor is writing scientists as scientist doesn't put asses in the seats.  In the end the market that cares about that is an insanely small fraction of the movie going populous.  I often wonder if writers are actively told to avoid these sorts of things.  Like if it is on a list of producers notes they have during re-write time.  We often forget that when a re-write comes it carries a set of demands from various people involved with the production with it.  Often these ideas are completely insane egomaniac pieces so people can feel like the have actively given to the film. 

You can also make a convincing argument that Prometheus had way too many characters with screen time, and a lot of those could have been severely downplayed to make more room for plot.  Easily half the scientist could have become grunts and no one would have noticed, sadly in my opinion the captain couple and the entire crew could fall into the remove pile (to me, other i know will disagree).  More time could have been spent with the core group of characters and getting to know them, and just use the rest as goo bait and monster fodder.

I am still looking forward to the new designs and new ideas.  Honestly, it can't be worse than Alien: Resurrection, or either of the AVP movies.  I have passing faith in the film being at least a fun sci-fi horror romp, and really that is all i want out of it.  I don't expect to see another "Alien" being produced by a major studio in my lifetime.  Maybe something indie will catch that vibe sometimes.  Just, Hollywood doesn't make those movies, and hasn't in a very long time.  If the reported 150-200 million dollar budget is true, than zero risks will be taken. Still, I am keen on seeing the new designs in motion (I'm trying to bring this back to the subject the thread is on as we are all gloriously off topic)


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed