AvPGalaxy Forums

Art of the Cut has just released a lengthy interview with Pietro Scalia, the editor on Alien: Covenant, talking working on Alien: Covenant and editing in general. In the interview, Scalia discusses how the prologue with Weyland and David almost hit the floor of the editing room:

“SCALIA: At one point Ridley wanted to take the "white room" Prologue out at the beginning. I said, "why ... no absolutely not. You can't. It's very good." It's very formal, the way was shot and edited. The compositions and deliberate pace is the beauty of it. A chess game in the formal sense, triangles and lines that intersect from a design point of view, beside it's thematic importance I mentioned before. I love that the whole scene It reminded me of Kubrick and ....

HULLFISH: Kurasawa.

SCALIA: Yes! Kurasawa. A beautiful and austere scene at the same time filled with tension. I wanted the whole movie to be like that. Ultimately it's the director's film and Ridley decided to keep it at the front. At the end of the day regardless of disagreements or different opinions one leaves personal imprints behind; all choices are filtered through.”

Alien vs. Predator Galaxy had previously heard that the film’s prologue had nearly been released as a viral video before being inserted back into the film. Ridley Scott has also previously spoken about how 20th Century Fox had also wanted to remove David’s flashback from Alien: Covenant in its entirety before a shorter version made it into the finished film. You can read more about the alternate and deleted scenes here.

Scalia also talks a little about the temp track he used while editing the film, revealing that he used Alien, The Snowtown, Macbeth, Sicario and Midnight Special.

“Ridley really wanted to pay tribute to Jerry Goldsmith's score of Alien. I also started working with Jed Kurzel's cues from The Snowtown. and Macbeth.  One particular track fro Snowtown had this relentless pulsating tone and rhythm that I used in the Med Bay sequence and Ridley immediately responded to it. I also used some Harry Gregson-Williams music thematic temp cues that he provided us with.  For some really low-end voices and beats I used elements from Sicario and some David Wingo from Midnight Special.”

Be sure to head on over to Art of the Cut to read the interview in full!

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!

Link To Post

Thanks Hicks! Gonna read whole article.

Cannot believe Scott wanted to cut prologue off. It's essential for the whole movie.

I love the openning scene.

The openning scene is VERY ELEGANT and BEAUTIFUL!.

So it basically seems like Fox pressured Ridley to go for some of these cuts. Makes me wonder what else was cut... And yeah, this scene is absolutely essential as a counter-piece to the ending.

Scalia:

QuoteThere were a lot more scenes that connect directly to Prometheus but structurally it didn't work to have two or three scenes or about 12 mins. of film that connect one film to the next. And then start the actual story of AC. I think that the prologue scene with Weyland and David sets up the thematic of creation in a more cinematically elegant and concise way.  In the overall context of the film, Prometheus, connects halfway through Alien Covenant as a flashback. At a point when it was important to tell what happened to the Engineers planet, the destruction, and the truth yet a hidden lie on David's part. It could possibly help answer some questions for people who had seen Prometheus, but I don't think it takes away from people who hadn't. We also tried to have two flashbacks, when David touches Shaw's grave and explains to Walter what happened and how she died, again another misdirection from David. On the Fox AC website you see some of these deleted prologue scenes and flashbacks that became part of the marketing campaign to engage viewers who wanted to know more of how the two films are connected.

I need to see these deleted scenes. I hope we'll get them on the Blu-ray, but I doubt we'll get as many as with Prometheus. :'(

I loved reading this. An editor spends so much time with the film, it makes total sense that he has such interesting insight into the themes and ideas of A:C.

QuoteSCALIA: In Alien: Covenant the fundamental theme is the relation of God/Man or Creator/Subject. With creation also comes death and destruction. There can't be creation of something new without something else dying. So from the opening prologue scene where David and Weyland talk about creation and art, and it becomes clear that we are revisiting the themes of creation from Prometheus – In that film we explored the theme of human hubris, the arrogance of man that he can create like a God, which is what ultimately leads to the fall of man. Creation, destruction, life and death, knowledge, and survival of our species in the future are themes that Ridley talked a lot about even during Prometheus: the idea of stealing the fire (knowledge) from the gods. In a way Weyland represents the pinnacle of a man's ability to create something superior that is almost human – in our likeness, just like God did with man. Yet David, the perfect android, equates creation with the power of imagination. I think the subtext or the themes in Covenant are expressed through David's actions. We know David is brilliant, very likable yet at its core purely evil. Is that a trait that he somehow inherits from his "father-creator" Weyland?  You can see in Fassbender's performance the under-current of his deviousness. This self-awareness allows him to create simply because he feels the need to match or surpass the accomplishments of his creator. We get a sense of his superiority complex from the prologue scene when David challenges his creator, and says, "If you created me who created you?" The age old question that we all want to know. – Where do we come from?  As Weyland replies. But David goes even further and says, "You will die, I will not." Again, death and creation; you are mortal and I am not. That makes him more powerful than his own creator. It's that spark that makes him superior in evolutionary terms to man. He thinks, therefore, he is, as Descartes said. Yet he's something new. He's immortal like a God. Weyland shows he can still control him by ordering him "Bring me my tea". (You're my servant. You're still my subject). But throughout the film, Ridley shows moments of creation and mutations of creations and that life in its form and creation is not pleasant. The alien, in a way, represents the most perfect creation of a creature that is perfectly engineered to be a superior killing beast. Its only purpose is to destroy any other living form. Specifically, man, the flesh or "the meat" as David describes in the Hall of Heads. Later he tells Walter of his achievement by creating the perfect form, void of the capacity to procreate by itself without a host. That's the genius of what David has accomplished. The Alien – a perfect killing machine, as the culmination of his imagination.

So well said. Sadly, modern audiences don't seem to be into this stuff. They prefer exposition heavy action and explosions, like those Oats short movies. The marketing campaign also plays a role here though, they focused too much on the action/horror elements instead of what was the core of the movie.

REALLY!?!?!?! SO WE CAN BLAME THE EDITOR FOR THE CRAP JOB IN NOT EXPLAINING ANYTHING ABOUT SHAW AND DAVIDS STORY!?!?!?!

Quote from: Dumb Ass EditorRidley and the writers wanted to incorporate the destruction of the Engineers' world as a prologue to bridge the two films and to show what happened to Shaw after she and David when traveling to the Creators/Engineers' world. There were a lot more scenes that connect directly to Prometheus but structurally it didn't work to have two or three scenes or about 12 mins. of film that connect one film to the next. And then start the actual story of AC.

Funny, wouldve worked FINE in my eyes! I wanna slap the shit out of this guy... Knowing idiots like him were involved in the making of this film makes me hate it even more! And honestly, the blame lands SQUARELY on Ridleys shoulders! He was in charge of this film, he made the decisions about the final cut and it was HIS job to oversee the finishing of the movie! Yet, here we are with one of the WORST Alien films in the franchise!

So many 'u mad' memes; so little time.

Quote from: DorkiDori on Jun 29, 2017, 12:03:03 AM
REALLY!?!?!?! SO WE CAN BLAME THE EDITOR FOR THE CRAP JOB IN NOT EXPLAINING ANYTHING ABOUT SHAW AND DAVIDS STORY!?!?!?!

Quote from: Dumb Ass EditorRidley and the writers wanted to incorporate the destruction of the Engineers' world as a prologue to bridge the two films and to show what happened to Shaw after she and David when traveling to the Creators/Engineers' world. There were a lot more scenes that connect directly to Prometheus but structurally it didn't work to have two or three scenes or about 12 mins. of film that connect one film to the next. And then start the actual story of AC.

Funny, wouldve worked FINE in my eyes! I wanna slap the shit out of this guy... Knowing idiots like him were involved in the making of this film makes me hate it even more! And honestly, the blame lands SQUARELY on Ridleys shoulders! He was in charge of this film, he made the decisions about the final cut and it was HIS job to oversee the finishing of the movie! Yet, here we are with one of the WORST Alien films in the franchise!

You ever think that maybe you're taking a piece of entertainment too seriously?

Personally I can't imagine wanting to slap the shit out of someone because of a movie.

I dunno.  Some posts make a pretty convincing argument.  ;)

The beat scene in the med struck me as very good (and still is) on first viewing at the cinema, the pace and sound of it I assumed at the time was to mimic a heart beating faster to get your own heart beating faster. It was very effective and you knew it was going to go bad as the relentless beating kept going. One of the cooler moments in the film.

When I think about it I think the sounds of this movie were my favourite thing.

Know I've sent this transmission b4,but if you add The Crossing&The Last Supper between The White Room and Starfield opening credits it makes the first hour better!It also puts Noomi Rapace&James Franco In The film ,not on the cutting room floor ::)

Quote from: Ingwar on Jun 28, 2017, 10:13:35 PM
Scalia:

QuoteThere were a lot more scenes that connect directly to Prometheus but structurally it didn't work to have two or three scenes or about 12 mins. of film that connect one film to the next. And then start the actual story of AC. I think that the prologue scene with Weyland and David sets up the thematic of creation in a more cinematically elegant and concise way.  In the overall context of the film, Prometheus, connects halfway through Alien Covenant as a flashback. At a point when it was important to tell what happened to the Engineers planet, the destruction, and the truth yet a hidden lie on David's part. It could possibly help answer some questions for people who had seen Prometheus, but I don't think it takes away from people who hadn't. We also tried to have two flashbacks, when David touches Shaw's grave and explains to Walter what happened and how she died, again another misdirection from David. On the Fox AC website you see some of these deleted prologue scenes and flashbacks that became part of the marketing campaign to engage viewers who wanted to know more of how the two films are connected.

I had a suspicion that the original cut of the film started with Weyland and David sequence, then cut to David and Elizabeth's journey to Planet 4, and  the eventual genocide of the Engineers. No wonder, Noomi spent a few weeks in Australia.

As an editor, I have to disagree with Pietro. He made a grave mistake. As an audience member, you needed that connective tissue of Prometheus to tell this story. I'm speculating in those twelve minutes we might of saw some interactions with David and Shaw in the ship, were she begins to trust David, then the extended bombing sequence with the dogfight between the juggernaut and scorpionaut. 

Seeing how Covenant had a lackluster performance in the box office, I hope Fox pushes Scott on doing an extended cut with these 12 minutes put back in. 

Obviously I'd like to see more, but as far as coming from Prometheus to Covenant what we see in the film plus The Crossing was sufficient.

Thanks for posting this, CH. I always enjoy these peeks behind the scenes.   ;D

Pietro has won a couple of Oscars, c'mon.

The white room scene was very well done. Why on earth would Ridley cut it? I mean, since these prequels tend to drift towards the philosophical side, why cut one of the better scenes on the subject? The lack of bridging material between the movies was alittle disappointing, but I keep hearing that these movies are kept mysterious and stuff is left out on purpose. But, since we're dealing with established characters, it just doesn't feel necessary. It's not laziness, just bad decision making. But that's just my opinion.

IMO not everything needs to be explained. It's fine to have a gap between Prometheus and Covenant. Leaves some room for imagination.

The prologue is the best scene in the film and the best way to open it. Thank you Pietro.

Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jun 29, 2017, 02:09:20 AM
Pietro has won a couple of Oscars, c'mon.

i think the editing of the film was problematic in the 3rd act. Up until then, I didn't mind. Overall, it felt too rushed in the 3rd act. Oscars or no, the lion's share of the film's issues have to do with its editing.

Quote from: NickisSmart on Jun 29, 2017, 02:36:14 AM

Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jun 29, 2017, 02:09:20 AM
Pietro has won a couple of Oscars, c'mon.

I didn't mind. Overall, it felt too rushed in the 3rd act. Oscars or no, the lion's share of the film's issues have to do with its editing.

This.

The editing is supervised by the director.

Or, to put it this way, mystery is indeed a great asset for a stand-alone movie, or the first film in a series. Alien 1979, The Thing, etc. After that, you're dealing with people and creatures that are known to the audience, and detailed exposition generally improves the film. I remember reading an article some time ago that discussed how the modern audience is more capable of figuring things out, and doesn't need to be spoon-fed everything. Figuring things out is one thing, being forced to make-up whole events and scenes in your head (letting the audience form their own opinions) is not intellectual or artistic, it's unnecessary.

People who wanted their precious one minute of 1979 space jockey preserved are... well, let's just say I'm happy they did not get their way.

Yawwwwwwn. Mystery?! For ME?! Wow!!!

It sounds like the assembly/script is told chronologically. First the prologue with Weyland, then about 12 minutes of David and Shaw, followed by the bombing scene. Scalia, as an editor, is concerned with not only pacing, but a structure that has a balanced shape. He thought it was taking too long to get to the main story. Let's face it: even with all of the Shaw scenes restored, she's still almost completely irrelevant to the story besides providing some of David's motivation. Scalia was looking for something to cut, and he and Scott disagreed about what those cuts should be.

We know Scott fought to keep the bombing scene, so his idea to speed up the beginning was to lose the even more irrelevant prologue scene. It's a nice scene, but it's also the most expendable one in the final cut. It sets up themes at were already set up in the prequel at great length. But it's a shorter scene and a less time-consuming way to open the film. Scalia's idea to speed up the movie was use a small part of Shaw's footage as a flashback and use the Weyland scene as a thematic prolongue. To Scalia, this was the most balanced way to structure the movie. In effect, he sacrified story and character in favor of pacing, structure, and theme. He goes on and on about theme and pacong and doesn't show much consideration for story.

That was regrettable. On essence, Scalia would rather that Covenant work better as a standalone movie and sacrificed connecting to and building on Prometheus. Prometheus already set up David. The prologue, while nicely shot and admirably spare, contributes nothing that a Prometheus fan didn't already know. Imho, Scalia was too concerned with the impersonal details of structure and pacing and disregarded something that rival studios have figured out: fans want the story to build over each new movie, connecting the emotional dots. He didn't pay enough attention to tracking e story from the perspective of the audience. He did what he liked, not what he should have done.

Sorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Scalia has hacked so many Shaw scenes from this series that I have to question whether he is an appropriate choice to edit them. Scott makes epics. A long buildup is the hallmark of the Alien series. The more I hear about Scalia, the less I approve of his values. Pacing should never harm story, yet time and again Scalia compromises the story and argues that it was the only way to get perfect pacing. No wonder he's more interested in David than Shaw. He sacrifices the heart and soul in pursuit of structural perfection.

There was another option: a 12min flashback. Scalia overrates the importance of pacing and is all too willing to butcher the narrative in order to do it.

Oscar winning editor of over 30 movies vs. angry guy on the internet.

FIGHT!

Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 29, 2017, 03:21:29 AM
It sounds like the assembly/script is told chronologically. First the prologue with Weyland, then about 12 minutes of David and Shaw, followed by the bombing scene. Scalia, as an editor, is concerned with not only pacing, but a structure that has a balanced shape. He thought it was taking too long to get to the main story. Let's face it: even with all of the Shaw scenes restored, she's still almost completely irrelevant to the story besides providing some of David's motivation. Scalia was looking for something to cut, and he and Scott disagreed about what those cuts should be.

We know Scott fought to keep the bombing scene, so his idea to speed up the beginning was to lose the even more irrelevant prologue scene. It's a nice scene, but it's also the most expendable one in the final cut. It sets up themes at were already set up in the prequel at great length. But it's a shorter scene and a less time-consuming way to open the film. Scalia's idea to speed up the movie was use a small part of Shaw's footage as a flashback and use the Weyland scene as a thematic prolongue. To Scalia, this was the most balanced way to structure the movie. In effect, he sacrified story and character in favor of pacing, structure, and theme. He goes on and on about theme and pacong and doesn't show much consideration for story.

That was regrettable. On essence, Scalia would rather that Covenant work better as a standalone movie and sacrificed connecting to and building on Prometheus. Prometheus already set up David. The prologue, while nicely shot and admirably spare, contributes nothing that a Prometheus fan didn't already know. Imho, Scalia was too concerned with the impersonal details of structure and pacing and disregarded something that rival studios have figured out: fans want the story to build over each new movie, connecting the emotional dots. He didn't pay enough attention to tracking e story from the perspective of the audience. He did what he liked, not what he should have done.

Sorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Scalia has hacked so many Shaw scenes from this series that I have to question whether he is an appropriate choice to edit them. Scott makes epics. A long buildup is the hallmark of the Alien series. The more I hear about Scalia, the less I approve of his values. Pacing should never harm story, yet time and again Scalia compromises the story and argues that it was the only way to get perfect pacing. No wonder he's more interested in David than Shaw. He sacrifices the heart and soul in pursuit of structural perfection.

There was another option: a 12min flashback. Scalia overrates the importance of pacing and is all too willing to butcher the narrative in order to do it.

Well said. It's seems like he forgot the basics from film school. It's all about, character, story, and lastly pacing. Not the other way around.

Like I mentioned before, on this thread I'm hoping that Scott releases an extended cut with this entire sequence restored.

QuoteSorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Well I'm sorry to tell you, that regardless of who is editing the film, it had to be just under 2 hours per Fox's Contractual Order. It was in contract to be under 2 hours. Besides it sounds to me like he fought to have more themes kept in the story. It's a hard job given the restrictions and restraints of director , studio and all of the above. If you have problems with either film he is not to blame.

Scalia claims to be all about story and character. I'm sure he thinks he did a good job given the constraints. But keeping the prologue because the compositions are nice and he's proud of the editing when the movie desperately needed more Shaw? Sorry, that was a miscalculation. Cutting Shaw scenes before cutting that was clearly based on Scalia's emotional attachments, not good storytelling.

Speaking of editing mistakes, that interview has the most typos I've ever seen in a professional article. They even misspelled Kurosawa twice!

So this dude butchered the movie in order to asure perfect pacing. But ironicly the pacing of the movie's  been the very thing that fans complain about the most. Personally i am not very sensitive when it comes to pacing issues. .if people did'nt complain about the last 20 minutes feeling rushed i would not have noticed. .in fact the one time i have seen it so far i braced myself for that fast forward breakneck last 20 minutes and never felt the pace changing much. .would have liked if the alien was a bit more die hard. .but thats just the boy in me wanting to see more of the beast. .

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 03:40:58 AM

QuoteSorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Well I'm sorry to tell you, that regardless of who is editing the film, it had to be just under 2 hours per Fox's Contractual Order. It was in contract to be under 2 hours. Besides it sounds to me like he fought to have more themes kept in the story. It's a hard job given the restrictions and restraints of director , studio and all of the above. If you have problems with either film he is not to blame.

First time I hear Fox throwing a contractual order on Ridley since his last film which was also done through Fox was 141 minutes while Covenant 122 minutes. Was it because of its R rating or wanting more butts on theater seats?

---

Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 29, 2017, 03:53:30 AM
Scalia claims to be all about story and character. I'm sure he thinks he did a good job given the constraints. But keeping the prologue because the compositions are nice and he's proud of the editing when the movie desperately needed more Shaw? Sorry, that was a miscalculation. Cutting Shaw scenes before cutting that was clearly based on Scalia's emotional attachments, not good storytelling.

I think Scalia needed another established editor with a fresh set of eyes to watch over the footage and get some constructive feedback before continuing to edit the film. He screwed the pooch on this show, and perhaps could be one of the reasons the film underperformed.

Now,  I'm curious what else was cut that we don't even know.

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 03:40:58 AM

QuoteSorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Well I'm sorry to tell you, that regardless of who is editing the film, it had to be just under 2 hours per Fox's Contractual Order. It was in contract to be under 2 hours. Besides it sounds to me like he fought to have more themes kept in the story. It's a hard job given the restrictions and restraints of director , studio and all of the above. If you have problems with either film he is not to blame.

Why was it more than 2 hours then?

But muh narrative!!

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 04:29:42 AM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 03:40:58 AM

QuoteSorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Well I'm sorry to tell you, that regardless of who is editing the film, it had to be just under 2 hours per Fox's Contractual Order. It was in contract to be under 2 hours. Besides it sounds to me like he fought to have more themes kept in the story. It's a hard job given the restrictions and restraints of director , studio and all of the above. If you have problems with either film he is not to blame.

Why was it more than 2 hours then?

Idk what your talking about, Prometheus or Covenant, but both were 2 hours runtime.

Jesus H.

Prometheus and Covenant were 124 and 123 respectively.

UNDER 2 HOURS PER FOX'S CONTRACTUAL ORDER! You legit made that up.

I wouldn't go that far, but yeah, they're both over two hours in runtime.

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 29, 2017, 05:25:23 AM
Jesus H.

Prometheus and Covenant were 124 and 123 respectively.

UNDER 2 HOURS PER FOX'S CONTRACTUAL ORDER! You legit made that up.

Sure I did.
under 2 hours without credits. Are we going to debate about 3 and 4 minutes per film.??? Cheers then.

Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 29, 2017, 03:53:30 AM
Scalia claims to be all about story and character. I'm sure he thinks he did a good job given the constraints. But keeping the prologue because the compositions are nice and he's proud of the editing when the movie desperately needed more Shaw? Sorry, that was a miscalculation. Cutting Shaw scenes before cutting that was clearly based on Scalia's emotional attachments, not good storytelling.

Speaking of editing mistakes, that interview has the most typos I've ever seen in a professional article. They even misspelled Kurosawa twice!

I think Ridley Scott had a very pessimistic take on theater audiences. He once said "he releases his favorite versions of his films in Blu-Rays". He thinks that theater audiences are stupid(probably he is right) so, the theater cuts of his films are DIRECT and CONCISE.

Pietro Scalia is a very modern guy. Scalia works fast and great too. And Always On Budget. That's the reasons why Ridley Scott always works with him. They worked 11 TIMES IN THE LAST 20 YEARS!.

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 05:31:31 AM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 29, 2017, 05:25:23 AM
Jesus H.

Prometheus and Covenant were 124 and 123 respectively.

UNDER 2 HOURS PER FOX'S CONTRACTUAL ORDER! You legit made that up.

Sure I did.
under 2 hours without credits. Are we going to debate about 3 and 4 minutes per film.??? Cheers then.

Fox doesn't have a running time contractual order. There's no such thing as a contractual order. Cheers.

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 29, 2017, 05:36:17 AM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 05:31:31 AM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 29, 2017, 05:25:23 AM
Jesus H.

Prometheus and Covenant were 124 and 123 respectively.

UNDER 2 HOURS PER FOX'S CONTRACTUAL ORDER! You legit made that up.

Sure I did.
under 2 hours without credits. Are we going to debate about 3 and 4 minutes per film.??? Cheers then.

Fox doesn't have a running time contractual order. There's no such thing as a contractual order. Cheers.

OK then, cool story bro. Good luck with that.

Pietro is right, and this is something that also crossed my mind when there was talk before release of the bombing scene not making the final cut. Having extra "flashbacks" tacked onto the beginning wouldn't have been good for the structure of the film.

The editing was't a problem with the third act. The issue(s) there had more to do with the writing, or how the story unfolded from the time an Alien was detected aboard the ship until its demise. Basically they wake up, find dead people, and go straight to corralling it out of the airlock with a few close calls thrown in just to keep it from being completely ho-hum.

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 05:41:54 AM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 29, 2017, 05:36:17 AM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 05:31:31 AM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 29, 2017, 05:25:23 AM
Jesus H.

Prometheus and Covenant were 124 and 123 respectively.

UNDER 2 HOURS PER FOX'S CONTRACTUAL ORDER! You legit made that up.

Sure I did.
under 2 hours without credits. Are we going to debate about 3 and 4 minutes per film.??? Cheers then.

Fox doesn't have a running time contractual order. There's no such thing as a contractual order. Cheers.

OK then, cool story bro. Good luck with that.

Where did you hear of this 2 hour thing and why wasn't it adhered to?

I believe it was on the blu ray, And I can't quote exactly, but I remember the editor mention about having to have it under 2 hours length. They went threw a couple of times and trimmed stuff and cut stuff  and then they took out a lot more to get it in the run time. They really stressed that 2 hour run time. Am I going to find such contract or clause to scan and show you guys, not by a long shot.

This is actually common practice in editing, and most big budget movies do have a runtime the studio puts forth.

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 05:31:31 AM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 29, 2017, 05:25:23 AM
Jesus H.

Prometheus and Covenant were 124 and 123 respectively.

UNDER 2 HOURS PER FOX'S CONTRACTUAL ORDER! You legit made that up.

Sure I did.
under 2 hours without credits. Are we going to debate about 3 and 4 minutes per film.??? Cheers then.

The actual movie (not including opening and ending credits) ran for 114 minutes.
If the actual movie was only allowed to run for 2 hours max without credits then maybe they could just use the remaining 6 minutes to add a brief important scene from the original prologue.

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 05:53:08 AM
I believe it was on the blu ray, And I can't quote exactly, but I remember the editor mention about having to have it under 2 hours length. They went threw a couple of times and trimmed stuff and cut stuff  and then they took out a lot more to get it in the run time. They really stressed that 2 hour run time. Am I going to find such contract or clause to scan and show you guys, not by a long shot.

This is actually common practice in editing, and most big budget movies do have a runtime the studio puts forth.

Well if you can actually find anything that backs your assertion up - don't keep it to yourself.

Quote from: FallenDarkAngel on Jun 29, 2017, 06:01:12 AM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 05:31:31 AM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 29, 2017, 05:25:23 AM
Jesus H.

Prometheus and Covenant were 124 and 123 respectively.

UNDER 2 HOURS PER FOX'S CONTRACTUAL ORDER! You legit made that up.

Sure I did.
under 2 hours without credits. Are we going to debate about 3 and 4 minutes per film.??? Cheers then.

The actual movie (not including opening and ending credits) ran for 114 minutes.
If the actual movie was only allowed to run for 2 hours max without credits then maybe they could just use the remaining 6 minutes to add a brief important scene from the original prologue.

Well, the projector doesn't stop the movie once the credits begin. Those minutes still count.

I think because it's a franchise and could be rating, the rating shouldn't have a bearing but that could be a possibly, but they/Fox had a pg version that was same length I think. It was just pg without some blood in the medpod scene, My guess is seats, more seats.

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 06:04:45 AM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 05:53:08 AM
I believe it was on the blu ray, And I can't quote exactly, but I remember the editor mention about having to have it under 2 hours length. They went threw a couple of times and trimmed stuff and cut stuff  and then they took out a lot more to get it in the run time. They really stressed that 2 hour run time. Am I going to find such contract or clause to scan and show you guys, not by a long shot.

This is actually common practice in editing, and most big budget movies do have a runtime the studio puts forth.

Well if you can actually find anything that backs your assertion up - don't keep it to yourself.

Yeah, to quote Weyland, "please".

---

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 06:08:18 AM
I think because it's a franchise and could be rating, the rating shouldn't have a bearing but that could be a possibly, but they/Fox had a pg version that was same length I think. It was just pg without some blood in the medpod scene, My guess is seats, more seats.

Proof please, no conjecture.

I don't think the "cut down the runtime for more showings in a day" is a thing anymore.

And it's not like Alien has ever been the type of franchise that packs sold out showings all across the nation. Alien films aren't "event" films like Marvel superheroes or Star Wars so run time doesn't matter. Hell, the new Transformers movies was long as all hell and the studio confidently felt it was going to be a hit. I think the run time stuff is nonsense personally.

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 29, 2017, 06:08:38 AM

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 06:04:45 AM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 05:53:08 AM
I believe it was on the blu ray, And I can't quote exactly, but I remember the editor mention about having to have it under 2 hours length. They went threw a couple of times and trimmed stuff and cut stuff  and then they took out a lot more to get it in the run time. They really stressed that 2 hour run time. Am I going to find such contract or clause to scan and show you guys, not by a long shot.

This is actually common practice in editing, and most big budget movies do have a runtime the studio puts forth.

Well if you can actually find anything that backs your assertion up - don't keep it to yourself.

Yeah, to quote Weyland, "please".

---

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 06:08:18 AM
I think because it's a franchise and could be rating, the rating shouldn't have a bearing but that could be a possibly, but they/Fox had a pg version that was same length I think. It was just pg without some blood in the medpod scene, My guess is seats, more seats.

Proof please, no conjecture.

I don't think the "cut down the runtime for more showings in a day" is a thing anymore.

Get of your soap box, I don't have to proof nothing to you, in fact nobody does. People have to have proof  of something for you to believe or consider something, that is ridiculous. Take it as a suggestion then.

Did you know Tom Cruise has creative control, editing control, director control and all of the above in his films. Including the New Mummy. These contracts are real and the public will never see them.

Ok.

Quote from: newagescamartist on Jun 29, 2017, 06:15:05 AM
And it's not like Alien has ever been the type of franchise that packs sold out showings all across the nation. Alien films aren't "event" films like Marvel superheroes or Star Wars so run time doesn't matter. Hell, the new Transformers movies was long as all hell and the studio confidently felt it was going to be a hit. I think the run time stuff is nonsense personally.

Thats what they wanted with this franchise. That's what Universal wants with their classic monsters and their dark universe. That's what Fox wants or wanted with Da Predator.

Quote from: newagescamartist on Jun 29, 2017, 06:15:05 AM
And it's not like Alien has ever been the type of franchise that packs sold out showings all across the nation. Alien films aren't "event" films like Marvel superheroes or Star Wars so run time doesn't matter. Hell, the new Transformers movies was long as all hell and the studio confidently felt it was going to be a hit. I think the run time stuff is nonsense personally.

I agree. I think 160 minutes would be ideal for the next prequel film. The quality of the film degrades when they always just do a 120 minute film, and cut the important and interesting parts of the movie.

20 minutes were cut off from AC...............I surely hope they will tuck these 20 minutes back in to the DVD.

If you look at the bigger Fox films from the last few years - Logan, the X-Men movies (Apocalypse and Days..), Bridge of Spies, The Martian, The Revenant.  They're all over 2 hours.

QuoteI don't have to proof nothing to you

Perhaps refrain from acting as if you know something, when you don't?

QuoteDid you know Tom Cruise has creative control, editing control, director control and all of the above in his films. Including the New Mummy. These contracts are real and the public will never see them.

I thought that was a given for Tom Cruise - he produces his movies and is a box office draw.

i get the impression that most of what was cut from covenant did not involve the last 20 minutes. .apart from the shower scene. .wich will amount to a few seconds. .

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 06:32:05 AM
If you look at the bigger Fox films from the last few years - Logan, the X-Men movies (Apocalypse and Days..), Bridge of Spies, The Martian, The Revenant.  They're all over 2 hours.

QuoteI don't have to proof nothing to you

Perhaps refrain from acting as if you know something, when you don't?

QuoteDid you know Tom Cruise has creative control, editing control, director control and all of the above in his films. Including the New Mummy. These contracts are real and the public will never see them.

I thought that was a given for Tom Cruise - he produces his movies and is a box office draw.

Truth is none of us know the inner details and legal matters of the film industry.  So same can be said of your comments. You don't know either. :)

Quote from: palerider on Jun 29, 2017, 06:30:50 AM
20 minutes were cut off from AC...............I surely hope they will tuck these 20 minutes back in to the DVD.

Scalia said the first cut was 2:20-2:25. The final version is 114 without credits. That's more like 25-30 minutes missing.

I found the third act of Covenant boring, and not because of pacing. The story just wasn't interesting after they left the planet. It's just a bug hunt scene recycling from prior Alien films the way The Force Awakens recycled prior Star Wars films. Scalia is only interested in David, seemingly.

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 06:44:49 AM

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 06:32:05 AM
If you look at the bigger Fox films from the last few years - Logan, the X-Men movies (Apocalypse and Days..), Bridge of Spies, The Martian, The Revenant.  They're all over 2 hours.

QuoteI don't have to proof nothing to you

Perhaps refrain from acting as if you know something, when you don't?

QuoteDid you know Tom Cruise has creative control, editing control, director control and all of the above in his films. Including the New Mummy. These contracts are real and the public will never see them.

I thought that was a given for Tom Cruise - he produces his movies and is a box office draw.

Truth is none of us know the inner details and legal matters of the film industry.  So same can be said of your comments. You don't know either. :)

The minor difference is, I didn't claim to know.

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 06:58:38 AM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 06:44:49 AM

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 06:32:05 AM
If you look at the bigger Fox films from the last few years - Logan, the X-Men movies (Apocalypse and Days..), Bridge of Spies, The Martian, The Revenant.  They're all over 2 hours.

QuoteI don't have to proof nothing to you

Perhaps refrain from acting as if you know something, when you don't?

QuoteDid you know Tom Cruise has creative control, editing control, director control and all of the above in his films. Including the New Mummy. These contracts are real and the public will never see them.

I thought that was a given for Tom Cruise - he produces his movies and is a box office draw.

Truth is none of us know the inner details and legal matters of the film industry.  So same can be said of your comments. You don't know either. :)

The minor difference is, I didn't claim to know.

Take it with a grain of salt then.  I didn't claim to know either. The making of documentary it was heavily implied they had to be under a certain time. They Referenced that 3 times. There's no doubt in my mind because hey it's Fox, they've screw up a lot of their films. Happens a lot. Covenants problems are not the editor. The bold is the point of my initial post. Not hey I know facts thats You guys don't for sure'z. Jesus Christ get over it and move on please. At this point there really is nothing more for me to say.

The real question which was not asked is 'Are you happy with the way it turned out?'

And I'd like to know how a film editor approaches 'regional' cuts of the movie, which I guess is 'damage control'; you've made the final cut of a movie and now you've got to make arbitrary excisions more or less invisibly.

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 07:11:08 AM

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 06:58:38 AM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 06:44:49 AM

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 06:32:05 AM
If you look at the bigger Fox films from the last few years - Logan, the X-Men movies (Apocalypse and Days..), Bridge of Spies, The Martian, The Revenant.  They're all over 2 hours.

QuoteI don't have to proof nothing to you

Perhaps refrain from acting as if you know something, when you don't?

QuoteDid you know Tom Cruise has creative control, editing control, director control and all of the above in his films. Including the New Mummy. These contracts are real and the public will never see them.

I thought that was a given for Tom Cruise - he produces his movies and is a box office draw.

Truth is none of us know the inner details and legal matters of the film industry.  So same can be said of your comments. You don't know either. :)

The minor difference is, I didn't claim to know.

Take it with a grain of salt then.  I didn't claim to know either. The making of documentary it was heavily implied they had to be under a certain time. They Referenced that 3 times. There's no doubt in my mind because hey it's Fox, they've screw up a lot of their films. Happens a lot. Covenants problems are not the editor. The bold is the point of my initial post. Not hey I know facts thats You guys don't for sure'z. Jesus Christ get over it and move on please. At this point there really is nothing more for me to say.

No need to get stroppy just 'cos people ask questions.  I thought you might have read something somewhere that was legitimate.

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 07:17:51 AM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 07:11:08 AM

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 06:58:38 AM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 06:44:49 AM

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 06:32:05 AM
If you look at the bigger Fox films from the last few years - Logan, the X-Men movies (Apocalypse and Days..), Bridge of Spies, The Martian, The Revenant.  They're all over 2 hours.

QuoteI don't have to proof nothing to you

Perhaps refrain from acting as if you know something, when you don't?

QuoteDid you know Tom Cruise has creative control, editing control, director control and all of the above in his films. Including the New Mummy. These contracts are real and the public will never see them.

I thought that was a given for Tom Cruise - he produces his movies and is a box office draw.

Truth is none of us know the inner details and legal matters of the film industry.  So same can be said of your comments. You don't know either. :)

The minor difference is, I didn't claim to know.

Take it with a grain of salt then.  I didn't claim to know either. The making of documentary it was heavily implied they had to be under a certain time. They Referenced that 3 times. There's no doubt in my mind because hey it's Fox, they've screw up a lot of their films. Happens a lot. Covenants problems are not the editor. The bold is the point of my initial post. Not hey I know facts thats You guys don't for sure'z. Jesus Christ get over it and move on please. At this point there really is nothing more for me to say.

No need to get stroppy just 'cos people ask questions.  I thought you might have read something somewhere that was legitimate.

Oh sorry, Understandable.

Great. But will there be an extended cut? A director's cut?

Quote from: DorkiDori on Jun 29, 2017, 12:03:03 AM
REALLY!?!?!?! SO WE CAN BLAME THE EDITOR FOR THE CRAP JOB IN NOT EXPLAINING ANYTHING ABOUT SHAW AND DAVIDS STORY!?!?!?!

Quote from: Dumb Ass EditorRidley and the writers wanted to incorporate the destruction of the Engineers' world as a prologue to bridge the two films and to show what happened to Shaw after she and David when traveling to the Creators/Engineers' world. There were a lot more scenes that connect directly to Prometheus but structurally it didn't work to have two or three scenes or about 12 mins. of film that connect one film to the next. And then start the actual story of AC.

Funny, wouldve worked FINE in my eyes! I wanna slap the shit out of this guy... Knowing idiots like him were involved in the making of this film makes me hate it even more! And honestly, the blame lands SQUARELY on Ridleys shoulders! He was in charge of this film, he made the decisions about the final cut and it was HIS job to oversee the finishing of the movie! Yet, here we are with one of the WORST Alien films in the franchise!

Can we conduct ourselves with a little more decorum please, everyone?

---

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 06:21:17 AM
Get of your soap box, I don't have to proof nothing to you, in fact nobody does. People have to have proof  of something for you to believe or consider something, that is ridiculous. Take it as a suggestion then.

Did you know Tom Cruise has creative control, editing control, director control and all of the above in his films. Including the New Mummy. These contracts are real and the public will never see them.

Actually, yes, it's good to share proof, especially when you're really pushing it as fact and it's in question. It's common curtsy. I don't think anyone is expecting you to provide actual contracts or clauses, but where you saw/read that that is the case would be very much appreciated.

It's not unreasonable to think that Fox and Ridley and etc want the film at 2 hours. I'm sure they did speak about this in the past. I believe Ridley spoke about it recently with Covenant. But that's it's some contractually obliged thing is what's in question here.

All people would like to see is where you saw this?  Otherwise (and especially given your current attitude) you just come across as a randomer on the internet sprouting "information" that is in question that he can't back-up.

---

In regards to the actual topic, I was hoping they'd ask him about some deleted scenes. Gotta keep waiting for that Blu-ray.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jun 29, 2017, 07:30:03 AMCan we conduct ourselves with a little more decorum please, Dorki?

kay... how bout, the editor under Scotts direction did a terrible job in omitting key plot elements that should have been left in the film. he deserves a slap on the wrist (and possibly boot in the rear) for ever thinking cutting out something so crucial to the storyline was ever a good idea! due to the Shaw and David elements being cut from the film, it really added the most to the bitter taste in my mouth that Alien Covenant left me with as I left the theaters feeling angry and utterly betrayed hoping for 5 years we would get the same deep and profound presentation we were given with Prometheus.

It seems as more and more comes out about Alien Covenant, it gets more and more disappointing... almost to the point where the film is more of a blunder than the rocky road (to Dublin 1 2 3 4 5) Alien 3 traveled down during its development hell. The only saving grace to this film was amount of amazing artwork that came out of it from so many talented creature designers.

Quote from: DorkiDori on Jun 29, 2017, 07:59:01 AM
kay... how bout....

Much better.

I could be mistaken but having listened to Snowtown I have a feeling this is the tracks she was referring to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juxfcl6jIRo&list=PL7D51CF38E6F2BC37&index=6

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jun 29, 2017, 07:30:03 AM

Quote from: DorkiDori on Jun 29, 2017, 12:03:03 AM
REALLY!?!?!?! SO WE CAN BLAME THE EDITOR FOR THE CRAP JOB IN NOT EXPLAINING ANYTHING ABOUT SHAW AND DAVIDS STORY!?!?!?!

Quote from: Dumb Ass EditorRidley and the writers wanted to incorporate the destruction of the Engineers' world as a prologue to bridge the two films and to show what happened to Shaw after she and David when traveling to the Creators/Engineers' world. There were a lot more scenes that connect directly to Prometheus but structurally it didn't work to have two or three scenes or about 12 mins. of film that connect one film to the next. And then start the actual story of AC.

Funny, wouldve worked FINE in my eyes! I wanna slap the shit out of this guy... Knowing idiots like him were involved in the making of this film makes me hate it even more! And honestly, the blame lands SQUARELY on Ridleys shoulders! He was in charge of this film, he made the decisions about the final cut and it was HIS job to oversee the finishing of the movie! Yet, here we are with one of the WORST Alien films in the franchise!

Can we conduct ourselves with a little more decorum please, everyone?

---

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 06:21:17 AM
Get of your soap box, I don't have to proof nothing to you, in fact nobody does. People have to have proof  of something for you to believe or consider something, that is ridiculous. Take it as a suggestion then.

Did you know Tom Cruise has creative control, editing control, director control and all of the above in his films. Including the New Mummy. These contracts are real and the public will never see them.

Actually, yes, it's good to share proof, especially when you're really pushing it as fact and it's in question. It's common curtsy. I don't think anyone is expecting you to provide actual contracts or clauses, but where you saw/read that that is the case would be very much appreciated.

It's not unreasonable to think that Fox and Ridley and etc want the film at 2 hours. I'm sure they did speak about this in the past. I believe Ridley spoke about it recently with Covenant. But that's it's some contractually obliged thing is what's in question here.

All people would like to see is where you saw this?  Otherwise (and especially given your current attitude) you just come across as a randomer on the internet sprouting "information" that is in question that he can't back-up.

---

In regards to the actual topic, I was hoping they'd ask him about some deleted scenes. Gotta keep waiting for that Blu-ray.

Vary real possibility, as I've been saying.

Spoiler

Spoiler

It's what I choose to believe.

[close]

[close]

That's fine. In future just make sure you present it as your own believes, not fact.  :)

Found another track, sounds almost the exact same albeit minor differences.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHUa50Ka8wo&index=13&list=PL7D51CF38E6F2BC37

Quote from: DorkiDori on Jun 29, 2017, 07:59:01 AM

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jun 29, 2017, 07:30:03 AMCan we conduct ourselves with a little more decorum please, Dorki?

kay... how bout, the editor under Scotts direction did a terrible job in omitting key plot elements that should have been left in the film. he deserves a slap on the wrist (and possibly boot in the rear) for ever thinking cutting out something so crucial to the storyline was ever a good idea! due to the Shaw and David elements being cut from the film, it really added the most to the bitter taste in my mouth that Alien Covenant left me with as I left the theaters feeling angry and utterly betrayed hoping for 5 years we would get the same deep and profound presentation we were given with Prometheus.

It seems as more and more comes out about Alien Covenant, it gets more and more disappointing... almost to the point where the film is more of a blunder than the rocky road (to Dublin 1 2 3 4 5) Alien 3 traveled down during its development hell. The only saving grace to this film was amount of amazing artwork that came out of it from so many talented creature designers.

What key plot elements?

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 08:40:40 AM

Quote from: DorkiDori on Jun 29, 2017, 07:59:01 AM

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jun 29, 2017, 07:30:03 AMCan we conduct ourselves with a little more decorum please, Dorki?

kay... how bout, the editor under Scotts direction did a terrible job in omitting key plot elements that should have been left in the film. he deserves a slap on the wrist (and possibly boot in the rear) for ever thinking cutting out something so crucial to the storyline was ever a good idea! due to the Shaw and David elements being cut from the film, it really added the most to the bitter taste in my mouth that Alien Covenant left me with as I left the theaters feeling angry and utterly betrayed hoping for 5 years we would get the same deep and profound presentation we were given with Prometheus.

It seems as more and more comes out about Alien Covenant, it gets more and more disappointing... almost to the point where the film is more of a blunder than the rocky road (to Dublin 1 2 3 4 5) Alien 3 traveled down during its development hell. The only saving grace to this film was amount of amazing artwork that came out of it from so many talented creature designers.

What key plot elements?

The many shots of Shaw, preferably in her undies or naked, trying to catch David as made the only towel on the ship wet again.

-_-

The adoration for this character is beyond me. She was annoying in Prometheus and deserved the offscreen death. (search "offscreen death" in google...funny what you find in images haha. )

QuoteThe many shots of Shaw, preferably in her undies or naked, trying to catch David as made the only towel on the ship wet again.

:laugh:

With Benny Hill music.

Quote from: Hemi on Jun 29, 2017, 08:57:36 AM

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 08:40:40 AM

Quote from: DorkiDori on Jun 29, 2017, 07:59:01 AM

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jun 29, 2017, 07:30:03 AMCan we conduct ourselves with a little more decorum please, Dorki?

kay... how bout, the editor under Scotts direction did a terrible job in omitting key plot elements that should have been left in the film. he deserves a slap on the wrist (and possibly boot in the rear) for ever thinking cutting out something so crucial to the storyline was ever a good idea! due to the Shaw and David elements being cut from the film, it really added the most to the bitter taste in my mouth that Alien Covenant left me with as I left the theaters feeling angry and utterly betrayed hoping for 5 years we would get the same deep and profound presentation we were given with Prometheus.

It seems as more and more comes out about Alien Covenant, it gets more and more disappointing... almost to the point where the film is more of a blunder than the rocky road (to Dublin 1 2 3 4 5) Alien 3 traveled down during its development hell. The only saving grace to this film was amount of amazing artwork that came out of it from so many talented creature designers.

What key plot elements?

The many shots of Shaw, preferably in her undies or naked, trying to catch David as made the only towel on the ship wet again.

-_-

The adoration for this character is beyond me. She was annoying in Prometheus and deserved the offscreen death. (search "offscreen death" in google...funny what you find in images haha. )

Totally agree, she wasn't relevant to the plot of Covenant any further than what we saw and I was glad to see the back of her.

When I go to watch a movie, I want to watch it no matter how long that actual movie is. Hell, I can survive even 3,5 hour movie just like nothing. I just totally dont understand why they cut already existed scenes, if they dont want these scenes. . than, why they created them? They wanted to remove the entire David's intro? They wanted to remove the whole flashback sequence? What a huge dissapointment. Both scenes are very good and they help to provide some attention. . not to mention that without flashback sequence we will never know how exactly David killed the Engineers in their colony. . It show us how arogant someone behind this movie must be. . and maybe this is the reason why many things in Covenant stay unexpleined. You know, how can someone even think about removing (maybe) one of the most important scenes from the entire movie? Is that even normal? Hey, how was these Engineers killed? What happened to them? Ahh. . we wanted to cut this scene. . they just die, dont think about it, it's not important. . ohh, alright I forgot there are a lot of this in Covenant.

the bombing scene was essential. .can't imagine covenant without it. .and cutting the crossing was a mistake. .i mean what was it. .like 2 minutes?. .poor noomi, her only scene and snip . .gone!

Quote from: juxtapose on Jun 29, 2017, 12:08:38 PM
the bombing scene was essential. .can't imagine covenant without it. .and cutting the crossing was a mistake. .i mean what was it. .like 2 minutes?. .poor noomi, her only scene and snip . .gone!

Perhaps she was in it for 8 to 10 minutes, then cut to two, then entirely cut out. Shame.

. .and then they had that distortion effect with her during the rogue transmission. . . I wonder how noomi feals about all this?

Quote from: Protozoid on Jun 29, 2017, 03:53:30 AM
Scalia claims to be all about story and character. I'm sure he thinks he did a good job given the constraints. But keeping the prologue because the compositions are nice and he's proud of the editing when the movie desperately needed more Shaw? Sorry, that was a miscalculation. Cutting Shaw scenes before cutting that was clearly based on Scalia's emotional attachments, not good storytelling.

Speaking of editing mistakes, that interview has the most typos I've ever seen in a professional article. They even misspelled Kurosawa twice!

Those typos were driving me bonkers. I've noticed that more and more with internet articles and journalism. It's almost as if the writer is breathlessly typing everything to get it online first!

Also, I agree with your assessment regarding the opening scene with David and Weyland. It is a beautiful scene, and I'm glad it's in the film, but not at the cost of losing 12 minutes of David and Shaw. That's the story I wanted. I know Weyland made David, and I know their relationship was complicated. So in reality, the opening scene does not tell us anything we don't already know.

What I don't know, and what I wanted to know, is more about David and Shaw.

Quote from: juxtapose on Jun 29, 2017, 06:37:36 AM
i get the impression that most of what was cut from covenant did not involve the last 20 minutes. .apart from the shower scene. .wich will amount to a few seconds. .

I agree.

While it would have been nice, adding a few more seconds here and there for some lingering shots wouldn't address the real issue towards the end, which I believe to be the way the final alien was dealt with. More specifically, the scenes where Daniels and T corral the alien through the ship by choosing which hatches are open or closed until it was flushed out into space. It was a golden opportunity to really ratchet up the tension, suspense, and horror to 11 by fully leveraging the alien. This alone could have made the ending damn near perfect, because everything before and after that event were fine.

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 03:40:58 AM

QuoteSorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Well I'm sorry to tell you, that regardless of who is editing the film, it had to be just under 2 hours per Fox's Contractual Order. It was in contract to be under 2 hours. Besides it sounds to me like he fought to have more themes kept in the story. It's a hard job given the restrictions and restraints of director , studio and all of the above. If you have problems with either film he is not to blame.

THIS!!! THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

It's like NO ONE understands that ^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ is the reason the movie is the way it is. Stop bickering and wasting your time. You aren't understanding that this is an industry issue. Its about runtime. Almost everything that wasn't good in this AND Prometheus were because of a contractual obligation to limit the length of the film. All of this bickering and finger pointing - its just because an R-RATED 100mil$ film cannot be 2.5 hours long and risk not making its money back. The editor was just doing his job. If anything the problem is that they need to write a 1.5 hour script so Ridley and his editors can keep the pace fleshed out.

Also there is nothing Scalia's interview that says there are 12 additional minutes of SHAW footage specifically. He says more stuff that bridges the gap, totaling 12 minutes. This includes what is already IN the film and the Prologue. You are assuming that means more scenes with Shaw. It doesn't. It may be slightly extended Prologue or etc but we also know that the opening Prologue with David was initially longer, for instance.
So a longer Prologue, possibly a slightly longer version of The Crossing, and the scene with David bombing the Engineers all included in that 12 minutes. He didn't say "12 additional minutes of Shaw and David on Paradise doing a bunch of stuff youve never seen." At best, there may be an additional scene or a viral that never got released.

You're right, but he does mention another flashback when he talks about how Shaw died. That is the specific scene I'm curious about. Pietro suggests that the scene contradicts David's "lie."

This was the most revealing part of the interview for me...

"The middle part of the film was more challenging after the reveal of David.  Once the Covenant Story merges with the Prometheus storyline finding the proper structural order of the scenes proofed to be difficult because of the distinctive dynamics of the two story lines in addition to the separation of the two locations of the action. In one sense the action, the tension and unfolding drama going from one group to the other had to be balanced and spaced properly as not to loose the connective tissue of the film."

I personally never felt like the film recovered the sense of chaos generated during the Med Bay and Grass Attack scenes. I didn't have an issue with the idea of David as Frankenstein, but the first time I saw the film, it didn't fit with everything we'd seen up to that point and it threw me out of the film for several minutes.

Hm.. Just thinking out loud. But the movie doesn't have a clear image of the actress present. Could it simply be that not having her act in the movie was cheaper? Kinda like hicks in A3?

QuoteI just totally dont understand why they cut already existed scenes, if they dont want these scenes. . than, why they created them?

Because you shoot as much as you'll think you'll need, but then find that you have more than you'll need.  If you put in absolutely everything you shot - it gets boring.

QuoteTHIS!!! THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

It's like NO ONE understands that ^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ is the reason the movie is the way it is.

Perhaps because bleau made it up...?

Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2017, 08:27:59 PM

QuoteI just totally dont understand why they cut already existed scenes, if they dont want these scenes. . than, why they created them?

Because you shoot as much as you'll think you'll need, but then find that you have more than you'll need.  If you put in absolutely everything you shot - it's gets boring.

QuoteTHIS!!! THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

It's like NO ONE understands that ^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ is the reason the movie is the way it is.

Perhaps because bleau made it up...?

And because the movie is made three times. Once at the script stage, once during principal photography, and once in the editing bay.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jun 28, 2017, 09:42:47 PM
Alien vs. Predator Galaxy had previously heard that the film's prologue had nearly been released as a viral video before being inserted back into the film.

Was that originally supposed to have been released at San Diego Comic Con last year? Refer to old quote below:

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 24, 2016, 02:43:42 PM
Expect. f**king autocorrect. There's a scene that's been cut from the movie that is apparently going to be recycled for viral campaign. It's supposed to go up this weekend during SDCC. Not much longer left for that to appear.

That'd be the one, Eighth.

Very close call then, matter of hours. I remember you being very flabbergasted at why it wasn't released.

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 29, 2017, 03:55:34 PM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 03:40:58 AM

QuoteSorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Well I'm sorry to tell you, that regardless of who is editing the film, it had to be just under 2 hours per Fox's Contractual Order. It was in contract to be under 2 hours. Besides it sounds to me like he fought to have more themes kept in the story. It's a hard job given the restrictions and restraints of director , studio and all of the above. If you have problems with either film he is not to blame.

THIS!!! THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

It's like NO ONE understands that ^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ is the reason the movie is the way it is. Stop bickering and wasting your time. You aren't understanding that this is an industry issue. Its about runtime. Almost everything that wasn't good in this AND Prometheus were because of a contractual obligation to limit the length of the film. All of this bickering and finger pointing - its just because an R-RATED 100mil$ film cannot be 2.5 hours long and risk not making its money back. The editor was just doing his job. If anything the problem is that they need to write a 1.5 hour script so Ridley and his editors can keep the pace fleshed out.

Also there is nothing Scalia's interview that says there are 12 additional minutes of SHAW footage specifically. He says more stuff that bridges the gap, totaling 12 minutes. This includes what is already IN the film and the Prologue. You are assuming that means more scenes with Shaw. It doesn't. It may be slightly extended Prologue or etc but we also know that the opening Prologue with David was initially longer, for instance.
So a longer Prologue, possibly a slightly longer version of The Crossing, and the scene with David bombing the Engineers all included in that 12 minutes. He didn't say "12 additional minutes of Shaw and David on Paradise doing a bunch of stuff youve never seen." At best, there may be an additional scene or a viral that never got released.

I'm still waiting to see verification of this, but either way it's not logical and mostly nonsense. The new Transformers was much longer and was considered an event film. It failed to deliver the strong box office that was expected, but no one is blaming the run time. If what you're saying is true then Fox has no idea what they're doing ( debatable, for sure ). Usually if a movie is going to be so big that a theatre is selling out multiple showings they just get a few more screens lol.

I'm sitting on the fence. I think it does seem quite logical that they would cut it in under 2 hours. One thing that bothers me is that Scott says he doesn't listen or read reviews yet Covenant is clearly an about face in reaction to Prometheus. That itself doesn't make sense since Prometheus made a lot of money and also got good reviews (better if we are being picky).

I don't think it's an unrealistic claim to think that someone demanded the movie be cut short. Particularly given that the scenes that are missing are not just sweeping shots of mountains or useless dialog, the scenes in question sound like important plot points. I would again agree that there is something "fishy" with the complete removal of Shaw from almost all live scenes and would not be surprised if just using an image of her dead body was somehow contractually benificial. I don't buy the storyline guff unless they wanted to completely cut all connections with Prom.

Transformers is going to make a zillion dollars no matter what just purely because there is big stuff making big explosions.

Fox sought to address audience and critical feedback from Prometheus.  Ridley was obviously on board with it, otherwise he would've left and done something else.

Quote from: Highland on Jun 30, 2017, 02:26:31 AM
I'm sitting on the fence. I think it does seem quite logical that they would cut it in under 2 hours. One thing that bothers me is that Scott says he doesn't listen or read reviews yet Covenant is clearly an about face in reaction to Prometheus. That itself doesn't make sense since Prometheus made a lot of money and also got good reviews (better if we are being picky).

I don't think it's an unrealistic claim to think that someone demanded the movie be cut short. Particularly given that the scenes that are missing are not just sweeping shots of mountains or useless dialog, the scenes in question sound like important plot points. I would again agree that there is something "fishy" with the complete removal of Shaw from almost all live scenes and would not be surprised if just using an image of her dead body was somehow contractually benificial. I don't buy the storyline guff unless they wanted to completely cut all connections with Prom.

Transformers is going to make a zillion dollars no matter what just purely because there is big stuff making big explosions.

Lol yeah but what everyone is trying to get at is that it's all conjecture unless someone can provide concrete proof.

Absolutely not? What was so good about that part? Who hired this moron?

Congrats on the worst editing job ever performed.

---

This.

Quote from: newagescamartist on Jun 29, 2017, 11:12:57 PM

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 29, 2017, 03:55:34 PM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 03:40:58 AM

QuoteSorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Well I'm sorry to tell you, that regardless of who is editing the film, it had to be just under 2 hours per Fox's Contractual Order. It was in contract to be under 2 hours. Besides it sounds to me like he fought to have more themes kept in the story. It's a hard job given the restrictions and restraints of director , studio and all of the above. If you have problems with either film he is not to blame.

THIS!!! THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

It's like NO ONE understands that ^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ is the reason the movie is the way it is. Stop bickering and wasting your time. You aren't understanding that this is an industry issue. Its about runtime. Almost everything that wasn't good in this AND Prometheus were because of a contractual obligation to limit the length of the film. All of this bickering and finger pointing - its just because an R-RATED 100mil$ film cannot be 2.5 hours long and risk not making its money back. The editor was just doing his job. If anything the problem is that they need to write a 1.5 hour script so Ridley and his editors can keep the pace fleshed out.

Also there is nothing Scalia's interview that says there are 12 additional minutes of SHAW footage specifically. He says more stuff that bridges the gap, totaling 12 minutes. This includes what is already IN the film and the Prologue. You are assuming that means more scenes with Shaw. It doesn't. It may be slightly extended Prologue or etc but we also know that the opening Prologue with David was initially longer, for instance.
So a longer Prologue, possibly a slightly longer version of The Crossing, and the scene with David bombing the Engineers all included in that 12 minutes. He didn't say "12 additional minutes of Shaw and David on Paradise doing a bunch of stuff youve never seen." At best, there may be an additional scene or a viral that never got released.

I'm still waiting to see verification of this, but either way it's not logical and mostly nonsense. The new Transformers was much longer and was considered an event film. It failed to deliver the strong box office that was expected, but no one is blaming the run time. If what you're saying is true then Fox has no idea what they're doing ( debatable, for sure ). Usually if a movie is going to be so big that a theatre is selling out multiple showings they just get a few more screens lol.

You dont have to wait for verification. It was the same story with Prometheus. R-Rated films at a 100million + is completely unheard of. There simply is NO OTHER FRANCHISE that produces 100million dollar+ R-Rated films. TRANSFORMERS is marketable to 7 year olds. Its Rated PG-13, and anyone can see it without supervision. Its a false comparison. TRANSFORMERS is not at the same degree of risk of not making its money back. An R-Rated film thats as long as TRANSFORMERS, would play in less theaters, and has far less showtimes per day. This is why the ALIEN FILM is 2 hours and is contracted to be 2 hours. Because FOX wont take that risk and the turnout for this is verification of their rightness. If Alien:Covenant would have been 2.5 hours it would result in one entire less showtime every 8 hours. That's 2 less showtimes per day, per theatre, as per most multiplexes, and it results in much less profit for the theatre and the studio. If each showtime in a theatre amounted to 20 million dollars, thats the difference between 80million a day and 60 million per day, Thats a substantial risk to take over adding 20 minutes of additional footage to keep fans happy. TRANSFORMERS on the other hand, with its PG13 rating will automatically open in far more theaters. In fact TRANSFORMERS opened in 4,132 theatres in the US this week. Alien Covenant opened in 3,761. Thats because of its R rating, which doesnt fill seats. If it had been 2.5 hours long, it would have been detrimental to FOX's bottom line.
Waiting for confirmation of this is silly. This is a film industry fact. R-rated films at this budget do not exist and never have. This is legitimately the ONLY franchise of its caliber at a consistent R Rating.
Do I think this HURT the film? ABSOLUTELY. Do I think FOX should have taken the risk? You bet I do. Will they? Unlikely. They will just try and make the next film for cheaper.
Fans need to take this stuff into consideration and understand why they arent getting what they wish they'd were. The real solution is to write 1.5 hour scripts that allow Scott an additional half hour to be more exacting with pace.

Who says it's a fact?

Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 04:12:58 AM
Fox sought to address audience and critical feedback from Prometheus.  Ridley was obviously on board with it, otherwise he would've left and done something else.

Sure, but why? Its like the studio just doubled down the chips and lost more the second time. I'd say the general feeling not just in the boards is that half the people didn't really like Covenant either and wanted Prometheus to follow on. So now you've got some weird situation where you've just managed to still only please 50% of the audience. Many of the things that Prometheus was slated for are still present in Covenant.

I think that's reflected in the sharp drop off at the box office. Prometheus did really well, it got generally positive reviews.

Why?  To get better returns I suppose since a lot of people were disappointed that there wasn't an actual Alien in Prometheus.

It may be that they thought 'Prometheus did well, but people really wanted Alien.  So we don't completely abandon Prometheus, but we include things to satisfy the Alien crowd'.

They kinda pleased both judging on the overall reaction, but did please either enough.

Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 07:09:49 AM
Who says it's a fact?

It is an industry fact that R-Rated films are not produced at 100 million + budgets because their audience and ability to fill seats is limited and this is the only franchise that has ever been able to pull that off. It is also an industry fact that films longer than 2 hours are frowned upon by Hollywood because they make less money / have less ability to make money because they have less showtimes per day. Aliens, the only exception in this franchise, is the exception proving the rule. It wasnt made cheaply, and it rode the coattails of the smash hit that was ALIEN at a time when Low Budget R Rated films actually had a theatrical release. This is simply unheard of today and we should be singing praise to Alien Covenant and Prometheus for even existing with an R-Rating and making money.  Alien is the most successful horror franchise of all time.

Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 07:25:51 AM
Why?  To get better returns I suppose since a lot of people were disappointed that there wasn't an actual Alien in Prometheus.

It may be that they thought 'Prometheus did well, but people really wanted Alien.  So we don't completely abandon Prometheus, but we include things to satisfy the Alien crowd'.

They kinda pleased both judging on the overall reaction, but did please either enough.

I'm not sure there ever was an Alien crowd when it comes to Prometheus. I think the general feeling at the time was more "whats all this about then?" Rather than where's the Alien.

Something tells me Blade runner is going to smash it at the box office and it's not because it'll have cool action sequences and quick pacing. For me they have not identified the group that watch these movies correctly. Covenant is like you say a sort of hybrid smart movie trying to be a popcorn flick at the same time but really doesn't achieve either.

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 07:34:41 AM

Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 07:09:49 AM
Who says it's a fact?

It is an industry fact that R-Rated films are not produced at 100 million + budgets because their audience and ability to fill seats is limited and this is the only franchise that has ever been able to pull that off. It is also an industry fact that films longer than 2 hours are frowned upon by Hollywood because they make less money / have less ability to make money because they have less showtimes per day. Aliens, the only exception in this franchise, is the exception proving the rule. It wasnt made cheaply, and it rode the coattails of the smash hit that was ALIEN at a time when Low Budget R Rated films actually had a theatrical release. This is simply unheard of today and we should be singing praise to Alien Covenant and Prometheus for even existing with an R-Rating and making money.  Alien is the most successful horror franchise of all time.

What about Logan?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wolverine2017.htm
I'll grant you that it's a different situation because of the capeshit association, but still.

Or Fury Road?  Or The Revenant?

QuoteI'm not sure there ever was an Alien crowd when it comes to Prometheus. I think the general feeling at the time was more "whats all this about then?" Rather than where's the Alien.

There were a lot of people who assumed an Alien prequel was going to have Aliens in it, despite a lot of pre-release stuff saying it wasn't a strict Alien prequel.

I dunno about Blade Runner.  I think it looks sweet and hope it kills, but I'm not sure it's going do big business.

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 07:34:41 AM
It is an industry fact that R-Rated films are not produced at 100 million + budgets because their audience and ability to fill seats is limited and this is the only franchise that has ever been able to pull that off.

Some films made in the last 17 years with an R rating and $100 million budget that didn't bomb:

Gladiator
Terminator 3
300: Rise of an Empire
Hangover Part 3
Django Unchained
Wolf of Wall Street
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant

QuoteIt is also an industry fact that films longer than 2 hours are frowned upon by Hollywood because they make less money / have less ability to make money because they have less showtimes per day.

Most major releases today are over 2 hours. The current top five highest grossing films of all time -- not adjusted for inflation -- are over 2 hours, and of the top 10 only one is under -- Frozen.

QuoteAliens, the only exception in this franchise, is the exception proving the rule. It wasnt made cheaply, and it rode the coattails of the smash hit that was ALIEN at a time when Low Budget R Rated films actually had a theatrical release

Aliens had a fairly average budget and was released 8 years after the previous film. That's hardly "riding on the coattails".

Fury Road, now that was a film. Probably my favourite out of the last few years.

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 07:03:10 AM

Quote from: newagescamartist on Jun 29, 2017, 11:12:57 PM

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 29, 2017, 03:55:34 PM

Quote from: bleau on Jun 29, 2017, 03:40:58 AM

QuoteSorry, Pietro, but your editing ruined another Ridley movie. He's a damn butcher. He needs to stop trying to fix stories in the editing room. He did the same to Prometheus, thinking that the structure needed fixing when it didn't. Having flawless pacing and a balanced structure is secondary to tracking the story in the way that allows the audience the deepest experience.

Well I'm sorry to tell you, that regardless of who is editing the film, it had to be just under 2 hours per Fox's Contractual Order. It was in contract to be under 2 hours. Besides it sounds to me like he fought to have more themes kept in the story. It's a hard job given the restrictions and restraints of director , studio and all of the above. If you have problems with either film he is not to blame.

THIS!!! THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

It's like NO ONE understands that ^^^^^THIS^^^^^^ is the reason the movie is the way it is. Stop bickering and wasting your time. You aren't understanding that this is an industry issue. Its about runtime. Almost everything that wasn't good in this AND Prometheus were because of a contractual obligation to limit the length of the film. All of this bickering and finger pointing - its just because an R-RATED 100mil$ film cannot be 2.5 hours long and risk not making its money back. The editor was just doing his job. If anything the problem is that they need to write a 1.5 hour script so Ridley and his editors can keep the pace fleshed out.

Also there is nothing Scalia's interview that says there are 12 additional minutes of SHAW footage specifically. He says more stuff that bridges the gap, totaling 12 minutes. This includes what is already IN the film and the Prologue. You are assuming that means more scenes with Shaw. It doesn't. It may be slightly extended Prologue or etc but we also know that the opening Prologue with David was initially longer, for instance.
So a longer Prologue, possibly a slightly longer version of The Crossing, and the scene with David bombing the Engineers all included in that 12 minutes. He didn't say "12 additional minutes of Shaw and David on Paradise doing a bunch of stuff youve never seen." At best, there may be an additional scene or a viral that never got released.

I'm still waiting to see verification of this, but either way it's not logical and mostly nonsense. The new Transformers was much longer and was considered an event film. It failed to deliver the strong box office that was expected, but no one is blaming the run time. If what you're saying is true then Fox has no idea what they're doing ( debatable, for sure ). Usually if a movie is going to be so big that a theatre is selling out multiple showings they just get a few more screens lol.

You dont have to wait for verification. It was the same story with Prometheus. R-Rated films at a 100million + is completely unheard of. There simply is NO OTHER FRANCHISE that produces 100million dollar+ R-Rated films. TRANSFORMERS is marketable to 7 year olds. Its Rated PG-13, and anyone can see it without supervision. Its a false comparison. TRANSFORMERS is not at the same degree of risk of not making its money back. An R-Rated film thats as long as TRANSFORMERS, would play in less theaters, and has far less showtimes per day. This is why the ALIEN FILM is 2 hours and is contracted to be 2 hours. Because FOX wont take that risk and the turnout for this is verification of their rightness. If Alien:Covenant would have been 2.5 hours it would result in one entire less showtime every 8 hours. That's 2 less showtimes per day, per theatre, as per most multiplexes, and it results in much less profit for the theatre and the studio. If each showtime in a theatre amounted to 20 million dollars, thats the difference between 80million a day and 60 million per day, Thats a substantial risk to take over adding 20 minutes of additional footage to keep fans happy. TRANSFORMERS on the other hand, with its PG13 rating will automatically open in far more theaters. In fact TRANSFORMERS opened in 4,132 theatres in the US this week. Alien Covenant opened in 3,761. Thats because of its R rating, which doesnt fill seats. If it had been 2.5 hours long, it would have been detrimental to FOX's bottom line.
Waiting for confirmation of this is silly. This is a film industry fact. R-rated films at this budget do not exist and never have. This is legitimately the ONLY franchise of its caliber at a consistent R Rating.
Do I think this HURT the film? ABSOLUTELY. Do I think FOX should have taken the risk? You bet I do. Will they? Unlikely. They will just try and make the next film for cheaper.
Fans need to take this stuff into consideration and understand why they arent getting what they wish they'd were. The real solution is to write 1.5 hour scripts that allow Scott an additional half hour to be more exacting with pace.

Link tho.

Quote from: Highland on Jun 30, 2017, 12:53:41 PM
Fury Road, now that was a film. Probably my favourite out of the last few years.

Actually it didn't grab me and I fully expected it to do so... :( it had "my kind of film" vibe written all over it.

Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jun 30, 2017, 02:03:50 PM

Quote from: Highland on Jun 30, 2017, 12:53:41 PM
Fury Road, now that was a film. Probably my favourite out of the last few years.

Actually it didn't grab me and I fully expected it to do so... :( it had "my kind of film" vibe written all over it.

That movie had a certain amount of spectacle, but it was also largely boring and stupid. The characters frequently behaved like morons, and you might as well have called it Furiosa for all the impact Max had on the proceedings. The one time the guy actually got to do anything, it was off-screen. Waste of time. YMMV.

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 30, 2017, 01:41:54 PM
Link tho.

There won't be one because this is almost assuredly nonsense. Unless someone is privy to contractual obligations this is all speculation, and I'm ok with speculation, but saying that it doesn't need verification because of industry standards is ridiculous.

Yeah I know aha

Quote from: newagescamartist on Jun 30, 2017, 05:00:42 PM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 30, 2017, 01:41:54 PM
Link tho.

There won't be one because this is almost assuredly nonsense. Unless someone is privy to contractual obligations this is all speculation, and I'm ok with speculation, but saying that it doesn't need verification because of industry standards is ridiculous.

Yeah no its not. Not only have I gone to school for Film and TV but I work in production as a production manager and have been on all kinds of sets. On top of that I was a Projectionist/Manager for AMC theatres for 3 years.
I don't have to provide links because Im qualified to write this. This isn't a trial. Im teaching you about the film business.

Here's a FANBOY talking about this at this link below. You will see listed countless high budget R-Rated movies. Almost NONE of them, are close to 100 million and in almost every case of them being so, you have some other reason like it being the work of an extremely bankable OSCAR winning director. Like THE REVENANT, right AFTER an Oscar is won. And thats the only reason he got the money to make an R Rated movie at a 2.5 hour runtime (because of BIRDMAN being JUST prior to it).
If you dont believe me you can cross reference every single one of those listed 100mil range R Rated films with RUNTIME and you will see the exceptions to the rule are like NEVER. Literally like never. And in every single one of those cases NONE of them is a PART 6 or 8 or 10 of any franchise. The only exception I see is MAD MAX (150 mil) and that film was a massive box office risk and was exactly 2 hours long. That its EXACTLY within 2 hours, isn't a mistake. I loved it and thank god for them taking that risk, but don't confuse my instruction with my desire or agreement. Im just telling you why it is the way it is.

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/the-financial-potential-of-r-rated-movies.html (http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/the-financial-potential-of-r-rated-movies.html)

If its R Rated and has a budget of anywhere near 100 mil, its 2 hours or less because theatres lose showtimes and the films cant make their money. The exceptions are few and prove the rule. If all of your money is made between 7pm and 11pm, and it takes a half hour between each film to clean and set up a new theatre, plus trailers and etc, and you can only sell tickets to people over 17, you would not be smart to want 1 showtime between 7pm and 11pm instead of 2 showtimes. You see? Why would you need a link to prove that?

So does anyone have any info regarding Fox stipulating to Riddles that Prometheus and Covenant had to be two hours (give or take)?

Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 11:11:03 PM
So does anyone have any info regarding Fox stipulating to Riddles that Prometheus and Covenant had to be two hours (give or take)?

Ridley stipulated it himself because he IS the business. He stated clearly in interviews during rounds for Prometheus that he knew he had to get it down to the 2 hour mark or risk there being no sequel.
These were almost his exact words.
Anyone who works in the business would know this is a factor. Contract or not. Why would he want to risk that?

Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 11:11:03 PM
So does anyone have any info regarding Fox stipulating to Riddles that Prometheus and Covenant had to be two hours (give or take)?

IT'S A CONTRACTUAL ORDER!!!

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jun 30, 2017, 11:20:40 PM

Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 11:11:03 PM
So does anyone have any info regarding Fox stipulating to Riddles that Prometheus and Covenant had to be two hours (give or take)?

IT'S A CONTRACTUAL ORDER!!!

"Final Cut" is a the name for this contractual order and that the studio has that say is common practice. But you can bet Ridley is smart enough to make sure of this himself.

If its R Rated and has a budget of anywhere near 100 mil, its 2 hours or less because theatres lose showtimes and the films cant make their money. The exceptions are few and prove the rule. If all of your money is made between 7pm and 11pm, and it takes a half hour between each film to clean and set up a new theatre, plus trailers and etc, and you can only sell tickets to people over 17, you would not be smart to want 1 showtime between 7pm and 11pm instead of 2 showtimes. You see? Why would you need a link to prove that?

---

Quote from: SiL on Jun 30, 2017, 12:34:07 PM

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 07:34:41 AM
It is an industry fact that R-Rated films are not produced at 100 million + budgets because their audience and ability to fill seats is limited and this is the only franchise that has ever been able to pull that off.

Some films made in the last 17 years with an R rating and $100 million budget that didn't bomb:

Gladiator
Terminator 3
300: Rise of an Empire
Hangover Part 3
Django Unchained
Wolf of Wall Street
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant

QuoteIt is also an industry fact that films longer than 2 hours are frowned upon by Hollywood because they make less money / have less ability to make money because they have less showtimes per day.

Most major releases today are over 2 hours. The current top five highest grossing films of all time -- not adjusted for inflation -- are over 2 hours, and of the top 10 only one is under -- Frozen.

QuoteAliens, the only exception in this franchise, is the exception proving the rule. It wasnt made cheaply, and it rode the coattails of the smash hit that was ALIEN at a time when Low Budget R Rated films actually had a theatrical release

Aliens had a fairly average budget and was released 8 years after the previous film. That's hardly "riding on the coattails".

Sorry nope.

GLADIATOR -  2.5 hours (not a sequel or a part 6)
         A winner but not a franchise and also its a very SOFT R and not a horror film. IE Exception proving rule.
TERMINATOR 3 - 1hour 49 minutes  - Nope
300: RISE - 1 hour 42 min    - Nope
HANGOVER 3 - 1 hour 40 min    - Nope
DJANGO - 2hours and 41 min 
         WAIT!!! WAIT!!! We have a winner. OOOOOOH Guess what? It only made 162 million and was a Box Office Failure but also universally acclaimed. Ergo - why this is never done.
WOLF OF WALL ST - 3 hours. Budget 100 million HOW MUCH DID IT MAKE? 116 million. Once again. Why this is never done.
Even when you have a name recognized director like Tarantino of Scorcese, this is a huge risk.
MAD MAX: FURY ROAD - 2 hours.
REVENANT : 2.5 hours (director just won oscar) It was a risk and it was a success. But it also was only due to the director and because it wasnt a sequel.

So there it is. Not a single one of these films is a sequel in a big franchise, with a 100m budget, R Rating and over 2 hours.

If its R Rated and has a budget of anywhere near 100 mil, its 2 hours or less because theaters lose showtimes and the films cant make their money. The exceptions are few and prove the rule. If all of your money is made between 7pm and 11pm, and it takes a half hour between each film to clean and set up a new theatre, plus trailers and etc, and you can only sell tickets to people over 17, you would not be smart to want 1 showtime between 7pm and 11pm instead of 2 showtimes. You see? Why would you need a link to prove that?

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 11:15:34 PM

Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2017, 11:11:03 PM
So does anyone have any info regarding Fox stipulating to Riddles that Prometheus and Covenant had to be two hours (give or take)?

Ridley stipulated it himself because he IS the business. He stated clearly in interviews during rounds for Prometheus that he knew he had to get it down to the 2 hour mark or risk there being no sequel.
These were almost his exact words.
Anyone who works in the business would know this is a factor. Contract or not. Why would he want to risk that?

That's a start. I guess.

I wouldn't be at all surprised that Fox wanted specific running times.

It's more the 'This is what I thank and it's all completely true and if you don't agree you're dumb' attitude that's tiresome.

Quote from: CainsSon on Jun 30, 2017, 11:24:24 PM
So there it is. Not a single one of these films is a sequel in a big franchise, with a 100m budget, R Rating and over 2 hours.

If you would care to re-read your own post, the part I was replying to was you saying that "R Rated movies aren't made for 100 million dollars". You didn't stipulate there that it needed to be an R Rated franchise film with a 2 hour runtime. Your box office numbers appear to only be domestic as well, which isn't a complete indication of success.

You said that movies over 2 hours don't make money, but the highest grossing movies ever made are over 2 hours. Almost every major studio release these days is over two hours. Almost every Marvel movie grossing $800+ million is over two hours. Scott knows that 2 hours is "more" commercial, but the idea that the studio is standing over his head with a stopwatch is silly.

As for the films you've been a production manager on, I'd love to hear some of them!

Fair enough but whats tiresome to me is hearing people with no understanding of the constraints of the business model trash talk the work of some very talented people. All the hate towards Scalia here and Ridley Scott is what I find tiresome.

He's just doing his job and film is a business.

That said I think he'd be smart to sacrifice some of his desire to make practical sets and settle for more green screen and a 80 million budget that can justify the longer run-time. 80 million and 2hours and 20 min and I think we have something workable, but he has to be willing to compromise certain things a bit, but so do deluded fans who are asking for things that this series cannot conceivably give them. Like a 3 hour 200 million dollar movie with Giger-designed landscapes all practical sets and no CGI for instance.  ;)

QuoteWell, all the hate towards Ridley Scott is what I find tiresome.

Not sure where that came from.

Well if you're going to say there was something in a contract pertaining to running time, then back it up with a link. I've never heard of any film contract including anything about running time.

20th Century Fox stipulating a MANDATORY <2hr running time is different from a casual agreement from both Fox and Ridley, or Ridley putting that edict upon himself.

Don't get so red hot and wild when people innocuously ask for proof. RAWRR!!!!!!!!

Quote from: CainsSon on Jul 01, 2017, 12:00:32 AM
Fair enough but whats tiresome to me is hearing people with no understanding of the constraints of the business model trash talk the work of some very talented people. All the hate towards Scalia here and Ridley Scott is what I find tiresome.

He's just doing his job and film is a business.

I agree there dude.

As do I. Some of the vitriol aimed at Scalia was baffling.

Quote from: SM on Jul 01, 2017, 01:10:06 AM
As do I. Some of the vitriol aimed at Scalia was baffling.

Weird vitriol. Ridley Scott and Pietro Scalia made 11 films together. Scalia is his most frequent collaborator.

I don't hate Ridley Scott or Pietro Scalia, but they do sometimes frustrate me. Scott would be the first person to admit that he sometimes cuts too much footage from his movies, and Scalia frequently mentions wanting movies to be under two hours. When that harms the final product, the blame will inevitably be placed at their feet where it belongs.

I think the final edit of the film was fine. I liked how they linked it back to Prometheus in the middle of the movie. It worked well imo. I'm anxious to see the deleted/extended scenes.

Hate is a strong word. I think disappointed is more accurate. I've got no problem with the editor, I don't like the editing towards the back half, but that could be due to any number of reasons.

I mean look at the material he had to work with. This is a movie that could've began with not only David's dream, but an apartment scene on earth with Daniels and Branson, David and Shaw, David bombing the engineers... it's a lot to piece together cohesively. It's got to wrap up the Prometheus stuff in a way that's satisfying to old viewers but doesn't confuse new viewers. It's been five years. It's reverting back to the old title.

It's amazing the movie is cut as competently as it is. But maybe not given that pietro is a two time oscar winner. ;)

A 1977 film Sorcerer opened with 4 seemingly unrelated prologues all in different places in the world depicting 4 different protagonists in 4 different languages (well actually the first one didn't have any dialog). It lasted 20 minutes. It alienated the audiences AF. It was very artful and I loved it but if Covenant attempted the same, that'd be really hard to pull off...anyway, I felt the opening and the initial exposition on the ship were way more satisfying than the jump from Scottish caves to Prometheus.

Neither of the films have a good flow, although if I have to pick one I would pick Covenant. Prometheus has a really garbled up middle section that's quite jarring. Covenants middle transition to final and final act, there's nothing drastically wrong, it just goes by at bullet pace with almost no tension.

Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 01, 2017, 05:46:11 AM
A 1977 film Sorcerer opened with 4 seemingly unrelated prologues all in different places in the world depicting 4 different protagonists in 4 different languages (well actually the first one didn't have any dialog). It lasted 20 minutes. It alienated the audiences AF. It was very artful and I loved it but if Covenant attempted the same, that'd be really hard to pull off...

The Friday the 13th reboot has three openings and it worked just fine, but each was pretty well connected with the others.

Quote from: SiL on Jul 01, 2017, 10:12:24 AM
The Friday the 13th reboot

:-X

I really liked it and it did well.

Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 01, 2017, 02:33:03 AM
I don't hate Ridley Scott or Pietro Scalia, but they do sometimes frustrate me. Scott would be the first person to admit that he sometimes cuts too much footage from his movies, and Scalia frequently mentions wanting movies to be under two hours. When that harms the final product, the blame will inevitably be placed at their feet where it belongs.

Look. This is unfair. It doesn't belong at their feet that an R-rated film needs to be 2 hours. Ridley is actually looking out for the fans, trying to make sure the film warrants a sequel. If anything you should place blame at the feet of the monopoly of Multiplexes, which have such a vast overhead, they cant make any money unless a film is rated PG13. Many of you dont remember a time when Multiplexes didnt exist. The really took over in the late 90s.
It also doesnt belong at their feet when Fox wants this or that cut. They are contractually obligated to deliver a marketable product for the studio, and the studio has a lot of say in what is in or changed all along. In fact, Covenant and Prometheus took a great deal of risks in their story for franchise films like this. Like David and Walter kissing for instance, and abortion med pod scenes. We owe those types of things to Scott's playing ball with the studio, in areas like these. They trust him because he knows what has to be done.
Furthermore, if there are issues with the runtime its not with the editing, its with the script. A 2-hour script should turn in at around 120 pages. IE Approx 1 page per minute. But a director and an editor can slow the pace down here or there to make things play better. This is why some acts are playing better than others in Covenant and Prometheus. Its in the JOB DESCRIPTION of an editor to make the best R-Rated film he can with the material that was shot, while not messing with the script too much (without approval from the studio, NOT just Scott) while making that come in at the 2 hour mark. These are the kinds of stipulations placed on R-rated films, and they are made by the constraints of the film industry. Any exception to that rule is just an exception proving the rule.
If anything, what you should be thinking is: Make the screenwriters turn in something around 100 pages so the editor and director can slow it down and flesh it out. As an example of this at work - 'ALIEN' for instance is 112 pages. The film is a bit over 2 hours. That extra 8 or so pages are minutes Ridley being allowed to burn slowly in the runtime. It builds tension. Prometheus was 116 pages I believe, and I would argue that like this film, Ridley likes to slow burn some stuff. Meaning, that what normally amounts to 1 minute is 1 page, but Ridley likes to crawl, build tension... He is making some things written as a single page amount to longer than 1 min of screentime, and thats how we end up with something like the first Act of Covenant being longer and better than the rest of the film, because it takes over an hour in Covenant to get to Act 2, and to move along then they have no time to play with the last 2 acts. You see? Act 1 is 1 hour, and its better, but then they have 1 hour left to blow through the next 2 acts.
So if anything: the script needs to be shorter.
Aaaaand
This actually highlights what I think the major difference b/w Alien and its Prequels is, and why the run time is a problem for them. Because they are telling more complicated stories. Unlike Alien, which is very minimal and it can take its time. Prometheus and Covenant have alot more ground to cover in the same runtime.
This is why the scripts need to be shorter.

Quote from: CainsSon on Jul 01, 2017, 08:20:44 PM

Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 01, 2017, 02:33:03 AM
I don't hate Ridley Scott or Pietro Scalia, but they do sometimes frustrate me. Scott would be the first person to admit that he sometimes cuts too much footage from his movies, and Scalia frequently mentions wanting movies to be under two hours. When that harms the final product, the blame will inevitably be placed at their feet where it belongs.

Look. This is unfair. It doesn't belong at their feet that an R-rated film needs to be 2 hours. Ridley is actually looking out for the fans, trying to make sure the film warrants a sequel. If anything you should place blame at the feet of the monopoly of Multiplexes, which have such a vast overhead, they cant make any money unless a film is rated PG13. Many of you dont remember a time when Multiplexes didnt exist. The really took over in the late 90s.
It also doesnt belong at their feet when Fox wants this or that cut. They are contractually obligated to deliver a marketable product for the studio, and the studio has a lot of say in what is in or changed all along. In fact, Covenant and Prometheus took a great deal of risks in their story for franchise films like this. Like David and Walter kissing for instance, and abortion med pod scenes. We owe those types of things to Scott's playing ball with the studio, in areas like these. They trust him because he knows what has to be done.
Furthermore, if there are issues with the runtime its not with the editing, its with the script. A 2-hour script should turn in at around 120 pages. IE Approx 1 page per minute. But a director and an editor can slow the pace down here or there to make things play better. This is why some acts are playing better than others in Covenant and Prometheus. Its in the JOB DESCRIPTION of an editor to make the best R-Rated film he can with the material that was shot, while not messing with the script too much (without approval from the studio, NOT just Scott) while making that come in at the 2 hour mark. These are the kinds of stipulations placed on R-rated films, and they are made by the constraints of the film industry. Any exception to that rule is just an exception proving the rule.
If anything, what you should be thinking is: Make the screenwriters turn in something around 100 pages so the editor and director can slow it down and flesh it out. As an example of this at work - 'ALIEN' for instance is 112 pages. The film is a bit over 2 hours. That extra 8 or so pages are minutes Ridley being allowed to burn slowly in the runtime. It builds tension. Prometheus was 116 pages I believe, and I would argue that like this film, Ridley likes to slow burn some stuff. Meaning, that what normally amounts to 1 minute is 1 page, but Ridley likes to crawl, build tension... He is making some things written as a single page amount to longer than 1 min of screentime, and thats how we end up with something like the first Act of Covenant being longer and better than the rest of the film, because it takes over an hour in Covenant to get to Act 2, and to move along then they have no time to play with the last 2 acts. You see? Act 1 is 1 hour, and its better, but then they have 1 hour left to blow through the next 2 acts.
So if anything: the script needs to be shorter.
Aaaaand
This actually highlights what I think the major difference b/w Alien and its Prequels is, and why the run time is a problem for them. Because they are telling more complicated stories. Unlike Alien, which is very minimal and it can take its time. Prometheus and Covenant have alot more ground to cover in the same runtime.
This is why the scripts need to be shorter.

R rated movies have never been as profitable as PG-13 and below or at least that I'm aware of. If Prometheus and Covenant aren't what Ridley envisioned ( and I've seen no indication that either film wasn't to his liking ) then I think a fair compromise is releasing a director's cut/extended edition on DVD. I highly doubt we get director cuts of either film anytime soon because Ridley seems very happy with the cuts. You said it yourself, the stories in the prequels are much more complex so making the the scripts even shorter would hurt imo. People are already upset at the pacing in both movies, rushing through the acts that do work would make the films even more prone to criticism. I think it's fair to say that most fans would be perfectly fine with a 3 hour film if it works. I'm not sure what the problem was with Covenant's domestic take, but I'm very happy with how the film turned out overall. I think editing was good overall, especially in the middle section of the movie.

QuoteALIEN' for instance is 112 pages. The film is a bit over 2 hours.

The film is under two hours - 116 minutes.

QuoteHe is making some things written as a single page amount to longer than 1 min of screentime,

Every director does this. It also depends on whether the page is action heavy or dialogue heavy. One minute per page is an average across the whole script, not a page by page consideration.

Quoteand thats how we end up with something like the first Act of Covenant being longer and better than the rest of the film, because it takes over an hour in Covenant to get to Act 2, and to move along then they have no time to play with the last 2 acts. You see? Act 1 is 1 hour, and its better, but then they have 1 hour left to blow through the next 2 acts.

Act 2 starts when they land on the planet. The second act is always the longest in the film and Covenant is no exception here.

If they stuck to one Alien (or no Aliens) the movie would have had plenty time to tell it's story. The reveal of the first ever Alien should have been more grand than David throwing rocks off Orams bonce. I would have liked the final movie to introduce the Alien.

I think it really shows through that there was never a plan with any of this.

Quote from: Highland on Jul 01, 2017, 11:36:53 PM
If they stuck to one Alien (or no Aliens) the movie would have had plenty time to tell it's story. The reveal of the first ever Alien should have been more grand than David throwing rocks off Orams bonce. I would have liked the final movie to introduce the Alien.

I think it really shows through that there was never a plan with any of this.

If I had one problem with Covenant, it's this. I would have actually preferred Alien being the first glimpse of the monster. Neomorphs and deacons would have been fine monsters to cover the runtime in Covenant.

Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 02, 2017, 12:57:46 AM

Quote from: Highland on Jul 01, 2017, 11:36:53 PM
If they stuck to one Alien (or no Aliens) the movie would have had plenty time to tell it's story. The reveal of the first ever Alien should have been more grand than David throwing rocks off Orams bonce. I would have liked the final movie to introduce the Alien.

I think it really shows through that there was never a plan with any of this.

If I had one problem with Covenant, it's this. I would have actually preferred Alien being the first glimpse of the monster. Neomorphs and deacons would have been fine monsters to cover the runtime in Covenant.

Not a bad idea either, a chest busted Jockey as the finale. I think the Neomorphs have been overwhelmingly received as a positive even by people who didn't like the film. If Scott had just stuck to his guns I think we could have got a truly scary film with just those as the stars of the show perhaps with some link back to the Deacon. You could have even kept the same ending with David putting the little facehuggers in the drawer. 

Perhaps Scott didn't want to take the risk that the prequels wouldn't get finished. Anyway you can drive yourself mad thinking about the possibilities. In the end he went for the Star Wars version - just make the same movie you did last time with slight differences.

Quote from: Highland on Jul 02, 2017, 06:30:57 AM

Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 02, 2017, 12:57:46 AM

Quote from: Highland on Jul 01, 2017, 11:36:53 PM
If they stuck to one Alien (or no Aliens) the movie would have had plenty time to tell it's story. The reveal of the first ever Alien should have been more grand than David throwing rocks off Orams bonce. I would have liked the final movie to introduce the Alien.

I think it really shows through that there was never a plan with any of this.

If I had one problem with Covenant, it's this. I would have actually preferred Alien being the first glimpse of the monster. Neomorphs and deacons would have been fine monsters to cover the runtime in Covenant.

Not a bad idea either, a chest busted Jockey as the finale. I think the Neomorphs have been overwhelmingly received as a positive even by people who didn't like the film. If Scott had just stuck to his guns I think we could have got a truly scary film with just those as the stars of the show perhaps with some link back to the Deacon. You could have even kept the same ending with David putting the little facehuggers in the drawer. 

Perhaps Scott didn't want to take the risk that the prequels wouldn't get finished. Anyway you can drive yourself mad thinking about the possibilities. In the end he went for the Star Wars version - just make the same movie you did last time with slight differences.

It can be said that a lot of film-makers keep making the same film over and over again.

http://variety.com/2017/film/box-office/marvel-dc-dark-universe-movie-franchise-scorecard-1202478716/#networktype-1/page-1

I know I'm not the only one here who detected a certain 'this isn't Prometheus!' vibe coming from Fox in the lead-up to Covenant. Hell, just calling it Alien with a capital A set it apart from its predecessor. So I can imagine they had real cold feet about opening an Alien film with what was essentially a twelve minute epilogue to a film they were (marketing-wise, at least) trying to distance themselves from...

"I think it really shows through that there was never a plan with any of this."


I've been leaning that way for awhile myself. Quality over quantity. Prometheus should've been the only prequel. They had the right looking planet, and a crashed juggernaut. Change the planet name and some of the characters/events, run it at a healthy 2 to 2.5 hour, lead straight into Alien 1979, and boom.

But it's a business, and it's the age of the "trilogy". That's the road they went down, and now they're lost in the back-country. The studio should have A.D.F. meet with ridley and discuss what was wanted for the third movie. Have Foster write the thing in all its glory. No budget issues, no time limits, no cut footage, no editing problems, no compromises. Then green light Alien 5 for 2019 and let's move on. Movies are a business, films are a product. But at it's core, it's still art, so limit yourself as little as possible. Which is why I say give this particular storyline to Foster. The man does with ink and paper what directors like Ridley and Cameron do with film. He's capable.

I would've cut the intro for sure (David & Weyland), as it makes the whole premise way too blatant. I also don't think that flashbacks belong in Alien movies as the original four movies are very much here-and-now. The audience get to fill possible gaps and such. With that said I would've definitely cut the Bombardment/Engineers scene for the same reasons as well as that whole sequence being way too absolute and demystifying. The flying crane/barge fight is another sequence I would've cut as it is so out of character and stupid. I also find the whole repair sequence of the solar panels superfluous and Hollywood-like. That whole ordeal could've been shortened and should've been from POV of the crew inside the ship rather than the suited up crew outside. Helmet cams, readings and the nervous reactions from the onboard crew would've been more than enough.

If available, I would've added (more scenes or extended scenes taking place in David's "home" (cabinet of horrors) and the Covenant crew's exploration of the Juggernaut. As the last act feels very thin I would've added whatever scenes or extended scenes material there is to flesh it out more. I would've definitely cut the music during the shower scene as it just made it feel really cheesy.

Wow, you want to cut out my top four favorite scenes. The four most epic scenes.

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jul 07, 2017, 12:35:11 AM
Wow, you want to cut out my top four favorite scenes. The four most epic scenes.

I agree, especially the prologue.

Yeah, I'd never cut those scenes out. They're pretty crucial if you ask me. I don't think I'd cut anything out if I could. Well, perhaps the Xenovision... Yeah definitely the Xenovision.

Really? Wow... I guess A:C really got us all quite divided.

I can see why people like the intro, and I appreciate it from a stand-alone point of view, and the same goes for the Bombardment scene - but they really don't fit in. Breaking with tradition so drastically by adding a bunch of flashback scenes just jive really badly with the the original four Alien movies. Like I said - something that I like with the original movies is that they are very much here-and-now, which enhances realism and lets the audience deal with the mysteries surrounding it all the best way they can.

Now, the flying barge/crane fight is pure shit and so moronic. Sorry, but I really can't see how anyone who love the original four movies would be ok with the cheap Matrix-wannabe Fast and the Furious fighting scene A:C threw in our faces. It was just plain dumb. Sorry, but that scene really don't fit in there. Even the AVP movies retracted from that kind of out of character super hero behavior (not counting the Predators of course- they're excused for obvious reasons).

Yeah, the crane fight was kind of unnecessary. But the intro is really good. I think it's perfect for the film. It shows David's arrogance right after he's born, and how Weyland reacts to it. It's deeply connected to his actions later in the film. It's also great to see Guy Pearce as a younger Weyland, it justifies the use of makeup to make him look older in Prometheus. Also, the whole scene looks gorgeous. Great way to open the film, in my opinion. The bombardment scene does feel kind of out of place, I suppose - but it's still a beautiful scene, and the only scene with living engineers so I'd definitely keep it in. Same for any other flashbacks with Shaw, if there were any. Too bad they cut all those out.

The Engineer holocaust is one of the best scenes in AC. It carries an aura of revenge but also of innocence being violated.

Quote from: Evanus on Jul 08, 2017, 12:07:06 AMIt's also great to see Guy Pearce as a younger Weyland, it justifies the use of makeup to make him look older in Prometheus.

I hadn't thought about this, but you're absolutely right. It takes the Prometheus scenes from 'just get an old man!' to a sort of 'after-the-fact prescience'. :D

Quote from: Evanus on Jul 08, 2017, 12:07:06 AMThe bombardment scene does feel kind of out of place, I suppose - but it's still a beautiful scene

This was the scene that made me saddest that the film wasn't in 3D.