Posted by 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯
- Jun 22, 2015, 10:34:42 PMQuoteBut look at his face when he is yelling those lines.
Nothing on his face.
Drake was immediately SCARRED and melted.
He didn't get as much acid on him as Drake. Also, the acid would take it's time to eat through his skin, which might be why the actual damage is not immediately visible.
The artist did paint in a little too much damage around his lower jaw and lips though. Same with the tip of his ear and left nostril.
Posted by pred169
- Jun 22, 2015, 10:30:09 PMQuote from: Vermillion on Jun 22, 2015, 10:23:24 PMAgreed.... which supports what I was saying earlier. The scar tissue in the conceptual drawings looks more like a flash burn.
But look at his face when he is yelling those lines.
Nothing on his face.
Drake was immediately SCARRED and melted.
Although I do remember hicks covering his face after he shot the alien in the elevator. Maybe he remembered what happened to drake and as a result covered his face. And drake took a direct spray to the face from the acid. I mean you could clearly see all the acid hit him. Hicks incident looked more like it grazed the face while he was covering and the rest splashed up off the armor.
Posted by Vermillion
- Jun 22, 2015, 10:23:24 PMBut look at his face when he is yelling those lines.
Nothing on his face.
Drake was immediately SCARRED and melted.
Nothing on his face.
Drake was immediately SCARRED and melted.
Posted by pred169
- Jun 22, 2015, 10:15:42 PMQuote from: Vermillion on Jun 22, 2015, 08:28:49 PMI think he caught a little backsplash from when it hit the armor. Either way it wasn't enough to explain that much scar tissue on the concept drawing.
"Get it off!! Get it off!!"
He is not burned at all on the face.
Posted by 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯
- Jun 22, 2015, 09:52:12 PMQuote from: Vermillion on Jun 22, 2015, 08:28:49 PM
"Get it off!! Get it off!!"
He is not burned at all on the face.
Indeed. Newt was just playing doctor, doctor with him on the Sulaco afterwards.
Posted by Vermillion
- Jun 22, 2015, 08:28:49 PM"Get it off!! Get it off!!"
He is not burned at all on the face.
He is not burned at all on the face.
Posted by pred169
- Jun 22, 2015, 03:29:20 PMQuote from: HuDaFuK on Jun 22, 2015, 02:34:13 PMSee that's what I was thinking. It just wasn't very prominent until he got outside. And even then it just wasn't a very bad burn.Quote from: pred169 on Jun 22, 2015, 01:59:45 PMI mean in the original his ear is still intact and there's slight burning on forehead but more severe around the left eye orbit.
To be fair, in the original the burns magically don't appear until he gets outside the colony... His face is fine as long as he's in the lift.
Posted by HuDaFuK
- Jun 22, 2015, 02:34:13 PMQuote from: pred169 on Jun 22, 2015, 01:59:45 PMI mean in the original his ear is still intact and there's slight burning on forehead but more severe around the left eye orbit.
To be fair, in the original the burns magically don't appear until he gets outside the colony... His face is fine as long as he's in the lift.
Posted by pred169
- Jun 22, 2015, 01:59:45 PMI'm not saying that's not the case just that the concept art looks more to me like a flash burn to me. I mean in the original his ear is still intact and there's slight burning on forehead but more severe around the left eye orbit. In the concept the ear is pretty much gone and he has a lot of scarring on the entire left side of his head including a receded hairline due to searing the pores closed.
Which would be more consistent with a high heat flash burn.
Which would be more consistent with a high heat flash burn.
Posted by 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯
- Jun 22, 2015, 01:04:16 PMQuote from: pred169 on Jun 21, 2015, 09:34:02 PM
Yeah I've seen the concept art. But like I said I've watched that movie probably a thousand times and I've looked at his face since the concept art came out. His face just wasn't that badly burned. So yeah the art would have to be off scale. I guess if they play the "I hope Noone paid that much attention to detail during that part" card it might work. And I realize it's just concept art so it very well could be that something else happened during the sulaco journey. Which is more what I'm hoping for myself. I've seen tons of burn victims throughout my career and that concept art looks more like the result of a flash burn...not acid.
Looks pretty bad to me and consistent with the concept art.
Posted by HuDaFuK
- Jun 22, 2015, 09:23:25 AMQuote from: Xenomorphine on Jun 20, 2015, 09:50:43 PMWe still know nothing about the story, whatsoever, aside from how Ripley and Hicks are going to somehow appear (and we still don't know if Hicks is due to a flashback scene or dream).
We don't even know if Hicks is in it. There's been literally no official word on his being in the film, has there? People are just assuming from images that may or may not have anything to do with what actually makes it into the film.
All we know for sure is the film is happening and Blomkamp's directing. Even Weaver hasn't been officially cast yet, although she's almost certainly in it.
Posted by Corporal Hicks
- Jun 22, 2015, 07:30:19 AMQuote from: pred169 on Jun 21, 2015, 03:53:21 PM
I haven't subscribed to the podcast so I wouldn't know what was covered in it.
You should. It's good stuff.
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/podcasts/
Posted by pred169
- Jun 21, 2015, 09:34:02 PMQuote from: Xenomorphine on Jun 21, 2015, 08:33:04 PMQuote from: pred169 on Jun 21, 2015, 03:53:21 PM
I haven't subscribed to the podcast so I wouldn't know what was covered in it. As far as the scarring yes it would cover the facial aging well but what are the chances that she would have a dream or hallucination that she and hicks are aged. Never met a woman who likes to think of herself aging let alone have a dream of it. Lol
Which either means she really is Ripley 8, the concept art is slightly off or something happened to the Sulaco's journey.QuoteAlso on that note his face was only minimally burned so the aging would be the only logical way to tie him in without makeup or cgi. I'm interested to see how they're going to bring it all together though. Can't wait to get more plot details and conceptual drawings.
Look at the Woodruff stuff:
http://i0.wp.com/www.theterminatorfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Hicks-Revival.png?resize=379%2C484 http://i0.wp.com/www.theterminatorfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Hicks-Tom-Woodruff-Make-Up-Test.jpg?resize=323%2C484
http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3334707/alien-make-tests-show-deformed-hicks-michael-biehn/
That's a literal interpretation of the concept art. His age isn't going to be a problem if that's how it's going to look like.
Yeah I've seen the concept art. But like I said I've watched that movie probably a thousand times and I've looked at his face since the concept art came out. His face just wasn't that badly burned. So yeah the art would have to be off scale. I guess if they play the "I hope Noone paid that much attention to detail during that part" card it might work. And I realize it's just concept art so it very well could be that something else happened during the sulaco journey. Which is more what I'm hoping for myself. I've seen tons of burn victims throughout my career and that concept art looks more like the result of a flash burn...not acid. So I hope that's how they plot it out. He is awakened during the emergency cryogenic compartment fire, tries to save the others, and is flash burned in the process. The tubes are ejected before he can regain his bearings from the burn. Meanwhile he manages to suppress the fire and reroute the sulaco to fury 161. He sends a transmission to mission control about what has happened. WY intercepts the transmission and pulls data on the flight recorder sees that Ripley was impregnated and notifies a high security containment team (mercenaries) to get the specimen at all cost. The team is already close to fury 161. They find the sulaco board it and then take hicks hostage. Thus you have....... alien 2.5 [emoji23]
Posted by Xenomorphine
- Jun 21, 2015, 08:33:04 PMQuote from: pred169 on Jun 21, 2015, 03:53:21 PM
I haven't subscribed to the podcast so I wouldn't know what was covered in it. As far as the scarring yes it would cover the facial aging well but what are the chances that she would have a dream or hallucination that she and hicks are aged. Never met a woman who likes to think of herself aging let alone have a dream of it. Lol
Which either means she really is Ripley 8, the concept art is slightly off or something happened to the Sulaco's journey.
QuoteAlso on that note his face was only minimally burned so the aging would be the only logical way to tie him in without makeup or cgi. I'm interested to see how they're going to bring it all together though. Can't wait to get more plot details and conceptual drawings.
Look at the Woodruff stuff:
http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/3334707/alien-make-tests-show-deformed-hicks-michael-biehn/
That's a literal interpretation of the concept art. His age isn't going to be a problem if that's how it's going to look like.
Posted by pred169
- Jun 21, 2015, 03:53:21 PMQuote from: Xenomorphine on Jun 21, 2015, 03:26:52 PM
Like we said in a podcast, a little while back, Hicks looks acid-scarred as f**k. They won't need any age-regression. He's meant to look worse for wear.
He's probably the real deal, but as I say, it could just as easily be a dream sequence or even a continuing hallucination because of the repeated psychological trauma Ripley has been enduring.
I haven't subscribed to the podcast so I wouldn't know what was covered in it. As far as the scarring yes it would cover the facial aging well but what are the chances that she would have a dream or hallucination that she and hicks are aged. Never met a woman who likes to think of herself aging let alone have a dream of it. Lol
Also on that note his face was only minimally burned so the aging would be the only logical way to tie him in without makeup or cgi. I'm interested to see how they're going to bring it all together though. Can't wait to get more plot details and conceptual drawings.
