We have just uploaded the 126th episode of the Alien vs. Predator Galaxy Podcast (right-click and save as to download)! Happy Alien Day! Since it’s Alien Day, we naturally wanted to bring you a special episode with some awesome guests, and for this episode we’re talking to none other than Amalgamated Dynamic Inc’s Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff Jr!
We talk Alien 3 myths, telling fibs, AvP Requiem’s unused hydraulic PredAlien, Sigourney Weaver posing naked with an Alien suit, a novelization of Tom’s Alien: Salvation concept and plenty more!
What did you think of our latest episode? Be sure to let us know down below! You can also listen to any of our previous episodes in the Podcast section under the News tab on the main menu. The Alien vs. Predator Galaxy Podcast is also available via iTunes, PodBean, GooglePlay Stitcher, and Spotify! Please be sure to leave a rating and review on whichever platform you're using!
And if you'd rather see our beautiful faces, as always the video version of the podcast is also available on the Alien vs. Predator Galaxy YouTube channel!
If you're still jonesing for more Alien discussion check out some of our previous Alien Day specials where we had the pleasure of talking to other legendary figures within the Alien universe such as Aliens’ very own Carrie Henn, the father of the Expanded Universe Mark Verheiden, and Alien: Covenant’s backburster victim Ben Rigby!
Make sure your browsers are locked into Alien vs. Predator Galaxy for the latest Alien and Predator news! You can also follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube to get the latest on your social media walls. Be sure to join in with fellow Alien and Predator fans on our forums as well!
Quote from: shadowedge on Apr 26, 2021, 04:05:58 PM
Haven't listened yet but do you mention by chance certain issues with Predator faces and broken jaws?
QuoteGiger was also very unhappy with the look of the Resurrection aliens for both the amount of goo applied to the suits and the softer, more organic look of the creatures. His terms were most unflattering, and he emphasized his preference for aesthetic monsters. Sorry, I don't have the source for that.
Quote from: SM on Apr 28, 2021, 01:59:29 AM
{quote]In his first letter, Giger writes,"The creatures in Alien:Resurrection are even closer to my original Alien designs than the ones which appear in Aliens and Alien3. The film also resurrects my original designs for the other stages of the creature's life-cycle, the Eggs, the Facehugger and the Chestburster. Alien:Resurrection is an excellent film. What would it look like without my Alien life-forms? In all likelihood, all the sequels to Alien would not even exist! The designs and my credit have been stolen from me, since I alone have designed the Alien. So why does not Fox give me the credit I rightfully earned?".
Source (https://hrgiger.com/alien4-press.htmhttps://hrgiger.com/alien4-press.htm)
Quote from: Trash Queen on Apr 28, 2021, 02:38:06 AM
I for the most part enjoyed the interview a lot, I'm surprised no one asked them their thoughts on Prometheus and Covenant, and also the 40th Anniversary Films from the standpoint of their profession.
Quote from: Trash Queen on Apr 28, 2021, 05:46:48 AM
Do you know what I think?
H.R Giger expressed more frequently an unkind opinion.
XenoHunter99's correct.
Quote from: Trash Queen on Apr 28, 2021, 02:38:06 AM
I for the most part enjoyed the interview a lot, I'm surprised no one asked them their thoughts on Prometheus and Covenant, and also the 40th Anniversary Films from the standpoint of their profession.
Quote from: Kradan on Apr 28, 2021, 04:00:35 PM
https://youtu.be/8PBiu3HnHjE?t=6886 (https://youtu.be/8PBiu3HnHjE?t=6886)
Ok, have a listen yourself
Quote from: Kradan on Apr 28, 2021, 03:21:35 PMQuote from: Trash Queen on Apr 28, 2021, 02:38:06 AM
I for the most part enjoyed the interview a lot, I'm surprised no one asked them their thoughts on Prometheus and Covenant, and also the 40th Anniversary Films from the standpoint of their profession.
Perfect Organism host Jaime Praiter did an interview with ADI guys back in 2018 and asked about their opinions on prequels
https://perfectorganism.podbean.com/e/75-interview-with-alec-gillis-and-tom-woodruff-jr-of-amalgamated-dynamics-inc/
Quote from: Trash Queen on Apr 28, 2021, 06:50:56 PMThank you.Quote from: Kradan on Apr 28, 2021, 03:21:35 PMFor anyone interested it's around an hour in.Quote from: Trash Queen on Apr 28, 2021, 02:38:06 AM
I for the most part enjoyed the interview a lot, I'm surprised no one asked them their thoughts on Prometheus and Covenant, and also the 40th Anniversary Films from the standpoint of their profession.
Perfect Organism host Jaime Praiter did an interview with ADI guys back in 2018 and asked about their opinions on prequels
https://perfectorganism.podbean.com/e/75-interview-with-alec-gillis-and-tom-woodruff-jr-of-amalgamated-dynamics-inc/
Quote from: Trash Queen on Apr 28, 2021, 06:50:56 PMQuote from: Kradan on Apr 28, 2021, 03:21:35 PMQuote from: Trash Queen on Apr 28, 2021, 02:38:06 AM
I for the most part enjoyed the interview a lot, I'm surprised no one asked them their thoughts on Prometheus and Covenant, and also the 40th Anniversary Films from the standpoint of their profession.
Perfect Organism host Jaime Praiter did an interview with ADI guys back in 2018 and asked about their opinions on prequels
https://perfectorganism.podbean.com/e/75-interview-with-alec-gillis-and-tom-woodruff-jr-of-amalgamated-dynamics-inc/
For anyone interested it's around an hour in.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Apr 28, 2021, 03:03:06 PM
Roger Dickens.Since we want to wander all over the map here, Here's a nice article about Roger Dickens and his involvement in Alien. I think it touches on salient points.
https://www.scified.com/news/roger-dicken-life-in-small-forms
Did Dickens get enough credit? IDK. Did he demand it? IDK. I suspect for him, it was just another job. Hard to believe hanging out here, but Giger and Alien are not a religion for everyone. Some people have never even heard of him or seen any of the movies. I know that's not right, but it's true. :laugh:
...
Quote from: TC on Apr 30, 2021, 05:11:17 PM
He also thought punching the chestburster up through Kane's torso was the least effective way of doing it. He wanted the wound to appear first, and then some fingers to push through (I guess reminiscent of the facehugger). Then the fingers would be followed by a pair of tiny hands and they would proceed to pull the rest of the chestburster out of the torso, squirming its way through the hole in Kane's chest.
Quote from: SM on Apr 28, 2021, 01:59:29 AMQuoteGiger was also very unhappy with the look of the Resurrection aliens for both the amount of goo applied to the suits and the softer, more organic look of the creatures. His terms were most unflattering, and he emphasized his preference for aesthetic monsters. Sorry, I don't have the source for that.
How about this?
In his first letter, Giger writes,"The creatures in Alien:Resurrection are even closer to my original Alien designs than the ones which appear in Aliens and Alien3. The film also resurrects my original designs for the other stages of the creature's life-cycle, the Eggs, the Facehugger and the Chestburster. Alien:Resurrection is an excellent film. What would it look like without my Alien life-forms? In all likelihood, all the sequels to Alien would not even exist! The designs and my credit have been stolen from me, since I alone have designed the Alien. So why does not Fox give me the credit I rightfully earned?".
Source (https://hrgiger.com/alien4-press.htmhttps://hrgiger.com/alien4-press.htm)
Quote from: Valaquen on May 01, 2021, 12:02:02 PM
In 2001 he said about the Resurrection Aliens: "I always wanted my Alien to be a very beautiful thing, not just something disgusting, not just a monster, but something aesthetic. Throughout the creature's evolution what they've done is change it from something aesthetic to something that looks like shit – I mean literally, it looks like a turd."
Quote from: Valaquen on May 01, 2021, 12:02:02 PMQuote from: SM on Apr 28, 2021, 01:59:29 AMQuoteGiger was also very unhappy with the look of the Resurrection aliens for both the amount of goo applied to the suits and the softer, more organic look of the creatures. His terms were most unflattering, and he emphasized his preference for aesthetic monsters. Sorry, I don't have the source for that.
How about this?
In his first letter, Giger writes,"The creatures in Alien:Resurrection are even closer to my original Alien designs than the ones which appear in Aliens and Alien3. The film also resurrects my original designs for the other stages of the creature's life-cycle, the Eggs, the Facehugger and the Chestburster. Alien:Resurrection is an excellent film. What would it look like without my Alien life-forms? In all likelihood, all the sequels to Alien would not even exist! The designs and my credit have been stolen from me, since I alone have designed the Alien. So why does not Fox give me the credit I rightfully earned?".
Source (https://hrgiger.com/alien4-press.htmhttps://hrgiger.com/alien4-press.htm)
Let's keep in mind Giger at the time was fighting for a credit in the film; his words are rather deliberate here. If he said they didn't reflect his work, he could have tanked his own argument.
In 2001 he said about the Resurrection Aliens: "I always wanted my Alien to be a very beautiful thing, not just something disgusting, not just a monster, but something aesthetic. Throughout the creature's evolution what they've done is change it from something aesthetic to something that looks like shit – I mean literally, it looks like a turd."
(I know it's been addressed. Just a little devil's advocacy :laugh:)
Quote from: SM on May 01, 2021, 10:11:18 PM
I knew about the turd remark and looked for it on Giger's website. Couldn't find it.
Quote from: Local Trouble on May 01, 2021, 11:32:21 PM
I wish we had video of him saying it. His accent would sell it even better.
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2021, 11:26:19 AM
Here's the transcription from the interview: https://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/interviews/alec-gillis-tom-woodruff-2/
Yeah, good work. The Giger stuff was interesting. I just feel sorry for him that it ended up like that. But it's understandable, the studio just wanted to crack on with the movie and Giger didn't want to sort of be on set to work on it. I can't seem to find the Cinemafantastique article they mentioned.
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2021, 11:26:19 AM
Here's the transcription from the interview: https://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/interviews/alec-gillis-tom-woodruff-2/
Yeah, good work. The Giger stuff was interesting. I just feel sorry for him that it ended up like that. But it's understandable, the studio just wanted to crack on with the movie and Giger didn't want to sort of be on set to work on it. I can't seem to find the Cinemafantastique article they mentioned.
Quote from: AVPGALAXYAdam: Tom, what you mentioned with the combination of practical and other types of effects, kind of leads into another question I had. I would say there was a time in the early 2000s where you had very strong harmony of practical and digital seen quite prominently in films like AvP as well as others like Jurassic Park 3 where you had digital and practical effects interacting with each other in the same shots.
There was a shift more towards digital for a while but it seems like that earlier harmony may be returning. In particular we've seen really strong practical effects and even older techniques like Phil Tippet's go motion return in The Mandalorian along with very new special effect techniques such as the impressive digital sets that they use. Do you see a renaissance of practical effects in today's quickly changing entertainment landscape?
Alec: Yeah, I think there's a lot of talk about it which has become... maybe a decade ago it feels like they were talking a lot about it and we kind of got the feeling on a couple of productions that we were building things just so that they could say "We've got practical!". Like it's whatever a studio feels will help sell the movie.
Quote from: ADIAlec: Oh, the giant thing that you see in that scene. The giant one was just brought to us by I think by I think Prop Store brought it over... oh actually we were using it as reference. It was a fiberglass casting of the original. We used it as sculptural reference just to get... because Neill's deal was, he wanted to get back to the feeling of the '79 Alien and we were asking "You're a master of photoreal CGI. Why aren't you doing the CGI?" He said "Because having something real forces you into shooting it in a way that will look like what Ridley Scott did in 1979". That's what he wanted. So, there's a guy that is a master of CGI who understands that it is a tool to be used to get certain results that are right for certain stories. But that's why that was there.
Quote from: AVP GALAXYAaron: We do have just a handful of community questions from community members so ImmortalJonesy in particular would like to know if you'd have any interest in taking a crack at a Space Jockey animatronic?
Tom: Yeah, it'd be great. Any anything iconic in this whole world of Aliens and Predators is a really... it's just such a cool thing to be able to look at something that inspired you 40 years ago and actually be able to put your thumb print on it, particularly with movement and motion and character performance.
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on May 09, 2021, 12:45:37 AMQuote from: Darkness on May 07, 2021, 11:26:19 AM
Here's the transcription from the interview: https://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/interviews/alec-gillis-tom-woodruff-2/
Yeah, good work. The Giger stuff was interesting. I just feel sorry for him that it ended up like that. But it's understandable, the studio just wanted to crack on with the movie and Giger didn't want to sort of be on set to work on it. I can't seem to find the Cinemafantastique article they mentioned.
Thanks! :DQuote from: AVPGALAXYAdam: Tom, what you mentioned with the combination of practical and other types of effects, kind of leads into another question I had. I would say there was a time in the early 2000s where you had very strong harmony of practical and digital seen quite prominently in films like AvP as well as others like Jurassic Park 3 where you had digital and practical effects interacting with each other in the same shots.
There was a shift more towards digital for a while but it seems like that earlier harmony may be returning. In particular we've seen really strong practical effects and even older techniques like Phil Tippet's go motion return in The Mandalorian along with very new special effect techniques such as the impressive digital sets that they use. Do you see a renaissance of practical effects in today's quickly changing entertainment landscape?
Alec: Yeah, I think there's a lot of talk about it which has become... maybe a decade ago it feels like they were talking a lot about it and we kind of got the feeling on a couple of productions that we were building things just so that they could say "We've got practical!". Like it's whatever a studio feels will help sell the movie.
That is a very interesting question. Also I agree with what they answered. And in the case of The Mandalorian's crew, they really are killing two birds with one shot. Making a Star Wars live-action series out of pure CGI would be very expensive, plus they know that a considerable number of fans love the OT-style practical effects. The virtual sets are a cinema breakthrough indeed.
Edit~ I know RidgeTop is not a big fan of Prometheus, but I think that was a quite recent & good example of a balance between practical effects and CGI. ;D ;)Quote from: ADIAlec: Oh, the giant thing that you see in that scene. The giant one was just brought to us by I think by I think Prop Store brought it over... oh actually we were using it as reference. It was a fiberglass casting of the original. We used it as sculptural reference just to get... because Neill's deal was, he wanted to get back to the feeling of the '79 Alien and we were asking "You're a master of photoreal CGI. Why aren't you doing the CGI?" He said "Because having something real forces you into shooting it in a way that will look like what Ridley Scott did in 1979". That's what he wanted. So, there's a guy that is a master of CGI who understands that it is a tool to be used to get certain results that are right for certain stories. But that's why that was there.
Wow, that makes me happy and sad at the same time. :oQuote from: AVP GALAXYAaron: We do have just a handful of community questions from community members so ImmortalJonesy in particular would like to know if you'd have any interest in taking a crack at a Space Jockey animatronic?
Tom: Yeah, it'd be great. Any anything iconic in this whole world of Aliens and Predators is a really... it's just such a cool thing to be able to look at something that inspired you 40 years ago and actually be able to put your thumb print on it, particularly with movement and motion and character performance.
Glad to hear they would like to make it if they could. :)
I asked that question because Alec Gillis and his studio have done a wonderful job when it comes to animatronic characters. And I'm not just talking about science fiction, as is the case with the gorilla suit they made for Old Dogs. It's a top tier piece of practical effect. 8)
I also liked their criminally unused pilot in the 2011 prequel to The Thing. Whether that creature got infected by the Thing and crashes it's spaceship million of years ago becoming a Jockey to so speak is subject of speculation. :laugh:
Still the closedt thing of a SJ performed by ADI studios in my opinion. 8)
I know we have Engineers, who are superior to the jockeys in the comics ~ but you know ~ nerd dreams. :laugh:
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on May 09, 2021, 05:57:21 PM
It sure is gooey! I wonder how screening audiences reacted to it.
Wasn't that the story, where test audiences complained about The Thing 2011's practical fx (among other things) and everyone acknowledged improvements needed to be made in areas, but the debate was go CG or replace some of troublesome practical fx with improved practical fx?
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on May 09, 2021, 05:57:21 PMThe producers didn't seem to want to use the practical effects as early as shooting. Woodruff has a story about the guy who splits in half in the helicopter; the producers didn't like that the effect they made only looked good from certain angles. ADI explained that was kind of how practical effects worked and it was ok because that was the angle it was meant to be seen at. The producers didn't like the limitation and the effect was replaced with CGI ... Seen at exactly the angle the practical effect was designed for anyway.
It sure is gooey! I wonder how screening audiences reacted to it.
Wasn't that the story, where test audiences complained about The Thing 2011's practical fx (among other things) and everyone acknowledged improvements needed to be made in areas, but the debate was go CG or replace some of troublesome practical fx with improved practical fx?
Quote from: SiL on May 09, 2021, 08:17:53 PMQuote from: Voodoo Magic on May 09, 2021, 05:57:21 PMThe producers didn't seem to want to use the practical effects as early as shooting. Woodruff has a story about the guy who splits in half in the helicopter; the producers didn't like that the effect they made only looked good from certain angles. ADI explained that was kind of how practical effects worked and it was ok because that was the angle it was meant to be seen at. The producers didn't like the limitation and the effect was replaced with CGI ... Seen at exactly the angle the practical effect was designed for anyway.
It sure is gooey! I wonder how screening audiences reacted to it.
Wasn't that the story, where test audiences complained about The Thing 2011's practical fx (among other things) and everyone acknowledged improvements needed to be made in areas, but the debate was go CG or replace some of troublesome practical fx with improved practical fx?
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2021, 11:26:19 AM
Here's the transcription from the interview: https://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/interviews/alec-gillis-tom-woodruff-2/
Yeah, good work. The Giger stuff was interesting. I just feel sorry for him that it ended up like that. But it's understandable, the studio just wanted to crack on with the movie and Giger didn't want to sort of be on set to work on it. I can't seem to find the Cinemafantastique article they mentioned.
Quote from: Keyes on Apr 27, 2021, 08:57:35 PM
I never knew there was an animatronic PredAlien built. Any pics of that available?
Quote from: Trash Queen on May 20, 2021, 01:29:24 PM
But that's clearly his favourite part!
Quote from: The Necronoir on May 20, 2021, 02:16:09 PMIt might have been a reskin of their animatronic Alien from AvP. Not sure where it would've been used in the movie.Quote from: Keyes on Apr 27, 2021, 08:57:35 PM
I never knew there was an animatronic PredAlien built. Any pics of that available?
Likewise, and I'm curious to know that as well! As the guys were saying in the interview, the animatronic version afforded them a chance to make the creature at its proper scale and in proper proportion, so it'd be interesting to actually see that. We have the scaled-down models like the one Alec hoists up, sure, but that animatronic must have been something else!
Quote from: SiL on May 20, 2021, 08:23:29 PMQuote from: The Necronoir on May 20, 2021, 02:16:09 PMIt might have been a reskin of their animatronic Alien from AvP. Not sure where it would've been used in the movie.Quote from: Keyes on Apr 27, 2021, 08:57:35 PM
I never knew there was an animatronic PredAlien built. Any pics of that available?
Likewise, and I'm curious to know that as well! As the guys were saying in the interview, the animatronic version afforded them a chance to make the creature at its proper scale and in proper proportion, so it'd be interesting to actually see that. We have the scaled-down models like the one Alec hoists up, sure, but that animatronic must have been something else!
Quote from: 426Buddy on May 20, 2021, 09:12:56 PMQuote from: SiL on May 20, 2021, 08:23:29 PMQuote from: The Necronoir on May 20, 2021, 02:16:09 PMIt might have been a reskin of their animatronic Alien from AvP. Not sure where it would've been used in the movie.Quote from: Keyes on Apr 27, 2021, 08:57:35 PM
I never knew there was an animatronic PredAlien built. Any pics of that available?
Likewise, and I'm curious to know that as well! As the guys were saying in the interview, the animatronic version afforded them a chance to make the creature at its proper scale and in proper proportion, so it'd be interesting to actually see that. We have the scaled-down models like the one Alec hoists up, sure, but that animatronic must have been something else!
Didn't they say in the interview that they were going to use it for the rooftop battle at the end but that the crew wouldn't wait for it to be moved into place?
Anyway I always get the impression that Tom really dislikes interacting with the community/fanbase.