AvPGalaxy Forums

Cameron did a Facebook live for the upcoming T2 3D Cinema re-release and spoke about Covenant.

He starts speaking about the film around 11:10 mark.

He found that Covenant was a great ride.

He mentions about Ridley's use of cinematography, and his appreciation for Ridley tactile style of filmmaking,

However, he wasn't keen on killing off a certain character out of the bat since we had invested on them for an entire movie to be destroyed at the end. In that context, It's not the film he would had made.

He's up for the next ride.

Here's the link for the T2 facebook page were he did the live session.

https://www.facebook.com/terminator2/?hc_ref=ARQ8ELvWsBJIXM1prHSXJCeIMaJ9pelyvGDsw-KhNr8kMaWhjL-AicMNiTmUPU_kqsk

That comment about killing off a character was not so subtle. He is still sour over the demise of Hicks and Newt in Alien 3.  :laugh:

Now watch the proliferation of 'Cameron slams Covenant' stories while excising anything positive he had to say.

The movie is full of bad decisions,
weak storytelling, lazy direction and has as many laugh out loud scenes as Alien Resurrection.
Does it have interesting ideas? Yes it has but they are badly executed. So, I think Cameron is just trying to be nice.

Cameron liked the film, though I agree with him. If he had the reigns for Covenant, he would made sure that Shaw was still alive and do his best to carry that story forward. Though, were here now. Covenant is mostly good for what it is, lets see what happens from here.

Cameron is no stranger to negative flack when it comes to making a major change to a character in a sequel, considering the well known criticism by many fans for reducing the very mysterious Alien creature down to swarm of insects. But in all fairness to JC, insect characteristics were already associated to the alien creature before Alien 79 was even released, according to Shusett and O'Bannon

Please make the sequel, James. I'll fund your next submarine expedition if you do. And offer you any of my wives.

Quote from: irn on Aug 11, 2017, 12:51:14 AM
Please make the sequel, James. I'll fund your next submarine expedition if you do. And offer you any of my wives.

hahahhaha  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


In the FB live talked about needing time to rest from doing Avatar, and frankly I wouldn't mind him directing the final film while Scott stays as producer. Plus, he could help Scott with the story which most fans are clamoring for.

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 10, 2017, 10:25:11 PM
That comment about killing off a character was not so subtle. He is still sour over the demise of Hicks and Newt in Alien 3.  :laugh:

Maybe he's sour over Sarah Connor's handling in Terminator 3.

He was trying to be as diplomatic as possible, you can tell he didn't think that highly of it.

"I thought it was a great ride"

::)

Quote from: SM on Aug 10, 2017, 10:28:49 PM
Now watch the proliferation of 'Cameron slams Covenant' stories while excising anything positive he had to say.

I think it might have the opposite effect. People might be more receptive if the great creator of Aliens, Titanic and Avatar liked it. Group think.

Quote from: tleilaxu on Aug 11, 2017, 03:02:47 AM

Quote from: SM on Aug 10, 2017, 10:28:49 PM
Now watch the proliferation of 'Cameron slams Covenant' stories while excising anything positive he had to say.

I think it might have the opposite effect. People might be more receptive if the great creator of Aliens, Titanic and Avatar liked it. Group think.

Would like to be as hopeful as you're though, he mentioned something similar with Terminator Genysis and that didn't go well at all. However, let's see what happens from here.

Quote from: tleilaxu on Aug 11, 2017, 03:02:47 AM

Quote from: SM on Aug 10, 2017, 10:28:49 PM
Now watch the proliferation of 'Cameron slams Covenant' stories while excising anything positive he had to say.

I think it might have the opposite effect. People might be more receptive if the great creator of Aliens, Titanic and Avatar liked it. Group think.

That's not what happened last time he commented on Alien and Ridley Scott.  He had some reservations but made a point of saying of stressing that he'd be first in line for any Ridley Scott movie.  I saw at least one article that omitted that, and then it got repeated at places like Scified and taken as gospel...

Quote from: SM on Aug 11, 2017, 06:05:32 AMI saw at least one article that omitted that, and then it got repeated at places like Scified and taken as gospel...

That's only supposed to happen to your timeline and starmap.

Who cares really, can say what he likes and it won't matter. It wouldn't bother me either way if he said it was the worst film he ever saw or the best.

Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 11, 2017, 06:10:55 AM

Quote from: SM on Aug 11, 2017, 06:05:32 AMI saw at least one article that omitted that, and then it got repeated at places like Scified and taken as gospel...

That's only supposed to happen to your timeline and starmap.

Important distinction is that those ARE gospel.

Quote from: 0321recon on Aug 11, 2017, 03:29:40 AM

Quote from: tleilaxu on Aug 11, 2017, 03:02:47 AM

Quote from: SM on Aug 10, 2017, 10:28:49 PM
Now watch the proliferation of 'Cameron slams Covenant' stories while excising anything positive he had to say.

I think it might have the opposite effect. People might be more receptive if the great creator of Aliens, Titanic and Avatar liked it. Group think.

Would like to be as hopeful as you're though, he mentioned something similar with Terminator Genysis and that didn't go well at all. However, let's see what happens from here.

I was going to point this out too. I vaguely remember some heat being directed at Cameron after Genysis came out due to his praise of the film.

Cameron also teased a 3D treatment of Aliens as being his next conversion! At about 5 minutes.

---

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 10, 2017, 10:25:11 PM
That comment about killing off a character was not so subtle. He is still sour over the demise of Hicks and Newt in Alien 3.  :laugh:

From the way he was talking about it, I almost feel like that may have been directed at the dark ending for Daniels rather than Shaw's fate.

I see. I wasn't aware of that at all.

Looks like I gotta go get T2 in 3D

Excellent. I'll buy my ticket, and the blu-ray, when it comes out.

Quote from: Richman678 on Aug 11, 2017, 11:39:33 AM
Looks like I gotta go get T2 in 3D

I've already got my tickets booked. lol

Aliens in 3D, f**k yeah!

Wish they can convert older movies in 4dx. Don't like going to 3d movies anymore but watched Kong in 4dx and loved every minute of it. Imagine Aliens in 4dx and how cool it would be.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 11, 2017, 07:48:51 AM

Quote from: 0321recon on Aug 11, 2017, 03:29:40 AM

Quote from: tleilaxu on Aug 11, 2017, 03:02:47 AM

Quote from: SM on Aug 10, 2017, 10:28:49 PM
Now watch the proliferation of 'Cameron slams Covenant' stories while excising anything positive he had to say.

I think it might have the opposite effect. People might be more receptive if the great creator of Aliens, Titanic and Avatar liked it. Group think.

Would like to be as hopeful as you're though, he mentioned something similar with Terminator Genysis and that didn't go well at all. However, let's see what happens from here.

I was going to point this out too. I vaguely remember some heat being directed at Cameron after Genysis came out due to his praise of the film.

Cameron also teased a 3D treatment of Aliens as being his next conversion! At about 5 minutes.

---

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 10, 2017, 10:25:11 PM
That comment about killing off a character was not so subtle. He is still sour over the demise of Hicks and Newt in Alien 3.  :laugh:

From the way he was talking about it, I almost feel like that may have been directed at the dark ending for Daniels rather than Shaw's fate.

I think the Terminator: Genisys praise was mainly his way of supporting Arnold in the film, which is completely understandable.

That would be interesting if he was referring to Daniels. I didn't think of that because I assumed we don't exactly know what is going to happen to her.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 11, 2017, 07:48:51 AM

Quote from: 0321recon on Aug 11, 2017, 03:29:40 AM

Quote from: tleilaxu on Aug 11, 2017, 03:02:47 AM

Quote from: SM on Aug 10, 2017, 10:28:49 PM
Now watch the proliferation of 'Cameron slams Covenant' stories while excising anything positive he had to say.

I think it might have the opposite effect. People might be more receptive if the great creator of Aliens, Titanic and Avatar liked it. Group think.

Would like to be as hopeful as you're though, he mentioned something similar with Terminator Genysis and that didn't go well at all. However, let's see what happens from here.

I was going to point this out too. I vaguely remember some heat being directed at Cameron after Genysis came out due to his praise of the film.

Cameron also teased a 3D treatment of Aliens as being his next conversion! At about 5 minutes.

---

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 10, 2017, 10:25:11 PM
That comment about killing off a character was not so subtle. He is still sour over the demise of Hicks and Newt in Alien 3.  :laugh:

From the way he was talking about it, I almost feel like that may have been directed at the dark ending for Daniels rather than Shaw's fate.

lol @ the title http://www.alien-covenant.com/news/alien-covenant-not-film-i-would-have-made-says-james-cameron

Quote from: tleilaxu on Aug 11, 2017, 04:28:30 PM

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 11, 2017, 07:48:51 AM

From the way he was talking about it, I almost feel like that may have been directed at the dark ending for Daniels rather than Shaw's fate.

lol @ the title http://www.alien-covenant.com/news/alien-covenant-not-film-i-would-have-made-says-james-cameron

I saw that. Talk about taking a quote and twisting it. That's the thing I hate about these websites, sensationalizing to get clicks. 

yeah, i am making my own avp comic - 500 pages almost  - AC and future titles allready had me concerned before the release of AC and it has only proved itself to be a waste of money and time - it is visualy goodlooking, some of the action is cool but makes no sense - AC is the worst example of science fiction ever - What characters do you mean Cameron ? their hardly are any characters in the movie - they all die because of cheer and utter stupidity ,skipping on the coincidences of the spaceship needing a recharge wich coincides with a "neutron" blast wich should be easely detectable btw , and the captain dying because of it, and the ship needing repairs - just when a message from the prometheus reaches one of the workers helmet ( instead of the big ass Covenant ship itself ) the characters change course because a christian moron is made captain. - all of them trained , somehow disregard their helmets all together when landing on a planet that has FREAKING LIVE ON IT ! complex enough to have a biodome of plants... so obviously has pathogens, microbes, germs, microscopic live unknow to mankind. , they proceed to remain blatantly unaware as the move throughout the surface of the world - ofcourse getting infected by some black gue pathogen to small to see - Instantly characters ( with no name, because, who are they ??? ) just die , left and right - what is even less believable is when the first neomorph is born - it is super thin, its leg and arm bones look to be about the width of fire matches - the fullgrown woman gave the super fragile looking neomorph a firm kick with a big ass boot, sending it flying - wich should have broken the neomorphs body in a hundred places.  2 times a person falls over blood - the neomorph, slightly larger gets shot several times in the field scene - suffering not so much as a scratch... it must be made of Ademantium like wolverine... later they follow David robot ( worst angle in the movie is David ) cross an open graveyard of thousands of dead , infected corpses... - when the neomorph returns, being an adult mind you --- it INSTANTLY DIE'S DUE TO A FEW SHOTS FIRED BY THE CAPTAIN - this is absurd illogic at its best... smaller animals are more fragile then their adult form... otherwise, why grow up ??? - anyways David somehow is father to the jesus Alien wich is really really bad writting... because somehow in the big space of the universe - Mankind is the origin point of a creature wich is also the movie name - ALIEN - if human engineers build the black gue - and then a human android from earth made the alien - it is no longer an Alien being - it is a human creation... this is a kick in the ass - Luckely i am smart enough to convince myself from seeing these movies as being even remotely connected to Alien 1979. - blindly trusting that Walter managed to kill David ( wich by all means should have been the case , as Walter sais, there have been some upgrades since David's time - and david having his head detached and reattached and then 10 years of exposure to the enviroment, David should have been far weaker then Walter and no he shouldnt be able to convice Walter to let him take his place - Walter has no freedom like David has, + is in love with Daniels -) somehow David manages to pretend to be Walter - take his not aliens aboard.they get killed because twice these aliens jump with such force into iron spikes, cranes. impaling themselves - David then remaining awake whilst the survivors go to hyper sleep - puts is not alien embryonics in some storage machine... the stinking end - a movie that is one big flaw to begin with - filled with many , annoying, hard to stomache and relate to flaws from start to finish... anyone that likes this , is a shallow minded person that just as easely is amazed by looking a turd lay on the sidewalk... and stepping in it, and being greatfull that that has occured... - Prometheus, Alien Covenant are digusting movies , absolutely horrid and nothing else...

"It's not a film that I would have made. I don't like films where you invest in a character and they get destroyed at the end. I would not have made that film."

You guys don't see the irony here, right? T2, anyone? The T-800?

Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 11, 2017, 06:58:45 PM
"It's not a film that I would have made. I don't like films where you invest in a character and they get destroyed at the end. I would not have made that film."

You guys don't see the irony here, right? T2, anyone? The T-800?

Didn't catch that. Good point.

Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 11, 2017, 06:58:45 PM
"It's not a film that I would have made. I don't like films where you invest in a character and they get destroyed at the end. I would not have made that film."

You guys don't see the irony here, right? T2, anyone? The T-800?

Yes, lol, some irony does register. However, for the cohesiveness of T2, the destruction of the T-800 was a necessary plot element (since every trace of Skynet had to be erased from existence—well at least in this timeline).

No irony. T-800 had a perfect resolution. Shaw did not.

"I will not stop search-" SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH here's a gravestone and a picture!!

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Aug 11, 2017, 07:28:24 PM
No irony. T-800 had a perfect resolution. Shaw did not.

"I will not stop search-" SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH here's a gravestone and a picture!!

I really doubt it's fake. James Cameron is a huge fanboy of Ridley Scott.

I remembered Cameron even loved THE COUNSELOR after the bad reviews.

James is a fan of George Lucas and Zack Snyder too. He doesn't care about RT or MetaCritic.

I remembered he loved BATMAN V SUPERMAN and THE STAR WARS PREQUELS.

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Aug 11, 2017, 07:28:24 PM
No irony. T-800 had a perfect resolution. Shaw did not.

"I will not stop search-" SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH here's a gravestone and a picture!!

In some alternate universe,there is a version of Covenant that fulfills this narrative of Shaw and David's head in the Engineer world. I think that it still would made for a compelling movie—especially had they kept David's Luciferian turn. With David being glitchy and having something of a God complex, it would only be a matter of time before he turned on Elizabeth. It would have played out very well—at least in the way it does via my imagination.

Quote from: lv_226 on Aug 11, 2017, 07:55:29 PM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Aug 11, 2017, 07:28:24 PM
No irony. T-800 had a perfect resolution. Shaw did not.

"I will not stop search-" SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH here's a gravestone and a picture!!

In some alternate universe,there is a version of Covenant that fulfills this narrative of Shaw and David's head in the Engineer world. I think that it still would made for a compelling movie—especially had they kept David's Luciferian turn. With David being glitchy and having something of a God complex, it would only be a matter of time before he turned on Elizabeth. It would have played out very well—at least in the way it does via my imagination.

David was always evil.

David intoxicated/killed the boyfriend of Shaw in PROMETHEUS.

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 11, 2017, 08:25:21 PM

Quote from: lv_226 on Aug 11, 2017, 07:55:29 PM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Aug 11, 2017, 07:28:24 PM
No irony. T-800 had a perfect resolution. Shaw did not.

"I will not stop search-" SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH here's a gravestone and a picture!!

In some alternate universe,there is a version of Covenant that fulfills this narrative of Shaw and David's head in the Engineer world. I think that it still would made for a compelling movie—especially had they kept David's Luciferian turn. With David being glitchy and having something of a God complex, it would only be a matter of time before he turned on Elizabeth. It would have played out very well—at least in the way it does via my imagination.

David was always evil.

David intoxicated/killed the boyfriend of Shaw in PROMETHEUS.

Personally I don't think David was evil, or is evil. I think he is a morally ambiguous character who views the species around him with detached interest, and always has done. That's what the Covenant prologue sets up that explains his measured and patient approach in Prometheus.: his desire for his parent/master to die, but in his own time, by his (Weyland's) misguided belief in his own importance.

Re: Cameron, he doesn't really ever make dark toned nihilistic films, the hero is the hero and that's that. But Titanic is another one that flies in the face of his statement. Just saying.

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 11, 2017, 07:41:10 PM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Aug 11, 2017, 07:28:24 PM
No irony. T-800 had a perfect resolution. Shaw did not.

"I will not stop search-" SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH here's a gravestone and a picture!!

I really doubt it's fake. James Cameron is a huge fanboy of Ridley Scott.

I remembered Cameron even loved THE COUNSELOR after the bad reviews.

James is a fan of George Lucas and Zack Snyder too. He doesn't care about RT or MetaCritic.

I remembered he loved BATMAN V SUPERMAN and THE STAR WARS PREQUELS.

I uh, I uh didn't say it was fake.

Quote from: Ultra predator morph on Aug 11, 2017, 05:30:52 PM
yeah, i am making my own avp comic - 500 pages almost  - AC and future titles allready had me concerned before the release of AC and it has only proved itself to be a waste of money and time - it is visualy goodlooking, some of the action is cool but makes no sense - AC is the worst example of science fiction ever - What characters do you mean Cameron ? their hardly are any characters in the movie - they all die because of cheer and utter stupidity ,skipping on the coincidences of the spaceship needing a recharge wich coincides with a "neutron" blast wich should be easely detectable btw , and the captain dying because of it, and the ship needing repairs - just when a message from the prometheus reaches one of the workers helmet ( instead of the big ass Covenant ship itself ) the characters change course because a christian moron is made captain. - all of them trained , somehow disregard their helmets all together when landing on a planet that has FREAKING LIVE ON IT ! complex enough to have a biodome of plants... so obviously has pathogens, microbes, germs, microscopic live unknow to mankind. , they proceed to remain blatantly unaware as the move throughout the surface of the world - ofcourse getting infected by some black gue pathogen to small to see - Instantly characters ( with no name, because, who are they ??? ) just die , left and right - what is even less believable is when the first neomorph is born - it is super thin, its leg and arm bones look to be about the width of fire matches - the fullgrown woman gave the super fragile looking neomorph a firm kick with a big ass boot, sending it flying - wich should have broken the neomorphs body in a hundred places.  2 times a person falls over blood - the neomorph, slightly larger gets shot several times in the field scene - suffering not so much as a scratch... it must be made of Ademantium like wolverine... later they follow David robot ( worst angle in the movie is David ) cross an open graveyard of thousands of dead , infected corpses... - when the neomorph returns, being an adult mind you --- it INSTANTLY DIE'S DUE TO A FEW SHOTS FIRED BY THE CAPTAIN - this is absurd illogic at its best... smaller animals are more fragile then their adult form... otherwise, why grow up ??? - anyways David somehow is father to the jesus Alien wich is really really bad writting... because somehow in the big space of the universe - Mankind is the origin point of a creature wich is also the movie name - ALIEN - if human engineers build the black gue - and then a human android from earth made the alien - it is no longer an Alien being - it is a human creation... this is a kick in the ass - Luckely i am smart enough to convince myself from seeing these movies as being even remotely connected to Alien 1979. - blindly trusting that Walter managed to kill David ( wich by all means should have been the case , as Walter sais, there have been some upgrades since David's time - and david having his head detached and reattached and then 10 years of exposure to the enviroment, David should have been far weaker then Walter and no he shouldnt be able to convice Walter to let him take his place - Walter has no freedom like David has, + is in love with Daniels -) somehow David manages to pretend to be Walter - take his not aliens aboard.they get killed because twice these aliens jump with such force into iron spikes, cranes. impaling themselves - David then remaining awake whilst the survivors go to hyper sleep - puts is not alien embryonics in some storage machine... the stinking end - a movie that is one big flaw to begin with - filled with many , annoying, hard to stomache and relate to flaws from start to finish... anyone that likes this , is a shallow minded person that just as easely is amazed by looking a turd lay on the sidewalk... and stepping in it, and being greatfull that that has occured... - Prometheus, Alien Covenant are digusting movies , absolutely horrid and nothing else...

:o

I concurr James... I concurr.  ;D

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Aug 11, 2017, 10:13:24 PM

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 11, 2017, 07:41:10 PM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Aug 11, 2017, 07:28:24 PM
No irony. T-800 had a perfect resolution. Shaw did not.

"I will not stop search-" SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH here's a gravestone and a picture!!

I really doubt it's fake. James Cameron is a huge fanboy of Ridley Scott.

I remembered Cameron even loved THE COUNSELOR after the bad reviews.

James is a fan of George Lucas and Zack Snyder too. He doesn't care about RT or MetaCritic.

I remembered he loved BATMAN V SUPERMAN and THE STAR WARS PREQUELS.

I uh, I uh didn't say it was fake.

You implied James Cameron is only polite.

I really doubt that. Cameron ISN'T polite. He is the opposite of polite.

He really loves Ridley Scott, George Lucas and even Zack Snyder. James has said great things about these 3 even when all critics trashed them.

Quote from: lv_226 on Aug 11, 2017, 07:07:43 PM

Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 11, 2017, 06:58:45 PM
"It's not a film that I would have made. I don't like films where you invest in a character and they get destroyed at the end. I would not have made that film."

You guys don't see the irony here, right? T2, anyone? The T-800?

Yes, lol, some irony does register. However, for the cohesiveness of T2, the destruction of the T-800 was a necessary plot element (since every trace of Skynet had to be erased from existence—well at least in this timeline).

As BSG said above, it's not irony.

As you said, the destruction of the T-800 served the story.  Ditto Jack in Titanic.

It's clear that this isn't what Cameron is getting at - he's talking about Shaw getting bumped off in between movies (much like Newt and Hicks).  It's a different situation to resolving a characters fate within the story itself.

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 11, 2017, 11:45:21 PM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Aug 11, 2017, 10:13:24 PM

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 11, 2017, 07:41:10 PM

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Aug 11, 2017, 07:28:24 PM
No irony. T-800 had a perfect resolution. Shaw did not.

"I will not stop search-" SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH here's a gravestone and a picture!!

I really doubt it's fake. James Cameron is a huge fanboy of Ridley Scott.

I remembered Cameron even loved THE COUNSELOR after the bad reviews.

James is a fan of George Lucas and Zack Snyder too. He doesn't care about RT or MetaCritic.

I remembered he loved BATMAN V SUPERMAN and THE STAR WARS PREQUELS.

I uh, I uh didn't say it was fake.

You implied James Cameron is only polite.

I really doubt that. Cameron ISN'T polite. He is the opposite of polite.

He really loves Ridley Scott, George Lucas and even Zack Snyder. James has said great things about these 3 even when all critics trashed them.

I didn't imply that. The hell are you talking about.

As SM said, I'm thinking that Cameron wasn't impressed with the lack of Shaw's inclusion in COVENANT, apart from seeing a photo and a mutilated dead body.  That certainly would have brought back memories of how his Hicks and Newt characters were handled in ALIEN 3!

Just seeing even a little bit more of Shaw's inclusion in this PROMETHEUS follow-up would have been welcome, before we came to the eventual reveal of her demise...and I think it was a missed opportunity that Ridlley didn't include Shaw's originally intended footage.  Thankfully, the moments of Shaw in the 'Crossing Prologue' footage will be available for myself and others to incorporate into our own edits of the movie...and this will help to make up for her lack of involvement overall - as well as showing how she went about restoring David back together in the first place. 

It's not much, but I reckon that some of that footage will help to ease her character's minimal inclusion somewhat.  :D

Quote from: Ultra predator morph on Aug 11, 2017, 05:30:52 PM
yeah, i am making my own avp comic - 500 pages almost  - AC and future titles allready had me concerned before the release of AC and it has only proved itself to be a waste of money and time - it is visualy goodlooking, some of the action is cool but makes no sense - AC is the worst example of science fiction ever - What characters do you mean Cameron ? their hardly are any characters in the movie - they all die because of cheer and utter stupidity ,skipping on the coincidences of the spaceship needing a recharge wich coincides with a "neutron" blast wich should be easely detectable btw , and the captain dying because of it, and the ship needing repairs - just when a message from the prometheus reaches one of the workers helmet ( instead of the big ass Covenant ship itself ) the characters change course because a christian moron is made captain. - all of them trained , somehow disregard their helmets all together when landing on a planet that has FREAKING LIVE ON IT ! complex enough to have a biodome of plants... so obviously has pathogens, microbes, germs, microscopic live unknow to mankind. , they proceed to remain blatantly unaware as the move throughout the surface of the world - ofcourse getting infected by some black gue pathogen to small to see - Instantly characters ( with no name, because, who are they just die , left and right - what is even less belevable is when the first neomorph is born - it is super thin, its leg and arm bones look to be about the width of fire matches - the fullgrown woman gave the super fragile looking neomorph a firm kick with a big ass boot, sending it flying - wich should have broken the neomorphs body in a hundred places.  2 times a person falls over blood - the neomorph, slightly larger gets shot several times in the field - suffering not so much as a scratch... it must be made of Ademantium like wolvrine... later they follow David ( worst angle in the movie is David ) cross an open graveyard of thousands of dead , infected corpses... - when the neomorph returns, being an adult mind you --- it INSTANTLY DIE'S DUE TO A FEW SHOTS FIRED BY THE CAPTAIN - this is absurd illogic at its best... smaller animals are more fragile then their adult form... otherwise, why grow up  - anyways David somehow is father to the jesus Alien wich is really really bad writting... because somehow in the big space of the universe - Mankind is the origin point of a creature wich is also the movie name - ALIEN - if human engineers build the black gue - and then a human android from earth made the alien - it is no longer an Alien being - it is a human creation... this is a kick in the ass - Luckely i am smart enough to convince myself from seeing these movies as being even remotely connected to Alien 1979. - blindly trusting that Walter managed to kill David ( wich by all means should have been the case , as Walter sais, there have been some upgrades since David's time - and david having his head detached and reattached and then 10 years of exposure to the enviroment, David should have been far weaker then Walter and no he shouldnt be able to convice Walter to let him take his place - Walter has no freedom like David has, + is in love with Daniels -) somehow David manages to pretend to be Walter - take his not aliens aboard.they get killed because twice these aliens jump with such force into iron spikes, cranes. impaling themselves - David then remaining awake whilst the survivors go to hyper sleep - puts is not alien embryonics in some storage machine... the stinking end - a movie that is one big flaw to begin with - filled with many , annoying, hard to stomache and relate to flaws from start to finish... anyone that likes this , is a shallow minded person that just as easely is amazed by looking a turd lay on the sidewalk... and stepping in it, and being greatfull that that has occured... - Prometheus, Alien Covenant are digusting movies , absolutely horrid and nothing else...

This might be a major overstatement in the context of your missive.

Good luck with the writing.

*writting

Quote from: SM on Aug 12, 2017, 05:08:41 AM
*writting

;D

What is Cameron supposed to say about Covenant? That it was bad?
Risking trouble with a studio? Causing bad blood with a colleague? lol No way.

Reminds me of Giger calling Prometheus grauselich or something. You could also  translate this as bad, fyi ;D

Doesn't mean that he actually thought it was terrible.

I wouldn't really care one way or another. I guess there's a thread somewhere with David Fincher's appraisal of True Lies.

True. Still, not surprised he said what he said. Ridley's his hero.

Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 12, 2017, 07:23:28 PM
True. Still, not surprised he said what he said. Ridley's his hero.

James Cameron even admired THE COUNSELOR(Ridley Scott) after all the bad reviews.

I remembered Cameron said beautiful things about Zack Snyder and his Action Style. He doesn't care about critics, RT or MC.

I think with Terminator 2 3D, Cameron must make a point clear:
You do not need to shoot in 3D to make 3D movies. It all depends on how much work you want to do to create the 3D atmosphere in each shot. Now you know why Ridley didn't make any other 3D films after Prometheus. It cost too much and he could have a team establish 3D in post production easily.
Thats why you dont here much about 3D anymore.

Quote from: acrediblesource on Aug 13, 2017, 03:14:56 PM
Now you know why Ridley didn't make any other 3D films after Prometheus.

The Martian and Exodus were shot in 3D.

And Scott wanted to shoot Covenant in 3D but one of the uppers at Fox told him 3D was dead. Fox later changed their minds at the eleventh hour but it was already too late by then according to Scott. Obviously Scott wasn't interested in post-conversion.

Isn't 3D pretty much dead, though? I know it's not near as popular as it was back in 2012.

I have a theory after reading that "Fox reassesses future of ALIEN franchise after Alien Covenant Box Office fallout".

Could it be 20th Century Fox will do like a UNIVERSAL Jurassic Park 3D re-release before a re-booted Jurassic World?

That is the motivation for Cameron, to in effect drum up hype for a more action, futuristic based ALIEN movie?

Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 13, 2017, 04:24:00 PM

Quote from: acrediblesource on Aug 13, 2017, 03:14:56 PM
Now you know why Ridley didn't make any other 3D films after Prometheus.

The Martian and Exodus were shot in 3D.

And Scott wanted to shoot Covenant in 3D but one of the uppers at Fox told him 3D was dead. Fox later changed their minds at the eleventh hour but it was already too late by then according to Scott. Obviously Scott wasn't interested in post-conversion.

Thanks, I'd been wondering about the details.

God I wish Covenant had been shot in 3D. That bombing scene in particular would have been nuts. Prometheus is one of the best-looking 3DBDs I own, and it would have been nice to have Covenant standing tall beside it.

Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Aug 13, 2017, 06:24:04 PM

Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 13, 2017, 04:24:00 PM

Quote from: acrediblesource on Aug 13, 2017, 03:14:56 PM
Now you know why Ridley didn't make any other 3D films after Prometheus.

The Martian and Exodus were shot in 3D.

And Scott wanted to shoot Covenant in 3D but one of the uppers at Fox told him 3D was dead. Fox later changed their minds at the eleventh hour but it was already too late by then according to Scott. Obviously Scott wasn't interested in post-conversion.

I agree 100%.

In another note, The Desert looked beautiful in 3D in THE MARTIAN.

Thanks, I'd been wondering about the details.

God I wish Covenant had been shot in 3D. That bombing scene in particular would have been nuts. Prometheus is one of the best-looking 3DBDs I own, and it would have been nice to have Covenant standing tall beside it.

Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 12, 2017, 07:23:28 PM
True. Still, not surprised he said what he said. Ridley's his hero.

Ridleys a lot of people's hero. Two of his movies would proudly sit in my top 10 ( and probably everyone's top 10). Doesn't mean I have to love everything he does.

I think it's fair to say Covenant has flashes of brilliance, but they are surrounded by a bit of a mess. Both the prequels are crying out for that extra 20-30 minutes of balance. That wouldn't fix the movie, but it would help a lot.

I agree. The films could be longer and I'd welcome it.

Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 13, 2017, 04:24:00 PM

Quote from: acrediblesource on Aug 13, 2017, 03:14:56 PM
Now you know why Ridley didn't make any other 3D films after Prometheus.

The Martian and Exodus were shot in 3D.

And Scott wanted to shoot Covenant in 3D but one of the uppers at Fox told him 3D was dead. Fox later changed their minds at the eleventh hour but it was already too late by then according to Scott. Obviously Scott wasn't interested in post-conversion.

I don't remember reading that one. Do you have a link?

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ac/ac0617/index.php?email_cmp=JuneQRCode#/0 (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ac/ac0617/index.php?email_cmp=JuneQRCode#/0)

QuoteAnother difference between Covenant and Prometheus is that you didn't shoot in 3D this time.

Scott: I wanted to shoot Covenant in 3D, but somebody supposedly wiser than us up there decided that the days of 3D might be over, and therefore we didn't do that. Now, of course, it's finished and somebody mumbled, 'Can we do this in 3D?' I said, 'Well, it's a bit late, dude.'

Wolski: For me, it was great going back to old-school filmmaking and shooting Covenant in 2D. The first Alien was 2D. I do think that initially my experience with 3D was a big part of why Ridley was interested in me for Prometheus. That was a huge challenge, shooting 3D with those multiple cameras Ridley favors. At that time there was a big trend toward shooting everything in 3D, and I think it was largely because of economics — because Avatar had made so much money. Everybody thought the whole world was going to turn 3D, but I never believed in that.

Scott: I don't think 3D is going to go away. I love it, because we actually see in 3D. In your head, you've basically got two cameras side by side separated by the width of your nose. When you film and project 3D properly, it's not a barrier; it's taking you back to something you've been used to since birth. There's still a lot to be explored there. One thing that would have been nice to do on The Martian would have been to shoot all the interiors in 2D, then when he goes outside flip to 3D. But we can't do that yet.

Maybe when the multiplexes get 3D right, I might be prepared to go along with Scott's apparent love of the format. But while we continue to get crappy glasses that are uncomfortable and usually dirty, images that appear dull and then royally ripped off for the privilege, it will remain purely a home cinema thing for me.

Quote from: Rudiger on Aug 14, 2017, 03:19:30 PM
Maybe when the multiplexes get 3D right, I might be prepared to go along with Scott's apparent love of the format. But while we continue to get crappy glasses that are uncomfortable and usually dirty, images that appear dull and then royally ripped off for the privilege, it will remain purely a home cinema thing for me.

Shame.

My experiences have been, for the most part, great. The greatest were PROMETHEUS and THE MARTIAN in 3D. TRANSFORMERS III in 3D was a very good experience too.

"I love Ridley's films and I love his film making , I love the beauty of the photography, I love the visceral sense that you're there, that you're present .... It's not a film that I would have made. I don't like films where you invest in a character and they get destroyed at the end. I would not have made that film"

Lolz (that's what you type, right?) Flashback time.

Anyway, I am invested with a character in this series, he's called David.

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 14, 2017, 08:29:34 PM

Quote from: Rudiger on Aug 14, 2017, 03:19:30 PM
Maybe when the multiplexes get 3D right, I might be prepared to go along with Scott's apparent love of the format. But while we continue to get crappy glasses that are uncomfortable and usually dirty, images that appear dull and then royally ripped off for the privilege, it will remain purely a home cinema thing for me.

Shame.

My experiences have been, for the most part, great. The greatest were PROMETHEUS and THE MARTIAN in 3D. TRANSFORMERS III in 3D was a very good experience too.

Can't speak for Transformers (it's not my bag) but the other two are absolutely splendid in 3D, favourites in my collection. Other favourites I have here at home:

• Tron Legacy
• House of Wax (Vincent Price)
• One More Time With Feeling (Nick Cave documentary)
• Creature from the Black Lagoon
• The Hobbit (all 3)
• Titanic
• It Came from Outer Space

I'd be crazy for 3D remasters of The Clone Wars and Rebels, but I'm sure that won't happen.

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 14, 2017, 08:29:34 PM
My experiences have been, for the most part, great. The greatest were PROMETHEUS and THE MARTIAN in 3D. TRANSFORMERS III in 3D was a very good experience too.

I find it a huge disappointment in the cinema (Imax too), and will now always seek out the 2D showing. I keep 3D purely for home. Prometheus is great in 3D (kinda makes up for the film), as is Avatar, Gravity and Ghost in the Shell.

I'm glad he said he might go back and do Aliens in 3D!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote from: Marcus9000 on Aug 15, 2017, 06:24:53 PM
I'm glad he said he might go back and do Aliens in 3D!

Yep. I'm definitely gonna 'vote with my dollar' and buy T2 3D, in the hopes that he will.

(https://i.imgflip.com/1ufmuk.jpg)

---

(https://imgflip.com/gif/1ufnku)

---

(https://imgflip.com/gif/1ufnum)

---

https://imgflip.com/gif/1ufnyl

Cameron hasn't made a good film since Terminator II. It's been, what, 26 years now?

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 21, 2017, 03:36:54 AM
Cameron hasn't made a good film since Terminator II. It's been, what, 26 years now?

True Lies was probably one of the last great action films of that era.

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 21, 2017, 03:36:54 AM
Cameron hasn't made a good film since Terminator II. It's been, what, 26 years now?

True. Since 1991.

So, you guys think that Covenant is a better film than Titanic or Avatar?

I prefer Alien Covenant to Titanic and Avatar, not because I think they are better films per se, but because of Cameron's sensibilities.  He's more of a populist filmmaker, while Scott is closer to an artist.  More or less.

If directing very bad films that in some ways look good makes you an artist, that's ok.

Ooooh, an artist definition-off!

I don't know what exactly the debate is here but I pick Alien: Covenant over Titanic and Avatar any day. Although Cameron did get them old ladies wet with Titanic and don't they deserve movies too?

Quote from: Hide on Aug 21, 2017, 06:01:52 AM
So, you guys think that Covenant is a better film than Titanic or Avatar?

Absolutely. Titanic was a clichéd love story, and Avatar plagiarized Dances With Wolves/Pocahontas/etc.

In fact, I prefer the Alien 3 Assembly Cut before either of those films.

Terminator 2 was the last Cameron film I liked. True Lies has some great action sequences but I found the racial stereotypes and misogyny a little distasteful.

Cameron always told very simple, basic stories with very stereotypical characters but he was fantastic at creating tension and suspense. He was also brilliant and innovative with action scenes. His early films all move at good pace, real thrill rides.

In latter years his films have got longer and longer with less and less action. For me the characters and story in Avatar and Titanic just aren't interesting enough to keep me invested. Both films just bore me to tears. I know i'm in the minority and both are hugely popular but I'll never be able to understand why.

True Lies is a great film but I really wish Cameron cut out the interrogation of Harry's wife. That entire scene was just so damn abusive. Calling it cruel would be a gross understatement.

Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 21, 2017, 07:55:35 AM
True Lies is a great film but I really wish Cameron cut out the interrogation of Harry's wife. That entire scene was just so damn abusive. Calling it cruel would be a gross understatement.

That scene is so awful. Very uncomfortable to watch on just about every level.

Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 21, 2017, 07:55:35 AM
True Lies is a great film but I really wish Cameron cut out the interrogation of Harry's wife. That entire scene was just so damn abusive. Calling it cruel would be a gross understatement.

Yeah but it's Harry that's interrogating her. Personally I didn't see it as abusive, I was kinda thinking I'd grill my wife the same lol. Plus it was a comedy too.

Quote from: Highland on Aug 21, 2017, 10:05:53 AM

Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 21, 2017, 07:55:35 AM
True Lies is a great film but I really wish Cameron cut out the interrogation of Harry's wife. That entire scene was just so damn abusive. Calling it cruel would be a gross understatement.

Yeah but it's Harry that's interrogating her. Personally I didn't see it as abusive, I was kinda thinking I'd grill my wife the same lol. Plus it was a comedy too.

In the context of the scene I think they are trying to determine whether or not Helen is a spy but it's clear that Harry was more interested in if she was cheating on him. Yea true, their relationship is more or less a convenience for him but good god that was a mean spirited thing to do for information he, as a spy, should have already known. :P

Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 21, 2017, 12:04:19 PM

Quote from: Highland on Aug 21, 2017, 10:05:53 AM

Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 21, 2017, 07:55:35 AM
True Lies is a great film but I really wish Cameron cut out the interrogation of Harry's wife. That entire scene was just so damn abusive. Calling it cruel would be a gross understatement.

Yeah but it's Harry that's interrogating her. Personally I didn't see it as abusive, I was kinda thinking I'd grill my wife the same lol. Plus it was a comedy too.

In the context of the scene I think they are trying to determine whether or not Helen is a spy but it's clear that Harry was more interested in if she was cheating on him. Yea true, their relationship is more or less a convenience for him but good god that was a mean spirited thing to do for information he, as a spy, should have already known. :P

They know Helen isn't a spy, that's the point lol

The whole point is purely to find out if Helens been screwing Paxton. There's no other reason. Harry is just abusing his position.

Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 21, 2017, 07:55:35 AM
True Lies is a great film but I really wish Cameron cut out the interrogation of Harry's wife. That entire scene was just so damn abusive. Calling it cruel would be a gross understatement.

That was best scene in the film, actually. Jamie Lee Curtis acting like a stripper was one of the better part of the 90s.

I'm gonna disagree, I enjoy Avatar a whole lot more than covenant.

Quote from: Highland on Aug 21, 2017, 12:34:43 PM

Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 21, 2017, 12:04:19 PM

Quote from: Highland on Aug 21, 2017, 10:05:53 AM

Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 21, 2017, 07:55:35 AM
True Lies is a great film but I really wish Cameron cut out the interrogation of Harry's wife. That entire scene was just so damn abusive. Calling it cruel would be a gross understatement.

Yeah but it's Harry that's interrogating her. Personally I didn't see it as abusive, I was kinda thinking I'd grill my wife the same lol. Plus it was a comedy too.

In the context of the scene I think they are trying to determine whether or not Helen is a spy but it's clear that Harry was more interested in if she was cheating on him. Yea true, their relationship is more or less a convenience for him but good god that was a mean spirited thing to do for information he, as a spy, should have already known. :P

They know Helen isn't a spy, that's the point lol

The whole point is purely to find out if Helens been screwing Paxton. There's no other reason. Harry is just abusing his position.

That makes it even worse.

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 21, 2017, 03:39:17 PM

Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 21, 2017, 07:55:35 AM
True Lies is a great film but I really wish Cameron cut out the interrogation of Harry's wife. That entire scene was just so damn abusive. Calling it cruel would be a gross understatement.

That was best scene in the film, actually. Jamie Lee Curtis acting like a stripper was one of the better part of the 90s.

Talking about the interrogation itself.

I prefer GLADIATOR, BLACK HAWK DOWN, THELMA & LOUISE and THE MARTIAN over all James Cameron movies.

Gladiator is a classic, I only watched the others once though.

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 21, 2017, 08:29:52 PM
I prefer GLADIATOR, BLACK HAWK DOWN, THELMA & LOUISE and THE MARTIAN over all James Cameron movies.

I hate to say it but Terminator 1 and 2 are better than all of those.

Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 22, 2017, 02:30:55 AM

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 21, 2017, 08:29:52 PM
I prefer GLADIATOR, BLACK HAWK DOWN, THELMA & LOUISE and THE MARTIAN over all James Cameron movies.

I hate to say it but Terminator 1 and 2 are better than all of those.

I disagree. But I was talking since 1991.

I love Terminator 1 but that is too far. 33 years ago. 1984.

Cause 1991 is relevant.... and 1984. Never mind.

Gladiator, Black hawk Down, Thelma & Louise and The Martian are all great films. They possible are better made films than anything Cameron's ever made.

But nine times out of ten I'd would rather watch Aliens or Terminator/T2 over any of them. In those days Cameron was masterful at creating films that entertained, very few could equal him.

What I do like about Cameron is that he is never satisfied with what's possible. While I'm pretty sure the next Avatar movies won't be picking up too many "best film" nominations, I am genuinely excited to see what he has up his sleeve from a visual point of view. He's a game changer.

Quote from: Rudiger on Aug 22, 2017, 08:14:09 AM
What I do like about Cameron is that he is never satisfied with what's possible. While I'm pretty sure the next Avatar movies won't be picking up too many "best film" nominations, I am genuinely excited to see what he has up his sleeve from a visual point of view. He's a game changer.

Yes this is true, he will certainly push the boundaries with the sequel. Hopefully it will have a story and scenes to match but I'm not hopeful. 

Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 22, 2017, 09:30:30 AM

Quote from: Rudiger on Aug 22, 2017, 08:14:09 AM
What I do like about Cameron is that he is never satisfied with what's possible. While I'm pretty sure the next Avatar movies won't be picking up too many "best film" nominations, I am genuinely excited to see what he has up his sleeve from a visual point of view. He's a game changer.

Yes this is true, he will certainly push the boundaries with the sequel. Hopefully it will have a story and scenes to match but I'm not hopeful.

You can't have everything. Covenant being a case in point  ;)

Quote from: Hide on Aug 21, 2017, 06:01:52 AM
So, you guys think that Covenant is a better film than Titanic or Avatar?

Christ yes.

Quote from: Rudiger on Aug 22, 2017, 10:00:13 AM

Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 22, 2017, 09:30:30 AM

Quote from: Rudiger on Aug 22, 2017, 08:14:09 AM
What I do like about Cameron is that he is never satisfied with what's possible. While I'm pretty sure the next Avatar movies won't be picking up too many "best film" nominations, I am genuinely excited to see what he has up his sleeve from a visual point of view. He's a game changer.

Yes this is true, he will certainly push the boundaries with the sequel. Hopefully it will have a story and scenes to match but I'm not hopeful.

You can't have everything. Covenant being a case in point  ;)

This is true. I'd better find an Avatar forum just so I can tell everyone how rubbish the sequel is!  ;)

Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 22, 2017, 10:16:16 AM
This is true. I'd better find an Avatar forum just so I can tell everyone how rubbish the sequel is!  ;)

I should have a link somewhere...  :D

---

Quote from: Hide on Aug 21, 2017, 06:01:52 AM
So, you guys think that Covenant is a better film than Titanic or Avatar?

Definitely not.

Couldn't watch Avatar more then 15 min. I did watch Covenant from start to finish. So yeah, if you look at it that way... then I liked Covenant more?

:P

Quote from: Biomechanoid on Aug 11, 2017, 12:40:14 AM
Cameron is no stranger to negative flack when it comes to making a major change to a character in a sequel, considering the well known criticism by many fans for reducing the very mysterious Alien creature down to swarm of insects. But in all fairness to JC, insect characteristics were already associated to the alien creature before Alien 79 was even released, according to Shusett and O'Bannon

Its good to see others acknowledge the insect qualities that were there from the start. That unfortunately common excuse by the more irrational alien fans is silly. I believe everyone has the right to their opinion and can like and dislike a film all they want, but when they use hypocritical reasons. i.e hating Aliens for being buglike when Aliens were buglike in the first film is just nonsensical.

A lot of folk are saying Cameron is being more polite and soft these days as he has been giving good comments about films that have had serious flaws. I thought Cameron would be far more vocal on these matters considering who he is or who he was. I agree about his killing off characters comment, Prometheus may not have been the best but the least we could have got after that film is a decent resolution instead of a "swept under the rug" scenerio.

Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 22, 2017, 12:27:56 PM
A lot of folk are saying Cameron is being more polite and soft these days as he has been giving good comments about films that have had serious flaws.

Cameron is not being more polite; He's being pragmatic. This interview is a PR event to promote a project Cameron is personally involved with (as was his comment on Terminator:Genisys, for that matter). He's not going to use that stage to badmouth other films and filmmakers. He has a horse in this race. That's why when asked about Alien:Covenant, you can see the anguish on his face while trying to find nice things to say about it, and why the criticism he ends up throwing at the film in spite of everything should be seen as a lot more than what it actually is.

Quote from: Paranoid Android on Aug 22, 2017, 02:54:06 PM

Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 22, 2017, 12:27:56 PM
A lot of folk are saying Cameron is being more polite and soft these days as he has been giving good comments about films that have had serious flaws.

Cameron is not being more polite; He's being pragmatic. This interview is a PR event to promote a project Cameron is personally involved with (as was his comment on Terminator:Genisys, for that matter). He's not going to use that stage to badmouth other films and filmmakers. He has a horse in this race. That's why when asked about Alien:Covenant, you can see the anguish on his face while trying to find nice things to say about it, and why the criticism he ends up throwing at the film in spite of everything should be seen as a lot more than what it actually is.

How anyone takes Cameron's opinions of other films seriously after making a promotional video for Genisys is beyond me.

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 21, 2017, 03:36:54 AM
Cameron hasn't made a good film since Terminator II. It's been, what, 26 years now?

Oh behave.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Both Titanic and Avatar, while not the freshest ideas for the time are still well made and entertaining productions. Personally I find them both boring as f**k but a lot of people love them. However when I think back to the first two terminator films I can't but help say that they were perfect. I was 6 and 12 when T1 and T2 hit the theaters. T1 didn't really hit my radar for a long time. However the one thing I remember about T2 is how everyone was f**king satisfied by it.  You left the theater, or drive-in as the case was for me, feeling like that was the best 6 bucks ever spent. Then  much later, in the 2000's I decided to watch Terminator 1, at which point I thought to myself, holy shit this is from 1984. :P Killer machine(cyborg) that looks human sent via time travel by an evil AI. I could go on and on but it's a thrill ride. None of that "throwminator" shit either. The film feels real. Which is also part of the reason Aliens is so fulfilling as well.

I can't help but say, "To compose something so majestic, one could die happy" and I mean everyone who had a part in making the film. That's great work.

Alien: Covenant is by far better than Titanic and Avatar. Titanic didn't have anything new to add and Avatar story line is the "same old song". Worse of all it's so hard to get movies such as covenant. You know, those over zealous grandiose themes with monsters in them.

Quote from: Paranoid Android on Aug 22, 2017, 02:54:06 PM

Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 22, 2017, 12:27:56 PM
A lot of folk are saying Cameron is being more polite and soft these days as he has been giving good comments about films that have had serious flaws.

Cameron is not being more polite; He's being pragmatic. This interview is a PR event to promote a project Cameron is personally involved with (as was his comment on Terminator:Genisys, for that matter). He's not going to use that stage to badmouth other films and filmmakers. He has a horse in this race. That's why when asked about Alien:Covenant, you can see the anguish on his face while trying to find nice things to say about it, and why the criticism he ends up throwing at the film in spite of everything should be seen as a lot more than what it actually is.

But why should I care? Cameron's opinion is of no importance to me. If he doesn't understand the significance of Shaw in the narrative despite her death that just confirms my view that his approach to storytelling is just too damn simplistic.

Quote from: Gash on Aug 23, 2017, 12:28:47 PM
But why should I care? Cameron's opinion is of no importance to me. If he doesn't understand the significance of Shaw in the narrative despite her death that just confirms my view that his approach to storytelling is just too damn simplistic.

Then why are you reading/watching his opinion and commenting on it? Seems like you're being passive aggressive here, to be honest.

Gash goes out of his way to make sure people know he doesn't care about things, particularly Cameron.

Hmm, and why are you Paranoid Android on a Covenant forum when you have nothing of any worth to say on it?

Of Cameron, I don't see any deeper significance in his opinion over anyone elses. If people are using his vague comments as a justification for their own bias that's their affair but they are clutching at straws if they feel it gives their point of view more legitimacy.

Quote from: Gash on Aug 23, 2017, 12:59:44 PM
Hmm, and why are you Paranoid Android on a Covenant forum when you have nothing of any worth to say on it?

The forum is AvPGalaxy; Covenant is just one of the subsections.

QuoteOf Cameron, I don't see any deeper significance in his opinion over anyone elses.

We get that. Nobody is confused. You don't need to keep stating it.

Quote from: Gash on Aug 23, 2017, 12:59:44 PM
Hmm, and why are you Paranoid Android on a Covenant forum when you have nothing of any worth to say on it?

Because I care. :P

Quote from: SiL on Aug 23, 2017, 01:00:51 PM

Quote from: Gash on Aug 23, 2017, 12:59:44 PM
Hmm, and why are you Paranoid Android on a Covenant forum when you have nothing of any worth to say on it?

The forum is AvPGalaxy; Covenant is just one of the subsections.

Indeed it is.

Paranoid Android why are you on the Covenant subsection, thread selection, of the AvPGalaxy website, a film you don't like?

Quote from: Gash on Aug 23, 2017, 01:09:52 PM
Paranoid Android why are you on the Covenant subsection, thread selection, of the AvPGalaxy website, a film you don't like?

Quote from: Paranoid Android on Aug 23, 2017, 01:03:31 PM
Because I care. :P

Quote from: Paranoid Android on Aug 23, 2017, 01:12:10 PM

Quote from: Gash on Aug 23, 2017, 01:09:52 PM
Paranoid Android why are you on the Covenant subsection, thread selection, of the AvPGalaxy website, a film you don't like?

Quote from: Paranoid Android on Aug 23, 2017, 01:03:31 PM
Because I care. :P

Right, so you understood me the first time. Thanks Sil. That helped.

No need to attack SiL over here. He is right, after all. Me understanding what you meant doesn't change that.

Quote from: Paranoid Android on Aug 23, 2017, 12:42:01 PM

Quote from: Gash on Aug 23, 2017, 12:28:47 PM
But why should I care? Cameron's opinion is of no importance to me. If he doesn't understand the significance of Shaw in the narrative despite her death that just confirms my view that his approach to storytelling is just too damn simplistic.

Then why are you reading/watching his opinion and commenting on it? Seems like you're being passive aggressive here, to be honest.

:o

All of your posts on this forum are 'passive aggressive' or condescending in one form or another.

^From the guy the calls people mental retards.....

Quote from: Highland on Aug 23, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
^From the guy the calls people mental retards.....

The only person I've called a mental retard on these forums is President Trump.

Not exactly accurate.  Or appropriate.

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 24, 2017, 12:37:04 AM
The only person I've called a mental retard on these forums is President Trump.

Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 01:19:45 AM

Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 01:17:53 AM
Is there an actual point behind me hating the film (which I stated several times by now)?

You tell us. Weaponized autism isn't prone to self-awareness.

::)

Comeon folk, Gash has been dealt with and has a temp ban and Alionic has been warned in the past. Let's not drag things to the surface, please.

Ridley vs Cameron is like David vs Goliath, but we all know who won in the end...

I totally prefer Covenant over Avatar because it's darker, more violent and a hell of a lot less stupid overall. And it doesn't try to shove that forced on political  message about enviromental issues down your throat! haha ;)
It's also a far more realistic and believable movie. Fact!

IMO Cameron makes sci-fi that is suited 'for all ages', while Ridley is the more provocative director, changing movie history. He's not the man who will make a movie to please the masses and to earn big bucks, but just goes his own way instead. And I respect him for that.

Ridley understands that films are a business and is absolutely interested in earning big bucks to ensure he stays in said business.

Quote from: SiL on Aug 25, 2017, 02:48:40 AM
Ridley understands that films are a business and is absolutely interested in earning big bucks to ensure he stays in said business.

You're absolutely correct, but he's not trying to appeal to such a wide demographic as Cameron is what I'm trying to say.

There seems to be this constant push to portray Ridley as some 'artiste' compared to other directors.

He started in advertising - he's all about the biz.  I'm sure he'd be well chuffed to get Cameron numbers.

James Cameron is not a risk taker. He's whole career and style has been about spectacle, and he's been very successful at it. He's a Michael Bay who does not suck.

Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2017, 02:57:17 AM
There seems to be this constant push to portray Ridley as some 'artiste' compared to other directors.

He started in advertising - he's all about the biz.  I'm sure he'd be well chuffed to get Cameron numbers.

I also bet he'd like that, but the fact is he's not Cameron. He didn't direct the world-famous 'Titanic' or 'Terminator'. He just made a low-budget sci-fi horror movie in space about some Swiss monster which everybody loves nowadays...but not back then. I bet the majority of the general audience don't know any of his movies except for 'Gladiator'. You can't compare Ridley with Cameron, not only because Ridley doesn't have such a stable track record as the billion-dollar prodigy called Cameron , but also because Fox would never ever give him the same budget...which will severely limit him as a director. Please keep in mind that Covenant was made with a budget of only 100 million dollars; I was absolutely baffled when I first heard of this! But even so, it's a much better film than any of the AAA-titles released this year who had almost twice the budget. To me that's saying a lot about how well he knows his business.

My point is that any movie that has James Cameron in the credits would probably sell extremely well. But if he would have made Covenant it would have been another comicbook-like flick with big robots and simpleton soldiers to try to appeal to everyone between the age of 12 and 67 and it would have been forgotten pretty damn fast.

I highly doubt he'd ever use Michelangelo's David in any Alien-movie...

Alien wasn't low budget, it quickly became an iconic film that still influences till this day in terms of the design, the monster and the heroine.

Universal gave Riddles $200m for Robin Hood and Fox gave him another $200m for Exodus.

Ahh the condescension towards the "simple" Aliens never ends.

Aliens has more intelligence in its first 30 minutes than the Frankenstein'd Covenant's total runtime. Classical musical, statues, and dialogue about creation don't automatically make a film intelligent. And having people shoot guns and say one liners doesn't make a film unintelligent.

Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2017, 02:57:17 AM
There seems to be this constant push to portray Ridley as some 'artiste' compared to other directors.

He started in advertising - he's all about the biz.  I'm sure he'd be well chuffed to get Cameron numbers.

Indeed. I'm pretty sure John Carpenter responded with a similar answer when faced with the arty farty question about why the studio chose him... because they thought I'd make them a lot of money he responded.

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 25, 2017, 03:36:54 AM
James Cameron is not a risk taker. He's whole career and style has been about spectacle, and he's been very successful at it. He's a Michael Bay who does not suck.

$100 million on a movie about a killer robot who's programmed to be a baby sitter for a kid being chased by a liquid metal man was a pretty big risk.

Quote from: SiL on Aug 25, 2017, 05:04:56 AM

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 25, 2017, 03:36:54 AM
James Cameron is not a risk taker. He's whole career and style has been about spectacle, and he's been very successful at it. He's a Michael Bay who does not suck.

$100 million on a movie about a killer robot who's programmed to be a baby sitter for a kid being chased by a liquid metal man was a pretty big risk.

No it wasn't. It was an action film. Action films were the big budget blockbusters of the 80s and 90s; before superhero films came along.

And this isn't acknowledging how Cameron and Schwarzenegger were already household names at the time.

It was the most expensive movie ever made up to that point - by a big margin.

That's a big risk.

Was rated R too wasnt it? R Rated movies don't do well though...or something.

It was.

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 25, 2017, 05:28:55 AM
No it wasn't. It was an action film. Action films were the big budget blockbusters of the 80s and 90s; before superhero films came along.

It was the most expensive movie ever made using experimental, unproven technology and an R rating.

Just because action movies were popular doesn't mean they were a license to print money ::)

Ridley and Cameron just have very different sensibilities. They make very different films because they think differently and interested in different things.

Both want to make money and be successful. 99% of film makers do, its a business after all.

Cameron makes films that appeal to broader audiences because his tastes and ideas are more in line with them. I think that's why Ridleys biggest hits are the ones he has the least input on the story itself.

T2 hit all the right notes and I think Cameron instinctively knows what notes to hit. Hes shown that with just about every film hes made even if they haven't all worked for me.

Quote from: SiL on Aug 25, 2017, 07:07:40 AM

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 25, 2017, 05:28:55 AM
No it wasn't. It was an action film. Action films were the big budget blockbusters of the 80s and 90s; before superhero films came along.

It was the most expensive movie ever made using experimental, unproven technology and an R rating.

Just because action movies were popular doesn't mean they were a license to print money ::)

Bruce Willis had Last Boy Scout and Hudson Hawk in the same year and both tanked.

Quote from: SM on Aug 25, 2017, 04:18:39 AM
Alien wasn't low budget, it quickly became an iconic film that still influences till this day in terms of the design, the monster and the heroine.

Universal gave Riddles $200m for Robin Hood and Fox gave him another $200m for Exodus.

Alien was a low-budget film. They keep saying it over and over again on the Anthology.

As for your second remark I stand corrected. So how come Ridley only got such a (relatively) small budget for Prometheus and Covenant?
Did Fox lose faith in him or the Alien-franchise just because Exodus and Robin Hood didn't do that well at the BO? Were they expecting the same succes as Gladiator?

Imo Ridley should have just stormed out of the gates, guns blazing when he made Prometheus. He only had one shot to get the franchise back on track but he blew it. Prometheus was obviously meant to be a set-up for future films.

Now we got bald humanoid bodybuilders for Space Jockeys and alien eggs that are simply the result of a mere experiment by some random runaway droid, contadicting everything we've seen in the series.

Congratulations Fox / Ridley! You definitely know what your fans want....

Where..?  How is it contradicted? 

-Windebieste.

QuoteAlien was a low-budget film. They keep saying it over and over again on the Anthology.

When?

$10m was not low budget at the end of the 1970s.

QuoteDid Fox lose faith in him or the Alien-franchise just because Exodus and Robin Hood didn't do that well at the BO? Were they expecting the same succes as Gladiator?

Perhaps the $100m they used was all they needed.  Exodus and Robin Hood were both PG-13 rather than R, thus increasing the audience.  Exodus was intended to draw in the religious crowd who dug stuff like Passion of the Christ.  Robin Hood was pairing Riddles with Rusty Crowe again so I guess they hoped to emulate Gladiator.

Quote
Imo Ridley should have just stormed out of the gates, guns blazing when he made Prometheus. He only had one shot to get the franchise back on track but he blew it. Prometheus was obviously meant to be a set-up for future films.

The chance he took resulted in enough success for a sequel.

Quote from: Snake on Aug 25, 2017, 12:55:12 PM

Congratulations Fox / Ridley! You definitely know what your fans want....

Having read quite a few of the thread topics on this forum, I haven't got the faintest idea what the fans want. But I'm a fan and I like Covenant and Prometheus a lot, so I'm happy.

Quote from: Hamster1066 on Aug 25, 2017, 04:16:32 PM

Quote from: Snake on Aug 25, 2017, 12:55:12 PM

Congratulations Fox / Ridley! You definitely know what your fans want....

Having read quite a few of the thread topics on this forum, I haven't got the faintest idea what the fans want. But I'm a fan and I like Covenant and Prometheus a lot, so I'm happy.

You're right on.

It should go without saying, but we all want different things. Some want a slow-burner like Alien, others want marines, marines, and more marines, and some would like a more existential, character-driven horror film like Alien 3 (Alien:Resurrection. I choose to ignore). Prometheus and Covenant are thematically different from anything else in the series, but are just as consistent in tone as Alien and Aliens were; while still seeking to be their own thing. I, like you, am a fan and love both Prometheus and Covenant so I am quite content with the direction these films have taken. Personally, I love Aliens for what it is, but if that is the future a majority of fans would want then "you can count me out!".  :laugh:

Quote from: lv_226 on Aug 25, 2017, 05:21:07 PM

Quote from: Hamster1066 on Aug 25, 2017, 04:16:32 PM

Quote from: Snake on Aug 25, 2017, 12:55:12 PM

Congratulations Fox / Ridley! You definitely know what your fans want....

Having read quite a few of the thread topics on this forum, I haven't got the faintest idea what the fans want. But I'm a fan and I like Covenant and Prometheus a lot, so I'm happy.

You're right on.

It should go without saying, but we all want different things. Some want a slow-burner like Alien, others want marines, marines, and more marines,  Personally, I love Aliens for what it is, but if that is the future a majority of fans would want then "you can count me out!".  :laugh:

I think that would be a backward step. I probably wouldn't be interested in that either.

Quote from: SiL on Aug 25, 2017, 07:07:40 AM

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 25, 2017, 05:28:55 AM
No it wasn't. It was an action film. Action films were the big budget blockbusters of the 80s and 90s; before superhero films came along.

It was the most expensive movie ever made using experimental, unproven technology and an R rating.

Just because action movies were popular doesn't mean they were a license to print money ::)

LOL  ::)

I forgot to mention that this was a sequel to a highly popular film at the time. R rated action films were much more popular in the 80s and 90s than they are now. It had everything in its favor from the outset.

I disagree.

James Cameron is Michael Bay with the Biggest Budgets of All Time.

Ridley Scott is Better. He is like Steven Spielberg. Both of them made ALL kinds of Films and in ALL Genres.

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 25, 2017, 10:22:41 PM
I disagree.

James Cameron is Michael Bay with the Biggest Budgets of All Time.

Ridley Scott is Better. He is like Steven Spielberg. Both of them made ALL kinds of Films and in ALL Genres.

Nah, there's only one Spielberg.

Quote from: Highland on Aug 26, 2017, 12:02:55 AM

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 25, 2017, 10:22:41 PM
I disagree.

James Cameron is Michael Bay with the Biggest Budgets of All Time.

Ridley Scott is Better. He is like Steven Spielberg. Both of them made ALL kinds of Films and in ALL Genres.

Nah, there's only one Spielberg.

I think Scott is better than Spielberg. But back to the topic, I mean it in the sense that both of them made small, dramas, big, thrillers, War, Suspense, Action, all kinds of genres, etc....

For example: both of them are releasing their new dramas this December in time for Oscars.

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 26, 2017, 01:06:51 AM

Quote from: Highland on Aug 26, 2017, 12:02:55 AM

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 25, 2017, 10:22:41 PM
I disagree.

James Cameron is Michael Bay with the Biggest Budgets of All Time.

Ridley Scott is Better. He is like Steven Spielberg. Both of them made ALL kinds of Films and in ALL Genres.

Nah, there's only one Spielberg.

I think Scott is better than Spielberg. But back to the topic, I mean it in the sense that both of them made small, dramas, big, thrillers, War, Suspense, Action, all kinds of genres, etc....

For example: both of them are releasing their new dramas this December in time for Oscars.

What does better mean.

If I'm on a desert island and have to pick a Directors catalogue, I'm taking Spielberg's after about 2 seconds of thought. That's even with Scott having two of my all time favourites.

Quote from: Snake on Aug 25, 2017, 12:55:12 PM

Now we got bald humanoid bodybuilders for Space Jockeys and alien eggs that are simply the result of a mere experiment by some random runaway droid, contadicting everything we've seen in the series.

Congratulations Fox / Ridley! You definitely know what your fans want....

No, objectively, it's not a contradiction. Subjectively, some fans seem quite satisfied with both Prometheus and Covenant. Others, not so much.

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 25, 2017, 08:55:37 PM
I forgot to mention that this was a sequel to a highly popular film at the time.

The Terminator was seven years old by the time the sequel came out, and was made for $8 million. Going from an $8 million small-scale production to the most expensive movie made at the time was a huge risk.

Not that it's relevant, because Scott himself isn't much of a risk-taker.

I think it's safe to say that this thread is now knee deep in "my dad's bigger than your dad" territory.

Quote from: Rudiger on Aug 26, 2017, 06:40:14 AM
I think it's safe to say that this thread is now knee deep in "my dad's bigger than your dad" territory.

It's been like that for weeks, a lot of them are.

Jimbob Cameron is bigger than everyone's dad.

And he's Canadian. 

For me Aliens isn't on par with Alien.

Alien is a masterpiece. It is up there with the great classics.

Sure aliens is a great movie, but it  hasn't the great artistry that alien has.

But, Cameron hasn't directed a bad movie for about 30 years, the man knows how to tell a story.

And even if the story isn't that great or has been told before, like Avatar, he knows how to deliver a thrilling ride. He knows what works for the audience and what doesn't. He is a scientist of movie filmmaking.

Ridley has a lot more bad movies and failures than great one's, it's like he doesn't knows what he is doing all the time and works on a whim.

Prometheus and Alien Covenant are bad movies with great ideas.
They have problems that could have been very easily been fixed by an average director.

I don't know how Ridley managed to make a movie as bad as Covenant, maybe he was his intention to end the franchise. Who knows...

Quote from: Hide on Aug 26, 2017, 12:57:21 PM
Sure aliens is a great movie, but it  hasn't the great artistry that alien has.

And yet it's basically defined the look of an entire genre for 30 years. Every sci-fi action series since has drawn heavily from the art and design of Aliens.

I don't like Aliens, can barely stand to watch it any more. Too much Ripley, too much Sigourney Weaver over-acting, too much isn't Newt cute, the silly ending with the queen hanging off Ripley's foot for so long... Sure, the way it was made, it's Ripley's story. But to me, it has too many groaner moments. Makes it hard to sit through. YMMV.

Quote from: Hide on Aug 26, 2017, 12:57:21 PM
For me Aliens isn't on par with Alien.

Alien is a masterpiece. It is up there with the great classics.

Sure aliens is a great movie, but it  hasn't the great artistry that alien has.

But, Cameron hasn't directed a bad movie for about 30 years, the man knows how to tell a story.

And even if the story isn't that great or has been told before, like Avatar, he knows how to deliver a thrilling ride. He knows what works for the audience and what doesn't. He is a scientist of movie filmmaking.

Ridley has a lot more bad movies and failures than great one's, it's like he doesn't knows what he is doing all the time and works on a whim.

Prometheus and Alien Covenant are bad movies with great ideas.
They have problems that could have been very easily been fixed by an average director.

I don't know how Ridley managed to make a movie as bad as Covenant, maybe he was his intention to end the franchise. Who knows...

I don't think Ridlay has any bad movies except maybe GI Jane. He has a few films in genres I'm less interested in, but that doesn't make them bad movies. I think Scott has a better hit rate in terms of quality over Cameron. But that's my personal taste. I think that maybe you need to accept that Scott isn't your sort of film maker, I don't want to make assumptions on your behalf but perhaps it's just science fiction (of a certain type) that's your bag?

Quote from: Rudiger on Aug 26, 2017, 06:40:14 AM
I think it's safe to say that this thread is now knee deep in "my dad's bigger than your dad" territory.

Quote from: Hide on Aug 26, 2017, 12:57:21 PM
For me Aliens isn't on par with Alien.

Alien is a masterpiece. It is up there with the great classics.

Sure aliens is a great movie, but it  hasn't the great artistry that alien has.

But, Cameron hasn't directed a bad movie for about 30 years, the man knows how to tell a story.

And even if the story isn't that great or has been told before, like Avatar, he knows how to deliver a thrilling ride. He knows what works for the audience and what doesn't. He is a scientist of movie filmmaking.

Ridley has a lot more bad movies and failures than great one's, it's like he doesn't knows what he is doing all the time and works on a whim.

Prometheus and Alien Covenant are bad movies with great ideas.
They have problems that could have been very easily been fixed by an average director.

I don't know how Ridley managed to make a movie as bad as Covenant, maybe he was his intention to end the franchise. Who knows...

Are you a fan of X-Japan by chance?

Quote from: Hide on Aug 26, 2017, 12:57:21 PM
For me Aliens isn't on par with Alien.

Alien is a masterpiece. It is up there with the great classics.

Sure aliens is a great movie, but it  hasn't the great artistry that alien has.

Good lord, I find myself agreeing with a Hide post here.

Prometheus and Covenant also have too many groaner moments and seem to feature smart people doing stupid things (Prometheus) or people who are not that bright to begin with doing stupid things (Covenant) . Plus, both movies have a plethora of one-dimensional/underdeveloped characters.  While one could argue the characters in Alien and Aliens are also sketches, the writing is better so that the characters come across as relatable and more believable, eliciting more investment from the audience. There is evidence to support Hide's position that Prometheus and Covenant are inferior movies It seems to me, the people most pleased with the prequels are invested in/buy into the David character and keenly interested in the mythological subtext. But like Aliens with Ripley, I would say Covenant features too much android. Covenant pushes the whole thing to the point that the human characters and the aliens don't matter at all. It's just a tale of the android with maybe a theme of deranged android vs angry engineers for the next one.Seen that way, the franchise as it was originally presented is ended. Certainly, Scott seems done with it. The prequel series could indeed continue from its current position and head off in its own direction without ever meeting up with the older movies.

Quote from: Alionic on Aug 26, 2017, 03:55:47 PM

Quote from: Hide on Aug 26, 2017, 12:57:21 PM
For me Aliens isn't on par with Alien.

Alien is a masterpiece. It is up there with the great classics.

Sure aliens is a great movie, but it  hasn't the great artistry that alien has.

Good lord, I find myself agreeing with a Hide post here.

:D only the first part though, then he descends into meaningless nonsense again!

Cameron, Scott, spielberg are all great, legends who have made classic, timeless films.
Ridley's style is my personal favourite out of the three but Spielberg is the daddy. Neither Scott or Cameron's filmography stands up against his as a whole.

Quote from: Highland on Aug 26, 2017, 03:31:22 AM

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 26, 2017, 01:06:51 AM

Quote from: Highland on Aug 26, 2017, 12:02:55 AM

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 25, 2017, 10:22:41 PM
I disagree.

James Cameron is Michael Bay with the Biggest Budgets of All Time.

Ridley Scott is Better. He is like Steven Spielberg. Both of them made ALL kinds of Films and in ALL Genres.

Nah, there's only one Spielberg.

I think Scott is better than Spielberg. But back to the topic, I mean it in the sense that both of them made small, dramas, big, thrillers, War, Suspense, Action, all kinds of genres, etc....

For example: both of them are releasing their new dramas this December in time for Oscars.

What does better mean.

If I'm on a desert island and have to pick a Directors catalogue, I'm taking Spielberg's after about 2 seconds of thought. That's even with Scott having two of my all time favourites.

To each their own.

Spielberg is too sappy and too melodramatic for my tastes.

---

Quote from: SiL on Aug 26, 2017, 01:03:53 PM

Quote from: Hide on Aug 26, 2017, 12:57:21 PM
Sure aliens is a great movie, but it  hasn't the great artistry that alien has.

And yet it's basically defined the look of an entire genre for 30 years. Every sci-fi action series since has drawn heavily from the art and design of Aliens.

That's a lie.

BLADE RUNNER and STAR WARS are far more copied and admired than any Cameron movie.

Quote from: PierreVW on Aug 26, 2017, 07:18:16 PM

Quote from: SiL on Aug 26, 2017, 01:03:53 PM

Quote from: Hide on Aug 26, 2017, 12:57:21 PM
Sure aliens is a great movie, but it  hasn't the great artistry that alien has.

And yet it's basically defined the look of an entire genre for 30 years. Every sci-fi action series since has drawn heavily from the art and design of Aliens.

That's a lie.

BLADE RUNNER and STAR WARS are far more copied and admired than any Cameron movie.

How are Blade Runner and Star Wars even relevant in an Alien vs Aliens discussion?

As for what SiL said about Aliens, he's absolutely right. Out of the two films, Aliens was the one that everybody copied to death. Here's a nice video to sum it up solely in the realm of video games:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYtQmayyDLA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYtQmayyDLA)

Except that Aliens was styled after Alien, and a bit of Blade Runner.

It's clear to see that Scott was greatly influenced by Kubrick. It's also clear to see Cameron was greatly influenced by Scott.

The 'used universe' look of the colony was down to Cobb, who also did the Nostromo and owes debts to Star Wars and Dark Star.

Having just read the last 10-or-so pages of this thread, I feel the need to jump in and say that people accusing Cameron of telling simplistic stories probably shouldn't be pointing to Gladiator as 'what a movie oughta be'...  :D

Gladiator was certainly more of a risk than Terminator 2. Cameron was already famous for expensive epic (bloat) and state of the art special FX thanks to The Abyss. Arnie was at the height of his popularity. The Terminator had been rediscovered and re-evaluated in the wake of Aliens. It could be considered a risk because of it's expense but it had a lot going for it.

Sword and sandal epics had been out of fashion for more than thirty years and Crowe was only really known for a supporting role in LA Confidential IIRC.

Personally I find the story in Gladiator a lot less simplistic than the framing fantasy fitted around Titanic. Titanic is full of faults, but it has spectacle. Likewise with Avatar. Gladiator also has spectacle but as a revenge story with interesting motivated characters it is pitch perfect. I guess it is all down to personal taste.

Quote from: Hamster1066 on Aug 27, 2017, 08:12:26 PM
Gladiator was certainly more of a risk that T2. Cameron was already famous for expensive epic (bloat) and state of the art special FX thanks to The Abyss. Arnie was at the height of his popularity. The Terminator had been rediscovered and re-evaluated in the wake of Aliens. It could be considered a risk because of it's expense but it had a lot going for it.

Sword and sandal epics had been out of fashion for more than thirty years and Crowe was only really known for a supporting role a LA Confidential IIRC.

Personally I find the story in Gladiator a lot less simplistic than the framing fantasy fitted around Titanic. Titanic is full of faults, but it has spectacle. Likewise with Avatar. Gladiator also has spectacle but as a revenge story with interesting motivated characters it is pitch perfect. I guess it is all down to personal taste.

I agree 100%.

But like you said, it is all down to personal taste.

I love GLADIATOR and THE MARTIAN. I hate Titanic and Avatar.

Quote from: Hamster1066 on Aug 27, 2017, 08:12:26 PM
Gladiator was certainly more of a risk that T2. Cameron was already famous for expensive epic (bloat) and state of the art special FX thanks to The Abyss. Arnie was at the height of his popularity. The Terminator had been rediscovered and re-evaluated in the wake of Aliens. It could be considered a risk because of it's expense but it had a lot going for it.

Sword and sandal epics had been out of fashion for more than thirty years and Crowe was only really known for a supporting role in LA Confidential IIRC.

Personally I find the story in Gladiator a lot less simplistic than the framing fantasy fitted around Titanic. Titanic is full of faults, but it has spectacle. Likewise with Avatar. Gladiator also has spectacle but as a revenge story with interesting motivated characters it is pitch perfect. I guess it is all down to personal taste.

Yeah I agree with you. Gladiator is a simple story when you break it down but the characters and motivations elevate it far above a simple revenge tale.

And it was definatley regarded as a huge risk at the time.

Just saw T2 3D last night. Very enjoyable. I'd forgotten what a thoroughly entertaining film it is. Big audience genuinely laughed in all the right places, too. I think Cameron's made some digital tweaks (a la Aliens) for this version: I recall the driver in some of the bike stunts looking not terribly like Arnold, and that's changed. I also recall the composite shot of Arnold rolling toward the camera away from the crashing cryo truck looking pretty dodgy, but it's much more seamless now.

Anyway, highly recommended, and I can't wait to buy it on blu-ray. I hope Cameron gets to give Aliens the 3D treatment - that shot of Gateway Station would be glorious.