Since "Alien 3" there is a tendency to makes the xenomorph looks more and more "fleshy" and less biomecanoid.
But the mechanoid looks it´s what makes the xenomorph original and unique.
But at least the redesignings made by James Cameron(And Stan Winston), David Fincher an Jean Pierre Jeunet still had a powerfull `phisical presence.Even being too "fleshy" for my taste the drone on "Ressurrection" looked cool.
Ridley Scott gave us a xenomorph who looked too much scrawny to be physically intimidating, With that looks and with that spamodic way of moving it does not have any trace of the weird elegance that H.R. Giger brought to the creature.
For God´s sake Ridley!.. All you had to do is what the creators of Alien Islationn did: Bringing back the original design with the minor twist of incorporing the two jointed legs:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81YnoTM6eeL._SL1500_.jpg)
I think that from design point of view fleshy xenos in Covenant were more true to original than ones in Ressurection. I would prefer movie have more practical effects and more Alien-in-shadows scenes but i still love what they did. And i love that contrast between thin appearance and lethal nature.
But i really don't understand what's the point with fleshy appearance in the first place. Give me biomechanical Alien again please!
Appreciate the greater scope of Ridley's vision for these movies and you'll understand the Covenant design is the first in an iterative process. It's David's first 'creation' and lacks the biomechanical features of later creatures we see in 'ALIEN' and 'ALIENS'.
There's a piece of dialogue David delivers at some point (It's not in the movie - I'm not sure of it's origin) that gives it all away "The future is neither organic or synthetic - it's biomechanical". This statement alone tells us he's not finished with the design of the creature. That what we see in 'ALIEN' is yet to be made.
So, it's not a bad design, but part of a much larger plan on the part of the film maker. This story isn't supposed to end with 'ALIEN Covenant'. The movie's closing scene was a clear indicator of more to come.
The Covenant Alien was just the start. ...and yes. Like Stompy, it too has digitigrade legs. (NECA makes good stuff, huh.)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.hideousplastic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CovenantAlien_06.jpg?resize=768%2C1024)
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Mar 03, 2019, 09:42:40 PM
Appreciate the greater scope of Ridley's vision for these movies and you'll understand the Covenant design is the first in an iterative process. It's David's first 'creation' and lacks the biomechanical features of later creatures we see in 'ALIEN' and 'ALIENS'.
There's a piece of dialogue David delivers at some point (It's not in the movie - I'm not sure of it's origin) that gives it all away "The future is neither organic or synthetic - it's biomechanical". This statement alone tells us he's not finished with the design of the creature. That what we see in 'ALIEN' is yet to be made.
So, it's not a bad design, but part of a much larger plan on the part of the film maker. This story isn't supposed to end with 'ALIEN Covenant'. The movie's closing scene was a clear indicator of more to come.
The Covenant Alien was just the start. ...and yes. Like Stompy, it too has digitigrade legs. (NECA makes good stuff, huh.)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.hideousplastic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CovenantAlien_06.jpg?resize=768%2C1024)
-Windebieste.
I understand what you said on logical level but cannot accept on emotional. Even if it part of bigger story it still feels as they tease me and eager to do anything but not what i really want. And i want biomechanical look of creature. If it looks so great in movie made in 79 just imagine how great it would look now with all stuff that we have!
Quote from: windebieste on Mar 03, 2019, 09:42:40 PM
Appreciate the greater scope of Ridley's vision for these movies and you'll understand the Covenant design is the first in an iterative process. It's David's first 'creation' and lacks the biomechanical features of later creatures we see in 'ALIEN' and 'ALIENS'.
There's a piece of dialogue David delivers at some point (It's not in the movie - I'm not sure of it's origin) that gives it all away "The future is neither organic or synthetic - it's biomechanical". This statement alone tells us he's not finished with the design of the creature. That what we see in 'ALIEN' is yet to be made.
So, it's not a bad design, but part of a much larger plan on the part of the film maker. This story isn't supposed to end with 'ALIEN Covenant'. The movie's closing scene was a clear indicator of more to come.
The Covenant Alien was just the start. ...and yes. Like Stompy, it too has digitigrade legs. (NECA makes good stuff, huh.)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.hideousplastic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CovenantAlien_06.jpg?resize=768%2C1024)
-Windebieste.
Honestly I think the idea this xenomorph being a "prototype" it´s just mere fan illution and dellirium and the real thing is that Ridley Scott, taking advantage of modern CGI just wanted to create a xenomorph with a body shape that it would look less "human on suit". After all that was one of his obssesions on the 1979 film-
For that same reason he made on Covenant what he wanted on 1979 but that time technology could not afford: A traslucent skin xenomorph.
Even fans insistingthat the Covenant creature is a new one called "protomorph" if you check movie merchadising like the funko pop is named "xenomorph".
Well, we gave them really great explanation to what they had done ;D
Quote from: Kradan on Mar 03, 2019, 09:58:42 PM
Well, we gave them really great explanation to what they had done ;D
Cameron and Fincher were the only one they worried to create an excuse for the xenomorph design changes.
It´s said that the physicial difference on the "Ressurrection" donre is but the fact they are not "pure" xenomormph but a derivative one created by genetic ingeniering and "contaminated" by Ripleys´DNA, but again something created by fans not by Jeunet himself.
The problem that I have with the Alien in Alien:Covenant stems more from it's usage rather than its design but its design is off as well.
My issue with the design is that it's just kind of bland. While one could argue its due to this being an early iteration, no cinematic Alien has been identical film to film meaning that at the end of the day, it's just kind of bland. The design is basically an exaggerated skinned human with a phallic head. It means nothing when you consider that there is no baseline.
What makes Alien designs good is the bio-mechanical look which also lends itself nicely to the insect nature of the creature. The Aliens of past films largely use this to help make the Alien stand out. The little bits of tubing or the carapace in places are all here to serve the design in catching the viewers eye. To the audience member who re-watches the film, you get a bit more out of the Alien the longer you look at it because of a richness of detail. But if I was to take off the head, back tubes, and tail, turn it red while placing it in something like the camp in Predators, you'd never know that was the Alien would you?
As I also said in the Skull thread, the Alien's skull is pretty much only here to be intimidating. It's presence is that of a screaming monster. However the Skull works on a number of levels and one of those being the "point of origin". For Ripley, "Kaine's son" is this nightmarish beast, it came out of one of her friends and is almost mockingly human despite being incapable of being reasoned with. It only looks human and further plays up the rape allegory that got her friends and the monster's paternal half killed. That and when the rape allegory occurs, it's further made uncomfortable by its human appearance which is warped by its otherworldly parentage. In Requiem while a nod to the Big Chap, the skull performs the same function. It's presence is almost mocking to Wolf as he's not only surprised this happened it's also using his people's strength against him and defiled a young warrior's honor to do it.
In Alien:Covenant its merely here to make the Alien look intimidating. While ALIENS dropped this for shooting reasons, it worked in its favor because it allowed it to play up the action while not forgetting its parasitic insect origins.
Quote from: SuperiorIronman on Mar 03, 2019, 10:34:44 PM
The problem that I have with the Alien in Alien:Covenant stems more from it's usage rather than its design but its design is off as well.
My issue with the design is that it's just kind of bland. While one could argue its due to this being an early iteration, no cinematic Alien has been identical film to film meaning that at the end of the day, it's just kind of bland. The design is basically an exaggerated skinned human with a phallic head. It means nothing when you consider that there is no baseline.
What makes Alien designs good is the bio-mechanical look which also lends itself nicely to the insect nature of the creature. The Aliens of past films largely use this to help make the Alien stand out. The little bits of tubing or the carapace in places are all here to serve the design in catching the viewers eye. To the audience member who re-watches the film, you get a bit more out of the Alien the longer you look at it because of a richness of detail. But if I was to take off the head, back tubes, and tail, turn it red while placing it in something like the camp in Predators, you'd never know that was the Alien would you?
As I also said in the Skull thread, the Alien's skull is pretty much only here to be intimidating. It's presence is that of a screaming monster. However the Skull works on a number of levels and one of those being the "point of origin". For Ripley, "Kaine's son" is this nightmarish beast, it came out of one of her friends and is almost mockingly human despite being incapable of being reasoned with. It only looks human and further plays up the rape allegory that got her friends and the monster's paternal half killed. That and when the rape allegory occurs, it's further made uncomfortable by its human appearance which is warped by its otherworldly parentage. In Requiem while a nod to the Big Chap, the skull performs the same function. It's presence is almost mocking to Wolf as he's not only surprised this happened it's also using his people's strength against him and defiled a young warrior's honor to do it.
In Alien:Covenant its merely here to make the Alien look intimidating. While ALIENS dropped this for shooting reasons, it worked in its favor because it allowed it to play up the action while not forgetting its parasitic insect origins.
I could not agree more.
No.
It's beautiful, a prototype returns the Alien's basic sophistication and elegance.
(Absent cinema since everything after 1992.) Thank you Odd Studios and MPC.
Although the Isolation Alien's a superior version, (the superlative Alien design)
H.R Giger's biomechanical vision and sexualisation enhance the Alien, of course.
(https://i.imgur.com/EcieIc5.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0jEtZ9N.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Pg1xoU0.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/P4FU0We.jpg)
All GORGEOUS, personal favourite's
the airbrushed Alien³ Xenomorph.
& The Alien monarch's beautiful, of course.
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 03, 2019, 11:02:58 PM
No.
It's beautiful, a prototype returns the Alien's basic sophistication and elegance.
(Absent cinema since everything after 1992.) Thank you Odd Studios and MFX.
Although the Isolation Alien's a superior version, (the superlative Alien design)
H.R Giger's biomechanical vision and sexualisation enhance the Alien, of course.
(https://i.imgur.com/EcieIc5.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0jEtZ9N.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Pg1xoU0.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/P4FU0We.jpg)
All GORGEOUS, personal favourite's
the airbrushed Alien³ Xenomorph.
& The Alien monarch's beautiful, of course.
I miss the "ressurrection" design.
The Resurrection design's mediocre and autonomous Resurrection; incongruous Pumpkinhead pastiche garbage.
1 - The two jointed legs are heresy.
2 - Non-biomechanial aliens are heresy.
3 - Still liked it more than any of the ADI ones, not that it means much.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Mar 03, 2019, 11:57:24 PM
1 - The two jointed legs are heresy.
2 - Non-biomechanial aliens are heresy.
3 - Still liked it more than any of the ADI ones, not that it means much.
What ADI means?
And sorry but I think the "Alien Ressurrection" drone looks scool, specially on swimming possition:
(https://shop.eaglemoss.com/usa/images/shop_products/4f983ad8-8c37-4c73-8fc1-bb11e7020272.jpg)
Its the company that made the aliens from Alien 3, Alien R., AVP and AVPR.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnsmKPjH.jpg&hash=416f2990ad39bfdb344c9d858fc7d6f51063ea5b)
^ Garbage. Worst design.
ADI = Amalgamated Dynamics Incorporated.
Alien designers 1992, 1997, 2004, 2007.
Bad Alien Adult designer's
(Newborn's technical brilliance though) 1997-2007.
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 12:09:59 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnsmKPjH.jpg&hash=416f2990ad39bfdb344c9d858fc7d6f51063ea5b)
(https://pics.me.me/it-was-the-most-unholy-thing-i-have-ever-seen-26545670.png)
Quote from: Samhain13 on Mar 04, 2019, 12:07:31 AM
Its the company that made the aliens from Alien 3, Alien R., AVP and AVPR.
Amalgamted Dynamics: Sadly Ridley Scott didn want to use their experience on alien mechanical effects and suit in favor of using CGI in all scenes where the xenomorph is involved:
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 12:15:12 AM
Cockroach headed Alien.
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 12:11:12 AM
^ Garbage. Worst design.
With all respect I disagree: Covenant is the worst design: As someone have said a bladn ultraskinny human figure with a penis head. It lacks detail and elaboration:
(https://cache.popcultcha.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/a/l/alien-covenant-xenomorph-life-size-replica-19.1516690012.jpg)
I would alway preffer the steamlined look of Jeunet´s swimming aliens
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 12:21:51 AM
(https://cache.popcultcha.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/a/l/alien-covenant-xenomorph-life-size-replica-19.1516690012.jpg)
Now that does not look good, I remember it looking better on the movie. I might need to finally watch Covenant for the second time.
I don't mind the skinny limbs, I just don't like the texture of the skin. And the flimsy tubes.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Mar 04, 2019, 12:25:13 AM
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 12:21:51 AM
(https://cache.popcultcha.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/a/l/alien-covenant-xenomorph-life-size-replica-19.1516690012.jpg)
Now that does not look good, I remember it looking better on the movie. I might need to finally watch Covenant for the second time.
Judge yourself:
(https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fjohnarcher%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F08%2FAlienCovenantAlien.jpg)
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/8d54f0833882065eb848003d5f67b7c4/tumblr_oua94xkyXG1s2xbj9o4_500.gif)
The Resurrection Alien's gelatinous garbage. No elegance.
The above's a superior streamline, organic Alien.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 04, 2019, 12:29:20 AM
I don't mind the skinny limbs, I just don't like the texture of the skin. And the flimsy tubes.
Those two things bothered me too.
It´s a terrible design.
At least H.R Giger loved the Ressurrection xenos.
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 12:31:56 AM
(https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fjohnarcher%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F08%2FAlienCovenantAlien.jpg)
https://66.media.tumblr.com/8d54f0833882065eb848003d5f67b7c4/tumblr_oua94xkyXG1s2xbj9o4_500.gif
The Resurrection Alien's gelatinous garbage. No elegance.
The above's a superior streamline, organic Alien.
I disagree.It has no elegance on his design neither his way of moving.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 13, 2019, 11:21:15 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 13, 2019, 10:36:44 PM
Actually Giger didn't, I remember reading that he called it a piece of sh*t or a turd or something like that. I don't remember the exact phrase he used.
https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/alien-resurrection-hybrid-theory/ (https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/alien-resurrection-hybrid-theory/)
Quote"I always wanted my Alien to be a very beautiful thing, not just something disgusting, not just a monster, but something aesthetic. Throughout the creature's evolution what they've done is change it from something aesthetic to something that looks like shit – I mean literally, it looks like a turd."
~ HR Giger, Alien Evolution, 2001.
:laugh:
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 12:31:23 AM
Quote from: Samhain13 on Mar 04, 2019, 12:25:13 AM
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 12:21:51 AM
(https://cache.popcultcha.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/a/l/alien-covenant-xenomorph-life-size-replica-19.1516690012.jpg)
Now that does not look good, I remember it looking better on the movie. I might need to finally watch Covenant for the second time.
Judge yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rcMAo1vplw
Texture/skin looked better on the movie than on the statue, the 4 legged running bothered me more. I like my aliens standing up like men, not dogs.
Skinny aliens can look fine, the ones on Labyrinth were good. Its about what they are made of, aka being goddamn biomechanical.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 04, 2019, 12:35:59 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 13, 2019, 11:21:15 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 13, 2019, 10:36:44 PM
Actually Giger didn't, I remember reading that he called it a piece of sh*t or a turd or something like that. I don't remember the exact phrase he used.
https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/alien-resurrection-hybrid-theory/ (https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/alien-resurrection-hybrid-theory/)
Quote"I always wanted my Alien to be a very beautiful thing, not just something disgusting, not just a monster, but something aesthetic. Throughout the creature's evolution what they've done is change it from something aesthetic to something that looks like shit – I mean literally, it looks like a turd."
~ HR Giger, Alien Evolution, 2001.
:laugh:
Giger literally said nothing wrong.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 04, 2019, 12:35:59 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 13, 2019, 11:21:15 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 13, 2019, 10:36:44 PM
Actually Giger didn't, I remember reading that he called it a piece of sh*t or a turd or something like that. I don't remember the exact phrase he used.
https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/alien-resurrection-hybrid-theory/ (https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/alien-resurrection-hybrid-theory/)
Quote"I always wanted my Alien to be a very beautiful thing, not just something disgusting, not just a monster, but something aesthetic. Throughout the creature's evolution what they've done is change it from something aesthetic to something that looks like shit – I mean literally, it looks like a turd."
~ HR Giger, Alien Evolution, 2001.
:laugh:
Yeah I was wrong, I remembered he claimed be credited on Ressurrection so I though he endorsed the new design, but I didn´remember the rest of the information.
The Covenant alien texture is horrible instead of loo like a exoskeleton it looks like a body with its skin peeled of what suggest vulnerability and weakness.
H.R Giger's correct. The Resurrection design's trash.
The MPC Alien's a beautiful creature, man's animalistic distortion.
Isolation Alien > H.R Giger's Alien > Alien³ > Aliens > MPC Alien > The Newborn > Trash > AR = AVP Alien > AVPR
Original Giger 1978/9 Big Chap.
Nothing before - or since can touch it.
Except... the Alien Monarch, the Alien³ design and the Isolation enhancement of the original H.R Giger design. ;D
Alien Monarch?
Are we talking about the Alien King?
James Cameron's Queen, because "Queen" is incorrect- sex isn't applicable.
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 03:01:41 AM
James Cameron's Queen, because "Queen" is incorrect- sex isn't applicable.
I'm willing to try if she is.
How often does one get to share their bed with royalty?
Thirsty.
More feisty than thirsty, although I could use an aquafina.
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 03:02:22 AM
James Cameron's Queen, because "Queen" is incorrect- sex isn't applicable.
(https://readingtosleep.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/08afc-giphy.gif)
But in all seriousness, I've realised what I don't like about the Covenant Alien. It doesn't look like an alien, it looks like a licker from resident evil with an alien head.
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/8d54f0833882065eb848003d5f67b7c4/tumblr_oua94xkyXG1s2xbj9o4_500.gif)
(https://i.gifer.com/BOlc.gif)
Quote from: Stitch on Mar 04, 2019, 03:08:58 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 03:02:22 AM
James Cameron's Queen, because "Queen" is incorrect- sex isn't applicable.
https://readingtosleep.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/08afc-giphy.gif
There is nothing there on my alien figures.
I completely agree with Stitch.
I get the Écorché approach but frankly the end result has nothing to do with Giger's work. Superficial resemblance and it's not even interestingly rough.
And yes I hate it. Like almost everything in Alien Covenant.
Some of you dislike the fact the alien having two joints legs and at the same time wanting the alien to movie bipedly. and not quadripedly like we see it on "Alien Covenant".
But the fact is that if the you show the xenomorph walking bipedly with one joint its movement looks too much human and "man on suit", thats the reason why Ridley Scott avoided on 1979 to show full body shots of the xenomorph walking.
Even whe it was intended to film the xenomorph walking on a full body shot the made Bolaji Badejo, perform some kind of "crab walking" instead walking erected on his two legs (Thanks God it was deleted cause it´s laughable):
But if you take the Big Chap from "Alien" and give him two joints legs, you can show him walking without its movements looking too much human and without the sensation is a man in disguise. So for me the design on "Alien Isolation" is perfect:
https://vimeo.com/205286480
Quote from: Samhain13 on Mar 04, 2019, 03:11:10 AM
Quote from: Stitch on Mar 04, 2019, 03:08:58 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 03:02:22 AM
James Cameron's Queen, because "Queen" is incorrect- sex isn't applicable.
https://readingtosleep.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/08afc-giphy.gif
There is nothing there on my alien figures.
No joke, the ancient Halcyon resin kit of the Queen had a vagina. Not just some kind of egg laying orifice, labia and everything.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Mar 04, 2019, 09:23:14 AM
Quote from: Samhain13 on Mar 04, 2019, 03:11:10 AM
Quote from: Stitch on Mar 04, 2019, 03:08:58 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 03:02:22 AM
James Cameron's Queen, because "Queen" is incorrect- sex isn't applicable.
https://readingtosleep.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/08afc-giphy.gif
There is nothing there on my alien figures.
No joke, the ancient Halcyon resin kit of the Queen had a vagina. Not just some kind of egg laying orifice, labia and everything.
It´s called the"Queen"as the term is used when we talk about bee hives social structure.
And she has the capability of breeding, that makes her by logic a "female" being.
If Ridley Scott wanted the xenomorph on "Alien Covenant" with skinny limbs and moving quadripedly he better should have used the Giger´s xenomorh redesign for "Alien 3". At leat it would have got the classic biomechanoid aesthetic:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scified.com%2Fu%2F185501513_37d128dd4c_o.jpg&hash=f9793ff7517a68eff04f5c59b451b742e0da1449)
(https://bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/alien3eroticdesign6.jpg)
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 09:35:35 AM
If Ridley Scott wanted the xenomorph on "Alien Covenant" with skinny limbs and moving quadripedly he better should have used the Giger´s xenomorh redesign for "Alien 3". At leat it would have got the classic biomechanoid aesthetic:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scified.com%2Fu%2F185501513_37d128dd4c_o.jpg&hash=f9793ff7517a68eff04f5c59b451b742e0da1449)
(https://bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/alien3eroticdesign6.jpg)
In all fairness, as much as I like Giger's work, that design doesn't work for Alien, in my opinion.
It does, however, look like something that could work for Sil from Species, which is unsurprising given that Giger designed Sil.
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 09:15:14 AM
...
But if you take the Big Chap from "Alien" and give him two joints legs, you can show him walking without its movements looking too much human and without the sensation is a man in disguise. So for me the design on "Alien Isolation" is perfect:
...
I like the feet of the
Covenant xeno; which is a cross between the plantigrade feet of Alien '79 and the digitigrade feet of
Isolation.
Yes, Scott was doing all he could to avoid the man-in-rubber-suit horror movie syndrome, but ironically, in the end (and despite Scott's best efforts), retaining the human bipedal form became an essential part of the bastardised perversion of human anatomy that is intrinsic to the Giger design.
TC
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 09:35:36 AM
It´s called the"Queen"as the term is used when we talk about bee hives social structure.
And she has the capability of breeding, that makes her by logic a "female" being.
"These things ain't Ants man, Bees, man. Bees have hives."
The Alien is
Alien. I̶n̶s̶e̶c̶t̶
Incorrect;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy
https://tinyurl.com/BBCAsexsualAnimals
"I suppose it's worth noting that, in the other excellent answers,
while the male gives birth (for some definition of "birth"), the eggs are produced by the female.
Why is this?
Because the term "female" was assigned by humans,
so it was been defined to align with our expectations:
Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs,
distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa,
with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
Greatly simplified, the one producing the larger gamete is called "female",
which correlates with bearing the young because larger often means less mobile
-regardless of how little that matters to the species in question.
Take most fish as an example: the females produce large quantities of eggs and deposit them somewhere,
and the males produce large quantities of sperm and deposit them somewhere. The terms "male" and "female"
don't have the same connotations as they would with land animals.
If "female" were defined as "the ones which carry and birth the young"
sea horses would be notable for having "males" which produce eggs, rather than "males" which give birth.
TL;DR: "male" and "female" are useful terms,
but don't get too hung up on them or be surprised when a species reproduces in ways
that don't fit neatly into those boxes."
Fleshy xenos aren't real xenos in my book.
(AVP & AVPR) Resurrection's the exclusion IMO.
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 01:12:25 PM
(AVP & AVPR) Resurrection's the exclusion IMO.
Tha AVP xeno is exactly the same desing used on Ressurrection, they recycled the xeno suits and animatronics from the Jean Pierre Jeunet´s film.
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 01:45:43 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 01:12:25 PM
(AVP & AVPR) Resurrection's the exclusion IMO.
Tha AVP xeno is exactly the same desing used on Ressurrection, they recycled the xeno suits and animatronics from the Jean Pierre Jeunet´s film.
That they did. But they changed the legs and the hands if i recall correctly.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Mar 04, 2019, 01:47:21 PM
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 01:45:43 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 01:12:25 PM
(AVP & AVPR) Resurrection's the exclusion IMO.
Tha AVP xeno is exactly the same desing used on Ressurrection, they recycled the xeno suits and animatronics from the Jean Pierre Jeunet´s film.
That they did. But they changed the legs and the hands if i recall correctly.
Minor changes. Practically you almost never see a full body shot of the alien standing still so the changing of the legs are unoticiable. And the hands are so similar that looks unnoticiable.
The 90% of the time you see the same face, head and torso you saw on Alien Ressurrection.
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 02:27:00 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Mar 04, 2019, 01:47:21 PM
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 01:45:43 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 04, 2019, 01:12:25 PM
(AVP & AVPR) Resurrection's the exclusion IMO.
Tha AVP xeno is exactly the same desing used on Ressurrection, they recycled the xeno suits and animatronics from the Jean Pierre Jeunet´s film.
That they did. But they changed the legs and the hands if i recall correctly.
Minor changes. Practically you almost never see a full body shot of the alien standing still so the changing of the legs are unoticiable. And the hands are so similar that looks unnoticiable.
The 90% of the time you see the same face, head and torso you saw on Alien Ressurrection.
While the hands are just a little bit more clunky, they took a joint from the leg, making it stand and walk somewhat different.
But you are right, it is barely noticeable in the movie. I doubt anybody besides people like the guys and gals on this site noticed it while watching the movie.
If you directly compare them however, it is noticeable.
Even on "Alien Ressurrection" the two jointed leg detail is hardly noticeable since we only see the the alien walking erected on one very short shot after Elgyn´s dead
We see full body shots of the alien later on the underwater scene, of course but again it´s hardly to realize because they ar swiming, no walking.
Personally I didn´t realize to two jointed legs since two years later when I saw an Alien Ressurrection drone figure on a comic book London Shop called "Forbidden planet", and on those 2 years I have already seen the movie may times!.
I'm so glad we've moved on from that design.
Quote from: TC on Mar 04, 2019, 12:18:08 PM
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 09:15:14 AM
...
But if you take the Big Chap from "Alien" and give him two joints legs, you can show him walking without its movements looking too much human and without the sensation is a man in disguise. So for me the design on "Alien Isolation" is perfect:
...
I like the feet of the Covenant xeno; which is a cross between the plantigrade feet of Alien '79 and the digitigrade feet of Isolation.
Yes, Scott was doing all he could to avoid the man-in-rubber-suit horror movie syndrome, but ironically, in the end (and despite Scott's best efforts), retaining the human bipedal form became an essential part of the bastardised perversion of human anatomy that is intrinsic to the Giger design.
TC
But you are forgeting the fact that on Covenant the xeno walk on its four legs almost all time and not bipedly.
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 05, 2019, 12:18:16 AM
...
But you are forgeting the fact that on Covenant the xeno walk on its four legs almost all time and not bipedly.
No, I didn't forget. I wanted to comment on the foot morphology only. The locomotion style is something else again. (For the record, I prefer the upright stance.)
TC
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 12:21:51 AM
(https://cache.popcultcha.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/a/l/alien-covenant-xenomorph-life-size-replica-19.1516690012.jpg)
It's a very good design, better than anything since A L I EN, it has a semblance of medieval depictions of hell and demons that inspired a lot of Giger's work in the first place. So it's fitting that it's supposed to be a precursor to the big chap, and that David is portrayed as a sort of 'in universe' version of Giger. Makes perfect sense.
I'll take the 2nd and 3rd movies over that one any day, but it's not the worst design by a looooooong shot. A good prototype design.
Quote from: Gash on Mar 06, 2019, 09:57:02 AM
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 04, 2019, 12:21:51 AM
(https://cache.popcultcha.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1800x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/a/l/alien-covenant-xenomorph-life-size-replica-19.1516690012.jpg)
It's a very good design, better than anything since A L I EN, it has a semblance of medieval depictions of hell and demons that inspired a lot of Giger's work in the first place. So it's fitting that it's supposed to be a precursor to the big chap, and that David is portrayed as a sort of 'in universe' version of Giger. Makes perfect sense.
I´m going to see it again: It´s no a protoyte o a precursor, it´s not a protomorph, it´s the XENEMORPH,
(https://www.dhresource.com/0x0s/f2-albu-g6-M00-69-07-rBVaR1sVCkaALEsKAAGU38R9VeU880.jpg/alien-covenant-xenomorph-10-action-figure.jpg)
the same creature we have already saw on previous movie, It´s just that the capricious Ridleys Scott redesigning the H. R. Giger´s creation and ruining it, making it a pale reflection of the original one just as "Alien Covenant", is to the original "Alien".
Incorrect, it's intentional.
"The Protomorph." -Colin Shulver
"The prequels, it's a transition through the H.R Giger aesthetic." -Chris Seagers
Paraphrasing.
"The future isn't organic or synthetic, it's biomechanical." -David Weyland
(Michael Fassbender)
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 06, 2019, 10:42:04 AM
Incorrect, it's intentional.
"The Protomorph." -Colin Shulver
"The prequels, it's a transition through the H.R Giger aesthetic." -Chris Seagers
Paraphrasing.
"The future isn't organic or synthetic, it's biomechanical." -David Weyland
(Michael Fassbender)
They can improvise and quote any excuse for explaining why the creatrue looks different hidding the real director´s purpose:To take adavantage of CGI and modern fx´s and creating a version he considered it much more refined, But before the film release, when they were created the film, it was called as it was called and that betray them:
(https://media.game.es/COVERV2/3D_L/138/138568.png)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scifimoviepage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F06%2FIMG_4541.jpg&hash=9dfb8cdf2d2a5b6af2689e662497cd415ef69556)
It does not matter the lies the built for answering the claims of fan after watching the film, it´s the original and real intentions what it counts.
Cause for helping to the film acceptance they don´t have any problemes about lying...Do you remember when they said that all the confusing elements on the plot would be answered on "Alien Covenant"?. We are still wating those answers 2 years after the film premiere. They didn´t explain any dam thing.
Still incorrect.
"It doesn't fit my narrative so they're liars!" ::)
You'll get that a lot in fandoms ...
Quote from: SiL on Mar 06, 2019, 12:34:20 PM
You'll get that a lot in fandoms ...
Many people argueb about the many unanaswered uestions raised on Prometheus as "Why the black lquid effects is so whimsical?", "I´s the planet and the spaceship the same from "Aliens" and in case not how is possible a derelict on another planet virtually identical to the one on Acheron?"., "If the engineers invited us to meet the why one of them attack us?". "Wich is the deacon place on the xeomorph evolution"?, "If the xenomorph is not created yet why there is on depicted on the spaceship walls?"......and the crude thing is in "Alien Covenant" they delete the ingenieers suddenlly and unceremonously and with them all the open questions from "Prometheus".
Of course if we ask now to Ridley Scott and the writers, they will ask "Don´t worry we´ll give you the answers on the third one", cause they really thing audience can be easilly cheated. After all the Prometheus main wirter was Damon Lindelof, the guy after "Lost", a guy specialized on smokes an mirrors.
And that´s not a problem about don´t fiting on my narrative, I am a really open minded viewer and on this franchise I have already accepted many thins on "Aliens", "Alien 3", and "Alien ressurrection" tha was not on my book.
But there is one difference between being "open minded", an acepting all without judgment.
I'm going to just point this out, the Deacon would be the proto-Xenomorph. The Deacon is the earliest one in the timeline and not the Covenant Xenomorph.
Not calling the Xenomorph in Covenant a proper Alien is simply being pedantic. Because if we do have to consider the Prequels as the origin, then this is it. This is the earliest the Alien exists in the timeline until the next film screws up the timeline more. There is no baseline in these films so being general about the design is fine.
What do I mean?
It spawns from an egg hosting a facehugger, it attaches and JOs down somebodies throat, out pops a bundle of gross, and it grows up to be a screaming skeleton with a penis head.
If our argument against it is the chestburster.., well the Runner starts formed and we have no idea if this is because it grew inside of its host or if that chestburster merely starts that way. We also got ALIENS which gives them arms, and even the Queen burster had developing arms.So regardless something like this can happen as weird as it is. There is precedent that they don't always start as penis snakes with the Runner being the most developed.
And if our argument is the physical form, well as bad as the design is, there's also some minor precedent for it. We know the PredAlien will typically develop a more fleshy appearance taking on the added muscle of its host. It might not be out of the question for it to do that for a human. And we know that the carapace does develop over time. As boring as the design in Covenant is, we know they eventually gain more shell.
For all intents and purposes it is the Xenomorph, even if the showing isn't great it might as well be seeing as if it wasn't suposed to be we would've just stuck with a Deacon or Neo-morph.
In addition, if this is isn't supposed to be the proper Xenomorph then David has not created the Xenomorph. In Covenant he would've just made a passable attempt no different than the scientists in Alien:Resurrection. However if David did create the Xenomorph then this it, and as weird as the design is, this is what a Xenomorph looks like in some capacity. We can't say that is a Xenomorph and that David made them and then backtrack on that statement by saying it's not totally the Xenomorph.
The PredAlien's non-canon garbage.
The (Deacon and all) Neomorphs' the Pathogen's result.
The "Xenomorph" is unique, it's autonomous.
The Protomorph's presence's purpose is the Prototype Alien version.
Quote from: SuperiorIronman on Mar 06, 2019, 01:35:43 PM
And if our argument is the physical form, well as bad as the design is, there's also some minor precedent for it. We know the PredAlien will typically develop a more fleshy appearance taking on the added muscle of its host. It might not be out of the question for it to do that for a human. And we know that the carapace does develop over time. As boring as the design in Covenant is, we know they eventually gain more shell.
The Predalien design changes a lot from each entry they appear, some were less fleshy and more biomeachanical, its more of a design choice by those in charge. Some thought that making it more predator like would be cool. I doubt Ridley noticed the difference between Covenant's design and the original, for him they are probably the same.
Quote from: SuperiorIronman on Mar 06, 2019, 01:35:43 PM
I'm going to just point this out, the Deacon would be the proto-Xenomorph. The Deacon is the earliest one in the timeline and not the Covenant Xenomorph.
Not calling the Xenomorph in Covenant a proper Alien is simply being pedantic. Because if we do have to consider the Prequels as the origin, then this is it. This is the earliest the Alien exists in the timeline until the next film screws up the timeline more. There is no baseline in these films so being general about the design is fine.
What do I mean?
It spawns from an egg hosting a facehugger, it attaches and JOs down somebodies throat, out pops a bundle of gross, and it grows up to be a screaming skeleton with a penis head.
If our argument against it is the chestburster.., well the Runner starts formed and we have no idea if this is because it grew inside of its host or if that chestburster merely starts that way. We also got ALIENS which gives them arms, and even the Queen burster had developing arms.So regardless something like this can happen as weird as it is. There is precedent that they don't always start as penis snakes with the Runner being the most developed.
And if our argument is the physical form, well as bad as the design is, there's also some minor precedent for it. We know the PredAlien will typically develop a more fleshy appearance taking on the added muscle of its host. It might not be out of the question for it to do that for a human. And we know that the carapace does develop over time. As boring as the design in Covenant is, we know they eventually gain more shell.
For all intents and purposes it is the Xenomorph, even if the showing isn't great it might as well be seeing as if it wasn't suposed to be we would've just stuck with a Deacon or Neo-morph.
In addition, if this is isn't supposed to be the proper Xenomorph then David has not created the Xenomorph. In Covenant he would've just made a passable attempt no different than the scientists in Alien:Resurrection. However if David did create the Xenomorph then this it, and as weird as the design is, this is what a Xenomorph looks like in some capacity. We can't say that is a Xenomorph and that David made them and then backtrack on that statement by saying it's not totally the Xenomorph.
We can use our imagination to elaborate the answers and spare the filmaker´s job.
O we can asume they made a clumsy and neglected work thinking that being the 90% of the audience casual and no very well versed on the alien mithology and timeline, it would not affect the film success.
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 06, 2019, 02:15:36 PM
I disagree. The film's professionals expressed it's intentional.
Say what you will about the man, but Ridley Scott's eyes are the best in the business.
Well then put me the link where is answered all those questions about Prometheus.
It would be the best eyes when he made "The Duelist", "Alien", "Blade Runner", "Thelma & Louise" or even "The Gladiator" and "Kingdom" of Heaven
And maybe when he made on 1979 "Alien" he was a young director willing to make himself a name and to prove his talent.
Now is´an elder man a 81 old directo whose status is perfected set on the industry as producer an director, who has not future to assure ad have fallen on self-indulgence, and instead good flicks now they give us mediocre movies as "Robin Hood",, "The Counselor" or "Exodus". The only exception is "The Martian", that is good but not great.
At least the Blade Runner sequel was directed by Denis Villeneuve Thank God.
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 06, 2019, 01:48:55 PM
The PredAlien's non-canon garbage, inconsequential.
The (Deacon and all) Neomorphs' the Pathogen's result.
The "Xenomorph" is unique, it's autonomous.
The Protomorph's presence's purpose is the Prototype Alien version.
So then the Alien can't have been created by David because what we see in Covenant is a work in progress.
Or... it's David's Prototype. The perfect version and the Derelict's crash is consecutive.
So there is a derelict exactly similar one to other in all planets of the alien universe except on "Fury 161" and Earth?
It´s a little preposterous and hard to believe Isn´t?.
The prequels is a set of ideas and concept disjointed and without any coherence, a total messed not even the most talented screenwriter could fix and integrate right now. Kudos to mister Landelof and mister Scott.
That´s what happens when you start to create a prequel alien movies, in the middle of the development progress you say "Ey, wait a moment, we have decided we are going to make a phylosofical hard science ficition movie set in the Alien Universe but without the xenomorph about mankind origins, and in the last moment you decide that "Prometheus" need some xenomorph hints and you ada xenomorph form on wall, the trilobite and the deacon birth without bothering about making any explanation.
They never made up their mind about if they wanted to make a stragiht Alien horror movie or "2001" type flick, finally what they delivered neither of those things.
Then for the sequel, they say: "Ok, many people where disapointed with "Prometheus" in the sake of the box officce success we are going to give them what they always wanted: A straight and pure Alien film.....yet but one who bassicaly is a remake of the first one with some bits of the second one in the form os a little action sequence with guns and shooting.......
And now the cinematography alien franchise is sunk people are regreting Fox didn´t prefer the "Alien 5" Neil Blomkamp´s project and they only hope for the Alien franchise could be television.
Maybe you should take some valium for all that hate you seem to have for Ridley Scott.
And all of the points you are trying to make are factually wrong.
Quote from: P-Rock on Mar 06, 2019, 11:52:25 PM
Maybe you should take some valium for all that hate you seem to have for Ridley Scott.
And all of the points you are trying to make are factually wrong.
I followed all the Promerheus devellpment on movie media news and believe me that it how it happened.
Ont the other hand mt view of the prequels is jut a personal opinion and if something has a very different opiniom about that is not a problem for me
But at least mine is an argued opinion while other people only words are "You are wrong", "Filmakers knew what they were making" withoiut any argument to support those statements.
Quote from: P-Rock on Mar 06, 2019, 11:52:25 PM
Maybe you should take some valium for all that hate you seem to have for Ridley Scott.
And all of the points you are trying to make are factually wrong.
Yup, I'll go with that.
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 07, 2019, 01:13:16 AM
Quote from: P-Rock on Mar 06, 2019, 11:52:25 PM
Maybe you should take some valium for all that hate you seem to have for Ridley Scott.
And all of the points you are trying to make are factually wrong.
I followed all the Promerheus devellpment on movie media news and believe me that it how it happened.
Ont the other hand mt view of the prequels is jut a personal opinion and if something has a very different opiniom about that is not a problem for me
But at least mine is an argued opinion while other people only words are "You are wrong", "Filmakers knew what they were making" withoiut any argument to support those statements.
So there is a derelict exactly similar one to other in all planets of the alien universe except on "Fury 161" and Earth? It´s a little preposterous and hard to believe Isn´t?The Derelict is an Engineers ship. The Alien supposedly traveled with the Sulaco to Fury 161. The Predators brought Aliens to earth for their rite of passage. The Engineers have been to earth before and , according to Prometheus, created us.
The prequels is a set of ideas and concept disjointed and without any coherence, a total messed not even the most talented screenwriter could fix and integrate right now. Kudos to mister Landelof and mister Scott. That´s what happens when you start to create a prequel alien movies, in the middle of the development progress you say "Ey, wait a moment, we have decided we are going to make a phylosofical hard science ficition movie set in the Alien Universe but without the xenomorph about mankind origins, and in the last moment you decide that "Prometheus" need some xenomorph hints and you ada xenomorph form on wall, the trilobite and the deacon birth without bothering about making any explanation.The first draft by Jon Spaiths was all about the Alien. Then the studio brought in Damon Lindelof to do a rewrite, because they didn't trust an unknown writer. When rewriting the script Lindelof and Scott changed their minds and made Prometheus all about the Engineers. Everything Alien in the movie is a remnant of the screenplay by Jon Spaiths. You should watch 'The Furious Gods' Making Of documentary.
They never made up their mind about if they wanted to make a stragiht Alien horror movie or "2001" type flick, finally what they delivered neither of those things.True, although it was never meant to be a 2001 type movie.
Then for the sequel, they say: "Ok, many people where disapointed with "Prometheus" in the sake of the box officce success we are going to give them what they always wanted: A straight and pure Alien film.....yet but one who bassicaly is a remake of the first one with some bits of the second one in the form os a little action sequence with guns and shooting.......Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man... Covenant is David's story. It doesn't remind me at all of the first movie. Sure, Scott changed his mind about the sequel to Prometheus, but in my opinion David is an excellent villain and I for one don't care if he is the creator of the Xenomorph. Since Alien they were always considered to be bioweapons.
And now the cinematography alien franchise is sunk people are regreting Fox didn´t prefer the "Alien 5" Neil Blomkamp´s project and they only hope for the Alien franchise could be television.Blomkamp never had a screenplay. The only thing he had were a few ideas and sketches. Of course Fox didn't want to put any money in it.
^
Quote from: P-Rock on Mar 07, 2019, 10:25:01 AM
Quote from: rafaelgg on Mar 07, 2019, 01:13:16 AM
Quote from: P-Rock on Mar 06, 2019, 11:52:25 PM
Maybe you should take some valium for all that hate you seem to have for Ridley Scott.
And all of the points you are trying to make are factually wrong.
I followed all the Promerheus devellpment on movie media news and believe me that it how it happened.
Ont the other hand mt view of the prequels is jut a personal opinion and if something has a very different opiniom about that is not a problem for me
But at least mine is an argued opinion while other people only words are "You are wrong", "Filmakers knew what they were making" withoiut any argument to support those statements.
So there is a derelict exactly similar one to other in all planets of the alien universe except on "Fury 161" and Earth? It´s a little preposterous and hard to believe Isn´t?
The Derelict is an Engineers ship. The Alien supposedly traveled with the Sulaco to Fury 161. The Predators brought Aliens to earth for their rite of passage. The Engineers have been to earth before and , according to Prometheus, created us.
The prequels is a set of ideas and concept disjointed and without any coherence, a total messed not even the most talented screenwriter could fix and integrate right now. Kudos to mister Landelof and mister Scott. That´s what happens when you start to create a prequel alien movies, in the middle of the development progress you say "Ey, wait a moment, we have decided we are going to make a phylosofical hard science ficition movie set in the Alien Universe but without the xenomorph about mankind origins, and in the last moment you decide that "Prometheus" need some xenomorph hints and you ada xenomorph form on wall, the trilobite and the deacon birth without bothering about making any explanation.
The first draft by Jon Spaiths was all about the Alien. Then the studio brought in Damon Lindelof to do a rewrite, because they didn't trust an unknown writer. When rewriting the script Lindelof and Scott changed their minds and made Prometheus all about the Engineers. Everything Alien in the movie is a remnant of the screenplay by Jon Spaiths. You should watch 'The Furious Gods' Making Of documentary.
They never made up their mind about if they wanted to make a stragiht Alien horror movie or "2001" type flick, finally what they delivered neither of those things.
True, although it was never meant to be a 2001 type movie.
Then for the sequel, they say: "Ok, many people where disapointed with "Prometheus" in the sake of the box officce success we are going to give them what they always wanted: A straight and pure Alien film.....yet but one who bassicaly is a remake of the first one with some bits of the second one in the form os a little action sequence with guns and shooting.......
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man... Covenant is David's story. It doesn't remind me at all of the first movie. Sure, Scott changed his mind about the sequel to Prometheus, but in my opinion David is an excellent villain and I for one don't care if he is the creator of the Xenomorph. Since Alien they were always considered to be bioweapons.
And now the cinematography alien franchise is sunk people are regreting Fox didn´t prefer the "Alien 5" Neil Blomkamp´s project and they only hope for the Alien franchise could be television.
Blomkamp never had a screenplay. The only thing he had were a few ideas and sketches. Of course Fox didn't want to put any money in it.
Ok We have:
1-A alien spaceship derelict on the "Pormetheus" Planet.
2-A very similar derelict with the same spaceship on the engineer planet ("Alien Covenant")
3-And a third derelict one (Without any explanation about it) on the LV-428 ("Alien", "Aliens").
Guy don´t you think the shark is already jumping with the overuse of the same idea/scenery?. You start to think tat on the alien universe there is a derelict on the each planet of that universe or they have already try twice about explaining the origin of 1979´s film derelict without convicing audience who pointed the incongruences between 1979´s derelict and 2012 and 2017 one.
And about "Covenant" not being the same history that the 1979 film. Yes we have the David´s story......and we have a story about an spaceship who detect a misterious signal(Oh my god again. The writers rewards their generous paycheck giving originality!) that send them to a distant plante where they find a deadly creature who hatch inside one of them. At the end they escape from the dangerous place but they discover later the beast is travelling with them but they manage to neutralize the monster´s threat by launching it to the outer space.........
And a final point: The promises about all the "Prometheus" loose ends" explained on "Covenant" is not my opinion; it´s a statement the movie´s creators told to the media after the "Prometheus" release: Unfullfilled promises.
Maybe Ridley have Idea about a space Bermuda? You know - Bermuda is a triangle. A triangle means three. Three movies about crashed derelicts and signals, and, possible, Zeta 2 Reticuli.
Alien. Zeta 2 Reticuli. Calpamos. LV-426. Crashed derelict. Strange/alert signal from Space Jockeys.
Prometheus. Zeta 2 Reticuli. Calpamos. LV-223. Crashed derelict. Alert signal from Shaw.
Alien: Covenant. Maybe the second star in... Zeta 2 Reticuli! Planet-4. Crashed derelict. Strange signal from Show.
Maybe in next movie we don't see crashed derelicts and etc.
(https://avatarfiles.alphacoders.com/906/thumb-90676.gif)
I've said this before so forgive me if you're sick of it but to me the Covenant Xeno is like a vastly improved version of the Resurrection design. It's elegant in ways inherent to the Alien while also suggesting human anatomy in ways the Res design should have given they're meant to be genetically mixed up with humans (more so than usual).
The ADI designs in general were just so ungainly and garish to me, with their exaggerated shoulders and hips, floppy hands and feet, crocodile tails and cockroach heads - the infamous Pumpkinhead/Velociraptor effect. I feel the same way in this regard when comparing the Newborn to the Neomorph.
Is it just me or does the Covenant xenomorph suit still look very CGI for some reason?
It's you.
Well, they mostly painted it over with CGI in post so..
Entirely. I don't think there's a single practical frame in the finished film.
I think I recall one or two very brief closeups that might be practical, but yeah I thought it was entirely digital.
Quote from: SuperiorIronman on Mar 03, 2019, 10:34:44 PM
The problem that I have with the Alien in Alien:Covenant stems more from it's usage rather than its design but its design is off as well.
My issue with the design is that it's just kind of bland. While one could argue its due to this being an early iteration, no cinematic Alien has been identical film to film meaning that at the end of the day, it's just kind of bland. The design is basically an exaggerated skinned human with a phallic head. It means nothing when you consider that there is no baseline.
What makes Alien designs good is the bio-mechanical look which also lends itself nicely to the insect nature of the creature. The Aliens of past films largely use this to help make the Alien stand out. The little bits of tubing or the carapace in places are all here to serve the design in catching the viewers eye. To the audience member who re-watches the film, you get a bit more out of the Alien the longer you look at it because of a richness of detail. But if I was to take off the head, back tubes, and tail, turn it red while placing it in something like the camp in Predators, you'd never know that was the Alien would you?
As I also said in the Skull thread, the Alien's skull is pretty much only here to be intimidating. It's presence is that of a screaming monster. However the Skull works on a number of levels and one of those being the "point of origin". For Ripley, "Kaine's son" is this nightmarish beast, it came out of one of her friends and is almost mockingly human despite being incapable of being reasoned with. It only looks human and further plays up the rape allegory that got her friends and the monster's paternal half killed. That and when the rape allegory occurs, it's further made uncomfortable by its human appearance which is warped by its otherworldly parentage. In Requiem while a nod to the Big Chap, the skull performs the same function. It's presence is almost mocking to Wolf as he's not only surprised this happened it's also using his people's strength against him and defiled a young warrior's honor to do it.
In Alien:Covenant its merely here to make the Alien look intimidating. While ALIENS dropped this for shooting reasons, it worked in its favor because it allowed it to play up the action while not forgetting its parasitic insect origins.
Agree with you.
Although, it was made faster and ferocious, yet the slim limbs & lack of bio-mechanical features made it bland.
And the screen time was bad. We could only get a glimpse for a second and the scene cuts off.
I didn't even like the head design.
Quote from: The Old One on Mar 20, 2019, 03:35:08 AM
The inner jaw through Jussie Smollett's mouth is practical.
The jaw itself, yeah. I think the tail disappearing under the panel behind him is also practical. The actual Alien is all CG though.
Indeed.
I do enjoy the unique design of the Planet 4 Xenomorphs, especially when considering it a unique strain that David has resurrected/created using the Black Pathogen. The bio-mechanical designs of the original quadrilogy are the best though.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/36/e8/35/36e83571b75ad2d8a7d4d49d4b0da59d.gif)
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Mar 27, 2019, 09:01:12 AM
I do enjoy the unique design of the Planet 4 Xenomorphs, especially when considering it a unique strain that David has resurrected/created using the Black Pathogen. The bio-mechanical designs of the original quadrilogy are the best though.
(https://i.imgur.com/14pDVr1.gif)
;)
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Mar 27, 2019, 09:01:12 AM
I do enjoy the unique design of the Planet 4 Xenomorphs, especially when considering it a unique strain that David has resurrected/created using the Black Pathogen. The bio-mechanical designs of the original quadrilogy are the best though.
It works considering it's the first ever iteration of an Alien in the universe's timeline and he hasn't put the finishing biomechanical touches on it.
David having not yet put the bio-mechanical finishing touches on his Xenomorph creation to evolve it into what we see in the original films is fan theory. I'm not saying it's not a viable theory, the film can definitely be read as inferring this but we still don't have those answers.
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Mar 27, 2019, 09:22:43 AM
David having not yet put the bio-mechanical finishing touches on his Xenomorph creation to evolve it into what we see in the original films is fan theory.
Him creating the Alien is stated in the film (might be wrong, whatever; point is, that's what the film
itself says); him reusing or rediscovering designs isn't.
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Mar 27, 2019, 09:22:43 AM
David having not yet put the bio-mechanical finishing touches on his Xenomorph creation to evolve it into what we see in the original films is fan theory. I'm not saying it's not a viable theory, the film can definitely be read as inferring this but we still don't have those answers.
It's not a fan theory. The film very clearly states that David is responsible for the creation of the Aliens. The powers-that-be state the same. They also state the lack of biomechanical detailing is because they haven't been introduced into the design yet.
The design in Alien Covenant absolutely sucked. Head looks like black matte plastic, body is really skinny, and it moved like a complete turd with all that CGI crap except in a few scenes. Pretty much the same sh!t from Alien 3.
[/quote]
But you are forgeting the fact that on Covenant the xeno walk on its four legs almost all time and not bipedly.
[/quote]
That's the reason it sucked mostly. Even when bipedaling, it looked like fake cgi utter crap.
Quote from: windebieste on Mar 03, 2019, 09:42:40 PM
Appreciate the greater scope of Ridley's vision for these movies and you'll understand the Covenant design is the first in an iterative process. It's David's first 'creation' and lacks the biomechanical features of later creatures we see in 'ALIEN' and 'ALIENS'.
There's a piece of dialogue David delivers at some point (It's not in the movie - I'm not sure of it's origin) that gives it all away "The future is neither organic or synthetic - it's biomechanical". This statement alone tells us he's not finished with the design of the creature. That what we see in 'ALIEN' is yet to be made.
So, it's not a bad design, but part of a much larger plan on the part of the film maker. This story isn't supposed to end with 'ALIEN Covenant'. The movie's closing scene was a clear indicator of more to come.
The Covenant Alien was just the start. ...and yes. Like Stompy, it too has digitigrade legs. (NECA makes good stuff, huh.)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.hideousplastic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CovenantAlien_06.jpg?resize=768%2C1024)
-Windebieste.
If that's true and a different better design closer to the original shows up, with a quick mention of the transformation etc. than I'd completely forgive the AC design, it would make sense.
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Mar 27, 2019, 09:22:43 AM
David having not yet put the bio-mechanical finishing touches on his Xenomorph creation to evolve it into what we see in the original films is fan theory. I'm not saying it's not a viable theory, the film can definitely be read as inferring this but we still don't have those answers.
Yes we do.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Mar 27, 2019, 09:30:58 AM
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Mar 27, 2019, 09:22:43 AM
David having not yet put the bio-mechanical finishing touches on his Xenomorph creation to evolve it into what we see in the original films is fan theory. I'm not saying it's not a viable theory, the film can definitely be read as inferring this but we still don't have those answers.
It's not a fan theory. The film very clearly states that David is responsible for the creation of the Aliens. The powers-that-be state the same. They also state the lack of biomechanical detailing is because they haven't been introduced into the design yet.
I've barely read a lick about Covenant and only saw it once on release, so forgive my ignorance here: if they say that David is responsible for later creating the biomechanical look, do they explain why the derelict was biomechanical in the first film? I'm just a little confused.
They do not.
When was it said that David would add the biomechanical details to the alien? Was that Ridley?
It was during the set visit interviews. It was in Collider's, I think.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Mar 27, 2019, 08:21:35 PM
When was it said that David would add the biomechanical details to the alien? Was that Ridley?
Covenant's Production Designer, Chris Seagers hinted at that:
Quote from: Chris Seagers"The aesthetic choices aren't just superficial, they tie into the larger story. "Technically, we're slightly earlier than the Giger stuff, a little bit," Seagers explained. "We're sort of edging into that. That's part of that whole storyline."
David having yet to add the bio-mechanical features is one interpretation of that quote.
You gotta take behind the scenes quotes with a grain of salt, it can always change in the next film.
Just let it go before this becomes a canon thread. :D
Hey I didn't start this, I said resurrected/created. I didn't say one or the other was correct.
Quote from: Nostromo on Mar 27, 2019, 02:28:06 PM
The design in Alien Covenant absolutely sucked. Head looks like black matte plastic, body is really skinny, and it moved like a complete turd with all that CGI crap except in a few scenes. Pretty much the same sh!t from Alien 3.
The more I read about Alien Covenant, the more I find a similar details between AC and A3.
There are so many glaring inconsistencies that it makes you wonder if anyone really does look at overarching quality control for the franchise. Or has it gone the way of just doing what seems cool for an individual movie without considering the details of the rest?
Quote from: irn on Mar 28, 2019, 03:10:34 PM
There are so many glaring inconsistencies that it makes you wonder if anyone really does look at overarching quality control for the franchise. Or has it gone the way of just doing what seems cool for an individual movie without considering the details of the rest?
Pretty much yeah.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 27, 2019, 09:28:42 AM
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Mar 27, 2019, 09:22:43 AM
David having not yet put the bio-mechanical finishing touches on his Xenomorph creation to evolve it into what we see in the original films is fan theory.
Him creating the Alien is stated in the film (might be wrong, whatever; point is, that's what the film itself says); him reusing or rediscovering designs isn't.
[Breathlessly bursts into the thread, makes some post about the overarching franchise and David being wrong and a bunch of other stuff, vanishes into the night]
Spoiler
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
Quote from: Drukathi on Mar 28, 2019, 10:45:36 AM
Quote from: Nostromo on Mar 27, 2019, 02:28:06 PM
The design in Alien Covenant absolutely sucked. Head looks like black matte plastic, body is really skinny, and it moved like a complete turd with all that CGI crap except in a few scenes. Pretty much the same sh!t from Alien 3.
The more I read about Alien Covenant, the more I find a similar details between AC and A3.
Some of us really dig the design of the A3 Alien. ;D If you're talking effects, then Alien 3 is nowhere in the same league as Covenant's effects.
The biomechanical styling of some of the Juggernauts such as the derelict suggests the aesthetic had existed but the engineers were yet to execute it with their creatures, David is simply completing their work whilst adding his own psychosexual fevers into the mix.
I finally understand - why I love a fleshy Proto/Xenomorph from Covenant. Because it's very neat and elegant. Like Big Chap, but only fleshy instead biomechanical. Much better than all ADI's fleshy aliens. I love them too, but Covenant's fleshy aliens are just perfect.
Indeed it is elegant.
I enjoy it too. I actually prefer the design of the CGI render.
Agreed.