New Alien Covenant Poster!

[zoidy]

That's not a queen, its just one of the 2 or 3 different alien designs the artist has repeated throughout the image, that one particularly elongated to make it fit the design. There's another two at the other end of the image.

It's really clear if you lighten the image, it's a few classic aliens from the franchise reworked into a new art work. With one 'new' alien from the Covenant trailer at the bottom.

[Evanus]

I edited the image so you can see the details better. 

[zoidy]

Exactly, there are a few long-tooth alien heads in there with the pulled back lips, like the queen, but they arent queens, just one of the designs the artist used.

And at the bottom, just left of centre, is our new wiry Covenant alien from the top of Danny McBride's cockpit.

[Dangerous Days]

They acted no more and no less like "giant bugs" than the first one did.

That's not entirely true though, is it. Although the insect inspiration was always there in ALIEN, I don't really see how anyone can argue that Cameron didn't place a far greater emphasis on the insect elements with the introduction of the hive and the Queen. Where's ALIEN presented the Xeno in a more ambiguous way, leaving the idea of the creature more open to audience interpretation.

I've always felt the portrayal of the alien as the 'perfect organism,' some unstoppable biomechanical nightmare, as suggested by Ash. Was a superior idea. Irrelevant of it being insectoid or not. And I personally felt the alien worked better as the unknown. A Lovecraftian creature, beyond human explanation. 

Which makes it no different to the situation the Nostromo crew found themselves in. At most, that makes both situations equal, it doesn't make ']Aliens' lesser. If anything, because there are multiple creatures, that's an added threat component which didn't exist in the first film.

In ALIEN, Ripley is not a heroine, she's a survivor. But at the start of ALIENS, even though she's got out with her life from the first film, she's still a victim; psychologically broken and traumatised.

ALIENS is really about her getting back on the horse, as Burke suggests, facing her fears and earning the right to dream again; to stop being the victim. She does this by transforming from survivor into heroine, and we, the audience, go on the journey with her. As she conquers her fears, the audience does as well. Unfortunately, an unavoidable consequence of the completion of her journey in ALIENS, is the Xeno is left diminished and overexposed. The nightmares gone. She can dream again. Flying off into the sunset with her nuclear family.

That's why they made the creative choice to kill off Newt and Hicks in Alien 3. Go back to having just one alien and reducing the human threat to the creature, by leaving the human characters with rudimentary weapons. An attempt to bring back the nightmare. To make the alien frightening again. Weaver herself, on the set of ALIEN 3, talked about how she felt the creature was demystified in ALIENS, by killing too many. And in my opinion, she was right. Making them cannon fodder, took away a lot of their threat.

In reality, the way their portrayed in ALIENS, they would stand little chance against a technologically advanced species. Making Ripley's claim of: 'if just one of those things got down here!'... Hysterical to say the least.

Maybe it's just me but I don't see how "Big Chap" demonstrated some super level of intelligence. It was creepy as hell but wasn't really even seen all that much. I mean, it mainly just skulked about and killed most of the crew through brute force.

. 
The thing is, people can go on about the creature not behaving with much intelligence in ALIEN, or how ALIENS fleshed out that aspect. Although, them behaving like cannon fodder at times, some what undermines that idea imo. But I feel that's missing the point of it's portrayal in ALIEN. Its meant to be in the shadows, both literally and metaphorically. Your not supposed to fully understand it. It's supposed to be alien. And to me, the creature only really lived up to the title in the first film.

The intent was that the alien was incinerated and killed at the end of ALIEN. They couldn't show that in explicit detail because of time, money, technological constraints. But the intention is there, I'm sure plasma engines don't shoot out rain showers either but we know its not rain despite what is shown in the film.

Excellent post! Unfortunately people always seem to cling to their misconceptions even tighter when confronted with a compelling argument, in any subject.

I'm sorry, but you have to see the double standards at play here. You talk about the misconception that a small minority of ALIEN fans make on certain issues. But I constantly read ALIENS fans insisting things like egg morphing can't be canon, because the scene was never included in the theatrical cut. Even though it was the intention of the filmmakers, actually filmed and included in the directors cut. Unlike the intention to have the alien incinerated by the engines of the Narcissus. Which was never filmed and actually directly contradicted by what is seen on screen. But the latter is supposed to be excepted as canon, while the former is not. Because one fits with certain fans preferred interpretations, while the other does not.

Yes, to a tiny fraction of the fan base who wilfully choose to ignore certain facts about Alien in favour of their own misinterpretations.

The creature is presented in an ambiguous way in ALIEN. So trying to claim your preferred interpretation as definitive, while branding others interpretations as misconceptions, is hypocritical imo.

[Darth Vile]

Where's ALIEN presented the Xeno in a more ambiguous way, leaving the idea of the creature more open to audience interpretation.

I've always felt the portrayal of the alien as the 'perfect organism,' some unstoppable biomechanical nightmare, as suggested by Ash. Was a superior idea. Irrelevant of it being insectoid or not. And I personally felt the alien worked better as the unknown. A Lovecraftian creature, beyond human explanation. 

Yes - totally agree. The xeno, as presented in Alien, is totally alien. It's morphology/lifecycle is presented in such a way that the audience can't predict its nature or what it will do. This is where much of the tension/suspense in Alien comes from... the unpredictable nature of the threat/menace.

I think Cameron did exactly the right thing with Aliens, in that he opened up the films fictional universe... but a consequence of that was that much of the horror/suspense was lost, and the xeno itself, lost a sense of its original mystery. Aliens is still a great movie though... and the best sequel Alien could have got.

[Predaker]

The creature is presented in an ambiguous way in ALIEN. So trying to claim your preferred interpretation as definitive, while branding others interpretations as misconceptions, is hypocritical imo.

I never said that. My post was a response to him saying Cameron is notorious for degrading the alien.

And yes, it is a misconception to say the alien is indestructible or was ever intended to be so.

[Dangerous Days]

Where's ALIEN presented the Xeno in a more ambiguous way, leaving the idea of the creature more open to audience interpretation.

I've always felt the portrayal of the alien as the 'perfect organism,' some unstoppable biomechanical nightmare, as suggested by Ash. Was a superior idea. Irrelevant of it being insectoid or not. And I personally felt the alien worked better as the unknown. A Lovecraftian creature, beyond human explanation. 

Yes - totally agree. The xeno, as presented in Alien, is totally alien. It's morphology/lifecycle is presented in such a way that the audience can't predict its nature or what it will do. This is where much of the tension/suspense in Alien comes from... the unpredictable nature of the threat/menace.

I think Cameron did exactly the right thing with Aliens, in that he opened up the films fictional universe... but a consequence of that was that much of the horror/suspense was lost, and the xeno itself, lost a sense of its original mystery. Aliens is still a great movie though... and the best sequel Alien could have got.

You wouldn't get any disagreement from me. I also think ALIENS is great movie. But just like you, I can appreciate ALIENS, but sill recognise how it changed our perception of the alien and removed its mystique... At least for me anyway.

The creature is presented in an ambiguous way in ALIEN. So trying to claim your preferred interpretation as definitive, while branding others interpretations as misconceptions, is hypocritical imo.

I never said that. My post was a response to him saying Cameron is notorious for degrading the alien.

And yes, it is a misconception to say the alien is indestructible or was ever intended to be so.

Maybe I was too blunt in expressing my point, so I apologise if it came across that way.

Even though I wouldn't claim that interpretation myself. I think if people want to take Ash's speech, or the climax to the film, as implying the alien is indestructible. Then personally, I don't see any definitive evidence to support or disprove the idea in ALIEN itself. Its open to interpretation. And that was my point. But it seems we will have to disagree on that one.

Anyway, I feel like I've added to the list of those that have hijacked this thread. So its probably best to save the debate for another time.

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

I edited the image so you can see the details better. 

Nice work! That upside-down alien head right at the bottom left corner looks a LOT like a Queen.

But to be honest, this all just looks like a mishmash of different designs thrown together to try and make a cool poster, with a shit-tonne of Photoshop grain/noise thrown on top in an attempt to blend everything together. I somehow doubt we'll actually get to see all these different designs in the film itself, much less an actual Queen.

[Evanus]

I edited the image so you can see the details better. 

Nice work! That upside-down alien head right at the bottom left corner looks a LOT like a Queen.

But to be honest, this all just looks like a mishmash of different designs thrown together to try and make a cool poster, with a shit-tonne of Photoshop grain/noise thrown on top in an attempt to blend everything together. I somehow doubt we'll actually get to see all these different designs in the film itself, much less an actual Queen.

Thanks!

Those are exactly my thoughts as well. It looks really cool, but it's probably just a poster and nothing more.

[Enoch]

This is poster, yes. I would not expect to see queens or scenes anywhere similar to one depicted on poster, but I expect to see murals and reliefs inside the Engineer temple, maybe this scene is one part of those reliefs (very possibly). Most important motif of this poster are not versions of Xenomoprhs (we already know that there are many versions of xenos capable to sustain their life in most harsh conitions), so the most important motif is of course clash of Xenos with their presumed creators - Engineers. Thats the most important thing this poster gave us.

[Predaker]

The creature is presented in an ambiguous way in ALIEN. So trying to claim your preferred interpretation as definitive, while branding others interpretations as misconceptions, is hypocritical imo.

I never said that. My post was a response to him saying Cameron is notorious for degrading the alien.

And yes, it is a misconception to say the alien is indestructible or was ever intended to be so.

Maybe I was too blunt in expressing my point, so I apologise if it came across that way.

Even though I wouldn't claim that interpretation myself. I think if people want to take Ash's speech, or the climax to the film, as implying the alien is indestructible. Then personally, I don't see any definitive evidence to support or disprove the idea in ALIEN itself. Its open to interpretation. And that was my point. But it seems we will have to disagree on that one.

Not at all, you're simply attributing a sentiment to me that I never expressed.

ALIEN absolutely has some ambiguous elements that can be interpreted in different ways but the alien being indestructible is not a concept in the film. The idea of destroying or even injuring it aboard the ship is definitively present and we know for a fact the alien is not indestructible because the harpoon pierced it. Regarding the novelization, regenerating a limb is even more evidence of destructibility. The very notion that any organism could be indestructible is pure fantasy - a genre where you won't find ALIEN.

[Russ840]

If the Alien was indestructible, it would not need Acid for blood.

[BishopShouldGo]

... you know, I'm pretty sure Ash was just saying it was difficult to kill. Not invincible.

[Mr. Clemens]

... you know, I'm pretty sure Ash was just saying it was difficult to kill. Not invincible.

Yep. Psychological warfare. Break their spirit. He can't hurt them with his body at this point, so he's hurting them with his intellect.

[Russ840]

I would say he was saying it 'relative' to the scenario. He knew that they were not equipped to deal with it.