So "Alien: Covenant" opened in Japan this weekend to $2,6M. After all is said and done it's worldwide cume will be around $250M. Blu-Ray discs are selling well judging by homemediamagazine.com reports (Alien: Covenant Blu-Ray Sales Chart Run: 1-2-4-5). Ridley will release his new movie "All the money in the world" in about 2-3 months so I guess someone WILL ask him about "Covenant" sequel.
Do you think that we will know by the end of year if sequel is still possible?
Source:
Japan Box Office Gross
http://deadline.com/2017/09/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-china-opening-it-movie-spider-man-homecoming-mother-international-box-office-1202171328/)
Blu-Ray sales + Rentals
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/category/hmm/news/research/top-sellers)
I've been waiting on Ridley interviews for All the Monet in the World... but sadly, he might be in the dark too.
Still, he's closer to the studio and the project than any of us, so hopefully he'll know something.
I wonder if he really has a script for Awaking or just said he did to shut up the studio. I know this is Scott but the man did say Awaking was a prequel to Covenant.
I guess towards the end of the year. That's when Ridley's current movie's finished.
From Imdb: All The Money In The World release date: USA 16 November 2017 (AFI Fest) and USA 8 December 2017.
Give or take 1,5 year to make the next Alien movie, brings us to 2019, the supposed release year for Alien: Awakenings
More precise, it's May 2019, which could be possible since Covenant was released in May as well.
Micheal Fassbender has two upcoming projects: The Snowman (post-production) 2017 and X-Men: Dark Phoenix (filming) 2018.
So it's possible he's available around the time All The Money In The World's finished.
And there's no mention of any other upcoming movies on his Imdb page, which I find a little odd for an actor of his calibre.
So fingers crossed...
I don't think the current Covenant ending totally screams for a sequel the more I've thought about it. They might just go the full reboot.
If they reboot it now they'll ruin the series.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 18, 2017, 07:23:50 AM
If they reboot it now they'll ruin the series.
What would be ruined about it? We know most of what Scott set out to do. Who is the Space Jockey and where did the Alien come from have both been answered. Personally I'm not that fussed about finding out who crashed the original derelict.
Quote from: Daszkowski on Sep 17, 2017, 10:46:53 PM
Do you think that we will know by the end of year if sequel is still possible?
We're likely looking at when Scott is doing the press rounds for All The Money in the World towards the end of the year. This should also mean Fox has a clearer picture of the final takings with home release in there too.
Quote from: Highland on Sep 18, 2017, 06:42:45 AM
I don't think the current Covenant ending totally screams for a sequel the more I've thought about it. They might just go the full reboot.
While I think we wont escape a full reboot/remake at some point, I don't think we're at that point just yet. I wouldn't be adverse to them dropping Scott and going for a soft reboot with someone new.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 18, 2017, 08:54:14 AM
Quote from: Daszkowski on Sep 17, 2017, 10:46:53 PM
Do you think that we will know by the end of year if sequel is still possible?
We're likely looking at when Scott is doing the press rounds for All The Money in the World towards the end of the year. This should also mean Fox has a clearer picture of the final takings with home release in there too.
Quote from: Highland on Sep 18, 2017, 06:42:45 AM
I don't think the current Covenant ending totally screams for a sequel the more I've thought about it. They might just go the full reboot.
While I think we wont escape a full reboot/remake at some point, I don't think we're at that point just yet. I wouldn't be adverse to them dropping Scott and going for a soft reboot with someone new.
Someone else finishing Scott's story? I don't think that would work. I think for me it's only Covenant sequel with Scott or hard reboot.
Problem with the reboot is you're probably not getting anything for 5+ years.
I think a reboot would cop so much hate from fans. Look at the shoes it has to fill. It will satisfy no-one. The nit-picking and hatred towards it would be ten times what Covenant gets thrown at it.
I just means in terms of a new film, set within the same continuity, but with a new bunch of a characters and situation, in some other region of the galaxy. Hopefully it'll be helmed with someone with a little more care about the over-all lore and universe.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 18, 2017, 09:27:39 AM
I just means in terms of a new film, set within the same continuity, but with a new bunch of a characters and situation, in some other region of the galaxy. Hopefully it'll be helmed with someone with a little more care about the over-all lore and universe.
Yeah I think that's fine. There's plenty of good story's in the comics that are off somewhere else with different characters. I'm quite happy ignoring Alien 3 and 4 in terms of not finding the Alien anywhere else inside that same time period.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 18, 2017, 09:27:39 AM
I just means in terms of a new film, set within the same continuity, but with a new bunch of a characters and situation, in some other region of the galaxy. Hopefully it'll be helmed with someone with a little more care about the over-all lore and universe.
Not to be "that guy" but do you really believe that might happen?
I think the odds of that are as good as the other options.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 18, 2017, 09:27:39 AM
I just means in terms of a new film, set within the same continuity, but with a new bunch of a characters and situation, in some other region of the galaxy. Hopefully it'll be helmed with someone with a little more care about the over-all lore and universe.
I really wouldn't have as much of an issue with the lore of the new movies if they were just set after the original trilogy or just adjacent to the original trilogy without ever crossing over with it.....cause Ridley is butchering what he started. And before people jump in and say that's his right he created the series STOP.....he did NOT write Alien nor any of the sequels. He storyboarded it, got the budget doubled and then hired great artists to flesh put his storyboards. Even with the art department he only curated the artists for the human elements while O Bannon curated Giger for the Alien parts.
These movies need someone who doesnt piss through them as if they are on a line production conveyor belt as Ridley now makes movies. Maybe Denis Villeneuve will be free after Dune to make Alien great again!
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Sep 18, 2017, 06:31:06 AM
I guess towards the end of the year. That's when Ridley's current movie's finished.
From Imdb: All The Money In The World release date: USA 16 November 2017 (AFI Fest) and USA 8 December 2017.
Give or take 1,5 year to make the next Alien movie, brings us to 2019, the supposed release year for Alien: Awakenings
More precise, it's May 2019, which could be possible since Covenant was released in May as well.
Micheal Fassbender has two upcoming projects: The Snowman (post-production) 2017 and X-Men: Dark Phoenix (filming) 2018.
So it's possible he's available around the time All The Money In The World's finished.
And there's no mention of any other upcoming movies on his Imdb page, which I find a little odd for an actor of his calibre.
So fingers crossed...
Scott is doing The Cartel next.
From an interview with Yahoo a while back apparently. Said that filming would begin in January 2018.
I'm going to get sad when Scott has to say that there is no new Alien film being made. But this is sort of his fault anyway.
They can just hire Blomkampf to finish the trilogy.
wasnt it already stated that the studio is allowing Scott one more film to finish up the prequels and then any Alien films from here on out will be 1 shots and things that have nothing to do with the "origins" or "Ripley" story lines?
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Sep 18, 2017, 04:47:25 PM
From an interview with Yahoo a while back apparently. Said that filming would begin in January 2018.
Hmm, nothing on Imdb yet. I'm hoping he said the wrong year.
Quote from: DorkiDori on Sep 18, 2017, 05:53:11 PM
wasnt it already stated that the studio is allowing Scott one more film to finish up the prequels and then any Alien films from here on out will be 1 shots and things that have nothing to do with the "origins" or "Ripley" story lines?
A reporter said that's what he thinks. But there hasn't been anything comfirmed.
Quote from: DorkiDori on Sep 18, 2017, 05:53:11 PM
wasnt it already stated that the studio is allowing Scott one more film to finish up the prequels and then any Alien films from here on out will be 1 shots and things that have nothing to do with the "origins" or "Ripley" story lines?
No.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Sep 18, 2017, 06:49:17 PM
Hmm, nothing on Imdb yet. I'm hoping he said the wrong year.
Not likely, I think he was originally planning to do The Cartel before All the Money in the World. He was already location scouting for it in Mexico and Spain end of 2016/beginning 2017. It's ready to go. He could of course still change his mind as he is wont to do. Nothing is set in stone with Sir Riddles.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 18, 2017, 05:27:32 PM
They can just hire Blomkampf to finish the trilogy.
Good idea. Everyone will be happy then and the movie will make quadruple its money back.
If that's what you choose to believe.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 18, 2017, 05:27:32 PM
They can just hire Blomkampf to finish the trilogy.
After watching all the shorts he's done I really think he'd do a good job. He's got an amazing eye for special effects and shots. At the very least it would be a creature spectacle with real world building.
I'd worry slightly about the characters, but then....Covenant.
Ridley Scott isn't good at telling epics. Alien worked because he had a handful of characters in a small setting. The movies that he has done that are bigger in scope are never that good. This is why I always say he'd be perfect to direct a Friday the 13th movie.
Blomkamp is a bit like Del Toro, they're both decent directors with a proper vision but they're only as good as the script.
Crimson Peak looked great but the story was thin. And his At The Mountains Of Madness script was weak.
You know who'd be great? But probably more for an Engineer movie, Mad Mel Gibson.
He did The Passion Of Christ, Apocalypto and was supposed to do a viking movie. Makes me think he has a certain interest in stuff like that.
Quote from: Ash 937 on Sep 19, 2017, 04:34:05 AM
Ridley Scott isn't good at telling epics. Alien worked because he had a handful of characters in a small setting. The movies that he has done that are bigger in scope are never that good.
I think the Prometheus series would've been a solid epic if they stuck with the original plan.
The Passion of the Christ can already be looked at as prequel to Prometheus if you think about it.
I agree about Mad Mel.
QuoteRidley Scott isn't good at telling epics.
Gladiator won 5 Oscars, 4 BAFTAs and 2 Golden Globes.
Quote from: Ash 937 on Sep 19, 2017, 04:34:05 AM
Ridley Scott isn't good at telling epics. Alien worked because he had a handful of characters in a small setting. The movies that he has done that are bigger in scope are never that good.
Both Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut) were great epics. Blade Runner was also a lot bigger in scope than Alien.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Sep 19, 2017, 04:56:02 AM
Blomkamp is a bit like Del Toro, they're both decent directors with a proper vision but they're only as good as the script.
Exactly the same goes for Scott.
Heaven and Blade Runner were only good after Scott made director's cuts. Those films weren't good before that.
Blade Runner was ALWAYS a brilliant piece of cinema. The directors cut improves it, but it doesn't make it a different film.
The unicorn thing makes it fairly different.
http://variety.com/2017/film/features/stacey-snider-21st-century-fox-first-year-1202563799/
"Alien: Covenant" stumbled at the box office. Is that franchise over?
It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it. When universes are as rich as "Alien," they can stay in a too familiar groove — in which case you're in trouble — but they can also find a planet or a storyline or a villain that also lives in that universe that can be groundbreaking.
So, there will eventually be a sequel, Scott is still on board, and they seem to have learned their lesson from trying to tie Covenant closer to the original Alien, rather than Prometheus. Encouraging quote.
Eh I'll believe it when I see it. I think we're still gonna have to wait a looong time.
I do believe The Cartel will be the film Ridley Scott will be filming (and maybe releases) next year for Fox. But it is possible that Awakening (or what ever it ends up being called) could be in our near future. You never know with Hollywood. There are films that get stuck in development hell for years that manage to make it out, and there are films that are weeks or days away from shooting with a full cast that get the plug pulled at the last minute. Nothing is ever a sure thing.
Also, if we're talking directors, we don't have to be limited to Scott or Blomkamp. Fede Alvarez and Alex Garland come to mind as possible directors I'd like to see take a stab at Alien.
I continue to think there will be at least one more movie to conclude David's story within the next four years. After that, it remains very bleak.
The next movie will be a Ripley movie. Mark my words. Jamie Lee Curtis and Linda Hamilton are back. She's next.
From what I read they still trust Scott and co with the franchise, I'm all ok with since it was Fox who messed up here. They acknowledge it wasn't the story they should had gone with. Like no s#$%. They should had let Scott do his true Prometheus 2 were Shaw and David search for the engineers and the horrors they encounter while concurrently Blomkamp doing his Alien 3 to build up the universe.
I hope with this, they let Scott do his Promethean universe building while someone else or Blomkamp finally does his Alien 3 with Weaver and Co. since Jamie Lee and Linda are coming back to reboot their franchises.
If Stacey Snider trusts Ridley and Emma to find the best story, then the 7th bad (or unsatisfying) alien movie in a row is just about to happen...
Quote"Alien: Covenant" stumbled at the box office. Is that franchise over?
It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it. When universes are as rich as "Alien," they can stay in a too familiar groove — in which case you're in trouble — but they can also find a planet or a storyline or a villain that also lives in that universe that can be groundbreaking.
What a bollocks! If Fox did trust Scott then they should have let him do what he wanted. As Scott said:
the beast is cooked ... and then we got Xenomorphs in
A:C. Wonder what (or actually who) changed his mind? :)
Hmm this is concerning, has anyone notices how the Original Alien is treated like Artsy Thriller and Aliens is a pulp Action film and the subsequent movies would reflect this to a degree.
Alien 3, AVP and Promethues for all their strengths and weakness pursued being of some substance and profound concept.
Wheras Alien Resurrection, AVP R and Alien Covenant fall more into schlocky pulp Action, and that after each film there's a far absence of Alien films for a while. Maybe that's just one way of reading it.
QuoteWhen universes are as rich as "Alien," they can stay in a too familiar groove — in which case you're in trouble
Are they (Fox) acknowledging that making covenant full of Aliens was a bad idea? That's how I took it.
Quote from: bleau on Sep 20, 2017, 04:45:01 PM
QuoteWhen universes are as rich as "Alien," they can stay in a too familiar groove — in which case you're in trouble
Are they (Fox) acknowledging that making covenant full of Aliens was a bad idea? That's how I took it.
Seems so. Talk about screwing the pooch again. It's like they never learned after the clusterf**k with Fincher on Alien 3.
I like mentioned before, I hope Fox let's Scott at least salvage whatever is left of the story he wanted to tell with the engineers and finish the trilogy.
That's precisely it. Covenant made events out of sequences that should've been resolved in seconds.
Prometheus offed its cast pretty quickly. They died in groups and build ups and deaths weren't the primary focus. Snake kills some guys here, zombie thrashes some people there, Engineers smacks these guys, oh and these other guys kamikaze. Done. Mere minutes total.
Covenant?! Covenant!! Covenant really thought we'd enjoy spending time with Rosenthal. Did we really need that entire two minutes, from the neomorph climbing, to her reaching for her gun, to yawn, the screaming in the distance? No attempt to subvert expectations at all. Every shot matters. Ridley just shoots from several different angles and slaps it together later. But every shot matters. It's the rhythm. Imagine Brett's death with us hanging out with Big Chap a couple seconds prior.
Upworth and Ricks? f**k them, let us just discover their bodies. I'd rather we spend time hearing some good dialogue from David or Walter. Or some more engineer shit.
Lindelof had it right. Play the old hits but in new ways and limited quantities.
The whole story sucked though... colony ship? It was wrong right from the start. Colony ship?! Give us scientists, corporate suits, and guys with guns.
I just hope they get to finish David's story. At this point , I am more interested in David's journey than Space Jockey's origin.
Quote from: 0321recon on Sep 20, 2017, 03:48:05 PM
From what I read they still trust Scott and co with the franchise, I'm all ok with since it was Fox who messed up here. They acknowledge it wasn't the story they should had gone with. Like no s#$%. They should had let Scott do his true Prometheus 2 were Shaw and David search for the engineers and the horrors they encounter while concurrently Blomkamp doing his Alien 3 to build up the universe.
I hope with this, they let Scott do his Promethean universe building while someone else or Blomkamp finally does his Alien 3 with Weaver and Co. since Jamie Lee and Linda are coming back to reboot their franchises.
My thoughts exactly.
Split up the franchise. Give us David, Engineers and cosmic horror type movies AND separate Alien flicks.
And use proper marketing so the general public doesn't get confused and knows what to expect.
What if they pull some weird twist of David using himself as a vessel of an Alien embryo, him being an android explains the biomechanicle nature of the traditional Alien. He hijacks the Derelict ship, pilot the chair, but the chest burster emerges too early and he crashes on LV-426. Combining David conclusion as the origin as the Space Jockey. I'm really iffy about this theory.
Great news.
FOX still has faith in my man Ridley Scott.
It's easy Fox. Ripley, adult Newt, Hicks, a dash of Bishop, a cameo from an old David model, a cool corporate villain, Blomkamp directing and Scott producing, presto.
We all want that, and to those that don't, they're going to want it eventually.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 20, 2017, 06:45:37 PM
It's easy Fox. Ripley, adult Newt, Hicks, a dash of Bishop, a cameo from an old David model, a cool corporate villain, Blomkamp directing and Scott producing, presto.
We all want that, and to those that don't, they're going to want it eventually.
Make it David 8 as the villain and you got yourself a deal. It could kill two birds with one stone. I'm been pretty much against a retcon, but at this point Fox needs a hit and this might be batshit crazy enough to work.
If the last of Alien we see is from the last 10 minutes of Covenant that's going to leave a bitter taste in my mouth. The majority of Covenant was good but the Alien was so shoehorned in. I'm a bit discouraged to learn they trust whatever direction Ridley intends to come up with next - I fear a 360 coming on.
In a way, Prometheus and Covenant already felt like the reboot for the franchise. The conflicting changes are pretty far and wide, from the space jockeys, the goo, and the creatures; sharing resemblance to the old lore, but different enough to be a re-envisioning.
There is a trust with this director and the brood that follows the production. It generates income, not huge but the re-inventive nature of these films is really what keeps it alive and keeping us (movie goers) interested. It's like if its going to be more of a Twighlight zone for the theatres, then all the power to them. But for FOX to crush the franchise is hurtful to the market and the economy. They should by more investors quickly.
Alien Covenant was a COMPLETE failure. Am I the only one who thought Ridley was giving the bird to all the Prometheus Haters who moaned ' No Aliens' Covenant was trying to be to films at once and FAILED at both, opening scene with David and weyland looked promising (Ridley is so trying to get back to Blade Runner Lore ) an to bring in the original alien score TOP , After that (apart from Fassbender it was a complete car crash) Quarantine protocol's HA HA STUPID FILM.
I want one more Ridley Scott alien movie. I just hopes he gives me what I want. Aliens as a natural being corrupted by the engineers as a means of survival against a terror from another galaxy and David being driven insane when he realizes all he can do is copy shit in an inferior way. Of course Space Engineer Jesus F-ing Christ himself will save the day by killing David and crashing the derelict into lv426.
You know, nice and simple. Wrap a bow on it.
Oh shit I almost forgot, half of this movie must take place on Planet Heaven and be totally Giger™.
Yyyyyyeah, definitely gonna need that resolution to Alien: Covanent's cliff-hanger by 5 pm. Thanks.
And while I'm here...why not let Ridley continue spinning HUS OWN Engineer/David story, and then let Fincher have HIS OWN stab at another Alien film? That would right all the wrongs without that deplorable retcon idea. Am I the only one was disgusted by Blomkampf's art? Seriously, Ripley wearing some sort of Xeno suit....? Come on. And I don't need to see Hicks and Newt 30 years older. We've all lived with A3 for 25 years. It happened. Ripley died. And most of us strike Res from the record. Just reboot it with Fincher helming a doomy, dark character driven story. I'm so scared Ripley is going to come back. :(
They need to shut Ridley Scott down and abort these prequels.
They're just a mess story-wise, relying almost entirely on supposedly intelligent characters acting unintelligently in order to drive the plot forward... and it's all covered in Scott's psuedo-philisophical nonsense that neither film explores in a way that's satisfying to the viewer.
I had high hopes that Scott would learn from Prometheus' many flaws. He didn't. Covenant suffered from all of the same issues and, in the process, somehow managed to make a movie about strange alien civilizations and space travel predictable and BORING.
I'm a huge fan of the Alien franchise but I have no interest in seeing a 3rd film with Scott at the helm.
I didn't mind Bloms art. Was quite good. The entire Franchise has been bangin on about using Aliens as Bioweapon for 40 years yet nobody took a stab at it.
They're making another one, this all but confirms it.
If you were Fox, would you rather go with Ridley Scott, who has Blade Runner and All the Money in the World coming out this year, likely to be hits. Not to mention Scott's prolific career.
Or Neill Blomkamp, who's last (and only) successful movie was District 9, which came out 8 years ago. And has been stuck doing short films since 2015 because Hollywood don't want him anymore.
Yeah, Alien Covenant was a 'disappointment', but it still did better than both Elysium and Chappie.
Alien 5 is just not going to happen, not under Blomkamp's watch. Ageing b-movie actor Michael Biehn and a minor character from a movie 30 years ago just isn't going to draw the crowds. It's a wonder why Fox greenlighted it in the first place (maybe they were expecting Chappie to be a big hit lol).
Scott's not directing Bladerunner. They don't have to go with Blomkamp or even those actors. They could still use that story though or something similar.
I think maybe a better idea is to take it away from being a big budget project, give an up and coming director a 70-100mil and tell him to make a character driven horror.
QuoteAnd most of us strike Res from the record.
I think you'll probably find "most of us" don't.
Quote from: Highland on Sep 21, 2017, 12:32:45 AM
Scott's not directing Bladerunner.
He's Executive Producer on Blade Runner.
ofc ! fox/ridley will make final prequel movie but when ? 2022 ?
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 20, 2017, 06:45:37 PM
It's easy Fox. Ripley, adult Newt, Hicks, a dash of Bishop, a cameo from an old David model, a cool corporate villain, Blomkamp directing and Scott producing, presto.
We all want that, and to those that don't, they're going to want it eventually.
I don't want that. Blomkamp is too mediocre. If you want a copy of James Cameron: try Zack Snyder or Michael Bay.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 21, 2017, 12:53:27 AM
Quote from: Highland on Sep 21, 2017, 12:32:45 AM
Scott's not directing Bladerunner.
He's Executive Producer on Blade Runner.
Yup. Basically nothing then.
whiterabbit- I like where you're headed. Personally, I'd like to see David meet his demise by the inner jaws of the big chap in a "meets his maker" sort of way. Not only was the perfect recipe/organism created long ago, he gets to be in it's presence...
And it's gotta be the 79' "metal tubes protruding from lower jaw" big chap. They can 3d scan the original silicon suit for all I care. I want that exact aesthetic. No ferngully organic alien. Full biomechanoid lol.
Not exactly, no.
Get rid of Ridley and abort the 'Prometheus' prequel movies ASAP!
Not gonna happen.
Alien films can easily work off a 40-60 million budget, go back to the roots of the franchise and what made the beast scary.
What's that then?
Very decent storyline, a few acting gaffes, but the cgi and mindless alien scenes mostly ruins this movie...mostly.
"half of this movie must take place on Planet Heaven and be totally Giger"
Absof$cking Lutely!
Give us a planet with landscapes resembling the art in Giger's books. Let the whole BIO Mechanical thing just permeate the planet with unusual, dare I say "alien" environments, full of the semi-erotic stylistic touches. The one thing that always fascinated me was the fact that the alien wasn't purely organic looking, it had a touch of manufacturing, piping, etc...
This news has me hopeful that they stick with the rumored plan.
Finish David's story and explain the space jockey in one more film.
Then move onto a soft reboot - a totally separate story that takes place years after Resurrection that doesn't run the risk of continuity errors and retcons with previous films.
I think that they will let Scott do another as long as HE WANTS to do it...
You have to figure that FOX can always go with a soft reboot should the dredges get dug too deep.
As of now an 80million$ sequel to Covenant or even a 90million$ one, is guaranteed to at least turn some profit without hurting FOX's ability to do that soft reboot at any-time thereafter. So there really is no reason not to let Scott do what he wants within the confines of a slightly smaller budget. If we're considering the idea that people perceive Scott's prequels to have hurt the legacy, that reputation only stands to worsen over-time, for Fox, if he doesn't do another and finish the story. Imagine if Lucas stopped at Episode 2... COVENANT isn't nearly that bad.
As for the above suggestion of Ripley vrs David, well if they made Blomkamps film and brought David into that storyline as the main antagonist vrs Ripley, Newt and Hicks, I think fans would be far more accepting of a lot of things. Even if I still dislike the idea of these films retconning A3, if we get some grand-scale payoff like this, I'd be more excited about it.
Scott will get the budget he needs. If he feels he needs more money, he'll ask for it. He's been using the strategy of storyboarding entire movies to work out exactly what he needs for nearly 40 years now. That's a lot of experience behind him right there.
I have a lot of faith in Scott delivering a great 3rd movie in this series. Maybe another after that if it does well.
-Windebieste.
If the production cost is around $100 million, marketing another $100 million, and the distributor's cut from the box office around 30 percent, then it will have to make around $290 million to break even. That also means little or no profit for the studio and investors unless they want and earn from merchandising. But they will need the money right away to fund other projects.
If they will fund a sequel, then they will likely require assurance that it will earn enough so that they will get a 10-percent return right away, even with around a 30-percent tax on net profit. That may mean box office receipts of around $320 million given the same costs for the earlier film.
Quote from: monkeylove on Sep 21, 2017, 08:33:55 AM
If the production cost is around $100 million, marketing another $100 million, and the distributor's cut from the box office around 30 percent, then it will have to make around $290 million to break even. That also means little or no profit for the studio and investors unless they want and earn from merchandising. But they will need the money right away to fund other projects.
If they will fund a sequel, then they will likely require assurance that it will earn enough so that they will get a 10-percent return right away, even with around a 30-percent tax on net profit. That may mean box office receipts of around $320 million given the same costs for the earlier film.
How are you coming up with these figures? I never heard of a film were %10 return right away. I am familiar with 70 to 90 % return right away on some productions. Also what is 30% tax on net profit? Rarely do marketing cost that much, sometimes. I would say a tad lower for most.
Anyone else who sometimes feels like this:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ea/69/9b/ea699b70cd3e63fa1d8cb448c8f3f5b9.jpg)
There's a certain cruel irony to it all.
The story of the movies started with with a quest for answers and knowledge.
And now I am (we are?) stuck in the limbo of not knowing, just like the characters.
Or almost like characters in many Lovecraftian tales, going mad during the process of searching for the truth. But that might be just me ;D
Yep! :D :'(
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Sep 21, 2017, 05:30:09 PM
Anyone else who sometimes feels like this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ea/69/9b/ea699b70cd3e63fa1d8cb448c8f3f5b9.jpg
There's a certain cruel irony to it all.
The story of the movies started with with a quest for answers and knowledge.
And now I am (we are?) stuck in the limbo of not knowing, just like the characters.
Or almost like characters in many Lovecraftian tales, going mad during the process of searching for the truth. But that might be just me ;D
Just like the end of Prometheus! And those questions are still left hanging!
I get where folk are coming from. But I'm just too scared of the next film. I'm too scared of David or some human being in that Derelict chair and the eggs being the eggmorphed colonists of the Covenant.
Quote from: fritzilla on Sep 21, 2017, 03:59:32 AM
"half of this movie must take place on Planet Heaven and be totally Giger"
Absof$cking Lutely!
Give us a planet with landscapes resembling the art in Giger's books. Let the whole BIO Mechanical thing just permeate the planet with unusual, dare I say "alien" environments, full of the semi-erotic stylistic touches. The one thing that always fascinated me was the fact that the alien wasn't purely organic looking, it had a touch of manufacturing, piping, etc...
I've always thought that this is the only and final thing left for the series to do. It's my Alien dream. A Giger-esque planet......one can dream. That and the original big boy Space Jockey.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 21, 2017, 07:04:59 PM
Just like the end of Prometheus! And those questions are still left hanging!
I get where folk are coming from. But I'm just too scared of the next film. I'm too scared of David or some human being in that Derelict chair and the eggs being the eggmorphed colonists of the Covenant.
You can wait for the reviews and decide afterwards to watch the movie or not.
(When it comes to Terminator movies, I've only seen the first two and a part of the 3rd. I chose not to watch the sequels because I don't want to "taint" the Terminator memory section of my brain.)
Even so, you can always deny the truth and choose one of your liking, possible based on other scripts.
Anyway, I'm more scared I'll never get proper background info on the Engineers. I care more about their story than about the xeno or who might be the Jockey.
Quote from: CainsSon on Sep 21, 2017, 04:37:12 AM
Imagine if Lucas stopped at Episode 2...
Yeah, I mean, having two Star Wars prequels instead of three sounds awful...Just awful... :P
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 21, 2017, 08:20:16 PM
Quote from: CainsSon on Sep 21, 2017, 04:37:12 AM
Imagine if Lucas stopped at Episode 2...
Yeah, I mean, having two Star Wars prequels instead of three sounds awful...Just awful... :P
Yes, actually. It does sound awful.
I Wouldn't be surprised if that Derelict was Some kind of human or android in the chair and all those eggs were the colonist.
A chestbursted android?
"It got great reviews and was everything we set out for it to be, it just didn't hit the note at the box office. It will be a profitable film for the studio but whether there's another one [is uncertain]."
This quote alone is a joke.
FOX, you are the best ;D
Quote from: SM on Sep 21, 2017, 09:35:06 PM
A chestbursted android?
An android is more likely to survive a chestburst and send a message.
And it would explain the unusual appearance of the Jockey.
Android + Engineer suit + infection by alien or black goo = Space Jockey?
Or there was more than one Engineer on board the Derelict. And the other sent a message before he got killed by the 'morph that bursted from the first.
Alien Covenant was not that bad like most of us said, one thing is the fim itself, but the other thing is the box office. I mean, it was also about bad timing, release the movie to the cinema between Guardians 2, another Pirates or Transformers is just nonsense, Alien Covenant is a piece of remarkable art, just because Ridley Scott no matter what. . any open mind can see that, the whole movie is very well produced, it has perfect visual quality, camera positions, the angle. But there was some expectations, a lot of them, so there we have this never ending discussion about the story, and how it all could be connected to the original, first Alien. Even if Ridley cannot answer all the questions in the theoretical third movie, he should still have all the rights to do it, why? Well, he started with some idea, let him finish it with the third movie if it really need to be the last one that Scott could ever create, he is not that young, that is very important thing, and he is certainly the only person that can properly tell his story, of course, because it is his story. . no one else could replace him in order to finish it instead him. And did I mentioned that he is the original film-maker of Alien? How long the old man could be in condition good enough for normal directing huh? Maybe its harsch what i say, but when he would be gone, there would be tons of young amateurs waiting for their version of totally new rebooted versions of another Alien movies, and that ladies and gentlemans gonna be much worst than Scoot's work, I believe in that everytime I see or hear the word "Reboot".
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Sep 21, 2017, 11:21:25 PM
Quote from: SM on Sep 21, 2017, 09:35:06 PM
A chestbursted android?
An android is more likely to survive a chestburst and send a message.
And it would explain the unusual appearance of the Jockey.
Android + Engineer suit + infection by alien or black goo = Space Jockey?
Or there was more than one Engineer on board the Derelict. And the other sent a message before he got killed by the 'morph that bursted from the first.
I'll be honest, when Prom first hit I thought the Alien was going to have something to do with David getting infected. When I first saw the trailer and he's holding that black dot on his finger I thought - That stuff is going to somehow mesh machine and man and make the Alien. I was actually quite willing to accept this also at the time I remember I thought that would be quite cool.
The problem with this now is that Covenant has shown that Androids absolutely 100% do not get infected by the goo, it's practically stamped all over the first two movies. Now if the way Scott has represented the series now, in that the facehuggers are just a goo delivery system then it would make zero sense for David to ever get chest busted.
The only way now is for David to create either a Android version of a facehugger ( Suppose that's possible) or he just tinkers with the design further. This is IF that's even where we are going, it may just be a simple case of Gigers designs just being rejected.
If David inexplicably get's facehugged in the final movie then writers/Director have pretty much rubber stamped the prequel series with a big " This stuff can do anything, anytime" plot device.
QuoteAn android is more likely to survive a chestburst and send a message.
Facehuggers don't go after robots.
Androids are 2/3 human.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 22, 2017, 12:07:46 AM
Androids are 2/3 human.
No the movie both shows and tells us that androids cannot be infected. Any reversal on that would firmly put the trilogy into AVPR quality for me, unless like I said they can come up with a good reason.
Is real. In rotten good reviews with 70%.
Alien Covenant was a COMPLETE failure.
NO. goods reviews in rotten( 70%) and 250 mill with budget 97 mill.. ES mediocre but no COMPLETE failure. COMPLETE is Jogn Carter with 250 budget. LESS box Covenant in EEUU and internacional.
Still waiting for David to literally handle a facehugger!
Give us a scene where he has one in each hand, and tosses them towards people's faces, as they go from limp to energized mid-air as soon as they sense the humans' moist breath.
And give us a zero gravity scene where people are being chased by an alien, one of them shoots it, and they have to run away from the acid blood floating in the air towards them.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 22, 2017, 12:53:32 AM
Still waiting for David to literally handle a facehugger!
Give us a scene where he has one in each hand, and tosses them towards people's faces, as they go from limp to energized mid-air as soon as they sense the humans' moist breath.
And give us a zero gravity scene where people are being chased by an alien, one of them shoots it, and they have to run away from the acid blood floating in the air towards them.
What happens though if a hugger hugs another hugger mid air?
Quote from: Highland on Sep 21, 2017, 11:46:51 PMI'll be honest, when Prom first hit I thought the Alien was going to have something to do with David getting infected. When I first saw the trailer and he's holding that black dot on his finger I thought - That stuff is going to somehow mesh machine and man and make the Alien. I was actually quite willing to accept this also at the time I remember I thought that would be quite cool.
The problem with this now is that Covenant has shown that Androids absolutely 100% do not get infected by the goo, it's practically stamped all over the first two movies. Now if the way Scott has represented the series now, in that the facehuggers are just a goo delivery system then it would make zero sense for David to ever get chest busted.
Imo the reason he didn't got infected is because the goo never came into contact with the fluids inside him.
His finger doesn't absorb. And he doesn't breathe so he doesn't inhale the goo.
I wouldn't find it that strange that his composition would mutate if he should inject himself with goo.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Sep 22, 2017, 01:14:18 AM
Quote from: Highland on Sep 21, 2017, 11:46:51 PMI'll be honest, when Prom first hit I thought the Alien was going to have something to do with David getting infected. When I first saw the trailer and he's holding that black dot on his finger I thought - That stuff is going to somehow mesh machine and man and make the Alien. I was actually quite willing to accept this also at the time I remember I thought that would be quite cool.
The problem with this now is that Covenant has shown that Androids absolutely 100% do not get infected by the goo, it's practically stamped all over the first two movies. Now if the way Scott has represented the series now, in that the facehuggers are just a goo delivery system then it would make zero sense for David to ever get chest busted.
Imo the reason he didn't got infected is because the goo never came into contact with the fluids inside him.
His finger doesn't absorb. And he doesn't breathe so he doesn't inhale the goo.
I wouldn't find it that strange that his composition would mutate if he should inject himself with goo.
What about when he's been wandering the Planet for 10 years....
He specifically says to Oram it only infects "the meat". Synthetic is the opposite of meat.
Quote from: Highland on Sep 22, 2017, 01:19:43 AMWhat about when he's been wandering the Planet for 10 years....
He specifically says to Oram it only infects "the meat". Synthetic is the opposite of meat.
Maybe he has meaty parts inside or he added biological parts to himself, I don't know.
They did it in the comic so why not in the movie.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7534/15715700116_c75b7eafdf_o.jpg)
**trying not to make sausage jokes
Elden wasn't an android, he was more like a replicant.
The goo doesnt infect david because he is not organic and has no DNA to mutate.
Yep. Elden was more of a cyborg, than a synthetic.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Sep 22, 2017, 02:19:05 AM
The goo doesnt infect david because he is not organic and has no DNA to mutate.
He only had one drop of it on the tip of his finger.
And how do you know they don't have DNA, they might have synthetic DNA.
After all, they can grow hair and eat like animals do.
Aliens don't regard them as hosts.
Quote from: SM on Sep 22, 2017, 04:46:54 AM
Aliens don't regard them as hosts.
Exactly. Even if your synthetic DNA was possible Scorpio (Which honestly might be a legitimate point, I'm no expert) the film tells us that David cannot be infected. " Waiting for a mother" and all that....
It's possible that he could make another version which could turn against him, but I think we would have to be shown that some how. For a normal hugger to suddenly just jump on an android without explanation would be a step too far for me.
I can see the poetry in the creation turning on it's creator, that might even be where he's heading (Scott), but yeah, I'd need some sort of reason personally.
QuoteWhich honestly might be a legitimate point, I'm no expert
Considering the '2/3 human' comment - imma go with 'not'...
Quote from: SM on Sep 22, 2017, 04:52:27 AM
QuoteWhich honestly might be a legitimate point, I'm no expert
Considering the '2/3 human' comment - imam go with 'not'...
I was tryin to be nice :)
Quote from: bleau on Sep 21, 2017, 09:21:52 AM
How are you coming up with these figures? I never heard of a film were %10 return right away. I am familiar with 70 to 90 % return right away on some productions. Also what is 30% tax on net profit? Rarely do marketing cost that much, sometimes. I would say a tad lower for most.
Several links here:
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=57436.msg2236367#msg2236367
and other points in the same thread.
Of course, the numbers vary. For example, the dataset used in the last link shows marketing cost at 80 percent of the production budget, but since I didn't include costs for manufacturing, overhead, residuals, etc., I decided to set it at roughly the same as the budget. Also, I could not find the costs for gross rentals.
Finally, because studios and investors are for-profit, then the tendency for them is to greenlight projects that will not only profit but that they believe will be more profitable than other projects that they would have to set aside or reject. That's why I think they will support a sequel not only because it will make more than the current film but a lot more given similar costs.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Sep 21, 2017, 07:56:42 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 21, 2017, 07:04:59 PM
Just like the end of Prometheus! And those questions are still left hanging!
I get where folk are coming from. But I'm just too scared of the next film. I'm too scared of David or some human being in that Derelict chair and the eggs being the eggmorphed colonists of the Covenant.
You can wait for the reviews and decide afterwards to watch the movie or not.
That wouldn't really matter - I'd see it opening night. But regardless of whether I saw the movie or not, it's still made and those events (potentially) still occur.
QuoteAnyway, I'm more scared I'll never get proper background info on the Engineers. I care more about their story than about the xeno or who might be the Jockey.
That's the thing. It's one of those things left hanging at the end of Prometheus and not addressed in Covenant either. I'd still like more actual exploration of the Engineers.
Quote from: SM on Sep 21, 2017, 09:35:06 PM
A chestbursted android?
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he toyed with the accelerant or some other deus ex machina to turn him biological or biomechanical, specifically so he could become the jockey. Just seems like the kind of story turn I'd expect from Scott.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 22, 2017, 12:53:32 AM
Still waiting for David to literally handle a facehugger!
That scene had the potential to be incredibly creepy. Would have just depended on execution.
QuoteI honestly wouldn't be surprised if he toyed with the accelerant or some other deus ex machina to turn him biological or biomechanical, specifically so he could become the jockey. Just seems like the kind of story turn I'd expect from Scott.
To be honest I wouldn't be surprised either. If it was handled inventively I could dig it.
Or he swallowed and embryo and it went wrong.
Scott got the idea from drug smugglers. And just like with smuggling, sometimes the packaging breaks.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 22, 2017, 08:56:34 AMI honestly wouldn't be surprised if he toyed with the accelerant or some other deus ex machina to turn him biological or biomechanical, specifically so he could become the jockey. Just seems like the kind of story turn I'd expect from Scott.
Wouldn't surprise me either.
QuoteI honestly wouldn't be surprised if he toyed with the accelerant or some other deus ex machina to turn him biological or biomechanical, specifically so he could become the jockey.
Oh please no! It was bad enough when everyone was speculating that Shaw was the Jockey. David says it; the accelerant works on animals - not plants or fungus or algae or plankton or bacterium, just animals.
Any kind of 'deus ex machina' for turning David into the Jockey can't possibly involve the accelerant without a ton of exposition... so Scott will be cool with it.
In spite of mixed feelings of Prometheus and Covenant I'm still on board for Ridley complete his story with the next film linking up to the Original Alien.
I for one am glad that Fox still have Ridley on board for the franchise, I mean, why wouldn't they -- Covenant wasn't a critical failure, and I pretty much only read the top critics on RT (74%). Regardless of anyone's feelings regarding the last two entries there's no denying that Fassbender has added some much needed class to the series, and frankly all the appeals to mystery seem mostly emotionally motivated and ignore the crux of Giger's aesthetic; which wasn't so much predicated on mystery as much as the erotic and grotesque transfiguration of sex, death and technology combined. Stumbling on an alien parasite already preadapted to infect a human host is also just not possible without a history of co-evolution anyway; pathogenesis requires an established intimacy, heck the facehugger KNOWS to provide the host oxygen, and it had to have recognised specific human proteins, cells, etc, in order to thwart the immune system's defences and use the host as an incubator. I don't know what would motivate some elephantine Old Ones to create such a messy, penile creature -- it's so evocative of human sex organs, after all -- but I do know what would motivate a sexually impotent, emotionally paradoxical and mad android. Love it or loathe it, it's logical.
The top critics gave it a 6.7/10 tho, that 75% is just how many gave it a positive score.
For an Android, David has aged quite a lot when this series ever ends ::)
Don't hurry, FOX. You have all the time in the world. ::)
I'm sick of prequels in general. I think they need to do a sequel to Resurrection and finish off Ripley's story. I take it over the happy ending retcon idea that they wanted to do by removing Alien 3.
Eh, Ripley's story ended in 3. That's how I see it, at least.
Yep, I have no desire to see the continued adventures of septuagenarian half xeno/half human Ripley...
There are comics, novels and other expanded material that explores what happened after Resurrection, owing to its reputation its unlikely to get a sequel, the closest we're likely to get is a low budget direct to DVD sequel but doesn't featuring returning characters.
In spite of wanting Alien5, its been so long that the chances are it'll never happen. What is probable is what was suggest in the report of Fox Re-assessing the series, once they complete the Prequels leading up to Alien they'll go soft reboot and have a movie taking place after the other films but doesn't act as Alien 5 or an alternative Alien3 but features new characters in a separate incident. Would love one more adventure with Ripley but not any time soon.
Quote from: Evanus on Sep 23, 2017, 06:03:11 PM
Eh, Ripley's story ended in 3. That's how I see it, at least.
Yeah I agree. I think the 4th Alien film should have been something that started a new trilogy with all new characters.
That was the intent originally.
Goddamn that would have been interesting.
Whats good folks.
Like everyone here I'm a die hard Alien fan and actually I loved Covenant, there were some scenes that took me out a little bit from the initial feel but overall I did end up enjoying it, I for one would love to see the continuation next.
Sooo, this leaves us thinking, Since Alien 5 was said to be shelved and after the disappointment results for Covenant ... would it make only sense if we were to have this film feature AFTER the alien series, hence becoming the Alien 5 we all would be curious to see? Here's my pitch ...
... The Covenant ship is floating in space, its destination perhaps is the planet of the engineers (or so David THINKS is their location which could still be clouded in secrecy), Both Daniels and Tennessee are still in habitation sleep. Some where in space a strange 'Croissant' like ship appears at the planet 4 to check upon their 'experiments' only to find their disembodiment corpse on the floor. Having examined all they find out that David was responsible and so head after him.
Many, many years later there is a orbital star base, the logo 'WY' on the surface. Aboard the massive base is various military personal as well as other 100 - 1000 of tech doctors working on increasing experiments on military hard ware, their Bio-mechanical weapons. Aboard we see back familiar faces, Newt (Now well grown up) Hicks (war marks from his previous encounter with the Aliens) and last but by no means least ... Ellen Ripley. Their having been place under military confinement due to all the events from ALIENS (ALIEN 3 and ALIEN RESSURRECTION were good but story went off in another direction).
During the course of the story we would be re-introduced to the spaceship, the Covenant as well as the Engineers, if your talking about a least bringing THIS chapter to a close, then what better way. I have pend out a rough story of where this series I feel can.
What can I say? I'm a massive fan and eager to see the connection weave in and out.
In the end, it boils down to money.
Ridley Scott is pragmatic. So:
1.- NO Katherine Waterston or Danny McBride.
2.- NO Noomi Rapace.
3.- NO Ripley.
3.- Make Tom Hardy and his Colonial Marines Versus Michael Fassbender and his Aliens.
Huge moneymaker.
Quote from: PierreVW on Sep 25, 2017, 11:20:49 PM
Ridley Scott is pragmatic. So:
1.- NO Katherine Waterston or Danny McBride.
2.- NO Noomi Rapace.
3.- NO Ripley.
3.- Make Tom Hardy and his Colonial Marines Versus Michael Fassbender and his Aliens.
Huge moneymaker.
What is it with you and your fascination for Tom Hardon?
Quote from: tleilaxu on Sep 26, 2017, 08:42:50 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Sep 25, 2017, 11:20:49 PM
Ridley Scott is pragmatic. So:
1.- NO Katherine Waterston or Danny McBride.
2.- NO Noomi Rapace.
3.- NO Ripley.
3.- Make Tom Hardy and his Colonial Marines Versus Michael Fassbender and his Aliens.
Huge moneymaker.
What is it with you and your fascination for Tom Hardon?
Tom Hardy is a great actor but it could be any other great actor.
Ridley Scott worked with: Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Wahlberg, Matt Damon, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. It could be any of those 5. A great actor to be a manly General of the Colonial Marines.
Blade Runner 2049 got Ford, Gosling, Leto... and Bautista, and Wright.
Covenant got Fassbender, a complimentary four minutes of Guy Pearce(after his scene the movie took the biggest nosedive in quality ever), and a Franco crumb.
CAST EVENT ACTORS FOR YOUR EVENT MOVIE. EVENTIZE YOUR EVENTS.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 27, 2017, 01:39:59 AM
Blade Runner 2049 got Ford, Gosling, Leto... and Bautista, and Wright.
Covenant got Fassbender, a complimentary four minutes of Guy Pearce(after his scene the movie took the biggest nosedive in quality ever), and a Franco crumb.
CAST EVENT ACTORS FOR YOUR EVENT MOVIE. EVENTIZE YOUR EVENTS.
Maybe Ridley Scott doesn't want famous stars in the ALIEN franchise.
Scott always worked with the biggest stars(Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Wahlberg, etc) in his other films.
You need proper character actors, not movie stars.
Think Jaws or some kind of safari-gone-bad movie, where the aliens are just wildlife. They don't come to you, you stray into their world.
Make something interesting - and new - out of that simple premise, and you won't go wrong. Add a really decent script and it could be great.
Quote from: PierreVW on Sep 27, 2017, 03:57:31 AM
Maybe Ridley Scott doesn't want famous stars in the ALIEN franchise.
Scott always worked with the biggest stars(Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Wahlberg, etc) in his other films.
Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron and Idris Elba don't qualify as famous quality actors anymore?
Lack of good actors was never a problem in the Alien franchise. It was always down to the script.
Indeed. The actors have all been fine. Some good casting. Lately the problems have been, as Paranoid stated, in the scripting and story side of things. Which lately I think also comes from Scott's heavier involvement in the story side of things.
Great early buzz about Blade Runner. Going to watch the original Blade runner Friday. For the my Aussie brethren, it's this Friday at Hoyt's and events, one showing only apperently. Not missing that!
Quote from: Highland on Sep 27, 2017, 02:26:01 PM
Great early buzz about Blade Runner. Going to watch the original Blade runner Friday. For the my Aussie brethren, it's this Friday at Hoyt's and events, one showing only apperently. Not missing that!
Heard the exact opposite. Wasn't shown at a pre-release presser; they ran the original instead. That usually means one thing: stinker.
As if Billy Crudup or Amy Seimetz weren't character actors. Meh this place is so predictably boring and devoid of substance.
Thanks ::) Love some me some generalisation.
Its not the actors, the script, or even Scott. Its the "fanboys" and the internet. I long for the days before the people who dont know anything about film making could have their voice heard. I've been on this site for since the early days and the amount of garbage ideas that fuel peoples bias opinions of the recent two entities of the franchise are overwhelming. Its all bells and whistles that they confuse for good story telling. The nostalgia for the things that became their favorites parts of the originals and the undying and desire for more of the same ole stuff in every film. For most of them these ideas were formed in their minds at a young and uneducated age in regards to what make a film a good film.
People have the right to not like something, but too often they equate as grounds to say something is all around just bad. This is from their lack of ability to really analyze a movie without their own preconceived bias. Both Prometheus and Covenant are good and worthy entries into the franchise, more so than Aliens and A:R were. While Aliens changed the formula to a action driven movie, it suffers from MANY of its own problem such as turning the Alien into cannon fodder in favor of some boss battle at the end. Its comes from the low hanging fruit idea of make a sequel riddled with "more" and "bigger". Its really poor writing.
But as I said the majority of people on here saw it with a young and impressionable mind and will never see it with any other eyes, and go on to whine and complain when everything else doesn't resemble that impression.
Quote from: brokentusk420 on Sep 27, 2017, 07:31:08 PMBoth Prometheus and Covenant good and worthy entries into the franchise, more so than Aliens and A:R were.
:laugh:
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 27, 2017, 07:38:38 PM
Quote from: brokentusk420 on Sep 27, 2017, 07:31:08 PMBoth Prometheus and Covenant good and worthy entries into the franchise, more so than Aliens and A:R were.
:laugh:
See my point has been illustrated in record time. Say anything crooked about Aliens or that the recent prequels are good, and the trolls come from under the bridges clutching their favorite movie like Newt and that severed doll head. Smh
Indeed. Please continue to dazzle us with your film snobbery. You're a laugh riot.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 27, 2017, 07:48:39 PM
Indeed. Please continue to dazzle us with your film snobbery. You're a laugh riot.
It's not film snobbery. It's the truth. You know how I know it is? By the way you are reacting to it. It bothers you because it struck a chord with you that you know is true. You have nothing in the form of a rebutale. Instead you result to the lowest form of response.
No, you just show up and insult other fans for disliking or thinking critically of a film you enjoy. I would rate Covenant above AR but I'm not going to slag off fellow fans who might not. So let's chill out with that attitude please.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 27, 2017, 08:20:37 PM
No, you just show up and insult other fans for disliking or thinking critically of a film you enjoy. I would rate Covenant above AR but I'm not going to slag off fellow fans who might not. So let's chill out with that attitude please.
Nothing I said was insulting. There was no name calling simply stating facts.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 27, 2017, 08:20:37 PM
I would rate Covenant above AR but I'm not going to slag off fellow fans who might not.
I would rate my last bowel movement above AR.
Quote from: brokentusk420 on Sep 27, 2017, 08:12:04 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 27, 2017, 07:48:39 PM
Indeed. Please continue to dazzle us with your film snobbery. You're a laugh riot.
It's not film snobbery. It's the truth. You know how I know it is? By the way you are reacting to it. It bothers you because it struck a chord with you that you know is true. You have nothing in the form of a rebutale. Instead you result to the lowest form of response.
No, my lowest form of response is against the rules here.
Oh, go on. There must be a 'Responding to pomposity and lack of self-awareness' defence in the rules somewhere
Yeah, but he just said that nothing he said was insulting. So now I'm at a loss. :-\
Then you can use that same 'Nah, because I said so' defence.
Kirk/Bones
Quote from: brokentusk420 on Sep 27, 2017, 07:31:08 PM
Its not the actors, the script, or even Scott. Its the "fanboys" and the internet. I long for the days before the people who dont know anything about film making could have their voice heard. I've been on this site for since the early days and the amount of garbage ideas that fuel peoples bias opinions of the recent two entities of the franchise are overwhelming. Its all bells and whistles that they confuse for good story telling. The nostalgia for the things that became their favorites parts of the originals and the undying and desire for more of the same ole stuff in every film. For most of them these ideas were formed in their minds at a young and uneducated age in regards to what make a film a good film.
People have the right to not like something, but too often they equate as grounds to say something is all around just bad. This is from their lack of ability to really analyze a movie without their own preconceived bias. Both Prometheus and Covenant are good and worthy entries into the franchise, more so than Aliens and A:R were. While Aliens changed the formula to a action driven movie, it suffers from MANY of its own problem such as turning the Alien into cannon fodder in favor of some boss battle at the end. Its comes from the low hanging fruit idea of make a sequel riddled with "more" and "bigger". Its really poor writing.
But as I said the majority of people on here saw it with a young and impressionable mind and will never see it with any other eyes, and go on to whine and complain when everything else doesn't resemble that impression.
Even though I don't agree with what you've said, sometimes I do wonder if all the movies I love now are because they scared me as a kid, terrified me. I had nightmares about both the Alien and Prefstor, I couldn't watch Jaws til the end, The Thing - shit! Now all of those films would proudly sit in my top 10.
We would have to ask younger fans ( much younger and probably not allowed on forums) if they found Prometheus and Covenant scary, because I'd say now ( probably being an adult) they were super light on the chills.
I don't think that's just the sole reason though, just a big one. There are current sci fi movies I find extremely enjoyable and well made , like Children of Men or even Mad Max.
When you put Aliens on now there's no bit you want to skip, every single scene is filled with character. I just think it's a well made movie. I guess my point in all of this is that the age you saw a movie poissibly matters, but I don't think that people that dislike the current movies automatically compare it with the old ones.
Quote from: SM on Sep 27, 2017, 09:06:46 PM
Oh, go on. There must be a 'Responding to pomposity and lack of self-awareness' defence in the rules somewhere
:laugh:
Younger fan here (turning 15 at the end of October). I wouldn't say I found either Prometheus or Covenant scary, but honestly, I didn't need them to be. As long as I could be invested in the characters, that's all I need. A good recent example would be It. I wasn't really scared (with one notable exception, but that'd be getting into spoiler territory), but I didn't mind, because I loved the characters and wanted to see them succeed. I felt Prometheus also succeeded at that, on top of being visually stunning and having some great ideas on where to take the series. With Covenant, however, the only new characters I liked were Daniels, Walter and Tennessee. That was one of several problems I had with Covenant. And it's not like I went in hating it. Tied with Dunkirk, it was my most anticipated film of the summer. I wanted it to be good. I even saw it twice in the theaters. Alas, I just found it disappointing. Not terrible, not even bad I'd say, just meh.
Then again, I unironically like Suicide Squad, so maybe my tastes in film shouldn't be trusted.
Quote from: brokentusk420 on Sep 27, 2017, 07:31:08 PM
Its not the actors, the script, or even Scott. Its the "fanboys" and the internet. I long for the days before the people who dont know anything about film making could have their voice heard. I've been on this site for since the early days and the amount of garbage ideas that fuel peoples bias opinions of the recent two entities of the franchise are overwhelming. Its all bells and whistles that they confuse for good story telling. The nostalgia for the things that became their favorites parts of the originals and the undying and desire for more of the same ole stuff in every film. For most of them these ideas were formed in their minds at a young and uneducated age in regards to what make a film a good film.
People have the right to not like something, but too often they equate as grounds to say something is all around just bad. This is from their lack of ability to really analyze a movie without their own preconceived bias. Both Prometheus and Covenant are good and worthy entries into the franchise, more so than Aliens and A:R were. While Aliens changed the formula to a action driven movie, it suffers from MANY of its own problem such as turning the Alien into cannon fodder in favor of some boss battle at the end. Its comes from the low hanging fruit idea of make a sequel riddled with "more" and "bigger". Its really poor writing.
But as I said the majority of people on here saw it with a young and impressionable mind and will never see it with any other eyes, and go on to whine and complain when everything else doesn't resemble that impression.
From what I gathered, the praise for
Prometheus and
Covenant is based on the point that they have very good special effects and set design, but they did badly in the box office because of problems with stories and characterization.
Aliens became action-driven because the horror element could no longer be repeated for obvious reasons. And one possible reason why it is mentioned together with
Alien is because both have very good stories and characterization.
Finally, the point about nostalgia is notable but that might not be reason for the weakness of the two recent movies. What is more likely is that producers wanted to revive the franchise and thought of doing two things: repeat elements from the first movies that made them profitable, and then bring in a backstory driven by
gravitas, with set design and special effects updated in order to appeal to a global audience and justify the label of a "blockbuster."
The result was a mess because they were trying to put together sets of stories that did not work with each other: the alien astronaut storyline mixed with elements from the
Alien storyline, then a continuation of the backstory (this time with musings on art, philosophy, religion, etc.) mixed this time with elements from
Aliens (and part of
Alien, as seen in characters alluding to Dallas or who look like Ripley).
Quote from: AD on Sep 28, 2017, 12:45:18 AM
Then again, I unironically like Suicide Squad, so maybe my tastes in film shouldn't be trusted.
Depends on what you liked about Suicide Squad. I liked the costumes and the first 30 minutes a lot. That being said, I haven't seen the extended cut yet.
Films are usually judged based on their ability to fulfill their expected purpose. In this case, one should not compare Alien with Aliens because they employ different genres. In which case, one should not fault one movie because it focuses on horror while another on action.
Next, it's obvious that the genre cannot be repeated in this case. The horror element developed in the first movie was no longer possible for the second, which is why the latter focused on action. The third could not repeat the first two, which is why it emphasized something similar to detective fiction (i.e., knowing enough about the creature but figuring out how to kill it without the availability of weapons). The fourth probably focused on something related to conspiracy and the thriller (which is introduced at the end of the third movie).
At this point, the producers decided to develop the backstory, and understandably focused on the origins of the engineers and the creatures. Given the point this type of story would likely not be driven by action or horror, then they should have made something else.
Quote from: monkeylove on Sep 28, 2017, 03:22:20 AM
From what I gathered, the praise for Prometheus and Covenant is based on the point that they have very good special effects and set design, but they did badly in the box office because of problems with stories and characterization.
I don't know if I would describe a film like Prometheus with a budget of 130 million, grossing 400 million at the box office as "did badly at the box office."
Neither did badly at the box office. Covenant underperformed though.
That's because it didn't have guns and explosions and queens and marines and Ripley!
Or a coherent script
Quote from: brokentusk420 on Sep 27, 2017, 08:36:21 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 27, 2017, 08:20:37 PM
No, you just show up and insult other fans for disliking or thinking critically of a film you enjoy. I would rate Covenant above AR but I'm not going to slag off fellow fans who might not. So let's chill out with that attitude please.
Nothing I said was insulting. There was no name calling simply stating facts.
"Facts." Not in the slightest. Just another case of one fan not liking what others are saying and turning on them instead. Look, tusk, there's nothing wrong with differing opinions. There is, however, a problem when people come on and present them in insulting or immature fashions. Then when I start having problems with people. So let's tone down on that attitude or if you're unwilling, you can just move on.
Quote from: monkeylove on Sep 28, 2017, 03:43:10 AM
Films are usually judged based on their ability to fulfill their expected purpose. In this case, one should not compare Alien with Aliens because they employ different genres. In which case, one should not fault one movie because it focuses on horror while another on action.
Next, it's obvious that the genre cannot be repeated in this case. The horror element developed in the first movie was no longer possible for the second, which is why the latter focused on action. The third could not repeat the first two, which is why it emphasized something similar to detective fiction (i.e., knowing enough about the creature but figuring out how to kill it without the availability of weapons). The fourth probably focused on something related to conspiracy and the thriller (which is introduced at the end of the third movie).
At this point, the producers decided to develop the backstory, and understandably focused on the origins of the engineers and the creatures. Given the point this type of story would likely not be driven by action or horror, then they should have made something else.
Agreed. And that's why Aliens isn't just a great movie, it's a great sequel too. It takes elements from the original but presents them to the audience in a way they haven't seen before. It's screen-writing genius.
"Get away from her you bitch" is screenwriting genius alright. :)
It's a good movie, but it's 80s version of Starship Troopers. Not the cosmic horror of ALIEN.
Not saying I would prefer a remake of ALIEN, but I wouldn't call Aliens a 'great sequel'.
Alien Isolation is a great sequel to ALIEN.
Aliens is a great sequel because, as Rudiger said, it takes all the things you love about the first one then resets them in a different genre. In that regard, Isolation retreads Alien and puts it on a space station that looks a lot like the Nostromo.
And traditionally sequels often retread the original.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 27, 2017, 06:39:32 PM
Thanks ::) Love some me some generalisation.
I'm tired of nuances aimed at people who had already made clear they are not capable of detecting them. Not you, but some here.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 28, 2017, 09:49:42 AM
"Get away from her you bitch" is screenwriting genius alright. :)
It's a good movie, but it's 80s version of Starship Troopers. Not the cosmic horror of ALIEN.
Not saying I would prefer a remake of ALIEN, but I wouldn't call Aliens a 'great sequel'.
Alien Isolation is a great sequel to ALIEN.
Aliens is nothing like Starship Troopers. Starship Troopers would be closer to Full Metal Jacket in space, but it's not that simply to call it as such either. Starship Troopers is a wonderful, self-aware satire. The only thing conceptually common between them on an abstract level is that they both detest jingo-ism but they handle it quite differently.
^Starship Troopers is a noted influence on Aliens. The novel not the 1997 movie.
SM:
Alien Isolation doesn't retread Alien, it expands on it but not in a hamfisted 80s action way.
And Aliens doesn't take all the things I love about Alien. There are many things that Alien just does better.
As for action scenes and world building, Aliens is top notch at that, and is a great movie just not a great sequel.
So a great sequel should just copy the original then. Right.
And the story of SST isn't really anything like Aliens other than space soldiers fight insectile monsters.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 28, 2017, 10:22:31 AM
^Starship Troopers is a noted influence on Aliens. The novel not the 1997 movie.
What exactly did the novel influence in Aliens? If anything, the 1997 film had more similarities to it, and as stated earlier, it's a satire of militarism, so those similarities are merely surface level.
Quote
Alien Isolation doesn't retread Alien, it expands on it but not in a hamfisted 80s action way.
Alien: Isolation is one of my favorite games of all times, but to say it doesn't retread Alien? Please...The game has entire missions that
literally retread Alien, such as Marlow's flashback mission. The game is a love letter to the original film, and its main goal was to put the player in the situations seen in the original film.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 28, 2017, 10:39:42 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 28, 2017, 10:22:31 AM
^Starship Troopers is a noted influence on Aliens. The novel not the 1997 movie.
What exactly did the novel influence in Aliens? If anything, the 1997 film had more similarities to it, and as stated earlier, it's a satire of militarism, so those similarities are merely surface level.
I've never been able to see those influences either. Aside from the obvious space military stuff.
Quote
I'm tired of nuances aimed at people who had already made clear they are not capable of detecting them. Not you, but some here.
I find it tiring when a whole community is painted with the same brush as two or three folk. Especially when its being used to throw around negatives.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 28, 2017, 09:49:42 AM
"Get away from her you bitch" is screenwriting genius alright. :)
It's a good movie, but it's 80s version of Starship Troopers. Not the cosmic horror of ALIEN.
Not saying I would prefer a remake of ALIEN, but I wouldn't call Aliens a 'great sequel'.
Alien Isolation is a great sequel to ALIEN.
That's the point. It's not trying to replicate Alien.
Quote from: Rudiger on Sep 28, 2017, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 28, 2017, 09:49:42 AM
"Get away from her you bitch" is screenwriting genius alright. :)
It's a good movie, but it's 80s version of Starship Troopers. Not the cosmic horror of ALIEN.
Not saying I would prefer a remake of ALIEN, but I wouldn't call Aliens a 'great sequel'.
Alien Isolation is a great sequel to ALIEN.
That's the point. It's not trying to replicate Alien.
Yeah, that's what makes Aliens a great sequel. Isolation was an enjoyable game but I do think it would be completely dull as a movie.
Cameron packed so much into Aliens, I think he killed the franchise for everyone that followed.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 28, 2017, 09:49:42 AM
"Get away from her you bitch" is screenwriting genius alright. :)
It's a good movie, but it's 80s version of Starship Troopers. Not the cosmic horror of ALIEN.
Not saying I would prefer a remake of ALIEN, but I wouldn't call Aliens a 'great sequel'.
Alien Isolation is a great sequel to ALIEN.
If that line was in a movie quizz 99.9% of people would get it. Probably even my mum.
Not sure about "got you,you f***er" or whatever it is Daniels says (see can't even remember lol)
Quote from: Highland on Sep 28, 2017, 02:10:40 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 28, 2017, 09:49:42 AM
"Get away from her you bitch" is screenwriting genius alright. :)
It's a good movie, but it's 80s version of Starship Troopers. Not the cosmic horror of ALIEN.
Not saying I would prefer a remake of ALIEN, but I wouldn't call Aliens a 'great sequel'.
Alien Isolation is a great sequel to ALIEN.
If that line was in a movie quizz 99.9% of people would get it. Probably even my mum.
Not sure about "got you,you f***er" or whatever it is Daniels says (see can't even remember lol)
The only line anyone will ever remember from A:C is "I'll do the fingering". And then they'll laugh.
Quote from: Rudiger on Sep 28, 2017, 02:30:35 PM
Quote from: Highland on Sep 28, 2017, 02:10:40 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 28, 2017, 09:49:42 AM
"Get away from her you bitch" is screenwriting genius alright. :)
It's a good movie, but it's 80s version of Starship Troopers. Not the cosmic horror of ALIEN.
Not saying I would prefer a remake of ALIEN, but I wouldn't call Aliens a 'great sequel'.
Alien Isolation is a great sequel to ALIEN.
If that line was in a movie quizz 99.9% of people would get it. Probably even my mum.
Not sure about "got you,you f***er" or whatever it is Daniels says (see can't even remember lol)
The only line anyone will ever remember from A:C is "I'll do the fingering". And then they'll laugh.
Funny, I totally missed that on first viewing. I was too busy waiting on David sticking the flute through Walters head.
"Get away from her you bitch" is the cheesiest one liner in the entire series.
Yes if by cheesy you mean most iconic.
Just because something is famous and popular doesn't mean it is good.
Often though, it does.
Quote from: Scorpio
"Get away from her you bitch" is the cheesiest one liner in the entire series.
A strange claim indeed. One of the definitions of cheesy is blatantly inauthentic. I see nothing blatantly inauthentic about Ripley's line at all. It copies no other well known movie quote in any way that I know of. I would be curious if you think it mocks or copies some other well known movie quote.
Or maybe you are calling it cheesy in some other form of definition. But I would still be curious for that reason. I mean, I could claim, "Play it again, Sam" is a really cheesy movie quote. Without coughing up why it warrants that label, my claim really doesn't hold water.
Indeed.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 29, 2017, 12:18:17 AM
Quote from: Scorpio
"Get away from her you bitch" is the cheesiest one liner in the entire series.
A strange claim indeed. One of the definitions of cheesy is blatantly inauthentic.
You got that from Urban dictionary, right?
How about "trying too hard" and "unsubtle"?
What's so cheesy about "Play it again, Sam"?
"You're tearing me apart Lisa!" is a cheesy line, delivered in a cheesy way. So is "Get away from her you bitch!".
^ Speaking of trying too hard...
Well you know what they say about arguing on the internet..
How about a nice "Let's agree to disagree."
Hicks have you heard anything? Heard today they were soliciting treatments.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 29, 2017, 01:17:12 AM
Well you know what they say about arguing on the internet..
Would you say that Alien Resurrection was better than Aliens?
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Sep 28, 2017, 03:55:15 AM
I don't know if I would describe a film like Prometheus with a budget of 130 million, grossing 400 million at the box office as "did badly at the box office."
You have to include marketing costs, the distributor's cut, residuals, taxes, etc.
https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-blockbusters/
That is, marketing costs might be around 80 percent of the budget, but it might be similar to the budget if we add residuals, etc. That means the total studio cost might be up to $260 million.
For the box office, there's a 30-to-50 percent cut for the distributor and sales tax. I always calculated it at 30 percent but I never thought of the sales tax, which means the studio's cut might be somewhere in between. The source above states that the ave. return for the studio has been 41 to 50 percent of box office receipts. If we use the lower end, then the studio's cut was around $236 million. If so, then one can argue that the movie was not profitable.
However, if marketing costs were not that high, then maybe the movie made a slight profit, even after paying corporate tax. Of course, there are other revenue streams, like merchandising, but those arrive later, so I usually stick to box office receipts.
Even factoring in marketing and Hollywood accounting - neither film "did badly".
Quote from: SM on Sep 29, 2017, 03:23:05 AM
Even factoring in marketing and Hollywood accounting - neither film "did badly".
If it earned around $20 million for the studio and investors, then it did well as that would be equivalent to something like an 8-percent ROI. Of course, if profits will be needed to bankroll more projects or if the film is meant to be a tent-pole and cover losses of other films, then probably not.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 29, 2017, 03:18:03 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 29, 2017, 01:17:12 AM
Well you know what they say about arguing on the internet..
Would you say that Alien Resurrection was better than Aliens?
Some people do. :P
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 29, 2017, 01:05:08 AM
What's so cheesy about "Play it again, Sam"?
Um......nothing that I'm aware of. You do understand I only used Blaine's quote as a what-if example, right?
No matter, you've shared your reason below....
Quote from: Scorpio on Sep 29, 2017, 01:05:08 AM
How about "trying too hard" and "unsubtle"?
I'm not seeing that applicable to Ripley's line, but thanks for sharing your reason.
Well its Camerons take on things, you definitely dont have to like it and the hangar wrestling match that follows that line certainly is anticipating all the unnerving blockbuster overkill fights we have to deal with today, most of the time accompanied with a neverending stream of: thats right, cheesy one liners --
Thanks Jim!
All the memorable lines of dialogue come from Aliens.
Right.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 29, 2017, 03:15:22 AM
Hicks have you heard anything? Heard today they were soliciting treatments.
I haven't, I'm afraid. Have you heard anything specific?
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 29, 2017, 07:32:16 AM
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 29, 2017, 03:15:22 AM
Hicks have you heard anything? Heard today they were soliciting treatments.
I haven't, I'm afraid. Have you heard anything specific?
All I heard was "soliciting treatments". And that in the Covenant's "writers room" their primary focus was bringing back that original alien, which many of us feel was the weakest element of the movie.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 29, 2017, 05:27:22 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 29, 2017, 07:32:16 AM
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 29, 2017, 03:15:22 AM
Hicks have you heard anything? Heard today they were soliciting treatments.
I haven't, I'm afraid. Have you heard anything specific?
All I heard was "soliciting treatments".
I take it that's boss talk for - " Give us ideas we got none again"
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 29, 2017, 05:27:22 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 29, 2017, 07:32:16 AM
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 29, 2017, 03:15:22 AM
Hicks have you heard anything? Heard today they were soliciting treatments.
I haven't, I'm afraid. Have you heard anything specific?
All I heard was "soliciting treatments". And that in the Covenant's "writers room" their primary focus was bringing back that original alien, which many of us feel was the weakest element of the movie.
What they need now is to bring back the Engineers and finish their story properly with David and move on. If they want to insert the xeno, they better do it in a more tasteful way than being shoehorned in like it was in Covenant.
If I were Scott I'd bring the writer's team from
Blade Runner 2049, and have them take a stab at it since the critics are raving how great that film is. Perhaps they can help ride the ship. Though, its unlikely that would occur.
The way Covenant ends could potentially set up a sequel that would be a straight up alien rehash, the crew being trapped on the Covenant with David and his Aliens. But didn't some studio head say something to the effect of wanting to push the sequel in a new direction recently?
Found the quote I was thinking of, Fox CEO Stacey Snider-
"It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it. When universes are as rich as Alien they can stay in a too-familiar groove --- in which case you're in trouble --- but they can also find a planet or a storyline or a villain that also lives in that universe that can be groundbreaking."
Courtesy of cinema blend.
Quote from: BonesawT101 on Sep 30, 2017, 08:01:24 PM
The way Covenant ends could potentially set up a sequel that would be a straight up alien rehash, the crew being trapped on the Covenant with David and his Aliens. But didn't some studio head say something to the effect of wanting to push the sequel in a new direction recently?
Found the quote I was thinking of, Fox CEO Stacey Snider-
"It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it. When universes are as rich as Alien they can stay in a too-familiar groove --- in which case you're in trouble --- but they can also find a planet or a storyline or a villain that also lives in that universe that can be groundbreaking."
Courtesy of cinema blend.
Two things have to happen. 1. The company must see the alien in action in order to want it for the bio-weapons division. 2. The derelict must come to hold its deadly cargo. This is the problem with prequels. We know where they are heading.
The first one doesn't have to happen.
Quote from: 0321recon on Sep 30, 2017, 06:15:59 PM
If I were Scott I'd bring the writer's team from Blade Runner 2049, and have them take a stab at it since the critics are raving how great that film is. Perhaps they can help ride the ship. Though, its unlikely that would occur.
Michael Green (BR 2049's screenplay writer) was also one of the writers on Covenant.
How that much talent f**ked it up this bad, I know not.
Quote from: Rudiger on Sep 30, 2017, 09:57:06 PM
Quote from: BonesawT101 on Sep 30, 2017, 08:01:24 PM
The way Covenant ends could potentially set up a sequel that would be a straight up alien rehash, the crew being trapped on the Covenant with David and his Aliens. But didn't some studio head say something to the effect of wanting to push the sequel in a new direction recently?
Found the quote I was thinking of, Fox CEO Stacey Snider-
"It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it. When universes are as rich as Alien they can stay in a too-familiar groove --- in which case you're in trouble --- but they can also find a planet or a storyline or a villain that also lives in that universe that can be groundbreaking."
Courtesy of cinema blend.
Two things have to happen. 1. The company must see the alien in action in order to want it for the bio-weapons division. 2. The derelict must come to hold its deadly cargo. This is the problem with prequels. We know where they are heading.
The first one they can just know that it's worth chasing rather than seeing it. The second one I think you've got to go further and show who set up the warning beacon. Personally I wouldn't be happy just seeing an Engineer load up some eggs and not see the results since........that puts us in the EXACT spot we were in before. We already know it crashes, where it crashes and we already know he dies.
If they run with the old derelict the whole plot should be - Why does it crash? Otherwise these movies have been a complete waste of time. If they don't run with the old derelict then they can do what they want.
Quote from: Highland on Sep 30, 2017, 11:43:51 PM
If they run with the old derelict the whole plot should be - Why does it crash? Otherwise these movies have been a complete waste of time. If they don't run with the old derelict then they can do what they want.
How is it a waste of time? What if the derelict is just a side incident of the greater story? Like many a WW2 bomber was left lying in ruins during that conflict - but the war continued on to a conclusion regardless of the fate of such vehicles?
The derelict isn't Scott's end goal here. This series is intended head into a different direction and the evens of the earlier movies will become a tangent - not the main storyline.
Scott says he can keep cranking these movies out. Do you really believe they're all going to be sandwiched between the events of 'PROMETHEUS' and 'ALIEN'. No. Of course not. We'll probably see the events leading up to the outcome that we know as the derelict on Acheron in the next movie and the movies will continue well beyond that.
It will turn out that Ripley's story runs parallel to the New Canon Scott is bringing to the Universe.
You're just not thinking Big enough. Scott said 'Epic'. There is a Grandness of Scale at play here that goes well beyond the limited perception that a rusting hulk lying in ruin is the End Goal. It's not.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Sep 30, 2017, 11:21:09 PM
How that much talent f**ked it up this bad, I know not.
That's Hollywood for ya.
Someone stop Ridley
Yay! Ridley! More 'ALIEN' from you is never too much.
YAAAAAYYYY!!!!1!!!
:)
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Oct 01, 2017, 12:12:23 AM
Quote from: Highland on Sep 30, 2017, 11:43:51 PM
If they run with the old derelict the whole plot should be - Why does it crash? Otherwise these movies have been a complete waste of time. If they don't run with the old derelict then they can do what they want.
How is it a waste of time? What if the derelict is just a side incident of the greater story? Like many a WW2 bomber was left lying in ruins during that conflict - but the war continued on to a conclusion regardless of the fate of such vehicles?
The derelict isn't Scott's end goal here. This series is intended head into a different direction and the evens of the earlier movies will become a tangent - not the main storyline.
Scott says he can keep cranking these movies out. Do you really believe they're all going to be sandwiched between the events of 'PROMETHEUS' and 'ALIEN'. No. Of course not. We'll probably see the events leading up to the outcome that we know as the derelict on Acheron in the next movie and the movies will continue well beyond that.
It will turn out that Ripley's story runs parallel to the New Canon Scott is bringing to the Universe.
You're just not thinking Big enough. Scott said 'Epic'. There is a Grandness of Scale at play here that goes well beyond the limited perception that a rusting hulk lying in ruin is the End Goal. It's not.
-Windebieste.
Scott says himself these movies head into the backend of Alien. If you want to go off parallel to the Alien Universe, why not just go there straight off the bat? Any parallel universe certainly can't contain connection to WY, unless we ignore everything established in the original Franchise.
I guess the final point would be, what was the point of all of this if we didn't find out who the guy in the chair was.
Scott said he wanted to make the Alien Universe like the Star Wars Universe. I'd say up to this point he's failed at that. Depends what they do with Awakening.
This is what happens when you don't have a plan.
What makes you think he doesn't have a plan?
'ALIEN: Covenant' clearly ends on the intention of following through on a plan; and simply heading into the back end of 'ALIEN' certainly isn't the End Goal - but that even would tie everything together into a cohesive goal. Scott is interested in going beyond that and a hard retcon or reboot isn't necessary. At all.
I never said 'parallel ALIEN Universe'. I said parallel narrative - one that co-exists with the established series not conflicting with it but rather enhancing it. We may even witness occasional dovetailing into to the older series. The discovery of why the derelict is on Acheron is a fine example.
What Scott says about 'ALIEN: Awakening' is subject to change, anyway. He may never even take the path to tie this series into 'ALIEN'. I personally think he will. But it doesn't necessarily have to be spelled out for your approval, either. He's already demonstrated he doesn't give a shit what some fans carry around as head canon for the past 30 years. None of that was ever concrete, anyway.
I'm really enjoying the ride Scott is taking us on. This is all heading into interesting territory. I want to see more. I want to see Colonial Security Forces engaged in combat with Aliens once again. I want to see the Engineers seek down David for some serious conflict. I want to see how Scott will tie the Derelict into this current series and thus cement the entire ALIEN Universe together. I also want to see what happens beyond those events in a series of movies that run parallel to the events of 'ALIENS' to 'ALIEN: Resurrection'. None of that is mutually exclusive right now. Importantly, it's going to take time and from the evidence we have seen won't be accomplished in a single movie.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Oct 01, 2017, 03:00:39 AM
What makes you think he doesn't have a plan?
'ALIEN: Covenant' clearly ends on the intention of following through on a plan; and simply heading into the back end of 'ALIEN' certainly isn't the End Goal - but that even would tie everything together into a cohesive goal. Scott is interested in going beyond that and a hard retcon or reboot isn't necessary. At all.
I never said 'parallel ALIEN Universe'. I said parallel narrative - one that co-exists with the established series not conflicting with it but rather enhancing it. We may even witness occasional dovetailing into to the older series. The discovery of why the derelict is on Acheron is a fine example.
What Scott says about 'ALIEN: Awakening' is subject to change, anyway. He may never even take the path to tie this series into 'ALIEN'. I personally think he will. But it doesn't necessarily have to be spelled out for your approval, either. He's already demonstrated he doesn't give a shit what some fans carry around as head canon for the past 30 years. None of that was ever concrete, anyway.
I'm really enjoying the ride Scott is taking us on. This is all heading into interesting territory. I want to see more. I want to see Colonial Security Forces engaged in combat with Aliens once again. I want to see the Engineers seek down David for some serious conflict. I want to see how Scott will tie the Derelict into this current series and thus cement the entire ALIEN Universe together. I also want to see what happens beyond those events in a series of movies that run parallel to the events of 'ALIENS' to 'ALIEN: Resurrection'. None of that is mutually exclusive right now. Importantly, it's going to take time and from the evidence we have seen won't be accomplished in a single movie.
-Windebieste.
Because his plan was over written by the studios decision not to continue with the Prometheus storyline ( which never contained Aliens).
Honestly I've never had a head Canon, I was quite happy not knowing. The one we got I feel doesn't enhance the originals or even compliment them all that well, although unlike some fans they don't and will never ruin my enjoyment of the originals, bar some slight thoughts about the Alien.
Having a big war/cross over with Engineers, David and Aliens doesn't seem to fit the timeline all that well, considering by the time we hit later movies in the Franchise they all imply that the Alien is all but extinct. Unless we do an AVPR and somehow have an intergalactic war without anybody noticing.
If they want to completely ignore all of that and we have some other way of going off into another series, then some clever writing could possibly do it.
I don't trust the studio though to handle any of this very well, they don't have a good track record and Scott seems to hold enough cards that they can't just be free of his version.
There's thematic things that i like about Alien Covenant that actually fit really well with the series.
David's bitterness towards Weyland and his human masters
runs parallel to
Ripley's anger towards the Company.
And Weyland(person)+TheCompany are both inhumane examples of capitalism run rampant.
Crew Expendable/Putting a Colony in danger, etc..
Alien 1979 is now a film about a group of people trying to fight a monster that was created to
destroy them AND the inhumane Company that put them all in danger in the first place.
The Alien is now literally a byproduct of the Company's callousness towards human (and android) life..
coming back through the stars to bite them all in the ass. :laugh:
Quote from: Highland on Oct 01, 2017, 03:52:59 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Oct 01, 2017, 03:00:39 AM
What makes you think he doesn't have a plan?
'ALIEN: Covenant' clearly ends on the intention of following through on a plan; and simply heading into the back end of 'ALIEN' certainly isn't the End Goal - but that even would tie everything together into a cohesive goal. Scott is interested in going beyond that and a hard retcon or reboot isn't necessary. At all.
I never said 'parallel ALIEN Universe'. I said parallel narrative - one that co-exists with the established series not conflicting with it but rather enhancing it. We may even witness occasional dovetailing into to the older series. The discovery of why the derelict is on Acheron is a fine example.
What Scott says about 'ALIEN: Awakening' is subject to change, anyway. He may never even take the path to tie this series into 'ALIEN'. I personally think he will. But it doesn't necessarily have to be spelled out for your approval, either. He's already demonstrated he doesn't give a shit what some fans carry around as head canon for the past 30 years. None of that was ever concrete, anyway.
I'm really enjoying the ride Scott is taking us on. This is all heading into interesting territory. I want to see more. I want to see Colonial Security Forces engaged in combat with Aliens once again. I want to see the Engineers seek down David for some serious conflict. I want to see how Scott will tie the Derelict into this current series and thus cement the entire ALIEN Universe together. I also want to see what happens beyond those events in a series of movies that run parallel to the events of 'ALIENS' to 'ALIEN: Resurrection'. None of that is mutually exclusive right now. Importantly, it's going to take time and from the evidence we have seen won't be accomplished in a single movie.
-Windebieste.
Because his plan was over written by the studios decision not to continue with the Prometheus storyline ( which never contained Aliens).
Honestly I've never had a head Canon, I was quite happy not knowing. The one we got I feel doesn't enhance the originals or even compliment them all that well, although unlike some fans they don't and will never ruin my enjoyment of the originals, bar some slight thoughts about the Alien.
Having a big war/cross over with Engineers, David and Aliens doesn't seem to fit the timeline all that well, considering by the time we hit later movies in the Franchise they all imply that the Alien is all but extinct. Unless we do an AVPR and somehow have an intergalactic war without anybody noticing.
If they want to completely ignore all of that and we have some other way of going off into another series, then some clever writing could possibly do it.
I don't trust the studio though to handle any of this very well, they don't have a good track record and Scott seems to hold enough cards that they can't just be free of his version.
To be precise: The new Star Wars doesn't have a plan either.
Rian Johnson changed all of the script of VIII.
And J.J. said that he keep changing the original script in VII.
Finally, some of the classics never had a plan or a script: Casablanca, Gladiator, Blade Runner, etc....
...and the new Star Wars sucks. So I've still got a point.
Star Wars has a story group who've mapped everything out.
How did the other films not have scripts or plans? They all did. Changing things as you go along happens on a lot of films. Doesn't mean there isn't a plan.
I think they did change jedi quite a bit, although the bones of it were still there. Feels like with these Alien prequels there's not even the bones. Tough to tell Scott might have had all this mapped out then the studio took a big dump on it.
I think Ridley had an idea where he wanted it to go (rather than having a plan fully mapped out) and probably shared this with various writers. However, Fox was also trying to cater to a section of the audience who wanted the Aliens back, and thought they could have the best of both worlds.
I'm only guessing but I think in terms of Star Wars and Marvel, Disney says 'the characters are here and we want to get them there; we also need to set up x and y; and here's some other things you can and can't do'. The writers and directors then fill in the blanks according to those guidelines.
Quote from: SM on Oct 01, 2017, 11:55:02 PM
Star Wars has a story group who've mapped everything out.
How did the other films not have scripts or plans? They all did. Changing things as you go along happens on a lot of films. Doesn't mean there isn't a plan.
Rian Johnson changed 80% of the original script of VIII. Said by him.
The original plan was Luke and Leia as the main leads. They were totally surprised by the huge amount of fans of Rey and especially Ben Solo(Adam Driver).
J.J. Abrams and Adam Driver said this too.
Yeah, so? There's still a plan in there. Poe was supposed to die in TFA too. Stuff changes as you go along.
Quote from: SM on Oct 02, 2017, 12:10:25 AM
Yeah, so? There's still a plan in there. Poe was supposed to die in TFA too. Stuff changes as you go along.
They have a general plan. In that sense you are correct.
But they are changing a lot. 80% of their original plan.
Quote from: PierreVW on Oct 02, 2017, 12:12:20 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 02, 2017, 12:10:25 AM
Yeah, so? There's still a plan in there. Poe was supposed to die in TFA too. Stuff changes as you go along.
They have a general plan. In that sense you are correct.
But they are changing a lot. 80% of their original plan.
Yeah that's more what I was getting at. A general plan is still a general plan. Vader turns good again, Luke balances the force etc.
I really don't think they sat down 10 years ago and said - Right, David makes the Alien...
Indeed.
hand the reins over to luke, bro. yer finished.
Quote from: SM on Oct 02, 2017, 12:05:23 AM
I think Ridley had an idea where he wanted it to go (rather than having a plan fully mapped out) and probably shared this with various writers. However, Fox was also trying to cater to a section of the audience who wanted the Aliens back, and thought they could have the best of both worlds.
I believe Ridley said something about having a road map planned out so he obviously has some idea of where he wants it to go. But then they apparently also discussed sequels while Prometheus was filming and we all know how that changed. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Covenant also faces similar rethinking, especially in light of the "when he finds the right story" comment from Snider.
Quote from: SM on Sep 21, 2017, 09:35:06 PM
A chestbursted android?
Could explain why the Aliens Became more Bio-mechanical? Didn't Ridley say though the Alien was intentionally not supposed to look Biomechanic in Covenant?
Quote from: SM on Sep 22, 2017, 12:05:34 AM
QuoteAn android is more likely to survive a chestburst and send a message.
Facehuggers don't go after robots.
Again... If David is the dude who made the Aliens Bio-mechanical later on.. And He Already made the first batch of Alien Eggs without a Queen or Xenomorhph Present. And the dude loves playing God.. Who's to say he doesn't "Engineer" a Specific Face-Hugger to go after Robot(s) Such as himself? Or intentionally impregnates himself to be the "God" of the newer Generation of Bio-mechanical Xenomorphs?
Covenant pretty much told us that David is the one who started the whole Egg thing. So the Eggs in the Derelict at this point are a product of David's invention. Without a Queen or Drone Present for Egg Morphing.. And we have a Mini-XenoMorpth that can grow and dance into a full Alien within Minutes it seems..
But we'll see how they Handle with "Crossing of the Bridge" To Alien. Because we still have a Space Jockey? In the Derelict with a Cargo full of Eggs. And a Science Officer who was Replaced by Ash Two days before Nostromo left Thedus.. How the Prequels connect to Alien is still wideeeeee open plot wise.
"Facehuggers don't go after robots."
I've always been curious why xenos consider synthetic biology off the menu? I prefer real hamburger, but I would eat a tofu burger if I was hungry enough.
Not a fitting analogy I suppose to what seems a rhetorical question considering no cinema source explaining why xenos turn their nose up to a synthetic food/host source.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Oct 02, 2017, 06:16:36 PM
... considering no cinema source explaining why xenos turn their nose up to a synthetic food/host source.
For the same reason they don't use other inanimate objects, I imagine. Jonesy was spared as well.
Next we'll see one humping a toaster...
QuoteAgain... If David is the dude who made the Aliens Bio-mechanical later on.. And He Already made the first batch of Alien Eggs without a Queen or Xenomorhph Present. And the dude loves playing God.. Who's to say he doesn't "Engineer" a Specific Face-Hugger to go after Robot(s) Such as himself? Or intentionally impregnates himself to be the "God" of the newer Generation of Bio-mechanical Xenomorphs?
So why didn't he do it already? He could survive the chestbursting and repair himself ad nauseum without ever waiting for human hosts.
I have a gut feeling that we'll hear about it soon. And I also think that they'll tie this next one into the back end of Alien, because A) it will be the 40th anniversary of the first one and will have the original director. Marketing departments love stuff like that, because it's so easy to promote. And B) they're probably re-releasing the original in 2019, because, again, the 40th anniversary. So it will all tie together. I doubt they'll pass up that kind of promotion.
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Oct 02, 2017, 09:53:11 PM
I have a gut feeling that we'll hear about it soon. And I also think that they'll tie this next one into the back end of Alien, because A) it will be the 40th anniversary of the first one and will have the original director. Marketing departments love stuff like that, because it's so easy to promote. And B) they're probably re-releasing the original in 2019, because, again, the 40th anniversary. So it will all tie together. I doubt they'll pass up that kind of promotion.
...and Ridley will tell us the new film is going to "scare the living shit out of you."
Face hugged robots bust up too many established rules. I'm still unsure if Ridley is deliberately swerving the biomechanics because of preference or plot.
The Covenant xeno isn't different enough for me for it to be plot.
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 12:11:24 AM
Face hugged robots bust up too many established rules. I'm still unsure if Ridley is deliberately swerving the biomechanics because of preference or plot.
The Covenant xeno isn't different enough for me for it to be plot.
Based on statements from the filmmakers about the Alien being out of anyone's control, engineers discovering a decimated homeworld, and deliberately toning down the biomechanical aesthetic because they're working towards it in the next installment, I'd guess the idea was to bring back engineers suited up as they were in Prometheus for the final touches to the Alien. It won't be David's doing.
Quote from: Predaker on Oct 03, 2017, 12:45:18 AM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 12:11:24 AM
Face hugged robots bust up too many established rules. I'm still unsure if Ridley is deliberately swerving the biomechanics because of preference or plot.
The Covenant xeno isn't different enough for me for it to be plot.
Based on statements from the filmmakers about the Alien being out of anyone's control, engineers discovering a decimated homeworld, and deliberately toning down the biomechanical aesthetic because they're working towards it in the next installment, I'd guess the idea was to bring back engineers suited up as they were in Prometheus for the final touches to the Alien. It won't be David's doing.
Where's the quote about working towards it.
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 12:11:24 AM
Face hugged robots bust up too many established rules.
The rules are just there as a guide. As somebody said the rules are meant to be broken. You follow the rules, it becomes predictable.
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 03, 2017, 02:03:07 AM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 12:11:24 AM
Face hugged robots bust up too many established rules.
The rules are just there as a guide. As somebody said the rules are meant to be broken. You follow the rules, it becomes predictable.
Negative. Busting a rule in the prequel is different from busting a rule in a sequel. Unless David is not responsible for the eggs on the original derilict.
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 01:10:44 AM
Quote from: Predaker on Oct 03, 2017, 12:45:18 AM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 12:11:24 AM
Face hugged robots bust up too many established rules. I'm still unsure if Ridley is deliberately swerving the biomechanics because of preference or plot.
The Covenant xeno isn't different enough for me for it to be plot.
Based on statements from the filmmakers about the Alien being out of anyone's control, engineers discovering a decimated homeworld, and deliberately toning down the biomechanical aesthetic because they're working towards it in the next installment, I'd guess the idea was to bring back engineers suited up as they were in Prometheus for the final touches to the Alien. It won't be David's doing.
Where's the quote about working towards it.
From Chris Seagers, production designer on Covenant:
QuoteThe 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."
http://collider.com/alien-covenant-spoilers-things-to-know/
Quote from: Predaker on Oct 03, 2017, 02:18:45 AM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 01:10:44 AM
Quote from: Predaker on Oct 03, 2017, 12:45:18 AM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 12:11:24 AM
Face hugged robots bust up too many established rules. I'm still unsure if Ridley is deliberately swerving the biomechanics because of preference or plot.
The Covenant xeno isn't different enough for me for it to be plot.
Based on statements from the filmmakers about the Alien being out of anyone's control, engineers discovering a decimated homeworld, and deliberately toning down the biomechanical aesthetic because they're working towards it in the next installment, I'd guess the idea was to bring back engineers suited up as they were in Prometheus for the final touches to the Alien. It won't be David's doing.
Where's the quote about working towards it.
From Chris Seagers, production designer on Covenant:
QuoteThe 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."
http://collider.com/alien-covenant-spoilers-things-to-know/
Interesting. So the choice is based on plot it seems. I'm not sure if that makes me happy or worried. I guess we can presume then that David does "upgrade" the Alien somehow. Unless the eggs on the original Derilict are laid after he's dead.
It could be a case that the ship is actually empty at the time of the Space Jockey chest burst then filled by that Queen.
Although that wouldnt explain the Blue lasers.
David will bio-mech upgrade himself, making him vulnerable to infection by either black goo or facehugger.
I'm guess black goo because that would fit in the with strange appearance of the jockey.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Oct 02, 2017, 06:16:36 PM
"Facehuggers don't go after robots."
I've always been curious why xenos consider synthetic biology off the menu? I prefer real hamburger, but I would eat a tofu burger if I was hungry enough.
Not a fitting analogy I suppose to what seems a redundant question considering no cinema source explaining why xenos turn their nose up to a synthetic food/host source.
In earlier drafts of Prometheus and Covenant there's mention of how the eggs/facehuggers react to the breath of natural biological living beings.
Leeches do something similar in real life. If they feel warm, moist air they move in its direction.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Oct 03, 2017, 02:46:29 AM
David will bio-mech upgrade himself, making him vulnerable to infection by either black goo or facehugger.
I'm guess black goo because that would fit in the with strange appearance of the jockey.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Oct 02, 2017, 06:16:36 PM
"Facehuggers don't go after robots."
I've always been curious why xenos consider synthetic biology off the menu? I prefer real hamburger, but I would eat a tofu burger if I was hungry enough.
Not a fitting analogy I suppose to what seems a redundant question considering no cinema source explaining why xenos turn their nose up to a synthetic food/host source.
In earlier drafts of Prometheus and Covenant there's mention of how the eggs/facehuggers react to the breath of natural biological living beings.
Leeches do something similar in real life. If they feel warm, moist air they move in its direction.
Usually don't agree with your whacky theories! But.... David somehow trying to make himself more human would slightly fit with the themes of the movies. I could actually see that being a possibility and kind of freaky at the same time. The whole Pinocchio becoming a real boy theme.
There's a chance though we are over thinking this and Awakening will be an Alien chasing 6 people around a ship.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Oct 03, 2017, 02:46:29 AM
In earlier drafts of Prometheus and Covenant there's mention of how the eggs/facehuggers react to the breath of natural biological living beings.
My speculation on this curiosity is flawed mainly because I'm trying to apply human appetite to an alien appetite, if it can even be described as such.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Oct 03, 2017, 02:46:29 AM
Leeches do something similar in real life. If they feel warm, moist air they move in its direction.
When my "leech" feels something warm and moist, it moves in its direction also ......... ;)
[sorry for the beavis/butthead humor, I couldn't resist)
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 02:55:17 AMUsually don't agree with your whacky theories! But.... David somehow trying to make himself more human would slightly fit with the themes of the movies. I could actually see that being a possibility and kind of freaky at the same time. The whole Pinocchio becoming a real boy theme.
There's a chance though we are over thinking this and Awakening will be an Alien chasing 6 people around a ship.
There's stuff in David writings about the Engineers about it:
"While the Engineers have definitely taken steps to evolve their genetic structure and durability they curiously maintain a strange deference to the sanctity of their original pre-technological state."
Perhaps he unknowingly infects himself during the upgrade process. With the black goo being unpredictable.
Awakening on a ship would be to plain. I think at least we'll get an Aliens type movie with Engineers inserted.
Or a sweet full blown spectacle conclusion of sorts. That's more of wish than a guess.
Btw, whacky theories? Me? ;D
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Oct 03, 2017, 03:02:17 AMWhen my "leech" feels something warm and moist, it moves in its direction also ......... ;)
[sorry for the beavis/butthead humor, I couldn't resist)
Uuuh... Huh huh, huh huh. ;D
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Usually don't agree with your whacky theories! But.... David somehow trying to make himself more human would slightly fit with the themes of the movies. I could actually see that being a possibility and kind of freaky at the same time. The whole Pinocchio becoming a real boy theme.
If Scott insists on having David be a host (urgh), he'd need to have David actually become biological in some fashion or another for it to not be even more of a slap-in the face of the lore.
That said, I'm not sure David would do it intentionally given his disdain for his biological creators. Perhaps as an accident as a result of his experimentation with the accelerant. Maybe some sort of poetic justice type thing?
Ridley knows what he is doing.
*In Ridley we trust*
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 03, 2017, 07:46:50 AM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Usually don't agree with your whacky theories! But.... David somehow trying to make himself more human would slightly fit with the themes of the movies. I could actually see that being a possibility and kind of freaky at the same time. The whole Pinocchio becoming a real boy theme.
If Scott insists on having David be a host (urgh), he'd need to have David actually become biological in some fashion or another for it to not be even more of a slap-in the face of the lore.
That said, I'm not sure David would do it intentionally given his disdain for his biological creators. Perhaps as an accident as a result of his experimentation with the accelerant. Maybe some sort of poetic justice type thing?
I'll buy into this stuff if it's explained or implied well in the story. If it's just another "because David did it ....check out this short on the Blu Ray" then yeah I'm not gona like it much.
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Oct 03, 2017, 02:46:29 AM
David will bio-mech upgrade himself, making him vulnerable to infection by either black goo or facehugger.
I'm guess black goo because that would fit in the with strange appearance of the jockey.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Oct 02, 2017, 06:16:36 PM
"Facehuggers don't go after robots."
I've always been curious why xenos consider synthetic biology off the menu? I prefer real hamburger, but I would eat a tofu burger if I was hungry enough.
Not a fitting analogy I suppose to what seems a redundant question considering no cinema source explaining why xenos turn their nose up to a synthetic food/host source.
In earlier drafts of Prometheus and Covenant there's mention of how the eggs/facehuggers react to the breath of natural biological living beings.
Leeches do something similar in real life. If they feel warm, moist air they move in its direction.
Usually don't agree with your whacky theories! But.... David somehow trying to make himself more human would slightly fit with the themes of the movies. I could actually see that being a possibility and kind of freaky at the same time. The whole Pinocchio becoming a real boy theme.
There's a chance though we are over thinking this and Awakening will be an Alien chasing 6 people around a ship.
With the budget issues a sequel will grapple with, an Alien chasing 6 people around a ship is likely. And Im thinking Ridley Scott is not a great ACTION director. He is better with style and slow-burn. Look at his best SCI FI works. Even The Martian is a slow burn. Blade Runner, Alien, etc. That's what he should be doing.
That's not too mention that I feel both Prequels are missing the claustrophobic atmosphere of the first few films.
I think that a smaller, contained, suspense heavy film is a great idea.
Scott's plans for his prequel series changed several times already. He's just making this up as he goes along, and contradicting what he's said about the origin of the xeno in the past. He mentioned a plan about the films running parallel to the originals but that also changed with Covenant where the end goal is clearly getting to the original film and the derelict. Everyone involved with the film mentions this on the behind the scenes stuff for Covenant, the story is all leading to Ripley on the bridge of the Nostromo according to them.
Quote from: CainsSon on Oct 03, 2017, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Oct 03, 2017, 02:46:29 AM
David will bio-mech upgrade himself, making him vulnerable to infection by either black goo or facehugger.
I'm guess black goo because that would fit in the with strange appearance of the jockey.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Oct 02, 2017, 06:16:36 PM
"Facehuggers don't go after robots."
I've always been curious why xenos consider synthetic biology off the menu? I prefer real hamburger, but I would eat a tofu burger if I was hungry enough.
Not a fitting analogy I suppose to what seems a redundant question considering no cinema source explaining why xenos turn their nose up to a synthetic food/host source.
In earlier drafts of Prometheus and Covenant there's mention of how the eggs/facehuggers react to the breath of natural biological living beings.
Leeches do something similar in real life. If they feel warm, moist air they move in its direction.
Usually don't agree with your whacky theories! But.... David somehow trying to make himself more human would slightly fit with the themes of the movies. I could actually see that being a possibility and kind of freaky at the same time. The whole Pinocchio becoming a real boy theme.
There's a chance though we are over thinking this and Awakening will be an Alien chasing 6 people around a ship.
With the budget issues a sequel will grapple with, an Alien chasing 6 people around a ship is likely. And Im thinking Ridley Scott is not a great ACTION director. He is better with style and slow-burn. Look at his best SCI FI works. Even The Martian is a slow burn. Blade Runner, Alien, etc. That's what he should be doing.
That's not too mention that I feel both Prequels are missing the claustrophobic atmosphere of the first few films.
I think that a smaller, contained, suspense heavy film is a great idea.
I agree, I wouldn't mind Scott just hanging back a bit, picking up 4-5 good quality actors, put and Alien in it, See what you can pull off. Screw the naysayers about same old, I'd like to see him do a smaller budget horror again, I don't need anymore space goo or Engineers.
MUST BE HIGH CONCEPT
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 03:48:27 PM
Quote from: CainsSon on Oct 03, 2017, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Oct 03, 2017, 02:46:29 AM
David will bio-mech upgrade himself, making him vulnerable to infection by either black goo or facehugger.
I'm guess black goo because that would fit in the with strange appearance of the jockey.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Oct 02, 2017, 06:16:36 PM
"Facehuggers don't go after robots."
I've always been curious why xenos consider synthetic biology off the menu? I prefer real hamburger, but I would eat a tofu burger if I was hungry enough.
Not a fitting analogy I suppose to what seems a redundant question considering no cinema source explaining why xenos turn their nose up to a synthetic food/host source.
In earlier drafts of Prometheus and Covenant there's mention of how the eggs/facehuggers react to the breath of natural biological living beings.
Leeches do something similar in real life. If they feel warm, moist air they move in its direction.
Usually don't agree with your whacky theories! But.... David somehow trying to make himself more human would slightly fit with the themes of the movies. I could actually see that being a possibility and kind of freaky at the same time. The whole Pinocchio becoming a real boy theme.
There's a chance though we are over thinking this and Awakening will be an Alien chasing 6 people around a ship.
With the budget issues a sequel will grapple with, an Alien chasing 6 people around a ship is likely. And Im thinking Ridley Scott is not a great ACTION director. He is better with style and slow-burn. Look at his best SCI FI works. Even The Martian is a slow burn. Blade Runner, Alien, etc. That's what he should be doing.
That's not too mention that I feel both Prequels are missing the claustrophobic atmosphere of the first few films.
I think that a smaller, contained, suspense heavy film is a great idea.
I agree, I wouldn't mind Scott just hanging back a bit, picking up 4-5 good quality actors, put and Alien in it, See what you can pull off. Screw the naysayers about same old, I'd like to see him do a smaller budget horror again, I don't need anymore space goo or Engineers.
I wouldnt be in favor of not completing the story. This franchise is a mess precisely for that reason IMO. But something stripped down and simple sounds like a plan to me. And as the above poster says "High concept."
would be nice to have the early drafts of the scripts leak already for back when the movie was "Paradise" and a true Prometheus sequel. May give some insight to where we wind up going in the long run. Covenant was FULL of scrapped ideas from Prometheus... the early versions of the script before the huge change over may help shed light.
Quote from: CainsSon on Oct 03, 2017, 05:20:46 PM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 03:48:27 PM
Quote from: CainsSon on Oct 03, 2017, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 03, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Oct 03, 2017, 02:46:29 AM
David will bio-mech upgrade himself, making him vulnerable to infection by either black goo or facehugger.
I'm guess black goo because that would fit in the with strange appearance of the jockey.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Oct 02, 2017, 06:16:36 PM
"Facehuggers don't go after robots."
I've always been curious why xenos consider synthetic biology off the menu? I prefer real hamburger, but I would eat a tofu burger if I was hungry enough.
Not a fitting analogy I suppose to what seems a redundant question considering no cinema source explaining why xenos turn their nose up to a synthetic food/host source.
In earlier drafts of Prometheus and Covenant there's mention of how the eggs/facehuggers react to the breath of natural biological living beings.
Leeches do something similar in real life. If they feel warm, moist air they move in its direction.
Usually don't agree with your whacky theories! But.... David somehow trying to make himself more human would slightly fit with the themes of the movies. I could actually see that being a possibility and kind of freaky at the same time. The whole Pinocchio becoming a real boy theme.
There's a chance though we are over thinking this and Awakening will be an Alien chasing 6 people around a ship.
With the budget issues a sequel will grapple with, an Alien chasing 6 people around a ship is likely. And Im thinking Ridley Scott is not a great ACTION director. He is better with style and slow-burn. Look at his best SCI FI works. Even The Martian is a slow burn. Blade Runner, Alien, etc. That's what he should be doing.
That's not too mention that I feel both Prequels are missing the claustrophobic atmosphere of the first few films.
I think that a smaller, contained, suspense heavy film is a great idea.
I agree, I wouldn't mind Scott just hanging back a bit, picking up 4-5 good quality actors, put and Alien in it, See what you can pull off. Screw the naysayers about same old, I'd like to see him do a smaller budget horror again, I don't need anymore space goo or Engineers.
I wouldnt be in favor of not completing the story. This franchise is a mess precisely for that reason IMO. But something stripped down and simple sounds like a plan to me. And as the above poster says "High concept."
I disagree.
Ridley Scott is a great action director.
I love BLACK HAWK DOWN and BLACK RAIN.
I would also love to see earlier drafts by Jack Paglen and Michael Green.
Back of the queue is that way, Denton! :P
Hopefully they'll crop up some day.
My guess for
Paradise, the movie they skipped.
David and Shaw arrive, get involved in conflict between good and evil Engineers, movie ends with David destroying Engineers.
Covenant
Similar to what we got but the first part would be shorter. Less time on the ship and problems occure faster after landing.
More time spend on David and his gallery (bigger in early draft) and on his secret room with Shaw drawings and experiments (also in early draft).
Perhaps Advent style flashback once David gets busted, actually showing what happened to Shaw. David unleashes his creatures (shown in concept art).
From here everything else might have been the same or similar.
I have no doubt both Paglen and Green's drafts will get out at some point. I'm also curious on what Dante Harper's version is like (though probably similar to the final film, being that he shares screenplay credit with Logan).
I think there might be some kind of non-disclosure agreement for as long as they're involved, and maybe we'll have to wait until the this series of movies is finished.
Hahaha, yes indeed, Hicks!
I loved a lot of the concept art in the Gallery section and it would be sick to see if any of that stuff was given any context in the early drafts.
My favorite is the storyboard where the crew member breathes in these sparkly spores from an Alien flower and he immediately mutates into a an Alien/tree hybrid.
https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine/283-ridley-scott-denis-villeneuve
At 54:30 Scott starts talking about Covenant. He says it did well at box office (sic!) and in two weeks time we gonna find out about his next movie (not All The Money In The World).
Quote from: Ingwar on Oct 06, 2017, 03:37:25 PM
https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine/283-ridley-scott-denis-villeneuve
At 54:30 Scott starts talking about Covenant. He says it did well at box office (sic!) and in two weeks time we gonna find out about his next movie (not All The Money In The World).
The Cartel?.
I prefer Battle Of Britain.
If the script is done like he said, it could be Alien. Don't know what stage The Cartel and Battle of Britain is at, as there has been no news on that front.
I think it's gonna be The Cartel. Just the feeling.
Ridley aint gonna live forever (then again who does?)
And i hope he does Covenant2/Prometheus3 sooner rather than later.
I believe Fassbender is doing the rounds for The Snowman so might be worth keeping an eye on his interviews.
Quote from: Ingwar on Oct 06, 2017, 03:37:25 PM
https://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine/283-ridley-scott-denis-villeneuve
At 54:30 Scott starts talking about Covenant. He says it did well at box office (sic!) and in two weeks time we gonna find out about his next movie (not All The Money In The World).
I listened to the whole thing. He confirms it's NOT the ALIEN sequel. Earlier in the conversation, he essentially rules out the Battle of Britain as well.
My money is on The Cartel.
Probably.
He did say Covenant 2 will start in 14 months back in May. That would be about mid next year.
I don't think he will do another Alien movie. Covenant was box office disappointment and now 2049 (Scott Free produced it). I think Ridley's got enough of Sci-Fi for now. He wants to do The Cartel, WWII movie and he always wanted to make western (Wraiths of the Broken Land?) and pirate movie. With Ridley everything changes so quickly. He's got plenty of ideas and is involved in many projects. Who knows but I claim that he won't make it as a director. He may produce it.
I must admit I'm curious to hear how the BO reaction to Blade Runner changes his perspective on future scifi. Didn't he make a comment on having more BR films he wanted to do too?
Luke Scott:
Quote"It helps evolve original scripts of movies," Scott said. "It's sort of cheating. It fills in the gaps where the narrator doesn't have to worry about the genesis of the narrative. You could rely possibly on these short films and other assets that roll a few weeks before the main event to do that part of the storytelling for the director."
"It is a revolution and I think this particular film [Blade Runner 2049] and the next one coming up," Scott said, "I think they are not only a great way of marketing these kinds of movies, it fills in the gaps and gives more background on a character."
https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/5/16254616/blade-runner-alien-covenant-short-films
I think when Luke said
the next one coming up he meant short
BR anime
Black Out 2022 made by Watanabe.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 09, 2017, 08:54:43 AM
I must admit I'm curious to hear how the BO reaction to Blade Runner changes his perspective on future scifi. Didn't he make a comment on having more BR films he wanted to do too?
Yeah, he wanted to produce several Blade Runner sequels:
Quote"And yet Scott, according to a new interview, clearly does now see franchise potential in his beloved dystopian noir about a bounty hunter charged with bringing down a gang of escaped artificial humanoids named replicants. "Everyone else is, so why not? I love to work," he told Yahoo! cheerfully when asked this week if Blade Runner might follow Alien and Prometheus into multiple-movie territory. "The French say, 'Work to live,' and I live to work. I'm very lucky to have a job that I adore."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2015/oct/02/ridley-scott-blade-runner-franchise-harrison-ford-ryan-gosling (https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2015/oct/02/ridley-scott-blade-runner-franchise-harrison-ford-ryan-gosling)
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 07, 2017, 08:17:40 PM
I believe Fassbender is doing the rounds for The Snowman so might be worth keeping an eye on his interviews.
Couple out on Youtube.
Listening to one now: Michael Fassbender interview - Talk "The Snowman" by TORYmax
Says he just finished X-Men and is taking the rest of the year off. Nothing about a Covenant or a possible sequel.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Oct 10, 2017, 05:19:04 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 07, 2017, 08:17:40 PM
I believe Fassbender is doing the rounds for The Snowman so might be worth keeping an eye on his interviews.
Couple out on Youtube.
Listening to one now: Michael Fassbender interview - Talk "The Snowman" by TORYmax
Says he just finished X-Men and is taking the rest of the year off. Nothing about a Covenant or a possible sequel.
He deserves 2 months of vacation.
He could made Covenant 2 in 2018.
Quote from: Ingwar on Oct 09, 2017, 08:48:47 AM
I don't think he will do another Alien movie. Covenant was box office disappointment and now 2049 (Scott Free produced it). I think Ridley's got enough of Sci-Fi for now. He wants to do The Cartel, WWII movie and he always wanted to make western (Wraiths of the Broken Land?) and pirate movie. With Ridley everything changes so quickly. He's got plenty of ideas and is involved in many projects. Who knows but I claim that he won't make it as a director. He may produce it.
Who knows?. Ridley Scott works so fast that he could be directing 5 or 6 big movies before he retires.
I would prefer Scott making 1-2 decent films before he retires than 5-6 mediocre ones.
https://deadline.com/2017/10/don-winslow-harpercollins-two-book-deal-the-cartel-the-force-1202185742/
Bottom of the article says The Cartel begins filming in January.
Variety:
Ridley Scott
"His credits include such varied fare as "The Martian," "Hannibal," "Robin Hood" and "Legend." He is exec producing "Blade Runner 2049," the Denis Villeneuve-directed sequel to his seminal "Blade Runner," and in pre-production on a sequel to his 2017 "Alien: Covenant."
http://variety.com/exec/ridley-scott/
Fox haven't definitively said they're not doing it yet, but whatever they planned prior to Covenant is being re-assessed.
Though I am not a massive fan of either prequels, I would suggest they let Scott finish his trilogy at least so the whole thing isn't rendered a pointless mess. I think the promise of the Engineer's return and a direct lead in to Alien will be a good draw to put bums on seats. He just has to stop trying to make the film clever and meaningful and actually try and craft up some tension and horror.
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Oct 20, 2017, 10:03:29 AM
Though I am not a massive fan of either prequels, I would suggest they let Scott finish his trilogy at least so the whole thing isn't rendered a pointless mess. I think the promise of the Engineer's return and a direct lead in to Alien will be a good draw to put bums on seats. He just has to stop trying to make the film clever and meaningful and actually try and craft up some tension and horror.
Once they get that out of the way, maybe they'll re-boot again with an entirely new set of characters.
Timing wise, it could be set after the events of Alien 3, and have the company send a team back to LV426. Just because Hadley's Hope got blown to smithereens, it doesn't necessarily mean that the original derelict - and its entire cargo of eggs - was destroyed too. I always got the sense that the derelict and Hadley's Hope were quite some distance apart. And we know there were way more eggs than colonists, so there ought to be a few spares knocking about the place. Hard to believe the company doesn't have a record somewhere of Burke's order to Newt's parents.
They would. But as the films currently stand, the Derelict was no longer a source of eggs.
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 10:38:24 AM
They would. But as the films currently stand, the Derelict was no longer a source of eggs.
Is it too much of a stretch for an intervening film to be the reason for that, though?
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 10:38:24 AM
They would. But as the films currently stand, the Derelict was no longer a source of eggs.
Eh? You've lost me there.
The destruction of the AP Station rendered the Derelict unviable for specimens.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 20, 2017, 10:50:17 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 10:38:24 AM
They would. But as the films currently stand, the Derelict was no longer a source of eggs.
Is it too much of a stretch for an intervening film to be the reason for that, though?
No. But until that film exists, they can't get eggs from the Derelict.
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 11:05:41 AM
The destruction of the AP Station rendered the Derelict unviable for specimens.
When was that ever established?
Hinted at in Alien 3. Confirmed in Alien Resurrection.
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 11:19:53 AM
Hinted at in Alien 3. Confirmed in Alien Resurrection.
There's 200 years between the events of those two movies isn't there?. There's plenty of wiggle room right there.
Time isn't a factor. If the specimens were destroyed, they're not going to 'get better'.
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 11:40:43 AM
Time isn't a factor. If the specimens were destroyed, they're not going to 'get better'.
So... maybe they weren't destroyed at all.
Maybe the company guys in Alien Resurrection are simply incorrect, misinformed or have been deliberately misled.
Quote from: Rudiger on Oct 20, 2017, 11:50:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 11:40:43 AM
Time isn't a factor. If the specimens were destroyed, they're not going to 'get better'.
So... maybe they weren't destroyed at all.
Maybe the company guys in Alien Resurrection are simply incorrect, misinformed or have been deliberately misled.
I think Alien 3 can be somewhat waved away with the urgency of getting and containing the Queen ASAP. But yeah, the ballache that the USM go through to clone Ripley wouldn't have been necessary if they could have just visited LV-426 again.
So that either means that the AP explosion in Aliens meant the Derelict wasn't a source of eggs anymore (radiation sterilising the eggs, the Derelict was actually destroyed) or there's some unknown incident that took place in-between Alien 3 and Resurrection that also meant the Derelict is no longer a source of the eggs. I think there's plenty of room for the second option.
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Oct 20, 2017, 10:03:29 AMHe just has to stop trying to make the film clever and meaningful and actually try and craft up some tension and horror.
Why not both?
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 20, 2017, 12:00:38 PM
I think Alien 3 can be somewhat waved away with the urgency of getting and containing the Queen ASAP. But yeah, the ballache that the USM go through to clone Ripley wouldn't have been necessary if they could have just visited LV-426 again.
So that either means that the AP explosion in Aliens meant the Derelict wasn't a source of eggs anymore (radiation sterilising the eggs, the Derelict was actually destroyed) or there's some unknown incident that took place in-between Alien 3 and Resurrection that also meant the Derelict is no longer a source of the eggs. I think there's plenty of room for the second option.
Bingo! Let's start writing a treatment now!!
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 09:59:23 AM
Fox haven't definitively said they're not doing it yet, but whatever they planned prior to Covenant is being re-assessed.
Ridley said he wanted to make 2 more films.
The storyline is
probably being condensed into just 1 more film to wrap up the prequels.
This is for the best. Ridley isnt getting younger, as well...
I just hope we get John Logan back.
The atmospheric processor unit's explosion released enough radiation on lv426 to make any attempted harvest impossible. So it is just assumed that the eggs are dead. Big_deletion, am I hot? :P
Quote from: whiterabbit on Oct 20, 2017, 12:50:04 PM
The atmospheric processor unit's explosion released enough radiation on lv426 to make any attempted harvest impossible. So it is just assumed that the eggs are dead. Big_deletion, am I hot? :P
A dead planet, blitzed with radiation, does make for a good cover story.
After the prequels, I'd like to see the story pick up after Alien Resurrection, tbh. :P
David will probably be revealed to have spread the Xenomorph far and wide throughout
the galaxy and humanity will soon come into contact again with the creature at the edge of known space....
Ridley said that he wanted to make this universe "bigger"..
he's probably referring to creating more planets with Xenomorphs and other dangerous critters.
Moving away from LV426 as the most important planet in the franchise.
Paradise and LV223 for example... And there's still eggs in Paradise..
I still believe Prometheus should have been a sequel set some 20-30 years after Alien 3. A company-funded mission looking for the xenomorphs and instead they find the Engineers.
Quote from: Rudiger on Oct 20, 2017, 11:50:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 11:40:43 AM
Time isn't a factor. If the specimens were destroyed, they're not going to 'get better'.
So... maybe they weren't destroyed at all.
Maybe the company guys in Alien Resurrection are simply incorrect, misinformed or have been deliberately misled.
No, there were no eggs.
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 07:52:37 PM
No, there were no eggs.
Yes there were. So there.
Nope.
There's no 'maybe this, maybe that'. You may wish it to be otherwise, but as that's how things currently stand.
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 08:04:27 PM
Nope.
There's no 'maybe this, maybe that'. You may wish it to be otherwise, but as that's how things currently stand.
If a screenwriter decides there some left, then guess what: there were some left.
No, really, you think? Guess what the word "currently" means.
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 08:13:41 PM
No, really, you think? Guess what the word "currently" means.
No idea what you're banging on about now.
Not surprising.
I've been saying for the last couple of the pages that the Derelict was not a source of eggs based on the current films and lore. I've also said that may change if new films changed it.
Perhaps paying attention to your own comment which kicked this off may be helpful...
Or not.
Quote from: Rudiger on Oct 20, 2017, 10:30:42 AM
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Oct 20, 2017, 10:03:29 AM
Though I am not a massive fan of either prequels, I would suggest they let Scott finish his trilogy at least so the whole thing isn't rendered a pointless mess. I think the promise of the Engineer's return and a direct lead in to Alien will be a good draw to put bums on seats. He just has to stop trying to make the film clever and meaningful and actually try and craft up some tension and horror.
Once they get that out of the way, maybe they'll re-boot again with an entirely new set of characters.
Timing wise, it could be set after the events of Alien 3, and have the company send a team back to LV426. Just because Hadley's Hope got blown to smithereens, it doesn't necessarily mean that the original derelict - and its entire cargo of eggs - was destroyed too. I always got the sense that the derelict and Hadley's Hope were quite some distance apart. And we know there were way more eggs than colonists, so there ought to be a few spares knocking about the place. Hard to believe the company doesn't have a record somewhere of Burke's order to Newt's parents.
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 08:25:07 PM
Not surprising.
I've been saying for the last couple of the pages that the Derelict was not a source of eggs based on the current films and lore. I've also said that may change if new films changed it.
Perhaps paying attention to your own comment which kicked this off may be helpful...
Or not.
Why not?
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 11:05:41 AM
The destruction of the AP Station rendered the Derelict unviable for specimens.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 20, 2017, 10:50:17 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 10:38:24 AM
They would. But as the films currently stand, the Derelict was no longer a source of eggs.
Is it too much of a stretch for an intervening film to be the reason for that, though?
No. But until that film exists, they can't get eggs from the Derelict.
Films work best if use your imagination. You don't have to be shown everything, surely. If the new franchise ended now, the events of Alien don't suddenly become invalid.
What?
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 08:46:08 PM
What?
You seem to be saying that eggs can't be on the derelict because of what we've seen in Prometheus and A:C. That is what you're saying, isn't it?
...
No. When did I ever mention Prometheus and Covenant?
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 08:57:23 PM
...
No. When did I ever mention Prometheus and Covenant?
Tell you what, why don't you just spell out your reasoning in one or two coherent sentences, as I've got no bloody idea what you're talking about anymore.
Alright.
You got me with you're trolling.
I thought you were actually interested in having your questions answered, but it's taken me a couple of pages to catch on that's not the case.
Well played.
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 09:06:16 PM
Alright.
You got me with you're trolling.
I thought you were actually interested in having your questions answered, but it's taken me a couple of pages to catch on that's not the case.
Well played.
Hmmm. "Current films and lore"... "When did I mention Prometheus and Covenant"...
Your posts are confusing and appear contradictory. You seem to be going out of your way
not to make your point. I am genuinely interested in your point of view, but I have no idea what it is. Help me out here, please.
I explained it pretty clear earlier on...
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 20, 2017, 12:00:38 PM
I think Alien 3 can be somewhat waved away with the urgency of getting and containing the Queen ASAP. But yeah, the ballache that the USM go through to clone Ripley wouldn't have been necessary if they could have just visited LV-426 again.
So that either means that the AP explosion in Aliens meant the Derelict wasn't a source of eggs anymore (radiation sterilising the eggs, the Derelict was actually destroyed) or there's some unknown incident that took place in-between Alien 3 and Resurrection that also meant the Derelict is no longer a source of the eggs. I think there's plenty of room for the second option.
However, that second option doesn't exist yet so as far as current continuity is concerned there are no viable eggs at the derelict.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 21, 2017, 09:39:55 AM
However, that second option doesn't exist yet so as far as current continuity is concerned there are no viable eggs at the derelict.
Nope. Still not getting it.
Are you saying Alien cannot happen because of the events depicted in Prometheus and Alien: Covenant?
This makes no sense whatsoever.
Not in the slightest and I've no idea how you've got to there? Current continuity doesn't just equal Prometheus or Covenant - and I'm fairly sure no-one actually did. It means that as far as the timeline is concerned after Aliens takes place, the Derelict isn't a source of viable eggs otherwise the USM wouldn't have gone to the trouble it did to clone Ripley to get its hand on some Aliens.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 21, 2017, 01:27:40 PM
Not in the slightest and I've no idea how you've got to there? Current continuity doesn't just equal Prometheus or Covenant - and I'm fairly sure no-one actually did. It means that as far as the timeline is concerned after Aliens takes place, the Derelict isn't a source of viable eggs otherwise the USM wouldn't have gone to the trouble it did to clone Ripley to get its hand on some Aliens.
The scientists in Alien Resurection are talking about events that happened 200 years previously. How do they know for certain what happened?
Why would they bother to go through all that hassle if they could just pop down to LV-426? I'm sure we could fanwank some explanation in there (some other entity has LV-426 quarantined off) but as far as the films are concerned right now, Ripley died killing off the Alien species once and for all.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 21, 2017, 02:21:02 PM
Why would they bother to go through all that hassle if they could just pop down to LV-426? I'm sure we could fanwank some explanation in there (some other entity has LV-426 quarantined off) but as far as the films are concerned right now, Ripley died killing off the Alien species once and for all.
You said it yourself....
...or there's some unknown incident that took place in-between Alien 3 and Resurrection that also meant the Derelict is no longer a source of the eggs. I think there's plenty of room for the second option...
Of course it's just an idea. We're discussing a possible jumping off point for a new chapter, once the prequel trilogy is complete. Call it the Blomkamp scenario if you like (it was triggered by one of his visuals), although I'd go with an entirely new cast of characters. Fanwank seems a little blunt.
I fully believe there's room for a new story that serves as an alternate reason the eggs on the Derelict weren't an option. Just trying to help over your confusion regarding SM's post.
Quote from: Rudiger on Oct 20, 2017, 11:50:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 11:40:43 AM
Time isn't a factor. If the specimens were destroyed, they're not going to 'get better'.
So... maybe they weren't destroyed at all.
Maybe the company guys in Alien Resurrection are simply incorrect, misinformed or have been deliberately misled.
Aliens: Sea of Sorrows establishes that there are still eggs out there as it takes place a while after Resurrection and continues the story set in Out of the Shadows a few hundred years after. Weyland Yutani is reformed and the USM is dissolved. WY knows about the happenings (well sort of knows) in Shadows so it sends a team to investigate and to capture specimens due to an empath who senses a dark presence on the planet. If you havent read these books, I would HIGHLY recommend checking them out!
Quote from: DorkiDori on Oct 22, 2017, 01:53:02 AM
Quote from: Rudiger on Oct 20, 2017, 11:50:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 20, 2017, 11:40:43 AM
Time isn't a factor. If the specimens were destroyed, they're not going to 'get better'.
So... maybe they weren't destroyed at all.
Maybe the company guys in Alien Resurrection are simply incorrect, misinformed or have been deliberately misled.
Aliens: Sea of Sorrows establishes that there are still eggs out there as it takes place a while after Resurrection and continues the story set in Out of the Shadows a few hundred years after. Weyland Yutani is reformed and the USM is dissolved. WY knows about the happenings (well sort of knows) in Shadows so it sends a team to investigate and to capture specimens due to an empath who senses a dark presence on the planet. If you havent read these books, I would HIGHLY recommend checking them out!
David being the creator of the aliens renders Out of the Shadows/Sea of Sorrows impossible though.
Before Covenant, those eggs could have been absolutely anywhere a writer wanted to slap them...
honestly, i think Ridley left a piece of the puzzle sitting on the table in the middle of Davids lab. In the novelization of the film, its established that David RECREATED what the Engineers had already made.... meaning, the facehuggers David made were actually a recreation from the hugger he found in stasis already. The giant egg on the middle of the table in the film eludes to this idea as it matches the description of the hugger in the book (the egg on his table cut into several pieces). This idea is further alluded to in the short "Advent" when he talks about the "wolf" and how the Engineers cast 'the wolf' from their society aaand how David sought out to recreate that said "wolf".
Also, evidence from Prometheus even further backs this idea with the Deacon being created thousands of years before man (and David). The creature on the wall of the mural IS the Deacon (and NOT a Xeno like some people claim), though an earlier design in the concept work during production of the film (this has been confirmed to by the concept artist Carlos Huarte when I discussed it with him via FB messaging btw). Sooo with that said, the engineers created the Deacon and most likely Xenomorph species LONG before David recreated the facehuggers based upon his learning of them via studying the Engineers "wolf".
http://variety.com/exec/ridley-scott/ - claims Covenant 2 is in pre-production.
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 23, 2017, 12:23:11 AM
http://variety.com/exec/ridley-scott/ - claims Covenant 2 is in pre-production.
Hmmm. Can we confirm this? When was this published?
Quote from: CainsSon on Oct 23, 2017, 03:48:13 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 23, 2017, 12:23:11 AM
http://variety.com/exec/ridley-scott/ - claims Covenant 2 is in pre-production.
Hmmm. Can we confirm this? When was this published?
That could just be an assumption made by the reporter but I think Ridley has been given the green light to do one more movie.
The reporter could've gotten it from Imdb.
We know that Ridley and Watts are exploring story directions -
Quote"It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it. When universes are as rich as "Alien," they can stay in a too familiar groove — in which case you're in trouble — but they can also find a planet or a storyline or a villain that also lives in that universe that can be groundbreaking."
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/2017/09/20/20th-century-fox-ceo-talks-future-alien-franchise/
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 26, 2017, 08:07:34 AM
"It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it
When they find it..... sounds brilliant already.
Quote from: Highland on Oct 26, 2017, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 26, 2017, 08:07:34 AM
"It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it
When they find it..... sounds brilliant already.
It's in a bin marked Blade Runner rejects.
Quote from: Rudiger on Oct 26, 2017, 07:47:30 PM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 26, 2017, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 26, 2017, 08:07:34 AM
"It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it
When they find it..... sounds brilliant already.
It's in a bin marked Blade Runner rejects.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: 0321recon on Oct 26, 2017, 07:52:55 PM
Quote from: Rudiger on Oct 26, 2017, 07:47:30 PM
Quote from: Highland on Oct 26, 2017, 03:53:47 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 26, 2017, 08:07:34 AM
"It was a disappointment, but I trust Ridley [Scott] and Emma [Watts] to know the right story when they find it
When they find it..... sounds brilliant already.
It's in a bin marked Blade Runner rejects.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
IF All The Money In The World and The Cartel are hits back to back, Ridley Scott is leaving this franchise by his own decision.
Alien: Covenant and Blade Runner 2049 were flops and his OTHER(GLADIATOR, THE MARTIAN) movies were the biggest successes of his career.
By what measure was Covenant a "flop"?
Quote from: SM on Oct 27, 2017, 09:05:46 PM
By what measure was Covenant a "flop"?
1. By huge expectations.
2. By comparison to
Prometheus which made 400 millions at box office.
So - change the meaning of flop ,so then it can become a flop.
Right.
Quote from: SM on Oct 27, 2017, 09:39:28 PM
So - change the meaning of flop ,so then it can become a flop.
Right.
Then, a big disapointment. But Blade Runner 2049 is really a flop. 250 against 155(Budget).
2 Dying franchises(Alien and Blade Runner). It seems Ridley Scott has way better luck in his other movies.
Disappointing is more apt.
Prometheus was in 3D, though. And 3D tickets are more expensive.
If you actually break it down by number of tickets sold instead of $$$.
If you actually break it down - what? What are the figures?
Not everyone watched it in 3D.
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 28, 2017, 02:20:01 AM
Prometheus was in 3D, though. And 3D tickets are more expensive.
If you actually break it down by number of tickets sold instead of $$$.
K, and Covenant had Alien in the title and xenomorphs, which were supposed to drive more people to watch it to make up for that non-3D deficit.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Oct 28, 2017, 06:51:10 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 28, 2017, 02:20:01 AM
Prometheus was in 3D, though. And 3D tickets are more expensive.
If you actually break it down by number of tickets sold instead of $$$.
K, and Covenant had Alien in the title and xenomorphs, which were supposed to drive more people to watch it to make up for that non-3D deficit.
A strong argument can be made to say that calling it Prometheus 2 would have guarantees as much if not more money than calling it Alien
Would probably make people run away from theaters, too.
They should have just called it Covenant.
Calling it Prometheus 2 doesn't make much sense. Prometheus is the name of a ship.
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 29, 2017, 02:46:21 AM
They should have just called it Covenant.
Calling it Prometheus 2 doesn't make much sense. Prometheus is the name of a ship.
I'm 31. A Lot of Millenials never saw the original ALIEN(1979). I think PROMETHEUS(3D) did way better because it was sold as "The Return of Ridley Scott to Sci-Fi".
Most people in Earth known Ridley Scott as the Director of GLADIATOR or THE MARTIAN(3D).
Youngsters and most Millenials never saw ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER.
That's a really neat trick since he made The Marian after Prometheus.
TIME TRAVEL CONFIRMED IN COVENANT 2!
Prometheus was a big success for a number of reasons.
I would say the cast had a lot to do with it.
The fact it was in 3D when 3D had just become really popular.
Being a prequel to Alien (even people who have never seen the original would know the brand).
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 03:31:55 AM
That's a really neat trick since he made The Marian after Prometheus.
I known. Then, Ridley is famous for GLADIATOR and BLACK HAWK DOWN.
Most people of my age and younger than me never saw his old classics. Most youngsters only saw movies since 1999. LOL....
Sad but true.
That is sad.
I've watched films from the 1800s.
If you don't watch old films, you can't appreciate new films either. Cinematic evolution.
Quote from: PierreVW on Oct 29, 2017, 06:19:58 PM
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 03:31:55 AM
That's a really neat trick since he made The Marian after Prometheus.
I known. Then, Ridley is famous for GLADIATOR and BLACK HAWK DOWN.
Most people of my age and younger than me never saw his old classics. Most youngsters only saw movies since 1999. LOL....
Sad but true.
And I'm sure you'll be able to provide some actual evidence of just how 'true' this is.
Quote from: SM on Oct 29, 2017, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Oct 29, 2017, 06:19:58 PM
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 03:31:55 AM
That's a really neat trick since he made The Marian after Prometheus.
I known. Then, Ridley is famous for GLADIATOR and BLACK HAWK DOWN.
Most people of my age and younger than me never saw his old classics. Most youngsters only saw movies since 1999. LOL....
Sad but true.
And I'm sure you'll be able to provide some actual evidence of just how 'true' this is.
For example: the original Star Wars Trilogy(1977-1983). Everyone in this Planet hear about the original trilogy but most of my friends never saw them.
My friends only saw the more modern Star Wars(1999-2017).
That's a fairly small sample pool, I'm afraid. I'd be quite confident in saying many many many many people have seen the OT trilogy. Maybe not in it's TE form, but they'll have seen it.
Quote from: PierreVW on Oct 29, 2017, 08:51:20 PM
My friends only saw the more modern Star Wars(1999-2017).
Damn. Those were three dreadful movies.
PierreVW's friends are not a statistically significant sample size.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 10:08:16 PM
PierreVW's friends are not a statistically significant sample size.
All of them are Millenials just like me.
And in my example I was talking only about Millenials.
Firstly, you said you're 31, you're not a millennial.
Secondly, your friends still aren't a statistically significant sample size.
Are millenials born post 2000?
I can understand that, when I was 17, I had seen mostly films from the 80s and 90s, which is the era I grew up in.
I grew up in the 90s and I've seen plenty of older films. As have many of my own friends. Friendship groups just aren't reasonable sample sizes.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 10:22:44 PM
Firstly, you said you're 31, you're not a millennial.
Secondly, your friends still aren't a statistically significant sample size.
You are wrong. Put "Millenials" in Google. The result is:
Millennials, also known as Generation Y or the Net Generation, are the demographic cohort that directly follows Generation X. What, exactly, is the Millennial generation? ... Howe and Strauss define the Millennial cohort as consisting of individuals born between 1982 and 2004.
So, even people whose born in 1982(4 years older than me) are a Millenial.
Quote from: Scorpio on Oct 29, 2017, 08:05:02 PM
I've watched films from the 1800s.
If you don't watch old films, you can't appreciate new films either. Cinematic evolution.
This has to be one of them Poe's Law moments. I can't tell if you're blatantly lying or taking the piss.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 10:08:16 PM
PierreVW's friends are not a statistically significant sample size.
What if he has a whole lot of friends?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Oct 29, 2017, 10:54:32 PM
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 10:08:16 PM
PierreVW's friends are not a statistically significant sample size.
What if he has a whole lot of friends?
Yeah. I have 4,000 friends in my Facebook. Not all of those are my friends but 90% of those people are Millenials.
:laugh:
I'm millennial and so are all of my friends, and they've all seen older movies. Who's right?!?
Quote from: PierreVW on Oct 29, 2017, 11:03:18 PM
Yeah. I have 4,000 friends in my Facebook. Not all of those are my friends but 90% of those people are Millenials.
That's a lot of friends. You must be very charming.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 11:05:33 PM
I'm millennial and so are all of my friends, and they've all seen older movies. Who's right?!?
First, put Millenial in Google:
people who born since 1982.
So, you are wrong. Even people older than me are Millenials.
That's not what he was asking about in terms of who was right.
Quote from: PierreVW on Oct 29, 2017, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 11:05:33 PM
I'm millennial and so are all of my friends, and they've all seen older movies. Who's right?!?
First, put Millenial in Google:
people who born since 1982.
So, you are wrong. Even people older than me are Millenials.
And lots of them have seen older films. 100% of my children have watched older movies.
I get English is probably your second language, but you really need to consider avoiding absolutes when things aren't.
Maybe he's a Sith.
Quote from: SM on Oct 29, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Oct 29, 2017, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 11:05:33 PM
I'm millennial and so are all of my friends, and they've all seen older movies. Who's right?!?
First, put Millenial in Google:
people who born since 1982.
So, you are wrong. Even people older than me are Millenials.
And lots of them have seen older films. 100% of my children have watched older movies.
I get English is probably your second language, but you really need to consider avoiding absolutes when things aren't.
You said I'm not a Millenial. You were wrong like always.
Always is somewhat absolute.
Quote from: PierreVW on Oct 30, 2017, 12:19:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Oct 29, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Oct 29, 2017, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 11:05:33 PM
I'm millennial and so are all of my friends, and they've all seen older movies. Who's right?!?
First, put Millenial in Google:
people who born since 1982.
So, you are wrong. Even people older than me are Millenials.
And lots of them have seen older films. 100% of my children have watched older movies.
I get English is probably your second language, but you really need to consider avoiding absolutes when things aren't.
You said I'm not a Millenial. You were wrong like always.
SiL said you weren't a millennial, not SM. Regardless, it still doesn't change that you can't use a small group of friends to try and declare an absolute about a whole generation when myself and others here who are also a part of that generation and have experiences that don't match yours.
SM sir. He's SiL.
Sil and SM are like Christian Bale in the Prestige. They swap in and out and you don't notice then get bamboozled.
(https://i.imgur.com/jJ2EJA5.jpg)
Quote from: SM on Oct 27, 2017, 09:05:46 PM
By what measure was Covenant a "flop"?
What was explained in another thread doesn't refer to what makes it a flop but what's needed to profit. That is, the total cost is generally doubled to account for marketing, taxes, etc., and revenues cut by a third to a half for the distributor. What's left is divided between the studio and those who invested in the film.
Quote from: PierreVW on Oct 29, 2017, 06:19:58 PM
Quote from: SiL on Oct 29, 2017, 03:31:55 AM
That's a really neat trick since he made The Marian after Prometheus.
I known. Then, Ridley is famous for GLADIATOR and BLACK HAWK DOWN.
Most people of my age and younger than me never saw his old classics. Most youngsters only saw movies since 1999. LOL....
Sad but true.
He has a very good movie entitled
The Duellists.
I usually use twenty-year increments to label generations: 1921-1940 for the Silent Generation, 1941-1960 for the Boomers, 1961-1980 for X, 1981-2000 for Y, and 2001-2020 for the Millennials.
QuoteWhat was explained in another thread doesn't refer to what makes it a flop but what's needed to profit. That is, the total cost is generally doubled to account for marketing, taxes, etc., and revenues cut by a third to a half for the distributor. What's left is divided between the studio and those who invested in the film.
Specifically, "by what measure was Covenant a "flop"?"
Considering the studio said "It will be a profitable film".
QuoteFirst, put Millenial in Google:
people who born since 1982.
So, you are wrong. Even people older than me are Millenials.
Did you bother reading what I wrote?
I'm younger than you. By that definition I'm a millennial, my friends are millennials, my siblings are millenials, and THEIR friends are millenials.
And they've all watched older movies. Every last one of them.
So who's the more accurate depiction of the generation; your friends, or everyone I know? Why do your friends take precedence?
It's just a label, but since the new millenium began on 1 Jan 2001, then technically it should be everyone born on or after that date.
But that's only according to the Christian calendar.
No, because the term refers to the time when you reach young adulthood, not when you're born. This is also why many of the people who like to "slam Millennials" are so funny: They're Millennials themselves.
Now, being the wild card that I am, I would like to propose a crazy counter-argument to the "Millennials don't watch older movies" debate. Here it is: People who love movies, watch older movies; People who don't, not so much. Across all generations.
If anything, common sense dictates that Millennials would watch more films than previous generations, both because they live in a time when movies are more accessible to watch than ever (we now have streaming and fast internet, while older generations had to rely on the movie selection at their local video store, if they had one at all), and because Media Research shows a huge increase of media content consumption over the years.
"Millennials don't watch older movies" is just your typical Old Man Argument, that's been used since the dawn of time by older generations to "criticize" younger generations. There's no real substance behind it. Jesus, these kids today...
let me just go ahead and clear up the gen x vs millennial argument for those of us that are neither...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/28/xennials_a_23006562/
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Oct 30, 2017, 07:43:35 AM
No, because the term refers to the time when you reach young adulthood, not when you're born. This is also why many of the people who like to "slam Millennials" are so funny: They're Millennials themselves.
Now, being the wild card that I am, I would like to propose a crazy counter-argument to the "Millennials don't watch older movies" debate. Here it is: People who love movies, watch older movies; People who don't, not so much. Across all generations.
If anything, common sense dictates that Millennials would watch more films than previous generations, both because they live in a time when movies are more accessible to watch than ever (we now have streaming and fast internet, while older generations had to rely on the movie selection at their local video store, if they had one at all), and because Media Research shows a huge increase of media content consumption over the years.
"Millennials don't watch older movies" is just your typical Old Man Argument, that's been used since the dawn of time by older generations to "criticize" younger generations. There's no real substance behind it. Jesus, these kids today...
That hits the nail on the head. Casual movie viewers aren't bothered about watching 40-50 year old movies regardless of how old they are.
I'm in my forties and know plenty of people my age that haven't seen so called classics.
Even casual movie goers have often seen stuff like The Sound of Music, The Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, Ben-Hur etc.
Very true
Quote from: SM on Oct 30, 2017, 10:34:52 AM
Even casual movie goers have often seen stuff like The Sound of Music, The Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, Ben-Hur etc.
Only because my mum drilled them in. Thank god for dad and robocop.
"What's that they are sniffing off those girls chest dad"
"That's talcum powder son"
True story.
Quote from: SM on Oct 30, 2017, 10:34:52 AM
Even casual movie goers have often seen stuff like The Sound of Music, The Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, Ben-Hur etc.
I've only seen one out of those movies.
Also, the Wicked Witch of the West did nothing wrong.
Except for despatching her army of flying monkeys to abduct a child.
And rip the scarecrow to bits. And threaten to kill the child she abducted. And set fire to the scarecrow.
They didn't call her 'Wicked' for nothing.
She had a rough childhood.
Agree completely that film lovers will tend to seek out older films to see a director's early work, or the work that inspired a filmmaker they admire. However, it is disappointing to me that many older films are more difficult to see these days.
For example: when I was growing up and there were lots of video stores (VHS) you would go in and see all of the movies, and some of the covers, the descriptions, would intrigue me and I'd rent movies based on that. Not based on what was popular, but what my own curiosity led me to.
Now, I think a lot of people simply scroll through Netflix or Hulu, and watch whatever is available. So, how would someone become aware of Goodfellas? It's not on either of those streaming services. I don't rent from iTunes, but it seems that everything on the main page is what's new, so you would have to know what older movie you were looking for to search for it.
My friends and I found that movie by chance in a video store because the cover was interesting...the body lying on the street, Deniro, Liotta, and Pesci hovering in the dark above it. Finding that movie led to a lifelong love of Scorsese films. I went back to the video store and asked the guy there what else Scorsese had directed, which introduced me to Kundun, Age of Innocence, After Hours, King of Comedy etc.
I just wonder how a younger generation would become aware of films like this, and have access to them.
Quote from: SM on Oct 30, 2017, 02:31:35 AM
QuoteWhat was explained in another thread doesn't refer to what makes it a flop but what's needed to profit. That is, the total cost is generally doubled to account for marketing, taxes, etc., and revenues cut by a third to a half for the distributor. What's left is divided between the studio and those who invested in the film.
Specifically, "by what measure was Covenant a "flop"?"
Considering the studio said "It will be a profitable film".
The measure is based on the points raised in my post which you quoted above. Whether or it the film was a flop is based on the studio's definition of such, which is likely based on a minimum amount they pegged for the profit.
So ultimately - "no, it was not a flop".
Quote from: SM on Oct 31, 2017, 03:35:41 AM
Except for despatching her army of flying monkeys to abduct a child.
And rip the scarecrow to bits. And threaten to kill the child she abducted. And set fire to the scarecrow.
They didn't call her 'Wicked' for nothing.
Dorothy was guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and even worse, she didn't even give the shoes back.
She wasn't able to control the house or able to give the shoes back.
Quote from: SM on Oct 31, 2017, 07:50:43 PM
So ultimately - "no, it was not a flop".
I'm not sure. What was the studio hoping it would earn in profits from the film? Their investors? How much profit did it make?
If it made money - it's not a flop.
It didn't make as much as Fox hoped, but that doesn't make it a flop.
Quote from: SM on Nov 01, 2017, 02:31:44 AM
If it made money - it's not a flop.
It didn't make as much as Fox hoped, but that doesn't make it a flop.
Following your argument, one can declare that even if it made only a dollar in profits, then it's not a flop. That doesn't make sense, especially to investors.
A flop is something that doesn't make back its production budget and promotional costs. Costs can be very fluid with Hollywood accounting and it's rare we ever find out exact promotion costs.
However, Fox said it will be profitable. Ergo, not a flop.
And they're still willing to explore options for another movie so it can't have been too bad for Fox.
Quote from: SM on Nov 01, 2017, 04:24:58 AM
A flop is something that doesn't make back its production budget and promotional costs. Costs can be very fluid with Hollywood accounting and it's rare we ever find out exact promotion costs.
However, Fox said it will be profitable. Ergo, not a flop.
But how much did it make in profits?
Also, shouldn't it be "was" profitable? Or are they referring to merchandising?
We'll never know the profits.
Quote from: monkeylove on Nov 02, 2017, 03:16:22 AM
Quote from: SM on Nov 01, 2017, 04:24:58 AM
A flop is something that doesn't make back its production budget and promotional costs. Costs can be very fluid with Hollywood accounting and it's rare we ever find out exact promotion costs.
However, Fox said it will be profitable. Ergo, not a flop.
But how much did it make in profits?
Also, shouldn't it be "was" profitable? Or are they referring to merchandising?
The film made money. Not a flop.
I'm no expert on box office reports etc. but based on what I've seen, it looks like the film grossed somewhere around 230 million worldwide, against a budget of 97 million. Who knows how much went into publicity etc. but that gives Fox 130 million dollars. Even if they spent 100 million on publicity, that's 30 million profit.
How much money does a studio have to make in profit to consider a film "successful?" Covenant may not have been a massive blockbuster, but for the sake of argument, a single investment that produces 30 million dollars of profit would be considered successful by almost any metric. Maybe not compared to movies like the Avengers, but for business minded executives, 30 million (again, just using my random 100 million on publicity argument) is not nothing.
Covenant turned a profit and is not a flop, there's no real question there. That said, in order for a film to be successful, it needs to meet specific profit projections. Nobody is expecting an Alien film to make Star Wars money, but it is expected to do better than "slightly more than breaking even". The Alien franchise is an established and profitable franchise.
Quote from: TWJones on Nov 02, 2017, 02:49:25 PM
I'm no expert on box office reports etc. but based on what I've seen, it looks like the film grossed somewhere around 230 million worldwide, against a budget of 97 million. Who knows how much went into publicity etc. but that gives Fox 130 million dollars. Even if they spent 100 million on publicity, that's 30 million profit.
You're not factoring in the theaters cut which is typically 50% in the US and even higher overseas (eg. 75% in China).
If the marketing was indeed as high as $100 million (as many have
speculated) then the film can be considered a box office bomb. A flop.
It should however make a profit when you factor in streaming, home video, broadcasting rights, public screening rights etc.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Nov 02, 2017, 04:48:56 PM
Quote from: TWJones on Nov 02, 2017, 02:49:25 PM
I'm no expert on box office reports etc. but based on what I've seen, it looks like the film grossed somewhere around 230 million worldwide, against a budget of 97 million. Who knows how much went into publicity etc. but that gives Fox 130 million dollars. Even if they spent 100 million on publicity, that's 30 million profit.
You're not factoring in the theaters cut which is typically 50% in the US and even higher overseas (eg. 75% in China).
If the marketing was indeed as high as $100 million (as many have speculated) then the film can be considered a box office bomb. A flop.
It should however make a profit when you factor in streaming, home video, broadcasting rights, public screening rights etc.
Interesting...I had no idea theaters took that much.
On my local movie website it was listed as a movie who didn't do that well, but not as a flop.
Gods Of Egypt got listed as a flop in the past and more recently that weather disaster movie Geostorm or something.
Quote from: SM on Nov 02, 2017, 07:58:10 AM
The film made money. Not a flop.
You do realize that a movie that made only a dollar in profits made money?
Quote from: TWJones on Nov 02, 2017, 02:49:25 PM
I'm no expert on box office reports etc. but based on what I've seen, it looks like the film grossed somewhere around 230 million worldwide, against a budget of 97 million. Who knows how much went into publicity etc. but that gives Fox 130 million dollars. Even if they spent 100 million on publicity, that's 30 million profit.
How much money does a studio have to make in profit to consider a film "successful?" Covenant may not have been a massive blockbuster, but for the sake of argument, a single investment that produces 30 million dollars of profit would be considered successful by almost any metric. Maybe not compared to movies like the Avengers, but for business minded executives, 30 million (again, just using my random 100 million on publicity argument) is not nothing.
You have to remember to deduct the gross by 30 to 50 percent for the distributors' cut, and include other costs mentioned here:
https://stephenfollows.com/how-movies-make-money-hollywood-blockbusters/
plus the investors' cut from what remains.
There are also other revenue streams from which it can make a profit.
Whether it made a profit or not, Ridley is one of those directors who gets as many mulligans as is needed due to his prior contributions and overall status as a legend in the industry.
I'm not saying it's fair, but the reality is that while many other directors might have lost future projects after the performance of Covenant, no studio or producer is going to say no to Ridley Scott unless his budget requests are ridiculous. That's never the case, though, as the guy's productions are a well-oiled machine at this point in terms of staying on budget and schedule.
C'mon guys, if A Good Year didn't Rid the world of Riddles, nothing will ;)
*Edit: Throwing in Robin Hood and the Moses movie in there too.
Quote
You do realize that a movie that made only a dollar in profits made money?
Yeah. So what?
Fairly certain they work on profit margins, not dollar amounts.
1 dollar would be miniscule in profit margins.
A profit is a profit and it didn't make just one dollar so it's a silly argument.
It is indeed a silly argument because the very notion of making a profit automatically disqualifies a film from being a flop. The fact that the profit is marginal, as in the case of a single dollar, is irrelevant.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 04, 2017, 10:05:39 AM
It is indeed a silly argument because the very notion of making a profit automatically disqualifies a film from being a flop. The fact that the profit is marginal, as in the case of a single dollar, is irrelevant.
Quote from: SMA profit is a profit and it didn't make just one dollar so it's a silly argument.
That doesn't make sense because for-profit businesses want to maximize profits for many reasons, including employees wanting bonuses, promotions, etc., money needed to expand operations, investors wanting the best return on their investments, and more.
It's simple maths.
When the box office reaches a certain amount it means everything has been paid for and the movie starts making a profit.
What part of it doesn't make sense?
I can't help but think you're just trolling now because you keep disputing a very basic and straightforward concept.
It can be classed as a flop if it's not made enough money. If you invest X amount into something and then only make the same amount or a little more in return then you've wasted time which could have been used doing something else which could have brought you 2X in returns.
We'll never know the final amount, but AC could be classed as a flop, regardless of whether it actually makes money or not. It's the return on investment that is important.
As far as we know, the sequel is already in pre-production, so whether it has or hasn't flopped is moot, anyway.
It can be classed as a flop if you make up your own definition of 'flop'.
Quote from: SM on Nov 05, 2017, 06:56:51 AM
It's simple maths.
When the box office reaches a certain amount it means everything has been paid for and the movie starts making a profit.
What part of it doesn't make sense?
I can't help but think you're just trolling now because you keep disputing a very basic and straightforward concept.
For-profit businesses don't operate that way, especially given competition and investors.
In this case, studios compete with each other and look for the projects that will maximize their profits. The same goes for investors that want to get the best returns on their investment.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 12:45:11 AM
It can be classed as a flop if you make up your own definition of 'flop'.
What you are looking for are the following:
1. What profit margin was the studio expecting? What were their investors expecting in terms of returns?
2. Did they get them?
Like I said - if you redefine 'flop' to whatever suits your horse flogging agenda rather than the traditional usage - it can be called a flop.
I'd say it wasn't a hit, wasn't a flop. Just a regular ol movie. Like you used to rent at the video store.
That's probably downplaying it a little - but in financial terms, correct.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 03:15:56 AM
That's probably downplaying it a little - but in financial terms, correct.
I think for the budget, it looks and sounds a bit better than it probably should. At least what movies are costing these days.
In light of the Disney/21st Century Fox news, 2 things need to be said:
1. The talks seems to be dead at the moment.
2. Even if the talks came back into play, Disney won't "Disney-fy" Alien, or Predator, or any of their more "adult" series. There's no chance in hell we'll get Xenomorphs VS the Avengers or a PG-13 film. It'll likely be what Touchstone and Miramax were like. But again, the whole deal will probably not happen.
So before people start freaking out: CHILL.
Was anyone freaking out?
I figured that when someone posted about it, people would not react well to it. I've seen someone in the fourms bring up the possibility of a Disney sale in the past, and people did not like that idea at all.
Quote from: AD on Nov 06, 2017, 08:18:27 PM
In light of the Disney/21st Century Fox news
Wow, I just heard about this. This is horrible f**king news. Why would 20th Century Fox be bought off by Disney? They have been doing really well on their own.
Disney is becoming way too f**king powerful.
Stop freaking out
You were a bit early, AD.
Was about to post something regarding Disney/Fox and the future of the Alien series, though I wasn't quick enough. Interesting if it comes into fruition, though would not bod well for Alien. Who knows. Let's see what happens.
Why would it not bode well?
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 09:27:24 PM
Why would it not bode well?
Tone-down the films for mainstream audiences. Though, who knows. They could surprise us. They did it with Rogue One.
If it ever happened they likely wouldn't release under the Disney banner.
Quote from: AD on Nov 06, 2017, 08:18:27 PM
So before people start freaking out: CHILL.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 03:06:09 AM
Like I said - if you redefine 'flop' to whatever suits your horse flogging agenda rather than the traditional usage - it can be called a flop.
What do you mean by "traditional usage"?
You know perfectly well what I mean.
I was under the impression that a "flop" was something that lost money. With profit margins in the millions of dollars, even if a film doesn't do as well as projected, that's not necessarily a flop.
If millions are being made, that is the goal of the businesses involved. No one wants to lose money, and that's when a film is a complete and utter failure.
I understand what you guys are saying about what constitutes profit but in this case it's all relatively to studio expectations. They green-light lower budget movies like something $5 million and are very happy if it makes $30 million-plus. They green-light big budget films with the expectation of at least doubling or even tripling the production and marketing costs.
A good comparison, although not exactly representative of A:C and it's performance, would be placing a $1 million bet in Vegas on something where the odds are so high that you only stand to win back $1,000,500. I'm not saying it's that extreme, but studio logic is the risk is greater than the reward.
Quote from: SM on Nov 07, 2017, 01:53:44 AM
You know perfectly well what I mean.
My view is that a movie is a flop if it failed to perform as expected. For example, if it was supposed to guarantee a 7-percent return on investment for those who funded it but returned 0.7 percent, then it's a flop.
Only greedy executives would consider it a flop.
97 mil budget - ~20 mil in grants from Aust. govt.
240 mil box office ww
top of blu-ray/dvd charts
merchandising profits
etc
Big success.
Quote from: monkeylove on Nov 08, 2017, 07:01:30 AM
Quote from: SM on Nov 07, 2017, 01:53:44 AM
You know perfectly well what I mean.
My view is that a movie is a flop if it failed to perform as expected. For example, if it was supposed to guarantee a 7-percent return on investment for those who funded it but returned 0.7 percent, then it's a flop.
That isn't a flop, though. It's as simple as - it's a flop if it didn't earn money. Fox has said that Covenant is an earner for them. It didn't do as well as they'd hoped but it still isn't a flop, not in the slightest. And I think you're flogging a dead-horse with trying to convince people it was.
Quote from: monkeylove on Nov 08, 2017, 07:01:30 AM
Quote from: SM on Nov 07, 2017, 01:53:44 AM
You know perfectly well what I mean.
My view is that a movie is a flop if it failed to perform as expected. For example, if it was supposed to guarantee a 7-percent return on investment for those who funded it but returned 0.7 percent, then it's a flop.
Alright then, you didn't know.
And have been arguing a definition only you adhere to.
Quote from: TWJones on Nov 07, 2017, 03:13:54 PM
I was under the impression that a "flop" was something that lost money.
Not always the case. A film could collect a gargantuan net profit, but still be a flop with the critics.
King Arthur was a flop, shame, pretty damn good movie for what it was. After I saw the RT score I was surprised although I've been doubtful of RT for a while now.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Nov 08, 2017, 08:47:02 AM
That isn't a flop, though. It's as simple as - it's a flop if it didn't earn money. Fox has said that Covenant is an earner for them. It didn't do as well as they'd hoped but it still isn't a flop, not in the slightest. And I think you're flogging a dead-horse with trying to convince people it was.
But I never argued that it is a flop. What I said is that the argument that a movie isn't a flop simply because it made money doesn't make sense: if a movie made only a dollar in profits then it earned money. But how many investors who invest, say, $50 million, will be happy to get a return on investment worth 50 cents?
What this means, then, is that A:C didn't simply earn money but made a enough to cover investors' and the studio's expected margin. I mentioned 7 percent because that is probably good enough compared to what one can make conservatively through other investments.
The other possibility is that the movie made well below what the studio and investors wanted, but ideas for the sequel might make them believe that they can make up for the poor performance of the current film.
Thus, as much as you want to believe that this issue is simple, it's likely not.
Quote from: SM on Nov 08, 2017, 09:11:04 AM
Alright then, you didn't know.
And have been arguing a definition only you adhere to.
I believe that Fox decided to produce A:C with an expected profit margin in mind, and went through the creative and marketing process to achieve that goal. I say that because that's how businesses work, especially for-profit businesses who have investors who want the best deal. They don't work in your imaginary way, where studio execs pitch a movie idea to investors, arguing that it will simply make money, and when told how much, will answer "whatever."
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 08, 2017, 07:17:13 AM
Only greedy executives would consider it a flop.
97 mil budget - ~20 mil in grants from Aust. govt.
240 mil box office ww
top of blu-ray/dvd charts
merchandising profits
etc
Big success.
Not just greedy executives but greedy investors who expect the best return on their investment. If you were encouraged to invest $50 million in a movie because you were told that you'd get a return that's higher than what you'd get if you had just put it in low interest-bearing instruments in a bank, and ended up getting a few dollars (it still made money, right?), would you consider that movie a success?
Also, for the figures that you shared, don't forget to add the marketing cost to the budget (in some cases, the same amount as production cost), remove 30 to 50 percent from the box office (the theater owners' cut) plus others, and subtract taxes.
Try this article for guidance:
https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cinemas-box-office-income-is-distributed/
Quote from: Highland on Nov 08, 2017, 12:20:19 PM
King Arthur was a flop, shame, pretty damn good movie for what it was. After I saw the RT score I was surprised although I've been doubtful of RT for a while now.
Are you talking about the Charlie Hunman King Arthur or the Clive Owen King Arthur?
The Ridley Scott IMDb page is weird or wrong. They didn't list THE CARTEL as his next. They put ALIEN: COVENANT 2 as his next. Probably they are clueless.
Ridley IS Peter Weyland. The next prequel should be shot documentary-style and chronicle Ridley's quest to immortality. I bet he even has a little dog like the one that rolled over in Prometheus.
QuoteI believe that Fox decided to produce A:C with an expected profit margin in mind, and went through the creative and marketing process to achieve that goal. I say that because that's how businesses work, especially for-profit businesses who have investors who want the best deal. They don't work in your imaginary way, where studio execs pitch a movie idea to investors, arguing that it will simply make money, and when told how much, will answer "whatever."
Stop making shit up.
I'm talking about the usage of a term that you are determined to deliberately ignore; not business practices.
Simply stating how you think businesses work ad nuaseum isn't going to change what 'flop' means.
Get your hand off it.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Nov 08, 2017, 05:46:28 PM
Quote from: Highland on Nov 08, 2017, 12:20:19 PM
King Arthur was a flop, shame, pretty damn good movie for what it was. After I saw the RT score I was surprised although I've been doubtful of RT for a while now.
Are you talking about the Charlie Hunman King Arthur or the Clive Owen King Arthur?
I haven't seen the new one but I really like the Clive Owen version. He's not that great in the lead role but it's a decent film and the Battle on the ice and final battle are great.
Quote from: SM on Nov 08, 2017, 07:52:35 PM
Stop making shit up.
SM, I admire your patience with that one.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 08, 2017, 08:23:23 PM
I haven't seen the new one but I really like the Clive Owen version.
Agreed. I've done a couple replays, besides liking the scenes you mention, I particularly like the scene where Venora(?) performs We Will Go Home (sung by Moya Brennan).
Quote from: Highland on Nov 08, 2017, 12:20:19 PM
King Arthur was a flop, shame, pretty damn good movie for what it was. After I saw the RT score I was surprised although I've been doubtful of RT for a while now.
After watching it I was quite surprised it flopped. Decent, entertaining and a good take on the myth. And usually I don't like these PG-13 action movies.
Maybe people were expecting Game Of Thrones type stuff.
King Arthur likely bombed because it opened a week after Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2, and it began marketing when it was supposed to come out in March.
And honestly, I don't think too many people were clamoring for a new King Arthur movie.
A Guy Ritchie King Arthur with hip dialogue, where you do the Nolan technique of stripping away almost everything that makes it fun (including Merlin). Add in trying to make it like a Marvel movie with a potential cinematic universe.
Not surprised it bombed.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Nov 08, 2017, 05:46:28 PM
Quote from: Highland on Nov 08, 2017, 12:20:19 PM
King Arthur was a flop, shame, pretty damn good movie for what it was. After I saw the RT score I was surprised although I've been doubtful of RT for a while now.
Are you talking about the Charlie Hunman King Arthur or the Clive Owen King Arthur?
The Charlie Hunman. Richies movies are so watchable, the perfect example, taking a fairy tale and making into a Snatch style banter movie with epic editing. I think if they extended the middle sequence and have him actually fight the beasts on the mountain = perfect.
Never seen the Clive Owen one, but I love the original. Williamsons Merlin is one of my favourite performances of all time.
Just saw this on Imdb:
In an unprecedented bold move, director Ridley Scott, along with Imperative Entertainment's Dan Friedkin and Bradley Thomas have decided to remove Kevin Spacey from their finished movie All The Money In The World. Christopher Plummer has been set to replace Spacey in the role of J Paul Getty.
Quote from: Highland on Nov 09, 2017, 01:54:15 AMThe Charlie Hunman. Richies movies are so watchable, the perfect example, taking a fairy tale and making into a Snatch style banter movie with epic editing. I think if they extended the middle sequence and have him actually fight the beasts on the mountain = perfect.
Never seen the Clive Owen one, but I love the original. Williamsons Merlin is one of my favourite performances of all time.
Probably would've benefited from an R-Rating so he could go full Guy Ritchie.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 09, 2017, 02:09:54 AM
Just saw this on Imdb:
In an unprecedented bold move, director Ridley Scott, along with Imperative Entertainment's Dan Friedkin and Bradley Thomas have decided to remove Kevin Spacey from their finished movie All The Money In The World. Christopher Plummer has been set to replace Spacey in the role of J Paul Getty.
Quote from: Highland on Nov 09, 2017, 01:54:15 AMThe Charlie Hunman. Richies movies are so watchable, the perfect example, taking a fairy tale and making into a Snatch style banter movie with epic editing. I think if they extended the middle sequence and have him actually fight the beasts on the mountain = perfect.
Never seen the Clive Owen one, but I love the original. Williamsons Merlin is one of my favourite performances of all time.
Probably would've benefited from an R-Rating so he could go full Guy Ritchie.
I dont thing that would have mattered, I really don't think gore would have added anything. An extra 20 minutes though would have filled out the middle. Everywhere you look people really liked this movie, everywhere but RT that is.
You know what though I didn't even think the Mummy was that bad, it was quite entertaining. I think two things have happened, I'm so over saturated with Super Hero films that any type of fantasy/sci fi thats not that, is refreshing and also an epically low score like 20% in my mind is like Battlefield Earth, a total disaster, these movies like King Arthur don't deserve such low scores.
Everyone's a wine sniffing cheese muncher these days.
Quote from: Highland on Nov 09, 2017, 05:08:01 AM
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 09, 2017, 02:09:54 AM
Just saw this on Imdb:
In an unprecedented bold move, director Ridley Scott, along with Imperative Entertainment's Dan Friedkin and Bradley Thomas have decided to remove Kevin Spacey from their finished movie All The Money In The World. Christopher Plummer has been set to replace Spacey in the role of J Paul Getty.
Quote from: Highland on Nov 09, 2017, 01:54:15 AMThe Charlie Hunman. Richies movies are so watchable, the perfect example, taking a fairy tale and making into a Snatch style banter movie with epic editing. I think if they extended the middle sequence and have him actually fight the beasts on the mountain = perfect.
Never seen the Clive Owen one, but I love the original. Williamsons Merlin is one of my favourite performances of all time.
Probably would've benefited from an R-Rating so he could go full Guy Ritchie.
I dont thing that would have mattered, I really don't think gore would have added anything. An extra 20 minutes though would have filled out the middle. Everywhere you look people really liked this movie, everywhere but RT that is.
You know what though I didn't even think the Mummy was that bad, it was quite entertaining. I think two things have happened, I'm so over saturated with Super Hero films that any type of fantasy/sci fi thats not that, is refreshing and also an epically low score like 20% in my mind is like Battlefield Earth, a total disaster, these movies like King Arthur don't deserve such low scores.
Everyone's a wine sniffing cheese muncher these days.
I quite enjoyed the mummy too. I feel the same way about all the super hero movies, I'm just fatigued with it.
I went to see Spider-man homecoming and really enjoyed it but I wasn't excited to see it or even looking forward to it and I shouldn't feel that way. Any alternative is now feels refreshing.
Quote from: Highland on Nov 09, 2017, 05:08:01 AM
I dont thing that would have mattered, I really don't think gore would have added anything. An extra 20 minutes though would have filled out the middle. Everywhere you look people really liked this movie, everywhere but RT that is.
You know what though I didn't even think the Mummy was that bad, it was quite entertaining. I think two things have happened, I'm so over saturated with Super Hero films that any type of fantasy/sci fi thats not that, is refreshing and also an epically low score like 20% in my mind is like Battlefield Earth, a total disaster, these movies like King Arthur don't deserve such low scores.
Everyone's a wine sniffing cheese muncher these days.
I was thinking more dialogue wise. Typical British swearing and such.
I liked The Mummy until the plane took off. Then everything turned so average.
Movies like those are one of the reason I started watching "weirder" or cheaper movies because they're often more refreshing.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 09, 2017, 08:41:44 AMI went to see Spider-man homecoming and really enjoyed it but I wasn't excited to see it or even looking forward to it and I shouldn't feel that way. Any alternative is now feels refreshing.
I thought the latest Spider-man was quite overrated. Just more typical Marvel stuff.
But apparently the studios are taking notice. The last Thor movie's supposed to be more different. It's from the writer from What We Do In The Shadows and The Hunt For The Wilderpeople. So I'm kinda curious.
Quote from: SM on Nov 08, 2017, 07:52:35 PM
Stop making shit up.
I'm talking about the usage of a term that you are determined to deliberately ignore; not business practices.
Simply stating how you think businesses work ad nuaseum isn't going to change what 'flop' means.
Get your hand off it.
What usage of the term did you give?
Another for the ignore pile.
Quote from: Highland on Nov 09, 2017, 01:54:15 AM
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Nov 08, 2017, 05:46:28 PM
Are you talking about the Charlie Hunman King Arthur or the Clive Owen King Arthur?
The Charlie Hunman.
Never seen the Clive Owen one, but I love the original. Williamsons Merlin is one of my favourite performances of all time.
I assume you're referring to Excalibur, which isn't the original King Arthur film, but I agree Williamson was the star of that film for me.
To recap and conclude what I said, just because a movie makes money doesn't mean it's not a flop. It could have made a dollar, which is money, but that would probably not make investors happy, especially if they put in $100 million and were expecting a 7-percent return. Call it greed, but that's how business works.
Good God, you really are having a conversation with yourself.
It's a flop if it loses money. It underperforms or doesn't meet expectations if it doesn't hit the profit margin it was hoped for (which can actually be a good thing for the studio, since they can often get out of repaying their financiers on an underperforming film.)
Quote from: Highland on Nov 09, 2017, 05:08:01 AM
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 09, 2017, 02:09:54 AM
Just saw this on Imdb:
In an unprecedented bold move, director Ridley Scott, along with Imperative Entertainment's Dan Friedkin and Bradley Thomas have decided to remove Kevin Spacey from their finished movie All The Money In The World. Christopher Plummer has been set to replace Spacey in the role of J Paul Getty.
Quote from: Highland on Nov 09, 2017, 01:54:15 AMThe Charlie Hunman. Richies movies are so watchable, the perfect example, taking a fairy tale and making into a Snatch style banter movie with epic editing. I think if they extended the middle sequence and have him actually fight the beasts on the mountain = perfect.
Never seen the Clive Owen one, but I love the original. Williamsons Merlin is one of my favourite performances of all time.
Probably would've benefited from an R-Rating so he could go full Guy Ritchie.
I dont thing that would have mattered, I really don't think gore would have added anything. An extra 20 minutes though would have filled out the middle. Everywhere you look people really liked this movie, everywhere but RT that is.
You know what though I didn't even think the Mummy was that bad, it was quite entertaining. I think two things have happened, I'm so over saturated with Super Hero films that any type of fantasy/sci fi thats not that, is refreshing and also an epically low score like 20% in my mind is like Battlefield Earth, a total disaster, these movies like King Arthur don't deserve such low scores.
Everyone's a wine sniffing cheese muncher these days.
I agree with you completely. Guy's films have their own rhythm, and some of his shots are so creative (remember when they're running through the alleys, and the camera is tilted and pointed right at their faces? And their breathing is a part of the soundtrack...genius.)
The middle of the film did seem a bit rushed, and I think you're right, another 20 minutes of Arthur actually battling his way to become something more would have given the rest of the plot room to breathe. Sometimes a film needs to be a little longer if the story demands it.
That said, big freaking Murder Elephants, Charlie Hunnam hustling on the streets of medieval London, a killer score, and Guy Richie's energy...I had a great time, which is more than can be said of many movies.
Hey Guys, off-topic, but can someone explain what a "flop" is? ;D
The Floppening.
Three Billboards Outside Flopping, Missouri.
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Nov 10, 2017, 02:42:20 PM
Hey Guys, off-topic, but can someone explain what a "flop" is? ;D
"
Informal
(of a performer or show) to be completely unsuccessful; fail totally."
Quote from: SiL on Nov 10, 2017, 06:57:52 AM
Good God, you really are having a conversation with yourself.
Except that you are responding. Why is this point worth noting? Read below.
Quote
It's a flop if it loses money. It underperforms or doesn't meet expectations if it doesn't hit the profit margin it was hoped for (which can actually be a good thing for the studio, since they can often get out of repaying their financiers on an underperforming film.)
How do they "get out of repaying their financiers"? More important, how does that affect plans for sequels?
They can get out depending on how the financing was structured and what sort of contracts were used.
You see it a lot with independent filmmakers when they're offered distribution. They're told that they'll get X% of the earnings for the film "after expenses" or something along those lines. In these types of contracts, the filmmaker almost never sees money because, suddenly, there are an awful lot of expenses in getting their film shown. Just so many.
Something similar can happen with film financing. Contracts can be made whereby if the film flops, underperforms, fails to make back X amount, etc. then the producer doesn't need to repay the money. It basically becomes a write-off and what money the film does make ends up in the producers' pockets.
The film The Producers is based around those kind of dodgy financial dealings; in their case, two stage producers oversell shares of a production they're sure will be terrible because of a loophole where if it flops, they keep the cash and walk off with everyone's money. That's a thing that can actually happen (unless they've closed that loophole lately.)
'Hollywood accounting' leads to filmmakers taking legal action against studios. There was a long running dispute between Peter Jackson and Newline over unpaid monies on LOTR that held up The Hobbit films. I think Scott Mosier held up Clerks 2 because there were still issues around money on Clerks with Miramax despite the film turning a few million in profit.
Which typically only happens when the films actually do really well by any definition, and the studios try to get creative. Covenant made less than $300million total on what would've been a ~$150million spend (distribution is typically 1/3rd the spend of the film; if the production budget was $97m then the distribution spend would be ~$50m), so even if the movie technically made money, nobody would contest it if the studio said it didn't make "enough".
Even if $97million was the total spend, a $240m lifetime cinema return still isn't all that great and, still, nobody would argue.
I recall reading about an actor or two complaining about this very thing. Their agent negotiated say, a 1% payment of the net profit. The actor sees the film grossed 500 million or whatever, thinking he's going to get 1% of 500 million. I'm guessing the studio came up with creative ways to include as many expenses possible to whittle down the net profit. The actor is then given a paycheck of say, 1% of 50 million or whatever. I think Eddie Murphy was one of the actors complaining about this, but I can't say for sure.
Time to shop for a new agent.
Quote from: SiL on Nov 11, 2017, 04:47:07 AM
They can get out depending on how the financing was structured and what sort of contracts were used.
You see it a lot with independent filmmakers when they're offered distribution. They're told that they'll get X% of the earnings for the film "after expenses" or something along those lines. In these types of contracts, the filmmaker almost never sees money because, suddenly, there are an awful lot of expenses in getting their film shown. Just so many.
Something similar can happen with film financing. Contracts can be made whereby if the film flops, underperforms, fails to make back X amount, etc. then the producer doesn't need to repay the money. It basically becomes a write-off and what money the film does make ends up in the producers' pockets.
The film The Producers is based around those kind of dodgy financial dealings; in their case, two stage producers oversell shares of a production they're sure will be terrible because of a loophole where if it flops, they keep the cash and walk off with everyone's money. That's a thing that can actually happen (unless they've closed that loophole lately.)
I don't think investors operate like independent filmmakers. Rather, it's the studio who acts as such. Remember, it's the studio who's courting the investor, not the other way round. Given that, any contract will also have to be favorable to investors, with the one trying to attract them making all sorts of concessions.
Finally, your reference to
The Producers is bizarre because it refers to criminal activity.
Quote from: SiL on Nov 11, 2017, 08:52:00 AM
Which typically only happens when the films actually do really well by any definition, and the studios try to get creative. Covenant made less than $300million total on what would've been a ~$150million spend (distribution is typically 1/3rd the spend of the film; if the production budget was $97m then the distribution spend would be ~$50m), so even if the movie technically made money, nobody would contest it if the studio said it didn't make "enough".
Even if $97million was the total spend, a $240m lifetime cinema return still isn't all that great and, still, nobody would argue.
That's my point! Creativity in accounting only increases or decreases expenses
on paper. Those who are paid, ranging from investors to personnel, are still given actual money. For me, the latter ultimately determines whether or not investors (the same or others) will fund future films. It's either that or no due diligence on the part of the latter will take place.
QuoteI don't think investors operate like independent filmmakers
I explained that it was an example of the types of clauses that frequently get put into contracts that use creative accounting.
QuoteFinally, your reference to The Producers is bizarre because it refers to criminal activity
The illegal part was deceiving and not paying back investors, but the loophole they exploited can be used in legitimate circumstances of underperforming films.
Next in Law & Order : Hollywood Forensic Accounting Unit - Dr Miller vs. The Brothers Warner (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/george-miller-sues-warner-bros-over-mad-max-fury-road-earnings-20171109-gziinh.html).
Quote from: SiL on Nov 12, 2017, 04:29:21 AM
I explained that it was an example of the types of clauses that frequently get put into contracts that use creative accounting.
From what I know, such clauses are meant to attract investors, not the other way round.
Also, creative accounting involves using loopholes to avoid taxation, etc., or to attract investors.
Quote
The illegal part was deceiving and not paying back investors, but the loophole they exploited can be used in legitimate circumstances of underperforming films.
If investors perform due diligence, then they should be able to see those loopholes. What you're assuming is that investors in general don't do such.
Quote from: SM on Nov 13, 2017, 12:42:23 AM
Next in Law & Order : Hollywood Forensic Accounting Unit - Dr Miller vs. The Brothers Warner (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/george-miller-sues-warner-bros-over-mad-max-fury-road-earnings-20171109-gziinh.html).
Say goodbye to any Fury Road sequels lol
Quote from: monkeylove on Nov 13, 2017, 02:02:34 AM
Also, creative accounting involves using loopholes to avoid taxation, etc., or to attract investors.
And avoid repaying investors.
QuoteIf investors perform due diligence, then they should be able to see those loopholes. What you're assuming is that investors in general don't do such.
I'm not assuming anything. It's a thing that happens. Not every minute of every day for every film ever made, but still, it happens.
Quote from: SiL on Nov 13, 2017, 08:00:17 AM
And avoid repaying investors.
Actually, it's the opposite because they want investors to re-invest, especially if sequels are planned.
Quote
I'm not assuming anything. It's a thing that happens. Not every minute of every day for every film ever made, but still, it happens.
Any data on that?
They want filmmakers to make films for them, too; it doesn't stop them f**king them over with regularity.
Quote from: Alionic on Nov 13, 2017, 05:08:18 AM
Quote from: SM on Nov 13, 2017, 12:42:23 AM
Next in Law & Order : Hollywood Forensic Accounting Unit - Dr Miller vs. The Brothers Warner (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/george-miller-sues-warner-bros-over-mad-max-fury-road-earnings-20171109-gziinh.html).
Say goodbye to any Fury Road sequels lol
That really sucks, I read the story and Miller does has a case. Sounds like Warner Bros is in trouble. :o
Quote from: SiL on Nov 14, 2017, 06:20:05 AM
They want filmmakers to make films for them, too; it doesn't stop them f**king them over with regularity.
Producers have the final say, and they are answerable to investors. That's why it's filmmakers who are hired and fired by studios and not the other way round.
Ridley Scott confirmed today that he's doing an adaption of The Cartel next, sorry guys. But All the Money in the World's press tour should kick off shortly so hopefully journalists will ask him about the status of the next Alien film.
Quote from: Ridley ScottI've already started recce [British military slang for reconnaissance] on another film. I'd like to do three a year, but we're going to start the next one in February. I'm not sure if we're keeping the title because the book is so important, but I'm doing [an adaptation] of The Cartel.
http://ew.com/movies/2017/11/29/ridley-scott-kevin-spacey-all-the-money-in-the-world-exclusive/ (http://ew.com/movies/2017/11/29/ridley-scott-kevin-spacey-all-the-money-in-the-world-exclusive/)
Thanks to Ingwar for the link to the interview.
i think we can expect a similar time frame that we had between prometheus and a:c, so five years or so in the future
Quote from: grootsuit on Nov 29, 2017, 05:22:21 PM
i think we can expect a similar time frame that we had between prometheus and a:c, so five years or so in the future
I'm predicting he'll do the Covenant sequel after the Cartel. He did say the sequel begins filming 14 months from May of this year.
That entire interview with Ridley was really cool. Love the man, can't wait for All The Money, The Cartel, and what he does next.
So The Cartel is next. Must read that book. I hope he's gonna adapt Wraiths of the Broken Land (great book!) after but that's just my wishful thinking.
The movie is probably under development now, meanwhile Scott is gonna do a quick filming of his next movie and then it will start with the Covenant sequel and we will get it in 2019 or something like that.
I bet that if Fox is confident about course correcting, they' ll try to have something ready for the franchise's 40th anniversary, in 2019.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ridley takes a back seat and acts as a producer.
He should, or at least get out of the story's way. f**king set it up like The Martian. Someone write a kick ass script, and he can come in and direct. No yada.
Quote from: Kane's other son on Nov 30, 2017, 04:32:28 PM
I bet that if Fox is confident about course correcting, they' ll try to have something ready for the franchise's 40th anniversary, in 2019.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ridley takes a back seat and acts as a producer.
This is 100% Ridley's vision. Anyone else would just be ghost directing.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 01, 2017, 11:45:42 PM
Quote from: Kane's other son on Nov 30, 2017, 04:32:28 PM
I bet that if Fox is confident about course correcting, they' ll try to have something ready for the franchise's 40th anniversary, in 2019.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ridley takes a back seat and acts as a producer.
This is 100% Ridley's vision. Anyone else would just be ghost directing.
I think vision is the wrong word. More like play thing. His vision was either ruined by the studio or wasn't fully fleshed out to begin with. Prometheus was quite a good way to kick things off so it's anyone's guess as to why they all got cold feet.
Just because he can't do whatever he wants, doesn't mean it isn't his vision. Every director is ultimately bound to their financiers. Ridley still has a lot of creative freedom.
Get Ridley surrounded with people who have some actual raw talent rather then yes men and the possibility for something good to come out of it is not to be underestimated.
Forgot to add that the producers who forced Ridley to shoehorn in couple xenomorphs are even worse than yes men. But of course Ridley is one of the main reasons why the Alien series completely fell apart.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 02, 2017, 03:02:30 AM
Just because he can't do whatever he wants, doesn't mean it isn't his vision. Every director is ultimately bound to their financiers. Ridley still has a lot of creative freedom.
Not wanting to have the Alien in your movie then someone telling you they want it is a pretty big change. It's not like changing a few action scenes or cutting the movie shorter.
So he gave them f**kin aliens. He wasn't catering to fanboys who just want marines mowing down dozens of aliens with pulse rifles. It was still Ridley's vision, despite having to change it to accommodate studio demands.
Quote from: Scorpio on Dec 02, 2017, 06:29:53 AM
So he gave them f**kin aliens. He wasn't catering to fanboys who just want marines mowing down dozens of aliens with pulse rifles. It was still Ridley's vision, despite having to change it to accommodate studio demands.
(https://i.imgur.com/4Db7smo.gif)
The final say generally comes from the franchise owners and investors. If any, that's probably why A:C ended up a mess.
We can only maintain the fact that Ridley Scott brought the Alien franchise back from extinction since all the other sequels made everyone disappointed. He brought back the allure and mystery if not bringing up more questions than giving answers. So not only did he stir the pot, he added veggies and meatballs.But A;Cov, proved that the franchise has a problem of making something that everyone expected , that being NOT MEETING EXPECTATION. ANd thats the problem everytime.
Quote from: acrediblesource on Dec 02, 2017, 02:19:40 PM
We can only maintain the fact that Ridley Scott brought the Alien franchise back from extinction since all the other sequels made everyone disappointed. He brought back the allure and mystery if not bringing up more questions than giving answers. So not only did he stir the pot, he added veggies and meatballs.But A;Cov, proved that the franchise has a problem of making something that everyone expected , that being NOT MEETING EXPECTATION. ANd thats the problem everytime.
Again, as I've said before, I believe this is largely due to the marketing campaign. They should've marketed the movie as artistic biological weirdo film that it is rather than all the RUN PRAY HIDE crap.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Dec 02, 2017, 04:03:51 PM
Quote from: acrediblesource on Dec 02, 2017, 02:19:40 PM
We can only maintain the fact that Ridley Scott brought the Alien franchise back from extinction since all the other sequels made everyone disappointed. He brought back the allure and mystery if not bringing up more questions than giving answers. So not only did he stir the pot, he added veggies and meatballs.But A;Cov, proved that the franchise has a problem of making something that everyone expected , that being NOT MEETING EXPECTATION. ANd thats the problem everytime.
Again, as I've said before, I believe this is largely due to the marketing campaign. They should've marketed the movie as artistic biological weirdo film that it is rather than all the RUN PRAY HIDE crap.
Except the film was more of the latter than the former, so the marketing was actually pretty accurate. Having a villain quoting classic literature in a weak film doesn't change the fact that the film is still weak.
Quote from: acrediblesource on Dec 02, 2017, 02:19:40 PM
We can only maintain the fact that Ridley Scott brought the Alien franchise back from extinction since all the other sequels made everyone disappointed. He brought back the allure and mystery if not bringing up more questions than giving answers. So not only did he stir the pot, he added veggies and meatballs.But A;Cov, proved that the franchise has a problem of making something that everyone expected , that being NOT MEETING EXPECTATION. ANd thats the problem everytime.
Brought back the mystery :D :D :D A lot of peoples impression is the exact opposite, you're kidding yourself if you think Covenant was less dissapointing than the worst sequels. Aliens and to me Alien 3 are great sequels and Resurrection is still a better film than Covenant. Many of us just expected the film to simply be good, the reality didn't meet our expectations. By food analogy Ridley did stir the pot, but by now the result has become a watery fruit salad with fishbones that's probably best left to rot.
Alien cultivated our imagination for decades, that mystery of it all was most likely the most important factor why the film was so highly regarded all these years. The smart subtlety of it was far more stimulating than on the nose philoshophy of Covenant which failed to mask that the film is basically a mediocre space monster flick, it's more of the same done with zero finesse.
Maybe i'm wrong here, but imo this board also used to flourish with fan theories about different aspects the films dark cold universe, the prequels gave us inconsistencies, plotholes and mcguffings to ponder rather some actual mystery.
All this could have been avoided if Ridley just made a all new sci-fi series that took some inspiration from Alien. And as i've said before if the Prometheus sequel had took it's original path something genuinely interesting could have came out of it. I have no idea, how you could fix Covenant.
I'd be interested in seeing what Drew Goddard, who wrote The Martian for Ridley, could do with Alien.
Quote from: reecebomb on Dec 02, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
and Resurrection is still a better film than Covenant.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/5lXtqw7tJh3eE/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Alionic on Dec 02, 2017, 09:07:03 PM
Quote from: reecebomb on Dec 02, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
and Resurrection is still a better film than Covenant.
https://media.giphy.com/media/5lXtqw7tJh3eE/giphy.gif
None of the deaths in Covenant were as creative as this one.
I didn't know that. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.
Quote from: reecebomb on Dec 02, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Dec 02, 2017, 04:03:51 PM
Quote from: acrediblesource on Dec 02, 2017, 02:19:40 PM
We can only maintain the fact that Ridley Scott brought the Alien franchise back from extinction since all the other sequels made everyone disappointed. He brought back the allure and mystery if not bringing up more questions than giving answers. So not only did he stir the pot, he added veggies and meatballs.But A;Cov, proved that the franchise has a problem of making something that everyone expected , that being NOT MEETING EXPECTATION. ANd thats the problem everytime.
Again, as I've said before, I believe this is largely due to the marketing campaign. They should've marketed the movie as artistic biological weirdo film that it is rather than all the RUN PRAY HIDE crap.
Except the film was more of the latter than the former, so the marketing was actually pretty accurate. Having a villain quoting classic literature in a weak film doesn't change the fact that the film is still weak.
Quote from: acrediblesource on Dec 02, 2017, 02:19:40 PM
We can only maintain the fact that Ridley Scott brought the Alien franchise back from extinction since all the other sequels made everyone disappointed. He brought back the allure and mystery if not bringing up more questions than giving answers. So not only did he stir the pot, he added veggies and meatballs.But A;Cov, proved that the franchise has a problem of making something that everyone expected , that being NOT MEETING EXPECTATION. ANd thats the problem everytime.
Brought back the mystery :D :D :D A lot of peoples impression is the exact opposite, you're kidding yourself if you think Covenant was less dissapointing than the worst sequels. Aliens and to me Alien 3 are great sequels and Resurrection is still a better film than Covenant. Many of us just expected the film to simply be good, the reality didn't meet our expectations. By food analogy Ridley did stir the pot, but by now the result has become a watery fruit salad with fishbones that's probably best left to rot.
Alien cultivated our imagination for decades, that mystery of it all was most likely the most important factor why the film was so highly regarded all these years. The smart subtlety of it was far more stimulating than on the nose philoshophy of Covenant which failed to mask that the film is basically a mediocre space monster flick, it's more of the same done with zero finesse.
Maybe i'm wrong here, but imo this board also used to flourish with fan theories about different aspects the films dark cold universe, the prequels gave us inconsistencies, plotholes and mcguffings to ponder rather some actual mystery.
All this could have been avoided if Ridley just made a all new sci-fi series that took some inspiration from Alien. And as i've said before if the Prometheus sequel had took it's original path something genuinely interesting could have came out of it. I have no idea, how you could fix Covenant.
the mystery aspect of alien isn't the reason it's so highly regarded- sure the mystery is intriguing and cool but alien is so highly regarded because it is still such scary space horror
Tell me, can anyone list specifically the plot holes created by the Prequels?
I can't think of anything that I'd call a plot hole. Just unanswered questions like 'where did the Derelict come from?'
Quote from: David Weyland on Dec 03, 2017, 02:08:05 PM
Tell me, can anyone list specifically the plot holes created by the Prequels?
Though not necessarily a plot hole, I think that the black goo and what exactly it does has created a lot of confusion. We see it doing so many different things to different organisms that it can be hard to know what to expect from it.
It mutates people, creates embryos, spores, neomorphs, hammerpedes, and vaporizes when it hits air (on Paradise anyway) which leads to a massacre.
I've seen more posts bemoaning the "inconsistencies" of the black goo than anything else. Which is somewhat explained in the "Advent" feature when David talks about the goo being a sort of "primitive AI."