I'm not 100% on which episode this actually got mentioned in (I think it was this one - https://perfectorganism.podbean.com/e/episode-58-the-blomkamp-controversy-sequel-ideas/) but the fellas over at Perfect Organism have been told that work on the sequels has now stopped.
I'm not heard anything myself but I know these guys do have legit contacts.
I hope they mean alien 5 and not Covenant sequels. Those mofo's over at fox owe us at least one movie to wrap this shit up.
They mean the prequel sequels.
Gunfunit! I hope all this means is another 5 year hiatus.
Great...So (maybe) Aliens: Colonial Marines / Alien: Isolation and now Alien: Covenant are all left hanging....
*sigh
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.ws%2Fricoliefan%2Factor%2Frb1.jpg&hash=eb6c841b807d63c96b51a4552f2837d5a4904cba)
What sucks about this if it's true is we won't get anything for like 5 years. It also stinks because I actually did want to see how this whole thing ended.
That being said I'm not really surprised. The fan reactions to Covenant have been overwhelmingly negative.
I'd donate $100m myself in an instant if I had that much money to burn.
I'm not going to believe second hand info from some fan podcast.
Alien Covenant did make money. They will make more.
If I were Scott, I'd really insist and use whatever private funding from whatever he's making off Scott Free and other stuff. But Scott is very pragmatic now, so I don't know...
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 18, 2017, 12:52:44 PM
What sucks about this if it's true is we won't get anything for like 5 years. It also stinks because I actually did want to see how this whole thing ended.
That being said I'm not really surprised. The fan reactions to Covenant have been overwhelmingly negative.
Not overwhelmingly negative. A lot of people think they're great! You might like to re-evaluate your assessment there.
Besides, this kind of rumor flies around all the time. It's complete horseshit until officially announced by Fox.
-Windebieste.
Fox is not going to release a formal statement saying they aren't working on a Covenant sequel.
You're going to have to wait until one of the stars is promoting another film or Scott himself. You won't get shit out of Fox about this.
It's a shame really, I'm not a huge fan of the prequels (prefer Covenant to Prometheus) but I want to see where they're going. Especially after that cliffhanger ending.
Maybe it just means Ridley Scott wont be working on it.
If this turns out to be true then that's excellent news.
I don't buy this at all. Wouldn't have thought they would make any decisions until after the Japan release anyway.
This is coming from the same guys who several months back were speculating that Alien 5 was about to start shooting later this year. Then, when Covenant came out they trashed it to kingdom come. Yea, I'll wait for official word coming out from Scott or Fassbender.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 18, 2017, 02:19:07 PM
I don't buy this at all. Wouldn't have thought they would make any decisions until after the Japan release anyway.
This. If something is going to be decided, it will be after Japan and whatever monies come back from the home release.
Or no Alien movie in a long, long time. Leaving every single piece of media, regarding Alien(s), of the last few years unfinished and... well...pointless. Kinda like AVPR lol... it will surprise me if they continue that story at some point.
Very sad...
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 18, 2017, 02:19:07 PM
I don't buy this at all. Wouldn't have thought they would make any decisions until after the Japan release anyway.
Lol stoppppppppp. You're just giving yourself false hope. They're not "waiting for Japan".
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jul 18, 2017, 02:45:02 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 18, 2017, 02:19:07 PM
I don't buy this at all. Wouldn't have thought they would make any decisions until after the Japan release anyway.
Lol stoppppppppp. You're just giving yourself false hope. They're not "waiting for Japan".
It's easy when you're big in Japan
Fox is in a tricky situation though. They know they will probably need a significantly higher budget for an epic conclusion in the third movie but then Covenant didnt even reach the 300 mark.
I mean would you greenlight a third movie for around 150-170? I mean i would, but thats because i wanna see FOX die an ugly death anyway. :D
Hypothetically speaking, if they were to pull the plug on the great adventures of David and Scott...then what? lol
"Space Jockey saved in unlikely series of events"
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 18, 2017, 02:49:26 PM
Fox is in a tricky situation though. They know they will probably need a significantly higher budget for an epic conclusion in the third movie but then Covenant didnt even reach the 300 mark.
I mean would you greenlight a third movie for around 150-170? I mean i would, but thats because i wanna see FOX die an ugly death anyway. :D
Perhaps the only way this gets off the ground with a larger budget is if the other projects that Ridley is working are a home runs. Then, perhaps FOX risks it for one final film, though doesn't meddle with it like they did with Covenant. Though, I'm not holding my breath with the meddling to be honest.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Jul 18, 2017, 02:45:02 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 18, 2017, 02:19:07 PM
I don't buy this at all. Wouldn't have thought they would make any decisions until after the Japan release anyway.
Lol stoppppppppp. You're just giving yourself false hope. They're not "waiting for Japan".
I'm pretty confident Scott will make a third, has nothing to do with hope at all.
Quote from: 0321recon on Jul 18, 2017, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 18, 2017, 02:49:26 PM
Fox is in a tricky situation though. They know they will probably need a significantly higher budget for an epic conclusion in the third movie but then Covenant didnt even reach the 300 mark.
I mean would you greenlight a third movie for around 150-170? I mean i would, but thats because i wanna see FOX die an ugly death anyway. :D
Perhaps the only way this gets off the ground with a larger budget is if the other projects that Ridley is working are a home runs. Then, perhaps FOX risks it for one final film, though doesn't meddle with it like they did with Covenant. Though, I'm not holding my breath with the meddling to be honest.
FOX may propose Scott to make it PG-13. And so the meddling begins. ;)
But i seriously doubt FOX wanna do a 170 project that is R rated anyway. And Scott may be like: Ok better things to do.
I thought Covenant was pretty poor but I'd still like to see one more just so the prequel trilogy gets completed and the story leads directly into Alien. I'd rather we get that than just leave the story completely unfinished.
But the box office results would suggest we will only get one more, and not another 3-4 like Scott originally suggested. One more is all we need for these prequels.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 18, 2017, 12:52:44 PM
The fan reactions to Covenant have been overwhelmingly negative.
Just a loud minority, as usual. Reaction was overwhelmingly positive until the US release as I recall. Then all the click bait Youtube reviews started their ranting. Take the "I needs hits for my channel' gang out of the equation and the negativity is not that substantial.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 18, 2017, 03:18:43 PM
Quote from: 0321recon on Jul 18, 2017, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 18, 2017, 02:49:26 PM
Fox is in a tricky situation though. They know they will probably need a significantly higher budget for an epic conclusion in the third movie but then Covenant didnt even reach the 300 mark.
I mean would you greenlight a third movie for around 150-170? I mean i would, but thats because i wanna see FOX die an ugly death anyway. :D
Perhaps the only way this gets off the ground with a larger budget is if the other projects that Ridley is working are a home runs. Then, perhaps FOX risks it for one final film, though doesn't meddle with it like they did with Covenant. Though, I'm not holding my breath with the meddling to be honest.
FOX may propose Scott to make it PG-13. And so the meddling begins. ;)
But i seriously doubt FOX wanna do a 170 project that is R rated anyway. And Scott may be like: Ok better things to do.
I don't think Scott would expect that kind of budget or even require it TBH.
So how would these guys know? Do they have insider knowledge? If not, it's speculation and should be treated as such.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 18, 2017, 03:18:43 PM
Quote from: 0321recon on Jul 18, 2017, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 18, 2017, 02:49:26 PM
Fox is in a tricky situation though. They know they will probably need a significantly higher budget for an epic conclusion in the third movie but then Covenant didnt even reach the 300 mark.
I mean would you greenlight a third movie for around 150-170? I mean i would, but thats because i wanna see FOX die an ugly death anyway. :D
Perhaps the only way this gets off the ground with a larger budget is if the other projects that Ridley is working are a home runs. Then, perhaps FOX risks it for one final film, though doesn't meddle with it like they did with Covenant. Though, I'm not holding my breath with the meddling to be honest.
FOX may propose Scott to make it PG-13. And so the meddling begins. ;)
But i seriously doubt FOX wanna do a 170 project that is R rated anyway. And Scott may be like: Ok better things to do.
I just think they'll just want/need to bring in some new writers. I would expect FOX to tap on Mark Bomback the writer of the new Planet of The Apes, if not even Matt Reeves.
I have no problem with Ridley directing, but if Fox is smart they will want to suggest their own new writers with little regard for RS's story. Im not entirely sure how well Ridley will respond to that.
Fans might have been able to tip FOX off that no one wants David in that Derelict and now they need a new path.
If, as suggested further upthread, they are Blomkamp enthusiasts who hated Covenant, it wouldn't surprise if they are just trying to start negative rumours as a tit for tat gesture. That's typical butt hurt behaviour. Sour grapes.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 18, 2017, 02:19:07 PM
I don't buy this at all. Wouldn't have thought they would make any decisions until after the Japan release anyway.
Certainly not before the Blu Ray either.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 18, 2017, 03:29:53 PM
If, as suggested further upthread, they are Blomkamp enthusiasts who hated Covenant, it wouldn't surprise if they are just trying to start negative rumours as a tit for tat gesture. That's typical butt hurt behaviour. Sour grapes.
Well, there has been a lot of sour grapes so it's worth noting that people fill in a lot of blanks to hear what they want.
I'm not saying Covenant was exactly what I wanted but people are acting like they are owed something, like Fox should be making the film for them, with no regard for the business model of filmmaking. Its great that you're a fan, but that's not enough to sell a 100mil$ movie. Sorry kids.
I feel its been kinda childish to the point where Ive lost interest in listening.
Covenant was actually an attempt to make an odd sci-fi film, also marketable. It should be noted that Scott didn't listen as much as he did. An argument can be made that it would have been better received if he had listened less and made PROMETHEUS 2.
That said, it makes perfect sense that after COVENANT's reception they would halt work and rethink. I don't think that implies there will be no future sequels. It just means they are rightfully reconvening and reconsidering.
Something I think people overlook about Covenant is that it's the only film since the original Alien that left things pretty open for writers, which if you ask me, has been a detrimental mistake for this franchise in the past. They can really go anywhere with it, after this.
Until FOX says their will be no future films in any capacity (which is massively unlikely), I think this is just them wisely reconsidering, and saying "Ok. Let's not rush. This last one wasnt so well received," mired by some degree of confirmation bias, based on the info.
According to a recent statement by Fred Baron (a 20th Century Fox executive), it is still uncertain whether there will a sequel to Covenant.
Therefore it makes sense that they have stopped all work on the sequels for now, no?
It would be such a shame if this story didn't get finished, but on the other hand, this is a lesson on why the studios should stop with the trilogy baiting. Just tell a complete story in one film rather than mapping out three or four or five before one comes out.
I don't really believe these guys. But I can see it happen.
Tone it down on the denial = hatred crap please. I know these guys have contacts and I've never known them to push any sort of sensationalization for hits or anything like that. They're not Scified. Also, there's a difference between speculation and "our sources tell us".
You guys should know by now I'll speak out if I think or know something is a load of shit. While I haven't heard anything about this myself, I know these guys and I'm very aware they do have legitimate inside contacts.
So can we show a little a respect, please.
oh well. .i have programmed my brain for the worst case scenario. .and if no more aliens then so be it. .i still have a glimmer of hope left. .thank god i am working full time again and i don't have time to obsess about stuff like this. .i am just really happy that we got covenant at least. .who knows what the future might bring. .time will tell. .
Quote from: juxtapose on Jul 18, 2017, 06:53:30 PM
oh well. .i have programmed my brain for the worst case scenario. .and if no more aliens then so be it. .i still have a glimmer of hope left. .thank god i am working full time again and i don't have time to obsess about stuff like this. .i am just really happy that we got covenant at least. .who knows what the future might bring. .time will tell. .
Well said.
Quote from: 0321recon on Jul 18, 2017, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: juxtapose on Jul 18, 2017, 06:53:30 PM
oh well. .i have programmed my brain for the worst case scenario. .and if no more aliens then so be it. .i still have a glimmer of hope left. .thank god i am working full time again and i don't have time to obsess about stuff like this. .i am just really happy that we got covenant at least. .who knows what the future might bring. .time will tell. .
Well said.
thanks. .but i sound like i am resigning all hope. .ofcause i will be the first to pop the champagne if they do officialy anounce a sequel. .not counting on that anymore tho. .sniff. .sob. .
I'm not surprised at all by this. These guys make a lot of good points about how Fox needs to rethink this franchise as a whole. I liked Daniels, but she's rather a forgettable character at the end of the movie. I didn't buy her as an action hero.
Maybe we'll get a novel that continues this storyline. I can live with that.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 18, 2017, 06:22:58 PM
Tone it down on the denial = hatred crap please. I know these guys have contacts and I've never known them to push any sort of sensationalization for hits or anything like that. They're not Scified. Also, there's a difference between speculation and "our sources tell us".
You guys should know by now I'll speak out if I think or know something is a load of shit. While I haven't heard anything about this myself, I know these guys and I'm very aware they do have legitimate inside contacts.
So can we show a little a respect, please.
Well then.. I guess we'll have to wait a
long time. Or it simply won't come. :'(
There is a difference between stopping work and cancelling altogether. My guess is that the Logan script is a no-go in its present form, and a rewrite would mean spending more money. Right now, the money isn't flowing. Once Scott gets bored and moves on, they will start taking pitches and a new Alien movie will come along in 5-10 years.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 18, 2017, 03:24:26 PM
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 18, 2017, 12:52:44 PM
The fan reactions to Covenant have been overwhelmingly negative.
Just a loud minority, as usual. Reaction was overwhelmingly positive until the US release as I recall. Then all the click bait Youtube reviews started their ranting. Take the "I needs hits for my channel' gang out of the equation and the negativity is not that substantial.
You're wrong. There's been a massive social media lash-out against Covenant (and supporting Blomkamp). A narrative was succesfully established prior to the movie being released in most places, with all the spoilers leaking and social media posts bashing the movie gaining traction.
Quote from: juxtapose on Jul 18, 2017, 06:53:30 PM
oh well. .i have programmed my brain for the worst case scenario. .and if no more aliens then so be it. .i still have a glimmer of hope left. .thank god i am working full time again and i don't have time to obsess about stuff like this. .i am just really happy that we got covenant at least. .who knows what the future might bring. .time will tell. .
I'll be pretty f**king disappointed if there comes no third movie, but then again, IF the series were to end with David regurgitating facehugger embryos to Wagner, that wouldn't be the worst place to end.
Edit: I'm listening to the podcast right now, and despite them sounding like somewhat insufferable Blomkamp fanboys, they bring up an extremely important point: the way the movie was MARKETED. It set up expectations which the movie didn't deliver. It simultaneously gave away too much (backburster, xenomorph head) and too little (the artistic elements).
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 18, 2017, 08:14:51 PM
There is a difference between stopping work and cancelling altogether. My guess is that the Logan script is a no-go in its present form, and a rewrite would mean spending more money. Right now, the money isn't flowing. Once Scott gets bored and moves on, they will start taking pitches and a new Alien movie will come along in 5-10 years.
I think COVENANT 2 is post-poned. Not cancelled.
Ridley Scott is directing THE CARTEL(2018) and BATTLE OF BRITAIN(2019).
Maybe COVENANT 2 for 2020.
Calling it now. Theyll continue the series on television.
I for one wouldnt find a show about greasy, power hungryWeyland/Yutani suits.
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED.
Fantastic news!
Quote from: nanison on Jul 18, 2017, 09:28:13 PM
Fantastic news!
Yes, The nihilistic ending with David set to create thousands of aliens is a good send off. Let's hope that if there's to be no sequel then it truly is the end and isn't going to get f**ked up by Blomkamp or anyone else reviving it with a by-the-numbers rehash.
To be honest I'm happy one way or another if we get a sequel or not. It was great to see Fox make Alien an event movie again, something I didn't think would happen. But I think I enjoyed the hype and lead up to the film more than the film itself. If a Ridley Scott Alien movie can't draw the masses in then maybe the series (in a theatrical sense) needs to go on ice. Covenant was a decent movie and oddball enough to grow a solid reputation down the line.
I just saw War for the Planet of the Apes and it was so so so good, but even that's underperforming at the box office. I don't know what the answer is but I don't envy the position Fox are in; they're cranking out some quality franchise movies but the well seems to be all but dried up.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 18, 2017, 09:44:14 PM
Quote from: nanison on Jul 18, 2017, 09:28:13 PM
Fantastic news!
Yes, The nihilistic ending with David set to create thousands of aliens is a good send off. Let's hope that if there's to be no sequel then it truly is the end and isn't going to get f**ked up by Blomkamp or anyone else reviving it with a by-the-numbers rehash.
Agreed! If this is the last Alien film for a decade or more at least it went out with some quality and intriguing mystery.
Fake news as far as I am concerned
Cameron's holding avatar in reserve. When that gets released I will leave all in its wake. Maybe even star wars.
Quote from: oduodu on Jul 18, 2017, 11:17:02 PM
Cameron's holding avatar in reserve. When that gets released I will leave all in its wake. Maybe even star wars.
Surely Avatar's big draw back in 2010 was the novelty of 3D, it didn't have much else going for it. I can't honestly see any sequel to Avatar being that big a hit. I'd hazard a guess that the interest for 3D, outside China, is probably on the wane. But whether it is or not there is no ground-breaking novelty to it anymore.
Ugh, more Pocahontas in spaces. It's probably going to work though.
I can't imagine Avatar getting a sequel made that does as well as the first one did, unless they make some changes or add certain draws, in regards to the writing. Then again, total crap like the Transformers sequels continue to make bank, so what do I know? maybe Avatar and its ilk are all that most theater-goers want.
I hope that the news about Covenant isn't true. It seems like it's not exactly from the horse's mouth, or a direct source.
Yeah, why would the highest grossing movie of all time with mostly positive reviews do well with a sequel? Doesn't make sense.
Cameron only has the top two on the list which is hardly conclusive. Everything points to a bomb.
'Avatar' did well because it embraced 3D technology like no previous movie.
People didn't go because it was a great story, or because Weaver was in it (*GASP* Shocking! I Know. lol ) or because anyone thought it was any good.
It was successful because it was a spectacle the likes of which audiences hadn't experienced before.
Of course sequels are being made. As to whether Cameron can pull another technological coup like he did with 'Avatar', that's another story altogether.
-Windebieste.
I'd imagine you'd be saying pre-release "people are not going to see this because its just a gimmic and too much CGI, this movie will bomb"
Movie made nearly 3 bil and nobody though it was any good. Keep em coming boys.
Imagine what you like. The truth is a lot of people went to see the movie to be 'Wowed!' by it and many couldn't tell you anything about the story afterwards. Which was more or less a rehash of 'Pocahontas' and/or 'DUNE' depending on how you look at it.
Like was like a great a pyrotechnics display; and everybody loves fireworks. It was something unique at time of release.
Of course people went in droves to see it.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 02:04:44 AM
I'd imagine you'd be saying pre-release "people are not going to see this because its just a gimmic and too much CGI, this movie will bomb"
Movie made nearly 3 bil and nobody though it was any good. Keep em coming boys.
It's the 5th or so sequel to Dances with Wolves. James Cameron is a plagiarist.
Also, I don't think the source in the OP is credible. I'd wait for Scott, Fassbender, or FOX to weigh in.
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 19, 2017, 02:18:02 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 02:04:44 AM
I'd imagine you'd be saying pre-release "people are not going to see this because its just a gimmic and too much CGI, this movie will bomb"
Movie made nearly 3 bil and nobody though it was any good. Keep em coming boys.
It's the 5th or so sequel to Dances with Wolves. James Cameron is a plagiarist.
With Space Aliens. I guess then any movie (The last Samurai is about something similar) is just a rip off.
All stupid talk aside, I think it would sense for Scott to come back as just a producer of some sort. With those other two movies mentioned Scott will be possibly 83? by the time Awakening comes around. The only other Director I can think of that old is Clint Eastwood and I'm not sure if he's done or not.
Just seems like a time thing more than anything else. I'm sure if Covenant killed it at the box office it might be different, but really if you're going to take a 4? year break between Prom and Cov then I see no rush on the last one which is probably the reason it's possibly been shelved for now.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 19, 2017, 02:11:46 AM
Imagine what you like. The truth is a lot of people went to see the movie to be 'Wowed!' by it and many couldn't tell you anything about the story afterwards. Which was more or less a rehash of 'Pocahontas' and/or 'DUNE' depending on how you look at it.
Like was like a great a pyrotechnics display; and everybody loves fireworks. It was something unique at time of release.
Of course people went in droves to see it.
-Windebieste.
Huh funny, i never recognized that DUNE aspect in Avatar - though its blatantly obvious, thx man. Can you think of anything pre-DUNE that uses a similar story pattern? I mean theres 'Lawrence of Arabia', but this guy more or less betrays the arabs in the end and is a puppet all along anyway.
Anything real old, like Bible old or something? Any myth?
edit: aaaaand Moses, ha... anything else?
edit2: aeh wait no Moses is actually the opposite lol ::) (edit3: but then finally gets to a similar pattern nonetheless...)
'Avatar' = 'Jungles of Dune'. lol
The Shai Hulud riding warrior from another world leads the indigenous warriors into battle against the invading otherworldly foreigners who are ruthlessly seeking their precious 'unobtanium' or 'spice'.
Blue skinned cat people or blue eyed fremen? Take your pick.
-Windebieste.
Funny, I never noticed the similarities either, despite being quite a Dune fan, as you can probably gleam from my username.
Anyway, 'Avatar's success is irrelevant to any sequels pending for 'ALIEN Covenant'.
Personally, I feel these podcasters are blowing smoke laced with sensationalism. The movie may not be a success at the same level as 'Avatar' but for an R-rated effort, it's doing fine. BluRay in a few weeks time. Can't wait for that.
-Windebieste.
Untitled Alien: Covenant Sequel (2019) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6980596/?ref_=nm_flmg_prd_2
Yes I know that doesn't make it 'official', but I'll take that over some fan podcast any day.
Once again, I'll wait for official statement from Fox.
On the other hand...
'HALFLIFE 3' confirmed!
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 01:37:45 AM
Yeah, why would the highest grossing movie of all time with mostly positive reviews do well with a sequel? Doesn't make sense.
Mostly positive, where the complaints about Dances with Smurfs get ignored. But, see, just because you close your eyes to it doesn't mean the complaints aren't there.
As for the box office draw. That doesn't translate to good film. It translates to good businessman. Not the same thing.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 19, 2017, 04:28:38 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 01:37:45 AM
Yeah, why would the highest grossing movie of all time with mostly positive reviews do well with a sequel? Doesn't make sense.
Mostly positive, where the complaints about Dances with Smurfs get ignored. But, see, just because you close your eyes to it doesn't mean the complaints aren't there.
As for the box office draw. That doesn't translate to good film. It translates to good businessman. Not the same thing.
Covenant has a lot of positive scores and theres plenty of eye shutting going on around here.
People go to the cinema to be entertained, it's not difficult. Cameron made a spectacle and audiences liked it. Theres not much more to it than that.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 19, 2017, 03:56:28 AM
Personally, I feel these podcasters are blowing smoke laced with sensationalism. The movie may not be a success at the same level as 'Avatar' but for an R-rated effort, it's doing fine. BluRay in a few weeks time. Can't wait for that.
-Windebieste.
That's one of the reasons everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
With Covenant, it's an R rated feature. I never expect it to do x number due to its graphic content, though now with the super hero franchises most are expecting to be making bank. Well, lets see what happens if they're right this time.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 05:12:28 AM
Covenant has a lot of positive scores and theres plenty of eye shutting going on around here.
To take a leaf from Milton, I'd rather Scott ruled in Hell, than reigned in Heaven.
Not saying he fully succeeds in valorizing his artistic vision, but at least he tries.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 05:12:28 AM
People go to the cinema to be entertained, it's not difficult. Cameron made a spectacle and audiences liked it. Theres not much more to it than that.
Opiate for the masses, sure. But a legitimately great film from a story-telling standpoint, or in terms of acting? All rather average. People overlook that film's flaws because it makes money and it's technologically impressive. Of course, Scott's films are visually impressive, but the main factor seems to be money accrued, here. For me, that doesn't matter in the slightest, and no matter how much money a film makes or doesn't, will have nothing to do with why I defend or attack it. People who use the lucreativity of a film to argue for or against it are missing the point of artistic expression.
QuotePeople overlook that film's flaws because it makes money and it's technologically impressive.
:laugh:
Like they do with Transformers movies?
They're technologically impressive and make money and get roundly shitcanned.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 19, 2017, 05:35:35 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 05:12:28 AM
Covenant has a lot of positive scores and theres plenty of eye shutting going on around here.
To take a leaf from Milton, I'd rather Scott ruled in Hell, than reigned in Heaven.
Not saying he fully succeeds in valorizing his artistic vision, but at least he tries.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 05:12:28 AM
People go to the cinema to be entertained, it's not difficult. Cameron made a spectacle and audiences liked it. Theres not much more to it than that.
Opiate for the masses, sure. But a legitimately great film from a story-telling standpoint, or in terms of acting? All rather average. People overlook that film's flaws because it makes money and it's technologically impressive. Of course, Scott's films are visually impressive, but the main factor seems to be money accrued, here. For me, that doesn't matter in the slightest, and no matter how much money a film makes or doesn't, will have nothing to do with why I defend or attack it. People who use the lucreativity of a film to argue for or against it are missing the point of artistic expression.
We weren't talking about the quality of the film, we were talking about the likelihood of success for future sequels.
Quotelegitimately great film from a story-telling standpoint, or in terms of acting? All rather average
I thought the acting and the story in Covenant was Bollocks. So I don't know were we go from here. The best thing about it was the Robots.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 06:51:54 AM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 19, 2017, 05:35:35 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 05:12:28 AM
Covenant has a lot of positive scores and theres plenty of eye shutting going on around here.
To take a leaf from Milton, I'd rather Scott ruled in Hell, than reigned in Heaven.
Not saying he fully succeeds in valorizing his artistic vision, but at least he tries.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 05:12:28 AM
People go to the cinema to be entertained, it's not difficult. Cameron made a spectacle and audiences liked it. Theres not much more to it than that.
Opiate for the masses, sure. But a legitimately great film from a story-telling standpoint, or in terms of acting? All rather average. People overlook that film's flaws because it makes money and it's technologically impressive. Of course, Scott's films are visually impressive, but the main factor seems to be money accrued, here. For me, that doesn't matter in the slightest, and no matter how much money a film makes or doesn't, will have nothing to do with why I defend or attack it. People who use the lucreativity of a film to argue for or against it are missing the point of artistic expression.
We weren't talking about the quality of the film, we were talking about the likelihood of success for future sequels.
Quotelegitimately great film from a story-telling standpoint, or in terms of acting? All rather average
I thought the acting and the story in Covenant was Bollocks. So I don't know were we go from here. The best thing about it was the Robots.
I guess it just comes down to personal taste funnily enough. I hated Avatar too, it was the point I finally lost all faith in Cameron but I understand I'm in the minority on this. Id put it on a par with the transformers films, sky flowers for the Zombie masses, but that's just my opinion.
As for the topic on hand, this is nothing more than hear say at the moment so I'm not going to hit the bottle yet.
However, I'm not sure we actually deserve another Alien Film if the reaction to the previous four films (6 if you count AvP) are anything to go by. Criticism is one thing but a lot of it goes way past fair, unbiased analysis. It strikes me as a fan base we are a pretty ungrateful lot.
Fox aren't overly worried about the reception to Covenant; it just didn't do the business that they hoped it would.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 06:51:54 AM
We weren't talking about the quality of the film, we were talking about the likelihood of success for future sequels.
Are the two mutually exclusive, though?
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 06:51:54 AM
I thought the acting and the story in Covenant was Bollocks. So I don't know were we go from here. The best thing about it was the Robots.
Which were central to the story and played by an actor. Right?
If it's true then I'm not surprised. However, if they make it I'm gonna watch but if they don't then I'm not really bothered.
I bet nothing will be said until Scott or someone else starts work on it
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 19, 2017, 08:31:01 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 06:51:54 AM
We weren't talking about the quality of the film, we were talking about the likelihood of success for future sequels.
Are the two mutually exclusive, though?
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 06:51:54 AM
I thought the acting and the story in Covenant was Bollocks. So I don't know were we go from here. The best thing about it was the Robots.
Which were central to the story and played by an actor. Right?
If James Cameron is a horse and I've got a betting slip, I'm putting my money on him. There's no reason to think Avatar 2 will do poorly at the box office given everything we've just learned about movies in the past 5 years. People like spectacle, people like big budget movies, people don't really care for the quality of the film, marketing is everything.
As for Covenant I find myself in a strange situation, it's the reverse Prometheus. Initially I thought Prometheus was just OK, but I slept on it for a few weeks, bought the Blu eventually, wondered where it might go and that it was just part of the plan so I learned to like it. Covenant was the opposite, I initially thought it was good apart from the third act which I firmly believed was rubbish, but I slept on it for a few nights, started asking myself questions, saw other people asking the same questions, listened to podcasts (on this website) that shared the same problems I had, the more I thought about the movie the worse it became.
In the end I think Covenant will probably though end up sitting about where I rate Prometheus, which is just an average sci-fi film that I have a greater interest in because it features something I love. If it were any other movie, I'd probably watch it once and never watch it again.
That's a pretty honest assessment of my feelings. I think the Covenant makes Prometheus worse, which in turn makes Covenant worse so I'm stuck in this strange spot where I want to like the movies, but I really don't.
Quote from: SM on Jul 19, 2017, 07:29:08 AM
Fox aren't overly worried about the reception to Covenant; it just didn't do the business that they hoped it would.
Summed it up perfectly. The reviews were pretty good, and it seemed they believed in the movie hence the heavy promotion. They must be scratching their heads. Good movie in a good franchise with a legendary director on a modest budget couldn't make them bank.
TBH I find one thing that all the people who hate Ridley's prequels have in common, is the way people are comparing them to the original trilogy.
I dont really understand this.
I get that the films were one way, and that's why they worked. Though people slag off A3 just as much as A:C or Prometheus. I would argue they don't really dislike that film and know in their hearts it works.
But the point Im trying to make is that Ridley's prequels arent trying to be the Alien Trilogy. I think he never wanted them to be that and instead wanted to tell a different type of story that takes place in the same world on a bigger scale that doesn't tread on the others.
The reaction to Prometheus forced his hand toward complimenting the Alien films more.
I think I may be getting more out of these films by seeing them as the failed attempts at cloning the Alien that comes later, and I even think that, not letting the prequels add up to the "perfect organism" that ALIEN is, and its heroine is, may be something that isn't lost on Ridley Scott.
For example: A lot of distaste for AC seems to center around Shaw dying off and then Waterston not being the badass that Ripley was while trying to be.
But I propose that this is the point. To add weight to the success of Ripley.
Ridley isn't trying to tell a story of heroism with the Prequels. He is telling a story of failure that centers on a compromised robot. Its a love to hate the antagonist game. Not a route for the hero game. And in truth - it can't be the latter, can it? That would compromise all that comes after it.
The thing I KEEP f**kING HEARING said is: "Yeah but thats not what Alien was. It was about this person you routed for and etc."
Here's the thing, and I dont think this is a matter of opinion, as much as many would like it to be: These prequels aren't what ALIEN was because ALIEN wasn't yet. You were setting yourself up for failure looking for that. Stop comparing them to Ripley's story and see them for what they are: David's story. Not a human survival story. We already got that story and it led where any human story leads. Ripley is dead. She dies in the future. After these Prequels. Not having a heroine that lives actually compliments Ripley's legacy.
IE; A large portion of the issues people are having with these Prequels, stems from an insistence that they be what the last trilogy was and a resistance to allowing them to be their own thing. Comparing them to the originals apart from in a fleeting way, is doomed to failure. They weren't trying to be that until fans wouldn't accept that in Prometheus.
That said, there are plenty of issues people could have outside of that. But Im constantly reminding myself, not to expect ALIENS from the sequel to PROMETHEUS because it cannot be that. But fan reactions tried to force that in some capacity and of course it was doomed to failure. Because the sequel to PROMETHEUS is PARADISE, and instead we got A:C because people wanted to inject more ALIEN TRILOGY into PROMETHEUS 2.
If I had to bet any money I'd wager that every single film that fans demand resemble a previous film in some way, like A:C and A:R and AVPR were, will further bury the franchise. This is exactly what needs to stop, but after hearing so many people demanding they want another Ripley, and another Alien, and being completely oblivious to the fact that the film was actually good when judged on its own merits - Im losing hope in the franchise's audience.
Even if you hate ALIEN 3, it was right to go its own way. Furthermore, everything good in the bad alien films, is the original content that doesn't try to resemble what came before it.
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 19, 2017, 02:27:39 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 19, 2017, 07:29:08 AM
Fox aren't overly worried about the reception to Covenant; it just didn't do the business that they hoped it would.
Summed it up perfectly. The reviews were pretty good, and it seemed they believed in the movie hence the heavy promotion. They must be scratching their heads. Good movie in a good franchise with a legendary director on a modest budget couldn't make them bank.
The promotion angle they took was wrong which is probably the reason it dropped off dramatically in the second week. It was sold as an Alien movie that wasn't really an Alien movie. When you think about it you saw most of the Alien scenes in the trailer, even worse we probably saw most of the movies best scenes in the trailer.
They did the same thing with Prometheus although at least the birthing scene was kept ( i think)
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 02:45:51 PM
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 19, 2017, 02:27:39 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 19, 2017, 07:29:08 AM
Fox aren't overly worried about the reception to Covenant; it just didn't do the business that they hoped it would.
Summed it up perfectly. The reviews were pretty good, and it seemed they believed in the movie hence the heavy promotion. They must be scratching their heads. Good movie in a good franchise with a legendary director on a modest budget couldn't make them bank.
The promotion angle they took was wrong which is probably the reason it dropped off dramatically in the second week. It was sold as an Alien movie that wasn't really an Alien movie. When you think about it you saw most of the Alien scenes in the trailer, even worse we probably saw most of the movies best scenes in the trailer.
They did the same thing with Prometheus although at least the birthing scene was kept ( i think)
Once bitten twice shy. I didn't watch the Covenant trailers because of the spoiler heavy Prometheus trailers. Hey presto, I thoroughly enjoyed Covenant.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 03:03:28 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 02:45:51 PM
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 19, 2017, 02:27:39 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 19, 2017, 07:29:08 AM
Fox aren't overly worried about the reception to Covenant; it just didn't do the business that they hoped it would.
Summed it up perfectly. The reviews were pretty good, and it seemed they believed in the movie hence the heavy promotion. They must be scratching their heads. Good movie in a good franchise with a legendary director on a modest budget couldn't make them bank.
The promotion angle they took was wrong which is probably the reason it dropped off dramatically in the second week. It was sold as an Alien movie that wasn't really an Alien movie. When you think about it you saw most of the Alien scenes in the trailer, even worse we probably saw most of the movies best scenes in the trailer.
They did the same thing with Prometheus although at least the birthing scene was kept ( i think)
Once bitten twice shy. I didn't watch the Covenant trailers because of the spoiler heavy Prometheus trailers. Hey presto, I thoroughly enjoyed Covenant.
I only watched the trailers, didn't post (or visit) here, didn't watch the promos. I learned my lesson from Prom, but it didn't matter.
I'm interested to see how I react to Bladerunner because the trailers have me totally frothing over it.
This might be a little too late, but I think they need a new writer for this Prequel Trilogy. They also need to hire someone who ACTUALLY likes the Alien movies.
The Martian was a really good movie. Ridley Scott can make really great movies, but he sucks at Story. I think this is something we can all agree on. The Martian was based on a Novel, and Drew Goddard did the Screenplay. This explains a lot as to why The Martian was on point as far as pacing and the story making sense.
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this.....However hes also currently the king of the world (pun intended). Why not let Drew Goddard take a crack at the story, and see if he can give Ridley a good finished product?
Quote from: CainsSon on Jul 19, 2017, 02:41:41 PM
TBH I find one thing that all the people who hate Ridley's prequels have in common, is the way people are comparing them to the original trilogy.
I dont really understand this.
I get that the films were one way, and that's why they worked. Though people slag off A3 just as much as A:C or Prometheus. I would argue they don't really dislike that film and know in their hearts it works.
But the point Im trying to make is that Ridley's prequels arent trying to be the Alien Trilogy. I think he never wanted them to be that and instead wanted to tell a different type of story that takes place in the same world on a bigger scale that doesn't tread on the others.
The reaction to Prometheus forced his hand toward complimenting the Alien films more.
I think I may be getting more out of these films by seeing them as the failed attempts at cloning the Alien that comes later, and I even think that, not letting the prequels add up to the "perfect organism" that ALIEN is, and its heroine is, may be something that isn't lost on Ridley Scott.
For example: A lot of distaste for AC seems to center around Shaw dying off and then Waterston not being the badass that Ripley was while trying to be.
But I propose that this is the point. To add weight to the success of Ripley.
Ridley isn't trying to tell a story of heroism with the Prequels. He is telling a story of failure that centers on a compromised robot. Its a love to hate the antagonist game. Not a route for the hero game. And in truth - it can't be the latter, can it? That would compromise all that comes after it.
The thing I KEEP f**kING HEARING said is: "Yeah but thats not what Alien was. It was about this person you routed for and etc."
Here's the thing, and I dont think this is a matter of opinion, as much as many would like it to be: These prequels aren't what ALIEN was because ALIEN wasn't yet. You were setting yourself up for failure looking for that. Stop comparing them to Ripley's story and see them for what they are: David's story. Not a human survival story. We already got that story and it led where any human story leads. Ripley is dead. She dies in the future. After these Prequels. Not having a heroine that lives actually compliments Ripley's legacy.
IE; A large portion of the issues people are having with these Prequels, stems from an insistence that they be what the last trilogy was and a resistance to allowing them to be their own thing. Comparing them to the originals apart from in a fleeting way, is doomed to failure. They weren't trying to be that until fans wouldn't accept that in Prometheus.
That said, there are plenty of issues people could have outside of that. But Im constantly reminding myself, not to expect ALIENS from the sequel to PROMETHEUS because it cannot be that. But fan reactions tried to force that in some capacity and of course it was doomed to failure. Because the sequel to PROMETHEUS is PARADISE, and instead we got A:C because people wanted to inject more ALIEN TRILOGY into PROMETHEUS 2.
If I had to bet any money I'd wager that every single film that fans demand resemble a previous film in some way, like A:C and A:R and AVPR were, will further bury the franchise. This is exactly what needs to stop, but after hearing so many people demanding they want another Ripley, and another Alien, and being completely oblivious to the fact that the film was actually good when judged on its own merits - Im losing hope in the franchise's audience.
Even if you hate ALIEN 3, it was right to go its own way. Furthermore, everything good in the bad alien films, is the original content that doesn't try to resemble what came before it.
Good post, I agree with you.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
This might be a little too late, but I think they need a new writer for this Prequel Trilogy. They also need to hire someone who ACTUALLY likes the Alien movies.
The Martian was a really good movie. Ridley Scott can make really great movies, but he sucks at Story. I think this is something we can all agree on. The Martian was based on a Novel, and Drew Goddard did the Screenplay. This explains a lot as to why The Martian was on point as far as pacing and the story making sense.
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this.....However hes also currently the king of the world (pun intended). Why not let Drew Goddard take a crack at the story, and see if he can give Ridley a good finished product?
I wouldn't oppose Goddard, he's good but why do you think Cameron would be amazing? Is this just based on Aliens? I don't like Titanic or Avater and would say even fans of these films wouldn't think the writing is the strong point as it's terribly cliched and corny in both cases.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:57:20 PM
I wouldn't oppose Goddard, he's good but why do you think Cameron would be amazing? Is this just based on Aliens? I don't like Titanic or Avater and would say even fans of these films wouldn't think the writing is the strong point as it's terribly cliched and corny in both cases.
Yes pretty much basing it off of Aliens. I also think Avatar works as a story...yes its a simple story, but it still makes sense. Cameron has a love for the series though. I want a writer that genuinely loves the series. They hired fools to write Covenant...and it clearly shows! Not sure if Goddard likes the series or not though. However he is a great writer.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 04:43:39 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:57:20 PM
I wouldn't oppose Goddard, he's good but why do you think Cameron would be amazing? Is this just based on Aliens? I don't like Titanic or Avater and would say even fans of these films wouldn't think the writing is the strong point as it's terribly cliched and corny in both cases.
Yes pretty much basing it off of Aliens. I also think Avatar works as a story...yes its a simple story, but it still makes sense. Cameron has a love for the series though. I want a writer that genuinely loves the series. They hired fools to write Covenant...and it clearly shows! Not sure if Goddard likes the series or not though. However he is a great writer.
Isn't that the same as the excitement surrounding Ridleys return though? Many of the fans who hate the new films would have been overjoyed when Ridley returned, whose to say the same thing wouldnt happen with Cameron?
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
... he sucks at Story. I think this is something we can all agree on.
Good luck with that.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this...
Not on the form of the last 20 years.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 04:43:39 PM
They hired fools to write Covenant...and it clearly shows!
Actually it's a very rich and layered film thematically and to describe it as written by fools is no sort of critical analysis at all.
You dislike it's approach - that's the only fact I can gain from your reviews.
Conversely I've always disliked Cameron's approach. Horses for courses.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this...
Not on the form of the last 20 years.
Titanic and
Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this...
Not on the form of the last 20 years.
Titanic and Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Visually yes. Scripts? Pretty dire.
Scott's next film, All The Money In The World, releases in December. Maybe he'll give an update then?
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:57:51 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this...
Not on the form of the last 20 years.
Titanic and Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Visually yes. Scripts? Pretty dire.
Still better that
Prometheus and
Covenant script-wise.
Quote from: Anthony on Jul 19, 2017, 05:58:33 PM
Scott's next film, All The Money In The World, releases in December. Maybe he'll give an update then?
Has it been officially confirmed that it's gonna be December? Anyway, I've read the script and it's pretty decent.
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 06:02:12 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:57:51 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this...
Not on the form of the last 20 years.
Titanic and Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Visually yes. Scripts? Pretty dire.
Still better that Prometheus and Covenant script-wise.
Not by a long way.
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 06:02:12 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:57:51 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this...
Not on the form of the last 20 years.
Titanic and Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Visually yes. Scripts? Pretty dire.
Still better that Prometheus and Covenant script-wise.
Quote from: Anthony on Jul 19, 2017, 05:58:33 PM
Scott's next film, All The Money In The World, releases in December. Maybe he'll give an update then?
Has it been officially confirmed that it's gonna be December? Anyway, I've read the script and it's pretty decent.
Titanic and avatar have two of the most cliched, insipid and one note scripts I've ever seen. They have no depth or subtlety at all. Both also have cringeworthy panto villains and in titanics case borderline racism.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 06:02:12 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:57:51 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this...
Not on the form of the last 20 years.
Titanic and Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Visually yes. Scripts? Pretty dire.
Still better that Prometheus and Covenant script-wise.
Not by a long way.
Funny you mention Titanic. Billy Crudup ALMOST starred in it...he was joking the film would gross $100k and his life would have been the same ever since.
:D
But anyway, Titanic for me was a disaster of a film on almost every level. And second tidbit of trivia, I know someone whose grandmother had survived the Titanic catastrophe...
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 19, 2017, 06:10:55 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 06:02:12 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:57:51 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this...
Not on the form of the last 20 years.
Titanic and Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Visually yes. Scripts? Pretty dire.
Still better that Prometheus and Covenant script-wise.
Quote from: Anthony on Jul 19, 2017, 05:58:33 PM
Scott's next film, All The Money In The World, releases in December. Maybe he'll give an update then?
Has it been officially confirmed that it's gonna be December? Anyway, I've read the script and it's pretty decent.
Titanic and avatar have two of the most cliched, insipid and one note scripts I've ever seen. They have no depth or subtlety at all. Both also have cringeworthy panto villains and in titanics case borderline racism.
Yep, I went to see Titanic in the movies as a part of a class trip in primary school and it seemed god awful then and it never seemed any better for me even if so many years passed.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 19, 2017, 06:10:55 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 06:02:12 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:57:51 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this...
Not on the form of the last 20 years.
Titanic and Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Visually yes. Scripts? Pretty dire.
Still better that Prometheus and Covenant script-wise.
Quote from: Anthony on Jul 19, 2017, 05:58:33 PM
Scott's next film, All The Money In The World, releases in December. Maybe he'll give an update then?
Has it been officially confirmed that it's gonna be December? Anyway, I've read the script and it's pretty decent.
Titanic and avatar have two of the most cliched, insipid and one note scripts I've ever seen. They have no depth or subtlety at all. Both also have cringeworthy panto villains and in titanics case borderline racism.
It's a long time since I sat through it, what is the racism in the film? Bear in mind it's set in 1912 so racism isn't necessarily out of place in a bold script about class distinctions.
It is confirmed to be out December 8th:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=allthemoneyintheworld.htm
Script is not a movie. The same way a book is not its adaptation. Good director knows how to transfer what's written on the paper onto the screen. Cameron plays safe and I don't have any problems with that. I rather watch safely approached movie that mess full of I-don't-know-what-to-do ideas.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 06:16:50 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 19, 2017, 06:10:55 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 06:02:12 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:57:51 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 05:55:17 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 03:33:38 PM
Preferably James Cameron would be amazing for this...
Not on the form of the last 20 years.
Titanic and Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Visually yes. Scripts? Pretty dire.
Still better that Prometheus and Covenant script-wise.
Quote from: Anthony on Jul 19, 2017, 05:58:33 PM
Scott's next film, All The Money In The World, releases in December. Maybe he'll give an update then?
Has it been officially confirmed that it's gonna be December? Anyway, I've read the script and it's pretty decent.
Titanic and avatar have two of the most cliched, insipid and one note scripts I've ever seen. They have no depth or subtlety at all. Both also have cringeworthy panto villains and in titanics case borderline racism.
It's a long time since I sat through it, what is the racism in the film? Bear in mind it's set in 1912 so racism isn't necessarily out of place in a bold script about class distinctions.
.
Xenophobic is probably more accurate. It has the worst kind of stereotypes. The Irish are all hard drinking, partying salts of the earth, all the english are just twats and of course the hero is an American. If your gonna make a film about class divide at least understand that's not exclusive to nationality. It always really bugged me about it, everything about the film is in such simplistic terms
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 06:20:10 PM
Script is not a movie. The same way a book is not its adaptation. Good director knows how to transfer what's written on the paper onto the screen. Cameron plays safe and I don't have any problems with that. I rather watch safely approached movie that mess full of I-don't-know-what-to-do ideas.
Well you're in luck cause 99% of studio output these days is exactly that, safe. Unfortunately is not a view I share.
Now you remind, yes, the cliches of national character are woefully poor in Titanic. One of many issues in a horribly shallow epic. I'll always just watch A Night to Remember by Roy Ward Baker if I want to see a genuinely effective and faithful telling of the events.
Quote from: Anthony on Jul 19, 2017, 06:19:57 PM
It is confirmed to be out December 8th:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=allthemoneyintheworld.htm
Better be good, because it is a possible subsidy for David :D :D :D
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 07:11:20 PM
Now you remind, yes, the cliches of national character are woefully poor in Titanic. One of many issues in a horribly shallow epic. I'll always just watch A Night to Remember by Roy Ward Baker if I want to see a genuinely effective and faithful telling of the events.
Exactly, it's not even the best film about the Titanic!
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 19, 2017, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 19, 2017, 07:11:20 PM
Now you remind, yes, the cliches of national character are woefully poor in Titanic. One of many issues in a horribly shallow epic. I'll always just watch A Night to Remember by Roy Ward Baker if I want to see a genuinely effective and faithful telling of the events.
Exactly, it's not even the best film about the Titanic!
What's worse is that they use most of the historical characters as window dressing. That was one of my disappointments when I saw the film for the first time. I agree with gash,
A Night to Remember is the better film that deals with the Titanic. Its a pity Cameron did his film, because it would have been great for a remake of this film with the scale of the 97 film that included everything that we all know now regarding the state of the wreck. Oh well.
All you guys hating on Titanic are nuts. Titanic was an incredible movie. The story was great, and the special effects were great, and yes obviously the music was great....So that's why everyone watched it too many times....and now why everyone hates it. It won like every award it could the year it came out, and until Avatar it was the top grossing movie of all time. Your opinion is great, but the statistics just aren't on your side.
Cameron is able to write a story that makes sense.That's arguably what people hated most about Prometheus and Alien Covenant...The story.
Also I think if Cameron showed even the faintest interest in returning to the Alien Franchise they would open their piggy banks, and literally fire anyone already involved in it...including Ridley Scott.
I'm not fan of Titanic but saying it's a bad (or any other synonym) movie it's exaggeration. Movie was made in 1997 for 200 millions. It was the most expensive film at that time. What did you expect? It's romantic drama for masses. From teenage girls, housewives to grannies. It's not typical movie for male Alien fans, is it?
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 07:53:43 PM
All you guys hating on Titanic are nuts. Titanic was an incredible movie. The story was great, and the special effects were great, and yes obviously the music was great....So that's why everyone watched it too many times....and now why everyone hates it. It won like every award it could the year it came out, and until Avatar it was the top grossing movie of all time. Your opinion is great, but the statistics just aren't on your side.
Cameron is able to write a story that makes sense.That's arguably what people hated most about Prometheus and Alien Covenant...The story.
Also I think if Cameron showed even the faintest interest in returning to the Alien Franchise they would open their piggy banks, and literally fire anyone already involved in it...including Ridley Scott.
So I'm supposed to like it just because it's popular, otherwise I'm nuts? I don't like Celine Dione either, does that mean I have bad taste in music too?
He does tell stories that a small child can understand, that's just not what I want from a film.
I agree though that fox would snap him up if he was interested, im just glad he's not.
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 08:08:54 PM
I'm not fan of Titanic but saying it's a bad (or any other synonym) movie it's exaggeration. Movie was made in 1997 for 200 millions. It was the most expensive film at that time. What did you expect? It's romantic drama for masses. From teenage girls, housewives to grannies. It's not typical movie for male Alien fans, is it?
I'm not saying it's bad as a whole, I'm just saying it's badly written. And yes it's what I expected it to be for the reasons you give. That's why I was so excited about him returning to sci fi and was so disappointed when Avater turned out to be the same story all over again!
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 02:25:42 AM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 19, 2017, 02:18:02 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 02:04:44 AM
I'd imagine you'd be saying pre-release "people are not going to see this because its just a gimmic and too much CGI, this movie will bomb"
Movie made nearly 3 bil and nobody though it was any good. Keep em coming boys.
It's the 5th or so sequel to Dances with Wolves. James Cameron is a plagiarist.
With Space Aliens. I guess then any movie (The last Samurai is about something similar) is just a rip off.
All stupid talk aside, I think it would sense for Scott to come back as just a producer of some sort. With those other two movies mentioned Scott will be possibly 83? by the time Awakening comes around. The only other Director I can think of that old is Clint Eastwood and I'm not sure if he's done or not.
Just seems like a time thing more than anything else. I'm sure if Covenant killed it at the box office it might be different, but really if you're going to take a 4? year break between Prom and Cov then I see no rush on the last one which is probably the reason it's possibly been shelved for now.
Clint Eastwood is 87. 7 years OLDER than Ridley Scott.
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 05:55:17 PM
Titanic and Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Double-standard. So is Scott's work, but the flaws are ignored in one, or the other, depending on which side of that fence one is on.
And why the hate on the writers for Covenant? I think they did a great job inserting poetry and classical literature and sci-fi concepts into the film.
To each their own.
James Cameron is a more successful Michael Bay. Huge movies with the MOST EXPENSIVE BUDGETS of All Time. I'm one of the few who Hate avatar and titanic.
Then, I'm one of the few here who prefers Ridley Scott over james cameron as Director of any film.
Aliens is great, as are the Terminator films. But his latter-day out-put is very narrow, scant and limited. Having too much fun playing with his submarines, I guess.
So, there's that. He has a place as a good director, but don't they all? It's such a dick-measuring contest with him. My films are the most expensive, and make the most money and he's "king of the world." Frankly, I don't give a damn, Cameron.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 19, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 05:55:17 PM
Titanic and Avatar are very well-crafted movies.
Double-standard. So is Scott's work, but the flaws are ignored in one, or the other, depending on which side of that fence one is on.
And why the hate on the writers for Covenant? I think they did a great job inserting poetry and classical literature and sci-fi concepts into the film.
I use the same scale to judge any director/movie. It doesn't matter who makes what. And it's not a double-standard. Did I say that Titanic is flawless? No. I just said that Cameron plays safe and his movies are well-crafted. Well-crafted doesn't equal amazing or masterpiece. They're just solid. Cameron likes to take his time when Scott jumps from one project to another without any plan. He does things at hoc. As he says:
I don't have a plan. And you can notice that sometimes in his movies. They way movie is made tells you a lot about director.
I'm glad that poetry and classical literature play small parts in
Covenant. That's its merit. But there is also a lot of cheesy and lazy writing.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 19, 2017, 08:21:05 PM
So I'm supposed to like it just because it's popular, otherwise I'm nuts? I don't like Celine Dione either, does that mean I have bad taste in music too?
He does tell stories that a small child can understand, that's just not what I want from a film.
I agree though that fox would snap him up if he was interested, im just glad he's not.
No and No . Fair enough I shouldn't have said "Nuts" I meant it more as a tool to show my favoritism for Cameron. Your opinion is awesome and you're a great guy.....Also I meant the Score by James Horner not the stupid Celine Dion song.
Whether we agree or not I still feel Cameron is one of the few people out there who truly understand s the Alien Franchise like we do.
Hopefully they let Ridley do 1 more movie to finish the story, and I hope they get a great writer this time.
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 19, 2017, 08:39:45 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 02:25:42 AM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 19, 2017, 02:18:02 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 02:04:44 AM
I'd imagine you'd be saying pre-release "people are not going to see this because its just a gimmic and too much CGI, this movie will bomb"
Movie made nearly 3 bil and nobody though it was any good. Keep em coming boys.
It's the 5th or so sequel to Dances with Wolves. James Cameron is a plagiarist.
With Space Aliens. I guess then any movie (The last Samurai is about something similar) is just a rip off.
All stupid talk aside, I think it would sense for Scott to come back as just a producer of some sort. With those other two movies mentioned Scott will be possibly 83? by the time Awakening comes around. The only other Director I can think of that old is Clint Eastwood and I'm not sure if he's done or not.
Just seems like a time thing more than anything else. I'm sure if Covenant killed it at the box office it might be different, but really if you're going to take a 4? year break between Prom and Cov then I see no rush on the last one which is probably the reason it's possibly been shelved for now.
Clint Eastwood is 87. 7 years OLDER than Ridley Scott.
Yeah but he's not made any movies since 2014.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 19, 2017, 09:35:13 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 19, 2017, 08:21:05 PM
So I'm supposed to like it just because it's popular, otherwise I'm nuts? I don't like Celine Dione either, does that mean I have bad taste in music too?
He does tell stories that a small child can understand, that's just not what I want from a film.
I agree though that fox would snap him up if he was interested, im just glad he's not.
No and No . Fair enough I shouldn't have said "Nuts" I meant it more as a tool to show my favoritism for Cameron. Your opinion is awesome and you're a great guy.....Also I meant the Score by James Horner not the stupid Celine Dion song.
Whether we agree or not I still feel Cameron is one of the few people out there who truly understand s the Alien Franchise like we do.
Hopefully they let Ridley do 1 more movie to finish the story, and I hope they get a great writer this time.
Fair enough. I still don't get what you mean by him understanding the franchise though. We all want different things and feel differently about it, I'm happy with the choices Scott has made with the story, some aren't.
Besides, people and tastes change. Directors change. Cameron's latter films are very different from his earlier output and if he were to make another Alien film I doubt it would be what people expect. If Scott can't please us all then Cameron has little chance of doing so either.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 10:21:50 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 19, 2017, 08:39:45 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 02:25:42 AM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 19, 2017, 02:18:02 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 02:04:44 AM
I'd imagine you'd be saying pre-release "people are not going to see this because its just a gimmic and too much CGI, this movie will bomb"
Movie made nearly 3 bil and nobody though it was any good. Keep em coming boys.
It's the 5th or so sequel to Dances with Wolves. James Cameron is a plagiarist.
With Space Aliens. I guess then any movie (The last Samurai is about something similar) is just a rip off.
All stupid talk aside, I think it would sense for Scott to come back as just a producer of some sort. With those other two movies mentioned Scott will be possibly 83? by the time Awakening comes around. The only other Director I can think of that old is Clint Eastwood and I'm not sure if he's done or not.
Just seems like a time thing more than anything else. I'm sure if Covenant killed it at the box office it might be different, but really if you're going to take a 4? year break between Prom and Cov then I see no rush on the last one which is probably the reason it's possibly been shelved for now.
Clint Eastwood is 87. 7 years OLDER than Ridley Scott.
Yeah but he's not made any movies since 2014.
He made Sully last year and I think he's shooting another film right now. The guys pretty amazing to be fair.
QuoteIf Scott can't please us all then Cameron has little chance of doing so either.
Why? I don't get when people predict stuff like this, there's nothing to base it on it's just a wild guess. Suddenly turned into the bash James Cameron thread because your Alien sequel got canned. Guys!
It'd be unlikely that anyone would want to touch a sequel now anyway other than Scott and his mates.
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 19, 2017, 08:39:45 PM
Clint Eastwood is 87. 7 years OLDER than Ridley Scott.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 10:21:50 PM
Yeah but he's not made any movies since 2014.
Sully was made last year, and he's currently directing a film.
I would totally watch a TV Show about David f**king up everyone's day. That would be astounding. But I need his story finished. It'll itch at me forever until it does.
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 19, 2017, 08:08:54 PM
I'm not fan of Titanic but saying it's a bad (or any other synonym) movie it's exaggeration. Movie was made in 1997 for 200 millions. It was the most expensive film at that time. What did you expect? It's romantic drama for masses. From teenage girls, housewives to grannies. It's not typical movie for male Alien fans, is it?
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm a fan of film. Alien just happens to be a favourite and why I'm here.
A Night to Remember has always been one of my favourite films, so the subject matter is not the issue.
I have favourite films in practically all genres - even a couple of Musicals and RomComs, but when a film is a horribly shallow retelling of a startlingly tragic moment in history then it's fails in any worthy sense. Spectacular visuals, spectacular money, but the stats on it's appreciation mean nothing to me - it just doesn't do justice to the real event - it's just a naff love story with everything around it just dressing - it wasn't even the first Titanic film to try that approach - it was just the most expensive and self indulgent one.
So now that the prequels series is dead, when do you guys suppose we might see another Alien movie?
I think in maybe 12 to 15 years there will be a complete reboot made. I hope its successful so the franchise can live on long beyond any of us.
Quote from: cucuchu on Jul 20, 2017, 02:11:35 AM
So now that the prequels series is dead, when do you guys suppose we might see another Alien movie?
That's assuming it is. Jumping the gun a bit, aren't we?
Quote from: cucuchu on Jul 20, 2017, 02:11:35 AM
So now that the prequels series is dead, when do you guys suppose we might see another Alien movie?
I think in maybe 12 to 15 years there will be a complete reboot made. I hope its successful so the franchise can live on long beyond any of us.
What makes you think it's dead? Seriously... Where do you guys get such irrevocable information from..? REALLY! At this stage, we can still expect another movie to go into production. No one has announced otherwise - apart from some loudmouth podcasters that fail to provide concrete information and citing any sources.
Rumor is a rumor is a rumor. Until proven otherwise.
Aside from that, no doubt in 15 years time there
will still be fans who believe Sigourney Weaver will appear in a retcon of 'ALIEN 3'.
Sheesh.
-Windebieste.
I doubt the studio are going to come out and say "we aren't making this movie".
Not in those exact words, but they may very well say something very similar at some point.
It'd be pretty dumb to cancel a trilogy 2 movies in. If they care about the franchise they'll find a way to make it work. From what I understand Fox was happy with the quality of Covenant.
I don't believe there were any plans for a trilogy. It was a case of 'if this movie is successful we have plenty of ideas for sequels'.
I feel there has been the broad strokes of an overarching story prepared that needs fleshing out at the scripting stage. The next movie script is already written. It would be strange to cancel it now. Not that it's never happened before, of course; but Fox, Scott et al appear to be very invested in pushing this story arc further along.
Trilogy or not, I don't see Fox lying this down just because some disgruntled fanboy podcasters say they will. pffft.
-Windebieste.
They're too focused on plot and not story.
Ripley's mom, what'll crazy David do next, will Ledward's partner show up, will A connect to B explicitly, yada yada yada.
What's it ABOUT? What's the STORY? What's the CRUX? We need something bigger, not temporally or spatially, but bigger in its significance. In this sense, ALIEN is much bigger than COVENANT. We can't just watch an episode, which is what Covenant felt like. An extended David episode. And it was honestly one of the most pointless and plotless movies I've ever seen. That dynamo that JUST gave us The Martian shat this out?
Prometheus dangled a great mystery in front of us, and further enticed us with strong name anchors in Theron & Elba and amazing visuals and spectacle, and sealed the deal by getting mostly good reviews. Shaving off the tired Alien stump and making it a sci-fi movie as opposed to a sci-fi/horror film further broadened its appeal.
Prometheus felt like Inception in its significance. Alien: Covenant felt like the new Blair Witch.
Give us a STORY. Especially since nobody outside these forums gives a flying f**k about the occurrences in Covenant. No one cares about those two facehugger embryos, or the colonists. It didn't scare me. It didn't make me think. It didn't rivet me.
Why weren't you guys doing to Alien what you did with Apes? Actually, you had potential but squandered it with this EPISODE. Prometheus was a full course meal. Alien: Covenant was the chocolate cake dessert that tasted just ok.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 20, 2017, 02:46:15 AM
I doubt the studio are going to come out and say "we aren't making this movie".
Depends on the movie.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 19, 2017, 11:34:23 PM
QuoteIf Scott can't please us all then Cameron has little chance of doing so either.
Why? I don't get when people predict stuff like this, there's nothing to base it on it's just a wild guess. Suddenly turned into the bash James Cameron thread because your Alien sequel got canned. Guys!
It'd be unlikely that anyone would want to touch a sequel now anyway other than Scott and his mates.
I'm not bashing him because of Covenant. I'm bashing him because its over 25 years since hes made a film I think is any good.
I wouldn't have wanted Cameron even before the the prequels began TBH. I'm not a fan of his, I like his early films but in my opinion the quality has steadily declined since then. Some people raise his name like hes some kind of movie making messiah which isn't something I see as justifiable.
And he doesn't understand the franchise in the same way I do. What Cameron brings to the table are not the things I want to see in an Alien movie. It may be the kind of stuff you want to see but fans don't all have an identikit view of what an Alien film should look like.
Ridleys vision is far more in line with what I want to see, nothing wrong with that. Maybe Cameron is more in line with what you want and that's fine too.
E; Nevermind.
QuoteAnd he doesn't understand the franchise in the same way I do
Who doesn't? Cameron? I don't know what that's got to do with anything (or what the even means). Of the two greatest films in the franchise - Cameron made one of them. This is probably a pointless debate anyway since I doubt Cameron wouldn't touch Alien now.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 20, 2017, 08:40:30 AM
QuoteAnd he doesn't understand the franchise in the same way I do
Who doesn't? Cameron? I don't know what that's got to do with anything (or what the even means). Of the two greatest films in the franchise - Cameron made one of them. This is probably a pointless debate anyway since I doubt Cameron wouldn't touch Alien now.
Apologies, another poster stated that Cameron understands the Alien franchise like fans do, it wasn't you.
And you are right, its never gonna happen.
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 20, 2017, 02:52:13 AM
It'd be pretty dumb to cancel a trilogy 2 movies in.
They did it with Hellboy
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 20, 2017, 08:08:39 AMSome people raise [Cameron's] name like hes some kind of movie making messiah which isn't something I see as justifiable.
People do the exact same thing with Ridley.
Sure, he made
Alien and
Blade Runner, but he's made plenty of mediocre films and even a few bad ones too.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 20, 2017, 11:06:47 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 20, 2017, 08:08:39 AMSome people raise his name like hes some kind of movie making messiah which isn't something I see as justifiable.
People do the exact same thing with Ridley.
Sure, he made Alien and Blade Runner, but he's made pretty of mediocre films and even a few bad ones too.
Very true and a lot of the ideas in Alien weren't even his. I like them both, I dunno why people have got to choose a side. I can still like Ridley Scott and not be in love with Covenant.
'Good' and 'bad' is in the eye of the beholder.
A Good Year is his least successful. Is it a bad movie? Nobody can say.
A lot of critics can say it's a bad movie.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 20, 2017, 11:06:47 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 20, 2017, 08:08:39 AMSome people raise [Cameron's] name like hes some kind of movie making messiah which isn't something I see as justifiable.
People do the exact same thing with Ridley.
Sure, he made Alien and Blade Runner, but he's made plenty of mediocre films and even a few bad ones too.
I don't disagree with you. I can think of no director whose filmography I like 100% and I don't expect to.
But I do like prefer the output of some over others and Cameron is pretty low in my own particular taste.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 20, 2017, 11:13:02 AM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 20, 2017, 11:06:47 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 20, 2017, 08:08:39 AMSome people raise his name like hes some kind of movie making messiah which isn't something I see as justifiable.
People do the exact same thing with Ridley.
Sure, he made Alien and Blade Runner, but he's made pretty of mediocre films and even a few bad ones too.
Very true and a lot of the ideas in Alien weren't even his. I like them both, I dunno why people have got to choose a side. I can still like Ridley Scott and not be in love with Covenant.
Its not about sides, you either like a directors work/style, you don't or you are indifferent to it. I'm sure you feel the same about some directors films as I do about Cameron's. It's down to personal taste.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the only person in Hollywood who can safely claim to have had a 100% incredible career is John Cazale. Anyone else is imperfect.
Quote from: SM on Jul 20, 2017, 11:33:38 AM
A lot of critics can say it's a bad movie.
They can say anything. Everyone is a critic.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 20, 2017, 11:53:34 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the only person in Hollywood who can safely claim to have had a 100% incredible career is John Cazale. Anyone else is imperfect.
Yep, cant argue with that.
Eh, we'll just have to wait and see what Fox does. Either they'll let Ridley finish his trilogy or they'll wait a few years and reboot. Either way, we will see Alien again in some capacity. Hollywood is franchise crazy. Besides, they'll never outright say that they're not going to continue. How long was Fant4stic 2 on their slate before they quietly removed it? Seems like it was a good while.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 20, 2017, 11:53:34 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the only person in Hollywood who can safely claim to have had a 100% incredible career is John Cazale. Anyone else is imperfect.
Too bad he passed away so early :( but yeah, I had often said this as well.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 20, 2017, 11:39:41 AM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 20, 2017, 11:06:47 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 20, 2017, 08:08:39 AMSome people raise [Cameron's] name like hes some kind of movie making messiah which isn't something I see as justifiable.
People do the exact same thing with Ridley.
Sure, he made Alien and Blade Runner, but he's made plenty of mediocre films and even a few bad ones too.
I don't disagree with you. I can think of no director whose filmography I like 100% and I don't expect to.
But I do like prefer the output of some over others and Cameron is pretty low in my own particular taste.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 20, 2017, 11:13:02 AM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 20, 2017, 11:06:47 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 20, 2017, 08:08:39 AMSome people raise his name like hes some kind of movie making messiah which isn't something I see as justifiable.
People do the exact same thing with Ridley.
Sure, he made Alien and Blade Runner, but he's made pretty of mediocre films and even a few bad ones too.
Very true and a lot of the ideas in Alien weren't even his. I like them both, I dunno why people have got to choose a side. I can still like Ridley Scott and not be in love with Covenant.
Its not about sides, you either like a directors work/style, you don't or you are indifferent to it. I'm sure you feel the same about some directors films as I do about Cameron's. It's down to personal taste.
I agree 100%.
It's just my personal taste.
I don't like James cameron movies.
Ridley Scott is, probably, my favorite Director of all time.
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 20, 2017, 02:58:10 PM
Eh, we'll just have to wait and see what Fox does. Either they'll let Ridley finish his trilogy or they'll wait a few years and reboot. Either way, we will see Alien again in some capacity. Hollywood is franchise crazy. Besides, they'll never outright say that they're not going to continue. How long was Fant4stic 2 on their slate before they quietly removed it? Seems like it was a good while.
They're franchise crazy only if the franchise is still viable.
i really hope we get one more to end the prequel series. .cause i don't wanne wait another f**king 10 years for a reboot. .alot can happen in 10 years. .what if i die suddenly. .i guess i will have to haunt a f**king cinema to see it. .
QuoteRidley Scott is, probably, my favorite Director of all time.
You dont say! :laugh:
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jul 20, 2017, 11:11:26 PM
Real? BS to me!
http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html (http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html)
Looks quite fake, no sources or direct quotes. Clickbait, probably started by the rumors here lol.
Sounds just like the movie that Scott would make anyway, but yeah faker than a 7 pound note.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Jul 20, 2017, 11:23:32 PM
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jul 20, 2017, 11:11:26 PM
Real? BS to me!
http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html (http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html)
Looks quite fake, no sources or direct quotes. Clickbait, probably started by the rumors here lol.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It's not even well written.
I thought share anyway.
saw the writing on the wall with this one. can't even think what the hard reboot will look like. if there is one. most likely atrocious.
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jul 20, 2017, 11:11:26 PM
Real? BS to me!
http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html (http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F6b%2F6b1cc1e094d25ec2bf90a2352bae038f9a6710c155d69b16b400b8f14e31000e.jpg&hash=2265d60c2b762a77af75ce796c25617eaefeeab8)
Quote from: 426Buddy on Jul 20, 2017, 11:23:32 PM
Looks quite fake, no sources or direct quotes. Clickbait, probably started by the rumors here lol.
Almost certainly.
Besides which the story doesn't make sense, it's cancelled - then goes on to say how the next film ties up the loose ends of the prequels and connects to ALIEN.
Not cancelled then.
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jul 20, 2017, 11:11:26 PM
Real? BS to me!
http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html (http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html)
Guys, its fake. Someone in the Alien Anthology page at Facebook created the page just to see the reaction of those who hated the film. I chatted with the guy who created it. It was just for s#$% & giggles. He mentioned of not posting it here since we would quickly pick it up as a fake.
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jul 20, 2017, 11:11:26 PM
Real? BS to me!
http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html (http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html)
Seems legit... ::)
Quote from: 0321recon on Jul 21, 2017, 02:32:54 AM
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jul 20, 2017, 11:11:26 PM
Real? BS to me!
http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html (http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html)
Guys, its fake. Someone in the Alien Anthology page at Facebook created the page just to see the reaction of those who hated the film. I chatted with the guy who created it. It was just for s#$% & giggles. He mentioned of not posting it here since we would quickly pick it up as a fake.
So the fans are trolling the people that didn't like it now. Real success this one!
It's fake.
But the ALIEN Franchise is in really, really bad shape right now.
James cameron isn't interested. FOX doesn't have faith in Neill Blomkamp. And Ridley Scott is leaving for other 3 films: ATMITW, THE CARTEL and BATTLE OF BRITAIN.
It's still in much, much better shape than it was in 2012. 2 junky 'AvP' movies - the 2nd of which was truly appalling - followed by a mediocre 'AvP' game in 2010 then quickly followed by the absolute piece of garbage that was 'A:CM'. Now, those were dark times and we're still ticking over. Actually, things have improved since then.
'PROMETHEUS' was a kind of Renaissance for the series. Followed a couple years later by one of the best games in the series - if not the best - 'ALIEN: Isolation'. 'ALIEN Covenant' is pretty damned good, too.
Y'know, once the studio ditched pulse rifles and Queen Aliens, the series quality started to improve. Dramatically.
-Windebieste.
I would say that the quality of the material was responsible for the success rather than it being down to "pulse rifles"
If you listen to some of these people, you would think this movie was somehow on par with AVP-R because it isn't as good as the Alien trilogy.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 21, 2017, 06:20:49 AM
It's still in much, much better shape than it was in 2012. 2 junky 'AvP' movies - the 2nd of which was truly appalling - followed by a mediocre 'AvP' game in 2010 then quickly followed by the absolute piece of garbage that was 'A:CM'. Now, those were dark times and we're still ticking over. Actually, things have improved since then.
'PROMETHEUS' was a kind of Renaissance for the series. Followed a couple years later by one of the best games in the series - if not the best - 'ALIEN: Isolation'. 'ALIEN Covenant' is pretty damned good, too.
Y'know, once the studio ditched pulse rifles and Queen Aliens, the series quality started to improve. Dramatically.
-Windebieste.
ACM was after Prometheus I believe (2013). Remember, they put Fifields pups in the game during the derelict visit. :laugh:
Yeah. You're correct. A:CM was from 2013, February, I believe.
Actually, it doesn't matter, anyway. Things have still improved since then. To me, that game was the pits. The bottom of the barrel. The S-bend in the toilet bowl. The end of the line. The whole series could have died right then. Right there.
'PROMETHEUS' may have been released earlier but it still heralds the Renaissance for the series. Lucky for us. It's certainly improved since then.
-Windebieste.
The wasted opportunity with ACM still hurts the feels today... No ending to the story.
Isolation won't even get a sequel... due to lackluster sales. No ending to Amanda's story either...
And now Covenant and it's sequels are at risc.
A lot of ends that need to be closed. I can forget ACM's ending, but Isolation and Covenants? No way! That screams for continuation!
So far the public isn't invested enough in this Renaissance so it seems.
Which is a fcking shame.
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jul 20, 2017, 11:11:26 PM
Real? BS to me!
http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html (http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html)
Even says right at the bottom of the page, fellas.
QuoteThis website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information.
:laugh:
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 21, 2017, 09:26:41 AM
The wasted opportunity with ACM still hurts the feels today... No ending to the story.
Isolation won't even get a sequel... due to lackluster sales. No ending to Amanda's story either...
And now Covenant and it's sequels are at risc.
A lot of ends that need to be closed. I can forget ACM's ending, but Isolation and Covenants? No way! That screams for continuation!
So far the public isn't invested enough in this Renaissance so it seems.
Which is a fcking shame.
Well with Isolation there is always the hope that Dark Horse do it as a comic series.
What is the ending to ACM Though? never played it so
Hicks, Winters etc fly off and Bishop has everything apparently. They were about to screw over the company or something.
Well I could care less about Aliens Colonial Marines.....
However I am truly bummed about Alien Isolation not getting a sequel. I 100% blame the Games Journalism reviewers for that. Especially IGN.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 21, 2017, 01:54:45 PM
Well I could care less about Aliens Colonial Marines.....
However I am truly bummed about Alien Isolation not getting a sequel. I 100% blame the Games Journalism reviewers for that. Especially IGN.
The same journalists praised Resident Evil 7 - which was made in the same vein - to high heavens.
By the way Gamespot's Kevin vanOrd was also full of shit in his 6.0/10 review, not only because I disagree with him but because he totally missed the point of the whole game. Worse, he gave the same score to Thief, which was objectively a BROKEN game.
btw: I'm not saying ACM's ending should be better...
the entire game however....
:P
QuoteWell I could care less about Aliens Colonial Marines.....
I couldn't.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/hollywood-rethinks-key-movie-franchises-a-mixed-summer-at-box-office-1022322/item/alien-studios-rethink-franchise-films-1022312?utm_source=twitter
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 21, 2017, 05:46:06 AM
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jul 20, 2017, 11:11:26 PM
Real? BS to me!
http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html (http://www.react365.com/5971299eb6a62/alien-awakening-is-being-cancelled-says-ridley-scott.html)
Seems legit... ::)
I figured you believe it! :P
Quote from: dcsat on Jul 21, 2017, 03:06:48 PM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/hollywood-rethinks-key-movie-franchises-a-mixed-summer-at-box-office-1022322/item/alien-studios-rethink-franchise-films-1022312?utm_source=twitter
Reading the little blurb for Alien, Fox should condense those two films into one final three hour film, and after that let's see what happens.
Though, at least this shows Fox hasn't cut their losses like certain podcasters are reporting.
This is all Alien 3's fault. Fox fumbled the ball with that movie and it has NEVER RECOVERED.
It's tough to even count Prometheus because it doesn't have Alien in the title and is a spin off.
So.....How in the hell was Ridley Scott gonna start work on Alien: Covenant 2 next year when he has 2 other movies to make????
Also I highly doubt there was ever gonna be 2 more movies for this Prequel Trilogy.
http://collider.com/alien-covenant-2-status-fox-ridley-scott/#sequel
By the way this is one of a few articles that have popped up within the last hour. I think this story is catching wind now.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 21, 2017, 05:14:53 PM
So.....How in the hell was Ridley Scott gonna start work on Alien: Covenant 2 next year when he has 2 other movies to make????
Also I highly doubt there was ever gonna be 2 more movies for this Prequel Trilogy.
http://collider.com/alien-covenant-2-status-fox-ridley-scott/#sequel
By the way this is one of a few articles that have popped up within the last hour. I think this story is catching wind now.
Bloody disgusting also made an article though they got some of their facts wrong such as the year Prometheus was released. In addition, mention box office number losses without mentioning the budget for both films and comparing them.
http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3448739/fox-pull-plug-ridley-scotts-alien-sequels/
Like I've mentioned before, Fox will tell Scott lets condense these two film into one final three hour film and move on.
Lol Fox will NOT be letting Ridley make ANY three hour Alien movie.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 21, 2017, 05:14:53 PM
By the way this is one of a few articles that have popped up within the last hour. I think this story is catching wind now.
Indeed...
Alien: Fox Pumps The Brakes On Ridley Scott's Planned Covenant Sequels To "Reassess" Franchise
http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/alien-covenant-sequels-ridley-scott-fox/ (http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/alien-covenant-sequels-ridley-scott-fox/)
Alien: Covenant Sequel Uncertain as Fox Reassesses Alien Franchise
http://screenrant.com/alien-covenant-sequel-trilogy/ (http://screenrant.com/alien-covenant-sequel-trilogy/)
Could Fox Pull the Plug on Ridley Scott's 'Alien' Sequels?!
http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3448739/fox-pull-plug-ridley-scotts-alien-sequels/ (http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3448739/fox-pull-plug-ridley-scotts-alien-sequels/)
Fox Reportedly "Reassessing" Future of the 'Alien' Franchise in Wake of 'Alien: Covenant'
http://collider.com/alien-covenant-2-status-fox-ridley-scott/ (http://collider.com/alien-covenant-2-status-fox-ridley-scott/)
Fox Reassessing Ridley Scott's Planned 'Alien' Movies
http://theplaylist.net/fox-reassessing-ridley-scotts-planned-alien-movies-20170721/ (http://theplaylist.net/fox-reassessing-ridley-scotts-planned-alien-movies-20170721/)
None of this surprises me at all. My guess is that the whole gang is negotiating and the end result will be one more movie. And no; it's not gonna be three hours long.
Quote from: rustyredraccoon on Jul 21, 2017, 07:15:08 PM
None of this surprises me at all. My guess is that the whole gang is negotiating and the end result will be one more movie. And no; it's not gonna be three hours long.
These articles sound like they may not even want one more movie. Sounds like they may abandon it since Fans think they couldn't get it right after 2 tries.
I agree three hours will not occur. Though the ideal since Scott and Co need to close all the loose ends from Prometheus and Covenant. I simply don't see a two hour film being able to do that unless its done haphazard. In the end, let's see what happens.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 21, 2017, 07:22:25 PM
Quote from: rustyredraccoon on Jul 21, 2017, 07:15:08 PM
None of this surprises me at all. My guess is that the whole gang is negotiating and the end result will be one more movie. And no; it's not gonna be three hours long.
These articles sound like they may not even want one more movie. Sounds like they may abandon it since Fans think they couldn't get it right after 2 tries.
I think Fox should let Josh Trank make the sequel. It would make all of the previous Alien movies seem absolutely brilliant.
This would stick out like a sore thumb in Ridley's career as director. Too smart for this world or too pretentious? Let the creator of the xenomorph decide ;D
Who knows. Maybe he gets his final weird movie and then a reboot as soon as possible to wipe this away.
I hope this is fake news. I really do.
I'm sure one more of this current storyline featuring David and that will be it. I do feel it needs a fresh take and some new ideas pumped into the franchise.
God damn it not again I can't take another 5 year stretch of nothing again ever since isolation things seemed to be going in the right direction for the franchise now it's about to get snuffed out again
I enjoyed covenant myself but i really want a story that has its own characters and arcs unrelated to any of the current movies but doesnt write them out. Acknowledge the originals but dont write them out of continuity.
Quote from: Ultramorph on Jul 21, 2017, 09:59:13 PM
I hope this is fake news. I really do.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.vocativ.com%2Fphotos%2F2017%2F03%2FSean-Spicer-Upside-down-flag-AP_170696864880922102654380.jpg&hash=325b93bef32754d5ae9c15bd11f9b37f21d0eb43)
Damn i desperately wanted to audition for Ripleys Mum.
Or dad.
David's journey deserves an ending. Regardless of whether its in a Ridley Scott Alien movie or someone else.
I at the very least would settle for one last prequel which would conclude David's arc and reveal how the space jockey in the derelict crashed on LV-426. For anything after they could do other sequels whether they involve Ripley or completely new characters. Wouldn't rule out them doing another attempt at Alien vs Predator and trying to jump on the bandwaggon of setting a cinematic universe.
In the current market, you will never get an Alien movie of any kind making 1 billion +$$$, being rated R drastically cuts the viewers and the length of the movie also with the amount of showings per day at any cinema( and lest not forget its aliens not everybody likes this genre), ppl need to considered that ALSO instead of only blaming poor story telling , bad CGI and the other nonsense fans talk about. Until people need to realize when you speak negatively it does hurt the movie. If you look any fan site including here, I would not be surprise Fox ppl, Ridley and actors does not at fan sites, it would be stupid to think not. People have there own opinion on how the entire movie should be and more most other alien movies. Its like you cannot accept anything ,, nothing satisfies you...Try telling that to Stephen King about his movies and books lol, anyways and we are here today I appreciate the passion for the Alien franchise via books & movies by fans but sometimes its better to be reasonable and not only look at the bad , but the good also in ppl and yes the movies you watch, not everything has to be your way.
Just finish the story. Covenant ended on far too much of a sequel hook to just leave hanging forever.
Quote from: Ollyhoward12 on Jul 21, 2017, 10:01:11 PM
It needs a fresh take and some new ideas pumped into the franchise.
Exactly what it was getting. Finally.
Coming 2019, Prometheus: Part 2!
reboot it and have these two last movies be a bad dream!!! :laugh:
This was the dream of the next robot! A fantasy he had! ;D
We need new story. New story, something like in comics from Dark Horse maybe.
Maybe something like ALIEN: Isolation.
I can give you some ideas but please, get rid of Engineers!
Man I wonder what Blomkamp is feeling/thinking right now?
Another Alien film will arrive in the future, directed by Ridley Scott. Then I think it's over after that film BBC they will push it as the final film. Then they make another one 8 years later since they raked in the money saying the last film was the last one. :P
I just read THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER article.
It sounds great. It sounds like his 2 prequels is going to be only 1 film.
Remember his new big project THE CARTEL is with FOX. I doubt they cancel. Ridley Scott, his company Scott Free and FOX worked and are still working in so many things together.
Go Blomkamp!
Oh lord. Please let them finish David's story in these prequel films before asking for Blompkamp's film or a completely new story.
Anyway.. Man, this could have been so big and epic. It could have been so f*cking epic. But, that's probably never gonna happen after AC.
Here's my prediction: We'll get 2 more prequels. ALIEN: Covenant sets the stage for a massive conflict. And the next movie will feature Military vs Aliens once again. That's where this is heading and that's what fans want.
Whether or not it will be any good won't matter because the numbers will escalate when audiences see gun barrels pointed at 'Xenos' once again.
The strength of its success will generate the next sequel.
-Windebieste.
This 're-assess' news really shouldn't come as a surprise.
Quote"It got great reviews and was everything we set out for it to be, it just didn't hit the note at the box office," says Fred Baron, the 20th Century Fox executive on the movie: "It will be a profitable film for the studio but whether there's another one [is uncertain]."
From 2 weeks ago (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/after-thor-and-aquaman-the-battle-to-land-the-next-hollywood-blockbuster-continues-20170704-gx4atr.html)
There was concern about more instalments within a week of it coming out.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 22, 2017, 12:31:38 AM
Here's my prediction: We'll get 2 more prequels. ALIEN: Covenant sets the stage for a massive conflict. And the next movie will feature Military vs Aliens once again. That's where this is heading and that's what fans want.
Whether or not it will be any good won't matter because the numbers will escalate when audiences see gun barrels pointed at 'Xenos' once again.
The strength of its success will generate the next sequel.
-Windebieste.
To make it look any decent, this is sounding like a 175m++ project (that Scott isnt interested in much thematically, i suppose).
Unfortunately for the numbers to escalate, you first have to produce this film. ;)
And Blomkamp wont get to helm a 175m++ project.
my guess is that fox is going to cancel scott's sequels, give the reins to blomkamp (because of strong fan buzz) for a hard reboot (soft alien 3 reboot???? wtf), and bring scott on as producer like bladerunner 2049, so his feelings aren't hurt, and he can have a creative say.
in my opinion, covenant is the worst alien film ever made, and scott deserves to lose sway regarding this franchise, at fox, but what do i know, i'm just a neckbeard basement dweller with a permanent hard-on for Prometheus
Whoever is saying that Blomkamp will get his shot due to fan interest.....I bet you're right.
However Blomkamp will be told he has to include Fassbenders David....I wonder if that would kill his interest.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 22, 2017, 12:31:38 AM
Here's my prediction: We'll get 2 more prequels. ALIEN: Covenant sets the stage for a massive conflict. And the next movie will feature Military vs Aliens once again. That's where this is heading and that's what fans want.
Whether or not it will be any good won't matter because the numbers will escalate when audiences see gun barrels pointed at 'Xenos' once again.
The strength of its success will generate the next sequel.
-Windebieste.
Wishful though, I don't see that happening. Instead, it might be one long film and hand the reigns to someone else, that I hope is not Blomkamp.
This is what happens when greed takes over, and it applies to other franchises in general, as well as TV shows: producers and investors milk them dry through as many prequels, sequels, and reboots until they fall apart, leaving consumers with whatever they wanted (spectacle and fantastic intrigue to justify ticket prices or the must-get director's cut or remastered version, and so forth) and fans with a bad taste in the mouth.
We can see this with the latest film, where they tried to cram whatever they thought worked in the first two movies with some preachy backstory.
I know fans have no say in this, but they are the reason why these franchises grew in the first place!
Fox would have made more money with Prometheus 2 or The Forever War. Instead they let the rights to TFW lapse and asked him to turn P2 into an Alien prequel. If they learn anything from this error, it should be that they are better off asking Scott to make something original than ask him to copy prior work. He's much better setting trends than following them. Anybody can make a carbon copy of Alien, and it's been done many times. What nobody can replicate is Scott's perfect track record with original sci-fi movies. He knocks it out of the park every time. Covenant is the first sci-fi movie he's made that wasn't either a huge hit or a classic - or both. Covenant was the first time he made a movie that was neither. They should either get back on the Prometheus train and finish the trilogy in a bold, idea-driven way, or get the rights to something like The Forever War.
Quote from: monkeylove on Jul 22, 2017, 01:47:37 AM
This is what happens when greed takes over, and it applies to other franchises in general, as well as TV shows: producers and investors milk them dry through as many prequels, sequels, and reboots until they fall apart, leaving consumers with whatever they wanted (spectacle and fantastic intrigue to justify ticket prices or the must-get director's cut or remastered version, and so forth) and fans with a bad taste in the mouth.
We can see this with the latest film, where they tried to cram whatever they thought worked in the first two movies with some preachy backstory.
I know fans have no say in this, but they are the reason why these franchises grew in the first place!
Turning back towards the Alien rather than away as Riddles intended originally, is a response to fans. Responding to feedback is what happens when fans have a say; it's not simply greed taking over. They want to make a product that people are interested in. Had they gone with Ridley's original ideas and strayed further from Alien, things potentially could've been even worse.
YES!!!!
THANK GOD!!!!
Wow. Get rid of ridley's crap immediately and get Blomkamp's film back in action!!! Or at least set an alien movie in the proper alien 1-3 timeline. No more f**king spin off/prequel garbage anymore. Cmon fox......
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2017, 02:16:41 AM
Quote from: monkeylove on Jul 22, 2017, 01:47:37 AM
This is what happens when greed takes over, and it applies to other franchises in general, as well as TV shows: producers and investors milk them dry through as many prequels, sequels, and reboots until they fall apart, leaving consumers with whatever they wanted (spectacle and fantastic intrigue to justify ticket prices or the must-get director's cut or remastered version, and so forth) and fans with a bad taste in the mouth.
We can see this with the latest film, where they tried to cram whatever they thought worked in the first two movies with some preachy backstory.
I know fans have no say in this, but they are the reason why these franchises grew in the first place!
Turning back towards the Alien rather than away as Riddles intended originally, is a response to fans. Responding to feedback is what happens when fans have a say; it's not simply greed taking over. They want to make a product that people are interested in. Had they gone with Ridley's original ideas and strayed further from Alien, things potentially could've been even worse.
who the f**k were these fans? twitter users five years ago? what about prometheus fans? numbers dont lie. double covenant box office.
I'm not surprised. I thought Covenant was very good but it was too idiosyncratic to be a crowd or unanimous fan pleaser. It wasn't Prometheus 2 but it wasn't a full Alien movie either. It was instead an atmospheric, quirky mad scientist's hybrid creation with traits from both. Not exactly a franchise-reviver.
That said, Neil Blompkampf's fan service approach likely wouldn't have fared much better. There's simply no going back to box-office glory for this franchise. It's part of a larger trend: even previously strong and reliable franchises are sinking. Superheroes, Star Wars, CGI animated family films and Disney remakes are now the only consistent bringers of $$$.
Theatrical movies are losing their artistic and cultural relevance in the zeitgeist. There are good independent and smaller studio films now and again but most of the artistic energy has moved onto TV, leaving theaters mainly as purveyors of spectacle.
While there will be no doubt be more films in this franchise, the spiritual successor to Alien/Aliens (in terms of having a game-changing impact in the sci-fi horror genre) probably won't be an Alien film or even be a theatrically-released movie.
We're in a transitional moment, which is very scary but also exciting. Who knows what the future will bring?
Quote from: question11 on Jul 22, 2017, 03:09:24 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2017, 02:16:41 AM
Quote from: monkeylove on Jul 22, 2017, 01:47:37 AM
This is what happens when greed takes over, and it applies to other franchises in general, as well as TV shows: producers and investors milk them dry through as many prequels, sequels, and reboots until they fall apart, leaving consumers with whatever they wanted (spectacle and fantastic intrigue to justify ticket prices or the must-get director's cut or remastered version, and so forth) and fans with a bad taste in the mouth.
We can see this with the latest film, where they tried to cram whatever they thought worked in the first two movies with some preachy backstory.
I know fans have no say in this, but they are the reason why these franchises grew in the first place!
Turning back towards the Alien rather than away as Riddles intended originally, is a response to fans. Responding to feedback is what happens when fans have a say; it's not simply greed taking over. They want to make a product that people are interested in. Had they gone with Ridley's original ideas and strayed further from Alien, things potentially could've been even worse.
who the f**k were these fans? twitter users five years ago? what about prometheus fans? numbers dont lie. double covenant box office.
Fact remains, Ridley said he didn't have any plans to pursue something relating to the Alien and wanted move away from it. Yet here we are.
I think Fox can decide to move forward with Blomkamps idea because it has a script or draft at least and lot of pre production was made on it.That would save money and time for the studio.
If Scott really planned two sequels and they say to him he can do only one because of Covenants domestic box office result then he maybe decide to not do it or do it later after Blomcamps movie because he currently so busy.
Throw out the old boy. In favor of james Cameron or neil blomkoff.
A "FIRE AND STONE" (AVPVE) live action adaptation is all I ask... ;D
Quote from: Kronnang_Dunn on Jul 22, 2017, 03:48:13 AM
A "FIRE AND STONE" (AVPVE) live action adaptation is all I ask... ;D
As we have reached wonderland, im gonna ask for WORLD PEACE.
COOL! Does this mean Paul W.S Anderson is going to team up with Blomkamp like the Predater did with that lady in the Predater Vs Alien Moveeee?! BRINGING BACK THE PREDATERS!? SO AWESUM!
Aliens Vs Predater! WHO WOULD WIN?! Damn, that Predater dude might just smash that mean ole' Alien up I think LOL!
Can we have something like this evens!?
I mean seriously. It's what the fans want.
P.s Well, done idiots.
Not a fan of movies determined by twitter feedback.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 22, 2017, 01:13:17 AM
Whoever is saying that Blomkamp will get his shot due to fan interest.....I bet you're right.
However Blomkamp will be told he has to include Fassbenders David....I wonder if that would kill his interest.
Due to fan interest?. That's sounds impossible.
FOX doesn't care about the few fanboys(like you and me) here. Maybe FOX is going to try with another NAME Director. Neill Blomkamp isn't famous. I'm sure FOX wants someone famous like Ridley Scott, James cameron, etc....
COLLIDER heard that the plan is a SMALLER Budget ALIEN movie AFTER ALL the other movies. Way ahead in the future.
This fanbase will never be satisfied. The problem is that there are three fanbases meshed together: One for Prometheus, Alien, and Aliens. I happen to love all the Alien movies so I'm clearly in the minority. Covenant is one of the best films in the franchise so I'm really confused by all the negativity. We were finally starting to get some amazing ideas put back into the franchise. I fear Fox will kneejerk into another commercial endeavor like AvP to satisfy the lowest common denominator. The "fanbase" would deserve it though.
It think it's great, as well. Such a good film, but one that caters to canonical literature that few people actually read. Very myoptic, but personal, given what I enjoy and study it's a godsend.
But so many fans who have conflicting tastes in the same overall franchise. It's all rather chaotic. Impossible to please everyone. I wish they'd just stick with Ridley and let him finish, just to keep things consistent... and because the guy is amazing.
I really think they should stop focusing on movies since it hasn't been working out with them. I don't hate covenant but I didn't really like it either. I actually preferred if they went just doing video games with the franchise as I have been enjoying the games more than the movies as of late. I still holding out on new AVP FPS and AVP extinction 2 RTS. Also an alien hive simulator with the gameplay of Natural Selection 2 would be very awesome as well. I give any Alien movie a shot but I would prefer it if they just did the video games.
Quote from: Adam802 on Jul 22, 2017, 02:42:50 AM
YES!!!!
THANK GOD!!!!
Wow. Get rid of ridley's crap immediately and get Blomkamp's film back in action!!! Or at least set an alien movie in the proper alien 1-3 timeline. No more f**king spin off/prequel garbage anymore. Cmon fox......
No thanks.
Quote from: question11 on Jul 22, 2017, 03:09:24 AM
who the f**k were these fans? twitter users five years ago? what about prometheus fans? numbers dont lie. double covenant box office.
Film landscape 5 years ago was not inundated by superhero movies the way it is now. Prometheus was big because of promotion and its assumed links to Alien. Coveneant suffered from the film landscape being different and from a certain Prometheus backlash.
It wasn't that much different. Avengers, Dark Knight and Spider-Man were ripping cash out of punters wallets to the tune of $3.5b
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 22, 2017, 04:42:49 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR7n5NT72ak
COLLIDER heard that the plan is a SMALLER Budget ALIEN movie AFTER ALL the other movies. Way ahead in the future.
Watching the blurb, the guy isn't even sure on what's going to happen next. It's going to be a waiting game from here.
Though, the good thing from this vid is that at least Blomkamp ret-con has been tossed to the side.
Quote from: 0321recon on Jul 22, 2017, 05:53:45 AM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 22, 2017, 04:42:49 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR7n5NT72ak
COLLIDER heard that the plan is a SMALLER Budget ALIEN movie AFTER ALL the other movies. Way ahead in the future.
Watching the blurb, the guy isn't even sure on what's going to happen next. It's going to be a waiting game from here.
Though, the good thing from this vid is that at least Blomkamp ret-con has been tossed to the side.
You could be right. That bald guy could be just lying or dreaming.
At least, Ridley Scott is Directing 2 other films and his career doesn't depend on this.
Quote from: acidreign on Jul 22, 2017, 03:12:18 AM
I'm not surprised. I thought Covenant was very good but it was too idiosyncratic to be a crowd or unanimous fan pleaser. It wasn't Prometheus 2 but it wasn't a full Alien movie either. It was instead an atmospheric, quirky mad scientist's hybrid creation with traits from both. Not exactly a franchise-reviver.
That said, Neil Blompkampf's fan service approach likely wouldn't have fared much better. There's simply no going back to box-office glory for this franchise. It's part of a larger trend: even previously strong and reliable franchises are sinking. Superheroes, Star Wars, CGI animated family films and Disney remakes are now the only consistent bringers of $$$.
Theatrical movies are losing their artistic and cultural relevance in the zeitgeist. There are good independent and smaller studio films now and again but most of the artistic energy has moved onto TV, leaving theaters mainly as purveyors of spectacle.
While there will be no doubt be more films in this franchise, the spiritual successor to Alien/Aliens (in terms of having a game-changing impact in the sci-fi horror genre) probably won't be an Alien film or even be a theatrically-released movie.
We're in a transitional moment, which is very scary but also exciting. Who knows what the future will bring?
I still think a lot of it had to do with the marketing. Fox seems to still think they've made a horror movie, which is not the case. Aside from that, I agree that the current zeitgeist doesn't lend itself well to films like Covenant. I honestly don't think its going to get any better. Superhero movies and other big budget CGI-fests are here to stay.
I still think a lot of it had to do with the marketing. Fox seems to still think they've made a horror movie, which is not the case. Aside from that, I agree that the current zeitgeist doesn't lend itself well to films like Covenant. I honestly don't think its going to get any better. Superhero movies and other big budget CGI-fests are here to stay.
[/quote]
Eventually they will lose traction too. The Marvel/DC cinematic universes appeal to the public today in the same way that westerns appealed to the world for decades. None of these things are forever.
It'll be just about a 20 year run when the current crop of MCU movies wind up, and doesn't show any signs of stopping.
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 22, 2017, 05:08:19 AM
This fanbase will never be satisfied. The problem is that there are three fanbases meshed together: One for Prometheus, Alien, and Aliens. I happen to love all the Alien movies so I'm clearly in the minority. Covenant is one of the best films in the franchise so I'm really confused by all the negativity. We were finally starting to get some amazing ideas put back into the franchise. I fear Fox will kneejerk into another commercial endeavor like AvP to satisfy the lowest common denominator. The "fanbase" would deserve it though.
Agreed
I have an impression that Star Wars, Star Trek and any DC / Marvel fanbases / fandoms are MUCH MORE easily pleased. Alien fandom on the other hand is full of malcontents (sure they are to be found everywhere), but it is the most divisive one.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 22, 2017, 08:57:51 AM
I have an impression that Star Wars, Star Trek and any DC / Marvel fanbases / fandoms are MUCH MORE easily pleased. Alien fandom on the other hand is full of malcontents (sure they are to be found everywhere), but it is the most divisive one.
The franchises you mention all have one thing in common and that's a formula, they all have a template to follow so you pretty much get what you expect. The alien films are all so different that the fan base splits into different camps.
The Aliens action orientated approach appears to be the most popular from what I can see so I think that's probably the most financially viable route to take. It's not what I would like personally but it looks like I'm in the minority.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 22, 2017, 08:57:51 AM
I have an impression that Star Wars, Star Trek and any DC / Marvel fanbases / fandoms are MUCH MORE easily pleased. Alien fandom on the other hand is full of malcontents (sure they are to be found everywhere), but it is the most divisive one.
It's not about being easily pleased so much as those fanbases are much bigger than Alien.
When Alien and Aliens were made there were a stack of imitators. These days there's Life which didn't do terribly well. Then there's Apollo 18 or Event Horizon. I think it's simply a case of audiences not being that interested in these kinds of movies anymore.
Okay, go reassess, FOX.
Maybe, just maybe don't hire hack writers like Lindelof or Logan. Next time you maybe should hire a director who actually cares about the creature of this franchise. Not a director who tells that it is cooked. The Space Jockey is cooked now. A way too small albino who looks like a human? Very creative. Thanks for that, Ridley. ::)
Maybe another studio should get the rights, because today's FOX is too dumb for a big movie franchise.
".....seeing how the new Predator movie does next year, I really wouldn't be surprised to see a new Alien vs Predator reboot on the horizon."
Ahahahahahahahaha!
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 22, 2017, 01:54:27 AM
Fox would have made more money with Prometheus 2 or The Forever War. Instead they let the rights to TFW lapse and asked him to turn P2 into an Alien prequel. If they learn anything from this error, it should be that they are better off asking Scott to make something original than ask him to copy prior work. He's much better setting trends than following them. Anybody can make a carbon copy of Alien, and it's been done many times. What nobody can replicate is Scott's perfect track record with original sci-fi movies. He knocks it out of the park every time. Covenant is the first sci-fi movie he's made that wasn't either a huge hit or a classic - or both. Covenant was the first time he made a movie that was neither. They should either get back on the Prometheus train and finish the trilogy in a bold, idea-driven way, or get the rights to something like The Forever War.
As much as I like Scott's work. Covenant feels like he phoned it in a bit. There is a great movie hiding in there somewhere but it feels rushed and underdeveloped. Either that or the studio meddled to much.
The xeno just isn't strong enough to carry the movie and they failed to establish a strong lead to hang the franchise on. David is a great character but he'd need to be on the level of Lecter insane to get people to put their butts in the seats.
At this point I'd say going for broke is probably the best idea for the franchise. Roll the dice and let Ridley do his thing. If it fails then soft reboot it and get Scott as far away as possible.
Maybe they should get in Tom Cruise for the next one.
Even though i was completely happy with Covenant, i do think we need at least one more film to wrap up that storyline
or if Fox wont do another film for awhile let Dark Horse adapt it as a comic
Why aren't they going old school??? Lower the budget, make a freakin outstnding story and profit. I mean, eventhough isolation had a good budget, but less, shows that the storyline is key!! Make a low budget sequel
Stop setting bruckheimer as the bar
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 22, 2017, 09:12:17 AM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 22, 2017, 08:57:51 AM
I have an impression that Star Wars, Star Trek and any DC / Marvel fanbases / fandoms are MUCH MORE easily pleased. Alien fandom on the other hand is full of malcontents (sure they are to be found everywhere), but it is the most divisive one.
The franchises you mention all have one thing in common and that's a formula, they all have a template to follow so you pretty much get what you expect. The alien films are all so different that the fan base splits into different camps.
The Aliens action orientated approach appears to be the most popular from what I can see so I think that's probably the most financially viable route to take. It's not what I would like personally but it looks like I'm in the minority.
I do think that's the route Scott is intending to take the series. Take a look at the end of 'ALIEN Covenant'. It's set up for large scale conflict in that vein. Then consider some of the things that Scott has said - not just hinted at, but actually said.
On a number of occasions, he's mentioned a "war of the worlds" scenario. More than once he's indicated that. He's also mentioned a "possible return to an ALIENS" movie sometime. I can't remember where he's actually said these things so I am just paraphrasing. Mind you, he hasn't said too much else about the direction the next movie(s) will take but it appears to me from the evidence we have seen so far, Madness and War will be significant themes tackled. Especially as Scott has also said the Engineers will return to "find their planet decimated". Sounds to me like a healthy combat scenario is developing.
Given that Fox wants the 'ALIEN' series to be successful, it would be counterproductive to that goal to kill it dead right now. While it hasn't had 'Star Wars' or 'MCU' levels of success, it hasn't been a failure, either. Likely takings after Japan has finished screening the movie is going to be around $250m. That's not a failed movie. So at least one movie is going to happen. Likely, it will be a consolidation of content we've seen in 'PROMETHEUS', 'ALIEN Covenant' and the crowd pleasing elements of 'ALIENS' but on a much grander scale.
Hell, that actually sounds like a movie that could really kick the series back to life. Scott did say this was going to be Epic. At this point I have more reasons to believe him than not.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 22, 2017, 02:29:24 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 22, 2017, 09:12:17 AM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 22, 2017, 08:57:51 AM
I have an impression that Star Wars, Star Trek and any DC / Marvel fanbases / fandoms are MUCH MORE easily pleased. Alien fandom on the other hand is full of malcontents (sure they are to be found everywhere), but it is the most divisive one.
The franchises you mention all have one thing in common and that's a formula, they all have a template to follow so you pretty much get what you expect. The alien films are all so different that the fan base splits into different camps.
The Aliens action orientated approach appears to be the most popular from what I can see so I think that's probably the most financially viable route to take. It's not what I would like personally but it looks like I'm in the minority.
I do think that's the route Scott is intending to take the series. Take a look at the end of 'ALIEN Covenant'. It's set up for large scale conflict in that vein. Then consider some of the things that Scott has said - not just hinted at, but actually said.
On a number of occasions, he's mentioned a "war of the worlds" scenario. More than once he's indicated that. He's also mentioned a "possible return to an ALIENS" movie sometime. I can't remember where he's actually said these things so I am just paraphrasing. Mind you, he hasn't said too much else about the direction the next movie(s) will take but it appears to me from the evidence we have seen so far, Madness and War will be significant themes tackled. Especially as Scott has also said the Engineers will return to "find their planet decimated". Sounds to me like a healthy combat scenario is developing.
Given that Fox wants the 'ALIEN' series to be successful, it would be counterproductive to that goal to kill it dead right now. While it hasn't had 'Star Wars' or 'MCU' levels of success, it hasn't been a failure, either. Likely takings after Japan has finished screening the movie is going to be around $250m. That's not a failed movie. So at least one movie is going to happen. Likely, it will be a consolidation of content we've seen in 'PROMETHEUS', 'ALIEN Covenant' and the crowd pleasing elements of 'ALIENS' but on a much grander scale.
Hell, that actually sounds like a movie that could really kick the series back to life. Scott did say this was going to be Epic. At this point I have more reasons to believe him than not.
-Windebieste.
I hope you're right. I'm happy with a more action film approach if Scott is at the helm.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 22, 2017, 02:29:24 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 22, 2017, 09:12:17 AM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 22, 2017, 08:57:51 AM
I have an impression that Star Wars, Star Trek and any DC / Marvel fanbases / fandoms are MUCH MORE easily pleased. Alien fandom on the other hand is full of malcontents (sure they are to be found everywhere), but it is the most divisive one.
The franchises you mention all have one thing in common and that's a formula, they all have a template to follow so you pretty much get what you expect. The alien films are all so different that the fan base splits into different camps.
The Aliens action orientated approach appears to be the most popular from what I can see so I think that's probably the most financially viable route to take. It's not what I would like personally but it looks like I'm in the minority.
I do think that's the route Scott is intending to take the series. Take a look at the end of 'ALIEN Covenant'. It's set up for large scale conflict in that vein. Then consider some of the things that Scott has said - not just hinted at, but actually said.
On a number of occasions, he's mentioned a "war of the worlds" scenario. More than once he's indicated that. He's also mentioned a "possible return to an ALIENS" movie sometime. I can't remember where he's actually said these things so I am just paraphrasing. Mind you, he hasn't said too much else about the direction the next movie(s) will take but it appears to me from the evidence we have seen so far, Madness and War will be significant themes tackled. Especially as Scott has also said the Engineers will return to "find their planet decimated". Sounds to me like a healthy combat scenario is developing.
Given that Fox wants the 'ALIEN' series to be successful, it would be counterproductive to that goal to kill it dead right now. While it hasn't had 'Star Wars' or 'MCU' levels of success, it hasn't been a failure, either. Likely takings after Japan has finished screening the movie is going to be around $250m. That's not a failed movie. So at least one movie is going to happen. Likely, it will be a consolidation of content we've seen in 'PROMETHEUS', 'ALIEN Covenant' and the crowd pleasing elements of 'ALIENS' but on a much grander scale.
Hell, that actually sounds like a movie that could really kick the series back to life. Scott did say this was going to be Epic. At this point I have more reasons to believe him than not.
-Windebieste.
I'm crossing my fingers this is how they go.
The thing is that I don't trust Scott anymore :) What will be will be.
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 22, 2017, 02:57:43 PM
The thing is that I don't trust Scott anymore :) What will be will be.
All this talk about trust, and hurting fans feelings. He doesn't owe us anything. I hope he makes 100 films that conform to his ideas and his vision, and those things only.
"Beethoven, write your symphonies the way I want!" --Napoleon
he's the George Lucas of Alien, just give it to Blompkamp
My main issue with Covenant was that imo there wasn't enough focus on the creatures. It felt more like "David: Covenant", with the aliens just there to push the plot forward.
I want some grand scope action with engineers, humans, neos and xenos with War of the Worlds scale and Black Hawk Down's grittiness.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 22, 2017, 03:04:23 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 22, 2017, 02:57:43 PM
The thing is that I don't trust Scott anymore :) What will be will be.
All this talk about trust, and hurting fans feelings. He doesn't owe us anything. I hope he makes 100 films that conform to his ideas and his vision, and those things only.
"Beethoven, write your symphonies the way I want!" --Napoleon
Doesn't look like he will be doing more alien movies any time soon.
Just one more film to finish the story, and then no more Alien films.
Or I suppose that they could do a reboot, but only after I am dead, please.
They could make a "reboot" by just making another alien movie that is not related to any of the stuff that happened to the other movies so far.
It could still fit within the continuity, just make it unrelated to Ripley, LV-426 or whatever. Just a new story, new characters, make it more into the future so it doesn't contradict anything from the other movies, and leave the derelict from LV-426 alone.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Jul 22, 2017, 04:05:32 PM
They could make a "reboot" by just making another alien movie that is not related to any of the stuff that happened to the other movies so far.
It could still fit within the continuity, just make it unrelated to Ripley, LV-426 or whatever. Just a new story, new characters, make it more into the future so it doesn't contratict anything from the other movies, and leave the derelict from LV-426 alone.
I agree.
HERE YOU CAN READ SOME ADVICES FOR FILMMAKERS FROM A FAN:
1. Read some comics from Dark Horse but choose inspirations wisely.
2. Look at "ALIEN: ISOLATION", that famous game. Necessarily!
3. Hire someone who knows a lot about ALIEN and really love that "brand". Hire a real fan.
4. GET RID OF THE ENGINEERS. Space Jockeys were amazing. Do not destroy canon this time, please.
5. XENOMORPH is perfect. Do not make new creatures, seriously, we dont need them.
Especially, we do not need octopuses from outer space (Prometheus) or generic creatures from B class movies (Covenant).
6. Blomkamp is good, but not good enough. Call Denis Villeneuve, maybe he has some free time. :D
Fox should go big or go home. Give Ridley the budget and free reign to make his war of the worlds type sequel. Only this time don't sandwich the film's release date between massive pg-13 blockbuster franchises like Guardian's of the galaxy, Pirates of the Caribbean, and wonder woman. Honestly, what the hell did they think would happen? ???
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 22, 2017, 03:31:48 PM
I want some grand scope action with engineers, humans, neos and xenos with War of the Worlds scale and Black Hawk Down's grittiness.
Damn straight!
Studio interference will only make them worse. They should just tell him to wrap it up in one more picture, then reboot if they can't get NB back on board.
Quote from: axiomatic on Jul 22, 2017, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 22, 2017, 01:54:27 AM
Fox would have made more money with Prometheus 2 or The Forever War. Instead they let the rights to TFW lapse and asked him to turn P2 into an Alien prequel. If they learn anything from this error, it should be that they are better off asking Scott to make something original than ask him to copy prior work. He's much better setting trends than following them. Anybody can make a carbon copy of Alien, and it's been done many times. What nobody can replicate is Scott's perfect track record with original sci-fi movies. He knocks it out of the park every time. Covenant is the first sci-fi movie he's made that wasn't either a huge hit or a classic - or both. Covenant was the first time he made a movie that was neither. They should either get back on the Prometheus train and finish the trilogy in a bold, idea-driven way, or get the rights to something like The Forever War.
As much as I like Scott's work. Covenant feels like he phoned it in a bit. There is a great movie hiding in there somewhere but it feels rushed and underdeveloped. Either that or the studio meddled to much.
The xeno just isn't strong enough to carry the movie and they failed to establish a strong lead to hang the franchise on. David is a great character but he'd need to be on the level of Lecter insane to get people to put their butts in the seats.
At this point I'd say going for broke is probably the best idea for the franchise. Roll the dice and let Ridley do his thing. If it fails then soft reboot it and get Scott as far away as possible.
My feeling on this is that, yes, Scott phoned Covenant in. He only seemed to show any interest in the David scenes and the Shaw flashback. The xeno scenes, in particular, were definitely disinteresting to him. But I feel he would not have phoned in Prometheus 2. That was a passion project of his. He had a blast making Prometheus but constant meddling with the development broke him. Look at the number of writers, the number of drafts of Prometheus 2 before it was cancelled, the number of drafts of Covenant before it got the green light, the unused non-xeno design work, his comments about the proposed P2 plotlines and the xeno, how he added the xeno after Blomkamp's pitch... To me, it is clear that the studio wanted another Alien, not another Prometheus despite Scott's better judgement, he had no passion for the film, and the result was kind of a disaster. He wanted to stay captain of the franchise, but the studio was only going to commission an Alien movie. I think he should have let Blomkamp make his movie, which would have done just as poorly, if not worse, and then waited for the studio to realize their mistake and ask him on bended knee for another Prometheus. Instead, he made compromises to the Prometheus storyline that cannot be undone, Covenant ends with a setup going somewhere that not very many people are excited about. This is one of the saddest missed opportunities of Scott's career, if not the entire genre of science fiction. We could have had a really passionate, bold, cerebral movie, and instead we got another Alien movie with a taste of what could have been. To me, a huge sci-fi and Scott fan, this is heartbreaking. I'm still not over it.
QuoteGiven that Fox wants the 'ALIEN' series to be successful, it would be counterproductive to that goal to kill it dead right now. While it hasn't had 'Star Wars' or 'MCU' levels of success, it hasn't been a failure, either. Likely takings after Japan has finished screening the movie is going to be around $250m. That's not a failed movie. So at least one movie is going to happen
It actually has been a financial failure or at least a big disappointment to the studio. Making 250 million means nothing in itself.
I am somewhat confused because WHY is it counter productive to stop the franchise? It might be EXACTLY what the franchise needs right now before they plow ahead with throwing good money after bad.
The studio isn't pumping the brakes because the movie was a financial success.
QuoteLikely, it will be a consolidation of content we've seen in 'PROMETHEUS', 'ALIEN Covenant' and the crowd pleasing elements of 'ALIENS' but on a much grander scale.
So the audience isn't there to support a moderately budgeted covenant but you think the studio will spend even more next time?
Quote from: Samhain13 on Jul 22, 2017, 03:32:54 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 22, 2017, 03:04:23 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Jul 22, 2017, 02:57:43 PM
The thing is that I don't trust Scott anymore :) What will be will be.
All this talk about trust, and hurting fans feelings. He doesn't owe us anything. I hope he makes 100 films that conform to his ideas and his vision, and those things only.
"Beethoven, write your symphonies the way I want!" --Napoleon
Doesn't look like he will be doing more alien movies any time soon.
Sure he will. And the fans with scream and cry but Ridley will keep making films and Neil Blomkamp will die of old age before he can make one Alien film.
Call the guys who made Isolation...They know A L I E N more than Ridley Scott.
People who think Covenant is a massive failure to end a franchise and that it was Ridley Scott's fault are thinking very narrowly about how the film business works for franchises like these.
First, Fox made the mistake themselves, to release the film in the states the weekend before Memorial Day. It opened at number one a weekend before and then lost all kinds of $ - NOT BECAUSE IT WASN'T WELL RECEIVED, that's just what YOU WANT to think, because at that point it was very well received - but because PG13 films dominate Memorial Day weekend. The Studios make all of their money in the first few weeks of a films release and then the rest is really the money the theatres make. Fox knows all of that. Its' their job and they f**ked that up by moving up the release date.
Second, a franchise film like this is meant, from the studio's perspective, to prop up an already dominant franchise. In this case, unlike PROMETHEUS, which - again CONTRARY TO WHAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO THINK - propped up the franchise VERY well, and resulted in growth of the expanded universe, ALIEN:COVENANT did not PROP up interest in the franchise the way they would have liked. Also their fault for hamfisting in the xeno into a film that had lots of great new creatures to work with.
Still, all of this does not mean the film failed. It just failed to prop the franchise up the way, they'd hoped.
It will likely still make loads of profit on Home Formats and I guarantee everyone hemming and hawing now will end up appreciating it more, over time. SMH.
250mil dollars from an R-RATED film, is more than the most profitable R-Rated films, ever make. They will just attempt to make them for cheaper, or try to get Ripley back and 'go big.'
Honestly, the big mistake FOX made, whoever's decision it was, was to hamfist the Aliens-crap into the Prometheus sequel, when they had a great, great idea from the get-go to make Prometheus 2 AND Blomkamp's Alien at once. That only complicated COVENANT in a very difficult way, when it concerns moving forward now.
The reason for the re-evaluation is because they are worried that the next film will make less and need x to produce, which will further erode interest and value. So they are looking for the cracker jack prize next. What is it?
I still think the way out is through. But one ever realizes that no matter how much it's proven time and again.
Something like this is what Fox STILL needs to do. The solution is to go forward on all lose ends. Don't make 3 prequel or Blomkamp's Alien 3.2
Make 1 more cheap PROMETHEUS-story prequel (without the Alien if necessary), and then have Ripley 8 (while downplaying her '8-ness') encounter David on a W-Y research lab in space. Then make a final film where she or some pass-the-torch character go to that planet where David made aliens and wipe it out. The End.
The key word though is: SIMPLIFY. And can you do that with the ingredients on the table now? Well, a good writer can certainly do that but, will FOX let them?
From that perspective, Isolation is another obvious direction but unless it has an equally as simple throroughfare it also potentially will just make more of a mess.
They will have to pull a full stop like how Halloween did with Halloween III: Season of the Witch.
Maybe not as drastic, but to put a full stop to the storyline of David would be a good thing. Otherwise, it would do harm to something that is otherwise wasn't intended (David being the main antagonist).
Quote from: acrediblesource on Jul 22, 2017, 05:29:48 PM
They will have to pull a full stop like how Halloween did with Halloween III: Season of the Witch.
Maybe not as drastic, but to put a full stop to the storyline of David would be a good thing. Otherwise, it would do harm to something that is otherwise wasn't intended (David being the main antagonist).
It is possible to start with ISOLATION and then if all goes well, have that lead to a sequel where Amanda Ripley encounters David 8...
Which brings me back to my favorite thing about Covenant -
where it ended. It allows for almost any story to continue from it.
I want an alien movie set either in the 57 year gap between alien and aliens (like Isolation), or maybe pick up from alien 3 (with ripely still dead). Or, make a new continuity with Blomkamps film picking up from aliens. I mean they've already made non-canon alternate-continuities like AvP and the 'prometheus' series. I want to see W-Y's brass and yes, colonial marines. They're so underused after aliens, in fact never appearing in any other movie ever. No spin off modern day and/or blue guys in suits crap. Ridley ruined the alien's backstory, not that it ever needed one. It took away the alien's mystery and turned it into another 'movie monster' which was something I always considered the Alien to be above.
lol at these comments about how good prom and AC were.
Guys the answer is simple they sucked....nothing more nothing less I'm sorry that offends some of you.
its not marketing, its not the genre, its ridley his staff and his vision it just plan old sucks.
Stop trying to polish these "turds" of movies.
I have seen enough of these bad alien movies which are slightly better than avpR
Quote from: darkvegett0 on Jul 22, 2017, 06:37:11 PM
lol at these comments about how good prom and AC were.
Guys the answer is simple they sucked....nothing more nothing less I'm sorry that offends some of you.
its not marketing, its not the genre, its ridley his staff and his vision it just plan old sucks.
Stop trying to polish these "turds" of movies.
I have seen enough of these bad alien movies which are slightly better than avpR
Well that's like you're opinion man. ;D
Yeah, that comment gave me a headache. Sorry.
I think Scott should go make his movie about a Blue Pen. And leave anything Alien to some up coming Alien fanboy Director.
Never underestimate the power of a controversial headline to keep the buzz going...right? ;D
At this point, I don't think there will be 2 more prequels. It seems like Scott and Fox have driven a fairly big wedge between the Prometheus and Alien camps. I don't think they will ever be able to make both camps truly happy. Fox should do one more prequel to tie everything up and get us to the original Alien movie.
I still believe the future of the franchise rests in Alien 5 and beyond. A lot of complaints I heard about Covenant, especially the ending, was that it was the same stuff we have seen in previous Alien movies. I don't think the beast is cooked. However, I do think the traditional beast is cooked. We have seen the traditional beast too much. We need new variations and traits on what we are so familiar with. We need to be surprised and to be caught off-guard. We need new breeds of facehuggers, variations like the Deacon, and variations like the Neomorphs. This variety can only come with new sequels starting with Alien 5.
I suppose FOX is going to talk with Ridley Scott about the future(or death) of the ALIEN franchise.
Ridley has 3 films for his future: ATMITW, THE CARTEL and BATTLE OF BRITAIN.
THE CARTEL and BATTLE OF BRITAIN are FOX and SCOTT FREE(His Company) Productions. So, Scott and FOX still are in great terms.
Ridley is Producing MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS with FOX wich opens this November.
Well, perhaps it's for the best. Movies are just a modern form of storytelling. If you don't have a good story to tell, you don't have anything. The overall reception of the prequels has been "questionable" enough to warrant reassessment. Those who enjoy Covenant will say it was the release date or marketing, etc., those who dislike it will say it was just poorly written and cast, etc. Ending the prequels now will give the studio money to put towards other films that may be more successful, and I wouldn't blame them for it, it's a business afterall.
I don't know if the path the prequels have established could lead into some large scale war of the worlds thing. If they do go ahead, then keeping it low-key may be the best option. For instance, The covenant arrived at lv-426. David continued his experiments, and turned the colonists into thousands of eggs. Walter survived the fight, and pursued David in an engineer ship. As for the space jockey, David developed a facehugger that can impregnate synthetics, making Walter give birth to the first actual Biomechanoid xeno. Or, Daniels survived but was impregnated; she gives birth while trying to escape in the juggernaut. David, wounded but transfixed, gazes upon his perfect creation, and is killed. Pull back from an outside view of the juggernaut, the wind howling, and dust kicking up. The circle complete, cut to black, cue the "mother" sound effects from Alien, scroll a message across the screen. Special order 937...ect. Cut out.
Alien was a serious film. Taking these films seriously is a good thing, but "Aliens" had a fun side to it, and it was still a darn good movie. I could see the studio taking a step away from the series for awhile, then coming back with something along the lines of Aliens, bigger, but not so serious. For lack of a better description, Jurassic world. A few dirty jokes, lots of gunplay, and a fight with the queen. Modern audiences want to have fun watching movies, they want to see big creatures and set pieces and cgi wonders. I wouldn't be surprised if making an R-rated fun run out of the next movie did bring in some decent dough. Afterall, these are movies, it's okay to have fun.
As to where I personally stand? The prequels were a bad idea. They wasted time and money. With alittle more patience and better writers, we could have had 2 more good Alien films by now. The original movie was the gothic masterpiece, and it can't be outdone or re-created. The series has become like the old truck in the barn, let's either have some fun with it, or let it be. Course, with vehicles, there's always scrap value.
One more thing... leave Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver)!
She is dead, ok?
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 18, 2017, 06:22:58 PM
They're not Scified.
ROTFLMAO^googleplex :D
But seriously: I am glad for the prequels, and for that matter, any kind of science fiction that makes it to the cinema. Even Barbarella advanced the genre... ;)
The illusory immediacy of social media has contributed to fans' false sense of ownership; for every blog or podcast that strives to be constructive in its criticism/reaction, there are a dozen who preach the hate. Which do y'all think will stand the test of time?
I've been watching science fiction for four decades and even the "bad" films contribute to blazing the trail forward. If it were not for the cheesy science fiction of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we would not have the well-imagined stuff we see today.
To see what I mean, have a look at Max Shishkin's
Cinema Space Tribute (https://vimeo.com/113142476) and see how many films in it have great sequences in otherwise forgettable movies.
Quote from: Huggs on Jul 22, 2017, 07:17:58 PM
Well, perhaps it's for the best. Movies are just a modern form of storytelling. If you don't have a good story to tell, you don't have anything. The overall reception of the prequels has been "questionable" enough to warrant reassessment. Those who enjoy Covenant will say it was the release date or marketing, etc., those who dislike it will say it was just poorly written and cast, etc. Ending the prequels now will give the studio money to put towards other films that may be more successful, and I wouldn't blame them for it, it's a business afterall.
I don't know if the path the prequels have established could lead into some large scale war of the worlds thing. If they do go ahead, then keeping it low-key may be the best option. For instance, The covenant arrived at lv-426. David continued his experiments, and turned the colonists into thousands of eggs. Walter survived the fight, and pursued David in an engineer ship. As for the space jockey, David developed a facehugger that can impregnate synthetics, making Walter give birth to the first actual Biomechanoid xeno. Or, Daniels survived but was impregnated; she gives birth while trying to escape in the juggernaut. David, wounded but transfixed, gazes upon his perfect creation, and is killed. Pull back from an outside view of the juggernaut, the wind howling, and dust kicking up. The circle complete, cut to black, cue the "mother" sound effects from Alien, scroll a message across the screen. Special order 937...ect. Cut out.
Alien was a serious film. Taking these films seriously is a good thing, but "Aliens" had a fun side to it, and it was still a darn good movie. I could see the studio taking a step away from the series for awhile, then coming back with something along the lines of Aliens, bigger, but not so serious. For lack of a better description, Jurassic world. A few dirty jokes, lots of gunplay, and a fight with the queen. Modern audiences want to have fun watching movies, they want to see big creatures and set pieces and cgi wonders. I wouldn't be surprised if making an R-rated fun run out of the next movie did bring in some decent dough. Afterall, these are movies, it's okay to have fun.
As to where I personally stand? The prequels were a bad idea. They wasted time and money. With alittle more patience and better writers, we could have had 2 more good Alien films by now. The original movie was the gothic masterpiece, and it can't be outdone or re-created. The series has become like the old truck in the barn, let's either have some fun with it, or let it be. Course, with vehicles, there's always scrap value.
I diagree, not with how you presented your argument, that was very well done. What I disagree with is "re-booting" the franchise going the Jurassic World route. Why do I say this? The Jurassic franchise operates in a more "fantasy" setting than the Alien films. Jurassic World works within that context. The Alien films, well, they tend to suffer from identity crisis:
1. Alien - Horror
2. Aliens - Action/Sci-fi
3. Alien 3 - Gothic Horror (I would dare to say existential horror by how bleak it is)
4 Alien:Resurrection: Campy Sci-fi monster romp
5. Prometheus: Sci-fi Adventure with horror elements
6. Covenant: Sci-fi horror ala Hammer
There is only one thing that ties all of those films together and that is the titular creature—itself having gone through a metamorphosis with each iteration.
The Alien franchise has to figure out what it is and stick with it.
Rebooting the franchise with another Aliens clone may not work. Aliens worked because it took an existing idea that was successful and took a gamble by switching genres—lightning may not strike twice and from a monetary standpoint the studio may be a bit hesitant to make the wager. While it may excite people a bit more, it is still not a guaranteed formula. Also, Aliens is pretty well received, but the formula for its success may not transfer to this day and age. Good word of mouth is not enough to push a good film forward. War for the Planet of the Apes is a perfect example of even well-rated, well received, strong word of mouth films can still under perform in this era (remember what I said about context?).
So, what's the solution? I have to admit that I don't know. Films are not successful by mere chance alone, they require the right script, the right release time, etc. Film is a business, first and foremost. The context in which movies succeed depends a lot on the time of release. Release a movie like Alien today and general audiences—not fanboys—may not take well today. As a matter of fact, I would probably be correct in assuming that general audiences would be frustrated by its slow pace, dark lighting, classical score, and not to mention that audiences are desensitized to all manner of violence.Release a movie like Alien today during an immensely popular holiday weekend when family films are released and you are guaranteed a 71% drop in attendance. It's pragmatic business.
In a perfect world, my solution is simple— and others have echoed elements of it throughout this discussion already:
(in no particular order)
1. Keep Ridley on board, he gets the right idea of what the franchise is tone and visuals wise. However, reel his ass in with story elements and editing.
2. Give Ridley the budget he asks for, including access to good writers, and a production crew that is not afraid to call him out on shit
3. Hire excellent concept artists and production crews that are allowed to bring the vision of the writers, producers, and director to life
4. Secure the blessing of the Giger estate to use any and all material the studio and its benefactors deem fit
5. Move the storyline away from Ripley and female protagonists surviving at the end— that shit is done—yes, I know many will find issue to argue with this as it does constitute a trope within the franchise already
6. Return the franchise to its psychological and cosmic horror elements—if the story calls for a Lovecraftian tone and hopelessness then so be it
7. Define what the Alien franchise means. In my book: cosmic horror.
Quote from: Kimo on Jul 22, 2017, 06:49:23 PM
I think Scott should go make his movie about a Blue Pen. And leave anything Alien to some up coming Alien fanboy Director.
"Blue Pen"? Enhancement requested, please...
Quote from: lv_226 on Jul 22, 2017, 08:22:55 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jul 22, 2017, 07:17:58 PM
Well, perhaps it's for the best. Movies are just a modern form of storytelling. If you don't have a good story to tell, you don't have anything. The overall reception of the prequels has been "questionable" enough to warrant reassessment. Those who enjoy Covenant will say it was the release date or marketing, etc., those who dislike it will say it was just poorly written and cast, etc. Ending the prequels now will give the studio money to put towards other films that may be more successful, and I wouldn't blame them for it, it's a business afterall.
I don't know if the path the prequels have established could lead into some large scale war of the worlds thing. If they do go ahead, then keeping it low-key may be the best option. For instance, The covenant arrived at lv-426. David continued his experiments, and turned the colonists into thousands of eggs. Walter survived the fight, and pursued David in an engineer ship. As for the space jockey, David developed a facehugger that can impregnate synthetics, making Walter give birth to the first actual Biomechanoid xeno. Or, Daniels survived but was impregnated; she gives birth while trying to escape in the juggernaut. David, wounded but transfixed, gazes upon his perfect creation, and is killed. Pull back from an outside view of the juggernaut, the wind howling, and dust kicking up. The circle complete, cut to black, cue the "mother" sound effects from Alien, scroll a message across the screen. Special order 937...ect. Cut out.
Alien was a serious film. Taking these films seriously is a good thing, but "Aliens" had a fun side to it, and it was still a darn good movie. I could see the studio taking a step away from the series for awhile, then coming back with something along the lines of Aliens, bigger, but not so serious. For lack of a better description, Jurassic world. A few dirty jokes, lots of gunplay, and a fight with the queen. Modern audiences want to have fun watching movies, they want to see big creatures and set pieces and cgi wonders. I wouldn't be surprised if making an R-rated fun run out of the next movie did bring in some decent dough. Afterall, these are movies, it's okay to have fun.
As to where I personally stand? The prequels were a bad idea. They wasted time and money. With alittle more patience and better writers, we could have had 2 more good Alien films by now. The original movie was the gothic masterpiece, and it can't be outdone or re-created. The series has become like the old truck in the barn, let's either have some fun with it, or let it be. Course, with vehicles, there's always scrap value.
I diagree, not with how you presented your argument, that was very well done. What I disagree with is "re-booting" the franchise going the Jurassic World route. Why do I say this? The Jurassic franchise operates in a more "fantasy" setting than the Alien films. Jurassic World works within that context. The Alien films, well, they tend to suffer from identity crisis:
1. Alien - Horror
2. Aliens - Action/Sci-fi
3. Alien 3 - Gothic Horror (I would dare to say existential horror by how bleak it is)
4 Alien:Resurrection: Campy Sci-fi monster romp
5. Prometheus: Sci-fi Adventure with horror elements
6. Covenant: Sci-fi horror ala Hammer
There is only one thing that ties all of those films together and that is the titular creature—itself having gone through a metamorphosis with each iteration.
The Alien franchise has to figure out what it is and stick with it.
Rebooting the franchise with another Aliens clone may not work. Aliens worked because it took an existing idea that was successful and took a gamble by switching genres—lightning may not strike twice and from a monetary standpoint the studio may be a bit hesitant to make the wager. While it may excite people a bit more, it is still not a guaranteed formula. Also, Aliens is pretty well received, but the formula for its success may not transfer to this day and age. Good word of mouth is not enough to push a good film forward. War for the Planet of the Apes is a perfect example of even well-rated, well received, strong word of mouth films can still under perform in this era (remember what I said about context?).
So, what's the solution? I have to admit that I don't know. Films are not successful by mere chance alone, they require the right script, the right release time, etc. Film is a business, first and foremost. The context in which movies succeed depends a lot on the time of release. Release a movie like Alien today and general audiences—not fanboys—may not take well today. As a matter of fact, I would probably be correct in assuming that general audiences would be frustrated by its slow pace, dark lighting, classical score, and not to mention that audiences are desensitized to all manner of violence.Release a movie like Alien today during an immensely popular holiday weekend when family films are released and you are guaranteed a 71% drop in attendance. It's pragmatic business.
In a perfect world, my solution is simple— and others have echoed elements of it throughout this discussion already:
(in no particular order)
1. Keep Ridley on board, he gets the right idea of what the franchise is tone and visuals wise. However, reel his ass in with story elements and editing.
2. Give Ridley the budget he asks for, including access to good writers, and a production crew that is not afraid to call him out on shit
3. Hire excellent concept artists and production crews that are allowed to bring the vision of the writers, producers, and director to life
4. Secure the blessing of the Giger estate to use any and all material the studio and its benefactors deem fit
5. Move the storyline away from Ripley and female protagonists surviving at the end— that shit is done—yes, I know many will find issue to argue with this as it does constitute a trope within the franchise already
6. Return the franchise to its psychological and cosmic horror elements—if the story calls for a Lovecraftian tone and hopelessness then so be it
7. Define what the Alien franchise means. In my book: cosmic horror.
Great post. You make an awful lot of sense. Even if I don't agree 100% with every point, I do on most.
Quote from: FenGiddel on Jul 22, 2017, 08:28:41 PM
Quote from: Kimo on Jul 22, 2017, 06:49:23 PM
I think Scott should go make his movie about a Blue Pen. And leave anything Alien to some up coming Alien fanboy Director.
"Blue Pen"? Enhancement requested, please...
Lol it's just a sarcastic joke for when Scott was talking in a YouTube video about making movies. He was in a room with a few other famous directors people like Quentin Tarantino, Danny Boyle, Alejandro G. Inarritu and some other director. The were all talking about film making and what makes a good film. Ridley was talking about how you can turn anything in to a epic film. he then picks up a blue pen and talks about how you could make a film about it.
Anyhow it was something on them lines. I gathered most people won't know what I was on about? but one or 2 people on here might of got the joke I was referring to.
Thanks, Kimo.
Quote from: Kimo on Jul 22, 2017, 08:55:20 PM
Quote from: FenGiddel on Jul 22, 2017, 08:28:41 PM
Quote from: Kimo on Jul 22, 2017, 06:49:23 PM
I think Scott should go make his movie about a Blue Pen. And leave anything Alien to some up coming Alien fanboy Director.
"Blue Pen"? Enhancement requested, please...
Lol it's just a sarcastic joke for when Scott was talking in a YouTube video about making movies. He was in a room with a few other famous directors people like Quentin Tarantino, Danny Boyle, Alejandro G. Inarritu and some other director. The were all talking about film making and what makes a good film. Ridley was talking about how you can turn anything in to a epic film. he then picks up a blue pen and talks about how you could make a film about it.
Anyhow it was something on them lines. I gathered most people won't know what I was on about? but one or 2 people on here might of got the joke I was referring to.
I saw the 1 Hour version of that interview. Ridley Scott and Quentin Tarantino were the greatest and they have the best chemistry. That was weird because QT is a Film purist and RS is the Digital king.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 22, 2017, 08:44:33 PM
Quote from: lv_226 on Jul 22, 2017, 08:22:55 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jul 22, 2017, 07:17:58 PM
Well, perhaps it's for the best. Movies are just a modern form of storytelling. If you don't have a good story to tell, you don't have anything. The overall reception of the prequels has been "questionable" enough to warrant reassessment. Those who enjoy Covenant will say it was the release date or marketing, etc., those who dislike it will say it was just poorly written and cast, etc. Ending the prequels now will give the studio money to put towards other films that may be more successful, and I wouldn't blame them for it, it's a business afterall.
I don't know if the path the prequels have established could lead into some large scale war of the worlds thing. If they do go ahead, then keeping it low-key may be the best option. For instance, The covenant arrived at lv-426. David continued his experiments, and turned the colonists into thousands of eggs. Walter survived the fight, and pursued David in an engineer ship. As for the space jockey, David developed a facehugger that can impregnate synthetics, making Walter give birth to the first actual Biomechanoid xeno. Or, Daniels survived but was impregnated; she gives birth while trying to escape in the juggernaut. David, wounded but transfixed, gazes upon his perfect creation, and is killed. Pull back from an outside view of the juggernaut, the wind howling, and dust kicking up. The circle complete, cut to black, cue the "mother" sound effects from Alien, scroll a message across the screen. Special order 937...ect. Cut out.
Alien was a serious film. Taking these films seriously is a good thing, but "Aliens" had a fun side to it, and it was still a darn good movie. I could see the studio taking a step away from the series for awhile, then coming back with something along the lines of Aliens, bigger, but not so serious. For lack of a better description, Jurassic world. A few dirty jokes, lots of gunplay, and a fight with the queen. Modern audiences want to have fun watching movies, they want to see big creatures and set pieces and cgi wonders. I wouldn't be surprised if making an R-rated fun run out of the next movie did bring in some decent dough. Afterall, these are movies, it's okay to have fun.
As to where I personally stand? The prequels were a bad idea. They wasted time and money. With alittle more patience and better writers, we could have had 2 more good Alien films by now. The original movie was the gothic masterpiece, and it can't be outdone or re-created. The series has become like the old truck in the barn, let's either have some fun with it, or let it be. Course, with vehicles, there's always scrap value.
I diagree, not with how you presented your argument, that was very well done. What I disagree with is "re-booting" the franchise going the Jurassic World route. Why do I say this? The Jurassic franchise operates in a more "fantasy" setting than the Alien films. Jurassic World works within that context. The Alien films, well, they tend to suffer from identity crisis:
1. Alien - Horror
2. Aliens - Action/Sci-fi
3. Alien 3 - Gothic Horror (I would dare to say existential horror by how bleak it is)
4 Alien:Resurrection: Campy Sci-fi monster romp
5. Prometheus: Sci-fi Adventure with horror elements
6. Covenant: Sci-fi horror ala Hammer
There is only one thing that ties all of those films together and that is the titular creature—itself having gone through a metamorphosis with each iteration.
The Alien franchise has to figure out what it is and stick with it.
Rebooting the franchise with another Aliens clone may not work. Aliens worked because it took an existing idea that was successful and took a gamble by switching genres—lightning may not strike twice and from a monetary standpoint the studio may be a bit hesitant to make the wager. While it may excite people a bit more, it is still not a guaranteed formula. Also, Aliens is pretty well received, but the formula for its success may not transfer to this day and age. Good word of mouth is not enough to push a good film forward. War for the Planet of the Apes is a perfect example of even well-rated, well received, strong word of mouth films can still under perform in this era (remember what I said about context?).
So, what's the solution? I have to admit that I don't know. Films are not successful by mere chance alone, they require the right script, the right release time, etc. Film is a business, first and foremost. The context in which movies succeed depends a lot on the time of release. Release a movie like Alien today and general audiences—not fanboys—may not take well today. As a matter of fact, I would probably be correct in assuming that general audiences would be frustrated by its slow pace, dark lighting, classical score, and not to mention that audiences are desensitized to all manner of violence.Release a movie like Alien today during an immensely popular holiday weekend when family films are released and you are guaranteed a 71% drop in attendance. It's pragmatic business.
In a perfect world, my solution is simple— and others have echoed elements of it throughout this discussion already:
(in no particular order)
1. Keep Ridley on board, he gets the right idea of what the franchise is tone and visuals wise. However, reel his ass in with story elements and editing.
2. Give Ridley the budget he asks for, including access to good writers, and a production crew that is not afraid to call him out on shit
3. Hire excellent concept artists and production crews that are allowed to bring the vision of the writers, producers, and director to life
4. Secure the blessing of the Giger estate to use any and all material the studio and its benefactors deem fit
5. Move the storyline away from Ripley and female protagonists surviving at the end— that shit is done—yes, I know many will find issue to argue with this as it does constitute a trope within the franchise already
6. Return the franchise to its psychological and cosmic horror elements—if the story calls for a Lovecraftian tone and hopelessness then so be it
7. Define what the Alien franchise means. In my book: cosmic horror.
Great post. You make an awful lot of sense. Even if I don't agree 100% with every point, I do on most.
I agree with 6 of your 7 points. I disagree with your 2nd point.
2.- NO A-Lister like Ridley Scott, Steven Spielberg, etc is going to change his Crews. Usually A-Listers like Ridley or Spielberg work with the same Editor, the same D.P., the same Production Designer, etc
For example: Martin Scorsese worked 40 YEARS with the same Editor.
It feels like the new movies are missing the Gigeresque and biomechanical dark elements of the scenery in the new films.I think what worked well for Alien and Aliens were the camera tricks, miniatures, and practical effects used. In Aliens, seeing a bunch of Aliens slowly creeping in the ceiling looked actually real and creepy. In Alien Covenant, when the alien is creeping around the ship, it looked horribly fake like something in a B movie on the Sci-Fi channel. And the new movies seem to suffer from lack of build up and tension like with the original 2 films. It feels like major reveals happen a lot earlier on in the newer films. And I always felt what worked so well in Alien and Aliens was the use of dark corridors and only getting quick glimpses of the Aliens. The original movies did a good job of making the Alien feel like a major threat and something actually scary. Covenant kind of ruined the mystique and mystery behind the Alien and turned it into a science experiment. If it wasn't for the black goo being originally created by the Engineers, technically the Alien isn't even an Alien anymore based on what transpires in Covenant. It's more of a mutation now than actually being a creature from another planet. And that just ruins any mystery behind the Alien creature for me.
Quote from: lv_226 on Jul 22, 2017, 08:22:55 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jul 22, 2017, 07:17:58 PM
Well, perhaps it's for the best. Movies are just a modern form of storytelling. If you don't have a good story to tell, you don't have anything. The overall reception of the prequels has been "questionable" enough to warrant reassessment. Those who enjoy Covenant will say it was the release date or marketing, etc., those who dislike it will say it was just poorly written and cast, etc. Ending the prequels now will give the studio money to put towards other films that may be more successful, and I wouldn't blame them for it, it's a business afterall.
I don't know if the path the prequels have established could lead into some large scale war of the worlds thing. If they do go ahead, then keeping it low-key may be the best option. For instance, The covenant arrived at lv-426. David continued his experiments, and turned the colonists into thousands of eggs. Walter survived the fight, and pursued David in an engineer ship. As for the space jockey, David developed a facehugger that can impregnate synthetics, making Walter give birth to the first actual Biomechanoid xeno. Or, Daniels survived but was impregnated; she gives birth while trying to escape in the juggernaut. David, wounded but transfixed, gazes upon his perfect creation, and is killed. Pull back from an outside view of the juggernaut, the wind howling, and dust kicking up. The circle complete, cut to black, cue the "mother" sound effects from Alien, scroll a message across the screen. Special order 937...ect. Cut out.
Alien was a serious film. Taking these films seriously is a good thing, but "Aliens" had a fun side to it, and it was still a darn good movie. I could see the studio taking a step away from the series for awhile, then coming back with something along the lines of Aliens, bigger, but not so serious. For lack of a better description, Jurassic world. A few dirty jokes, lots of gunplay, and a fight with the queen. Modern audiences want to have fun watching movies, they want to see big creatures and set pieces and cgi wonders. I wouldn't be surprised if making an R-rated fun run out of the next movie did bring in some decent dough. Afterall, these are movies, it's okay to have fun.
As to where I personally stand? The prequels were a bad idea. They wasted time and money. With alittle more patience and better writers, we could have had 2 more good Alien films by now. The original movie was the gothic masterpiece, and it can't be outdone or re-created. The series has become like the old truck in the barn, let's either have some fun with it, or let it be. Course, with vehicles, there's always scrap value.
I diagree, not with how you presented your argument, that was very well done. What I disagree with is "re-booting" the franchise going the Jurassic World route. Why do I say this? The Jurassic franchise operates in a more "fantasy" setting than the Alien films. Jurassic World works within that context. The Alien films, well, they tend to suffer from identity crisis:
1. Alien - Horror
2. Aliens - Action/Sci-fi
3. Alien 3 - Gothic Horror (I would dare to say existential horror by how bleak it is)
4 Alien:Resurrection: Campy Sci-fi monster romp
5. Prometheus: Sci-fi Adventure with horror elements
6. Covenant: Sci-fi horror ala Hammer
There is only one thing that ties all of those films together and that is the titular creature—itself having gone through a metamorphosis with each iteration.
The Alien franchise has to figure out what it is and stick with it.
Rebooting the franchise with another Aliens clone may not work. Aliens worked because it took an existing idea that was successful and took a gamble by switching genres—lightning may not strike twice and from a monetary standpoint the studio may be a bit hesitant to make the wager. While it may excite people a bit more, it is still not a guaranteed formula. Also, Aliens is pretty well received, but the formula for its success may not transfer to this day and age. Good word of mouth is not enough to push a good film forward. War for the Planet of the Apes is a perfect example of even well-rated, well received, strong word of mouth films can still under perform in this era (remember what I said about context?).
So, what's the solution? I have to admit that I don't know. Films are not successful by mere chance alone, they require the right script, the right release time, etc. Film is a business, first and foremost. The context in which movies succeed depends a lot on the time of release. Release a movie like Alien today and general audiences—not fanboys—may not take well today. As a matter of fact, I would probably be correct in assuming that general audiences would be frustrated by its slow pace, dark lighting, classical score, and not to mention that audiences are desensitized to all manner of violence.Release a movie like Alien today during an immensely popular holiday weekend when family films are released and you are guaranteed a 71% drop in attendance. It's pragmatic business.
In a perfect world, my solution is simple— and others have echoed elements of it throughout this discussion already:
(in no particular order)
1. Keep Ridley on board, he gets the right idea of what the franchise is tone and visuals wise. However, reel his ass in with story elements and editing.
2. Give Ridley the budget he asks for, including access to good writers, and a production crew that is not afraid to call him out on shit
3. Hire excellent concept artists and production crews that are allowed to bring the vision of the writers, producers, and director to life
4. Secure the blessing of the Giger estate to use any and all material the studio and its benefactors deem fit
5. Move the storyline away from Ripley and female protagonists surviving at the end— that shit is done—yes, I know many will find issue to argue with this as it does constitute a trope within the franchise already
6. Return the franchise to its psychological and cosmic horror elements—if the story calls for a Lovecraftian tone and hopelessness then so be it
7. Define what the Alien franchise means. In my book: cosmic horror.
I am not so sure on the cosmic horror, it works better in the frame of single film. I don't think it works that well in the context of entire franchise. There is a reason that almost none of Lovecraft's story made to the big screen and all of his works are in the form of short story. Cosmic horror, or perhaps horror in general, works better in the form of relatively short and standalone story.
I think Ridley should be removed from the final prequel movie.
I liked Prometheus. Yes it has flaws, but it was different, it was its own beast.
Covenant was a great idea poorly executed. It was a mishmash of Alien & Aliens... almost like a greatest hits mix.
Covenant was trying to be all things to all men, rather than a direct sequel to Prometheus or a new kind of prequel.
Ridley has had his go, but he's past it. Very sad to say that, but I think it's true.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: Marcus9000 on Jul 22, 2017, 10:29:48 PM
Covenant was trying to be all things to all men, rather than a direct sequel to Prometheus or a new kind of prequel.
And it did so solely as an attempt to appease screaming fans on the internet. If anyone's screwed the series, it's
us.
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Jul 22, 2017, 10:47:17 PM
Quote from: Marcus9000 on Jul 22, 2017, 10:29:48 PM
Covenant was trying to be all things to all men, rather than a direct sequel to Prometheus or a new kind of prequel.
And it did so solely as an attempt to appease screaming fans on the internet. If anyone's screwed the series, it's us.
Perhaps but I don't think anyone cried out for cute little aliens who communicated with their "master"... Even that small neomorph looked cute, sacrilege!
I didnt find any of the creatures to be cute.
Scan some of the one star reviews on IMDB, a LOT of them end with the caveat to the tune of "Huff, stomp, huff, stoimp! This is what we got instead of Blomkamp's Aliens sequel with Hicks and Newt!"
Sorry, the online Alien community (more Cameron's Aliens really) are pathetic, poisonous and embarrassing. Even more so than Star Wars or Star Trek obsessives. Why? Aliens fans somehow think they are more mature and somehow smarter because their film is R rated. Nasty little bunch of shit bags is what I see.
Some of my friends like the Alien films, but they aren't quite into it as much as me. They saw these type of IMDB reviews on the front page and they thought they'd give it a miss. It's a small demographic I know, but they all saw Prometheus in the cinema, they are the 'normies'.
Well done Blomkamp and your quarry of petulant Aliens fans.
Blomkamp seems nice a enough chap in interviews, some of his stuff is ok... but he is a bellend, pure and simple.
And, that communication thing was at least a new direction... something I have no problem with.
With Covenant f**king everything up so badly, it's hard to say how the any squeal would pan out! As for the future of Aliens, unless there is some new dimension to the Aliens...I cannot see anything new worth seeing that we haven't already seen. I would like to know more about the Engineers/Shaw and the ten years between Prometheus and Covenant; perhaps a movie that spans from the ending of Prometheus through the covenant time-frame to line up/ end up with the space jockey. Otherwise I am bored and disappointed!
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2017, 02:16:41 AM
Turning back towards the Alien rather than away as Riddles intended originally, is a response to fans. Responding to feedback is what happens when fans have a say; it's not simply greed taking over. They want to make a product that people are interested in. Had they gone with Ridley's original ideas and strayed further from Alien, things potentially could've been even worse.
The point that they did not respond to feedback from fans is the reason why one can argue that greed has taken over. And greed is involved because large amounts of invested money are involved, returns from those can only be achieved by selling to a global audience, and much of that audience does not consist of fans.
That's why they tried to offer something new to the same audience using a combination of a backstory that they attempted with gravitas and then coupled that with multiple elements from the first two movies.
In a sense, both
Prometheus and the latest film are not so much prequels (which is how fans would logically see them) as a "reboot" of the franchise for a worldwide audience, most of which probably never watched the first few movies.
Quote from: question11 on Jul 22, 2017, 03:09:24 AM
who the f**k were these fans? twitter users five years ago? what about prometheus fans? numbers dont lie. double covenant box office.
But what's the point if the box office revenues are cut down by a third to a half due to distribution and costs almost doubled due to marketing?
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2017, 03:24:19 AM
Fact remains, Ridley said he didn't have any plans to pursue something relating to the Alien and wanted move away from it. Yet here we are.
That probably has to do with the point that it's not Ridley who has the final say but investors who hold a majority stake in the project.
Quote from: Mikeo on Jul 22, 2017, 03:32:23 AM
Throw out the old boy. In favor of james Cameron or neil blomkoff.
I think the problem with the current film isn't the director but the story. And ultimately investors and producers have final say on that.
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 22, 2017, 05:08:19 AM
This fanbase will never be satisfied. The problem is that there are three fanbases meshed together: One for Prometheus, Alien, and Aliens. I happen to love all the Alien movies so I'm clearly in the minority. Covenant is one of the best films in the franchise so I'm really confused by all the negativity. We were finally starting to get some amazing ideas put back into the franchise. I fear Fox will kneejerk into another commercial endeavor like AvP to satisfy the lowest common denominator. The "fanbase" would deserve it though.
It's also possible that many members of the audience that the film has to reach in order to profit are not fans.
Some decent posts in the last day. As someone who didn't really enjoy the ideas presented in Covenant, I still think Ridley Scott should finish what he started. I think the major damage has already been done in terms of lore, it doesn't really matter who the guy in the chair is now because we've already got a fairly good idea that it involves an Engineer, David and Alien Eggs.
I think it being almost Ridley's last film would be a good end to his career since Alien was at the start. If he can just nail down the story and not worry so much about what people want then I think it could still be a good ending.
I want to cry. Please don't let this franchise die like Terminator.
Quote from: Tonyhartmorph on Jul 22, 2017, 11:19:58 PM
Scan some of the one star reviews on IMDB, a LOT of them end with the caveat to the tune of "Huff, stomp, huff, stoimp! This is what we got instead of Blomkamp's Aliens sequel with Hicks and Newt!"
Sorry, the online Alien community (more Cameron's Aliens really) are pathetic, poisonous and embarrassing. Even more so than Star Wars or Star Trek obsessives. Why? Aliens fans somehow think they are more mature and somehow smarter because their film is R rated. Nasty little bunch of shit bags is what I see.
Some of my friends like the Alien films, but they aren't quite into it as much as me. They saw these type of IMDB reviews on the front page and they thought they'd give it a miss. It's a small demographic I know, but they all saw Prometheus in the cinema, they are the 'normies'.
Well done Blomkamp and your quarry of petulant Aliens fans.
Blomkamp seems nice a enough chap in interviews, some of his stuff is ok... but he is a bellend, pure and simple.
Yes I completely agree. Whether he did it deliberately or not, Blomkamp was at least partially responsible for this huge social media hetz against Alien Covenant. Many of the one star reviews look like almost exact copies of each other ("muhh space-suits", "muhh Alien 5", "Ridley Scott is a senile and should be euthanized" etc.), exactly because people copied their opinions from a popular narrative on social media. Then we had the misleading marketing campaign for Alien Covenant, i.e. Fox tried to sell it as an action-horror, which it is not. This only added further fuel to the fire. Some of my friends did like your friends, they skipped it because they heard it was bad. Sure, this is anecdotal, but the box office numbers speak for themselves.
QuoteThe point that they did not respond to feedback from fans is the reason why one can argue that greed has taken over.
Including Aliens
is a response to feedback.
QuoteThat probably has to do with the point that it's not Ridley who has the final say but investors who hold a majority stake in the project.
How do you know he didn't have final say? If Ridley wasn't on board with what the studio wanted - he would've walked. It's not like he isn't busy.
People continue to blame fans and movie goers like somehow they are responsible. Transformers movies suck, really suck, yet they continue to make coin.
The good thing about the Alien franchise is that I don't think you need bucket loads of cash to make it work. A lower budget prequel would probably work in the movies favour. You know you'd have to ...tell a good story.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 02:35:48 AM
People continue to blame fans and movie goers like somehow they are responsible. Transformers movies suck, really suck, yet they continue to make coin.
The good thing about the Alien franchise is that I don't think you need bucket loads of cash to make it work. A lower budget prequel would probably work in the movies favour. You know you'd have to ...tell a good story.
I think a lower budget would be a win-win for the studio and fans.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 22, 2017, 08:57:51 AM
I have an impression that Star Wars, Star Trek and any DC / Marvel fanbases / fandoms are MUCH MORE easily pleased. Alien fandom on the other hand is full of malcontents (sure they are to be found everywhere), but it is the most divisive one.
I'm not sure about the first two franchises given the recent films. On the other hand, I think producers have been targeting regular viewers looking for sci-fi and fantasy spectacles.
Quote from: Tonyhartmorph on Jul 22, 2017, 11:19:58 PM
Scan some of the one star reviews on IMDB, a LOT of them end with the caveat to the tune of "Huff, stomp, huff, stoimp! This is what we got instead of Blomkamp's Aliens sequel with Hicks and Newt!"
Sorry, the online Alien community (more Cameron's Aliens really) are pathetic, poisonous and embarrassing. Even more so than Star Wars or Star Trek obsessives. Why? Aliens fans somehow think they are more mature and somehow smarter because their film is R rated. Nasty little bunch of shit bags is what I see.
Some of my friends like the Alien films, but they aren't quite into it as much as me. They saw these type of IMDB reviews on the front page and they thought they'd give it a miss. It's a small demographic I know, but they all saw Prometheus in the cinema, they are the 'normies'.
Well done Blomkamp and your quarry of petulant Aliens fans.
Blomkamp seems nice a enough chap in interviews, some of his stuff is ok... but he is a bellend, pure and simple.
Oh please. Another film similar to Aliens would've been a hell of a lot better than the shit we got instead. Doesnt even need to be Blomkamp. And Aliens being great has nothing to do with its rating.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 02:24:33 AM
Including Aliens is a response to feedback.
I don't think there was a greater drive to gain the attention of a global audience then.
Quote
How do you know he didn't have final say? If Ridley wasn't on board with what the studio wanted - he would've walked. It's not like he isn't busy.
I think it's the studio that owns the franchise.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 02:35:48 AM
People continue to blame fans and movie goers like somehow they are responsible. Transformers movies suck, really suck, yet they continue to make coin.
The good thing about the Alien franchise is that I don't think you need bucket loads of cash to make it work. A lower budget prequel would probably work in the movies favour. You know you'd have to ...tell a good story.
Indeed. That is likely the main flaw of the recent film.
QuoteI think it's the studio that owns the franchise.
Yes. Not sure what the point of saying this is though.
The executives at FOX have been mis-managing this franchise for years...really since Alien 3. I don't think they've made a good decision regarding the Alien films since green-lighting Aliens.
They shouldn't have killed Blomkamp's Alien 5. They really need to remove everything but Alien and Aliens as canon. Knowing the origin of the Aliens cheapens them. Although poetic, their origin robs them of their majesty. Every good horror writer understands that explaining too much makes the audience feel too safe, too familiar. Scott apparently never learned that lesson.
Fans is "Partly to Blame" you cannot defend your way out of that!!! because a lot of the community want to Write, Direct and Produce all Alien movies(if you understand what I mean), let me elaborate, nothing satisfies the community good or bad. If it's not the writing, its the CGI, its the acting, too much Alien or too less, I can go on so what is it going to be? let me remind you this is the same people who SHIT on Prometheus and not they praise now. do you see the hypocrisy?. Then the same ppl make Youtube vids about the movie about all its flaws and with perceived lol. Watching these vids how ppl trying to rationalize Covenant & Prometheus its entertaining, well to me. Then there is the economics behind just making money from the movie, not everybody like Aliens and Covenant is a Prequel( not much new ppl interested unless they watch all of them), if the movie is too long less showings per day, Rated R( limits your audience). I would think when all this nonsense goes on the net it discourages ppl from watching the movie, and lastly ppl started bashing Ridley, trust me as popular this site is Fox ppl and actors read, and go Youtube nobody is living under a rock these days.
Quote from: FatBrando on Jul 23, 2017, 04:01:21 AM
The executives at FOX have been mis-managing this franchise for years...really since Alien 3. I don't think they've made a good decision regarding the Alien films since green-lighting Aliens.
They shouldn't have killed Blomkamp's Alien 5. They really need to remove everything but Alien and Aliens as canon. Knowing the origin of the Aliens cheapens them. Although poetic, their origin robs them of their majesty. Every good horror writer understands that explaining too much makes the audience feel too safe, too familiar. Scott apparently never learned that lesson.
Getting a little tired of this Blomkamp was going to 'rescue the franchise' bullshit. None of that. Absolutely none of that is proven. There's also nothing anywhere says it was going to be any good.
'PROMETHEUS' and 'ALIEN Covenant' are good, solid movies. Flawed, true; but nowhere near as flawed as retconning an entire series just to accommodate an aging actor reprising a role of a deceased character they haven't played in 30 years. That's just all kinds of f**ked.
-Windebieste.
TropicalXeno: Fans is "Partly to Blame" you cannot defend your way out of that!!! because a lot of the community want to Write, Direct and Produce all Alien movies(if you understand what I mean), let me elaborate, nothing satisfies the community good or bad. If it's not the writing, its the CGI, its the acting, too much Alien or too less, I can go on so what is it going to be?
- The fans are not to "blame" - These movies are terrible, Scott has lost his mind and people do not
just pick apart films that we all want to succede because we're "haters". However sick of hearing valid
critisism that you are, I am double sick of hearing all the praise for mediocrity. I'm sick of hearing SJWs
preach about how we're supposed to vote GOOD on things that suck, just so they keep churning it out.
The farther away I get from ALIEN COVENANT, the worse taste it leaves. It really did suck in so many
ways and yes, all the critisisms are VALID. I can not stand the arrogance of the studios, they simply
will not accept that they make bad movies. They always come up with reasons like the stupid excuse
that people didn't like PROMETHEUS because it had no alien in it... WHY? Because they won't accept
that we didn't like it, not because it had no alien in it, but because it SUCKED. It ruined the mystery.
It changed the whole point and tone. The alien series isn't supposed to be what Ridley is trying to make
it be. Don't get me wrong, Ridley used to be one of my favorite directors and I really held out a long time,
being continuously let down again and again until I have finally just accepted he's lost whatever he had.
ALIEN was not just Ridley either, it was a magical film where the stars aligned and many talented
artists, all at the top of their game and driven came together. Dan O'Bannon, Jerry Goldsmith, H.R. Giger,
Ron Cobb, Ron Shusett... When you put the garbage they've put on these alien prequels behind the
scenes like all these lame writers and yes men, that is why it sucks. They don't even respect the original
creators! They don't even bother calling the ones who are still alive and around, they just throw in people
who were often not even alive when the original was made and what you get is what we got. Garbage.
The ALIEN series is no more than MARVEL or D.C. UNIVERSE now. It's sad but that's what it is.
It's comic book CGI fodder for this generation, it isn't for my generation and we're the ones who made
the original successful. Maybe young people like where it's going but no one who loved the original does.
Quote from: MnTd on Jul 23, 2017, 06:49:14 AMMaybe young people like where it's going but no one who loved the original does.
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!1!!! Such an inaccurate generalisation of the most absurd kind. lol.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: MnTd on Jul 23, 2017, 06:49:14 AM
TropicalXeno:
It's comic book CGI fodder for this generation, it isn't for my generation and we're the ones who made
the original successful. Maybe young people like where it's going but no one who loved the original does.
Well that's just nonsense. I'm 43 and Alien has been my fave film since I was 9, that makes me an original fan and I think Covenant is great.
A poor choice of release date, misleading marketing and bad word of mouth mainly from supposed fans are the main reasons it underperformed at the BO. I don't expect all fans to like it but it went beyond fair criticism into petulant, frothy mouthed tantrums because they didn't get the film they had written in they're heads.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 07:49:19 AM
Quote from: MnTd on Jul 23, 2017, 06:49:14 AM
TropicalXeno:
It's comic book CGI fodder for this generation, it isn't for my generation and we're the ones who made
the original successful. Maybe young people like where it's going but no one who loved the original does.
Well that's just nonsense. I'm 43 and Alien has been my fave film since I was 9, that makes me an original fan and I think Covenant is great.
A poor choice of release date, misleading marketing and bad word of mouth mainly from supposed fans are the main reasons it underperformed at the BO. I don't expect all fans to like it but it went beyond fair criticism into petulant, frothy mouthed tantrums because they didn't get the film they had written in they're heads.
Every single review I've watched, read or listened to by non fans criticises the same things the "fans" did.
Quote from: TropicalXeno on Jul 23, 2017, 05:19:18 AM
I would think when all this nonsense goes on the net it discourages ppl from watching the movie,
I know one professional critic in Poland (not a film critic, though), who is among most respected, who wants to see Blade Runner 2049 but skipped on Alien: Covenant with the impression that nothing can come close to Alien / Aliens. That negativity got out to him too. f**king sad.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 08:02:00 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 07:49:19 AM
Quote from: MnTd on Jul 23, 2017, 06:49:14 AM
TropicalXeno:
It's comic book CGI fodder for this generation, it isn't for my generation and we're the ones who made
the original successful. Maybe young people like where it's going but no one who loved the original does.
Well that's just nonsense. I'm 43 and Alien has been my fave film since I was 9, that makes me an original fan and I think Covenant is great.
A poor choice of release date, misleading marketing and bad word of mouth mainly from supposed fans are the main reasons it underperformed at the BO. I don't expect all fans to like it but it went beyond fair criticism into petulant, frothy mouthed tantrums because they didn't get the film they had written in they're heads.
Every single review I've watched, read or listened to by non fans criticises the same things the "fans" did.
And actually very few professional reviews did a convincing job at delivering meritorical arguments, unless you count cognitive dissonance meltdowns coupled with self-righteous beliefs of what ALIEN MUST STAND FOR. Most of critics who bashed it were butthurt it stripped Alien out of mystery and said it should be like the original Alien, all about mystery, plus they implied it also should be more connected with Weyland-Yutani arc.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 07:49:19 AM
Quote from: MnTd on Jul 23, 2017, 06:49:14 AM
TropicalXeno:
It's comic book CGI fodder for this generation, it isn't for my generation and we're the ones who made
the original successful. Maybe young people like where it's going but no one who loved the original does.
Well that's just nonsense. I'm 43 and Alien has been my fave film since I was 9, that makes me an original fan and I think Covenant is great.
A poor choice of release date, misleading marketing and bad word of mouth mainly from supposed fans are the main reasons it underperformed at the BO. I don't expect all fans to like it but it went beyond fair criticism into petulant, frothy mouthed tantrums because they didn't get the film they had written in they're heads.
Yep.
Mind you, anyone who starts moaning about "SJWs" is screaming desperately to not be taken remotely seriously.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 08:10:24 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 07:49:19 AM
Quote from: MnTd on Jul 23, 2017, 06:49:14 AM
TropicalXeno:
It's comic book CGI fodder for this generation, it isn't for my generation and we're the ones who made
the original successful. Maybe young people like where it's going but no one who loved the original does.
Well that's just nonsense. I'm 43 and Alien has been my fave film since I was 9, that makes me an original fan and I think Covenant is great.
A poor choice of release date, misleading marketing and bad word of mouth mainly from supposed fans are the main reasons it underperformed at the BO. I don't expect all fans to like it but it went beyond fair criticism into petulant, frothy mouthed tantrums because they didn't get the film they had written in they're heads.
Yep.
Mind you, anyone who starts moaning about "SJWs" is screaming desperately to not be taken remotely seriously.
When WIRED posted their biased essay on Covenant, I replied to the author within moments and some people wanted me to die and called me a "SJW" :D
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 08:02:00 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 07:49:19 AM
Quote from: MnTd on Jul 23, 2017, 06:49:14 AM
TropicalXeno:
It's comic book CGI fodder for this generation, it isn't for my generation and we're the ones who made
the original successful. Maybe young people like where it's going but no one who loved the original does.
Well that's just nonsense. I'm 43 and Alien has been my fave film since I was 9, that makes me an original fan and I think Covenant is great.
A poor choice of release date, misleading marketing and bad word of mouth mainly from supposed fans are the main reasons it underperformed at the BO. I don't expect all fans to like it but it went beyond fair criticism into petulant, frothy mouthed tantrums because they didn't get the film they had written in they're heads.
Every single review I've watched, read or listened to by non fans criticises the same things the "fans" did.
They were mainly positive or at least balanced reviews. I have no problem with that at all. Many of the fan comments I saw couldn't be regarded as balanced IMO. When you get people holding pulse rifles and slating Ridley Scott in a so called "review" you know what the agenda is.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 08:10:24 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 07:49:19 AM
Quote from: MnTd on Jul 23, 2017, 06:49:14 AM
TropicalXeno:
It's comic book CGI fodder for this generation, it isn't for my generation and we're the ones who made
the original successful. Maybe young people like where it's going but no one who loved the original does.
Well that's just nonsense. I'm 43 and Alien has been my fave film since I was 9, that makes me an original fan and I think Covenant is great.
A poor choice of release date, misleading marketing and bad word of mouth mainly from supposed fans are the main reasons it underperformed at the BO. I don't expect all fans to like it but it went beyond fair criticism into petulant, frothy mouthed tantrums because they didn't get the film they had written in they're heads.
Yep.
Mind you, anyone who starts moaning about "SJWs" is screaming desperately to not be taken remotely seriously.
What does SJW even mean?
Social Justice Warrior. Mainly used as a pejorative term, often by people to the right of the political spectrum in the absence of an actual argument or indeed anything intelligent.
Just based on that guy's writing style and usage of 2017 terms and insults such as SJW, it's pretty clear it's some 20 year old millenial sperging out.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 08:25:28 AM
Social Justice Warrior. Mainly used as a pejorative term, often by people to the right of the political spectrum in the absence of an actual argument or indeed anything intelligent.
I see. I rest my case then.
Quite.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 08:03:11 AM
Quote from: TropicalXeno on Jul 23, 2017, 05:19:18 AM
I would think when all this nonsense goes on the net it discourages ppl from watching the movie,
I know one professional critic in Poland (not a film critic, though), who is among most respected, who wants to see Blade Runner 2049 but skipped on Alien: Covenant with the impression that nothing can come close to Alien / Aliens. That negativity got out to him too. f**king sad.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 08:02:00 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 07:49:19 AM
Quote from: MnTd on Jul 23, 2017, 06:49:14 AM
TropicalXeno:
It's comic book CGI fodder for this generation, it isn't for my generation and we're the ones who made
the original successful. Maybe young people like where it's going but no one who loved the original does.
Well that's just nonsense. I'm 43 and Alien has been my fave film since I was 9, that makes me an original fan and I think Covenant is great.
A poor choice of release date, misleading marketing and bad word of mouth mainly from supposed fans are the main reasons it underperformed at the BO. I don't expect all fans to like it but it went beyond fair criticism into petulant, frothy mouthed tantrums because they didn't get the film they had written in they're heads.
Every single review I've watched, read or listened to by non fans criticises the same things the "fans" did.
And actually very few professional reviews did a convincing job at delivering meritorical arguments, unless you count cognitive dissonance meltdowns coupled with self-righteous beliefs of what ALIEN MUST STAND FOR. Most of critics who bashed it were butthurt it stripped Alien out of mystery and said it should be like the original Alien, all about mystery, plus they implied it also should be more connected with Weyland-Yutani arc.
I didn't experience where anyone flat out hated the movie, but even the non fan reviews questioned much of the same things we did. Overall I thought the movie reviews were more on the positive side than anything else.
I mean maybe we've just got to lower the expectations a little. I witnessed some of you guy's pre-release saying Covenant was going to make $600 million.... ?
If Ridley Scott get's a 100 million to make the final prequel I'd consider that a success. As it is though the David ending is a really poor ending if it get's canned and that's from someone who thinks "The Thing" ending is one of the best in history.
Yeah some of the predictions were wishful thinking in the extreme. I expected 300-350.
It would be a huge success if they gave Ridley 100mil. At this point I'd take a 50mil budget to see him finish his story!
However, I really like the ending to Covenant and think it's a decent way to end it if that is the lot. I also think it allows for a lot of possibilities in the future if they do decide to stop and reinvent things in the future.
The Thing is a masterpiece.
The ending of Covenant is a beautiful piece of art and would be a good place to end if not for the loose ends in the overall story needing to be tied up.
The ending of The Thing has the monster destroyed. Mac might be a thing, Childs might be a thing. Or neither of them. The ambiguity is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the film.
In Covenant the bad guy not only wins - he has the good guys completely at his mercy.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 09:15:59 AM
The ending of The Thing has the monster destroyed. Mac might be a thing, Childs might be a thing. Or neither of them. The ambiguity is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the film.
In Covenant the bad guy not only wins - he has the good guys completely at his mercy.
It has more similarities with the end of empire strikes back. Not quite the same but closer.
I don't think that making it an open ending in this one was a very good idea, not after just pulling the rug from under Prometheus.
I said before I thought it would have been much smarter had the David reveal not been given and we were left with a is it Walter? is it David? style ending . That way it's like Bladerunner or The Thing, you don't really need another one, but since we know it's David and since Ridley Scott has been banging on about finding out who the guy in the chair is....it would just look bad, worse than it already does.
If it ends on Covenant, Scott hasn't even set out to do what he said he was going to do.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 09:15:59 AM
The ending of The Thing has the monster destroyed. Mac might be a thing, Childs might be a thing. Or neither of them. The ambiguity is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the film.
In Covenant the bad guy not only wins - he has the good guys completely at his mercy.
I guess I was meaning, it's a downbeat ending, but it still leaves questions.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 09:26:34 AM
I don't think that making it an open ending in this one was a very good idea, not after just pulling the rug from under Prometheus.
I said before I thought it would have been much smarter had the David reveal not been given and we were left with a is it Walter? is it David? style ending . That way it's like Bladerunner or The Thing, you don't really need another one, but since we know it's David and since Ridley Scott has been banging on about finding out who the guy in the chair is....it would just look bad, worse than it already does.
If it ends on Covenant, Scott hasn't even set out to do what he said he was going to do.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 09:15:59 AM
The ending of The Thing has the monster destroyed. Mac might be a thing, Childs might be a thing. Or neither of them. The ambiguity is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the film.
In Covenant the bad guy not only wins - he has the good guys completely at his mercy.
I guess I was meaning, it's a downbeat ending, but it still leaves questions.
Unfortunately it's out of Ridleys hands as to whether he gets the opportunity to do what he set out to do
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 09:26:34 AM
I don't think that making it an open ending in this one was a very good idea, not after just pulling the rug from under Prometheus.
I said before I thought it would have been much smarter had the David reveal not been given and we were left with a is it Walter? is it David? style ending . That way it's like Bladerunner or The Thing, you don't really need another one, but since we know it's David and since Ridley Scott has been banging on about finding out who the guy in the chair is....it would just look bad, worse than it already does.
If it ends on Covenant, Scott hasn't even set out to do what he said he was going to do.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 09:15:59 AM
The ending of The Thing has the monster destroyed. Mac might be a thing, Childs might be a thing. Or neither of them. The ambiguity is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the film.
In Covenant the bad guy not only wins - he has the good guys completely at his mercy.
I guess I was meaning, it's a downbeat ending, but it still leaves questions.
Unfortunately it's out of Ridleys hands as to whether he gets the opportunity to do what he set out to do
I don't think he gets a free pass though.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 09:41:28 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 09:26:34 AM
I don't think that making it an open ending in this one was a very good idea, not after just pulling the rug from under Prometheus.
I said before I thought it would have been much smarter had the David reveal not been given and we were left with a is it Walter? is it David? style ending . That way it's like Bladerunner or The Thing, you don't really need another one, but since we know it's David and since Ridley Scott has been banging on about finding out who the guy in the chair is....it would just look bad, worse than it already does.
If it ends on Covenant, Scott hasn't even set out to do what he said he was going to do.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 09:15:59 AM
The ending of The Thing has the monster destroyed. Mac might be a thing, Childs might be a thing. Or neither of them. The ambiguity is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the film.
In Covenant the bad guy not only wins - he has the good guys completely at his mercy.
I guess I was meaning, it's a downbeat ending, but it still leaves questions.
Unfortunately it's out of Ridleys hands as to whether he gets the opportunity to do what he set out to do
I don't think he gets a free pass though.
How do you mean?
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 09:45:34 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 09:41:28 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 09:26:34 AM
I don't think that making it an open ending in this one was a very good idea, not after just pulling the rug from under Prometheus.
I said before I thought it would have been much smarter had the David reveal not been given and we were left with a is it Walter? is it David? style ending . That way it's like Bladerunner or The Thing, you don't really need another one, but since we know it's David and since Ridley Scott has been banging on about finding out who the guy in the chair is....it would just look bad, worse than it already does.
If it ends on Covenant, Scott hasn't even set out to do what he said he was going to do.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 09:15:59 AM
The ending of The Thing has the monster destroyed. Mac might be a thing, Childs might be a thing. Or neither of them. The ambiguity is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the film.
In Covenant the bad guy not only wins - he has the good guys completely at his mercy.
I guess I was meaning, it's a downbeat ending, but it still leaves questions.
Unfortunately it's out of Ridleys hands as to whether he gets the opportunity to do what he set out to do
I don't think he gets a free pass though.
How do you mean?
We don't know what the f**k's out there (in the offices of Fox studios).
Wow, I;m actually shocked. I thought the hold on the series was a rumor, but guess not. It sounds like Fox might abandon it :o I certainly hope not, at least give it time with home media sales. Maybe release a extended cut a year or so down the line. Recoup Money and give it another go. I think the direction needs to go back into engineer territory again with a big risky budget. This is how I feel if Promy's 130 mil budget and a 403 mil gross wasn't enough, then quite and do something scaled back with a smaller budget. They'll make less too. IDK what kind of numbers they were expecting with Covenant, it had a 90 mil budget. Promy performed well imo, because of the extra budget. Make the third grand and big and I bet BO numbers can be close give or take to Prometheus's.
Critical reception wasn't really mixed, at least by casual viewers and professional critics. 71% on RT I believe, however, fans are certainly divided due to what Ridley did in that movie. Between the lore-breaking life-cycle speed, the Lope incident and the Xenomorph's origins, Covenant is a not a film a serious fan (one that cares about the lore anyway) will be truly happy about, they may like the film, enjoy it even as I did, but those things will stand out for them. Because despite its flaws, its a fairly good film, a lot of stupid characters though.
A reboot is not really necessary at the moment, at least not a full one, a partial reboot that does away with some of the elements that affected the franchise such as the over the top Resurrection's superhuman angle might be good for the franchise.
Fandoms and fandom-like mentality is cancer, in my opinion. And too many franchises nowadays have fandoms and fandom-oriented approach. I hate that.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 11:25:24 AM
Fandoms and fandom-like mentality is cancer, in my opinion. And too many franchises nowadays have fandoms and fandom-oriented approach. I hate that.
Agreed
Someone intelligent at Fox needs to sit Ridley down, say you get 1 more film, and we won't finance it until the script is airtight and manages to pull things together properly. Then, they get a marketable, box-office draw movie star that won't throw people out of the movie to headline or play a meaty supporting role and you give it a go.
I really enjoyed A:C but as a writer, I'm stunned by some of the stupid narrative decisions they made. All that scriptwriting talent, all those brains together, and for every exciting, nuanced moment there was something unimaginative and very easy. It shouldn't be so tough.
I really hope the Bloomkamp Alien is coming now. ;D
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 11:25:24 AM
Fandoms and fandom-like mentality is cancer, in my opinion. And too many franchises nowadays have fandoms and fandom-oriented approach. I hate that.
Then what are you doing here? This is a
fansite for the AVP
fandom... :P
I do agree some of the fans are over the top and too hardcore and irrational for their own good of course but without any fans then there really isn't much of a franchise to be had.
If Covenant is one thing, its not a fandom-orientated film, it infuriated a lot of fans with its direction. The only influence if any that fandom had over Covenant, was the inclusion of the Xenomorph.
The Cruentus, how did he "Break Lore"?
What threads are you following to decide Scott hes broken them?
Comics? Games? .... Toys?
He doesn't give a shit about any of that... neither do I really. Sounds like this "Lore" was developed in your head.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 09:45:34 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 09:41:28 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 09:26:34 AM
I don't think that making it an open ending in this one was a very good idea, not after just pulling the rug from under Prometheus.
I said before I thought it would have been much smarter had the David reveal not been given and we were left with a is it Walter? is it David? style ending . That way it's like Bladerunner or The Thing, you don't really need another one, but since we know it's David and since Ridley Scott has been banging on about finding out who the guy in the chair is....it would just look bad, worse than it already does.
If it ends on Covenant, Scott hasn't even set out to do what he said he was going to do.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 09:15:59 AM
The ending of The Thing has the monster destroyed. Mac might be a thing, Childs might be a thing. Or neither of them. The ambiguity is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the film.
In Covenant the bad guy not only wins - he has the good guys completely at his mercy.
I guess I was meaning, it's a downbeat ending, but it still leaves questions.
Unfortunately it's out of Ridleys hands as to whether he gets the opportunity to do what he set out to do
I don't think he gets a free pass though.
How do you mean?
I mean he's responsible, he's the man at the top, he's the one that made the story, picked the designs. It certainly wasn't the "fans"
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 02:52:50 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 09:45:34 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 09:41:28 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 09:36:10 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 09:26:34 AM
I don't think that making it an open ending in this one was a very good idea, not after just pulling the rug from under Prometheus.
I said before I thought it would have been much smarter had the David reveal not been given and we were left with a is it Walter? is it David? style ending . That way it's like Bladerunner or The Thing, you don't really need another one, but since we know it's David and since Ridley Scott has been banging on about finding out who the guy in the chair is....it would just look bad, worse than it already does.
If it ends on Covenant, Scott hasn't even set out to do what he said he was going to do.
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 09:15:59 AM
The ending of The Thing has the monster destroyed. Mac might be a thing, Childs might be a thing. Or neither of them. The ambiguity is perfectly in keeping with the rest of the film.
In Covenant the bad guy not only wins - he has the good guys completely at his mercy.
I guess I was meaning, it's a downbeat ending, but it still leaves questions.
Unfortunately it's out of Ridleys hands as to whether he gets the opportunity to do what he set out to do
I don't think he gets a free pass though.
[/quote
How do you mean?
I mean he's responsible, he's the man at the top, he's the one that made the story, picked the designs. It certainly wasn't the "fans"
Well yeah, of course he's responsible. But I really liked Covenant so he's responsible for bringing another quality Alien movie to the screens in my view. No need for any free passes.
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Jul 22, 2017, 10:47:17 PM
Quote from: Marcus9000 on Jul 22, 2017, 10:29:48 PM
Covenant was trying to be all things to all men, rather than a direct sequel to Prometheus or a new kind of prequel.
And it did so solely as an attempt to appease screaming fans on the internet. If anyone's screwed the series, it's us.
Bit of a sweeping statement there!
I wanted to see a sequel to Prometheus i.e. The further adventures of Shaw & David... yet they went down the route of introducing a new crew.
The Covenant idea wasn't in itself too bad, just not executed as good as it could have been.
But hopefully we will get a final prequel to complete David's story.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There were a whole lot of factors at play with Covenant's performance.
First, it followed Prometheus, which made money, but it divided a lot of the fan base. So they waited five years and did a soft reboot introducing a new crew, and, due to complaints about Prometheus, reintroduced the Xenomorph. People complained about Shaw, so they killed Shaw. But, even though there was a ton of fan service, it still followed Prometheus, so there was a Tomb Raider effect on Covenant (that's when the first one makes money, but it's not well received, so the follow up doesn't do as well) just like a lot of franchises we've seen - AVP, Ninja Turtles , G.I. Joe, Hulk, etc. So there's that.
Second, the Internet hurt it. The reviews were so-so on Rotten Tomatoes and such, but the critics don't have the influence that they once had. If the critics mattered, Michael Bay wouldn't have a career. But the countless people with their little cameras bitching and moaning about the movie right after it opened had a definite effect on it (Angry Joe comes to mind).
Third, they released it at the most idiotic time imaginable - sandwiched in between two major tent poles. Why they didn't release a horror movie closer to Halloween like they initially planned just boggles my mind. But they put a niche franchise up against Wonder Woman and Pirates of the Caribbean . On what planet does that make sense?
Fourth, the theatrical viewing experience is in decline and on its way out. Why would I pay ten bucks or more to sit next to rude patrons texting on their cell phones and talking during the movie when it comes to Vudu or Redbox in a small amount of time? Why would I pay ten bucks for popcorn?! That's obviously the question a lot of people are asking. And I don't blame them. Will Smith and Brad Pitt are making movies on Netflix now, and a lot more is to come. I respect Christopher Nolan, but he's wrong about Netflix being a fad. Streaming is the future. It's convenient and it's more cost effective, which brings me to my final point.
Fifth, the economy sucks. People are picking and choosing when it comes to movies. They focus on the tent poles, because it's so expensive. I have a friend who has two kids, and whenever they get to go the movies, it massacres a hundred dollar bill like a wrathful Yautja. It's not just Alien. It's the movie industry as a whole. Transformers didn't flop, but it didn't do great either. Spider Man Homecoming had a huge drop off its second week. Pirates just did...okay. There's a serious decline in ticket sales. I read an article not long ago that 2016 was the worst year for ticket sales since the twenties. The. Twenties. And now 2017 might just out do 2016.
We could go on nitpicking editing styles and dialogue 'til the Xenos come home, but there are a lot more reasons for Covenant performing the way it did besides Katherine Waterston's haircut.
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 23, 2017, 04:26:14 PM
There were a whole lot of factors at play with Covenant's performance.
First, it followed Prometheus, which made money, but it divided a lot of the fan base. So they waited five years and did a soft reboot introducing a new crew, and, due to complaints about Prometheus, reintroduced the Xenomorph. People complained about Shaw, so they killed Shaw. But, even though there was a ton of fan service, it still followed Prometheus, so there was a Tomb Raider effect on Covenant (that's when the first one makes money, but it's not well received, so the follow up doesn't do as well) just like a lot of franchises we've seen - AVP, Ninja Turtles , G.I. Joe, Hulk, etc. So there's that.
Second, the Internet hurt it. The reviews were so-so on Rotten Tomatoes and such, but the critics don't have the influence that they once had. If the critics mattered, Michael Bay wouldn't have a career. But the countless people with their little cameras bitching and moaning about the movie right after it opened had a definite effect on it (Angry Joe comes to mind).
Third, they released it at the most idiotic time imaginable - sandwiched in between two major tent poles. Why they didn't release a horror movie closer to Halloween like they initially planned just boggles my mind. But they put a niche franchise up against Wonder Woman and Pirates of the Caribbean . On what planet does that make sense?
Fourth, the theatrical viewing experience is in decline and on its way out. Why would I pay ten bucks or more to sit next to rude patrons texting on their cell phones and talking during the movie when it comes to Vudu or Redbox in a small amount of time? Why would I pay ten bucks for popcorn?! That's obviously the question a lot of people are asking. And I don't blame them. Will Smith and Brad Pitt are making movies on Netflix now, and a lot more is to come. I respect Christopher Nolan, but he's wrong about Netflix being a fad. Streaming is the future. It's convenient and it's more cost effective, which brings me to my final point.
Fifth, the economy sucks. People are picking and choosing when it comes to movies. They focus on the tent poles, because it's so expensive. I have a friend who has two kids, and whenever they get to go the movies, it massacres a hundred dollar bill like a wrathful Yautja. It's not just Alien. It's the movie industry as a whole. Transformers didn't flop, but it didn't do great either. Spider Man Homecoming had a huge drop off its second week. Pirates just did...okay. There's a serious decline in ticket sales. I read an article not long ago that 2016 was the worst year for ticket sales since the twenties. The. Twenties. And now 2017 might just out do 2016.
We could go on nitpicking editing styles and dialogue 'til the Xenos come home, but there are a lot more reasons for Covenant performing the way it did besides juvenile rants about Katherine Waterston's haircut.
This is all 100% true
I agree that cinema is on the decline, as you can pretty much now have a cinema quality set up for an affordable price (affordable still meaning expensive but you know what I mean).
You'll never beat cinema though in terms of release, so it's always going to have that draw. Nobody wants to wait on the new Star Wars film. Alien movies though...yeah , they've slipped into the "catch it on Blu Ray"
I'm not ashamed to admit that because of my circumstances ( wife, kids, kids and more kids) I went out and sat on my own to watch Covenant, I like the big screen and I was really looking forward to this one, shame it didn't really deliver, but maybe I expected too much.
I always sneak in my snacks and drink, I am sure I am not the only one. :laugh:
I remember going to see the remake of Willy Wonka when it was out. Me and my two cousins went to see it and one of my cousins crammed her purse full of Wonka candy. Nerds, Wonka bars, Gobstoppers, the whole lot. That was so much fun.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jul 23, 2017, 02:09:29 PM
If Covenant is one thing, its not a fandom-orientated film, it infuriated a lot of fans with its direction.
That is what I like about it. This also carries on the tradition in this series of each film being different from each other in style and tone.
Quote from: Marcus9000 on Jul 23, 2017, 03:31:04 PM
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Jul 22, 2017, 10:47:17 PM
Quote from: Marcus9000 on Jul 22, 2017, 10:29:48 PM
Covenant was trying to be all things to all men, rather than a direct sequel to Prometheus or a new kind of prequel.
And it did so solely as an attempt to appease screaming fans on the internet. If anyone's screwed the series, it's us.
Bit of a sweeping statement there!
I wanted to see a sequel to Prometheus i.e. The further adventures of Shaw & David... yet they went down the route of introducing a new crew.
The Covenant idea wasn't in itself too bad, just not executed as good as it could have been.
I think we actually agree with each other, so perhaps my original post was unclear.
I wanted Prometheus 2 as well, and failing that, was basically happy with Covenant. I just mean that we the fandom, with all our differing opinions, were heard collectively by Fox and what they distilled out of all the chatter was "they want aliens."
I suspect Scott must be right pissed about all this. He gives us an ambitious and fun movie in Prometheus and fans scream "we want aliens!"... then he gives us aliens and we scream "we want Shaw!". I'm kind of embarrassed to be a fan, actually; bunch of entitled, screaming babies.
Fox: please just let Ridley do his thing one more time and then call it a day.
Quote from: Segura on Jul 22, 2017, 03:13:31 PM
he's the George Lucas of Alien, just give it to Blompkamp
No he isn't. No please don't.
I honestly don't remember Prometheus not having Aliens being the problem. I think that was made up, got some legs and somehow the studio bought it. Prometheus did lots wrong, but not having the Alien in it wasn't one of them.
When I think about it though, if you take both movies and make a hybrid, where the goo spills and makes Neomorphs and those Neomorphs are the ones that terrorise the Prometheus crew inside the Derelict, there's probably a really good film in there.
I think they got the feeling aliens were required from the buzz Alien 5 generated rather than reaction to Prometheus.
Quote from: Dirty Harry on Jul 22, 2017, 05:23:17 PM
Call the guys who made Isolation...They know A L I E N more than Ridley Scott.
Except the legs.
I would hire someone like Alex Garland ("Ex Machina" 2015)
Oh, and by the way - Ellen Ripley is dead. Leave her alone.
Quote from: Dirty Harry on Jul 22, 2017, 05:23:17 PM
Call the guys who made Isolation...They know A L I E N more than Ridley Scott.
Ah, now Dirty Harry...don't be silly! How can anyone know more than Ridley about the alien? He created the bloody thing. But you knew that already, didn't you? ;D
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 05:17:22 PM
I honestly don't remember Prometheus not having Aliens being the problem. I think that was made up, got some legs and somehow the studio bought it. Prometheus did lots wrong, but not having the Alien in it wasn't one of them.
When I think about it though, if you take both movies and make a hybrid, where the goo spills and makes Neomorphs and those Neomorphs are the ones that terrorise the Prometheus crew inside the Derelict, there's probably a really good film in there.
I personally applauded
Prometheus for being Xeno-less, save for the Deacon at the end. The Alien trilogy was about the Xenomorph.
Prometheus was about the Engineers.
Prometheus looked huge. Like an Epic with a really modern look. That's why it was successful at the box office.
Alien: Covenant looked small in comparison. People, these days, only saw the events and huge spectacles in theaters. Small movies fails.
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 23, 2017, 05:51:09 PM
Prometheus looked huge. Like an Epic with a really modern look. That's why it was successful at the box office.
Alien: Covenant looked small in comparison. People, these days, only saw the events and huge spectacles in theaters. Small movies fails.
I seriously know some people who like maniacs kept repeating over and over again with an insane amount of aggression that the city of Engineers looked like something from a Mortal Kombat TV series...
Quote from: Gash on Jul 23, 2017, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Segura on Jul 22, 2017, 03:13:31 PM
he's the George Lucas of Alien, just give it to Blompkamp
No he isn't. No please don't.
How can people compare the two? They're nothing alike.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 06:07:11 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 23, 2017, 05:51:09 PM
Prometheus looked huge. Like an Epic with a really modern look. That's why it was successful at the box office.
Alien: Covenant looked small in comparison. People, these days, only saw the events and huge spectacles in theaters. Small movies fails.
I seriously know some people who like maniacs kept repeating over and over again with an insane amount of aggression that the city of Engineers looked like something from a Mortal Kombat TV series...
Actually I like that scene. It's so dark. Maybe people hated it because they can't see nothing because the darkness.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 23, 2017, 06:34:07 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 23, 2017, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Segura on Jul 22, 2017, 03:13:31 PM
he's the George Lucas of Alien, just give it to Blompkamp
No he isn't. No please don't.
How can people compare the two? They're nothing alike.
Its becuase when it comes to entertainment, people these days are hyper-critical and overly hyperbolic of anything they dont like. If someone doesnt like something they jump online to tear it apart like a two year old child throws a tantrum. Any film, no matter how great, has someone online whining about how its the worst thing ever to be made.
People cant just dislike something anymore, they have spend a lot of time and energy being negative about it online. Its a phenomenon that i have never understood because personally I prefer to spend my time on the things that i do enjoy, and not on the things I dislike.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 23, 2017, 06:34:07 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 23, 2017, 05:16:07 PM
Quote from: Segura on Jul 22, 2017, 03:13:31 PM
he's the George Lucas of Alien, just give it to Blompkamp
No he isn't. No please don't.
How can people compare the two? They're nothing alike.
True. George Lucas did nothing for 20 years. He directed the original in 1977 and began to work again in 1997.
Ridley Scott is a 100% Workaholic. Totally different. He is like Woody Allen or Spielberg. He makes 1 film per year.
Good god. The arrogance of some frat guys here is obnoxious. Just because of them I hope that FOX will cancel the prequels from Riddles.
It's what Riddles deserve, to end up like Eragon.
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 23, 2017, 06:42:33 PM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 06:07:11 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 23, 2017, 05:51:09 PM
Prometheus looked huge. Like an Epic with a really modern look. That's why it was successful at the box office.
Alien: Covenant looked small in comparison. People, these days, only saw the events and huge spectacles in theaters. Small movies fails.
I seriously know some people who like maniacs kept repeating over and over again with an insane amount of aggression that the city of Engineers looked like something from a Mortal Kombat TV series...
Actually I like that scene. It's so dark. Maybe people hated it because they can't see nothing because the darkness.
I love that scene, too, and especially the music, it's so dark and majestic, and this violin slide is so amazing, I love it. Plus, visually, it's like some freaking Roman ancient forum, but dark, gothic and romantic...I love the combination.
Covenant is a very universal film, even if you don't look at it from sci-fi perspective and that's why this film is a HUGE triumph and a feast for art lovers :)
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 05:30:19 PM
I think they got the feeling aliens were required from the buzz Alien 5 generated rather than reaction to Prometheus.
This. I think they got the hype mixed up. The fans, from what I gather, were excited about two different paths being in the works at the same time: xenomorph-less prequels and xenomorph-fuelled sequels. Not many people wanted these concepts to be merged into one.
Quote from: irn on Jul 23, 2017, 07:14:26 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 05:30:19 PM
I think they got the feeling aliens were required from the buzz Alien 5 generated rather than reaction to Prometheus.
This. I think they got the hype mixed up. The fans, from what I gather, were excited about two different paths being in the works at the same time: xenomorph-less prequels and xenomorph-fuelled sequels. Not many people wanted these concepts to be merged into one.
As big a fan of Covenant as I am, I think it's pretty evident this is the reason for it being the film it is. If the Alien 5 thing had never happened I think Covenant would be a very different film.
Exactly, and it could be good, to have two totally different paths at one time, one more like Prometheus, filled with unknown and mystery, and the other one that could be more Aliens oriented. I always accepted the fact, that since Blomkamp started to talk about anything A5 related, they should create a two movies at the time. . so, in that times before, I was really expecting that they somehow give us two movies in the future.
With the general box office decline across the board I hope the franchise goes to Netflix as a series or as a new movie or both.
With Scorsese making a Netflix film and "Bright" coming out, it's starting to become a good platform for studio quality films.
On the other hand, when Im seen for the first time that ending of the Prometheus itself, when Dr. Shaw escape with David in the Engineer ship, I was kind a surprised how they (Fox or Ridley Scott) want to continue from this point to the everything what the next movie could be, like I somehow feel that it's not gonna be what we should expect. I was like, - "ohh ok, so this ending was f**king brave as hell, how they want to continue with this? Do they have balls for that? They want to finally reveal the Engineer homeworld or what? Giger like bio-mechanic landscapes full with their weird technology and stuff, perhaps with more aliens like we have once". . No, everyone know how it ends with Covenant, I mean. . I dont want to insult that movie, I respect the Covenant as much as I can. No matter what, its still another Alien movie. But still, everytime when I remember how I was feeling when I see the Prometheus ending, it little bit dissapoint me. I know Dr. Shaw was saying that she want to go where they come from, there was not even single word about anything like their direct homeworld, their planet or something. So, it can be iterpretated like they can go anywhere, do you get the point? Me personally, I just think that planet in Covenant is another colony established by Engineers, perhaps their different fraction, or even their own sub-race. What Im trying to say here is, that I can even understand some of these unanswered things, but that little fan-boy in me still crying when Im imagine how different the entire film should be if. .
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 06:07:11 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 23, 2017, 05:51:09 PM
Prometheus looked huge. Like an Epic with a really modern look. That's why it was successful at the box office.
Alien: Covenant looked small in comparison. People, these days, only saw the events and huge spectacles in theaters. Small movies fails.
I seriously know some people who like maniacs kept repeating over and over again with an insane amount of aggression that the city of Engineers looked like something from a Mortal Kombat TV series...
When people can reference Shelley, or Milton or Böcklin in a review / critique I can listen to their opinion and appreciate the thought that has gone into it.
If their point of reference is Mortal Combat, or if their critical vocabulary is expressed as "this movie sucks" or "dumbest movie I ever saw'd" then I can live with what that implies re their worth in the realm of film analysis.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 23, 2017, 09:19:12 PM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 06:07:11 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Jul 23, 2017, 05:51:09 PM
Prometheus looked huge. Like an Epic with a really modern look. That's why it was successful at the box office.
Alien: Covenant looked small in comparison. People, these days, only saw the events and huge spectacles in theaters. Small movies fails.
I seriously know some people who like maniacs kept repeating over and over again with an insane amount of aggression that the city of Engineers looked like something from a Mortal Kombat TV series...
When people can reference Shelley, or Milton or Böcklin in a review / critique I can listen to their opinion and appreciate the thought that has gone into it.
If their point of reference is Mortal Combat, or if their critical vocabulary is expressed as "this movie sucks" or "dumbest movie I ever saw'd" then I can live with what that implies re their worth in the realm of film analysis.
I've never played Mortal Kombat or watched the movies, but I have read Shelley and Milton. I still thought Covenant was awful.
Fine, at least you can therefore debate on it.
As a long time fan of this franchise, I have to express my disappointment but lack of surprise in the newest film. I've read the whole plot and the events and I won't even bother to waste the time to see it. Gore porn with no true sense of terror or scare factor, Scott and crew have apparently created a knee-jerk movie attempting to right the wrongs of Prometheus and simultaneously remake ALIEN for a new generation.
This franchise has been on a slow downward spiral since Alien 3. And I like Alien 3. It'll always be a trilogy to me. Fox reads this and other forums. No more origin stories (of any species in your universe), no more unnecessary gore/overly violent scenes/grotesque vomit scenes, no more trying to one up yourselves. Build characters, worlds, and keep a sense of consistency.
ALIEN and ALIENS are the best, you will never raise the bar higher, so stop trying to jump over it and try to jump to it instead.
And a new low-point.
Quote from: PRJ_since1990 on Jul 23, 2017, 11:47:27 PM
As a long time fan of this franchise, I have to express my disappointment but lack of surprise in the newest film. I've read the whole plot and the events and I won't even bother to waste the time to see it. Gore porn with no true sense of terror or scare factor, Scott and crew have apparently created a knee-jerk movie attempting to right the wrongs of Prometheus and simultaneously remake ALIEN for a new generation.
This franchise has been on a slow downward spiral since Alien 3. And I like Alien 3. It'll always be a trilogy to me. Fox reads this and other forums. No more origin stories (of any species in your universe), no more unnecessary gore/overly violent scenes/grotesque vomit scenes, no more trying to one up yourselves.
Whats funny about this is that the film isn't even very gorey, aside from a couple scenes. Certainly not "gore porn" and pretty much on par for an Alien film actually.
'I haven't seen it but am somehow convinced it's gore porn...'
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 12:15:03 AM
'I haven't seen it but am somehow convinced it's gore porn...'
:laugh:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpm1.narvii.com%2F6337%2Fb200bbbddd631303e0f48eba7fd402e0bc2ffe0a_hq.jpg&hash=cf61a22cd38f16aaafb62b272955477a85039ad6)
Quote from: SM on Jul 23, 2017, 03:33:51 AM
Yes. Not sure what the point of saying this is though.
That means Ridley does not have the final say.
He has final say over his own involvement. As I've said, if he didn't like what Fox wanted to do - he could've moved onto other projects. Portraying him as a victim of the studio is disingenuous.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 23, 2017, 07:49:19 AM
Well that's just nonsense. I'm 43 and Alien has been my fave film since I was 9, that makes me an original fan and I think Covenant is great.
A poor choice of release date, misleading marketing and bad word of mouth mainly from supposed fans are the main reasons it underperformed at the BO. I don't expect all fans to like it but it went beyond fair criticism into petulant, frothy mouthed tantrums because they didn't get the film they had written in they're heads.
I think the main problem was not marketing but the story: they tried to cram content from the first two movies (horror and action) with a backstory built on
grativas, and the result was at best an average film with lots of spectacle. And I think they did this because there's a possibility that many viewers worldwide know little about the
Alien franchise, and probably only through
Prometheus.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 01:45:06 AM
He has final say over his own involvement. As I've said, if he didn't like what Fox wanted to do - he could've moved onto other projects. Portraying him as a victim of the studio is disingenuous.
That's exactly my point. His involvement didn't matter as the studio had final say about the content of the film.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 08:46:18 AM
I didn't experience where anyone flat out hated the movie, but even the non fan reviews questioned much of the same things we did. Overall I thought the movie reviews were more on the positive side than anything else.
I mean maybe we've just got to lower the expectations a little. I witnessed some of you guy's pre-release saying Covenant was going to make $600 million.... ?
If Ridley Scott get's a 100 million to make the final prequel I'd consider that a success. As it is though the David ending is a really poor ending if it get's canned and that's from someone who thinks "The Thing" ending is one of the best in history.
The catch is that it was producers who had high expectations, and that's probably because the actual cost of the movie includes marketing (which may double the original production cost), and revenues are cut by a third to a half because of distribution.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 23, 2017, 11:25:24 AM
Fandoms and fandom-like mentality is cancer, in my opinion. And too many franchises nowadays have fandoms and fandom-oriented approach. I hate that.
I think it's not so much that but increasing amounts of credit needed to be rolled over, competition between studios, and high ticket prices. That means franchises have to be milked for what they are worth until they are run into the ground. Hence, sequels, prequels, reboots.
Quote from: shawsbaby on Jul 23, 2017, 01:13:35 PM
Someone intelligent at Fox needs to sit Ridley down, say you get 1 more film, and we won't finance it until the script is airtight and manages to pull things together properly. Then, they get a marketable, box-office draw movie star that won't throw people out of the movie to headline or play a meaty supporting role and you give it a go.
I really enjoyed A:C but as a writer, I'm stunned by some of the stupid narrative decisions they made. All that scriptwriting talent, all those brains together, and for every exciting, nuanced moment there was something unimaginative and very easy. It shouldn't be so tough.
I think that's exactly the problem: the studio had final say with the script of the present film. And now it's expected to do the same for future ones.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 23, 2017, 02:52:50 PM
I mean he's responsible, he's the man at the top, he's the one that made the story, picked the designs. It certainly wasn't the "fans"
But I think the go-signal for those lies with the franchise owners.
Quote from: PRJ_since1990 on Jul 23, 2017, 11:47:27 PM
As a long time fan of this franchise, I have to express my disappointment but lack of surprise in the newest film. I've read the whole plot and the events and I won't even bother to waste the time to see it. Gore porn with no true sense of terror or scare factor, Scott and crew have apparently created a knee-jerk movie attempting to right the wrongs of Prometheus and simultaneously remake ALIEN for a new generation.
This franchise has been on a slow downward spiral since Alien 3. And I like Alien 3. It'll always be a trilogy to me. Fox reads this and other forums. No more origin stories (of any species in your universe), no more unnecessary gore/overly violent scenes/grotesque vomit scenes, no more trying to one up yourselves. Build characters, worlds, and keep a sense of consistency.
ALIEN and ALIENS are the best, you will never raise the bar higher, so stop trying to jump over it and try to jump to it instead.
hey lets listen to this idiot who has never seen alien covenant
p.s. it's not 'gore porn' lmao
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 23, 2017, 04:26:14 PM
There were a whole lot of factors at play with Covenant's performance.
First, it followed Prometheus, which made money, but it divided a lot of the fan base. So they waited five years and did a soft reboot introducing a new crew, and, due to complaints about Prometheus, reintroduced the Xenomorph. People complained about Shaw, so they killed Shaw. But, even though there was a ton of fan service, it still followed Prometheus, so there was a Tomb Raider effect on Covenant (that's when the first one makes money, but it's not well received, so the follow up doesn't do as well) just like a lot of franchises we've seen - AVP, Ninja Turtles , G.I. Joe, Hulk, etc. So there's that.
Second, the Internet hurt it. The reviews were so-so on Rotten Tomatoes and such, but the critics don't have the influence that they once had. If the critics mattered, Michael Bay wouldn't have a career. But the countless people with their little cameras bitching and moaning about the movie right after it opened had a definite effect on it (Angry Joe comes to mind).
Third, they released it at the most idiotic time imaginable - sandwiched in between two major tent poles. Why they didn't release a horror movie closer to Halloween like they initially planned just boggles my mind. But they put a niche franchise up against Wonder Woman and Pirates of the Caribbean . On what planet does that make sense?
Fourth, the theatrical viewing experience is in decline and on its way out. Why would I pay ten bucks or more to sit next to rude patrons texting on their cell phones and talking during the movie when it comes to Vudu or Redbox in a small amount of time? Why would I pay ten bucks for popcorn?! That's obviously the question a lot of people are asking. And I don't blame them. Will Smith and Brad Pitt are making movies on Netflix now, and a lot more is to come. I respect Christopher Nolan, but he's wrong about Netflix being a fad. Streaming is the future. It's convenient and it's more cost effective, which brings me to my final point.
Fifth, the economy sucks. People are picking and choosing when it comes to movies. They focus on the tent poles, because it's so expensive. I have a friend who has two kids, and whenever they get to go the movies, it massacres a hundred dollar bill like a wrathful Yautja. It's not just Alien. It's the movie industry as a whole. Transformers didn't flop, but it didn't do great either. Spider Man Homecoming had a huge drop off its second week. Pirates just did...okay. There's a serious decline in ticket sales. I read an article not long ago that 2016 was the worst year for ticket sales since the twenties. The. Twenties. And now 2017 might just out do 2016.
We could go on nitpicking editing styles and dialogue 'til the Xenos come home, but there are a lot more reasons for Covenant performing the way it did besides Katherine Waterston's haircut.
Part of that is discussed here:
"Steven Spielberg and George Lucas predict film industry 'implosion'"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/13/steven-spielberg-george-lucas-film-industry
QuoteThat's exactly my point. His involvement didn't matter as the studio had final say about the content of the film.
Of course it mattered. We just don't know the level of how much the studio dictated, and how much say Ridley and his writers had.
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Jul 23, 2017, 08:14:37 PM
With the general box office decline across the board I hope the franchise goes to Netflix as a series or as a new movie or both.
With Scorsese making a Netflix film and "Bright" coming out, it's starting to become a good platform for studio quality films.
If a film industry "implosion" does take place, we might likely see more of that: smaller budgets (helped by CGI), straight to (streaming) video, etc. But some of the same problems will remain: continuous attempts at milking franchises for what they are worth through constant prequels, sequels, reboots, spin-offs, etc., competition between increasing number of franchises, etc.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 02:16:26 AM
Of course it mattered. We just don't know the level of how much the studio dictated, and how much say Ridley and his writers had.
As I said earlier, I think the studio had final say because it owns the franchise.
Same as every other instalment then.
That's right, and likely the decisions of the studio are ultimately driven by maximization of profit. Current factors involved in that include a global audience, with probably many knowing little about the Alien franchise, the cost of producing and marketing to that audience, etc.
Quote from: PRJ_since1990 on Jul 23, 2017, 11:47:27 PM
As a long time fan of this franchise, I have to express my disappointment but lack of surprise in the newest film. I've read the whole plot and the events and I won't even bother to waste the time to see it. Gore porn with no true sense of terror or scare factor, Scott and crew have apparently created a knee-jerk movie attempting to right the wrongs of Prometheus and simultaneously remake ALIEN for a new generation.
This franchise has been on a slow downward spiral since Alien 3. And I like Alien 3. It'll always be a trilogy to me. Fox reads this and other forums. No more origin stories (of any species in your universe), no more unnecessary gore/overly violent scenes/grotesque vomit scenes, no more trying to one up yourselves. Build characters, worlds, and keep a sense of consistency.
ALIEN and ALIENS are the best, you will never raise the bar higher, so stop trying to jump over it and try to jump to it instead.
What were they thinking? Making a Alien movie that included body horror. They don't know their own franchise. The numb skulls.
There are no characters or worlds in Covenant of course, just grotesque vomit porn.
Give me strength.
Quote from: monkeylove on Jul 24, 2017, 02:13:12 AM
Part of that is discussed here:
"Steven Spielberg and George Lucas predict film industry 'implosion'"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/13/steven-spielberg-george-lucas-film-industry
Yeah, I read that a few years ago. Fascinating read. If anyone would know, it's Spielberg.
QuoteIf a film industry "implosion" does take place, we might likely see more of that: smaller budgets (helped by CGI), straight to (streaming) video, etc. But some of the same problems will remain: continuous attempts at milking franchises for what they are worth through constant prequels, sequels, reboots, spin-offs, etc., competition between increasing number of franchises, etc.
Honestly, I think smaller budgets are just what this franchise needs.
Alien had tight, claustrophobic sets and atmosphere because of a limited budget. Same with
Aliens.
The studio and studd whine too much. Just make the movie. This is a part of a scifi saga that must be continued, want it or not.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 02:16:26 AM
QuoteThat's exactly my point. His involvement didn't matter as the studio had final say about the content of the film.
Of course it mattered. We just don't know the level of how much the studio dictated, and how much say Ridley and his writers had.
Let's remember during the post production stage it came out that Fox had pushed Ridley to cut out the bombing sequence of the film. he fought and won to keep the sequence in the film. In addition, thanks to the interview done a few months back with his editor, we learned the bombing sequence came out from an entire twelve minute sequence that connected Prometheus and Covenant. The editor mentioned the sequence was cut for passing, though now seeing how everything blew up on Fox's face. We can speculate that Fox tied Ridley's hands and forced him to cut out anything with Noomi besides the few seconds of her mutated and dissected corpse just to erase anything 'bad' that came from Prometheus. In my personal opinion, it's Fox who screwed the pooch once again.
Very possibly. I'd like to see a fuller cut- it feels like it might be like Kingdom of Heaven - with some important context trimmed.
It still works, but a few more Prometheus links would be welcome.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 24, 2017, 02:52:16 AM
Very possibly. I'd like to see a fuller cut- it feels like it might be like Kingdom of Heaven - with some important context trimmed.
It still works, but a few more Prometheus links would be welcome.
That's what I feel that happened here. I would have been ok if they at least released that entire sequence for the blu ray, though were not even getting that. Just the two minute crossing viral. :'(
We do know that most of the drafts that were written were more directly sequels to Prometheus, and that Scott was keen to begin shooting it asap. For some reason, those scripts weren't getting a green light. Then Blomkamp comes along and seemingly has an easier time convincing the studio to make his movie. Then Scott changes direction and calls his movie "Alien", and suddenly gets a green light. And the draft that got the green light included a bunch of things, like xenomorphs, that Scott never wanted to include. This movie was a compromise between what Scott wanted to make, and what Fox and Scott thought the fans wanted. At most, Scott can be blamed for selling out, but I think it's pretty clear that he self-censored himself to please the studio. The trial and error process of resubmitting the script over and over again resulted in many compromises that I believe degraded the final product.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 24, 2017, 03:11:47 AM
We do know that most of the drafts that were written were more directly sequels to Prometheus, and that Scott was keen to begin shooting it asap. For some reason, those scripts weren't getting a green light. Then Blomkamp comes along and seemingly has an easier time convincing the studio to make his movie. Then Scott changes direction and calls his movie "Alien", and suddenly gets a green light. And the draft that got the green light included a bunch of things, like xenomorphs, that Scott never wanted to include. This movie was a compromise between what Scott wanted to make, and what Fox and Scott thought the fans wanted. At most, Scott can be blamed for selling out, but I think it's pretty clear that he self-censored himself to please the studio. The trial and error process of resubmitting the script over and over again resulted in many compromises that I believe degraded the final product.
Sad. The same thing hapenned with ROBIN HOOD(2010).
The original script was way better. But it was an Epic more close to HEAT. The villain had the better scenes. Actually, the villain have a lot more scenes and development in the original script.
Russell Crowe demanded changed and ALL changes were for worse. Kind of like the way Tom Cruise destruyed THE MUMMY because of his huge ego.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 24, 2017, 03:11:47 AM
We do know that most of the drafts that were written were more directly sequels to Prometheus, and that Scott was keen to begin shooting it asap. For some reason, those scripts weren't getting a green light. Then Blomkamp comes along and seemingly has an easier time convincing the studio to make his movie. Then Scott changes direction and calls his movie "Alien", and suddenly gets a green light. And the draft that got the green light included a bunch of things, like xenomorphs, that Scott never wanted to include. This movie was a compromise between what Scott wanted to make, and what Fox and Scott thought the fans wanted. At most, Scott can be blamed for selling out, but I think it's pretty clear that he self-censored himself to please the studio. The trial and error process of resubmitting the script over and over again resulted in many compromises that I believe degraded the final product.
I have to agree. If we speculate, It seems the entire 12 minute cut out sequence that included Noomi were the remains of all the Paradise scripts that were submitted before.
In regards tot he work on the sequel stopping? Pfff... Nothing has officially been stated. We can consider the next movie is still in development until announcements are made.
At this point, everything else is either speculation at best or complete f**king irresponsible bullshit at worst.
Fox will call it when they consider it appropriate to do so.
-Windebieste.
Was there an official Fox announcement that work on additional prequels had begun? Besides Ridley saying the story was in the work--which probably means it's in the works between his two ears.
The series was toast as soon as they decided David created the Xenomorphs.
Whoever made the decision, "Lets run with that" should never be involved with writing another story ever. It's one thing to stumble if your trying to come up with something from scratch. It's quite another to take one of the most ominous and mysterious preexisting back-stories and reduce it to a joke. This shouldn't have been that hard to create prequels that made sense when viewed within the context of ALIEN.
The prequels didn't need to directly tie into ALIEN at all. It shouldn't have been that hard to come up with an mind-blowing story of how and why the Jockeys/Engineers created Xeno's? Have explorers that predate ALIEN come across this information in frightening fashion. Toss in some plat twist that ties into Prometheus--To create sometimes one must destroy. Call it a day. The pre-Covenant story theories floating around on this board would have been infinitely more satisfying.
You can have Xeno's in your prequel because they should have been kept as effing ancient beings. At this point they should just go straight Starship Trooper. Have the Jockeys show up with DinoXeno's and stomp Davids army out of existence :)
QuoteWas there an official Fox announcement that work on additional prequels had begun? Besides Ridley saying the story was in the work--which probably means it's in the works between his two ears.
More or less (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/alien-covenant-awakening-ridley-scott-prometheus-3-a7728386.html). He's not about to make such statements without the studio being on board, so it's obviously been discussed.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 04:59:31 AM
QuoteWas there an official Fox announcement that work on additional prequels had begun? Besides Ridley saying the story was in the work--which probably means it's in the works between his two ears.
More or less (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/alien-covenant-awakening-ridley-scott-prometheus-3-a7728386.html). He's not about to make such statements without the studio being on board, so it's obviously been discussed.
I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Obviously things can and do change, but he's shown a propensity to says a lot of things that never come to fruition. Either that, or he just fails to communicate his meaning properly. My feeling, from reading his interviews over the past five years, is that he's totally willing to make statements that turn out completely wrong or misleading.
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Jul 24, 2017, 04:49:05 AM
Was there an official Fox announcement that work on additional prequels had begun? Besides Ridley saying the story was in the work--which probably means it's in the works between his two ears.
The series was toast as soon as they decided David created the Xenomorphs.
Whoever made the decision, "Lets run with that" should never be involved with writing another story ever. It's one thing to stumble if your trying to come up with something from scratch. It's quite another to take one of the most ominous and mysterious preexisting back-stories and reduce it to a joke. This shouldn't have been that hard to create prequels that made sense when viewed within the context of ALIEN.
This post is bad and Alien Covenant was good.
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Jul 24, 2017, 05:31:25 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 04:59:31 AM
QuoteWas there an official Fox announcement that work on additional prequels had begun? Besides Ridley saying the story was in the work--which probably means it's in the works between his two ears.
More or less (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/alien-covenant-awakening-ridley-scott-prometheus-3-a7728386.html). He's not about to make such statements without the studio being on board, so it's obviously been discussed.
I'm not sure I agree with that statement. Obviously things can and do change, but he's shown a propensity to says a lot of things that never come to fruition. Either that, or he just fails to communicate his meaning properly. My feeling, from reading his interviews over the past five years, is that he's totally willing to make statements that turn out completely wrong or misleading.
He's simply not going to say there's another one in the works, if there hasn't been discussions about doing more. It was the same before Resurrection came out. There was a buzz around it and they were talking about doing another one fairly quickly.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 23, 2017, 10:14:35 PM
Fine, at least you can therefore debate on it.
What happens if your favourite two characters are David and Sub-zero?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fe4%2FPrometheus-_Engineer_Angry.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20140328152538&hash=0b4e71b3ed631ed540cadd4737d651fb1f26c7d4)
Fatality!
Anyway, it's all good - "The Alien franchises future is assured!" (http://www.alien-covenant.com/news/rumor-control-the-alien-franchises-future-assured) according to SciFied, because...
I'm not sure.
! 😂
Maybe because it was an unfounded beat up in the first place?
Mind you, SciFied is no better informed than the source for all of these unverified rumors.
-Windebieste.
Exactly! I'm not buying into any of this until I hear it from a verified source.
I see so many here lot praise and revere canonicality in regards to actual cinematic output from FOX, yet when it comes to this kind of gossip, they'd gladly divert their praise to the very sources one would ordinarily condemn. It's nonsense.
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2017, 12:31:55 AM
This 're-assess' news really shouldn't come as a surprise.
Quote"It got great reviews and was everything we set out for it to be, it just didn't hit the note at the box office," says Fred Baron, the 20th Century Fox executive on the movie: "It will be a profitable film for the studio but whether there's another one [is uncertain]."
From 2 weeks ago (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/after-thor-and-aquaman-the-battle-to-land-the-next-hollywood-blockbuster-continues-20170704-gx4atr.html)
There was concern about more instalments within a week of it coming out.
Verified source from 13 pages ago for anyone paying attention and not wallowing in denial.
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Jul 24, 2017, 04:49:05 AM
Was there an official Fox announcement that work on additional prequels had begun? Besides Ridley saying the story was in the work--which probably means it's in the works between his two ears.
The series was toast as soon as they decided David created the Xenomorphs.
Whoever made the decision, "Lets run with that" should never be involved with writing another story ever. It's one thing to stumble if your trying to come up with something from scratch. It's quite another to take one of the most ominous and mysterious preexisting back-stories and reduce it to a joke. This shouldn't have been that hard to create prequels that made sense when viewed within the context of ALIEN.
The prequels didn't need to directly tie into ALIEN at all. It shouldn't have been that hard to come up with an mind-blowing story of how and why the Jockeys/Engineers created Xeno's? Have explorers that predate ALIEN come across this information in frightening fashion. Toss in some plat twist that ties into Prometheus--To create sometimes one must destroy. Call it a day. The pre-Covenant story theories floating around on this board would have been infinitely more satisfying.
You can have Xeno's in your prequel because they should have been kept as effing ancient beings. At this point they should just go straight Starship Trooper. Have the Jockeys show up with DinoXeno's and stomp Davids army out of existence :)
It's that "80 years of mythology" argument again.. I think the people saying this are either obsessive fanboys who've built a big and expansive headcanon, or just people copying popular opinions from social media. In any case, please re-consider your opinion, friend. The xenomorph clearly looks like something that has been manufactured, even in the original Giger art, and David also made them by crossbreeding and hybridizing pre-existing forms. Aside from that, the whole "600000 years of mythology" is a bad meme to begin with, as the xenomorph origins were left to be completely vague in the original.
They have to do something..Covenant was a mess...Imo making the android the key figure and creator was ridiculous, save it for blade runner not Alien. Also the failure to explain or create the foundation story for the engineers was a huge error. I am afraid Mr Scott has lost the focus of what made Alien and Aliens great movies. You don't need 4 prequels to get to the original Alien and you don't need to make a psychotic android the lead and focus.
Not only is David the creator of the classic alien, the next film -if made- will reveal that it is the result of a chestburster hosted by David, the creator sacrificing his life for his creation.
Personally, I love it.
By the way, this doesn't make the alien any less alien, since it is the end result of the black goo, an ancient bioweapon developed by extra-terrestrials.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 07:02:03 AM
Anyway, it's all good - "The Alien franchises future is assured!" (http://www.alien-covenant.com/news/rumor-control-the-alien-franchises-future-assured) according to SciFied, because...
I'm not sure.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 09:29:15 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2017, 12:31:55 AM
This 're-assess' news really shouldn't come as a surprise.
Quote"It got great reviews and was everything we set out for it to be, it just didn't hit the note at the box office," says Fred Baron, the 20th Century Fox executive on the movie: "It will be a profitable film for the studio but whether there's another one [is uncertain]."
From 2 weeks ago (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/after-thor-and-aquaman-the-battle-to-land-the-next-hollywood-blockbuster-continues-20170704-gx4atr.html)
There was concern about more instalments within a week of it coming out.
Verified source from 13 pages ago for anyone paying attention and not wallowing in denial.
Scified. Enough said. :D
I'm not too surprised in regards to this. Also, thanks for posting that other link again, SM. I think it's clear Fox was expecting a bigger hit on their hands and I don't think they really know why it's failed. I know Fox has been talking to various fan outlets (myself, Xenopedia, Perfect Organism and probably even Scified, though I don't know about that) to try and gauge what happened.
But I think looking at fan reactions isn't going to help. They tried to with Covenant and that didn't work - though I still don't remember the lack of Aliens in Prometheus being a big issue. Seemed more likely it was due to the massive surge of positivity when Blomkamp's stuff was announced.
We're too different. The film's in the series are so different and people find differing things to like in them. I think that divide is pretty obvious with this disgusting Ridley vs. Blomkamp hate war thing that you see around at the minute.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 24, 2017, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 07:02:03 AM
Anyway, it's all good - "The Alien franchises future is assured!" (http://www.alien-covenant.com/news/rumor-control-the-alien-franchises-future-assured) according to SciFied, because...
I'm not sure.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 09:29:15 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2017, 12:31:55 AM
This 're-assess' news really shouldn't come as a surprise.
Quote"It got great reviews and was everything we set out for it to be, it just didn't hit the note at the box office," says Fred Baron, the 20th Century Fox executive on the movie: "It will be a profitable film for the studio but whether there's another one [is uncertain]."
From 2 weeks ago (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/after-thor-and-aquaman-the-battle-to-land-the-next-hollywood-blockbuster-continues-20170704-gx4atr.html)
There was concern about more instalments within a week of it coming out.
Verified source from 13 pages ago for anyone paying attention and not wallowing in denial.
Scified. Enough said. :D
I'm not too surprised in regards to this. Also, thanks for posting that other link again, SM. I think it's clear Fox was expecting a bigger hit on their hands and I don't think they really know why it's failed. I know Fox has been talking to various fan outlets (myself, Xenopedia, Perfect Organism and probably even Scified, though I don't know about that) to try and gauge what happened.
But I think looking at fan reactions isn't going to help. They tried to with Covenant and that didn't work - though I still don't remember the lack of Aliens in Prometheus being a big issue. Seemed more likely it was due to the massive surge of positivity when Blomkamp's stuff was announced.
We're too different. The film's in the series are so different and people find differing things to like in them. I think that divide is pretty obvious with this disgusting Ridley vs. Blomkamp hate war thing that you see around at the minute.
I just hope Fox doesn't take the Ridley vs Blomkamp war that's occurring to heart and shelve Scott's prequels.
Though, I'm crossing fingers that most are telling them the film needed to delve more into the mysteries posed on Prometheus, and from that, try to at least amend that for a final film if it ever gets made.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 24, 2017, 01:25:12 PM
I think it's clear Fox was expecting a bigger hit on their hands and I don't think they really know why it's failed. I know Fox has been talking to various fan outlets (myself, Xenopedia, Perfect Organism and probably even Scified, though I don't know about that) to try and gauge what happened.
But I think looking at fan reactions isn't going to help. They tried to with Covenant and that didn't work - though I still don't remember the lack of Aliens in Prometheus being a big issue. Seemed more likely it was due to the massive surge of positivity when Blomkamp's stuff was announced.
I agree and to be honest, it's a bit pointless asking the hard-core Alien fansites why it wasn't a big hit - box office wise. Most hardcore fans (Local Trouble excluded) went to see the film, Fox succeeded with that. Sure, there will always be contention among the fans whether Covenant was a great film or not but that is besides the point really.
Where it failed was with the general movie-going public. For whatever reason (Waterston's hairstyle included) it failed to draw in casual viewers or create the necessary buzz for an impressive box office haul. The hardcore fans are but a small drop in the revenue bucket.
I'm team Ridley.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 24, 2017, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 07:02:03 AM
Anyway, it's all good - "The Alien franchises future is assured!" (http://www.alien-covenant.com/news/rumor-control-the-alien-franchises-future-assured) according to SciFied, because...
I'm not sure.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 09:29:15 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2017, 12:31:55 AM
This 're-assess' news really shouldn't come as a surprise.
Quote"It got great reviews and was everything we set out for it to be, it just didn't hit the note at the box office," says Fred Baron, the 20th Century Fox executive on the movie: "It will be a profitable film for the studio but whether there's another one [is uncertain]."
From 2 weeks ago (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/after-thor-and-aquaman-the-battle-to-land-the-next-hollywood-blockbuster-continues-20170704-gx4atr.html)
There was concern about more instalments within a week of it coming out.
Verified source from 13 pages ago for anyone paying attention and not wallowing in denial.
Scified. Enough said. :D
I'm not too surprised in regards to this. Also, thanks for posting that other link again, SM. I think it's clear Fox was expecting a bigger hit on their hands and I don't think they really know why it's failed. I know Fox has been talking to various fan outlets (myself, Xenopedia, Perfect Organism and probably even Scified, though I don't know about that) to try and gauge what happened.
But I think looking at fan reactions isn't going to help. They tried to with Covenant and that didn't work - though I still don't remember the lack of Aliens in Prometheus being a big issue. Seemed more likely it was due to the massive surge of positivity when Blomkamp's stuff was announced.
We're too different. The film's in the series are so different and people find differing things to like in them. I think that divide is pretty obvious with this disgusting Ridley vs. Blomkamp hate war thing that you see around at the minute.
They definitely shouldn't listen to us! I mean, I liked Covenant, others didn't because it Wasnt Prometheusy enough or wasn't enough like Aliens or it wasnt scary enough or it messed with the lore or just because of katherine Waterstones haircut lol.
That's just for starters, the reasons are endless.
Just try picking the bones out of that lot!
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 24, 2017, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 07:02:03 AM
Anyway, it's all good - "The Alien franchises future is assured!" (http://www.alien-covenant.com/news/rumor-control-the-alien-franchises-future-assured) according to SciFied, because...
I'm not sure.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 09:29:15 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2017, 12:31:55 AM
This 're-assess' news really shouldn't come as a surprise.
Quote"It got great reviews and was everything we set out for it to be, it just didn't hit the note at the box office," says Fred Baron, the 20th Century Fox executive on the movie: "It will be a profitable film for the studio but whether there's another one [is uncertain]."
From 2 weeks ago (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/after-thor-and-aquaman-the-battle-to-land-the-next-hollywood-blockbuster-continues-20170704-gx4atr.html)
There was concern about more instalments within a week of it coming out.
Verified source from 13 pages ago for anyone paying attention and not wallowing in denial.
Scified. Enough said. :D
I know Fox has been talking to various fan outlets (myself, Xenopedia, Perfect Organism and probably even Scified, though I don't know about that) to try and gauge
Woah! what did u tell them?
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 24, 2017, 01:25:12 PM
But I think looking at fan reactions isn't going to help.
Not sure why they thought Covenant was going to do well with a wider audience, in the first place.
I've probably said this a thousand times by now, but I do sincerely think it would've done better if it had been what people expected instead of what the marketing led people to expect.
Well in regards to the Team Blomkamp people.......Prometheus came out in 2012. Yes it wasn't widely "liked" by fans, and there are tons of Youtube videos dedicated to why it was a failure...or a under rated masterpiece...or the first movie in history that people love/hate.....Either way it was getting a sequel. It made a good amount of money at the Box Office.
The Blomkamp Alien Project was announced via his Twitter account like early 2015. I got my date from this article if it's wrong apologies. http://io9.gizmodo.com/neill-blomkamps-secret-alien-movie-looks-so-good-were-f-1677082116
Even if it's off it's only off a few months into 2014.......Prometheus 2 was still getting made whether you like it or not. Blomkamps idea was late to the party already. Also Yes of coarse Ridley Scott killed it. Do you guys know how stupid it would have been to have Alien Covenant...and then a few months later Alien 5??? That's like Batman vs Superman coming out...then a few months later a sequel to Superman Returns which would be unrelated......
Now all that being said...Covenant barely broke even money wise, and yes I would say it's also breaking even on if Fans liked it or not.
I think FOX should do one of the following. Either let Ridley Scott's SON direct a 3rd prequel movie to tie up the story.....or let Neil Blomkamp make his Alien Movie that includes Fassbenders David....Either way Covenant left the series on a cliffhanger, and they need to finish this story. Also yes I suggested Ridley's son because Ridley is now busy, and cant make another Alien movie for two years...which is way to long. If they are gonna tie the prequel story up it needs to be done now...with a lower budget naturally.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 24, 2017, 04:09:27 PM
Well in regards to the Team Blomkamp people.......Prometheus came out in 2012. Yes it wasn't widely "liked" by fans, and there are tons of Youtube videos dedicated to why it was a failure...or a under rated masterpiece...or the first movie in history that people love/hate.....Either way it was getting a sequel. It made a good amount of money at the Box Office.
The Blomkamp Alien Project was announced via his Twitter account like early 2015. I got my date from this article if it's wrong apologies. http://io9.gizmodo.com/neill-blomkamps-secret-alien-movie-looks-so-good-were-f-1677082116
Even if it's off it's only off a few months into 2014.......Prometheus 2 was still getting made whether you like it or not. Blomkamps idea was late to the party already. Also Yes of coarse Ridley Scott killed it. Do you guys know how stupid it would have been to have Alien Covenant...and then a few months later Alien 5??? That's like Batman vs Superman coming out...then a few months later a sequel to Superman Returns which would be unrelated......
Now all that being said...Covenant barely broke even money wise, and yes I would say it's also breaking even on if Fans liked it or not.
I think FOX should do one of the following. Either let Ridley Scott's SON direct a 3rd prequel movie to tie up the story.....or let Neil Blomkamp make his Alien Movie that includes Fassbenders David....Either way Covenant left the series on a cliffhanger, and they need to finish this story. Also yes I suggested Ridley's son because Ridley is now busy, and cant make another Alien movie for two years...which is way to long. If they are gonna tie the prequel story up it needs to be done now...with a lower budget naturally.
Your theory could happen in real life.
Ridley Scott is too busy: ATMITW this December, THE CARTEL in late 2018 and BATTLE IN BRITAIN in late 2019.
His son Luke Scott could be the Director of a smaller budget COVENANT 2 film.
Yeah, Team Ridley here too. Ridley Scott is a legend, but he needs a smaller budget.
Spielberg once said of Jaws that if he had made the movie today, he would have ruined it with too much CGI and shown the shark too much. If you see the shark coming up behind the character, it's not scary. Or, at the very least, it's half as scary because the tension isn't as palpable. If you see the person just get pulled underwater, it's terrifying because it's sudden. Now, compare that to Alien and Covenant. In Alien, you never see the Xeno actually kill Lambert, but you hear it over the radio. It is stone cold terrifying to hear it kill her, because you don't see it. Covenant had the Xeno out in the open sprinting across the ground like a large jungle cat. We saw the CGI shark. It's gloriously shot and excellent in its execution, but it's not scary as seeing it just appear behind you, or seeing Lope suddenly yanked into an air conditioning duct out of nowhere. The scariest moment of Covenant to me personally was when Rosenberg suddenly notices the Neomorph standing right behind her, because it's sudden. It's. Right. There. And you know she's dead. There's no escaping it. That is classic Alien.
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 24, 2017, 04:22:49 PMThe scariest moment of Covenant to me personally was when Rosenberg suddenly notices the Neomorph standing right behind her, because it's sudden. It's. Right. There. And you know she's dead. There's no escaping it.
That scene was lame horror cliché 101.
I genuinely thought it was pretty cringey, especially when taking into account the fact she just wandered off alone for
no legitimate reason other than so she could be killed. I brought back ugly memories of
Prometheus stupidity.
I'm neither "team Ridley" nor "team Blomkamp" (whatever the hell that stuff even means) but Ridley's proven to me now that he's made a bit of a hash (
Prometheus admittedly more so than
Covenant) of the last two entries he's attempted to make.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2017, 04:28:33 PM
That scene was lame horror cliché 101.
I genuinely thought it was pretty cringey, especially when taking into account the fact she just wandered off alone for no legitimate reason other than so she could be killed. I brought back ugly memories of Prometheus stupidity.
She was cleaning her wounds, actually. You seem to invent reasons to dislike what is basically just a scene. It's called a screenplay and it dictates what happens, in any film. It happens in Alien, with the cat, and in Aliens, when Ripley falls asleep with Newt, after threatening to nail Burke to the wall.
Just let it die already. If there isn't even a major financial incentive anymore for Fox, and the brand has become so tarnished, why even bother? It's time they explored other avenues besides cobbling together frankenstein abominations of movies.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 24, 2017, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 07:02:03 AM
Anyway, it's all good - "The Alien franchises future is assured!" (http://www.alien-covenant.com/news/rumor-control-the-alien-franchises-future-assured) according to SciFied, because...
I'm not sure.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 09:29:15 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 22, 2017, 12:31:55 AM
This 're-assess' news really shouldn't come as a surprise.
Quote"It got great reviews and was everything we set out for it to be, it just didn't hit the note at the box office," says Fred Baron, the 20th Century Fox executive on the movie: "It will be a profitable film for the studio but whether there's another one [is uncertain]."
From 2 weeks ago (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/after-thor-and-aquaman-the-battle-to-land-the-next-hollywood-blockbuster-continues-20170704-gx4atr.html)
There was concern about more instalments within a week of it coming out.
Verified source from 13 pages ago for anyone paying attention and not wallowing in denial.
Scified. Enough said. :D
I'm not too surprised in regards to this. Also, thanks for posting that other link again, SM. I think it's clear Fox was expecting a bigger hit on their hands and I don't think they really know why it's failed. I know Fox has been talking to various fan outlets (myself, Xenopedia, Perfect Organism and probably even Scified, though I don't know about that) to try and gauge what happened.
But I think looking at fan reactions isn't going to help. They tried to with Covenant and that didn't work - though I still don't remember the lack of Aliens in Prometheus being a big issue. Seemed more likely it was due to the massive surge of positivity when Blomkamp's stuff was announced.
We're too different. The film's in the series are so different and people find differing things to like in them. I think that divide is pretty obvious with this disgusting Ridley vs. Blomkamp hate war thing that you see around at the minute.
I for one was disappointed there was no classic Alien in Prometheus - I've been fascinated by it since I was 7 years old. It's iconic and remains terrifying in the first film.
But I was a little bit disappointed in Covenant
because of the classic Alien. It was quite clearly shoehorned in, like you said, because blomkamp set the internet on fire with his concept art.
Alien Covenant is decent, I'm glad we got it. But it's definitely 60% Prometheus/40% Alien and I have seen a lot of reviews that say the tonal shifts between the two are jarring.
I know one thing after Alien Covenant. I'm sick to f**king death of screeching Aliens. Does the idea of a Javier Botet-suited silent stalker in a hanuted house fill anyone with goosebumps? Cause it does me. It may have been done to death but effectively it has not.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 24, 2017, 04:47:27 PMShe was cleaning her wounds, actually. You seem to invent reasons to dislike what is basically just a scene.
She spent more time washing her face. And even if she
was cleaning her wounds, she couldn't do that with someone else standing guard because...? There are aliens running around slaughtering people. She's a soldier there to keep people safe. Having her wander off alone to have a wash in that scenario is daft. I have a hard time buying that a soldier would be so dumb, just like I had a hard time buying expert scientists being such morons in
Prometheus.
ADF clearly felt the same because he struggled to come up with a good reason for her to just go for a walk in the novel, and even then it seemed silly.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 24, 2017, 04:47:27 PMIt's called a screenplay and it dictates what happens, in any film. It happens in Alien, with the cat, and in Aliens, when Ripley falls asleep with Newt, after threatening to nail Burke to the wall.
Sure it dictates what happens, but it can do so logically or it can force the situation. Both of those examples have some logic to them. Brett is a dumb trucker, and thinks he's up against a small worm. If he'd already seen the adult Alien kill one of the crew, what he did would be dumb, but he hasn't, so it feels careless rather than stupid. Likewise, Ripley has good reason not to expect Burke to try and murder her under the watch of a bunch of soldiers -
especially by letting some Aliens loose, which is pretty insane. Rosenthal
has foreknowledge of the Neomorphs' capabilities, so having her wander off like it probably won't be an issue strikes me as unrealistically stupid.
wtf is this "team ridley" "team blomkamp" Twilight kinda bullshit?
Come on people
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2017, 05:01:19 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 24, 2017, 04:47:27 PMShe was cleaning her wounds, actually. You seem to invent reasons to dislike what is basically just a scene.
She spent more time washing her face. And even if she was cleaning her wounds, she couldn't do that with someone else standing guard because...? There are aliens running around slaughtering people. She's a soldier there to keep people safe. Having her wander off alone to have a wash in that scenario is daft. I have a hard time buying that a soldier would be so dumb, just like I had a hard time buying expert scientists being such morons in Prometheus.
ADF clearly felt the same because he struggled to come up with a good reason for her to just go for a walk in the novel, and even then it seemed silly.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 24, 2017, 04:47:27 PMIt's called a screenplay and it dictates what happens, in any film. It happens in Alien, with the cat, and in Aliens, when Ripley falls asleep with Newt, after threatening to nail Burke to the wall.
Sure it dictates what happens, but it can do so logically or it can force the situation. Both of those examples have some logic to them. Brett is a dumb trucker, and thinks he's up against a small worm. If he'd already seen the adult Alien kill one of the crew, what he did would be dumb, but he hasn't, so it feels careless rather than stupid. Likewise, Ripley has good reason not to expect Burke to try and murder her under the watch of a bunch of soldiers - especially by letting some Aliens loose, which is pretty insane. Rosenthal has foreknowledge of the Neomorphs' capabilities, so having her wander off like it probably won't be an issue strikes me as unrealistically stupid.
Please, no. She wandered there to have a poetically decapitated head idly spinning in a stylish, gothic fountain of blood.
But seriously, she went there to clean the wound, yes, plus at that point everybody bought David's assurance that it is safe in the citadel where they are in.
lol don't look at me I just used the team thing to prove a point.
Blomkamp never really had a right to make his Alien Movie yet...Till Ridley was done with his Prequel Story. You cant put a movie out...then another movie except this one is "part 3" to a different movie universe.....it's why people are pissed at Marvel Comics at the moment. (comics...not the movies...but the comics)
If these movie studios would just stop setting everything up to have a sequel then maybe we could have stand alone movies again. Prometheus was obviously set up to have a sequel. They invented a lot of questions, and set it up for those questions to get answered in a sequel....Covenant did the same... and even ignored some of the Prometheus. They deserve a small budget movie to finish it and tie it in to Alien.
I don't get the people who want a scary corridor-hiding-tension-filled Alien movie. It's been done already, 38 gosh darn years ago. Alien is probably my favorite movie, but nowadays I like the latter part the least. Lambert letting herself get raped during the "frozen in terror" trope just isn't scary anymore. Alien Covenant's corridor chase has a different purpose though. It's a set-up for the finale, and we see David gauging his creation.
There's a different kind of horror than monsters chasing you through dark corridors, a horror of ideas and themes. For example, when David puts his facehugger embryos among the human embryos, this is a horror of distorted birth and biology, a horror of something being wrong and twisted, which is something that Giger extensively utilized in his artworks.
Neill Blomkamp cannot make movies like this.
Watching them, Prometheus, Covenant, Alien and Aliens in one marathon made me realize that Alien isn't a film which aged perfectly in some regards, and I don't mean even the technical side of it, but acting, pacing and "feel" of some scenes. I also realized that some people who probably watched it for the first time and were sitting close to me questioned some of the scenes or thought they were kind of awkward.
FYI, I still think it is a masterpiece and my favourite one, and I kind of regret slightly dozing off for 10 seconds so I kind of missed the epicness of the Derelict money shot with Space Jockey, but couldn't help but point some things out.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2017, 04:28:33 PM
I'm neither "team Ridley" nor "team Blomkamp" (whatever the hell that stuff even means) but Ridley's proven to me now that he's made a bit of a hash (Prometheus admittedly more so than Covenant) of the last two entries he's attempted to make.
Same here buddy, I am team "awesome, lore abiding Alien movie that doesn't require stupid characters and slasher cliches to further the plot"
...sadly my team hasn't won in decades :laugh:
These prequels have been fickle, first the prometheus sequel was going to continue the Engineer story and then it became focused on David and xeno origins, which would not have been so bad if they didn't kill off shaw and render her journey pointless. So who knows if these prequel/sequels will actually be what it is
currently said to be about. Assuming they get made.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 24, 2017, 06:21:05 PM
Watching them, Prometheus, Covenant, Alien and Aliens in one marathon made me realize that Alien isn't a film which aged perfectly in some regards, and I don't mean even the technical side of it, but acting, pacing and "feel" of some scenes. I also realized that some people who probably watched it for the first time and were sitting close to me questioned some of the scenes or thought they were kind of awkward.
FYI, I still think it is a masterpiece and my favourite one, and I kind of regret slightly dozing off for 10 seconds so I kind of missed the epicness of the Derelict money shot with Space Jockey, but couldn't help but point some things out.
Really? I still find it to be perfect. Obviously it has a couple of dodgy FX moments and the awful gratuitous shot of sigourneys pants but other than that, still perfect.
Quote from: Omegamorph on Jul 24, 2017, 05:04:37 PM
wtf is this "team ridley" "team blomkamp" Twilight kinda bullshit?
Come on people
We must fight the Blomkamp fans and their army of pulse rifles and Alien queens. ;D
Spoiler
I'm joking.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 24, 2017, 06:00:58 PM
I don't get the people who want a scary corridor-hiding-tension-filled Alien movie. It's been done already, 38 gosh darn years ago. Alien is probably my favorite movie, but nowadays I like the latter part the least. Lambert letting herself get raped during the "frozen in terror" trope just isn't scary anymore. Alien Covenant's corridor chase has a different purpose though. It's a set-up for the finale, and we see David gauging his creation.
There's a different kind of horror than monsters chasing you through dark corridors, a horror of ideas and themes. For example, when David puts his facehugger embryos among the human embryos, this is a horror of distorted birth and biology, a horror of something being wrong and twisted, which is something that Giger extensively utilized in his artworks.
Neill Blomkamp cannot make movies like this.
I dont think it needs to focus on a horror element. More like a building tension of survival film??? I actually don't know to be honest. The Alien franchise has a serious issue. The first movie is a perfect horror movie...which means you wont be able to match it. The sequel is a perfect horror-action film...again no real way to top it.
LOL maybe they should make a Comedy film...or a Musical. I would like to see them make an Alien film as a spy thriller....however this franchise has the unfortunate problem of having two titles which are lightning in a bottle.
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 24, 2017, 08:02:14 PM
LOL maybe they should make a Comedy film...or a Musical. I would like to see them make an Alien film as a spy thriller....however this franchise has the unfortunate problem of having two titles which are lightning in a bottle.
They have...its called Alien Covenant, just watch the multiple tripping on blood scene followed by the ankle crushing and you will laugh rather than be terrified :laugh:
Quote from: Richman678 on Jul 24, 2017, 08:02:14 PM
I dont think it needs to focus on a horror element. More like a building tension of survival film??? I actually don't know to be honest. The Alien franchise has a serious issue. The first movie is a perfect horror movie...which means you wont be able to match it. The sequel is a perfect horror-action film...again no real way to top it.
LOL maybe they should make a Comedy film...or a Musical. I would like to see them make an Alien film as a spy thriller....however this franchise has the unfortunate problem of having two titles which are lightning in a bottle.
One thing that I enjoy about this series is every film seems to have its own identity.
Alien is a slasher movie with a Xeno.
Aliens is a military action movie with Xenos.
Alien 3 is a prison movie with a Xeno.
Resurrection is a campy Joss Whedon sci-fi pic with Xenos.
Prometheus and
Covenant are both movies about explorers on undiscovered frontiers in space. "To boldly go where no man has gone before."
I would love to see a noir-ish detective movie with a Xenomorph. Something in the same vein as Blade Runner. People are getting kidnapped or brutally murdered on this colonized space station and the cops keep finding these Jack the Ripper-type murders and they think that they have a serial killer(s) on the station. Lo and behold the people are being turned into eggs or slaughtered and Xenos are popping up.
That was pretty much the background for Alien:Isolation minus the egg morphing, the sevastopol citizens thought they had a simple killer on the station before they realized what it was. By the time Ripley arrived, they knew it wasn't human.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 24, 2017, 06:21:05 PM
Watching them, Prometheus, Covenant, Alien and Aliens in one marathon made me realize that Alien isn't a film which aged perfectly in some regards, and I don't mean even the technical side of it, but acting, pacing and "feel" of some scenes. I also realized that some people who probably watched it for the first time and were sitting close to me questioned some of the scenes or thought they were kind of awkward.
FYI, I still think it is a masterpiece and my favourite one, and I kind of regret slightly dozing off for 10 seconds so I kind of missed the epicness of the Derelict money shot with Space Jockey, but couldn't help but point some things out.
Apart from maybe 2 dodgy creature shots (jazz hands) Alien is in a different league with it's acting (much more natural and subtle), screenwriting (not chalk full of cliche lines every 2 minutes) and pacing (probably one of the best paced movies ever made).
All that and not least the visual effects. Side by side, Covenants effects and sets look pretty. But Aliens look f**king real, dark and horrific.
Quote from: FreeFacehugz on Jul 24, 2017, 08:43:02 PM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 24, 2017, 06:21:05 PM
Watching them, Prometheus, Covenant, Alien and Aliens in one marathon made me realize that Alien isn't a film which aged perfectly in some regards, and I don't mean even the technical side of it, but acting, pacing and "feel" of some scenes. I also realized that some people who probably watched it for the first time and were sitting close to me questioned some of the scenes or thought they were kind of awkward.
FYI, I still think it is a masterpiece and my favourite one, and I kind of regret slightly dozing off for 10 seconds so I kind of missed the epicness of the Derelict money shot with Space Jockey, but couldn't help but point some things out.
Apart from maybe 2 dodgy creature shots (jazz hands) Alien is in a different league with it's acting (much more natural and subtle), screenwriting (not chalk full of cliche lines every 2 minutes) and pacing (probably one of the best paced movies ever made).
All that and not least the visual effects. Side by side, Covenants effects and sets look pretty. But Aliens look f**king real, dark and horrific.
I'm not denying Alien is THE superior film, but I'm just saying how some of the elements of Covenant from the film-making standpoint might be more appealing to the modern audiences or even people who grew up with the originals :)
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 24, 2017, 05:01:19 PM
QuoteShe was cleaning her wounds, actually. You seem to invent reasons to dislike what is basically just a scene.
She spent more time washing her face. And even if she was cleaning her wounds, she couldn't do that with someone else standing guard because...? There are aliens running around slaughtering people. She's a soldier there to keep people safe. Having her wander off alone to have a wash in that scenario is daft. I have a hard time buying that a soldier would be so dumb, just like I had a hard time buying expert scientists being such morons in Prometheus.
Did this stop you from enjoying Aliens when Ripley couldn't be bothered to ask someone to watch her while she slept? Personally I found it hard to believe that Ripley could be this dumb (and she makes a ton of stupid calls in that movie). Yet, she is dumb in Alien, too. Things like this happen in all of the films, but why you're making a big deal out of this particular instance seems a little arbitrary to me.
Hicks was watching Ripley sleep via the security camera. Which was mentioned twice.
Yeah, they did cover this with Hicks and I can't say I ever had an issue with Ripley and newt having a kip even if it clearly is a plot device, it works. Always thought Burkes actions were a little questionable, it was a bit of a risky thing for someone so cowardly to do.
The wound washing moment in Covenant didn't bother me either though.
Yeah I can't imagine why it would bother anyone. They didn't have any reason to think they weren't in a secure location.
"tripping on blood scene followed by the ankle crushing and you will laugh rather than be terrified"
I didn't laugh at all, it was an "Oh, f**k" moment to me, dark slapstick if you want. The room is completely covered in blood there is a creature that has just erupted from a crew members back, A few minutes ago they were having jollies. They don't know anything or what the hell is going on. Her utter panic is completely justified I think. Probably shat herself too is you want to speculate, wouldn't that be amusing? I think some are forgetting that as fans we know what's going on the characters don't have a clue.
Now with that said, their reactions while they were milling around the inside the citadel were rather non existent "There was no, what the hell is this place?
Also, I didn't laugh at the "Fingering" scene that sometimes gets brought up, I'd heard about it before going in and was expecting to, but I didn't. That scene was great actually. If you've ever learned an instrument you sort of get used to the word anyway. It's probably not a word those who laughed at it are used to in the circumstance they were thinking of anyway.
Riddles put a bullet in this franchise for me. >:(
"Hicks was watching Ripley sleep via the security camera. Which was mentioned twice."
Not close enough then really. Burke manages to turn the monitor off behind his back while he smokes a fag.
Idle sod.
That's my point, neither really bothers me that much, but when someone points out one being worse than the other, I don't really buy that. Both are merely writing devices featured in screenplays since the dawn of film; the script demands that this happen, so it does.
Simply fobbing things off with 'the screenplay says so' is a cop out. Stuff can be properly detailed and explained through the story or it can't. The latter is when things get dumb.
Struggling to think of why Ripley is dumb for sleeping in the medlab, or when "she makes a ton of stupid calls in that movie"...
Smacks of baseless whatabouttery.
Ripley had a pulse rifle with her she felt safe
Burke switched off the monitor when they were trying get someone's attention
No one thought someone would release facehuggers into the room .
How does this compare to someone walking of into the dark alone on a strange planet with no one around to protect her?
There's really nothing wrong with Rosey walking off in the first place. Not only did they believe they had nothing to fear, she had a machine gun.
As far as comparisons go - neither are really anything you could classify as dumb.
It just so dark. They felt safe because they were to together. I dunno it feels stupid. Couldn't she have waited until daytime?
Quote from: FatBrando on Jul 23, 2017, 04:01:21 AM
The executives at FOX have been mis-managing this franchise for years...really since Alien 3. I don't think they've made a good decision regarding the Alien films since green-lighting Aliens.
They shouldn't have killed Blomkamp's Alien 5. They really need to remove everything but Alien and Aliens as canon. Knowing the origin of the Aliens cheapens them. Although poetic, their origin robs them of their majesty. Every good horror writer understands that explaining too much makes the audience feel too safe, too familiar. Scott apparently never learned that lesson.
Mostly in agreement here. I'm ok to leave the Prometheus and Covenant in, provided that we discover the true source of the aliens eventually, i.e. that thing in the mural in Prometheus. Otherwise, retcon Alien 3 and 4. That's where all the trouble started. We need an Alien film that comes in after Aliens with Weaver, and Fassbender, and Biehn and somebody to play Newt...
Quote from: oduodu on Jul 24, 2017, 11:58:54 PM
It just so dark. They felt safe because they were to together. I dunno it feels stupid. Couldn't she have waited until daytime?
It's not like she couldn't see.
QuoteWe need an Alien film that comes in after Aliens with Weaver, and Fassbender, and Biehn and somebody to play Newt...
Why do we need that film?
NickisSmart has a point though. Its not like 'Alien' isnt full of this stuff. From Kane practically taking a header into the egg to Ripley going back for the freaking cat (even if it may be nice from a symbolical viewpoint).
If these things pull you out, they pull you out. But often when one really likes a movie one tends to overlook these as "details". On the other hand if you dont like the movie you automatically find a ton of this stuff that supposedly is responsible for destroying the whole experience. Every little scene it is then.
If you want people to like your characters, they don't leave children or small animals to die. That's not dumb.
Kane admittedly is questionable. It's established that he's the explorer right from the outset, but sticking his face right in that thing...?
"We need an Alien film that comes in after Aliens with Weaver, and Fassbender, and Biehn and somebody to play Newt..."
"We" don't, we don't at all. You or, anyone who agrees with this sentiment, remove yourself from any argument where a point is made that Scott might have perhaps been pandering to fans or the idea that Covenant may have been unoriginal in someway. Just letting you know.
Well, that is if you don't mind being called hypocrites of course. .
QuoteIf you want people to like your characters, they don't leave children or small animals to die. That's not dumb.
Thats a meta-argument for me. If my house is burning to the ground i wouldnt go for the cat in the attic, cause thats just dumb. Maybe my imaginary daughter will mildly hate me for it (for three days max), but she definitely likes that i survived, and i know not going for the cat increased my chances of survival tremendously.
But in a film that is supposed to portray realistic behaviour thats somehow acceptable?
Yes.
:laugh:
Maybe thats why Cameron initially cut the whole Ripleys daughter part from Aliens. Cause this half-crazy woman definitely needs no strong psychological reason to go back to hell for the cute little girl that maybe reminds her of her daughter, cause she would go for big pets, small pets, ant farms and precious souvenirs anyway (way to destroy a potential strongly motivated future story arc, Ridley!).
One could say a lot of things against this Cameron fella, but i actually find it much harder to think about 'dumb' scenes of this magnitude in Aliens. He wouldve even bothered to further back up Ripleys motivation to go for an actual human being.
For Ridley the cute cat is reason enough. How could this director be responsible for films like Prometheus and Covenant...
She goes back for Newt, because that's the kind of person she is. The kind of person that takes charge and takes action, rather than sitting back and saying 'You guys got us into this mess; you work it out. I'm going for a smoke.'
The daughter aspect in Aliens is superfluous, almost to the point of being a bit too convenient.
This has me worried even more . Fox is asking outlets why the movie didn't do better?
Maybe they should have fan test screenings for the outlets only.
Here we have communities full of people who would give a nut just for the privilege of being involved in a consulting process. There is a whole EU to fall back on. Will they now actually take the advice of dedicated fans ? I hope there is some feedback on this.
Yes I know hindsight.
Just for the record I am actually amazed that FOX did ask for feedback. Its probably feedback from the test screenings that made them sure of success.
Going back for the girl, for any human being is motivated enough at any time your totally right.
Going back for a cat is bordering on the insane. What if she actually already were portrayed as a mother in Alien? Going back for a cat with her daughter waiting at home? I dont even know how i would call such a person.
Put yourself in Camerons shoes. Now you wanna make Ripley a mother for whatever reasons. You actually cant because of her going back for the cat. No sane mother would put her life and her responsibility for her child on the line for an animal. That would shift her from a somehow crazy but likeable character to an irresponsible, reckless mother immediately.
And her actions in Alien diminish her going back for Newt in Aliens even if she wasnt/isnt a mother. A crazy character can not act heroic, his actions will always be determined by this one thing: his crazyness. Today hes saving a little girl, tomorrow a canary bird, the next day he doesnt bother at all; its totally random. You can like the crazy caracter for saving the child, but you can not admire him for his actual motivation (overcoming his fears, caring for other people etc.).
Im not actually saying Ripley is potrayed as being crazy in Alien, yet for me going back for the cat is a crazy kamikazesque action. You can overlook it, sure hollywood (Awww shes going - for the cat), but it might actually pull you out.
Quote from: oduodu on Jul 25, 2017, 01:21:37 AM
This has me worried even more . Fox is asking outlets why the movie didn't do better?
Maybe they should have fan test screenings for the outlets only.
Here we have communities full of people who would give a nut just for the privilege of being involved in a consulting process. There is a whole EU to fall back on. Will they now actually take the advice of dedicated fans ? I hope there is some feedback on this.
Yes I know hindsight.
They should be consulting the general audience. Alien fans liked it, but they aren't a big enough demographic. The brand has been in decline since the first sequel thirty years ago. Each sequel made less than the one before it, with the exceptions of AvP and Prometheus - in other words, being an "Alien" movie is not enough to sustain the franchise.
My theory is that Alien endures because it offers and experience no other sci-fi or horror movie offers. If they want to make successful sequels, they need to continuously offer new experiences. The retreads offer diminishing returns and I don't see that trend reversing now after over 30 years of it holding steady.
They should poll general audiences, sci-fi fans, and bloggers like John Kenneth Muir who know the franchise but aren't fanatically devoted.
And if they are going to stick with female protagonists for every movie, and Ridley isn't going to return, they really must hire female creative teams behind the camera. At the very least a female director, and preferably a female screenwriter, as well.
QuoteGoing back for a cat is bordering on the insane. What if she actually already were portrayed as a mother in Alien? Going back for a cat with her daughter waiting at home? I dont even know how i would call such a person.
A human.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 25, 2017, 01:37:06 AM
And if they are going to stick with female protagonists for every movie, and Ridley isn't going to return, they really must hire female creative teams behind the camera. At the very least a female director, and preferably a female screenwriter, as well.
Might as well just go full Ghostbusters reboot and make all the characters female except for villains and idiots. Those can be played by men. ;D
Yap, i prefer reckless mother. A bit more precise.
Quote from: oduodu on Jul 25, 2017, 01:21:37 AM
Will they now actually take the advice of dedicated fans ?
They want marines with pulse rifles shooting lots of aliens.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 25, 2017, 01:37:06 AM
Quote from: oduodu on Jul 25, 2017, 01:21:37 AM
This has me worried even more . Fox is asking outlets why the movie didn't do better?
Maybe they should have fan test screenings for the outlets only.
Here we have communities full of people who would give a nut just for the privilege of being involved in a consulting process. There is a whole EU to fall back on. Will they now actually take the advice of dedicated fans ? I hope there is some feedback on this.
Yes I know hindsight.
They should be consulting the general audience. Alien fans liked it, but they aren't a big enough demographic. The brand has been in decline since the first sequel thirty years ago. Each sequel made less than the one before it, with the exceptions of AvP and Prometheus - in other words, being an "Alien" movie is not enough to sustain the franchise.
My theory is that Alien endures because it offers and experience no other sci-fi or horror movie offers. If they want to make successful sequels, they need to continuously offer new experiences. The retreads offer diminishing returns and I don't see that trend reversing now after over 30 years of it holding steady.
They should poll general audiences, sci-fi fans, and bloggers like John Kenneth Muir who know the franchise but aren't fanatically devoted.
And if they are going to stick with female protagonists for every movie, and Ridley isn't going to return, they really must hire female creative teams behind the camera. At the very least a female director, and preferably a female screenwriter, as well.
Well said. I can't argue against what you said. I think Prometheus tried to establish a new fanbase - a new "mystery" so to speak. But then you had to build around that mystery. Even if Scott said that we were just wiped out(or supposed to be) because the engineers were unhappy with us - no explanation why or anything shows the thinking of the engineers etc - there was no payoff or hints in this regard on covenant - people wanted that IMHO at least.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jul 25, 2017, 01:48:30 AM
Quote from: oduodu on Jul 25, 2017, 01:21:37 AM
Will they now actually take the advice of dedicated fans ?
They want marines with pulse rifles shooting lots of aliens.
So?
Quite.
They did it once and it worked. Why not another combat themed film.
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 24, 2017, 02:39:28 AM
Honestly, I think smaller budgets are just what this franchise needs. Alien had tight, claustrophobic sets and atmosphere because of a limited budget. Same with Aliens.
It will also mean lower ticket prices and movies that click because they offer something new given limited budgets. The
Alien franchise will be competing with that as well as with other franchises that resemble it.
Quote from: namELIEN. on Jul 24, 2017, 02:39:48 AM
The studio and studd whine too much. Just make the movie. This is a part of a scifi saga that must be continued, want it or not.
I think their goal is to maximize profits, with continuing any "saga" as secondary.
Alien wasn't low budget.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 07:02:03 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette2.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fe4%2FPrometheus-_Engineer_Angry.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20140328152538&hash=0b4e71b3ed631ed540cadd4737d651fb1f26c7d4)
Fatality!
Anyway, it's all good - "The Alien franchises future is assured!" (http://www.alien-covenant.com/news/rumor-control-the-alien-franchises-future-assured) according to SciFied, because...
I'm not sure.
From what I know, distribution costs are supposed to be deducted from box office revenues.
Oh probably. I don't know how the economics works.
I daresay, neither does Mr Singleton.
Quote from: Omegamorph on Jul 24, 2017, 05:04:37 PM
wtf is this "team ridley" "team blomkamp" Twilight kinda bullshit?
Come on people
Its laughable is what it is.
I'm willing to pat the guy on the back when he does well.. I thought The Martian was a great movie. Staying fairly true to the source material was a wise decision IMO. But.. I'm too old for blind hero worship. I felt that way about Lucas when I was growing up, and then he trotted out those special editions and prequels.
Sounds vaguely familiar.
Quote from: oduodu on Jul 25, 2017, 01:50:33 AM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 25, 2017, 01:37:06 AM
Quote from: oduodu on Jul 25, 2017, 01:21:37 AM
This has me worried even more . Fox is asking outlets why the movie didn't do better?
Maybe they should have fan test screenings for the outlets only.
Here we have communities full of people who would give a nut just for the privilege of being involved in a consulting process. There is a whole EU to fall back on. Will they now actually take the advice of dedicated fans ? I hope there is some feedback on this.
Yes I know hindsight.
They should be consulting the general audience. Alien fans liked it, but they aren't a big enough demographic. The brand has been in decline since the first sequel thirty years ago. Each sequel made less than the one before it, with the exceptions of AvP and Prometheus - in other words, being an "Alien" movie is not enough to sustain the franchise.
My theory is that Alien endures because it offers and experience no other sci-fi or horror movie offers. If they want to make successful sequels, they need to continuously offer new experiences. The retreads offer diminishing returns and I don't see that trend reversing now after over 30 years of it holding steady.
They should poll general audiences, sci-fi fans, and bloggers like John Kenneth Muir who know the franchise but aren't fanatically devoted.
And if they are going to stick with female protagonists for every movie, and Ridley isn't going to return, they really must hire female creative teams behind the camera. At the very least a female director, and preferably a female screenwriter, as well.
Well said. I can't argue against what you said. I think Prometheus tried to establish a new fanbase - a new "mystery" so to speak. But then you had to build around that mystery. Even if Scott said that we were just wiped out(or supposed to be) because the engineers were unhappy with us - no explanation why or anything shows the thinking of the engineers etc - there was no payoff or hints in this regard on covenant - people wanted that IMHO at least.
I agree. Prometheus did a very good job of avoiding the pitfalls that Covenant fell into. I think Prometheus 2 would have done substantially better than Covenant, but studio logic doesn't understand why a fresh approach would be more profitable when movies like The Force Awakens make billions doing the opposite. But this isn't Star Wars, where fans demand the same "feel" for each movie, imho. The lesson to learn from Star Wars is develop that same characters over a span of many films and tell a tightly-integrated storyline. When they dropped the setup from Prometheus and killed the protagonist, they lost the central drive of the story and as a result Covenant was rudderless and its ending felt like a hollow promise.
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 25, 2017, 01:44:38 AM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 25, 2017, 01:37:06 AM
And if they are going to stick with female protagonists for every movie, and Ridley isn't going to return, they really must hire female creative teams behind the camera. At the very least a female director, and preferably a female screenwriter, as well.
Might as well just go full Ghostbusters reboot and make all the characters female except for villains and idiots. Those can be played by men. ;D
It would be kind of awesome to have robots in Covenant 2 that look like Vickers and Call. That's about as fan-service-y as I would ever dare to go, and it would be a cool excuse for bringing back Charlize and Winona.
Prequel Lucas is playing in its own league though.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8b/b4/64/8bb46405b1666e64572c60b973447c02.gif)
The input of "dedicated" fans? No, no, no, HELL NO. You would get better input from a dog. ::)
Quote from: brokentusk420 on Jul 25, 2017, 04:02:27 AM
The input of "dedicated" fans? No, no, no, HELL NO. You would get better input from a dog. ::)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Movies made by a committee? I heard they suck. A movie made by a committee of fans..?
HAHAHAHAHAA!!!1!!
-Windebieste.
Marines aren't what made Aliens a badass movie. It was the characters who happened to be marines. Oh, and good storytelling and film-making. Shoehorning guys with pulse rifles into the series again won't automatically make for a good movie. Any teenager could write this sort of fan-fiction. I'm perfectly fine with any direction at this point as long as we get a great movie. Covenant was a great movie, but apparently because it didn't make as much money as expected it's a turkey. Sucks.
Why do they need to be "shoehorned" in?
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 01:39:21 AM
QuoteGoing back for a cat is bordering on the insane. What if she actually already were portrayed as a mother in Alien? Going back for a cat with her daughter waiting at home? I dont even know how i would call such a person.
A human.
Interestingly, in Alien audio commentary, Ridley did commented on the Ripley saving the cat. Said that he is glad nobody questioned why she went back for the cat.
I'm not sure why anyone would.
A new Alien flick with lots of pew pew can work though... Rogue One felt like a combat movie to me, and I kinda liked it. (though it had it's flaws).
Maybe just make the one movie were we follow a group of marines out to stomp some bugs. No ties to the rest of the franchise, just a group of marines and a shit-load of upgraded Cameron-esk weaponry.
Hoorah! (or something...)
I keep hearing how this Prometheus 2 Movie would have been such a big success yet I don't even know what the story to this film was, does anyone else?
Nobody has any evidence to substantiate this at all. In fact, most of the people I know who didn't like Covenant (both fans and not) were enjoying the film up until David was introduced to the story. I don't think people had a problem with the alien being in the film, it was the way the alien was shoe horned in with other matters having greater importance that was the problem, although it isn't a view I share.
I always disliked the end of Prometheus purely because I felt it was an empty promise. I didn't see the story it hinted at ever being a viable option for a big budget studio film. It was never going to get made without some form of U-turn IMO.
I believe Covenant would have fared better at the BO if it had more action/suspense scenes involving the colonists fighting off monsters. Covenant is an unusual film with an unusual structure. It strays in and out of a more arthouse pretensions and it certainly isn't a crowd pleasing film. These are the things I enjoy about it but they definitely turned many off.
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 25, 2017, 07:36:27 AM
A new Alien flick with lots of pew pew can work though... Rogue One felt like a combat movie to me, and I kinda liked it. (though it had it's flaws).
Maybe just make the one movie were we follow a group of marines out to stomp some bugs. No ties to the rest of the franchise, just a group of marines and a shit-load of upgraded Cameron-esk weaponry.
Hoorah! (or something...)
Basically, that's Blomkamp's original idea for 'ALIEN 5'. ...before Weaver got involved. Ripley and a retcon are completely unnecessary. Mind you, there are those that can't see beyond that.
Just shoot 'em, I say; and put 'em out of everyone's misery - especially their own.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 25, 2017, 01:37:06 AM
Quote from: oduodu on Jul 25, 2017, 01:21:37 AM
This has me worried even more . Fox is asking outlets why the movie didn't do better?
Maybe they should have fan test screenings for the outlets only.
Here we have communities full of people who would give a nut just for the privilege of being involved in a consulting process. There is a whole EU to fall back on. Will they now actually take the advice of dedicated fans ? I hope there is some feedback on this.
Yes I know hindsight.
They should be consulting the general audience. Alien fans liked it, but they aren't a big enough demographic. The brand has been in decline since the first sequel thirty years ago. Each sequel made less than the one before it, with the exceptions of AvP and Prometheus - in other words, being an "Alien" movie is not enough to sustain the franchise.
My theory is that Alien endures because it offers and experience no other sci-fi or horror movie offers. If they want to make successful sequels, they need to continuously offer new experiences. The retreads offer diminishing returns and I don't see that trend reversing now after over 30 years of it holding steady.
They should poll general audiences, sci-fi fans, and bloggers like John Kenneth Muir who know the franchise but aren't fanatically devoted.
And if they are going to stick with female protagonists for every movie, and Ridley isn't going to return, they really must hire female creative teams behind the camera. At the very least a female director, and preferably a female screenwriter, as well.
This is the worst idea ever, given that the majority of "fans" right in this moment want Aliens 2 with 70 year old Ripley and Hicks and 40 year old Newt.
Quote from: brokentusk420 on Jul 25, 2017, 04:02:27 AM
The input of "dedicated" fans? No, no, no, HELL NO. You would get better input from a dog. ::)
I'd wager you'd get better input from a piece of feces on the streets. It's easy to shit on Lindelof or to a lesser degree Logan for some of their awful writing decisions, but a fan-made Alien script would probably be infinitely worse.
Now, what they REALLY should do for the next film is get a molecular biologist to look at the script and make sure things make somewhat sense.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 07:40:09 AM
I keep hearing how this Prometheus 2 Movie would have been such a big success yet I don't even know what the story to this film was, does anyone else?
Nobody has any evidence to substantiate this at all. In fact, most of the people I know who didn't like Covenant (both fans and not) were enjoying the film up until David was introduced to the story. I don't think people had a problem with the alien being in the film, it was the way the alien was shoe horned in with other matters having greater importance that was the problem, although it isn't a view I share.
I always disliked the end of Prometheus purely because I felt it was an empty promise. I didn't see the story it hinted at ever being a viable option for a big budget studio film. It was never going to get made without some form of U-turn IMO.
I believe Covenant would have fared better at the BO if it had more action/suspense scenes involving the colonists fighting off monsters. Covenant is an unusual film with an unusual structure. It strays in and out of a more arthouse pretensions and it certainly isn't a crowd pleasing film. These are the things I enjoy about it but they definitely turned many off.
I listened to this most recent perfect organism podcast recently https://perfectorganism.podbean.com/e/episode-59-defending-alien-covenant/ and a lot of very important points are pointed out, such as the movie being an idea movie over a character movie, Daniels being sold as the hero while the main character is actually David, people finding faults in everything if the movie leaves them dropped off etc.
Basically it seems that a lot of expectations weren't matched by the eventual movie. The big take home message seems to be that if you are making a weird Alien arthouse movie,
sell it as such!
Daniels is the hero though; not David.
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 25, 2017, 07:36:27 AM
A new Alien flick with lots of pew pew can work though... Rogue One felt like a combat movie to me, and I kinda liked it. (though it had it's flaws).
Maybe just make the one movie were we follow a group of marines out to stomp some bugs. No ties to the rest of the franchise, just a group of marines and a shit-load of upgraded Cameron-esk weaponry.
Hoorah! (or something...)
I think this is the direction to go if we want to see a BO improvement but it doesn't need to be stand alone. Covenant 2 can work with these elements and is what Ridley has hinted at anyway.
He just needs to focus on the action elements and ramp them up rather than indulging in the deeper themes hes interested in. Its not particularly what I want to see but I think its a necessity.
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 08:07:01 AM
Daniels is the hero though; not David.
She is but the hero isn't the focus of the film.
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 08:07:01 AM
Daniels is the hero though; not David.
That's right, I should've said main character.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 08:08:01 AM
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 25, 2017, 07:36:27 AM
A new Alien flick with lots of pew pew can work though... Rogue One felt like a combat movie to me, and I kinda liked it. (though it had it's flaws).
Maybe just make the one movie were we follow a group of marines out to stomp some bugs. No ties to the rest of the franchise, just a group of marines and a shit-load of upgraded Cameron-esk weaponry.
Hoorah! (or something...)
I think this is the direction to go if we want to see a BO improvement but it doesn't need to be stand alone. Covenant 2 can work with these elements and is what Ridley has hinted at anyway.
He just needs to focus on the action elements and ramp them up rather than indulging in the deeper themes hes interested in. Its not particularly what I want to see but I think its a necessity.
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 08:07:01 AM
Daniels is the hero though; not David.
She is but the hero isn't the focus of the film.
She is to a point; just not the main focus when David enters the story.
Since Aliens there's been a lot of people who want all out war with the Aliens. It's much more achievable these days.
We got Prometheus 2... Ridley just put a few Aliens in it.
Up to the David crap, the movie was a fun watch. I remember thinking..." ok here we go! Stage is set, lets do this!".
After the last Neomorph attack this happened:
(https://media.mnn.com/assets/images/2016/06/tumbleweed-on-road.jpg.653x0_q80_crop-smart.jpg)
The Prometheus crap dragged it down and made the movie boring imo. And once the Alien turns up again, you are no longer invested and can't be bothered all together. At least that was my impression seeing my friends reaction to it and my own. They all thought it had too much Prometheus and too little Alien. The flute-scene was fun though... up to hilarious.
And thats maybe a good reason to look into a combat movie once more. Take all this "meaning of life" garbage and toss it, use the visual impact of Prometheus and go full Cameron with the gear. Meh... ideas right?
Still liked Covenant more then Prometheus looking back, and I have the urge to watch it again. I did not have that feeling with Prometheus. Even if it's just for the Neomorph stuff. Turn it off when David ruins the party lol.
There's nothing stopping them including all that existential stuff in a combat film though. It'd be like how Cameron included the motherhood layer in Aliens.
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 08:17:41 AM
There's nothing stopping them including all that existential stuff in a combat film though. It'd be like how Cameron included the motherhood layer in Aliens.
Definitely, they just need to turned one dial down a little and turn the other one up.
This may sound stupid but Covenant is a little like from dusk till dawn in that the 2nd half is a very different movie to the first and I think it confused audiences. Not only was it not what it said on the tin but the contents changed half way through. Its a bit like eating a bag of cheese and onion crisps and half way down having smokey bacon. Its unpalatable to some but I like both flavours so enjoyed it.
But I might just be talking rubbish here.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 08:29:07 AMThis may sound stupid but Covenant is a little like from dusk till dawn in that the 2nd half is a very different movie to the first and I think it confused audiences.
The change is much less stark than in
Dusk... but, yeah, it was definitely a film of two halves.
I dunno. I think most people had a fair idea what to expect from trailers. But I only saw it once and haven't had a chance to have a closer look yet.
I didn't see David play the flute... XD
Seriously: I didn't expect that much Prometheus, and neither did my fellowship. We were hoping for a more cohesive experience regarding the Alien aspect of Covenant. It was a bit all over the place...
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 08:31:13 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 08:29:07 AMThis may sound stupid but Covenant is a little like from dusk till dawn in that the 2nd half is a very different movie to the first and I think it confused audiences.
The change is much less stark than in Dusk... but, yeah, it was definitely a film of two halves.
It's a bit like Hitchcock's 'Psycho' in this regard. That movie switches focus from being about a bank heist to Norman Bates being the nutter of the title at a critical point in the movie, the shower scene. For 'ALIEN: Covenant', the change in direction happens when David arrives to rescue the survivors. He's a bit like Norman Bates in some ways, I guess. He takes the survivors into his house of horrors and the themes of the movie shift significantly.
That's really the 2nd Act of the movie, and it ends once the survivors escape in the loader - but of course, that's not the end of the movie. 'ALIEN Covenant' continues into its 3rd Act, which is different once again and no less distinct being a much more traditional closing Act of the movie.
I guess in that case, the shower scene gets shunted into the 3rd Act of the movie, where it's revealed the final Alien has emerged from Lope, killed and is now running around loose on the Covenant.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 09:33:11 PM
Yeah I can't imagine why it would bother anyone. They didn't have any reason to think they weren't in a secure location.
Same. I get that it's a trope and the audience knows she's in a horror film and know what is coming next but within the context of the film itself, it made sense. They all thought they were safe at this point.
I'd go back for my cat. I like my cat more than I like most people.
It's not exactly an unknown thing to do. Neither is leaving them. It just depends on the person.
Quote from: fiveways on Jul 25, 2017, 10:49:52 AM
I'd go back for my cat. I like my cat more than I like most people.
I'd go back for my peacock.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 25, 2017, 09:31:46 AM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 08:31:13 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 08:29:07 AMThis may sound stupid but Covenant is a little like from dusk till dawn in that the 2nd half is a very different movie to the first and I think it confused audiences.
The change is much less stark than in Dusk... but, yeah, it was definitely a film of two halves.
It's a bit like Hitchcock's 'Psycho' in this regard. That movie switches focus from being about a bank heist to Norman Bates being the nutter of the title at a critical point in the movie, the shower scene. For 'ALIEN: Covenant', the change in direction happens when David arrives to rescue the survivors. He's a bit like Norman Bates in some ways, I guess. He takes the survivors into his house of horrors and the themes of the movie shift significantly.
That's really the 2nd Act of the movie, and it ends once the survivors escape in the loader - but of course, that's not the end of the movie. 'ALIEN Covenant' continues into its 3rd Act, which is different once again and no less distinct being a much more traditional closing Act of the movie.
I guess in that case, the shower scene gets shunted into the 3rd Act of the movie, where it's revealed the final Alien has emerged from Lope, killed and is now running around loose on the Covenant.
-Windebieste.
"Psycho" is a good example.
But imo "Covenant" also follows the stages of a pretty standard horror film trope.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClosedCircle
** Here are the steps of this kind of story.
* The protagonists method of transportation no longer works. In a classic example a car breaks down/flat tire or the bridge is out and there is a storm.
- With "Covenant" there is a storm which disrupts communication and on the ground there are the black goo spores and monsters. So the shuttle/ship are not available.
- "The Evil Dead" (1981) has a similar variation where the bridge is out and the trees attack people.
* The protagonists seek/accept shelter. Classic examples include a house where the host is a killer. "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" is an iconic example.
- With "Covenant" David provides the house (the Citadel) and he is the killer.
David is an example of the mad scientist variation of this trope.
* There is a monster which gets out of control.
Ironically one film that has many of these plot ideas is Ed Wood's "Bride of the Monster".
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/BrideOfTheMonster
The storm, stranded travelers who seek shelter in the house of a mad scientist who has a monster which gets out of control.
- "Covenant" adds that final touch using the xenomorph as the monster.
* A final deviation from the classic examples with "Covenant" is that the mad scientist (antagonist) is not defeated. But that's common in modern versions of this trope.
;)
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 10:54:59 AM
It's not exactly an unknown thing to do. Neither is leaving them. It just depends on the person.
And the circumstances. If time was tight, the audience would be more forgiving for not going back for the cat.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 25, 2017, 12:41:08 AM
QuoteIf you want people to like your characters, they don't leave children or small animals to die. That's not dumb.
Do people here watch Super Metroid speedruns? Save the animals, or kill them? :P
Also, SM, I think, said Daniels, here, is the hero. I would argue that the real hero is David, but he is a Byron hero. And yes, there is a giant difference between that sort of hero and the ordinary kind. And it's relevant because this entire film is one big nod to the British Romantic era, aka Byronic hero worship.
Daniels isn't the hero at all. She's just another victim.
So much for staying on topic. ???
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 10:38:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 09:33:11 PM
Yeah I can't imagine why it would bother anyone. They didn't have any reason to think they weren't in a secure location.
Same. I get that it's a trope and the audience knows she's in a horror film and know what is coming next but within the context of the film itself, it made sense. They all thought they were safe at this point.
In the context of the film itself, the Covenant crew felt safe because:
1. They followed a complete stranger after being attacked by a hostile alien lifeform.
2. Into a giant alien city which had no doors.
3. Said giant alien city was found to be filled with corpses.
4. After being asked if the place is safe, the suspicious stranger told them that it was.
Would you feel safe if a stranger took you hiding in a doorless alien graveyard?
Since people brought up Ripley dosing off in Aliens as a comparison, Ripley dosed off when:
1. She and the rest of the marines got the complete schematics of the complex.
2. Used said schematics to come up with a plan, which included welding off and barricading key doors that blocked entrance to the complex.
3. Assumed the aliens would get in anyway, so they set up sentry turrets at key junctions.
4. Assumed the sentrys won't be enough, so they had Hudson and Vasquez patrolling the corridors with motion trackers.
Only then did Ripley fall saleep, after Hicks telling her to do so and in a room monitored by video cameras.
It is pretty clear why people got annoyed by Rosenthal's tropey "let me wander off by myself so that the script could kill me off" approach. It made no sense other than the script wanting her dead (which is a recurring theme of Covenant, going back to the first guy who gets infected by the spores when "going to take a piss"...without even taking a piss).
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 10:54:59 AM
It's not exactly an unknown thing to do. Neither is leaving them. It just depends on the person.
And the circumstances. If time was tight, the audience would be more forgiving for not going back for the cat.
Why are people here upset about Ripley "going back for the cat" in Alien exactly? She left the cat literally in front of the enterance to the Narcissus after being cut off by the alien...her "going back for him" was taking two steps to the left before abandoning ship.
There's a drinking game in this thread with the words - Shoehorn, Pulse Rifles and Cat.
I'm with Paranoid Android. One works one doesn't. That's my whole beef with the movie, it's not whats happening, it's how it's happening. The same things happened in Alien and Aliens ( Which we are now tearing apart? Great job), it just felt like in a much more plausible way.
Now about these "team" T-shirts......
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 12:16:43 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 10:38:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 09:33:11 PM
Yeah I can't imagine why it would bother anyone. They didn't have any reason to think they weren't in a secure location.
Same. I get that it's a trope and the audience knows she's in a horror film and know what is coming next but within the context of the film itself, it made sense. They all thought they were safe at this point.
In the context of the film itself, the Covenant crew felt safe because:
1. They followed a complete stranger after being attacked by a hostile alien lifeform.
2. Into a giant alien city which had no doors.
3. Said giant alien city was found to be filled with corpses.
4. After being asked if the place is safe, the suspicious stranger told them that it was.
Would you feel safe if a stranger took you hiding in a doorless alien graveyard?
Since people brought up Ripley dosing off in Aliens as a comparison, Ripley dosed off when:
1. She and the rest of the marines got the complete schematics of the complex.
2. Used said schematics to come up with a plan, which included welding off and barricading key doors that blocked entrance to the complex.
3. Assumed the aliens would get in anyway, so they set up sentry turrets at key junctions.
4. Assumed the sentrys won't be enough, so they had Hudson and Vasquez patrolling the corridors with motion trackers.
Only then did Ripley fall saleep, after Hicks telling her to do so and in a room monitored by video cameras.
It is pretty clear why people got annoyed by Rosenthal's tropey "let me wander off by myself so that the script could kill me off" approach. It made no sense other than the script wanting her dead (which is a recurring theme of Covenant, going back to the first guy who gets infected by the spores when "going to take a piss"...without even taking a piss).
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 10:54:59 AM
It's not exactly an unknown thing to do. Neither is leaving them. It just depends on the person.
And the circumstances. If time was tight, the audience would be more forgiving for not going back for the cat.
Why are people here upset about Ripley "going back for the cat" in Alien exactly? She left the cat literally in front of the enterance to the Narcissus after being cut off by the alien...her "going back for him" was taking two steps to the left before abandoning ship.
You're ignoring that David literally saved them from the Neomorphs with the flare gun because it doesn't suit your argument.
Did he save them or his Neomorphs.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 12:16:43 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 10:38:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 09:33:11 PM
Yeah I can't imagine why it would bother anyone. They didn't have any reason to think they weren't in a secure location.
Same. I get that it's a trope and the audience knows she's in a horror film and know what is coming next but within the context of the film itself, it made sense. They all thought they were safe at this point.
In the context of the film itself, the Covenant crew felt safe because:
1. They followed a complete stranger after being attacked by a hostile alien lifeform.
2. Into a giant alien city which had no doors.
3. Said giant alien city was found to be filled with corpses.
4. After being asked if the place is safe, the suspicious stranger told them that it was.
Would you feel safe if a stranger took you hiding in a doorless alien graveyard?
Since people brought up Ripley dosing off in Aliens as a comparison, Ripley dosed off when:
1. She and the rest of the marines got the complete schematics of the complex.
2. Used said schematics to come up with a plan, which included welding off and barricading key doors that blocked entrance to the complex.
3. Assumed the aliens would get in anyway, so they set up sentry turrets at key junctions.
4. Assumed the sentrys won't be enough, so they had Hudson and Vasquez patrolling the corridors with motion trackers.
Only then did Ripley fall saleep, after Hicks telling her to do so and in a room monitored by video cameras.
It is pretty clear why people got annoyed by Rosenthal's tropey "let me wander off by myself so that the script could kill me off" approach. It made no sense other than the script wanting her dead (which is a recurring theme of Covenant, going back to the first guy who gets infected by the spores when "going to take a piss"...without even taking a piss).
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 10:54:59 AM
It's not exactly an unknown thing to do. Neither is leaving them. It just depends on the person.
And the circumstances. If time was tight, the audience would be more forgiving for not going back for the cat.
Why are people here upset about Ripley "going back for the cat" in Alien exactly? She left the cat literally in front of the enterance to the Narcissus after being cut off by the alien...her "going back for him" was taking two steps to the left before abandoning ship.
I think its maybe more reference to earlier prior to Parker and Lambert's Alien encounter when Ripley wanders around calling out for Jonesy.
They actually use the cat trope 3 times in Alien, nothing but trouble those pesky cats in space lol
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 12:39:24 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 12:16:43 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 10:38:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 24, 2017, 09:33:11 PM
Yeah I can't imagine why it would bother anyone. They didn't have any reason to think they weren't in a secure location.
Same. I get that it's a trope and the audience knows she's in a horror film and know what is coming next but within the context of the film itself, it made sense. They all thought they were safe at this point.
In the context of the film itself, the Covenant crew felt safe because:
1. They followed a complete stranger after being attacked by a hostile alien lifeform.
2. Into a giant alien city which had no doors.
3. Said giant alien city was found to be filled with corpses.
4. After being asked if the place is safe, the suspicious stranger told them that it was.
Would you feel safe if a stranger took you hiding in a doorless alien graveyard?
Since people brought up Ripley dosing off in Aliens as a comparison, Ripley dosed off when:
1. She and the rest of the marines got the complete schematics of the complex.
2. Used said schematics to come up with a plan, which included welding off and barricading key doors that blocked entrance to the complex.
3. Assumed the aliens would get in anyway, so they set up sentry turrets at key junctions.
4. Assumed the sentrys won't be enough, so they had Hudson and Vasquez patrolling the corridors with motion trackers.
Only then did Ripley fall saleep, after Hicks telling her to do so and in a room monitored by video cameras.
It is pretty clear why people got annoyed by Rosenthal's tropey "let me wander off by myself so that the script could kill me off" approach. It made no sense other than the script wanting her dead (which is a recurring theme of Covenant, going back to the first guy who gets infected by the spores when "going to take a piss"...without even taking a piss).
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 11:22:53 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 10:54:59 AM
It's not exactly an unknown thing to do. Neither is leaving them. It just depends on the person.
And the circumstances. If time was tight, the audience would be more forgiving for not going back for the cat.
Why are people here upset about Ripley "going back for the cat" in Alien exactly? She left the cat literally in front of the enterance to the Narcissus after being cut off by the alien...her "going back for him" was taking two steps to the left before abandoning ship.
You're ignoring that David literally saved them from the Neomorphs with the flare gun because it doesn't suit your argument.
Did he? I was under the impression that the Neomorph ran away after getting hit by rifle fire. When was it established that David "saved" anyone in Covenant? All he did was pop off a flare in a dramatic pose.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct and David did save their lives with the flares because Neomorphs are scared of lights? I guess?
It still doesn't explain why the crew takes David's word for the giant alien graveyard being safe, especially when seeing, with their own two eyes, that the place doesn't even have doors...The crew does absolutely nothing to establish their safety other than trusting David.
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 25, 2017, 12:47:32 PM
Did he save them or his Neomorphs.
Hmmm good point
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 12:50:13 PM
Did he? I was under the impression that the Neomorph ran away after getting hit by rifle fire. When was it established that David "saved" anyone in Covenant? All he did was pop off a flare in a dramatic pose.
He did. One runs away/dies and the other doesn't retreat until David shoots off his flare.
QuoteBut for the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct and David did save their lives with the flares because Neomorphs are scared of lighte? I guess?
It still doesn't explain why the crew takes David's word for the giant alien graveyard being safe, especially when seeing, with their own two eyes, that the place doesn't even have doors...The crew does absolutely nothing to establish their safety other than trusting David.
David is a model similar to Walter. They can be forgiven an early willingness to trust him. David has managed to survive on his own in the same doorless place for 10 years. They still have their weapons and they're no longer out in the open. We've seen their weaponry can at least drive the Neos off so they've still got some degree of power in their technology.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 12:53:24 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 12:50:13 PM
Did he? I was under the impression that the Neomorph ran away after getting hit by rifle fire. When was it established that David "saved" anyone in Covenant? All he did was pop off a flare in a dramatic pose.
He did. One runs away/dies and the other doesn't retreat until David shoots off his flare.
QuoteBut for the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct and David did save their lives with the flares because Neomorphs are scared of lighte? I guess?
It still doesn't explain why the crew takes David's word for the giant alien graveyard being safe, especially when seeing, with their own two eyes, that the place doesn't even have doors...The crew does absolutely nothing to establish their safety other than trusting David.
David is a model similar to Walter. They can be forgiven an early willingness to trust him. David has managed to survive on his own in the same doorless place for 10 years. They still have their weapons and they're no longer out in the open. We've seen their weaponry can at least drive the Neos off so they've still got some degree of power in their technology.
They don't do anything other than trusting him, and you can clearly see the place is unsafe.
In the context of the film itself, the Covenant crew felt safe because:
1. They followed a complete stranger after being attacked by a hostile alien lifeform.
Largely because they had no choice. Their ride was a burning pile of rubble. Remember?
2. Into a giant alien city which had no doors.
It did have a door. One that could be closed behind them and made secure. A gigantic friggin' round one.
3. Said giant alien city was found to be filled with corpses.
Once again, they had no choice.
4. After being asked if the place is safe, the suspicious stranger told them that it was.
Which it was, as far everyone was concerned. At the very least safer than being outside. We don't know if David was aware of the Neomorph's ability to scale walls. For all we know, he was telling the truth. His attempt to tame the creature may have been the first time he's encountered one inside the building alive that wasn't one of his own experiments.
Would you feel safe if a stranger took you hiding in a doorless alien graveyard?
Feeling safe has nothing to do with it. There was no other choice. 'safer', sure. Truly secure and ready to sit down watch some sitcom with their new found buddy..? Maybe not.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 25, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
In the context of the film itself, the Covenant crew felt safe because:
1. They followed a complete stranger after being attacked by a hostile alien lifeform.
Largely because they had no choice. Their ride was a burning pile of rubble. Remember?
2. Into a giant alien city which had no doors.
It did have a door. One that could be closed behind them and made secure. A gigantic friggin' round one.
3. Said giant alien city was found to be filled with corpses.
Once again, they had no choice.
4. After being asked if the place is safe, the suspicious stranger told them that it was.
Which it was, as far everyone was concerned. At the very least safer than being outside. We don't know if David was aware of the Neomorph's ability to scale walls. For all we know, he was telling the truth. His attempt to tame the creature may have been the first time he's encountered one inside the building alive that wasn't one of his own experiments.
Would you feel safe if a stranger took you hiding in a doorless alien graveyard?
Feeling safe has nothing to do with it. There was no other choice. 'safer', sure. Truly secure and ready to sit down watch some sitcom with their new found buddy..? Maybe not.
-Windebieste.
The argument was that Rosenthal wandered off by herself because the Covenant crew felt safe. If they didn't feel safe, she had no reason to wander off by herself.
And you seem to have missed the point of my post completely by thinking the issue with the crew hiding in Engineerville was the location itself. The issue is with the crew doing nothing to establish their safety other than trusting the word of a stranger while hiding in a place that doesn't even resemble a safe place.
What else would you do?
Go back to the destroyed lander, build a camp fire? ...sing a few songs?
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 25, 2017, 01:10:39 PM
What else would you do?
Go back to the destroyed lander, build a camp fire? ...sing a few songs?
-Windebieste.
And with these creepies in the wheat (https://www.instagram.com/p/BUVgNo4FCQv/), that prolly would not have lasted past the second stanza of "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt"...
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 01:07:58 PM
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 25, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
In the context of the film itself, the Covenant crew felt safe because:
1. They followed a complete stranger after being attacked by a hostile alien lifeform.
Largely because they had no choice. Their ride was a burning pile of rubble. Remember?
2. Into a giant alien city which had no doors.
It did have a door. One that could be closed behind them and made secure. A gigantic friggin' round one.
3. Said giant alien city was found to be filled with corpses.
Once again, they had no choice.
4. After being asked if the place is safe, the suspicious stranger told them that it was.
Which it was, as far everyone was concerned. At the very least safer than being outside. We don't know if David was aware of the Neomorph's ability to scale walls. For all we know, he was telling the truth. His attempt to tame the creature may have been the first time he's encountered one inside the building alive that wasn't one of his own experiments.
Would you feel safe if a stranger took you hiding in a doorless alien graveyard?
Feeling safe has nothing to do with it. There was no other choice. 'safer', sure. Truly secure and ready to sit down watch some sitcom with their new found buddy..? Maybe not.
-Windebieste.
The argument was that Rosenthal wandered off by herself because the Covenant crew felt safe. If they didn't feel safe, she had no reason to wander off by herself.
And you seem to have missed the point of my post completely by thinking the issue with the crew hiding in Engineerville was the location itself. The issue is with the crew doing nothing to establish their safety other than trusting the word of a stranger while hiding in a place that doesn't even resemble a safe place.
I think I see what you're saying, but I don't understand where else they might've gone with David that would have advanced the plot in a similar manner. Sorry to be dense...
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
She didn't look like the washing type to me
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
Well, they had all just witnessed the death of their friends, the destruction of their only way home, and some incredibly brutal attacks. "Dumb" is probably a good word choice, in the sense of the state of shock or surprise that renders a person speechless.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 25, 2017, 01:10:39 PM
What else would you do?
Go back to the destroyed lander, build a camp fire? ...sing a few songs?
-Windebieste.
For starters make a map of the place to see where exactly I am and where are the entrances to my position. Then barricade said entrances. Then probably interrogate the nice stranger about all the dead bodies surrounding me under the assumption that whatever killed them could kill me. Then split guard duty shifts between the crew to stay alert and see if the barricades I established hold. I don't think any of this is unreasonable given the situation.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
I think that's more to do with the poor manner in which the script handles her death. Rosenthal doesn't do anything significant to the situation the characters are in when the script sends her off to die. If she died while standing on guard duty, I think people would've been more forgiving, but this abysmal script can't even give its characters a plausible death scenario.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 01:24:16 PM
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 25, 2017, 01:10:39 PM
What else would you do?
Go back to the destroyed lander, build a camp fire? ...sing a few songs?
-Windebieste.
For starters make a map of the place to see where exactly I am and where are the entrances to my position. Then barricade said entrances. Then probably interrogate the nice stranger about all the dead bodies surrounding me under the assumption that whatever killed them could kill me. Then split guard duty shifts between the crew to stay alert and see if the barricades I established hold. I don't think any of this is unreasonable given the situation.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
I think that's more to do with the poor manner in which the script handles her death. Rosenthal doesn't do anything significant to the situation the characters are in when the script sends her off to die. If she died while standing on guard duty, I think people would've been more forgiving, but this abysmal script can't even give its characters a plausible death scenario.
I doubt it, it's not like being put on sentry duty isn't a signal of imminent death in movie land. That's just as much a trope if you ask me.
My problem with Rosenthal's demise isn't that it's a trope, it's that it's a dumb trope. Having a character separate from the group for no logical reason - in a situation where you'd absolutely want to stick together for the added security that entails - just so they can be offed.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 01:27:10 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 01:24:16 PM
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 25, 2017, 01:10:39 PM
What else would you do?
Go back to the destroyed lander, build a camp fire? ...sing a few songs?
-Windebieste.
For starters make a map of the place to see where exactly I am and where are the entrances to my position. Then barricade said entrances. Then probably interrogate the nice stranger about all the dead bodies surrounding me under the assumption that whatever killed them could kill me. Then split guard duty shifts between the crew to stay alert and see if the barricades I established hold. I don't think any of this is unreasonable given the situation.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
I think that's more to do with the poor manner in which the script handles her death. Rosenthal doesn't do anything significant to the situation the characters are in when the script sends her off to die. If she died while standing on guard duty, I think people would've been more forgiving, but this abysmal script can't even give its characters a plausible death scenario.
I doubt it, it's not like being put on sentry duty isn't a signal of imminent death in movie land. That's just as much a trope if you ask me.
Oh it is, don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is that AT LEAST that's something to do with the situation. It's better than "I'm gonna go wash myself"; it is by no means clever screenwriting.
Quote from: FenGiddel on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 01:07:58 PM
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 25, 2017, 01:01:34 PM
In the context of the film itself, the Covenant crew felt safe because:
1. They followed a complete stranger after being attacked by a hostile alien lifeform.
Largely because they had no choice. Their ride was a burning pile of rubble. Remember?
2. Into a giant alien city which had no doors.
It did have a door. One that could be closed behind them and made secure. A gigantic friggin' round one.
3. Said giant alien city was found to be filled with corpses.
Once again, they had no choice.
4. After being asked if the place is safe, the suspicious stranger told them that it was.
Which it was, as far everyone was concerned. At the very least safer than being outside. We don't know if David was aware of the Neomorph's ability to scale walls. For all we know, he was telling the truth. His attempt to tame the creature may have been the first time he's encountered one inside the building alive that wasn't one of his own experiments.
Would you feel safe if a stranger took you hiding in a doorless alien graveyard?
Feeling safe has nothing to do with it. There was no other choice. 'safer', sure. Truly secure and ready to sit down watch some sitcom with their new found buddy..? Maybe not.
-Windebieste.
The argument was that Rosenthal wandered off by herself because the Covenant crew felt safe. If they didn't feel safe, she had no reason to wander off by herself.
And you seem to have missed the point of my post completely by thinking the issue with the crew hiding in Engineerville was the location itself. The issue is with the crew doing nothing to establish their safety other than trusting the word of a stranger while hiding in a place that doesn't even resemble a safe place.
I think I see what you're saying, but I don't understand where else they might've gone with David that would have advanced the plot in a similar manner. Sorry to be dense...
There's no problem with them going to Engineerville with David (other than the crew missing a giant alien city within walking distance while landing there in the first place). The problem is that while David and Walter sit around talking, everybody else also sits around talking as if they are safe instead of trying to come up with a plan secure the area.
The point is for me that going for a wash, saving a cat, going for a sleep and so on are all pretty inconsequential in the broader context of a film. If you like the plot, characters etc then these things don't bug you so much but if you don't like these key components then the smaller things like movie tropes take on greater significance.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:33:07 PM
My problem with Rosenthal's demise isn't that it's a trope, it's that it's a dumb trope. Having a character separate from the group for no logical reason - in a situation where you'd absolutely want to stick together for the added security that entails - just so they can be offed.
...because it's a horror film, and nobody in real life would go into unsafe situations like horror movie characters do (and must)...like Brett's little stroll in
Alien. ;D
They were in the necropolis citadel. They had no reason to believe that the neomorph could scale walls.
Quote from: FenGiddel on Jul 25, 2017, 01:49:56 PM...because it's a horror film, and nobody in real life would go into unsafe situations like horror movie characters do (and must)...like Brett's little stroll in Alien. ;D
But again, I buy Brett going after the cat because the film's already portrayed him as not especially smart, he thinks he's merely up against a little snake and not a 9' tall alien killing machine, and he's a trucker, not a trained soldier.
Rosenthal knows the kind of shit she's facing and is supposed to be a trained soldier, yet she decides to go for a walk by herself. Why? To do something she could've done perfectly well in front of the others (I assume they have a supply of water with them). Even if she couldn't, any soldier worth half their salt would take someone with them, or hell, f*cking
tell someone where they were going. She does none of these things. It's moronic.
Some people clearly aren't bothered by it and that's fine. But to me it's the kind of illogical character stupidity that completely undermined
Prometheus.
Quote from: Kane's other son on Jul 25, 2017, 02:10:22 PMThey were in the necropolis citadel. They had no reason to believe that the neomorph could scale walls.
Would you take the chance?! Up until today Aliens couldn't get inside people from tiny spores then burst out of their face, either.
Don't forget her floating face.... 3 fcking times... WHY!
Quote from: FenGiddel on Jul 25, 2017, 01:49:56 PM...because it's a horror film, and nobody in real life would go into unsafe situations like horror movie characters do (and must)...like Brett's little stroll in Alien. ;D
Tropes need to work though. If they had established that Rosenthal had a legitimate reason to isolate herself, such as that she was a private drug addict in need of a hit, or that she was infected unbeknown to her colleagues and wanted to examine her worrying infection...you know, horror tropes that work... then fine. Needing a wash is just plain silly. Normal people don't need to wash in that situation.
Quote from: Kane's other son on Jul 25, 2017, 02:10:22 PMThey were in the necropolis citadel. They had no reason to believe that the neomorph could scale walls.
They were in the necropolis citadel. Totally safe.
At the end of the day, it's about believably. The film has to make me buy into the mistakes its characters make.
Take the earlier Neomorph birth sequence - I buy Faris freaking out, falling over and accidentally blowing herself up because, Jesus Christ, an alien creature just ripped its way out of man's back in front of my eyes. I daresay I'd totally lose my shit in that situation too.
But Rosnethal isn't losing her shit. She's just being wilfully careless for no good reason and I don't buy it.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 02:32:10 PM
At the end of the day, it's about believably. The film has to make me buy into the mistakes its characters make.
Take the earlier Neomorph birth sequence - I buy Faris freaking out, falling over and accidentally blowing herself up because, Jesus Christ, an alien creature just ripped its way out of man's back in front of my eyes. I daresay I'd totally lose my shit in that situation too.
But Rosnethal isn't losing her shit. She's just being wilfully careless for no good reason and I don't buy it.
Humorously out of the two characters, a lot of folks apparently hate Faris because of that behaviour, mind you she was a hypocrite as she locked Karine in for being splattered with blood yet doesn't quarantine herself when she gets Hallet's blood on
her face. Karine only had it on her jacket which one can just remove.
Would be better if she grabbed the Neo's neck and punched the thing in the face. Showing that she is a total badass and can wonder alone whenever she fcking pleases.
But no...we got this 3x
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mostimpressive.nl%2Fface.jpg&hash=54bbdaa216099db75107534c363b4deff3309e41)
Why show this 3x!!! >:(
QuoteHumorously out of the two characters, a lot of folks apparently hate Faris because of that behaviour, mind you she was a hypocrite as she locked Karine in for being splattered with blood yet doesn't quarantine herself when she gets Hallet's blood on her face. Karine only had it on her jacket which one can just remove.
Kinda liked that actually, it showed some nice character development.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 01:43:20 PM
The point is for me that going for a wash, saving a cat, going for a sleep and so on are all pretty inconsequential in the broader context of a film. If you like the plot, characters etc then these things don't bug you so much but if you don't like these key components then the smaller things like movie tropes take on greater significance.
I agree to some extent. The thing is that while Rosenthal's death, as a single event, is pretty insignificant, she's a symptom to a larger problem: the script and character development. Her wandering off by herself is just another bad decision in a chain of bad decisions the characters take on every turn, starting off with the very decision to visit the planet. The script has the audience second-guessing its character decisions all the time, and as a result undermines the threat it is supposed to establish with the creatures themselves. The threat in Alien:Covenant is not the Neomorph or Xenomorph/Protomorph/Whatever - it's the glaring incompetence of the characters.
So ok, the characters make dumb decisions all the time. Fine. But the characters aren't even really characters in this film. Rosenthal as is with the audience for 3/4 of the film, but we don't even learn her name until after she dies. Her entire character can be summed up as "the jewish girl" (her last name's Rosenthal and she wears the star of david on her neck when the Neomorph decapitates her). That's about as much of a character as a street sign. I don't know her as a person. I have no idea what she likes/doesn't like or how she behaves in situations that aren't forced. If, for example, we would've learned earlier that she's very sensitive about hygene (silly character trait perhaps, but bear with me), going to wash off would at least fit as a character motivation. That's why laughing at the stupidity of her death is the emotional extent people are willing to go in regard to that situation.
You might think I'm being unfairly hard on Rosenthal because she's just a supporting/minor character, so let's go dissect Daniels, who is supposed to be the protagonist (I suppose): She's the wife of James Franco, whatever his name was in this. Other than that, she's pretty much along for the ride same as every other character. She constantly has stuff happening to her instead of actively dealing with dilemmas that could've flushed her out as a character (Ripley's quarantine scene in Alien as an example). She has a small backstory about her wanting to build a cabin that she tells Walter, but that's more of a Walter/David character element, as its only use in the film is to flush out the "twist" at the end. You might say she's as resourceful as Ripley was in Alien because she pushes the alien out of an airlock, but is she really? In Alien, the crew tries several plans to get rid of the alien with it constantly outsmarting them until eventually Ripley manages to get rid of the alien in a mixture of improvisation and a lot of luck (if the alien hadn't been sleeping in the first place, she would've been dead as well). Her pragmatism is built up in various scenes throughout the film, so there's consistency with her. In Covenant, Daniels just does the first thing that comes to her mind ("blow it out the airlock") and succeeds on her first attempt by throwing a space truck at the thing. Am I supposed to be impressed by this Die Hard 4 In Space schlock moment?
Every character in this film is completely one-dimensional, save for two: David and Walter. Why? - David's character was established in Prometheus, and Walter's character is a sharp contrast of David. Maybe Oram had a little bit more going for him being an insecure idiot with faith, but even that might be a stretch because I can't really point my finger at a smart crew member in order to deduce that Oram's stupidity is how he's written as a character, and not simply a result of the entire script. If the film cannot establish deep characters for me to care about, why would I be afraid about them dying off? The alien might as well attack cardboard cutouts.
We can nitpick Alien and Aliens, which obviously seems to be your favorite movie of the bunch, just like this and make them sound like shit too. You didn't like the movie, so every little thing becomes "the stupidest thing ever".
There's a supreme irony at hand when people defend Gorman panicking in Aliens but think Rosenthal going off to cleanse her wounds alone is the stupidest thing ever.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 03:00:10 PM
I agree to some extent. The thing is that while Rosenthal's death, as a single event, is pretty insignificant, she's a symptom to a larger problem: the script and character development. Her wandering off by herself is just another bad decision in a chain of bad decisions the characters take on every turn, starting off with the very decision to visit the planet. The script has the audience second-guessing its character decisions all the time, and as a result undermines the threat it is supposed to establish with the creatures themselves. The threat in Alien:Covenant is not the Neomorph or Xenomorph/Protomorph/Whatever - it's the glaring incompetence of the characters.
While I don't mind her actions as much as others, I do think she only exists to die. Her character isn't in the earlier script I've read. Her only line I really remember (when she's talking to Lope after Hallett dies) was originally Daniels. I know she has a couple more but I can't really remember them. The Neomorphs disappear entirely after David shows up. So seems to me that she was added just to die by a Neomorph later on.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PMWe can nitpick Alien and Aliens, which obviously seems to be your favorite movie of the bunch, just like this and make them sound like shit too.
Other than maybe Ripley going back for the cat, no, you can't. That's partly why their considered among the greatest movies of all time. The characters in them feel like real, believable people. They might make bad calls but nothing they do feels like a forced action just to facilitate their death.
I agree Most of the characters aren't fleshed out. The only purpose for them is to die and that's pretty much the norm in these kind of films so doesn't bother me. Oram though, to me anyway, is one of the best, well written characters in any Alien film.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PM
We can nitpick Alien and Aliens, which obviously seems to be your favorite movie of the bunch, just like this and make them sound like shit too. You didn't like the movie, so every little thing becomes "the stupidest thing ever".
There's a supreme irony at hand when people defend Gorman panicking in Aliens but think Rosenthal going off to cleanse her wounds alone is the stupidest thing ever.
Feel free to nitpick Alien and Aliens. If a movie has a genuine problem, even if it's my favorite movie, I have no issue admitting it. For example: when the Queen was hanging off of Ripley's foot during the final confrontation in Aliens, it made no sense for Ripley to hold on to the ladder. The sheer weight of the Queen along with the vacuum effect should've either forced her to let go, or broke her arm.
As for Gorman panicking, he was written as an inexperienced officer. Him panicking fit his character perfectly.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 03:19:19 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 03:00:10 PM
I agree to some extent. The thing is that while Rosenthal's death, as a single event, is pretty insignificant, she's a symptom to a larger problem: the script and character development. Her wandering off by herself is just another bad decision in a chain of bad decisions the characters take on every turn, starting off with the very decision to visit the planet. The script has the audience second-guessing its character decisions all the time, and as a result undermines the threat it is supposed to establish with the creatures themselves. The threat in Alien:Covenant is not the Neomorph or Xenomorph/Protomorph/Whatever - it's the glaring incompetence of the characters.
While I don't mind her actions as much as others, I do think she only exists to die. Her character isn't in the earlier script I've read. Her only line I really remember (when she's talking to Lope after Hallett dies) was originally Daniels. I know she has a couple more but I can't really remember them. The Neomorphs disappear entirely after David shows up. So seems to me that she was added just to die by a Neomorph later on.
She does only exist to die, and that's the problem. She takes up precious screen time that could've been used to flush out someone else. The fact that the film still focuses on insignificant characters 3/4 into the film is a major issue, especially when even your protagonist hasn't been flushed out yet.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PMWe can nitpick Alien and Aliens, which obviously seems to be your favorite movie of the bunch, just like this and make them sound like shit too.
Other than maybe Ripley going back for the cat, no, you can't. That's partly why their considered among the greatest movies of all time. The characters in them feel like real, believable people. They might make bad calls but nothing they do feels like a forced action just to facilitate their death.
Of course you can and I've seen people do it. You may not agree and nor do I for the record but I know people who don't like Alien or Aliens for the very same reasons.
I do try to avoid them though
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 25, 2017, 03:19:19 PM
While I don't mind her actions as much as others, I do think she only exists to die. Her character isn't in the earlier script I've read. Her only line I really remember (when she's talking to Lope after Hallett dies) was originally Daniels. I know she has a couple more but I can't really remember them. The Neomorphs disappear entirely after David shows up. So seems to me that she was added just to die by a Neomorph later on.
What earlier script is this Hicks? Can you talk about the differences to the final film?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 12:16:43 PM
In the context of the film itself, the Covenant crew felt safe because:
1. They followed a complete stranger after being attacked by a hostile alien lifeform.
2. Into a giant alien city which had no doors.
3. Said giant alien city was found to be filled with corpses.
4. After being asked if the place is safe, the suspicious stranger told them that it was.
Would you feel safe if a stranger took you hiding in a doorless alien graveyard?
If he was an android that looked like Walter, yes.
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 25, 2017, 02:20:20 PM
Don't forget her floating face.... 3 fcking times... WHY!
Three is always better.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jul 25, 2017, 02:43:57 PM
Humorously out of the two characters, a lot of folks apparently hate Faris because of that behaviour, mind you she was a hypocrite as she locked Karine in for being splattered with blood yet doesn't quarantine herself when she gets Hallet's blood on her face. Karine only had it on her jacket which one can just remove.
She isn't making a calm quarantining decision. She's losing her shit and getting the f*ck out of there. So would I, blood on my face or not.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
Or Ripley deciding to go on a suicide mission, as an adviser who no one listens to. Real dumb.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PMWe can nitpick Alien and Aliens, which obviously seems to be your favorite movie of the bunch, just like this and make them sound like shit too.
Other than maybe Ripley going back for the cat, no, you can't. That's partly why their considered among the greatest movies of all time. The characters in them feel like real, believable people. They might make bad calls but nothing they do feels like a forced action just to facilitate their death.
Actually, yes, you can. Kane, sticking his face in the egg. Dallas, letting them on board the ship. Dallas refusing to corner and question Ash. Them, going down into the egg-chamber. Them, going into the bone ship after their comms were down. Brett, looking for the cat. Ripley looking for the cat, a lot. Ripley blowing up the ship; with such a short timer she nearly gets herself killed.
Plenty of dumb moments that you can point out in that film. Don't get me started on Aliens.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 04:27:28 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
Or Ripley deciding to go on a suicide mission, as an adviser who no one listens to. Real dumb.
Always found that believeable from her perspective. It is shown that the alien is haunting her in her dreams anyway making a normal life impossible, so she decides to confront herself with her worst fear in realitiy. Thats basically what every psychotherapists tells you to do, though in this case its a freakin Killingmachine. But thats when you reach nitpick territory in my view, cause its obviously a freakin hollywood movie from the get go about biomechanical Aliens with a penistongue. Thats when suspense of disbelief has to kick in or otherwise you can actually only watch documentations.
Doesn't mean it's smart. Understandable motives can still be stupid.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 02:13:13 PM
Rosenthal knows the kind of shit she's facing and is supposed to be a trained soldier, yet she decides to go for a walk by herself. Why? To do something she could've done perfectly well in front of the others (I assume they have a supply of water with them). Even if she couldn't, any soldier worth half their salt would take someone with them, or hell, f*cking tell someone where they were going. She does none of these things. It's moronic.
So are the marines. Going to the planet, with all their training and firepower and they make stupid decision after stupid decision. Doesn't stop Aliens from being enjoyable anymore than Covenant.
How did "Work on Sequels Stopped?" evolve into this?
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 04:27:28 PM
Or Ripley deciding to go on a suicide mission, as an adviser who no one listens to. Real dumb.
Ripley decides not to go. She changes her mind when she's fed up with her nightmares.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 04:27:28 PM
Actually, yes, you can. Kane, sticking his face in the egg. Dallas, letting them on board the ship. Dallas refusing to corner and question Ash. Them, going down into the egg-chamber. Them, going into the bone ship after their comms were down. Brett, looking for the cat. Ripley looking for the cat, a lot. Ripley blowing up the ship; with such a short timer she nearly gets herself killed.
Plenty of dumb moments that you can point out in that film. Don't get me started on Aliens.
How are any of those moments dumb though?
QuoteDoesn't mean it's smart. Understandable motives can still be stupid.
Thats not the point though, i think. I thought we were talking about whether realistic behaviour is more or less accurately portrayed or not. Now a character who actually is stupid and makes stupid decisions obviously doesnt take me out one bit, cause in this case its just realistic thats hes making stupid decisions. Actually the opposite would pull me out here.
Now a biologist whos trying to cuddle with a cobraesque animal, that in fact is just not very realistic.
Oh god, now we're onto the biologist again, it'll be the rock guy next.
No ones ever gonna agree on this, it just goes round and round in circles.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PMWe can nitpick Alien and Aliens, which obviously seems to be your favorite movie of the bunch, just like this and make them sound like shit too.
Other than maybe Ripley going back for the cat, no, you can't. That's partly why their considered among the greatest movies of all time. The characters in them feel like real, believable people. They might make bad calls but nothing they do feels like a forced action just to facilitate their death.
Right. Now quit beating that horse? It's quite dead... ;D
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 04:40:14 PMDoesn't mean it's smart. Understandable motives can still be stupid.
But Rosenthal has
no motive to go off alone like that, and that's my problem.
She does it because its the slapdash fashion in which the script facilitates her death.
Use your imagination, or better yet, what's on the screen. She went off alone to do something she wanted to do, in private. In this case, wash her face, and her wounds. The motive: personal-hygiene and medical attention. How does her being a soldier invalidate her motives? Is it their everyday, mundane quality? If this is true, then how is Aliens watchable to you, given the number of slapdash deaths that script facilitates? Spunkmeijer and the pilot, leaving their ship open and exposed, with the aliens running around? What motive could they have to be so careless, especially given them being trained soldiers?
The knife cuts both ways.
And don't tell me the soldiers in Aliens are allowed to be stupid and the ones in Covenant aren't, rather are held to some special code of conduct that makes their actions more unforgivable.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 05:41:45 PM
Use your imagination, or better yet, what's on the screen. She went off alone to do something she wanted to do, in private. In this case, wash her face, and her wounds. The motive: personal-hygiene and medical attention. How does her being a soldier invalidate her motives? Is it their everyday, mundane quality?
Safety trumps personal hygiene. Rosenthal basically put her life at risk for the sake of a shower...
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 05:41:45 PM
If this is true, then how is Aliens watchable to you, given the number of slapdash deaths that script facilitates? Spunkmeijer and the pilot, leaving their ship open and exposed, with the aliens running around? What motive could they have to be so careless, especially given them being trained soldiers?
Spunkmeijer and Ferro weren't around during the hive engagement and didn't know about any aliens running around. Why were they careless? Because Gorman decided "the area is secure", which was a result of his inexperience.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 04:27:28 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
Or Ripley deciding to go on a suicide mission, as an adviser who no one listens to. Real dumb.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PMWe can nitpick Alien and Aliens, which obviously seems to be your favorite movie of the bunch, just like this and make them sound like shit too.
Other than maybe Ripley going back for the cat, no, you can't. That's partly why their considered among the greatest movies of all time. The characters in them feel like real, believable people. They might make bad calls but nothing they do feels like a forced action just to facilitate their death.
Actually, yes, you can. Kane, sticking his face in the egg. Dallas, letting them on board the ship. Dallas refusing to corner and question Ash. Them, going down into the egg-chamber. Them, going into the bone ship after their comms were down. Brett, looking for the cat. Ripley looking for the cat, a lot. Ripley blowing up the ship; with such a short timer she nearly gets herself killed.
Plenty of dumb moments that you can point out in that film. Don't get me started on Aliens.
Dallas doesn't let them on board the ship. I question whether anybody has actually watched Alien and Aliens. There's some kind of weird Stockholm syndrome going on around here.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 25, 2017, 06:16:33 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 04:27:28 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
Or Ripley deciding to go on a suicide mission, as an adviser who no one listens to. Real dumb.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PMWe can nitpick Alien and Aliens, which obviously seems to be your favorite movie of the bunch, just like this and make them sound like shit too.
Other than maybe Ripley going back for the cat, no, you can't. That's partly why their considered among the greatest movies of all time. The characters in them feel like real, believable people. They might make bad calls but nothing they do feels like a forced action just to facilitate their death.
Actually, yes, you can. Kane, sticking his face in the egg. Dallas, letting them on board the ship. Dallas refusing to corner and question Ash. Them, going down into the egg-chamber. Them, going into the bone ship after their comms were down. Brett, looking for the cat. Ripley looking for the cat, a lot. Ripley blowing up the ship; with such a short timer she nearly gets herself killed.
Plenty of dumb moments that you can point out in that film. Don't get me started on Aliens.
Dallas doesn't let them on board the ship. I question whether anybody has actually watched Alien and Aliens. There's some kind of weird Stockholm syndrome going on around here.
He's referring to Dallas wanting to bring Kane back onto the ship. And yes we've all seen Alien and Aliens but I don't see the point your making with Stockholm syndrome
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Jul 25, 2017, 04:44:49 PM
How did "Work on Sequels Stopped?" evolve into this?
People wanted to know why Covenant didn't do well at the box office, then started a 30 page debate, mentioning every reason conceivable other than the movie being bad. Now that the makebelieve reasons are done with, the discussion has finally moved on to the quality of the film.
CAGE FIGHT
Washing wounds VS Saving cats
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 06:24:35 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 25, 2017, 06:16:33 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 04:27:28 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
Or Ripley deciding to go on a suicide mission, as an adviser who no one listens to. Real dumb.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PMWe can nitpick Alien and Aliens, which obviously seems to be your favorite movie of the bunch, just like this and make them sound like shit too.
Other than maybe Ripley going back for the cat, no, you can't. That's partly why their considered among the greatest movies of all time. The characters in them feel like real, believable people. They might make bad calls but nothing they do feels like a forced action just to facilitate their death.
Actually, yes, you can. Kane, sticking his face in the egg. Dallas, letting them on board the ship. Dallas refusing to corner and question Ash. Them, going down into the egg-chamber. Them, going into the bone ship after their comms were down. Brett, looking for the cat. Ripley looking for the cat, a lot. Ripley blowing up the ship; with such a short timer she nearly gets herself killed.
Plenty of dumb moments that you can point out in that film. Don't get me started on Aliens.
Dallas doesn't let them on board the ship. I question whether anybody has actually watched Alien and Aliens. There's some kind of weird Stockholm syndrome going on around here.
He's referring to Dallas wanting to bring Kane back onto the ship. And yes we've all seen Alien and Aliens but I don't see the point your making with Stockholm syndrome
Dallas wanting something , a sensible decision by Ripley then Ash letting them in ties up perfectly with everything. There's more character development in that one scene than the entire Covenant run time.
My point is you guy's are shitting on your own franchise to prove points. You're pot shots at two of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time and saying "look, thats why Covenant is a great movie!"
This thread makes no sense.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Jul 25, 2017, 04:44:49 PM
How did "Work on Sequels Stopped?" evolve into this?
People wanted to know why Covenant didn't do well at the box office, then started a 30 page debate, mentioning every reason conceivable other than the movie being bad. Now that the makebelieve reasons are done with, the discussion has finally moved on to the quality of the film.
Oh right, what a relief you've shown up to point everyone in the right direction ::)
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 05:50:21 PM
Safety trumps personal hygiene. Rosenthal basically put her life at risk for the sake of a shower...
Her life was already at risk. You grossly over-invest in the idea that she had any kind of control in that situation. If the neomorph had been more aggressive, it probably could have killed everyone in that citadel regardless if they were grouped or separated.
Was her going off by herself wise? Not her smartest move, but her odds, either way, weren't good. Her making the "smart" call, here, wouldn't have guaranteed jack squat. And she was already dead because the script demanded it, just like Kane or Brett or Ferro.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 05:50:21 PM
Spunkmeijer and Ferro weren't around during the hive engagement and didn't know about any aliens running around. Why were they careless?
Because they had their radios turned off. How else do you explain them being in the dark, like that? We never see their reactions during the attack, and their reactions suggest that they had no idea what had transpired. I mean, what were they doing on the ship? Smoking and playing cards? Regardless, they weren't paying much attention, given how they're parked nearby with the ramp
left open, for no good reason. Can't blame the lieutenant for that one. Chalk it up to good ol'-fashioned stupidity...
Quote from: Highland on Jul 25, 2017, 06:33:06 PM
My point is you guy's are shitting on your own franchise to prove points. You're pot shots at two of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time and saying "look, thats why Covenant is a great movie!"
Oh, dear. Evidently I can't point out flaws in Alien without me "shitting on the franchise." Nonsense. I can point out flaws in those earlier films and they're still as enjoyable as they ever were. So is Covenant. The point is both are movies subject to the same rules of criticism.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 25, 2017, 06:33:06 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 06:24:35 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 25, 2017, 06:16:33 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 04:27:28 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
Just as it would've been dumb for Vasquez to wander off by herself for a wash once they'd locked operations down in Aliens.
Or Ripley deciding to go on a suicide mission, as an adviser who no one listens to. Real dumb.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 03:22:56 PM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PMWe can nitpick Alien and Aliens, which obviously seems to be your favorite movie of the bunch, just like this and make them sound like shit too.
Other than maybe Ripley going back for the cat, no, you can't. That's partly why their considered among the greatest movies of all time. The characters in them feel like real, believable people. They might make bad calls but nothing they do feels like a forced action just to facilitate their death.
Actually, yes, you can. Kane, sticking his face in the egg. Dallas, letting them on board the ship. Dallas refusing to corner and question Ash. Them, going down into the egg-chamber. Them, going into the bone ship after their comms were down. Brett, looking for the cat. Ripley looking for the cat, a lot. Ripley blowing up the ship; with such a short timer she nearly gets herself killed.
Plenty of dumb moments that you can point out in that film. Don't get me started on Aliens.
Dallas doesn't let them on board the ship. I question whether anybody has actually watched Alien and Aliens. There's some kind of weird Stockholm syndrome going on around here.
He's referring to Dallas wanting to bring Kane back onto the ship. And yes we've all seen Alien and Aliens but I don't see the point your making with Stockholm syndrome
Dallas wanting something , a sensible decision by Ripley then Ash letting them in ties up perfectly with everything. There's more character development in that one scene than the entire Covenant run time.
My point is you guy's are shitting on your own franchise to prove points. You're pot shots at two of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time and saying "look, thats why Covenant is a great movie!"
This thread makes no sense.
I was explaining what he meant by his statement. At no point did I say I felt the same way.
And I haven't taken any pot shots at them at all. Alien is a perfect film to me and I've never said otherwise.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 06:36:41 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Jul 25, 2017, 04:44:49 PM
How did "Work on Sequels Stopped?" evolve into this?
People wanted to know why Covenant didn't do well at the box office, then started a 30 page debate, mentioning every reason conceivable other than the movie being bad. Now that the makebelieve reasons are done with, the discussion has finally moved on to the quality of the film.
Oh right, what a relief you've shown up to point everyone in the right direction ::)
Haha, you're giving me far too much credit, sir.
But seriously though, how does a debate about a film's poor box office performance not have its quality at the center of things?
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 06:41:38 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 05:50:21 PM
Safety trumps personal hygiene. Rosenthal basically put her life at risk for the sake of a shower...
Her life was already at risk. You grossly over-invest in the idea that she had any kind of control in that situation. If the neomorph had been more aggressive, it probably could have killed everyone in that citadel regardless if they were grouped or separated.
Was her going off by herself wise? Not her smartest move, but her odds, either way, weren't good. Her making the "smart" call, here, wouldn't have guaranteed jack squat. And she was already dead because the script demanded it, just like Kane or Brett or Ferro.
It doesn't matter whether making the smart call would have kept her alive or not. I think you're misunderstanding the idea of "smart decisions in a movie": It's not about which choices give them the best results based on what YOU know as an audience member; it's about making choices that give them the best results based on who they are as characters in the story, and based on the information available to them. Rosenthal knew she was in a dangerous place and that her best chance of survival was to stay together, but chose to disregard that completely without having any good reason to do so.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 25, 2017, 06:41:38 PM
Because they had their radios turned off. How else do you explain them being in the dark, like that? We never see their reactions during the attack, and their reactions suggest that they had no idea what had transpired. I mean, what were they doing on the ship? Smoking and playing cards? Regardless, they weren't paying much attention, given how they're parked nearby with the ramp left open, for no good reason. Can't blame the lieutenant for that one. Chalk it up to good ol'-fashioned stupidity...
I don't know how can you not blame the lieutenant for that one...they're a military unit and he's the boss. If he says the area is secure and they can relax, that's how it is.
This thread needs more provocation.
I say Dallas wanting to bring Kane in equals Holloway taking his helmet off.
*duck
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:52:35 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 25, 2017, 06:36:41 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Jul 25, 2017, 04:44:49 PM
How did "Work on Sequels Stopped?" evolve into this?
People wanted to know why Covenant didn't do well at the box office, then started a 30 page debate, mentioning every reason conceivable other than the movie being bad. Now that the makebelieve reasons are done with, the discussion has finally moved on to the quality of the film.
Oh right, what a relief you've shown up to point everyone in the right direction ::)
Haha, you're giving me far too much credit, sir.
But seriously though, how does a debate about a film's poor box office performance not have its quality at the center of things
Because thats purely subjective. You think it's bad, I think it's good.
Besides, quality doesn't come into it with regards to BO or transformers wouldn't still be making money by the bucket load.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:52:35 PM
But seriously though, how does a debate about a film's poor box office performance not have its quality at the center of things?
Quality films often don't set the box office alight, very often they are only appreciated for what they are after all the fanfare, hype and box office debate has faded. Box office just isn't a good way to measure the quality of an individual film, it speaks of movie trends with the public but not much else.
Covenant isn't a popcorn flick like Aliens. The actions, wise or otherwise, of a few characters do not, for me, detract from the richer themes and parallels in the film.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 25, 2017, 07:01:30 PM
This thread needs more provocation.
I say Dallas wanting to bring Kane in equals Holloway taking his helmet off.
*duck
:D
Quote from: Gash on Jul 25, 2017, 07:03:24 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:52:35 PM
But seriously though, how does a debate about a film's poor box office performance not have its quality at the center of things?
Quality films often don't set the box office alight, very often they are only appreciated for what they are after all the fanfare, hype and box office debate has faded. Box office just isn't a good way to measure the quality of an individual film, it speaks of movie trends with the public but not much else.
Covenant isn't a popcorn flick like Aliens. The actions, wise or otherwise, of a few characters do not, for me, detract from the richer themes and parallels in the film.
Agreed
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:52:35 PM
It doesn't matter whether making the smart call would have kept her alive or not. I think you're misunderstanding the idea of "smart decisions in a movie": It's not about which choices give them the best results based on what YOU know as an audience member
Oh, really? All these years I've been watching films the wrong way. Thank you for point out the one-and-only "correct" way to watch a film.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:52:35 PM
it's about making choices that give them the best results based on who they are as characters in the story, and based on the information available to them.
Which we weigh and determine as audience members.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:52:35 PM
Rosenthal knew she was in a dangerous place and that her best chance of survival was to stay together
Was it? Did she? I wonder. Given how lethal that creature was, I don't think it would have mattered much, if she and company were together or separate. I think you're assuming what she knew or how she felt.
The fact of the matter is we don't know what she knew or how she felt about any of this. Rather, this is about you and what you think you know about her. The information is made available to us, but we're outside the film, looking in as objective observers. You can ignore that, if you like, but it's a part of the viewing experience all the same.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:52:35 PM
I don't know how can you not blame the lieutenant for that one...they're a military unit and he's the boss. If he says the area is secure and they can relax, that's how it is.
Would
you trust Gorman after what they found? I don't care if that's how it is. What they knew about the situation and what Gorman told them are two different things: The place is trashed. There's no bodies. Whatever took those bodies is still probably around. Oh, but alright, I'll just kick back and relax because the greenhorn lieutenant said everything is safe.
If someone listens to an idiot, as far as I'm concerned, that makes them an idiot, too. I don't care if they're following chain of command or not. Vasquez and Drake didn't, and given the situation they were in, I'd say they were a lot smarter in the immediate sense than Ferro or the co-pilot.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 25, 2017, 07:03:24 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 06:52:35 PM
But seriously though, how does a debate about a film's poor box office performance not have its quality at the center of things?
Quality films often don't set the box office alight, very often they are only appreciated for what they are after all the fanfare, hype and box office debate has faded. Box office just isn't a good way to measure the quality of an individual film, it speaks of movie trends with the public but not much else.
If quality films weren't profitable, you wouldn't have had quality films. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking Hollywood isn't a cynical industry that doesn't care about anything but the bottom line. Covenant had projected profits that it failed to meet because the audience didn't like the film. Compare it to Arrival, which turned a bigger profit than Covenant with half its budget. People will go see a quality film if the film is indeed a quality film...
Quote from: Gash on Jul 25, 2017, 07:03:24 PM
Covenant isn't a popcorn flick like Aliens.
Isn't it?
Is it not?
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GBzY-LM5gpY/WSHb4r8vFrI/AAAAAAAAN-s/msigQzT5QEg1pKLxgzvlAD5NtULxtbEEACEw/s1600/n0kOVYh.gif)
How could the audience not like the film if they didn't see it? It's not all about box office, it's about how a film is viewed once it's been out there and people can see it on their own terms once all the clamour and social media click-bait hype has no relevance.
For me, Arrival is an ok film, with a short story premise. One of the better films last year but I don't really think it's got legs. Why was it made as a quality 'intelligent' film? - because it had a lower budget, an interesting cast and was worth the risk. Films like interstellar and Inception could be called quality films in some quarters, but for me their woolly plots are held together with visual effects and good casts. They seem epic but they leave me cold.
Alien Covenant is better than all of those.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 25, 2017, 07:42:30 PM
How could the audience not like the film if they didn't see it? It's not all about box office, it's about how a film is viewed once it's been out there and people can see it on their own terms once all the clamour and social media click-bait hype has no relevance.
Some people did see it, and we are living in the age of the internet after all. Youtube was practically drowning in hate videos about Covenant after its release, telling people to avoid the film. Word of mouth has always been and will always remain the best method of advertising. This is why it was no surprise that Covenant now holds a record top 10 spot for the movie with the biggest second week box office drop in history. The movie didn't do well financially because even the fans of the series didn't want much to do with it. There is no going around it.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 07:51:28 PM
Some people did see it, and we are living in the age of the internet after all. Youtube was practically drowning in hate videos about Covenant after its release, telling people to avoid the film.
That seemed to happen after the American release date. Different tastes there I guess, or just more desperation to get hits on private Youtube channels, riding the wave of hollywood hype. So says the cynic in me anyway. There was not too much hate in Europe and other parts of the world in the fortnight before, and both screenings I saw in the UK −16 days apart - had full attendance in the cinema.
If Alien fandom is divided, it might be partly because of different cultural taste across the globe.
The YouTube hate videos were inane, but they may have had a detrimental effect, if so that's a sad state of affairs, dictated to by some of the dumbest 'film critics' you could ever want to see.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 07:51:28 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 25, 2017, 07:42:30 PM
How could the audience not like the film if they didn't see it? It's not all about box office, it's about how a film is viewed once it's been out there and people can see it on their own terms once all the clamour and social media click-bait hype has no relevance.
Some people did see it, and we are living in the age of the internet after all. Youtube was practically drowning in hate videos about Covenant after its release, telling people to avoid the film. Word of mouth has always been and will always remain the best method of advertising. This is why it was no surprise that Covenant now holds a record top 10 spot for the movie with the biggest second week box office drop in history. The movie didn't do well financially because even the fans of the series didn't want much to do with it. There is no going around it.
You just might get wish your wish of Fox pushing out Pulse Rifles vs. Alien Queens every two years the same way Disney does with Tie Fighters and Star Destroyers. Creativity be damned.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 07:51:28 PMThis is why it was no surprise that Covenant now holds a record top 10 spot for the movie with the biggest second week box office drop in history.
Not correct.
"Covenant" is #82 for the movie with the biggest second week box office drop.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/drops.htm
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 25, 2017, 01:18:20 PM
Feeling safe or not, it still struck me as a bit dumb for Rosenthal to wander off alone.
And pretty much ends any chance of an effective debate.
I've had multiple discussions on IMDb where the pattern is; a moment in a film felt like it was dumb, therefore it's bad.
And for your personal taste, you are absolutely correct; the scene felt dumb to you and so to you it was dumb.
* However, for me Rosenthal washing her face alone in that situation is way down on the list of what can be "dumb" in a horror film and that includes the Alien franchise.
- i could pile up a list of factual information to support my view.
- But what does it matter?
- For you that moment felt dumb and nothing I can write will overrule your gut feelings.
And in fact I have no intention of trying to change your POV.
Just writing to say that I agree to disagree.
;)
^
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 25, 2017, 08:12:52 PM
You just might get your wish of Fox pushing out Pulse Rifles vs. Alien Queens every two years the same way Disney is doing with Tie Fighters and Star Destroyers. Creativity be damned.
Oh believe me, that's not my wish at all and sadly that's what you got with Covenant. I would have been perfectly happy with a movie about an android trying to play god and kissing himself for 2 hours, with zero humans and zero xenomorphs.
Instead, what you got was "get the xenomorph back on the screen - the movie" in a disaster that had a terrible plot, poorly written characters and an established lore that damages every Alien film to date and doesn't even make sense. All that followed by Ridley Scott reports about a third "war of the worlds" style movie with aliens humans and engineers all fighting each other and having Ripley's mother (cause remember Ripley?) somehow shoved in the mix. How does an Alien fan watch all this, hear what Ridley Scott has in store for the future of the franchise and still want him to continue doing what he's doing?
Quote from: bb-15 on Jul 25, 2017, 08:22:07 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 07:51:28 PMThis is why it was no surprise that Covenant now holds a record top 10 spot for the movie with the biggest second week box office drop in history.
Not correct.
"Covenant" is #82 for the movie with the biggest second week box office drop.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/drops.htm
I was basing my data on this:
http://screenrant.com/alien-covenant-box-office-drop-80-percent/
That said, even with it being in the top 100 instead of the top 10, the point still remains: the movie dropped significantly because even the fans hated it.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 08:31:15 PM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 25, 2017, 08:12:52 PM
You just might get your wish of Fox pushing out Pulse Rifles vs. Alien Queens every two years the same way Disney is doing with Tie Fighters and Star Destroyers. Creativity be damned.
Oh believe me, that's not my wish at all and sadly that's what you got with Covenant. I would have been perfectly happy with a movie about an android trying to play god and kissing himself for 2 hours, with zero humans and zero xenomorphs.
Instead, what you got was "get the xenomorph back on the screen - the movie" in a disaster that had a terrible plot, poorly written characters and an established lore that damages every Alien film to date and doesn't even make sense. All that followed by Ridley Scott reports about a third "war of the worlds" style movie with aliens humans and engineers all fighting each other and having Ripley's mother (cause remember Ripley?) somehow shoved in the mix. How does an Alien fan watch all this, hear what Ridley Scott has in store for the future of the franchise and still want him to continue doing what he's doing?
Quote from: bb-15 on Jul 25, 2017, 08:22:07 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 07:51:28 PMThis is why it was no surprise that Covenant now holds a record top 10 spot for the movie with the biggest second week box office drop in history.
Not correct.
"Covenant" is #82 for the movie with the biggest second week box office drop.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/drops.htm
I was basing my data on this:
http://screenrant.com/alien-covenant-box-office-drop-80-percent/
That said, even with it being in the top 100 instead of the top 10, the point still remains: the movie dropped significantly because even the fans hated it.
Well, this is the biggest fan site and the poll here doesn't bear out your point of view.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 08:31:15 PM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 25, 2017, 08:12:52 PM
You just might get your wish of Fox pushing out Pulse Rifles vs. Alien Queens every two years the same way Disney is doing with Tie Fighters and Star Destroyers. Creativity be damned.
Oh believe me, that's not my wish at all and sadly that's what you got with Covenant. I would have been perfectly happy with a movie about an android trying to play god and kissing himself for 2 hours, with zero humans and zero xenomorphs.
Instead, what you got was "get the xenomorph back on the screen - the movie" in a disaster that had a terrible plot, poorly written characters and an established lore that damages every Alien film to date and doesn't even make sense. All that followed by Ridley Scott reports about a third "war of the worlds" style movie with aliens humans and engineers all fighting each other and having Ripley's mother (cause remember Ripley?) somehow shoved in the mix. How does an Alien fan watch all this, hear what Ridley Scott has in store for the future of the franchise and still want him to continue doing what he's doing?
And yet, you believe Aliens: Genisys by a director who just made one of the most incoherent films (Chappie) in recent memory would be good. Nice brainpower on display there, champ.
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 25, 2017, 08:35:59 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 08:31:15 PM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 25, 2017, 08:12:52 PM
You just might get your wish of Fox pushing out Pulse Rifles vs. Alien Queens every two years the same way Disney is doing with Tie Fighters and Star Destroyers. Creativity be damned.
Oh believe me, that's not my wish at all and sadly that's what you got with Covenant. I would have been perfectly happy with a movie about an android trying to play god and kissing himself for 2 hours, with zero humans and zero xenomorphs.
Instead, what you got was "get the xenomorph back on the screen - the movie" in a disaster that had a terrible plot, poorly written characters and an established lore that damages every Alien film to date and doesn't even make sense. All that followed by Ridley Scott reports about a third "war of the worlds" style movie with aliens humans and engineers all fighting each other and having Ripley's mother (cause remember Ripley?) somehow shoved in the mix. How does an Alien fan watch all this, hear what Ridley Scott has in store for the future of the franchise and still want him to continue doing what he's doing?
And yet, you believe Aliens: Genisys by a director who just made one of the most incoherent films (Chappie) in recent memory would be good. Nice brainpower on display there, champ.
Please quote the paragraph in which I stated to think Blomkamp should do anything in the Alien series.
I think Bomkamp is a hack who got lucky with District 9 and didn't make a single good film since (this inculdes his current Oats Studios short films). I think neither Scott nor Blomkamp should be making Alien films and find it hilarious that the fan community somehow got stuck on those two.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 25, 2017, 08:35:08 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 08:31:15 PM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 25, 2017, 08:12:52 PM
You just might get your wish of Fox pushing out Pulse Rifles vs. Alien Queens every two years the same way Disney is doing with Tie Fighters and Star Destroyers. Creativity be damned.
Oh believe me, that's not my wish at all and sadly that's what you got with Covenant. I would have been perfectly happy with a movie about an android trying to play god and kissing himself for 2 hours, with zero humans and zero xenomorphs.
Instead, what you got was "get the xenomorph back on the screen - the movie" in a disaster that had a terrible plot, poorly written characters and an established lore that damages every Alien film to date and doesn't even make sense. All that followed by Ridley Scott reports about a third "war of the worlds" style movie with aliens humans and engineers all fighting each other and having Ripley's mother (cause remember Ripley?) somehow shoved in the mix. How does an Alien fan watch all this, hear what Ridley Scott has in store for the future of the franchise and still want him to continue doing what he's doing?
Quote from: bb-15 on Jul 25, 2017, 08:22:07 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 07:51:28 PMThis is why it was no surprise that Covenant now holds a record top 10 spot for the movie with the biggest second week box office drop in history.
Not correct.
"Covenant" is #82 for the movie with the biggest second week box office drop.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/drops.htm
I was basing my data on this:
http://screenrant.com/alien-covenant-box-office-drop-80-percent/
That said, even with it being in the top 100 instead of the top 10, the point still remains: the movie dropped significantly because even the fans hated it.
Well, this is the biggest fan site and the poll here doesn't bear out your point of view.
True, but you gotta keep in mind that many of the fans don't necessarily visit this site. Hell, I just joined it today and I've been a fan of the series since I was 9 (hi, by the way).
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 08:42:27 PM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 25, 2017, 08:35:59 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 08:31:15 PM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 25, 2017, 08:12:52 PM
You just might get your wish of Fox pushing out Pulse Rifles vs. Alien Queens every two years the same way Disney is doing with Tie Fighters and Star Destroyers. Creativity be damned.
Oh believe me, that's not my wish at all and sadly that's what you got with Covenant. I would have been perfectly happy with a movie about an android trying to play god and kissing himself for 2 hours, with zero humans and zero xenomorphs.
Instead, what you got was "get the xenomorph back on the screen - the movie" in a disaster that had a terrible plot, poorly written characters and an established lore that damages every Alien film to date and doesn't even make sense. All that followed by Ridley Scott reports about a third "war of the worlds" style movie with aliens humans and engineers all fighting each other and having Ripley's mother (cause remember Ripley?) somehow shoved in the mix. How does an Alien fan watch all this, hear what Ridley Scott has in store for the future of the franchise and still want him to continue doing what he's doing?
And yet, you believe Aliens: Genisys by a director who just made one of the most incoherent films (Chappie) in recent memory would be good. Nice brainpower on display there, champ.
Please quote the paragraph in which I stated to think Blomkamp should do anything in the Alien series.
I think Bomkamp is a hack who got lucky with District 9 and didn't make a single good film since (this inculdes his current Oats Studios short films). I think neither Scott nor Blomkamp should be making Alien films and find it hilarious that the fan community somehow got stuck on those two.
But you still want an Alien version of Terminator: Genisys, complete with an elderly Ripley and Hicks. How can I take you seriously?
^Is this guy supposed to be the local troll?
I didn't know it was still a thing...
3x times!!! Why!!!
It was creppy.
QuoteWould you trust Gorman after what they found? I don't care if that's how it is. What they knew about the situation and what Gorman told them are two different things: The place is trashed. There's no bodies. Whatever took those bodies is still probably around. Oh, but alright, I'll just kick back and relax because the greenhorn lieutenant said everything is safe.
If someone listens to an idiot, as far as I'm concerned, that makes them an idiot, too. I don't care if they're following chain of command or not. Vasquez and Drake didn't, and given the situation they were in, I'd say they were a lot smarter in the immediate sense than Ferro or the co-pilot.
Irrelevant whataboutery.
As has been said - the area was secured. No bodies, no movement, they'd been on the ground for hours with no contact with any enemy. They weren't relaxing. Spunkmeyer was assisting Bishop and Ferro was awaiting orders. Gorman was following standard procedures based on the available data. His inexperience is neither here nor there.
Many of the 'x character was so dumb' arguments seem to revolve around 'don't they know they're in a scary movie??'
QuoteWhy are people here upset about Ripley "going back for the cat" in Alien exactly? She left the cat literally in front of the enterance to the Narcissus after being cut off by the alien...her "going back for him" was taking two steps to the left before abandoning ship.
No when she left the shuttle to head back up to the bridge to look for him.
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 09:14:40 PM
QuoteWhy are people here upset about Ripley "going back for the cat" in Alien exactly? She left the cat literally in front of the enterance to the Narcissus after being cut off by the alien...her "going back for him" was taking two steps to the left before abandoning ship.
No when she left the shuttle to head back up to the bridge to look for him.
Eh, that's kind of grasping at straws as well, I think. She was already on her own and needed to rendezvous with Parker and Lambert anyway. Nothing about the bridge was less safe for her than the shuttle. Plus, it was close by. If anything, that whole part of the movie subverts the "wander off to die" trope - Parker and Lambert get killed by staying together, while Ripley survives by going off on her own.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 08:57:42 PM
^Is this guy supposed to be the local troll?
I didn't know it was still a thing...
No.. that's Ridley.
Alien: Genisys :D
Might as well be an alternative title for Prometheus to restore the title continuity ofl ---
I liked Genysis in spots. Take away the 'copter and bus chases and trim the final fight a tad and it's actually a pretty solid film. Not a classic, but I'd watch it again.
I dont know, i only saw it once on a computer screen, but i remember that at no time i had the feeling i was watching a Terminator movie.
I wouldnt exclude the possibility that i was heavily biased though, due to the whole negative fuss going on.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 09:35:43 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 09:14:40 PM
QuoteWhy are people here upset about Ripley "going back for the cat" in Alien exactly? She left the cat literally in front of the enterance to the Narcissus after being cut off by the alien...her "going back for him" was taking two steps to the left before abandoning ship.
No when she left the shuttle to head back up to the bridge to look for him.
Eh, that's kind of grasping at straws as well, I think. She was already on her own and needed to rendezvous with Parker and Lambert anyway. Nothing about the bridge was less safe for her than the shuttle. Plus, it was close by. If anything, that whole part of the movie subverts the "wander off to die" trope - Parker and Lambert get killed by staying together, while Ripley survives by going off on her own.
Not much of a subversion when they essentially split up for no good reason to die. Also, nice usage of the frozen in fear trope. If Alien was released today it'd probably be hated too.
To be honest, I think some of you people are a bit delusional. Like, you didn't like Covenant, which is fine, but to keep on insisting that everything in Covenant is stupid while everything in Alien and Aliens is perfectly rational decision making is just... a bit too much.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 10:27:52 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 09:35:43 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 09:14:40 PM
QuoteWhy are people here upset about Ripley "going back for the cat" in Alien exactly? She left the cat literally in front of the enterance to the Narcissus after being cut off by the alien...her "going back for him" was taking two steps to the left before abandoning ship.
No when she left the shuttle to head back up to the bridge to look for him.
Eh, that's kind of grasping at straws as well, I think. She was already on her own and needed to rendezvous with Parker and Lambert anyway. Nothing about the bridge was less safe for her than the shuttle. Plus, it was close by. If anything, that whole part of the movie subverts the "wander off to die" trope - Parker and Lambert get killed by staying together, while Ripley survives by going off on her own.
Not much of a subversion when they essentially split up for no good reason to die. Also, nice usage of the frozen in fear trope. If Alien was released today it'd probably be hated too.
They do, but the trope is for the group to survive and the loner to die. The movie actually plays on it, which is why people were scared for Ripley's life while she was looking for the cat.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 25, 2017, 10:27:52 PM
Also, nice usage of the frozen in fear trope. If Alien was released today it'd probably be hated too.
Lambert was established as a coward very early on in the film. Pretty much from the moment they land on LV-426. She didn't want to go investigate the derelict and asked Kane and Dallas to get out of there when she saw it. Her being frozen in fear is completely in character.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 09:35:43 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 09:14:40 PM
QuoteWhy are people here upset about Ripley "going back for the cat" in Alien exactly? She left the cat literally in front of the enterance to the Narcissus after being cut off by the alien...her "going back for him" was taking two steps to the left before abandoning ship.
No when she left the shuttle to head back up to the bridge to look for him.
Eh, that's kind of grasping at straws as well, I think. She was already on her own and needed to rendezvous with Parker and Lambert anyway. Nothing about the bridge was less safe for her than the shuttle. Plus, it was close by. If anything, that whole part of the movie subverts the "wander off to die" trope - Parker and Lambert get killed by staying together, while Ripley survives by going off on her own.
The bridge isn't close by, but otherwise I agree.
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 11:21:47 PM
The bridge isn't close by, but otherwise I agree.
Ripley goes looking for Jonesy after hearing him meowing. If she could hear him, he had to have been close by.
She heard him over the open comm channel.
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 11:35:19 PM
She heard him over the open comm channel.
How does she know to look for him on the bridge then?
The way the movie sets it up, all she does to get to the bridge is climb to the upper deck.
It cuts to Parker and Lambert between Ripley leaving the shuttle and climbing up to A deck. The bridge is at the bow of the ship, but she looks on A deck in general before heading to the bridge. The shuttle garage is under one of the struts that connects the engines to the main hull.
As for knowing where he was - same way she knew where to look for Parker and Lambert I guess.
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 11:48:15 PM
It cuts to Parker and Lambert between Ripley leaving the shuttle and climbing up to A deck. The bridge is at the bow of the ship, but she looks on A deck in general before heading to the bridge. The shuttle garage is under one of the struts that connects the engines to the main hull.
As for knowing where he was - same way she knew where to look for Parker and Lambert I guess.
She knew where Parker and Lambert were because they discussed where they would go beforehand (to get coolant for the air support system). If the deck and the shuttle aren't close by and she heard Jonesy over the comms, that's a pretty silly oversight.
Why?
C deck is pretty big and she ran straight to where they were after they already visited different rooms.
I can only speculate, but it would make sense that there's something in the comm system that tells you where people are communicating from. Same as how phones show caller ID.
Parker and Lambert originally visited a room to pick up a cart, and then went to the coolant room to pick up the coolants. Lambert makes a ton of noise while sorting through coolants, and that's where they die. Ripley runs over there because it's the most sensible place to look for them.
Phones show caller ID because it's a specific person calling another specific person. If you have an open comm, anyone can talk from anywhere and you'd have no way of knowing where they are.
We have no way of saying either way how the comm system works. It might show where people are calling from or it might not. Since we don't know, there's no way to say if it's an oversight, silly or otherwise.
As for Parker and Lambert, they get a cart from somewhere, head into a chamber and get canisters from one of the 'copter' ships where Lambert drops some and makes a lot of noise. Then head into another chamber where they eventually die.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 25, 2017, 08:57:42 PM
^Is this guy supposed to be the local troll?
I didn't know it was still a thing...
No, if you like didn't like Covenant you automatically like Pulse Rifles and Queens and Jimmy Blomkaff. That's just how it works.
When I talked about Lambert making a lot of noise and dying, I was referring to this room:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frs3.sinahk.net%2Fcap%2F3%2F2017%2F03%2F23%2F7%2F736e2a948b471b70c90c3b0f9a119b46.jpg&hash=6339e52c27d9d01619c66c1d83f4a9a5062b42d2)
This seems like the storage room for all of their tanks, so it's the sensible place to look for them after they die.
I don't think it makes much difference either way to the discussion. The amount of racket she was making would've gotten anyone stroppy, nevermind an 8' monster.
The point isn't the amount of noise Lambert makes, but rather that Ripley has a good reason to know where she is. Parker and Lambert go to get coolant; Ripley finds them in a room designated for coolants.
They went to two different rooms to get coolant that were nearby each other, so yeah Ripley probably had a good idea where to look. However that's not going to ultimately answer the question at hand about intricacies about the comm system.
Jones hangs loose on the bridge, at Dallas's station according to Alan Dean Foster.
Generally.
Except when the Alien is shutting him into lockers....
Yeah, but there's no comms in lockers.
That we know of... :o
Only Brett's long johns.
No wonder Jones was grumpy.
LOL going back for the cat.
;)
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 26, 2017, 01:27:30 AM
LOL going back for the cat.
;)
She doesn't actually go
back for the cat, she just includes him in the evac. There's no countdown to detonation going on at this stage.
Mustve been over 5 years or more, i thought she was already on her way after activating the detonator then goes for Jones (again)?
Just saw Dunkirk. It's a masterpiece!!!!
How do we get Chris Nolan to make an Alien movie? Someone send him a bottle of scotch!
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 26, 2017, 01:40:04 AM
Mustve been over 5 years or more, i thought she was already on her way after activating the detonator then goes for Jones (again)?
No, she drops the catbox when she finds the Alien between her and the shuttle. After failing to stop the countdown, she picks him up where she left him and launches.
Quote from: SM on Jul 26, 2017, 01:51:06 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 26, 2017, 01:40:04 AM
Mustve been over 5 years or more, i thought she was already on her way after activating the detonator then goes for Jones (again)?
No, she drops the catbox when she finds the Alien between her and the shuttle. After failing to stop the countdown, she picks him up where she left him and launches.
Before. She already has Jones in the catbox when she activates self-destruct? Because i thought she activates then finally goes for Jones for one last time.
She leaves him at the B deck ladder well when she goes to help Parker and Lambert on C deck and then throw the switches. He's waiting in the catbox when she comes back up the ladder to go to the shuttle.
Lol funny, then i had the sequences completely wrong in my head when we argued yesterday. But then what do you identified as going back cause picking the catbox up on the way is no going back for me either (see Paranoid Androids post?).
By the way could it be possible that in the original screenplay the sequence is different? When Dallas the egg was still involved?
Wow im really confused now, but way too tired to actually look it up...
edit: Ah she initially only goes to the bridge for the cat. Thats kinda a going back for me, she couldve helped storing food, i guess...
Quote from: SM on Jul 25, 2017, 09:14:40 PM
QuoteWhy are people here upset about Ripley "going back for the cat" in Alien exactly? She left the cat literally in front of the enterance to the Narcissus after being cut off by the alien...her "going back for him" was taking two steps to the left before abandoning ship.
No when she left the shuttle to head back up to the bridge to look for him.
QuoteBy the way could it be possible that in the original screenplay the sequence is different? When Dallas the egg was still involved?
The revised shooting script (Oct 1978) was much the same as the film in terms of sequence with Ripley finding Dallas after Parker and Lambert are killed, then flipping the switches after that. An earlier draft (June 1978) has her remembering about Jones just as they split up rather than hearing him over the communicator.
Ah thx.
But @Gash thats clearly a going back for me, i mean its not like they had no better things to do than "including the cat in the evac", the cat that could practically be everywhere.
Then again, i have no clue where the different locations actually are on the nostromo, maybe its not much of a detour to go to the BRIDGE when you need to go to the ENGINE ROOM anyway (thats where self-destruct is, right? ::)). I guess this is what it actually depends on how much this whole thing bothers me, if at all.
edit: lol Xth edit im effin drunk
SM, am i reading the wrong script again, you mentioned shes hearing Jones over the comm channel but i cant find it?
Google 'Terry Rawlings Alien script'. It's the June version of the script with pink inserts with dates between June 30 through to October 1978. It was originally uploaded to Alien Experience years ago but has since been purloined to numerous other places. Depending on the version it's around page 214 to 216.
I bet its me, you got me totally confused.
In the final film shes is hearing Jones over the comm?
In the final screenplay she is hearing Jones over the comm?
In an earlier Version she is just remembering him?
Because in the one i downloaded from avp i only find Lambert mentioning that she last has seen him in the mess or something.
Its saying REVISED FINAL, JUNE 1978.
QuoteIn the final film shes is hearing Jones over the comm?
Yes.
QuoteIn the final screenplay she is hearing Jones over the comm?
Yes.
QuoteIn an earlier Version she is just remembering him?
Yes
The June 1978 Revised Final script has further revised pages dated June 30, July 5, July 8, July 13, July 17, August 1, August 2, August 4, August 7, August 10, August 11, August 24, and October 4.
Ah thx thx.
Can you perhaps provide me with a link to this final final final ultimate script? Thx in advance.
Or is that this 'Terry Rawlings script'?
edit:Ah ok i think i got it thx.
The Rawlings script is the one he used while editing and has all the handwritten shot/ slate numbers and is about as up to date in relation to the final film as you'll likely get.
Ja this cool stuff, its just because i was heavily confused that i wanted to check a few things and downloaded the June 78 one from AVP and that definitely confused me to no end; im obiously not much into screenplay reading i guess the term final means jacksht in this realm.
Maybe i shouldved just checked the scenes in question on youtube lol.
I'm not sure why people are saying this is Scott's franchise. Dan O'Bannon pretty much kickstarted the entire thing, including the recruitment of Giger.
ALIEN is the conglomeration of many talents. Giger and O'Bannon deserve as much credit as Ridley, but not more.
20th Century Fox own the franchise, though.
Quote from: Xeneus on Jul 26, 2017, 05:56:25 AM
I'm not sure why people are saying this is Scott's franchise. Dan O'Bannon pretty much kickstarted the entire thing, including the recruitment of Giger.
The studio would have never gone through with Giger's work without Scott's insistence. He also got Fox to double the budget.
It's just one of those movies. Like Jaws, Terminator etc.
btw why are we using the word "trope" in regards to Alien... Isn't that one of the movies that started it all? Or at least when it was released, these things weren't regarded as "tropes". Hell, some people thought they were going to see a "Star Wars" like movie and ended up painting the pavement with their supper. :P
True in '79. Never to be repeated.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 26, 2017, 06:41:46 AM
Quote from: Xeneus on Jul 26, 2017, 05:56:25 AM
I'm not sure why people are saying this is Scott's franchise. Dan O'Bannon pretty much kickstarted the entire thing, including the recruitment of Giger.
The studio would have never gone through with Giger's work without Scott's insistence. He also got Fox to double the budget.
Didn't also Scott himself insist on filming the Space Jockey in Derelict on a 1:1 scale set?
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 26, 2017, 04:39:15 AM
Ah thx thx.
Can you perhaps provide me with a link to this final final final ultimate script? Thx in advance.
Or is that this 'Terry Rawlings script'?
FYI for everyone - All currently available scripts are in our downloads page, including the Rawlings notation one - http://www.avpgalaxy.net/downloads/
Quote from: Xeneus on Jul 26, 2017, 05:56:25 AM
I'm not sure why people are saying this is Scott's franchise. Dan O'Bannon pretty much kickstarted the entire thing, including the recruitment of Giger.
That's the thing that too many people forget. Scott was one part of a really amazing creative team that made Alien so great. It didn't lay at his feet alone and he wasn't given carte blanche for the film. That's what we need for another film - Ridley or not. A truly great creative team, where there's great collaboration.
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 26, 2017, 06:51:17 AM
btw why are we using the word "trope" in regards to Alien... Isn't that one of the movies that started it all? Or at least when it was released, these things weren't regarded as "tropes". Hell, some people thought they were going to see a "Star Wars" like movie and ended up painting the pavement with their supper. :P
I think it was more Alien had a certain flair and style that was imitated for ages after. It certainly used tropes (to play along or subvert) and riffed off older existing sci-fi and horror films. Strange Shapes probably has an article about it somewhere.
Quote from: Keyes on Jul 25, 2017, 03:42:44 PM
What earlier script is this Hicks? Can you talk about the differences to the final film?
I'll be sharing it next month, after the Blu-ray is out. But what I've got seems to be the first of or an early draft of Logan's work on the script.
Well...lets say I think it didn't felt as a trope to the mainstream audience at the time. (I asume this because it's reaction to Alien was crazy, with folk running out of the theather etc....though that could be an American thing...)
Either way... the scene works for me at least. When rewatching the movie and you hope she won't go for the cat this time around...you know it's good. Or:
• "Brett will just look at Parker and Ripley and say "Right" and leave the fcking cat alone"
• "No this time around Hicks will check the ceiling and close all the airducts too"
• "Maybe the T-Rex will just eat the goat and move on..."
• "No, Quint will radio home for help this time around"
If you go: "Oh there goes Rosenthal again...oh hey look, there is her floating face... AGAIN FOR THE THIRD TIME!!!" then the scene fails miserably imo.
Each their own..
Regarding Brett everyone is forgetting that they thought the Alien was just some small rst s8zed creature.
Dallas was also purposefully using himself as bait to try and lure the creature to a specific spot
"this disgusting Ridley vs. Blomkamp hate war thing"
Guess Corporal Hicks is totally ok with Ridley Scott backstabbing Neill Blomkamp and then lying about it
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 26, 2017, 08:05:12 AM
FYI for everyone - All currently available scripts are in our downloads page, including the Rawlings notation one - http://www.avpgalaxy.net/downloads/ (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/downloads/)
And "thank you, sir" for posting them! I just love me some
Alien-seriesscripts... ;D
Quote from: Naf Neila on Jul 26, 2017, 01:43:10 PM
"this disgusting Ridley vs. Blomkamp hate war thing"
Guess Corporal Hicks is totally ok with Ridley Scott backstabbing Neill Blomkamp and then lying about it
What I'm talking about is the vitriol some people are throwing at each other because someone else may have liked to have seen Alien 3.2 or someone really liked Covenant.
Quote from: FenGiddel on Jul 26, 2017, 01:46:21 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 26, 2017, 08:05:12 AM
FYI for everyone - All currently available scripts are in our downloads page, including the Rawlings notation one - http://www.avpgalaxy.net/downloads/ (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/downloads/)
And "thank you, sir" for posting them! I just love me some Alien-seriesscripts... ;D
No worries. :)
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 26, 2017, 08:05:12 AM
I'll be sharing it next month, after the Blu-ray is out. But what I've got seems to be the first of or an early draft of Logan's work on the script.
Did Fox request that you not publish it online yet?
Ah thanks Hicks. I was looking under Alien -> Information -> etc.
Wouldnt it maybe be better to put that October 1978 script there (i can see that the Rawlings thing is a bit "bulky").
Cause i swear when i read this dialog it gave me the feeling i had always watched a pirate version/fan film edit of Alien over the years instead of the real movie :laugh::
RIPLEY
That's all the oxygen.
PARKER
That's it.
RIPLEY
Now. Let's get the food, shut
off the engines and get out...
Jones. Where's Jones.
PARKER
Who knows.
LAMBERT
Last I saw him was in the mess.
RIPLEY
Go look. We don't want to leave him.
LAMBERT
I don't want to go by myself.
PARKER
Always hated that damn cat.
RIPLEY
I'll go. You load up the food.
Quote from: Naf Neila on Jul 26, 2017, 01:43:10 PM
"this disgusting Ridley vs. Blomkamp hate war thing"
Guess Corporal Hicks is totally ok with Ridley Scott backstabbing Neill Blomkamp and then lying about it
Not seen any evidence of that, but one could argue that Blomkamp's muscling in whilst the prequel film was still due for development queered the pitch and Scott and Fox had every right to diplomatically shut him down.
Even if Ripley had to take a detour to get the cat back, at that point she's totally alone. I would've done the same. Never had a problem with that part.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 26, 2017, 03:39:32 PMNot seen any evidence of that, but one could argue that Blomkamp's muscling in whilst the prequel film was still due for development queered the pitch and Scott and Fox had every right to diplomatically shut him down.
According to someone I know at Fox, Blomkamp didn't "muscle in" at all. His film was being planned before
Covenant became a serious proposition.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 26, 2017, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 26, 2017, 03:39:32 PMNot seen any evidence of that, but one could argue that Blomkamp's muscling in whilst the prequel film was still due for development queered the pitch and Scott and Fox had every right to diplomatically shut him down.
According to someone I know at Fox, Blomkamp didn't "muscle in" at all. His film was being planned before Covenant became a serious proposition.
I glad it all worked out right in the end then.
Hows that possible though? Was there a time when a Prometheus sequel was completely off the table? Or did Fox plan to run two Alien projects parallel for a while?
It was probably a really in depth discussion that went something like -
"Ridley we'll give you the cash if you put Aliens in it"
Break for lunch.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 26, 2017, 03:51:55 PMI glad it all worked out right in the end then.
Debatable, given that we haven't got Blomkamp's film to compare
Covenant to.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 26, 2017, 03:54:35 PMHows that possible though? Was there a time when a Prometheus sequel was completely off the table? Or did Fox plan to run two Alien projects parallel for a while?
Not really sure how much I should say, but the gist was production on
Covenant didn't really get serious until
after Blomkamp's planned movie came to light.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 26, 2017, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 26, 2017, 03:51:55 PMI glad it all worked out right in the end then.
Debatable, given that we haven't got Blomkamp's film to compare Covenant to.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 26, 2017, 03:54:35 PMHows that possible though? Was there a time when a Prometheus sequel was completely off the table? Or did Fox plan to run two Alien projects parallel for a while?
Not really sure how much I should say, but the gist was production on Covenant didn't really get serious until after Blomkamp's planned movie came to light.
We have his shorts though, which aren't really that great.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 26, 2017, 04:01:30 PM
It was probably a really in depth discussion that went something like -
"Ridley we'll give you the cash if you put Aliens in it"
Break for lunch.
"If you give me more cash, I'll even have 'em do a little dance"
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 26, 2017, 04:04:08 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 26, 2017, 03:51:55 PMI glad it all worked out right in the end then.
Debatable, given that we haven't got Blomkamp's film to compare Covenant to.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 26, 2017, 03:54:35 PMHows that possible though? Was there a time when a Prometheus sequel was completely off the table? Or did Fox plan to run two Alien projects parallel for a while?
Not really sure how much I should say, but the gist was production on Covenant didn't really get serious until after Blomkamp's planned movie came to light.
Dont get yourself in trouble, man. Thx for the lil inside. Maybe Highland has a point and they simply palavered Scott and then ditched Blomkamps project in a heartbeat.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 26, 2017, 03:54:35 PM
Or did Fox plan to run two Alien projects parallel for a while?
Yes.
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/2015/10/05/ridley-scott-talks-neill-blomkamps-alien-5/ (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/2015/10/05/ridley-scott-talks-neill-blomkamps-alien-5/)
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Jul 26, 2017, 04:16:27 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 26, 2017, 03:54:35 PM
Or did Fox plan to run two Alien projects parallel for a while?
Yes.
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/2015/10/05/ridley-scott-talks-neill-blomkamps-alien-5/ (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/2015/10/05/ridley-scott-talks-neill-blomkamps-alien-5/)
From the same month though:
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/2015/10/30/alien-5-pending-alien-paradise-lost/
"So I shall be working on other things... as much as I love the xeno- and Lt ripley"
Sounding a bit pis***
Maybe a metting between the 05th and the 30th. :D
Yeah, that's about 25 days later. But the point still stands, at one stage they were being produced concurrently for release in 2017.
Fox probably got cold feet at some point and decided to produce only one film for now. Smart choice in light of Covenant's box office situation.
Ja. Or maybe Blomkamp just opposed the whole David the creator approach.
I love the xeno ;)
Covenant could be a negative turning point. I bet 500+ (even 400+ probably) might have easily unlocked 2-3 more films in the next 5-6 years.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 26, 2017, 04:04:08 PM
Debatable, given that we haven't got Blomkamp's film to compare Covenant to.
But one can assume a lot from the concept art as to where it was heading.. Newt, Hicks, Queen, Ripley in a xeno exosuit - it wasn't looking good.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 26, 2017, 04:10:36 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 26, 2017, 04:01:30 PM
It was probably a really in depth discussion that went something like -
"Ridley we'll give you the cash if you put Aliens in it"
Break for lunch.
"If you give me more cash, I'll even have 'em do a little dance"
Must have missed that bit.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 26, 2017, 04:58:02 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 26, 2017, 04:10:36 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 26, 2017, 04:01:30 PM
It was probably a really in depth discussion that went something like -
"Ridley we'll give you the cash if you put Aliens in it"
Break for lunch.
"If you give me more cash, I'll even have 'em do a little dance"
Must have missed that bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8juFmtkVrw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8juFmtkVrw)
The creator of this video deserves being eggmorphed.
There was a good point the latest perfect organism podcast about people making fun of scenes that make them uncomfortable. The horror of the chestburster scene lies not in the monstrous emergence as in the original, but in the distortion of fatherhood and birth.
In a way, it's still a horror scene in my mind. It's just more of a "I can't believe the franchise has come to this" type of horror, rather than the type of horror I was originally expecting.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 26, 2017, 05:24:13 PM
In a way, it's still a horror scene in my mind. It's just more of a "I can't believe the franchise has come to this" type of horror, rather than the type of horror I was originally expecting.
Again, the crucial element here. If the marketing campaign had focused more on the symbolism (which is the essence of the movie) instead of the RUN HIDE PRAY crap, you wouldn't have felt this way.
I dont think thats what he meant. ::)
No, he's sole purpose appears to be try and antagonise those who like Covenant for some strange reason.
I'm not trying to antagonize anyone. I legitimately think the movie is a farce, so I'm arguing my case. Nobody should be personally offended by this. My criticism of the film is not a criticism of anyone here as a person.
"arguing" :D
I don't take it personally and yes I'm aware you don't like the film, it would just be nice if we could move on from that now.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 26, 2017, 05:46:32 PM
I'm not trying to antagonize anyone. I legitimately think the movie is a farce, so I'm arguing my case. Nobody should be personally offended by this. My criticism of the film is not a criticism of anyone here as a person.
That is a farce.
after the farce that was war for the... im done buying anything FOX. prometheus couldve been a great franchise but they f**ked that up. f**k fox.
Quote from: question11 on Jul 26, 2017, 08:40:13 PM
after the farce that was war for the... im done buying anything FOX. prometheus couldve been a great franchise but they f**ked that up. f**k fox.
Hey, dude: the alphabet just called. They want all their "f"s back... :laugh:
Quote from: T Dog on Jul 26, 2017, 01:21:18 PM
Regarding Brett everyone is forgetting that they thought the Alien was just some small rst s8zed creature.
Please don't assume that everyone here, which is loaded with Alien franchise fans, is forgetting that the chestburster / baby xenomorph was small.
- I certainly didn't forget it was about a foot / 1/3 meter long.
There is no right or wrong way to evaluate a movie.
And everyone is entitled to their own personal taste.
* Still, what this topic runs into imo is the divide between those who;
1. Love a movie at a gut level and as a result they think everything in the film is perfect.
2. Compared with viewers who can look at scenes and notice tropes and cliches. This second kind of viewer can rate such a movie highly but still can criticize it.
- First example of the second kind of viewer? Dan O'Bannon, who's credited with writing "Alien'. In the extras for "Alien" O'Bannon mentions that he didn't write the Brett death scene and he didn't like it. It was about a character (Brett) getting separated from the group and going to the basement to get killed.
- Splitting up the group and wandering on one's own is a standard horror film trope.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetsSplitUpGang
- I can also criticize a film that I like.
1. Since the moment i saw "Alien' in 1979 i knew that Brett leaving the group to find the cat was a horror film cliche.
2. A foot long creature / the chestburster (which looked hostile and had pointed teeth) can still be very dangerous.
- A foot long snake in our world can deliver a vicious bite. And an unknown creature could be poisonous or carry a pathogen.
3. From the large sets (which have ventilation shafts) and the limited range of the motion tracking device, i knew there was no way that the team was certain that the baby xenomorph was not behind them.
4. I knew the moment that Brett left the group that he was an expendable character.
Here are a couple of tropes which address that.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedShirt
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SacrificialLamb
** Importantly, there is nothing wrong with people reacting to movies in different ways.
- I rate "Alien" in the top 10 of my all time science fiction movie list.
;)
Quote from: FenGiddel on Jul 26, 2017, 08:48:21 PM
Quote from: question11 on Jul 26, 2017, 08:40:13 PM
after the farce that was war for the... im done buying anything FOX. prometheus couldve been a great franchise but they f**ked that up. f**k fox.
Hey, dude: the alphabet just called. They want all their "f"s back... :laugh:
:laugh:
Quote from: bb-15 on Jul 26, 2017, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: T Dog on Jul 26, 2017, 01:21:18 PM
Regarding Brett everyone is forgetting that they thought the Alien was just some small rst s8zed creature.
Please don't assume that everyone here, which is loaded with Alien franchise fans, is forgetting that the chestburster / baby xenomorph was small.
- I certainly didn't forget it was about a foot / 1/3 meter long.
There is no right or wrong way to evaluate a movie.
And everyone is entitled to their own personal taste.
* Still, what this topic runs into imo is the divide between those who;
1. Love a movie at a gut level and as a result they think everything in the film is perfect.
2. Compared with viewers who can look at scenes and notice tropes and cliches. This second kind of viewer can rate such a movie highly but still can criticize it.
- First example of the second kind of viewer? Dan O'Bannon, who's credited with writing "Alien'. In the extras for "Alien" O'Bannon mentions that he didn't write the Brett death scene and he didn't like it. It was about a character (Brett) getting separated from the group and going to the basement to get killed.
- Splitting up the group and wandering on one's own is a standard horror film trope.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetsSplitUpGang
- I can also criticize a film that I like.
1. Since the moment i saw "Alien' in 1979 i knew that Brett leaving the group to find the cat was a horror film cliche.
2. A foot long creature / the chestburster (which looked hostile and had pointed teeth) can still be very dangerous.
- A foot long snake in our world can deliver a vicious bite. And an unknown creature could be poisonous or carry a pathogen.
3. From the large sets (which have ventilation shafts) and the limited range of the motion tracking device, i knew there was no way that the team was certain that the baby xenomorph was not behind them.
4. I knew the moment that Brett left the group that he was an expendable character.
Here are a couple of tropes which address that.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedShirt
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SacrificialLamb
** Importantly, there is nothing wrong with people reacting to movies in different ways.
- I rate "Alien" in the top 10 of my all time science fiction movie list.
;)
That's probably the most sensible thing I've read all day.
Quote from: bb-15 on Jul 26, 2017, 08:54:42 PM
Quote from: T Dog on Jul 26, 2017, 01:21:18 PM
Regarding Brett everyone is forgetting that they thought the Alien was just some small rst s8zed creature.
Please don't assume that everyone here, which is loaded with Alien franchise fans, is forgetting that the chestburster / baby xenomorph was small.
- I certainly didn't forget it was about a foot / 1/3 meter long.
There is no right or wrong way to evaluate a movie.
And everyone is entitled to their own personal taste.
* Still, what this topic runs into imo is the divide between those who;
1. Love a movie at a gut level and as a result they think everything in the film is perfect.
2. Compared with viewers who can look at scenes and notice tropes and cliches. This second kind of viewer can rate such a movie highly but still can criticize it.
- First example of the second kind of viewer? Dan O'Bannon, who's credited with writing "Alien'. In the extras for "Alien" O'Bannon mentions that he didn't write the Brett death scene and he didn't like it. It was about a character (Brett) getting separated from the group and going to the basement to get killed.
- Splitting up the group and wandering on one's own is a standard horror film trope.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetsSplitUpGang
- I can also criticize a film that I like.
1. Since the moment i saw "Alien' in 1979 i knew that Brett leaving the group to find the cat was a horror film cliche.
2. A foot long creature / the chestburster (which looked hostile and had pointed teeth) can still be very dangerous.
- A foot long snake in our world can deliver a vicious bite. And an unknown creature could be poisonous or carry a pathogen.
3. From the large sets (which have ventilation shafts) and the limited range of the motion tracking device, i knew there was no way that the team was certain that the baby xenomorph was not behind them.
4. I knew the moment that Brett left the group that he was an expendable character.
Here are a couple of tropes which address that.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedShirt
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SacrificialLamb
** Importantly, there is nothing wrong with people reacting to movies in different ways.
- I rate "Alien" in the top 10 of my all time science fiction movie list.
;)
Alien is my favorite film, period, and I'll double down on your Brett criticism by saying that it would've made more sense in the context of the film if Ripley and Parker joined Brett in his search for Jonesy, since they all agree he must be caught in order for them to continue the search for the alien. Them not knowing how big the alien is might mitigate the trope, but it's obviously still there.
That said, I disagree about having no right or wrong way to evaluate a movie: a right way to evaluate a movie is to associate your rating of it with things that can actually be found in it so that other people could compare that person's experience with it with their own. This type of evaluation pushes a debate forward and allows people to explore the film further. Liking/disliking might be subjective, but through sharing the WHY people are able to achieve a shared experience of things. Your criticism of the Brett scene is a good example to that. A wrong way to evaluate a film is by simply stating whether you like it or not. It doesn't give anyone else anything to hold on to in order to achieve a shared experience of the film, and thus kills the debate.
That's also the difference between a state of preference and taste; state of preference is simply having things you like/dislike, while taste is being able to articulate why something works for you and other things don't.
I feel like we need some more actual news.
I'm afraid they will leave us in the dark for a long, long time. :(
I don't expect there will be any news about this for a while.
When Scott starts doing publicity for his next movie, All the Money in the World, reporters will ask him incessantly about Covenant and potential sequels. There will be lots of Covenant discussion at the end of the year.
It might happen earlier if Scott does interviews to promote Covenant on home video, or if his commentary discusses the sequel possibilities. But that commentary was probably recorded before the movie was released, so it will be out of date regarding the likelihood of a sequel.
I'd like to see a Covenant sequel, but I really hope it is closer to Prometheus in approach.
I think it was possibly in Scotts grand plan to unveil the Alien in the final prequel. That should have been a no brainer for me, much like witnessing Vader putting on the suit was in the final moments of the SW prequels. The "ah ha" moment where it all comes together. It's clear that rushing the Alien in prematurely ( even IF you want it to be David that comes up with it) was the point where everything went pear shaped.
There were more than enough beasties that could have filled that void with the goo being able to be used in in the plot any way they saw fit. At some point though everyone's got cold feet ( despite Prometheus taking in the cash?).
It could have been any number of reasons or lots of little reasons adding up. No Shaw, Large gap between the films, Bloms idea...
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 03:24:14 AM
I think it was possibly in Scotts grand plan to unveil the Alien in the final prequel. That should have been a no brainer for me, much like witnessing Vader putting on the suit was in the final moments of the SW prequels. The "ah ha" moment where it all comes together. It's clear that rushing the Alien in prematurely ( even IF you want it to be David that comes up with it) was the point where everything went pear shaped.
There were more than enough beasties that could have filled that void with the goo being able to be used in in the plot any way they saw fit. At some point though everyone's got cold feet ( despite Prometheus taking in the cash?).
It could have been any number of reasons or lots of little reasons adding up. No Shaw, Large gap between the films, Bloms idea...
Scott was very vocal about his plan to never show the classic monster again. The Deacon at the end of Prometheus was meant to be its final appearance in any form until Scott was somehow convinced to change course.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 27, 2017, 04:55:26 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 03:24:14 AM
I think it was possibly in Scotts grand plan to unveil the Alien in the final prequel. That should have been a no brainer for me, much like witnessing Vader putting on the suit was in the final moments of the SW prequels. The "ah ha" moment where it all comes together. It's clear that rushing the Alien in prematurely ( even IF you want it to be David that comes up with it) was the point where everything went pear shaped.
There were more than enough beasties that could have filled that void with the goo being able to be used in in the plot any way they saw fit. At some point though everyone's got cold feet ( despite Prometheus taking in the cash?).
It could have been any number of reasons or lots of little reasons adding up. No Shaw, Large gap between the films, Bloms idea...
Scott was very vocal about his plan to never show the classic monster again. The Deacon at the end of Prometheus was meant to be its final appearance in any form until Scott was somehow convinced to change course.
My money is on the fact that even the Deacon in Prometheus was some kind of compromise with Fox, since it doesn't add up with the 2000 year old murals found in the installation.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 27, 2017, 04:55:26 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 03:24:14 AM
I think it was possibly in Scotts grand plan to unveil the Alien in the final prequel. That should have been a no brainer for me, much like witnessing Vader putting on the suit was in the final moments of the SW prequels. The "ah ha" moment where it all comes together. It's clear that rushing the Alien in prematurely ( even IF you want it to be David that comes up with it) was the point where everything went pear shaped.
There were more than enough beasties that could have filled that void with the goo being able to be used in in the plot any way they saw fit. At some point though everyone's got cold feet ( despite Prometheus taking in the cash?).
It could have been any number of reasons or lots of little reasons adding up. No Shaw, Large gap between the films, Bloms idea...
Scott was very vocal about his plan to never show the classic monster again. The Deacon at the end of Prometheus was meant to be its final appearance in any form until Scott was somehow convinced to change course.
He didn't need to visit the original creature, you could have literally had Prometheus x 3 (Space story's about Engineers and goo that was successful at the box office) and we don't get to see the Alien until the final act of the final prequel, they could have even went as far as the original Space Jockey getting chest bursted as almost the last scene in the entire Scott Trilogy. This is actually how I thought it was going to go, lots of sci fi back story with Engineers that ultimately ends up connecting the dots at the end and connects nicely in to Alien.
The Deacon almost seems like (and I'm totally making this up in my head) that Scott might have realised for whatever reason, Prometheus was going to be the only film, so the Deacon is stuffed in at the end just a scene to say - "This stuff connects to Alien somehow and here's a teaser, we might not see any of these movies again"
The Deacon scene feels like an after thought, it adds almost nothing to movie other than to say - the black stuff makes Alien things, which we already kind of got without that.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 07:41:20 AM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 27, 2017, 04:55:26 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 03:24:14 AM
I think it was possibly in Scotts grand plan to unveil the Alien in the final prequel. That should have been a no brainer for me, much like witnessing Vader putting on the suit was in the final moments of the SW prequels. The "ah ha" moment where it all comes together. It's clear that rushing the Alien in prematurely ( even IF you want it to be David that comes up with it) was the point where everything went pear shaped.
There were more than enough beasties that could have filled that void with the goo being able to be used in in the plot any way they saw fit. At some point though everyone's got cold feet ( despite Prometheus taking in the cash?).
It could have been any number of reasons or lots of little reasons adding up. No Shaw, Large gap between the films, Bloms idea...
Scott was very vocal about his plan to never show the classic monster again. The Deacon at the end of Prometheus was meant to be its final appearance in any form until Scott was somehow convinced to change course.
He didn't need to visit the original creature, you could have literally had Prometheus x 3 (Space story's about Engineers and goo that was successful at the box office) and we don't get to see the Alien until the final act of the final prequel, they could have even went as far as the original Space Jockey getting chest bursted as almost the last scene in the entire Scott Trilogy. This is actually how I thought it was going to go, lots of sci fi back story with Engineers that ultimately ends up connecting the dots at the end and connects nicely in to Alien.
The Deacon almost seems like (and I'm totally making this up in my head) that Scott might have realised for whatever reason, Prometheus was going to be the only film, so the Deacon is stuffed in at the end just a scene to say - "This stuff connects to Alien somehow and here's a teaser, we might not see any of these movies again"
The Deacon scene feels like an after thought, it adds almost nothing to movie other than to say - the black stuff makes Alien things, which we already kind of got without that.
I agree. I think that was the original intention as well.
I'm not sure if Ridley inserted the Deacon for the reasons you suggest but its quite possible he was thinking that way. He must have been aware that a sequel leading from the end of Prometheus would be viewed as a challenging sell to general audiences.
As you point out, the Deacon doesn't add anything to the film other than fan service and just succeeds in muddying the waters further.
The deacon scene was fcking horrible and felt totally out of place. Then agian...most of the movie had that going for it. Prometheus did not know what it wanted to be. A horror flick? A space adventure? 2001? A confusing mess?
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 27, 2017, 09:14:21 AM
The deacon scene was fcking horrible and felt totally out of place. Then agian...most of the movie had that going for it. Prometheus did not know what it wanted to be. A horror flick? A space adventure? 2001? A confusing mess?
I didn't love it initially , then liked it better after rewatches, then Covenant came rendering the entire movie pointless. I'll probably never watch it again which is a shame.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 10:22:44 AM
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 27, 2017, 09:14:21 AM
The deacon scene was fcking horrible and felt totally out of place. Then agian...most of the movie had that going for it. Prometheus did not know what it wanted to be. A horror flick? A space adventure? 2001? A confusing mess?
I didn't love it initially , then liked it better after rewatches, then Covenant came rendering the entire movie pointless. I'll probably never watch it again which is a shame.
I think you can still rewatch Prometheus just fine if you completely ignore the existence of Covenant. David being the creator of the alien doesn't fit the timeline anyway, so why not dismiss it outright?
One thing Covenant can be credited for was answering a few questions regarding Prometheus (what's the deal with the black goo), so now upon rewatching it I can at least see what they were originally going for.
A retcon of a retcon. There is your problem.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 03:24:14 AM
I think it was possibly in Scotts grand plan to unveil the Alien in the final prequel. That should have been a no brainer for me, much like witnessing Vader putting on the suit was in the final moments of the SW prequels. The "ah ha" moment where it all comes together.
This could be a lesson for the other film makers. Unveil the "ah ha" moment before the third sequel.
Quote from: Shinawi on Jul 27, 2017, 02:45:21 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 03:24:14 AM
I think it was possibly in Scotts grand plan to unveil the Alien in the final prequel. That should have been a no brainer for me, much like witnessing Vader putting on the suit was in the final moments of the SW prequels. The "ah ha" moment where it all comes together.
This could be a lesson for the other film makers. Unveil the "ah ha" moment before the third sequel.
It's not a moment anyone wanted or needed. Alien is a lot like Vader: Cool things that required no explanation. We didn't need to see whiny kid anakin, and we don't need to see dysfunctional robot make the alien. Vader and Alien are reduced by their back stories
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 27, 2017, 07:57:16 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 07:41:20 AM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 27, 2017, 04:55:26 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 03:24:14 AM
I think it was possibly in Scotts grand plan to unveil the Alien in the final prequel. That should have been a no brainer for me, much like witnessing Vader putting on the suit was in the final moments of the SW prequels. The "ah ha" moment where it all comes together. It's clear that rushing the Alien in prematurely ( even IF you want it to be David that comes up with it) was the point where everything went pear shaped.
There were more than enough beasties that could have filled that void with the goo being able to be used in in the plot any way they saw fit. At some point though everyone's got cold feet ( despite Prometheus taking in the cash?).
It could have been any number of reasons or lots of little reasons adding up. No Shaw, Large gap between the films, Bloms idea...
Scott was very vocal about his plan to never show the classic monster again. The Deacon at the end of Prometheus was meant to be its final appearance in any form until Scott was somehow convinced to change course.
He didn't need to visit the original creature, you could have literally had Prometheus x 3 (Space story's about Engineers and goo that was successful at the box office) and we don't get to see the Alien until the final act of the final prequel, they could have even went as far as the original Space Jockey getting chest bursted as almost the last scene in the entire Scott Trilogy. This is actually how I thought it was going to go, lots of sci fi back story with Engineers that ultimately ends up connecting the dots at the end and connects nicely in to Alien.
The Deacon almost seems like (and I'm totally making this up in my head) that Scott might have realised for whatever reason, Prometheus was going to be the only film, so the Deacon is stuffed in at the end just a scene to say - "This stuff connects to Alien somehow and here's a teaser, we might not see any of these movies again"
The Deacon scene feels like an after thought, it adds almost nothing to movie other than to say - the black stuff makes Alien things, which we already kind of got without that.
I agree. I think that was the original intention as well.
I'm not sure if Ridley inserted the Deacon for the reasons you suggest but its quite possible he was thinking that way. He must have been aware that a sequel leading from the end of Prometheus would be viewed as a challenging sell to general audiences.
As you point out, the Deacon doesn't add anything to the film other than fan service and just succeeds in muddying the waters further.
Scott and Lindelof's original plan was to move further from Alien with each sequel and never show the xenomorph. They said so more than once. The xeno mural was only teasing the Deacon, not some future movie. Sorry, but your feelings are not correct, folks. Could anybody else back me up on this?
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 10:22:44 AM
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 27, 2017, 09:14:21 AM
The deacon scene was fcking horrible and felt totally out of place. Then agian...most of the movie had that going for it. Prometheus did not know what it wanted to be. A horror flick? A space adventure? 2001? A confusing mess?
I didn't love it initially , then liked it better after rewatches, then Covenant came rendering the entire movie pointless. I'll probably never watch it again which is a shame.
That doesn't make any sense to me. I felt Prometheus was merely decent, a beautiful movie with awful characters, but watching Covenant actually made me appreciate it a lot more. Not just because of the character development of David, but also because of the build-up of themes and the music etc.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 27, 2017, 06:11:31 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 27, 2017, 07:57:16 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 07:41:20 AM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 27, 2017, 04:55:26 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 03:24:14 AM
I think it was possibly in Scotts grand plan to unveil the Alien in the final prequel. That should have been a no brainer for me, much like witnessing Vader putting on the suit was in the final moments of the SW prequels. The "ah ha" moment where it all comes together. It's clear that rushing the Alien in prematurely ( even IF you want it to be David that comes up with it) was the point where everything went pear shaped.
There were more than enough beasties that could have filled that void with the goo being able to be used in in the plot any way they saw fit. At some point though everyone's got cold feet ( despite Prometheus taking in the cash?).
It could have been any number of reasons or lots of little reasons adding up. No Shaw, Large gap between the films, Bloms idea...
Scott was very vocal about his plan to never show the classic monster again. The Deacon at the end of Prometheus was meant to be its final appearance in any form until Scott was somehow convinced to change course.
He didn't need to visit the original creature, you could have literally had Prometheus x 3 (Space story's about Engineers and goo that was successful at the box office) and we don't get to see the Alien until the final act of the final prequel, they could have even went as far as the original Space Jockey getting chest bursted as almost the last scene in the entire Scott Trilogy. This is actually how I thought it was going to go, lots of sci fi back story with Engineers that ultimately ends up connecting the dots at the end and connects nicely in to Alien.
The Deacon almost seems like (and I'm totally making this up in my head) that Scott might have realised for whatever reason, Prometheus was going to be the only film, so the Deacon is stuffed in at the end just a scene to say - "This stuff connects to Alien somehow and here's a teaser, we might not see any of these movies again"
The Deacon scene feels like an after thought, it adds almost nothing to movie other than to say - the black stuff makes Alien things, which we already kind of got without that.
I agree. I think that was the original intention as well.
I'm not sure if Ridley inserted the Deacon for the reasons you suggest but its quite possible he was thinking that way. He must have been aware that a sequel leading from the end of Prometheus would be viewed as a challenging sell to general audiences.
As you point out, the Deacon doesn't add anything to the film other than fan service and just succeeds in muddying the waters further.
Scott and Lindelof's original plan was to move further from Alien with each sequel and never show the xenomorph. They said so more than once. The xeno mural was only teasing the Deacon, not some future movie. Sorry, but your feelings are not correct, folks. Could anybody else back me up on this?
You're probably right, I don't know for sure I was just under the impression it was always planned to back into the beginning of Alien in some form?
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 27, 2017, 06:17:07 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 27, 2017, 10:22:44 AM
Quote from: Hemi on Jul 27, 2017, 09:14:21 AM
The deacon scene was fcking horrible and felt totally out of place. Then agian...most of the movie had that going for it. Prometheus did not know what it wanted to be. A horror flick? A space adventure? 2001? A confusing mess?
I didn't love it initially , then liked it better after rewatches, then Covenant came rendering the entire movie pointless. I'll probably never watch it again which is a shame.
That doesn't make any sense to me. I felt Prometheus was merely decent, a beautiful movie with awful characters, but watching Covenant actually made me appreciate it a lot more. Not just because of the character development of David, but also because of the build-up of themes and the music etc.
I felt that way too, it complemented Prometheus quite nicely. Horses for courses though I guess.
The more time I've had to reflect on Convenant the more I wish they'd gone down the route of the 'natural' sequel to Prometheus that showed a direct continuation of Shaw and David's journey.
Although it has flaws, I loved the ending of Prometheus and couldn't wait to see what happened next. However we have been given a movie many years later that trys to be too many things at once.
I'm keen to learn about Fox's switch of direction and how advanced the story of Prometheus 2 was with Shaw and David's journey. Perhaps more info will come out and some script drafts will leak?
I'm feeling pretty fed up that we may not get another Ridley Scott Alien movie. It seems like Fox have really made a mess of this.
Quote from: jdxmoore on Jul 27, 2017, 06:47:39 PM
The more time I've had to reflect on Convenant the more I wish they'd gone down the route of the 'natural' sequel to Prometheus that showed a direct continuation of Shaw and David's journey.
Although it has flaws, I loved the ending of Prometheus and couldn't wait to see what happened next. However we have been given a movie many years later that trys to be too many things at once.
I'm keen to learn about Fox's switch of direction and how advanced the story of Prometheus 2 was with Shaw and David's journey. Perhaps more info will come out and some script drafts will leak?
I'm feeling pretty fed up that we may not get another Ridley Scott Alien movie. It seems like Fox have really made a mess of this.
Same here. I don't think Covenant is a proper sequel to Prometheus. Such a shame.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 27, 2017, 06:11:31 PM
Scott and Lindelof's original plan was to move further from Alien with each sequel and never show the xenomorph. They said so more than once. The xeno mural was only teasing the Deacon, not some future movie. Sorry, but your feelings are not correct, folks. Could anybody else back me up on this?
Why would the murals tease the Deacon though? Why would the Engineers even know what the Deacon is?
In order to produce the Deacon, one must:
1. Infect a human with the black goo (keep in mind, the Engineers are not exactly fans of us).
2. Allow said human to impregnate another human before he dies.
3. Allow impregnated human to give birth to the Kraken.
4. Allow the Kraken to impregnate a fellow Engineer.
There are way too many coincidences in this whole process to assume the Engineers even had the idea of it.
Yeah, the whole process seemed way too convoluted and reliant on specific circumstances for them to know about it in advance.
I took the mural to just be a nod to fans. I didn't take it to have any deeper meaning than that to be honest
Yeah, that's how I took it as well, which is why this whole "teasing the Deacon" thing seems so odd to me.
Could the Deacon be created by a more direct route though, does it have to be this specific chain of events?
According to the film, you need the whole sequence.
. .yeah i seriously don't think they gonna write a script based upon a 3 second view of a mural on a wall. . That was purely their too look pretty. .the mural had almost no significance thus far and it is kinda ridiculous how it is still being bought up. .over and over and over and. .snore. .
Quote from: juxtapose on Jul 27, 2017, 08:03:48 PM
. .yeah i seriously don't think they gonna write a script based upon a 3 second view of a mural on a wall. . That was purely their too look pretty. .the mural had almost no significance thus far and it is kinda ridiculous how it is still being bought up. .over and over and over and. .snore. .
B-but 100000 years of mythology!!!111
Quote from: juxtapose on Jul 27, 2017, 08:03:48 PM
. .yeah i seriously don't think they gonna write a script based upon a 3 second view of a mural on a wall. . That was purely their too look pretty. .the mural had almost no significance thus far and it is kinda ridiculous how it is still being bought up. .over and over and over and. .snore. .
Well, the mural in the 2000 year old installation shown in Prometheus did suggest the Engineers at least knew about the alien at least 2000 years before the events of the film.
...But now David's the creator, so I guess the Engineers lied or something.
Or it's not an Alien
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3104f499c2d6a1ca663bc41b6bc87ac1)
Sure looks like an alien to me.
Could be a Deacon.
I'm not sure how much sense that would make, given the convoluted process involved in creating one.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 08:51:14 PM
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3104f499c2d6a1ca663bc41b6bc87ac1)
Sure looks like an alien to me.
The black goo creates neomorphs/deacons regardless, which they knew about. Thats what the mural is.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Jul 27, 2017, 09:02:06 PM
I'm not sure how much sense that would make, given the convoluted process involved in creating one.
How does it not make sense?
Quote from: SM on Jul 27, 2017, 09:00:41 PM
Could be a Deacon.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 07:02:24 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 27, 2017, 06:11:31 PM
Scott and Lindelof's original plan was to move further from Alien with each sequel and never show the xenomorph. They said so more than once. The xeno mural was only teasing the Deacon, not some future movie. Sorry, but your feelings are not correct, folks. Could anybody else back me up on this?
Why would the murals tease the Deacon though? Why would the Engineers even know what the Deacon is?
In order to produce the Deacon, one must:
1. Infect a human with the black goo (keep in mind, the Engineers are not exactly fans of us).
2. Allow said human to impregnate another human before he dies.
3. Allow impregnated human to give birth to the Kraken.
4. Allow the Kraken to impregnate a fellow Engineer.
There are way too many coincidences in this whole process to assume the Engineers even had the idea of it.
Quote from: SM on Jul 27, 2017, 09:06:57 PMHow does it not make sense?
For the reason Paranoid Android just restated above.
They don't need to use humans.
And I'm not seeing how it would or wouldn't make sense considering the amount of unknown factors.
How do they not need to use humans if the only Deacon seen in the franchise was produced via humans?
Engineers and humans are genetically the same. They could've been conceived via Engineers in the past.
If that were the case, you would've had Deacons in Covenant. You have no Deacons in Covenant.
That we know of. However could be different goo (the Engineers looked burned more than mutated), they were showered in it, rather than drinking a drop like Holloway. And it doesn't look like they had time to shag.
Quote from: SM on Jul 27, 2017, 09:25:38 PM
Engineers and humans are genetically the same. They could've been conceived via Engineers in the past.
Good point
If the films wanted to imply that the Deacon can be created via an easier process than the one shown in Prometheus, it would've used the creature again instead of turning it to the dead end it currently is.
And again, according to the information provided by the films, the only way to produce a Deacon is via humans. You have no other process shown in order to assert that an alternative route is possible.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 08:10:51 PM
Well, the mural in the 2000 year old installation shown in Prometheus did suggest the Engineers at least knew about the alien at least 2000 years before the events of the film.
...But now David's the creator, so I guess the Engineers lied or something.
Well yeah, I guess so, seeing as they're running away from it and their stacked bodies are chest-bursted. Safe to say the implication of Prometheus is that the bio weapon lead to a creature they revered, wanted to control but couldn't.
David is playing around like an alchemist using dark arts to recreate something that was so dangerous it's always ended up destroying those foolish enough to rekindle it.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 09:37:24 PM
If the films wanted to imply that the Deacon can be created via an easier process than the one shown in Prometheus, it would've used the creature again instead of turning it to the dead end it currently is.
And again, according to the information provided by the films, the only way to produce a Deacon is via humans. You have no other process shown in order to assert that an alternative route is possible.
Process is the same but with Engineers.
The black too creates variations on a theme present in the mural. The Deacon may have been unique in some attributes because of the circumstances of its birth, but the idea is that the goo combined with any humanoid will create something like the Deacon/xenomorph. Iirc, the future movies would have shown new creatures made from the too infecting other types of organisms other than humanoids. Did you see any of the unused designs for Covenant? They look like they also impregnate their victims, but looked nothing like the humanoid xenomorphs. They swapped out their new monster ideas for old ones because they thought that was what we wanted.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 27, 2017, 09:50:39 PM
The black too creates variations on a theme present in the mural. The Deacon may have been unique in some attributes because of the circumstances of its birth, but the idea is that the goo combined with any humanoid will create something like the Deacon/xenomorph. Iirc, the future movies would have shown new creatures made from the too infecting other types of organisms other than humanoids. Did you see any of the unused designs for Covenant? They look like they also impregnate their victims, but looked nothing like the humanoid xenomorphs. They swapped out their new monster ideas for old ones because they thought that was what we wanted.
That doesn't make much sense either. The black goo mixed with humans created the Kraken thingy. Only when it impregnated an engineer did you get the Deacon.
The goo is shown and said to be 'highly mutable'.
Yes, but if it's supposed to be a template, why does it create things that don't fit the template?
This:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/63/1a/27/631a27be9856fc95730b564db8764173.jpg)
Does not look like the mural.
So?
Honestly, I think it's pointless to try and make sense of all this. It's a mess. :D And I love Prometheus.
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 27, 2017, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 08:51:14 PM
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3104f499c2d6a1ca663bc41b6bc87ac1)
Sure looks like an alien to me.
The black goo creates neomorphs/deacons regardless, which they knew about. Thats what the mural is.
Exactly. Anything infected by the Xenovirus mutates into a Alien-like creature.
Quote from: SM on Jul 27, 2017, 10:08:33 PM
So?
So it can't be a template. Templates are general designs, off which something might slightly variate due to certain conditions. The kraken thingy does not even look remotely like the mural, therefore the mural can't be a template to things created by the goo.
Quote from: Evanus on Jul 27, 2017, 10:10:38 PM
Honestly, I think it's pointless to try and make sense of all this. It's a mess. :D And I love Prometheus.
It is a mess, and it doesn't make sense. I like Prometheus as well, but both it and Covenant have more holes than a fishing net.
Is the mural supposed to be a template?
I think (and I believe so did most people) that the mural is supposed to be the alien, hinting that the Engineers knew about them, and it made sense in the context of only having Prometheus. Ridley Scott decided to turn David into the creator of the alien only recently with Covenant, but it doesn't fit with neither Prometheus nor Alien (I'm sure I'm not the first person to mention the fossilized space jockey in Alien, implying the ship being stuck on LV-426 for thousands of years, which also worked well with Prometheus). Now this shit needs to be explained, and it can't be.
As for the template specifically, it was one of the arguments made to defend it. I'd say it's probably the best one I've yet seen, but it doesn't quite gel with what the goo does either.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 09:54:16 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 27, 2017, 09:50:39 PM
The black too creates variations on a theme present in the mural. The Deacon may have been unique in some attributes because of the circumstances of its birth, but the idea is that the goo combined with any humanoid will create something like the Deacon/xenomorph. Iirc, the future movies would have shown new creatures made from the too infecting other types of organisms other than humanoids. Did you see any of the unused designs for Covenant? They look like they also impregnate their victims, but looked nothing like the humanoid xenomorphs. They swapped out their new monster ideas for old ones because they thought that was what we wanted.
That doesn't make much sense either. The black goo mixed with humans created the Kraken thingy. Only when it impregnated an engineer did you get the Deacon.
Are you really this dense?
Because it was Holloway's mutated sperm that impregnated Shaw.
The black goo and the creatures it spawns is one of those places where I truly truly wished they had gotten somebody to help them make something more coherent. They're making up the stuff as they go along, so a few retcons here and there can't really be avoided, but there's still a lot of unanswered questions and the only way to make complete sense of it is to make up your own headcanon, at least in part. For Awakening they should just ask a random biologist to look at it and see if it makes sense.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 10:38:38 PMthe fossilized space jockey in Alien, implying the ship being stuck on LV-426 for thousands of years, which also worked well with Prometheus
You don't know that. You don't know the age of the Space Jockey. Dallas didn't know it, either. The Jockey is most likely mummified - a process that can take as little as a couple of months. The Jockey could easily be just a decade old.
'Fossilised', you say? in order for something to be
fossilised it needs to be buried for it to turn to stone. Buried. At no time whatsoever has the derelict been buried.
So the whole debate surrounding the age of the SJ is open. Very open.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 27, 2017, 10:46:58 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 10:38:38 PMthe fossilized space jockey in Alien, implying the ship being stuck on LV-426 for thousands of years, which also worked well with Prometheus
You don't know that. You don't know the age of the Space Jockey. Dallas didn't know it, either. The Jockey is most likely mummified - a process that can take as little as a couple of months. The Jockey could easily be just a decade old.
'Fossilised', you say? in order for something to be fossilised it needs to be buried for it to turn to stone. Buried. At no time whatsoever has the derelict been buried.
So the whole debate surrounding the age of the SJ is open. Very open.
-Windebieste.
Not really. The ship is the same model as seen in Prometheus, and that installation is at least 2000 years old according to carbon data.
It's similar but not the same. Derelict is U-shaped and smaller than the Juggernaut.
Mural might be an Alien, or it might be a Deacon.
Jockey might be fossilised, or it might not.
There's too many unknowns to be definitive.
I'm pretty sure fossilization requires being buried in the ground. Kind of a weak point of argument to begin with.
Quote from: SM on Jul 27, 2017, 11:04:10 PM
It's similar but not the same. Derelict is U-shaped and smaller than the Juggernaut.
This:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--7v4e3f2V--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/17piq0c5b8q0ajpg.jpg)
Is the same as this:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OIYGhuDgHA8/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote from: SM on Jul 27, 2017, 11:04:10 PM
Mural might be an Alien, or it might be a Deacon.
Jockey might be fossilised, or it might not.
The mural might be an Alien or it might be a general template, if a sensible argument can be built around that idea. It can't be a Deacon.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 11:13:38 PM
Space Jockey is fossilized because there's no data to contradict it.
wew lad
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 27, 2017, 11:15:34 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 11:13:38 PM
Space Jockey is fossilized because there's no data to contradict it.
wew lad
Yeah, I thought about it a little, and perhaps being fossilized per se is a stretch. I'll admit that much.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 11:13:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 27, 2017, 11:04:10 PM
It's similar but not the same. Derelict is U-shaped and smaller than the Juggernaut.
This:
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--7v4e3f2V--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/17piq0c5b8q0ajpg.jpg)
Is the same as this:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OIYGhuDgHA8/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote from: SM on Jul 27, 2017, 11:04:10 PM
Mural might be an Alien, or it might be a Deacon.
Jockey might be fossilised, or it might not.
The mural might be an Alien or it might be a general template, if a sensible argument can be built around that idea. It can't be a Deacon.
QuoteThere's too many unknowns to be definitive.
And the ships are not the same. I've pointed out how, but since you appear to have a penchant for either avoidance or ignoring, I expect this too will continue to fall on deaf ears.
The way I rationalise everything is that is doesn't matter what the process is, the end result is always the same. If it's goo, if it's eggs, if it's huggers or Krakens the end result is always a dome headed creature formed from the body of a host.
Fifield further confirms this since he looked to be mutating into one of these morphs. The Engineers have to have seen many forms of creatures that share similar blue prints which would explain the mural.
David just made his flavour taste different.
Riddles suggests that Fifield's head would eventually explode like the Engineer head did.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 10:49:03 PM
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 27, 2017, 10:46:58 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 27, 2017, 10:38:38 PMthe fossilized space jockey in Alien, implying the ship being stuck on LV-426 for thousands of years, which also worked well with Prometheus
You don't know that. You don't know the age of the Space Jockey. Dallas didn't know it, either. The Jockey is most likely mummified - a process that can take as little as a couple of months. The Jockey could easily be just a decade old.
'Fossilised', you say? in order for something to be fossilised it needs to be buried for it to turn to stone. Buried. At no time whatsoever has the derelict been buried.
So the whole debate surrounding the age of the SJ is open. Very open.
-Windebieste.
Not really. The ship is the same model as seen in Prometheus, and that installation is at least 2000 years old according to carbon data.
Yet we've witnessed 2 instances, the Juggernaut and the Dreadnought, since then where these ships have flown.
...and crashed.
The possibility of the Derelict being a decade or so old is as possible as it being 2000 years old at this point. There are no at least 3 Derelict ships in the 'ALIEN' Universe. As for the one appearing in 'ALIEN', we still don't know if it was crashed - or landed there,
deliberately. Which opens up all kinds of speculation. Including, the Warning is Bait.
Which does make me think, any transmission needs a power source. The chances of it still being functional after 2000 years is kinda slim compared to something much more recent.
-Windebieste
Quote from: SM on Jul 28, 2017, 12:48:01 AM
Riddles suggests that Fifield's head would eventually explode like the Engineer head did.
Well I supposed it depends the dosage then.
Something had to have burst out the pile of the Engineers with holes in their chest and ran about killing them all since that's established as a fact in the movie. I think also three of the four Engineer pods have holes in them right ( or am I making that up?).
So regardless of human/egg infection, if you spill the goo on stuff - it makes Aliens....somehow. Either the trilobite step isn't needed or trilobites can be formed out of other creatures.
Yeah the hypersleep chambers have holes that look suspiciously like chestbursters.
I'm pretty sure the mural depicts a deacon. Engineers and humans have the same genetics so it's not a stretch to assume that engineers had knowledge of it. It has the pointy head, the fleshy body, and lacks the dorsal and tail. Of course we could argue that the dorsal and tail aren't seen because of the perspective, but it also lacks thee bio-mechanical features of the xenomorph. David being the creator doesn't contradict anything we've seen in the movies thus far other than AVP ( which isn't canon ). The space jockey being fossilized is speculation from a character who hasn't even had time to take in the situation he's found himself in. I agree with Windbeastie that it looks mummified. The ship might very well be over 2000 years old seeing as how it's most likely built by the engineers. There are far too many holes in the narrative for us to pinpoint with any accuracy just what is going on between Covenant and Alien. So far nothing has contradicted anything ( as far as I can tell ). I think a lot of this stuff is open for speculation and open to interpretation. Ridley likes it that way.
I'm not really a fan of the backwards Engineering that goes on to justify the Space Jockey age. It's pretty clear though Ridley dug a hole, then made it deeper with Davids creation. It would all be a bit silly if we never found out if he could get out of that hole.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 28, 2017, 03:02:30 AM
I'm not really a fan of the backwards Engineering that goes on to justify the Space Jockey age. It's pretty clear though Ridley dug a hole, then made it deeper with Davids creation. It would all be a bit silly if we never found out if he could get out of that hole.
That's a huge reason why I'm disappointed that Covenant's box office was lackluster. I was really looking forward to seeing how they connect Covenant to Alien.
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 28, 2017, 04:54:03 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 28, 2017, 03:02:30 AM
I'm not really a fan of the backwards Engineering that goes on to justify the Space Jockey age. It's pretty clear though Ridley dug a hole, then made it deeper with Davids creation. It would all be a bit silly if we never found out if he could get out of that hole.
That's a huge reason why I'm disappointed that Covenant's box office was lackluster. I was really looking forward to seeing how they connect Covenant to Alien.
I can't see how it would be anything other than David making the eggs on the Derelict. If it does end here, then we're just going to have to assume that's what happened.
If dumbasses in the Alien community..universe..would follow these 4 simple rules everyone would be happy..even the idiots who will disagree..
1. Smart awesome story & dialogue (If someone with an IQ over 8 would have seen Alien Covenant in the editing room, he'd have quickly suggested redoing almost 80% of the movie).
2. It must have smart creepy terror scenes in it. If it doesn't it will fail, just like every other after Aliens. Prometheus had a bit.
3. Aliens should look like the Alien. Why does every movie have to have a different design? Makes you scratch your head.
4. Location: Old rusty spaceships, space stations, bases and outposts on other planet. Basically anything that does not look like Earth.
That's it, if those 4 elements are present in every Alien movie they'd probably do great.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 28, 2017, 12:59:34 AM
Yet we've witnessed 2 instances, the Juggernaut and the Dreadnought, since then where these ships have flown.
...and crashed.
Yes, but 2 of those 3 are taken from the same 2000 year old "weapons facility" in LV-223. There's a pretty clear established pattern here.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 28, 2017, 12:59:34 AM
The possibility of the Derelict being a decade or so old is as possible as it being 2000 years old at this point. There are no at least 3 Derelict ships in the 'ALIEN' Universe. As for the one appearing in 'ALIEN', we still don't know if it was crashed - or landed there, deliberately. Which opens up all kinds of speculation. Including, the Warning is Bait.
It seems pretty obvious that it crashed, due to the way it was found and due to the pilot being dead.
Quote from: windebieste on Jul 28, 2017, 12:59:34 AM
Which does make me think, any transmission needs a power source. The chances of it still being functional after 2000 years is kinda slim compared to something much more recent.
-Windebieste
Well again, both ships taken from the LV-223 installation are fully functional. One of them literally sends out a transmission to the Covenant crew. Only way for it to be a recent ship is if Ridley Scott implies that the Engineers haven't been advancing the tech of their vehicles this entire time.
Quote from: Nostromo on Jul 28, 2017, 10:45:13 AM
If dumbasses in the Alien community..universe..would follow these 4 simple rules everyone would be happy..even the idiots who will disagree..
1. Smart awesome story & dialogue (If someone with an IQ over 8 would have seen Alien Covenant in the editing room, he'd have quickly suggested redoing almost 80% of the movie).
2. It must have smart creepy terror scenes in it. If it doesn't it will fail, just like every other after Aliens. Prometheus had a bit.
This kind of touches on well developed characters as well. If your characters aren't developed, their dialogue wouldn't work, and the audience will also not care about them being killed. If the audience doesn't care about a character and its survivability, there's no horror to the horror scene. Horror only works when applied on something that connects with the audience on an emotional level, otherwise you might as well have a film about an alien brutalizing dumpsters.
Quote from: Nostromo on Jul 28, 2017, 10:45:13 AM
3. Aliens should look like the Alien. Why does every movie have to have a different design? Makes you scratch your head.
This annoys me as well, but I can sort of see why they keep doing that. They want to expand on the current lore. I just think it would have been simpler if they just left the alien as-is, and focused on the lore surrounding it. In the original film, you had a crew of humans unintentionally encountering an alien who carried another alien as cargo. That in itself implied a huge alien universe that can be further explored. That's why I think Ridley Scott originally had the right idea with exploring the space jockey; he just went about it all wrong by tying everything to humanity. With the Engineers being genetic relatives and with the alien being David's creation, you no longer have aliens in your Alien franchise.
*sigh* wottafukhedtoomuchlol
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Nostromo on Jul 28, 2017, 10:45:13 AM
If dumbasses in the Alien community..universe..would follow these 4 simple rules everyone would be happy..even the idiots who will disagree..
1. Smart awesome story & dialogue (If someone with an IQ over 8 would have seen Alien Covenant in the editing room, he'd have quickly suggested redoing almost 80% of the movie).
2. It must have smart creepy terror scenes in it. If it doesn't it will fail, just like every other after Aliens. Prometheus had a bit.
3. Aliens should look like the Alien. Why does every movie have to have a different design? Makes you scratch your head.
4. Location: Old rusty spaceships, space stations, bases and outposts on other planet. Basically anything that does not look like Earth.
That's it, if those 4 elements are present in every Alien movie they'd probably do great.
HURR I WANT EVERY ALIEN MOVIE TO BE LIKE ALIEN ISOLATION IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE AN IDIOT - the post.
Isolation would make a nice movie though...
Quote from: Nostromo on Jul 28, 2017, 10:45:13 AM
If dumbasses in the Alien community..universe..would follow these 4 simple rules everyone would be happy..even the idiots who will disagree..
1. Smart awesome story & dialogue (If someone with an IQ over 8 would have seen Alien Covenant in the editing room, he'd have quickly suggested redoing almost 80% of the movie).
2. It must have smart creepy terror scenes in it. If it doesn't it will fail, just like every other after Aliens. Prometheus had a bit.
3. Aliens should look like the Alien. Why does every movie have to have a different design? Makes you scratch your head.
4. Location: Old rusty spaceships, space stations, bases and outposts on other planet. Basically anything that does not look like Earth.
That's it, if those 4 elements are present in every Alien movie they'd probably do great.
Agreed.
Rosenthal was still indoors and relatively nearby the others. It's not like she went strolling alone outside among the deadgineers at night. Now that would have been a full blown horror cliche. Also, David was not some total stranger. They knew he was from the crew of the Prometheus; a supposed ally.
Prometheus and Covenant are not irreconcilable with the introduction of David as the progenitor of the Alien, and I think Covenant should be commended for how it addressed the effects of the accelerant without getting bogged down or making things worse. It certainly did a better job of explaining it than Prometheus did.
I think it will be at least a year or two down the road before Fox has serious considerations on a sequel to Covenant due to the lackluster performance at the B.O. It would be entertaining to see what happens next, though I'd be content if Covenant ends up being the last of the prequels.
Quote from: Predaker on Jul 28, 2017, 03:46:09 PM
Rosenthal was still indoors and relatively nearby the others. It's not like she went strolling alone outside among the deadgineers at night. Now that would have been a full blown horror cliche. Also, David was not some total stranger. They knew he was from the crew of the Prometheus; a supposed ally.
He assured them it's safe plus at that moment I was still kind of trusting David as a member of an audience.
Compare that to Elgyn in Resurrection. I didn't have problem with the way Rosenthal died actually.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 28, 2017, 05:02:57 PM
He assured them it's safe plus at that moment I was still kind of trusting David as a member of an audience.
Why?
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b4vHkr_-_OM/WRSffg2pZoI/AAAAAAAACVw/fTo7h51Dpzk6Rd6yjpCxQ1BUu1ImXcRpQCLcB/s1600/Prometheus%2B-%2BContaminated%2BDrink.jpg)
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 05:52:47 PM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 28, 2017, 05:02:57 PM
He assured them it's safe plus at that moment I was still kind of trusting David as a member of an audience.
Why?
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b4vHkr_-_OM/WRSffg2pZoI/AAAAAAAACVw/fTo7h51Dpzk6Rd6yjpCxQ1BUu1ImXcRpQCLcB/s1600/Prometheus%2B-%2BContaminated%2BDrink.jpg)
I didn't take that as being outright evil, I took it as a playful android being curious and letting it overtake him. He might have been something of a classic villain in Covenant but in Prometheus he was much more nuanced. Not that I think Prometheus was a better film, but that's my take.
He literally infects a fellow crewmember just to see what would happen. I just don't understand.
His motives are pretty ambiguous in Prometheus. He's clearly curious but also still following Weylands instructions. Holloway did kinda give him the go ahead as well.
Quote from: Nostromo on Jul 28, 2017, 10:45:13 AM
If dumbasses in the Alien community..universe..would follow these 4 simple rules everyone would be happy..even the idiots who will disagree..
1. Smart awesome story & dialogue (If someone with an IQ over 8 would have seen Alien Covenant in the editing room, he'd have quickly suggested redoing almost 80% of the movie).
So 80% of AVPGalaxy are 'dumbasses' and with an IQ below 8? Why do you Ridley haters insist on speaking for everyone when you evidently don't? Just stop.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:09:20 PM
His motives are pretty ambiguous in Prometheus. He's clearly curious but also still following Weylands instructions. Holloway did kinda give him the go ahead as well.
Holloway had no idea he was "giving him the go ahead". How is that a justification for anything?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:09:20 PM
His motives are pretty ambiguous in Prometheus. He's clearly curious but also still following Weylands instructions. Holloway did kinda give him the go ahead as well.
Holloway had no idea he was "giving him the go ahead". How is that a justification for anything?
David got triggered by Holloway's consistent spite of him as well...everybody gets triggered, even the most composed person.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:09:20 PM
His motives are pretty ambiguous in Prometheus. He's clearly curious but also still following Weylands instructions. Holloway did kinda give him the go ahead as well.
Holloway had no idea he was "giving him the go ahead". How is that a justification for anything?
His "anything and everything" line. David gave him what he asked for, with both barrels. Whether that's justifiable is a different question but Holloway gets what he deserves if you ask me.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 28, 2017, 06:22:09 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:09:20 PM
His motives are pretty ambiguous in Prometheus. He's clearly curious but also still following Weylands instructions. Holloway did kinda give him the go ahead as well.
Holloway had no idea he was "giving him the go ahead". How is that a justification for anything?
David got triggered by Holloway's consistent spite of him as well...everybody gets triggered, even the most composed person.
So someone who poisons people when offended is trustworthy?
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:23:29 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:09:20 PM
His motives are pretty ambiguous in Prometheus. He's clearly curious but also still following Weylands instructions. Holloway did kinda give him the go ahead as well.
Holloway had no idea he was "giving him the go ahead". How is that a justification for anything?
His "anything and everything" line. David gave him what he asked for, with both barrels. Whether that's justifiable is a different question but Holloway gets what he deserves if you ask me.
I know what you meant. There was no sequence of David asking Holloway if he'll be willing to drink a foreign chemical just to see what effects it would have on his body and Holloway saying 'yeah, sure'. Answering to a 'what will you be willing to do' question with an 'everything' type of answer is a figuritive answer, not a literal one. It just indicates that he really wants answers. David basically poisons him without his consent. I don't understand why this even needs to be explained.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Jul 28, 2017, 06:22:09 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:09:20 PM
His motives are pretty ambiguous in Prometheus. He's clearly curious but also still following Weylands instructions. Holloway did kinda give him the go ahead as well.
Holloway had no idea he was "giving him the go ahead". How is that a justification for anything?
David got triggered by Holloway's consistent spite of him as well...everybody gets triggered, even the most composed person.
So someone who poisons people when offended is trustworthy?
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:23:29 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 06:18:10 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:09:20 PM
His motives are pretty ambiguous in Prometheus. He's clearly curious but also still following Weylands instructions. Holloway did kinda give him the go ahead as well.
Holloway had no idea he was "giving him the go ahead". How is that a justification for anything?
His "anything and everything" line. David gave him what he asked for, with both barrels. Whether that's justifiable is a different question but Holloway gets what he deserves if you ask me.
I know what you meant. There was no sequence of David asking Holloway if he'll be willing to drink a foreign chemical just to see what effects it would have on his body and Holloway saying 'yeah, sure'. Answering to a 'what will you be willing to do' question with an 'everything' type of answer is a figuritive answer, not a literal one. It just indicates that he really wants answers. David basically poisons him without his consent. I don't understand why this even needs to be explained.
That's ironic cause neither do I. In davids view holloways line justifies his actions is what I mean, obviously he doesn't literally ask to be poisoned.
And he deserves it cause he's a massive predjudiced dick.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:34:31 PM
That's ironic cause neither do I. In davids view holloways line justifies his actions is what I mean, obviously he doesn't literally ask to be poisoned.
And he deserves it cause he's a massive predjudiced dick.
I'm confused, are you not arguing that David was trustworthy in Prometheus? How does poisoning people make you trustworthy, regardless of who you poison? That action alone is literally a betrayal of trust.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 06:38:50 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 06:34:31 PM
That's ironic cause neither do I. In davids view holloways line justifies his actions is what I mean, obviously he doesn't literally ask to be poisoned.
And he deserves it cause he's a massive predjudiced dick.
I'm confused, are you not arguing that David was trustworthy in Prometheus? How does poisoning people make you trustworthy, regardless of who you poison? That action alone is literally a betrayal of trust.
I'm saying his motives aren't clear. Is he just following weylands bidding or acting on his own instincts? Did he just do that to Holloway because he was unpleasant or would any human be fair game?
He did also save Shaws life twice during the film.
None of the characters in the film are aware they may not be able to trust him. Same goes for Covenant until he goes bat-shit crazy.
Regardless of why he did what he did, the action alone warrants lack of trust.
As for Covenant, him being a stranger warrants lack of trust from all of the characters. Lack of trust towards strangers is like, survival 101. Is there a single person on this forum who hasn't been told by his parents to not talk to strangers when they were a child?
Yes they did, but then I grew up. As an adult I'm not scared of strangers anymore.
And if I was brought into a world containing trustworthy androids, I'd have no reason to think one wasn't trustworthy. Especially when that android had just rescued me.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 07:13:31 PM
Yes they did, but then I grew up. As an adult I'm not scared of strangers anymore.
Would you trust a stranger with your life? Really?
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 07:13:31 PM
And if I was brought into a world containing trustworthy androids, I'd have no reason to think one wasn't trustworthy. Especially when that android had just rescued me.
But even the characters of Covenant don't exist in such a world. Walter tells us that David's model was so messed up they had to tone him down. He "disturbed people", apparently.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 07:18:54 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 07:13:31 PM
Yes they did, but then I grew up. As an adult I'm not scared of strangers anymore.
Would you trust a stranger with your life? Really?
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 07:13:31 PM
And if I was brought into a world containing trustworthy androids, I'd have no reason to think one wasn't trustworthy. Especially when that android had just rescued me.
But even the characters of Covenant don't exist in such a world. Walter tells us that David's model was so messed up they had to tone him down. He "disturbed people", apparently.
If I had no other options then yes.
Disturbed people can mean a lot of things.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 07:24:49 PM
If I had no other options then yes.
That's not trust; That's making the best out of your situation. I have no problem with it, and I don't think neither does anyone else who criticizes the naivety of the characters in the film.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 07:24:49 PM
Disturbed people can mean a lot of things.
Not trust inducing things, I hope.
'Hi, my name is Oram and I trust David when he tells me Engineerville is safe because he disturbs me'.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 07:29:26 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 07:24:49 PM
If I had no other options then yes.
That's not trust; That's making the best out of your situation. I have no problem with it, and I don't think neither does anyone else who criticizes the naivety of the characters in the film.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 28, 2017, 07:24:49 PM
Disturbed people can mean a lot of things.
Not trust inducing things, I hope.
'Hi, my name is Oram and I trust David when he tells me Engineerville is safe because he disturbs me'.
Ok I'm gonna just leave it at this point. I have no interest in just arguing for arguments sake.
So going back to the mural discussion, I found a good image of the full mural, and it's clear that the mural shows the alien. It basically features its full lifecycle:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alien-covenant.com%2Faliencovenant_uploads%2Ftumblr_mbdxaprhm91qd09yko1_500_zpsf50f0c473.jpg&hash=8cd0eb3181cbc687eb01438518d041e99df4f0f8)
You have two facehuggers at the bottom right and left of the mural, the grown alien itself at the center and the queen above it.
Those are early facehugger concepts and the creature has a pointed head like a Deacon.
david has Walters face ..........
pretty sure they trust the face that's been watching over them for their journey .
That and he brought them to safety from the Neomorph.
Quote from: SM on Jul 28, 2017, 08:37:24 PM
Those are early facehugger concepts and the creature has a pointed head like a Deacon.
Deacon has no queen, and his "facehugger" version is not only bigger than a head - it's bigger than the Deacon.
Quote from: prometheusfire08 on Jul 28, 2017, 08:50:15 PM
david has Walters face ..........
pretty sure they trust the face that's been watching over them for their journey .
Quote from: SM on Jul 28, 2017, 09:30:54 PM
That and he brought them to safety from the Neomorph.
You know how in Alien:Resurrection they had this really heated debate about whether they should let Cole stick around with them once they find out she's a synthetic because she's part of a line that posed danger to people? And you know how that debate takes place right after Cole saves them all by opening the door? And mind you, they actually "knew" Cole because she spent a significant amount of time with them?
Alien:Resurrection understands character motivations better than Covenant.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 08:03:10 PM
So going back to the mural discussion, I found a good image of the full mural, and it's clear that the mural shows the alien. It basically features its full lifecycle:
http://www.alien-covenant.com/aliencovenant_uploads/tumblr_mbdxaprhm91qd09yko1_500_zpsf50f0c473.jpg
You have two facehuggers at the bottom right and left of the mural, the grown alien itself at the center and the queen above it.
Is that even shown in the movie? The whole mural.
It's shown in the movie, but some parts are difficult to see.
This is how it appears in the movie:
(https://tubgoat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/12-06-13-prometheus-muralxeno1.jpg)
You can't really see the facehuggers there. Some parts around the head also look different. I'm wondering if the movie version has been slightly altered from the other version.
Nah, it's the same mural. The facehugger is difficult to see because of shadows and stuff (I didn't even know it was there until I saw the other mural picture), but it's definitely there. If you focus on the place it's supposed to be, you'll be able to notice its tail and legs (better look at the one to the left, as you can only see the tail of the one that's to the right).
It's facehugger.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3tzV7.jpg&hash=2c3285c21514973e3859eb822d42145be8ad617c)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/3fee64d5d956f59a57598656df0106ab/tumblr_mnwf9t7eDp1sroz4fo1_500.jpg)
At first i was like, what the hell. Then i thought its kinda important cause if these huggers are visible in the actual film, it would put the whole David the creator debate to an an end?
edit: plus the whole thing is kinda resembling an egg, so yea everything pointing to an original Alien for me here.
I honestly don't even think that the lack of consistency with previous films is the biggest sin of David being the creator of the alien.
Its biggest sin is that it sets the alien as something that's man-made, meaning it's about as "alien" as a toaster oven at this point. You can even argue for the toaster oven to be more alien, cause the alien was achieved via manipulation of Shaw's DNA.
So you know how in 1979 they released a film called "Alien"? The title is wrong; it's not an alien.
Time travel. The mural clearly depicts Elden.
(https://i2.wp.com/www.comiccrusaders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Prometheus_FS_Omega_insert.png)
:laugh:
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 10:19:10 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 28, 2017, 08:37:24 PM
Those are early facehugger concepts and the creature has a pointed head like a Deacon.
Deacon has no queen, and his "facehugger" version is not only bigger than a head - it's bigger than the Deacon.
Quote from: prometheusfire08 on Jul 28, 2017, 08:50:15 PM
david has Walters face ..........
pretty sure they trust the face that's been watching over them for their journey .
Quote from: SM on Jul 28, 2017, 09:30:54 PM
That and he brought them to safety from the Neomorph.
You know how in Alien:Resurrection they had this really heated debate about whether they should let Cole stick around with them once they find out she's a synthetic because she's part of a line that posed danger to people? And you know how that debate takes place right after Cole saves them all by opening the door? And mind you, they actually "knew" Cole because she spent a significant amount of time with them?
Alien:Resurrection understands character motivations better than Covenant.
There is no such scene in Resurrection.
Cole was in Covenant. Call was in Resurrection.
Quote from: SM on Jul 28, 2017, 12:48:01 AM
Riddles suggests that Fifield's head would eventually explode like the Engineer head did.
Is this from the commentary track or can I find in interviews?
The mural for me seems to be more symbolic rather than an accurate depiction of the Alien. It's not something that I've ever referred to for answers. We already know huggers and Aliens exist without David.
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Jul 28, 2017, 11:34:20 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 28, 2017, 12:48:01 AM
Riddles suggests that Fifield's head would eventually explode like the Engineer head did.
Is this from the commentary track or can I find in interviews?
Commentary I think, but can't be sure.
Quote from: SM on Jul 28, 2017, 11:30:36 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 10:19:10 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 28, 2017, 08:37:24 PM
Those are early facehugger concepts and the creature has a pointed head like a Deacon.
Deacon has no queen, and his "facehugger" version is not only bigger than a head - it's bigger than the Deacon.
Quote from: prometheusfire08 on Jul 28, 2017, 08:50:15 PM
david has Walters face ..........
pretty sure they trust the face that's been watching over them for their journey .
Quote from: SM on Jul 28, 2017, 09:30:54 PM
That and he brought them to safety from the Neomorph.
You know how in Alien:Resurrection they had this really heated debate about whether they should let Cole stick around with them once they find out she's a synthetic because she's part of a line that posed danger to people? And you know how that debate takes place right after Cole saves them all by opening the door? And mind you, they actually "knew" Cole because she spent a significant amount of time with them?
Alien:Resurrection understands character motivations better than Covenant.
There is no such scene in Resurrection.
Cole was in Covenant. Call was in Resurrection.
An hour 20 into the film. Distefano talks about how she's an Auton, a robot designed by robots against whom the government issued a recall order. I just got the names wrong.
No you got the entire conversation wrong.
They find out Call is a robot, Distephano and Johner are shocked and surprised, Vriess is sad, Purvis says 'can we go now' and it's decided that Call will connect up Father.
There's no debate about letting Call stick around.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 28, 2017, 11:35:21 PM
The mural for me seems to be more symbolic rather than an accurate depiction of the Alien. It's not something that I've ever referred to for answers. We already know huggers and Aliens exist without David.
Its an inworld entity though. And its outright stating David invented Jacksht. Not even Ridley can palaver this whole continuity mess away unless theyre in for some kind of supertwist lol.
Or it's simply a Deacon...
The whole thing looks like a gigantic egg. ::)
Small facehuggers etc. etc.
Its obviously portraying the cycle David will later "invent"...
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 28, 2017, 11:56:59 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 28, 2017, 11:35:21 PM
The mural for me seems to be more symbolic rather than an accurate depiction of the Alien. It's not something that I've ever referred to for answers. We already know huggers and Aliens exist without David.
Its an inworld entity though. And its outright stating David invented Jacksht. Not even Ridley can palaver this whole continuity mess away unless theyre in for some kind of supertwist lol.
David didn't invent the Alien, he made his version of it. I don't really like it anymore than the next fella, but it is what it is. The more important question would be what came first - The goo or the egg. I don't think we will ever find that one out.
I think there are other questions though, like what's the point of the hugger stage if it's simply to deliver the black goo inside of a host when it can apparently do that itself.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 29, 2017, 12:10:04 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 28, 2017, 11:56:59 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 28, 2017, 11:35:21 PM
The mural for me seems to be more symbolic rather than an accurate depiction of the Alien. It's not something that I've ever referred to for answers. We already know huggers and Aliens exist without David.
Its an inworld entity though. And its outright stating David invented Jacksht. Not even Ridley can palaver this whole continuity mess away unless theyre in for some kind of supertwist lol.
David didn't invent the Alien, he made his version of it. I don't really like it anymore than the next fella, but it is what it is. The more important question would be what came first - The goo or the egg. I don't think we will ever find that one out.
I think there are other questions though, like what's the point of the hugger stage if it's simply to deliver the black goo inside of a host when it can apparently do that itself.
It just doesnt make any sense for me. Why would the engineers place a big egg mural in a room full of ampules we later see have nothing to do with the whole hugger cycle (see the bombing in Covenant).
Then David comes around and designs exactly this egg, with exactly this cycle that is being portrayed on that mural. like wtf wtf where is this going
He 'learned their ways'.
Is there a chesterburster on the mural?
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 12:27:02 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 29, 2017, 12:10:04 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 28, 2017, 11:56:59 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 28, 2017, 11:35:21 PM
The mural for me seems to be more symbolic rather than an accurate depiction of the Alien. It's not something that I've ever referred to for answers. We already know huggers and Aliens exist without David.
Its an inworld entity though. And its outright stating David invented Jacksht. Not even Ridley can palaver this whole continuity mess away unless theyre in for some kind of supertwist lol.
David didn't invent the Alien, he made his version of it. I don't really like it anymore than the next fella, but it is what it is. The more important question would be what came first - The goo or the egg. I don't think we will ever find that one out.
I think there are other questions though, like what's the point of the hugger stage if it's simply to deliver the black goo inside of a host when it can apparently do that itself.
It just doesnt make any sense for me. Why would the engineers place a big egg mural in a room full of ampules we later see have nothing to do with the whole hugger cycle (see the bombing in Covenant).
Then David comes around and designs exactly this egg, with exactly this cycle that is being portrayed on that mural. like wtf wtf where is this going
I don't think it has any significance to the story though. I think they just stick it in the film without any real thought process behind its implications. Even if we do get a sequel I doubt the mural would be explained because the film makers don't even know what it means.
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 12:31:56 AM
He 'learned their ways'.
Is there a chesterburster on the mural?
Is the upside down figure at the bottom birthing in some way? Might just be my eyes.
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 12:31:56 AM
He 'learned their ways'.
Is there a chesterburster on the mural?
Well there is one actually happening in Prometheus so...
And yes he learned their ways but he also deeply despises them. So would he be satisfied by just replicating what they invented aeons ago? Maybe David actually is just a lying nutjob of a machine, that would explain something at least, but i doubt that is Scotts actual direction.
QuoteI don't think it has any significance to the story though. I think they just stick it in the film without any real thought process behind its implications. Even if we do get a sequel I doubt the mural would be explained because the film makers don't even know what it means.
Ja this pretty much, i fear. And then they come around asking fans what went wrong, this is just ridiculous...
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 12:27:02 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 29, 2017, 12:10:04 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 28, 2017, 11:56:59 PM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 28, 2017, 11:35:21 PM
The mural for me seems to be more symbolic rather than an accurate depiction of the Alien. It's not something that I've ever referred to for answers. We already know huggers and Aliens exist without David.
Its an inworld entity though. And its outright stating David invented Jacksht. Not even Ridley can palaver this whole continuity mess away unless theyre in for some kind of supertwist lol.
David didn't invent the Alien, he made his version of it. I don't really like it anymore than the next fella, but it is what it is. The more important question would be what came first - The goo or the egg. I don't think we will ever find that one out.
I think there are other questions though, like what's the point of the hugger stage if it's simply to deliver the black goo inside of a host when it can apparently do that itself.
It just doesnt make any sense for me. Why would the engineers place a big egg mural in a room full of ampules we later see have nothing to do with the whole hugger cycle (see the bombing in Covenant).
Then David comes around and designs exactly this egg, with exactly this cycle that is being portrayed on that mural. like wtf wtf where is this going
Best I can come up with is that this is what happens -
The Engineers bomb the planet with the black liquid which attacks all living animals in the vicinity killing them instantly. The black liquid then infects the breeding process of these animals which results in egg like pods which eject more creatures to infected further areas. The resulting creatures then either kill off the remaining life forms or use them for hosts which also results in death.
So in a nutshell the Black liquid is just a giant virus that starts at one location then spreads throughout the planet killing everything alive by initially shocking that one area then mutating into other life forms to finish the rest of the planet.
I guess the only thing we haven't seen yet is just how the Engineers clean up the Planet (if they even care?) once this has happened.
I agree though that in reality Scott and Co don't know what it does and we've just got to make up stuff like this. Perhaps there was a time when he had a clearer idea and it got changed for whatever reason.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 29, 2017, 12:10:04 AM
David didn't invent the Alien, he made his version of it. I don't really like it anymore than the next fella, but it is what it is.
David did create the alien according to Covenant. There's no going around that (skip to 3:26):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo30bZc10D0&t=3m26s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo30bZc10D0&t=3m26s)
Quote from: Highland on Jul 29, 2017, 12:10:04 AM
I think there are other questions though, like what's the point of the hugger stage if it's simply to deliver the black goo inside of a host when it can apparently do that itself.
There is no point, it's all one big incoherent mess. If the alien is supposed to be a bioweapon, the goo is more efficient at its job by both being airborn and skipping the facehugger stage entirely; If the alien is supposed to be imperfect at this stage of the series (and it is), it still seems more efficient than the alien we see in later films: Grows practically before your eyes; facehugger no longer even needs to properly facehug, but can make do with a simple 'love tap' (as was the case with Lope), chestburster already comes out with its limbs instead of needing to grow them over time.
QuoteWell there is one actually happening in Prometheus so...
That wasn't the question. Is there one in the mural? I can't see one but maybe I missed it.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 27, 2017, 11:07:19 PM
I'm pretty sure fossilization requires being buried in the ground. Kind of a weak point of argument to begin with.
A fossil is a stone, its natures equivalent of a death cast - organic matter is engulfed in mud or sediment, rots away and the space where the body was fills with other mud or sediment of a different type. You get a stone copy of the original but nothing of the original. The Space Jockey cannot be a fossil, even if it looks like one to Dallas's eyes.
Paranoid Android still believes we are not aware of his disdain for Covenant.
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 01:03:29 AM
Paranoid Android still believes we are not aware of his disdain for Covenant.
If you truly think so, you're lagging behind the conversation by like, 15 pages.
Quote from: Nostromo on Jul 28, 2017, 10:45:13 AM
If dumbasses in the Alien community..universe..would follow these 4 simple rules everyone would be happy..even the idiots who will disagree..
1. Smart awesome story & dialogue (If someone with an IQ over 8 would have seen Alien Covenant in the editing room, he'd have quickly suggested redoing almost 80% of the movie).
2. It must have smart creepy terror scenes in it. If it doesn't it will fail, just like every other after Aliens. Prometheus had a bit.
3. Aliens should look like the Alien. Why does every movie have to have a different design? Makes you scratch your head.
4. Location: Old rusty spaceships, space stations, bases and outposts on other planet. Basically anything that does not look like Earth.
That's it, if those 4 elements are present in every Alien movie they'd probably do great.
Hmmm, given the quality of this reasoning I'd just settle for a mental age over 8.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 01:09:35 AM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 01:03:29 AM
Paranoid Android still believes we are not aware of his disdain for Covenant.
If you truly think so, you're lagging behind the conversation by like, 15 pages.
We're all waiting for another fifteen pages of you repeating the same thing. Carry on, bud. :laugh:
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 01:03:29 AM
Paranoid Android still believes we are not aware of his disdain for Covenant.
That's because he's so subtle
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 01:02:55 AM
QuoteWell there is one actually happening in Prometheus so...
That wasn't the question. Is there one in the mural? I can't see one but maybe I missed it.
Dont see one. Hugging means bursting is heavily implied by Prometheus is what i meant.
QuoteThe Engineers bomb the planet with the black liquid which attacks all living animals in the vicinity killing them instantly. The black liquid then infects the breeding process of these animals which results in egg like pods which eject more creatures to infected further areas.
Its interesting to think about what the one ship from Prometheus would actually do when reaching earth. Drop it on some heavily populated areas and then what? Some individuals that didnt die there but somehow ingested it would then produce giant squid hugger who would run around huggin deacon etc?
Is there an actual point behind saying I hate the film (which I stated several times by now)?
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:15:13 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 01:02:55 AM
QuoteWell there is one actually happening in Prometheus so...
That wasn't the question. Is there one in the mural? I can't see one but maybe I missed it.
Dont see one. Hugging means bursting is heavily implied by Prometheus is what i meant.
So it's not the 'exact' cycle.
(I thought perhaps there was a trilobite in the background though)
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.
Can we stick to the ideas and avoid judging personalities.
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 01:19:28 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:15:13 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 01:02:55 AM
QuoteWell there is one actually happening in Prometheus so...
That wasn't the question. Is there one in the mural? I can't see one but maybe I missed it.
Dont see one. Hugging means bursting is heavily implied by Prometheus is what i meant.
So it's not the 'exact' cycle.
(I thought perhaps there was a trilobite in the background though)
The chestburster and mature alien are basically the same thing, unlike the facehugger which dies once its duty is fulfilled, and the queen, which is a different version of the grown alien.
It's still not the "exact" cycle if it's missing a step. Gigers pyramid art was closer in that regard.
True, but I don't think it was meant to display the exact lifecycle as in a biological chart, but rather simply depict the creature in an artistic way to imply the engineers were aware of it. It is a mural, after all.
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 01:19:28 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:15:13 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 01:02:55 AM
QuoteWell there is one actually happening in Prometheus so...
That wasn't the question. Is there one in the mural? I can't see one but maybe I missed it.
Dont see one. Hugging means bursting is heavily implied by Prometheus is what i meant.
So it's not the 'exact' cycle.
(I thought perhaps there was a trilobite in the background though)
Ja sure, i mean theres no connection between the small huggers and the egg either (no jumping out like in Gigers mural)... If there actually were a trilobite it would be kind of redundant though, no ? (then again thats the case with Gigers mural) The problem for me here is there is no egg being shown in Prometheus but then suddenly David uses this kind of egg, with this exact "little" huggers and "creates" something that is looking quite like the thing at the center of this mural (torso legs, ja youre right the dome looks more deaconesque [then again, perspective?] but for me thats about it in that moral that points to the deacon cycle, while a lot of other stuff looks way more Alien).
What is that at the bottom of mural? I can see a head and a torso with out stretched arms or am I imagining it?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 11:11:01 PM
I honestly don't even think that the lack of consistency with previous films is the biggest sin of David being the creator of the alien.
Its biggest sin is that it sets the alien as something that's man-made, meaning it's about as "alien" as a toaster oven at this point. You can even argue for the toaster oven to be more alien, cause the alien was achieved via manipulation of Shaw's DNA.
So you know how in 1979 they released a film called "Alien"? The title is wrong; it's not an alien.
There's no sin. The Alien's life-cycle and compatibility with humans CLEARLY indicates that it is something that has been manufactured. In fact, the prequels make this make much more sense, as you wouldn't expect an alien organism to be compatible with humans just like that.
Regarding the title, that comes down to personal opinion. Does it bother me that the Xenomorph isn't some ancient mysterious Alien that evolved on its own on some dark and evil Alien-homeworld? No.
As far as the mural goes, the facehuggers shown could be some other type of proto face-hugger and not the specific facehugger engineered by David. After all, his arrogance rivals his intellect and he may not be as inventive as he believes. Most likely though it's just a retcon, which personally doesn't bother me because Prometheus was a very messy movie full of loose ends that could never be threaded together coherently. This is how they went for it, I like it, I think others would too if relieved their bias a little bit. After all, David still uses arcane Engineer technology to accomplish his creation.
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.
Why bother with posts like these? All I've seen you post since coming back here is pot shots at members who have different tastes than you do.
QuoteDavid did create the alien according to Covenant. There's no going around that (skip to 3:26)
David created the Xenomorph. The Deacon and presumably Alien like creatures were running around aeons before David was involved. When I say Alien, I'm not talking about the actual Alien from Aliens. I agree he did create that, at least according to the movie.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 29, 2017, 01:37:52 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 11:11:01 PM
I honestly don't even think that the lack of consistency with previous films is the biggest sin of David being the creator of the alien.
Its biggest sin is that it sets the alien as something that's man-made, meaning it's about as "alien" as a toaster oven at this point. You can even argue for the toaster oven to be more alien, cause the alien was achieved via manipulation of Shaw's DNA.
So you know how in 1979 they released a film called "Alien"? The title is wrong; it's not an alien.
There's no sin. The Alien's life-cycle and compatibility with humans CLEARLY indicates that it is something that has been manufactured. In fact, the prequels make this make much more sense, as you wouldn't expect an alien organism to be compatible with humans just like that.
Regarding the title goes, that comes down to personal opinion. Does it bother me that the Xenomorph isn't some ancient mysterious Alien that evolved on its own on some dark and evil Alien-homeworld? No.
As far as the mural goes, the facehuggers shown could be some other type of proto face-hugger and not the specific facehugger engineered by David. After all, his arrogance rivals his intellect and he may not be as inventive as he believes. Most likely though it's just a retcon, which personally doesn't bother me because Prometheus was a very messy movie full of loose ends that could never be threaded together coherently. This is how they went for it, I like it, I think others would too if relieved their bias a little bit. After all, David still uses arcane Engineer technology to accomplish his creation.
If it doesn't bother you, to each his own, I guess. I personally want the aliens in my Alien films to be alien.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:35:13 AM
What is that at the bottom of mural? I can see a head and a torso with out stretched arms or am I imagining it?
I dont see it sorry, under the feet of the Alien/deacon? All i see there are two "egg"-shaped things i first thought might be the eggs where the huggers are supposed to jump out... but i doubt it.
SM, trilobite you mean the top structure?
David is no more evil for his designs on the alien than Giger was for designing and building the Space Jockey.
Burn it!
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 01:42:10 AM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 29, 2017, 01:37:52 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 11:11:01 PM
I honestly don't even think that the lack of consistency with previous films is the biggest sin of David being the creator of the alien.
Its biggest sin is that it sets the alien as something that's man-made, meaning it's about as "alien" as a toaster oven at this point. You can even argue for the toaster oven to be more alien, cause the alien was achieved via manipulation of Shaw's DNA.
So you know how in 1979 they released a film called "Alien"? The title is wrong; it's not an alien.
There's no sin. The Alien's life-cycle and compatibility with humans CLEARLY indicates that it is something that has been manufactured. In fact, the prequels make this make much more sense, as you wouldn't expect an alien organism to be compatible with humans just like that.
Regarding the title goes, that comes down to personal opinion. Does it bother me that the Xenomorph isn't some ancient mysterious Alien that evolved on its own on some dark and evil Alien-homeworld? No.
As far as the mural goes, the facehuggers shown could be some other type of proto face-hugger and not the specific facehugger engineered by David. After all, his arrogance rivals his intellect and he may not be as inventive as he believes. Most likely though it's just a retcon, which personally doesn't bother me because Prometheus was a very messy movie full of loose ends that could never be threaded together coherently. This is how they went for it, I like it, I think others would too if relieved their bias a little bit. After all, David still uses arcane Engineer technology to accomplish his creation.
If it doesn't bother you, to each his own, I guess. I personally want the aliens in my Alien films to be alien.
Well, that's kinda my point. The alien in Alien didn't really seem that alien to begin with, given it's anthropomorphic body-plan, life-cycle and host specificity. Truly alien aliens in sci-fi are extremely rare.
Weyland had a stick up his arse after hearing David question why he serves his creator, when he'll outlive him.
David shouldn't exist in the state that he's in, because he's too human. As explained by Walter. Too disturbing n' what not.
The xenomorph, as David creates it, REALLY shouldn't exist because its creator built it from madness. It's unpredictable nature has not been damaged, nor has the queen/hive cycle.
David uses the Engineers tech to create the alien. So it really doesn't matter what is specifically on the mural.
To boot we know David gets things wrong, as clearly stated in Covenant.
The Alien is his ultimate wrong.
Either found in deep space, or created by David, the alien is the same entity that we know and love.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:44:58 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:35:13 AM
What is that at the bottom of mural? I can see a head and a torso with out stretched arms or am I imagining it?
I dont see it sorry, under the feet of the Alien/deacon? All i see there are two "egg"-shaped things i first thought might be the eggs where the huggers are supposed to jump out... but i doubt it.
Yeah it's probably an egg. It's pretty late, tired eyes.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 29, 2017, 01:49:09 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 01:42:10 AM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 29, 2017, 01:37:52 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 28, 2017, 11:11:01 PM
I honestly don't even think that the lack of consistency with previous films is the biggest sin of David being the creator of the alien.
Its biggest sin is that it sets the alien as something that's man-made, meaning it's about as "alien" as a toaster oven at this point. You can even argue for the toaster oven to be more alien, cause the alien was achieved via manipulation of Shaw's DNA.
So you know how in 1979 they released a film called "Alien"? The title is wrong; it's not an alien.
There's no sin. The Alien's life-cycle and compatibility with humans CLEARLY indicates that it is something that has been manufactured. In fact, the prequels make this make much more sense, as you wouldn't expect an alien organism to be compatible with humans just like that.
Regarding the title goes, that comes down to personal opinion. Does it bother me that the Xenomorph isn't some ancient mysterious Alien that evolved on its own on some dark and evil Alien-homeworld? No.
As far as the mural goes, the facehuggers shown could be some other type of proto face-hugger and not the specific facehugger engineered by David. After all, his arrogance rivals his intellect and he may not be as inventive as he believes. Most likely though it's just a retcon, which personally doesn't bother me because Prometheus was a very messy movie full of loose ends that could never be threaded together coherently. This is how they went for it, I like it, I think others would too if relieved their bias a little bit. After all, David still uses arcane Engineer technology to accomplish his creation.
If it doesn't bother you, to each his own, I guess. I personally want the aliens in my Alien films to be alien.
Well, that's kinda my point. The alien in Alien didn't really seem that alien to begin with, given it's anthropomorphic body-plan, life-cycle and host specificity. Truly alien aliens in sci-fi are extremely rare.
The Alien takes it blue print from the host. I don't think that's a very sound reason to think it's not Alien.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:51:07 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:44:58 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:35:13 AM
What is that at the bottom of mural? I can see a head and a torso with out stretched arms or am I imagining it?
I dont see it sorry, under the feet of the Alien/deacon? All i see there are two "egg"-shaped things i first thought might be the eggs where the huggers are supposed to jump out... but i doubt it.
Yeah it's probably an egg. It's pretty late, tired eyes.
Either way in this mural the Alien/deacon whatever is kinda "ascending" saintlike from the hugging process mess "underneath" it which i actually find cooler than in Gigers mural.
edit: lol i just realised there actually is no full grown Alien in Gigers mural. :o
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:55:44 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:51:07 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:44:58 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:35:13 AM
What is that at the bottom of mural? I can see a head and a torso with out stretched arms or am I imagining it?
I dont see it sorry, under the feet of the Alien/deacon? All i see there are two "egg"-shaped things i first thought might be the eggs where the huggers are supposed to jump out... but i doubt it.
Yeah it's probably an egg. It's pretty late, tired eyes.
Either way in this mural the Alien/deacon whatever is kinda "ascending" saintlike from the hugging process mess which i actually find cooler than in Gigers mural.
It reminds me of the Brett cut scenes when the Alien strikes a Jesus Christ pose
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:57:57 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:55:44 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:51:07 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:44:58 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:35:13 AM
What is that at the bottom of mural? I can see a head and a torso with out stretched arms or am I imagining it?
I dont see it sorry, under the feet of the Alien/deacon? All i see there are two "egg"-shaped things i first thought might be the eggs where the huggers are supposed to jump out... but i doubt it.
Yeah it's probably an egg. It's pretty late, tired eyes.
Either way in this mural the Alien/deacon whatever is kinda "ascending" saintlike from the hugging process mess which i actually find cooler than in Gigers mural.
It reminds me of the Brett cut scenes when the Alien strikes a Jesus Christ pose
Oh wow, rrrrrrrrrright. Totally forgot about that one. Mindblown thxxx
I just watched it on youtube, im not sure whats cut and whats not but the Alien touching, almost caressing Bretts head at first heavily reminds of the engineer touching David in Prometheus. And same outcome!
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 02:02:58 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:57:57 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:55:44 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:51:07 AM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 01:44:58 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:35:13 AM
What is that at the bottom of mural? I can see a head and a torso with out stretched arms or am I imagining it?
I dont see it sorry, under the feet of the Alien/deacon? All i see there are two "egg"-shaped things i first thought might be the eggs where the huggers are supposed to jump out... but i doubt it.
Yeah it's probably an egg. It's pretty late, tired eyes.
Either way in this mural the Alien/deacon whatever is kinda "ascending" saintlike from the hugging process mess which i actually find cooler than in Gigers mural.
It reminds me of the Brett cut scenes when the Alien strikes a Jesus Christ pose
Oh wow, rrrrrrrrrright. Totally forgot about that one. Mindblown thxxx
You're welcome. I have my moments, they're just rare.
I even got one that made the cut. ;D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Fbrowbeat%2F2012%2F06%2F08%2FAlienAirLock4.gif.CROP.original-original.gif&hash=76c17b1bc5dd84b97c168c567ffa58e63c16b939)
Spearstick into the side. Its kinda lacking the majestically floating part though. So yours is better.
If it is a Deacon in the mural there's no reason to think that it can't make it's own eggs which could explain away the egg. I'm assuming egg morphing has to be real now otherwise Davids Xeno has no life cycle.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 29, 2017, 02:28:28 AM
If it is a Deacon in the mural there's no reason to think that it can't make it's own eggs which could explain away the egg. I'm assuming egg morphing has to be real now otherwise Davids Xeno has no life cycle.
Maybe a morphing aspect is portrayed in this one?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm1.paperblog.com%2Fi%2F143%2F1431272%2Fexplicacion-prometheus-20-L-061joy.jpeg&hash=b5a5d981fd9bc58c48cb3ba9a9ad50f914b3bdfd)
With that pose its kinda preforming an egg.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:35:13 AM
What is that at the bottom of mural? I can see a head and a torso with out stretched arms or am I imagining it?
I can see a head but not arms. Head looks a little like this guy.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.eternalvigilance.me%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fgiger_necro041.jpg&hash=93dc64862030e42fa5d9b6703c558af362edd6ef)
Lol. See you there, Mr. Giger!
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 02:27:15 AM
I even got one that made the cut. ;D
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2012/06/08/AlienAirLock4.gif.CROP.original-original.gif
Spearstick into the side. Its kinda lacking the majestically floating part though. So yours is better.
I never understood how she closes the door with the harpoon wire in the way.
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 02:42:17 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:35:13 AM
What is that at the bottom of mural? I can see a head and a torso with out stretched arms or am I imagining it?
I can see a head but not arms. Head looks a little like this guy.
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/giger_necro041.jpg
Is it Baphomet? or Samael?
Baphomet I think.
You see... this is exactly why ALL Alien/AVP fans should have strongly supported Covenant regardless of how they wanted or not another Prequel film. You see... had Covenant been a success, FOX may have made deals for even more films related to the Alien franchise. ::)
Hell, I bet that if Covenant had made a billion dollars even the Blomkamp Alien 5 film or more AVP films would have been a possibility.
This is why I watched Covenant like 3 times in a row. I knew the film needed to be a very big success since the beginning for the franchise to continue.
Too bad it wasn't like that in the end... Now everything is ruined.
Great job guise... :'(
So people who watched it - and therefore supported it with their money - should watch it again even if they didn't like it?
Quote from: Kronnang_Dunn on Jul 29, 2017, 08:11:54 AM
You see... this is exactly why ALL Alien/AVP fans should have strongly supported Covenan
What about Predator fans.
But why would I want them to make more movies if I don't like the ones they're making already ???
Because shut up.
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 08:19:26 AM
So people who watched it - and therefore supported it with their money - should watch it again even if they didn't like it?
My gut reaction is to say "yes, so long as you are a fan of the franchise as a whole, support it." So many people just don't get that it isn't about seeing the next "prequel" it's about having the franchise thrive as a whole. But yeah, rarely do people think that far and honestly they shouldn't have to.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 29, 2017, 08:54:43 AM
But why would I want them to make more movies if I don't like the ones they're making already ???
Because you can't get good movies from the dispenser if the valve is shut.
Quote from: Kurai on Jul 29, 2017, 12:39:30 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 29, 2017, 08:19:26 AM
So people who watched it - and therefore supported it with their money - should watch it again even if they didn't like it?
My gut reaction is to say "yes, so long as you are a fan of the franchise as a whole, support it." So many people just don't get that it isn't about seeing the next "prequel" it's about having the franchise thrive as a whole. But yeah, rarely do people think that far and honestly they shouldn't have to.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 29, 2017, 08:54:43 AM
But why would I want them to make more movies if I don't like the ones they're making already ???
Because you can't get good movies from the dispenser if the valve is shut.
What incentive does the film industry have to produce good Alien films if I'm supporting the terrible ones? By giving such films money, I'm letting the industry know that I want more of what I'm getting. I don't want more of what I'm getting. I don't even want half of what I got so far.
We've been doing just fine. We get books, comics, games, statues, figures, movies on a pretty regular basis.
We will still get more stuff because it's not like they just closed the Alien universe into a 20 year time period or anything.....
Shit.
Anyway,according to the polls on here the majority of fans did like it. It's the general cinema goer who didn't go and see it. Not enough of them anyway.
The majority of fans on this site. It does not equal the majority of fans. If the majority of fans liked the film (which, let's face it, consist of the majority of people who saw it on opening week), it would've got good word of mouth. It got bad word of mouth, dropped like a rock on its second week and pretty much vanished from theaters within a month.
So did Terminator Genisys. They're making another one if not a new trilogy. So did the Ghostbusters reboot. Ivan Reitman says they're making more. There will be more Alien, guys.
There will be more Alien... but not Prometheus. :'(
Of course they will make more. We are living in the 'do you remember it?' age of Hollywood, when movies are made on brand recognition alone and are more concerned with shoving as much fan service as they can into the film than with writing a good story. In a world where studios invest money into the making of such fabulous brands as Chips and Baywatch, there's no question of whether someone will make a new Alien film - a brand that might not be Star Wars, but still a pop culture icon. Only question is what type of Alien film will they make and when.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 01:36:52 PM
The majority of fans on this site. It does not equal the majority of fans. If the majority of fans liked the film (which, let's face it, consist of the majority of people who saw it on opening week), it would've got good word of mouth. It got bad word of mouth, dropped like a rock on its second week and pretty much vanished from theaters within a month.
Not just on this site. Most of the polls on other fansites ive seen were pretty positive as well. Also the reviews were generally positive. Just because it didnt do great at the box office doesnt mean its a bad film, by that reasoning a lot of great films would be considered bad. Its been a tough year at the box office for a lot of films, good and bad. Also people of a negative opinion on anything are generally much more vocal, makes it seem like the film is more hated when its not.
Edit- just as an example the poll at Xenopedia is overwhelming positive.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Jul 29, 2017, 02:03:08 PM
Not just on this site. Most of the polls on other fansites ive seen were pretty positive as well. Also the reviews were generally positive. Just because it didnt do great at the box office doesnt mean its a bad film, by that reasoning a lot of great films would be considered bad. Its been a tough year at the box office for a lot of films, good and bad. Also people of a negative opinion on anything are generally much more vocal, makes it seem like the film is more hated when its not.
I think you missed my point about the poll. It's not about which site do you check the polls for, it's about checking polls of fan sites to begin with. Most of the fans of any movie don't even bother with fan sites. People that join fan sites are usually a vocal minority that doesn't settle with simply liking a film - they want to discuss it with others.
As for it being a tough year at the box office, which good films based on recognizable brands didn't do well at the box office this year?
People pointed out that Alien:Covenant didn't do well because it's a quality film, and quality films don't sell well (apparently). Well, let's pit the smart sfi-fi that is Alien:Covenant vs another smart sci-fi film such as Arrival:
Arrival had a good up and coming director in the form of Denis Villeneuve (who I would've personally liked to see behind the next Alien film), but, while impressive, he's not at Ridley Scott status yet; Arrival was made on half of Covenant's budget, so visuals should favor Covenant; Arrival has no brand recognition and as a result has no fan base to push it forward at the box office. Covenant had more marketing working behind it. One film performs well, the other doesn't.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Jul 29, 2017, 02:03:08 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 01:36:52 PM
The majority of fans on this site. It does not equal the majority of fans. If the majority of fans liked the film (which, let's face it, consist of the majority of people who saw it on opening week), it would've got good word of mouth. It got bad word of mouth, dropped like a rock on its second week and pretty much vanished from theaters within a month.
Not just on this site. Most of the polls on other fansites ive seen were pretty positive as well. Also the reviews were generally positive. Just because it didnt do great at the box office doesnt mean its a bad film, by that reasoning a lot of great films would be considered bad. Its been a tough year at the box office for a lot of films, good and bad. Also people of a negative opinion on anything are generally much more vocal, makes it seem like the film is more hated when its not.
Edit- just as an example the poll at Xenopedia is overwhelming positive.
Plus the fans on here are a representation of fans across the board. I would have thought the same percentages would be reflected on most fan sites. Not everyone likes it and that's fine but it can't just be ignored that many do.
As much as I loved Arrival, it only made 203 mil at the BO. It was hardly a huge success.
BO numbers on the whole are dropping off
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 02:21:13 PM
BO numbers on the whole are dropping off
That's not true, box office numbers as a whole are consistently on the rise:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
There's almost too many movies come out now. There's a big ticket item every couple of months and older folk generally don't go to the movies that often. $250-300 mil is probably realistic. Prometheus had a lot more going for it.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 29, 2017, 02:34:48 PM
There's almost too many movies come out now. There's a big ticket item every couple of months and older folk generally don't go to the movies that often. $250-300 mil is probably realistic. Prometheus had a lot more going for it.
This is it, especially with super hero movies dominating. These are regarded as must see movies when people need to pick and choose.
Obviously better reviews and word of mouth would have increased covenants return but not hugely I would have thought.
Maybe a smaller budget is the way to go.
They made an ALIEN movie in Ghana Africa if Neil Blomkamp isn't available anymore.
The "ALIEN" appears at the 1.00 mark if you are impatient.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUV1IbA0i54 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUV1IbA0i54)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxwPTuh3QEM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxwPTuh3QEM)
Word of mouth goes a long way. Wonder Woman, while being a comic book film, was originally seen as a film with a high probability to fail simply because it was a DC movie. Due to word of mouth of it actually being a good film (and it was), it dominated the box office for months and beat the box office numbers of Batman vs Superman (which received bad word of mouth) - clearly much bigger brands.
Wonder Woman is a different kettle of fish altogether. Look at the publicity they got when insiders were coming out saying it was a total disaster-in-the-making. Then, lo and behold, it was actually a good movie as well as being Wondy's first solo outing, and the public patronized. And look where
Covenant was. Sandwiched in between two tent poles.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 02:31:07 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 02:21:13 PM
BO numbers on the whole are dropping off
That's not true, box office numbers as a whole are consistently on the rise:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
So are ticket prices. Plus, all of those movies I see on there from the last few years except
American Sniper have either been superhero movies or Disney movies like
Beauty and the Beast or juggernauts like
Star Wars.
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 29, 2017, 03:01:02 PM
Wonder Woman is a different kettle of fish altogether. Look at the publicity they got when insiders were coming out saying it was a total disaster-in-the-making. Then, lo and behold, it was actually a good movie as well as being Wondy's first solo outing, and the public patronized. And look where Covenant was. Sandwiched in between two tent poles.
The news about it being a disaster-in-the-making came out a good couple of months before the film's release. By the release date, the wind shifted drastically. Covenant was actually in a good spot with its release date because its demographic is not the same as the people who would go to see Wonder Woman. It offered a good alternative.
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 29, 2017, 03:01:02 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 02:31:07 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 02:21:13 PM
BO numbers on the whole are dropping off
That's not true, box office numbers as a whole are consistently on the rise:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
So are ticket prices. Plus, all of those movies I see on there from the last few years except American Sniper have either been superhero movies or Disney movies like Beauty and the Beast or juggernauts like Star Wars.
That's not the point; The point is you can't argue for box office numbers to go down when they go up. And again, while Alien: Covenant is no Star Wars, let's not pretend like it isn't in itself a big brand that wasn't on everybody's most anticipated lists at the beginning of the year.
So? It was still before the movie came out.
It was before the movie was done. When the movie was done, people were praising it.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 03:05:52 PM
The news about it being a disaster-in-the-making came out a good couple of months before the film's release. By the release date, the wind shifted drastically. Covenant was actually in a good spot with its release date because its demographic is not the same as the people who would go to see Wonder Woman. It offered a good alternative.
I think it was a terrible time to release it. Friends of mine didn't get to see it because they had to shell out to take the kids to see other films and couldn't afford to see Covenant too. It's £50 easy to take the kids to the cinema.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 03:10:32 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 03:05:52 PM
The news about it being a disaster-in-the-making came out a good couple of months before the film's release. By the release date, the wind shifted drastically. Covenant was actually in a good spot with its release date because its demographic is not the same as the people who would go to see Wonder Woman. It offered a good alternative.
I think it was a terrible time to release it. Friends of mine didn't get to see it because they had to shell out to take the kids to see other films and couldn't afford to see Covenant too. It's £50 easy to take the kids to the cinema.
It was a
horrible time. They should have released it in October closer to Halloween. Maybe they were trying to avoid
Blade Runner?
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 29, 2017, 03:15:45 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 03:10:32 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 03:05:52 PM
The news about it being a disaster-in-the-making came out a good couple of months before the film's release. By the release date, the wind shifted drastically. Covenant was actually in a good spot with its release date because its demographic is not the same as the people who would go to see Wonder Woman. It offered a good alternative.
I think it was a terrible time to release it. Friends of mine didn't get to see it because they had to shell out to take the kids to see other films and couldn't afford to see Covenant too. It's £50 easy to take the kids to the cinema.
It was a horrible time. They should have released it in October closer to Halloween. Maybe they were trying to avoid Blade Runner?
Definitely would have been better. You could be right about blade runner though
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 03:10:32 PM
I think it was a terrible time to release it. Friends of mine didn't get to see it because they had to shell out to take the kids to see other films and couldn't afford to see Covenant too. It's £50 easy to take the kids to the cinema.
I'm sure that's an issue, but this sort of thing is an issue all year round. You have good movies coming out practically every month. Summertime is when movies draw the biggest crowd though, so it's the best time to maximize your profits. Covenant was a highly anticipated film that, had it been good, would've provided a good alternative for people who were looking for something other than a dumb comic book movie. I don't think it would've done well in October because that's the start of Oscar season, meaning your film has to compete with other films that are aimed at the same demographic (people looking for a smart films). Had it been released in October, I think it would've done even worse.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 03:10:32 PM
I think it was a terrible time to release it. Friends of mine didn't get to see it because they had to shell out to take the kids to see other films and couldn't afford to see Covenant too. It's £50 easy to take the kids to the cinema.
I'm sure that's an issue, but this sort of thing is an issue all year round. You have good movies coming out practically every month. Summertime is when movies draw the biggest crowd though, so it's the best time to maximize your profits. Covenant was a highly anticipated film that, had it been good, would've provided a good alternative for people who were looking for something other than a dumb comic book movie. I don't think it would've done well in October because that's the start of Oscar season, meaning your film has to compete with other films that are aimed at the same demographic (people looking for a smart films). Had it been released in October, I think it would've done even worse.
October is horror season not oscar season.
And oscar season films are not aimed at the same demographic as Alien movies, not even close.
Or Jigsaw, which comes out in October.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 03:10:32 PM
I think it was a terrible time to release it. Friends of mine didn't get to see it because they had to shell out to take the kids to see other films and couldn't afford to see Covenant too. It's £50 easy to take the kids to the cinema.
I'm sure that's an issue, but this sort of thing is an issue all year round. You have good movies coming out practically every month. Summertime is when movies draw the biggest crowd though, so it's the best time to maximize your profits. Covenant was a highly anticipated film that, had it been good, would've provided a good alternative for people who were looking for something other than a dumb comic book movie. I don't think it would've done well in October because that's the start of Oscar season, meaning your film has to compete with other films that are aimed at the same demographic (people looking for a smart films). Had it been released in October, I think it would've done even worse.
Look at this guy pretending Guardians of the Galaxy, Wonder Woman, and Pirates of the Caribbean didn't have a negative impact on Covenant's BO returns.
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 29, 2017, 03:27:00 PM
Or Jigsaw, which comes out in October.
Jigsaw, Annabelle, It, and The Snowman are all coming out in August-October (they're all going to do well), which is traditionally when horror films come out (and do well). Apparently Paranoid Android knows otherwise better than anyone.
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 03:42:10 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 03:22:14 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 03:10:32 PM
I think it was a terrible time to release it. Friends of mine didn't get to see it because they had to shell out to take the kids to see other films and couldn't afford to see Covenant too. It's £50 easy to take the kids to the cinema.
I'm sure that's an issue, but this sort of thing is an issue all year round. You have good movies coming out practically every month. Summertime is when movies draw the biggest crowd though, so it's the best time to maximize your profits. Covenant was a highly anticipated film that, had it been good, would've provided a good alternative for people who were looking for something other than a dumb comic book movie. I don't think it would've done well in October because that's the start of Oscar season, meaning your film has to compete with other films that are aimed at the same demographic (people looking for a smart films). Had it been released in October, I think it would've done even worse.
Look at this guy pretending Guardians of the Galaxy, Wonder Woman, and Pirates of the Caribbean didn't have a negative impact on Covenant's BO returns.
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 29, 2017, 03:27:00 PM
Or Jigsaw, which comes out in October.
Jigsaw, Annabelle, It, and The Snowman are all coming out in August-October (they're all going to do well), which is traditionally when horror films come out (and do well). Apparently Paranoid Android knows otherwise better than anyone.
Maybe they'll do well at the oscars.
If anything else, Covenant underperformed because it was marketed as a fanservice pulse rifle vs. xenomorph movie in a year when franchise fatigue has already reached record highs.
If people prefer to go see a month old release such as Guardians 2 over Alien:Covenant, it says more about the quality of Covenant than anything else.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 04:09:11 PM
If people prefer to go see a month old release such as Guardians 2 over Alien:Covenant, it says more about the quality of Covenant than anything else.
You almost forgot to pretend summer is for Rated R horror films instead of family friendly PG13 blockbusters.
So Blade Runner and The Thing must be terrible films because they bombed at the box office right? And the transformer movies are great films because they do huge numbers at the box office?
You keep trying to say that how well a movie does in theaters reflects on the qaulity of the film itself and thats silly. Im not saying Covenant is an instant classic but saying its a bad film because the masses didn't flock to see it is such a weak argument.
Good movies bomb all the time and bad films shatter records sometimes too.
R rated horror films such as It Comes At Night, which released 2 weeks after Covenant, do well because they're good films. Covenant doesn't do well because of all the reasons in the world except its quality.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 04:19:15 PM
R rated horror films such as It Comes At Night, which released 2 weeks after Covenant, do well because they're good films. Covenant doesn't do well because of all the reasons in the world except its quality.
If Covenant cost $5 million to make like It Comes At Night did, it would have been a massive box office success. Really, you're a shitty troll (since you registered a few days ago) and you should probably just go away.
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 04:21:35 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 04:19:15 PM
R rated horror films such as It Comes At Night, which released 2 weeks after Covenant, do well because they're good films. Covenant doesn't do well because of all the reasons in the world except its quality.
If Covenant cost $5 million to make like It Comes At Night did, it would have been a massive box office success. Really, you're a shitty troll (since you registered a few days ago) and you should probably just go away.
Seriously, is there a mod to these forums who moderates these things?
This is like the third time this person lashes out at me with personal attacks for stating my opinion.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 04:24:25 PM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 04:21:35 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 04:19:15 PM
R rated horror films such as It Comes At Night, which released 2 weeks after Covenant, do well because they're good films. Covenant doesn't do well because of all the reasons in the world except its quality.
If Covenant cost $5 million to make like It Comes At Night did, it would have been a massive box office success. Really, you're a shitty troll (since you registered a few days ago) and you should probably just go away.
Seriously, is there a mod to these forums who moderates these things?
This is like the third time this person lashes out at me with personal attacks for stating my opinion.
You have been nothing but condescending towards anyone here with a dissenting opinion since you registered a few days ago. The irony here is delicious.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 04:19:15 PM
R rated horror films such as It Comes At Night, which released 2 weeks after Covenant, do well because they're good films. Covenant doesn't do well because of all the reasons in the world except its quality.
Whatever you need to tell yourself I guess. Doesn't change the fact that good movies can and do bomb and bad movies often don't, which means box office is not a reliable way to judge a films qaulity, its just common sense. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the film, good or bad, saying its box office numbers prove anything regarding its qaulity is demonstratably false. ::)
Regarding "It Comes at Night", plenty of folks think thats a terrible film too.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 04:19:15 PM
R rated horror films such as It Comes At Night, which released 2 weeks after Covenant, do well because they're good films. Covenant doesn't do well because of all the reasons in the world except its quality.
I didn't like it comes at night and it's only made13 mil so far so must be a bad film by that logic.
But I don't think me not liking it makes it bad, it just means I didn't like it. Nothing more.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 04:49:03 PM
I didn't like it comes at night and it's only made13 mil so far so must be a bad film by that logic.
But I don't think me not liking it makes it bad, it just means I didn't like it. Nothing more.
It Comes At Night made 13 million with a budget of 5 million. It covered the production costs on its opening week. Those are good numbers by all accounts. Covenant didn't even make its budget domestically to this day, and was only just barely saved from being a flop thanks to international box office.
Well, It Comes At Night was marketed as something other than it was, I'll give you that.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 04:54:01 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 04:49:03 PM
I didn't like it comes at night and it's only made13 mil so far so must be a bad film by that logic.
But I don't think me not liking it makes it bad, it just means I didn't like it. Nothing more.
It Comes At Night made 13 million with a budget of 5 million. It covered the production costs on its opening week. Those are good numbers by all accounts. Covenant didn't even make its budget domestically to this day, and was only just barely saved from being a flop thanks to international box office.
That's irrelevant. 13 mil clearly shows it's not pulling in crowds. films that were made for less have been huge hits at the cinema. People are not going to see it, pure and simple.
And it's an international marketplace, it's not just about US BO anymore.
And as previously stated, what about blade runner or the thing, are they bad films?
I'm not saying Covenants a good film because I like it, far from it, it's just my opinion of it and I respect others views who didn't. I don't see why you feel the need to justify you're opinion by ignoring the fact that BO isn't a measure of a films quality.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 05:04:58 PM
And as previously stated, what about blade runner or the thing, are they bad films?
I'm not saying Covenants a good film because I like it, far from it, it's just my opinion of it and I respect others views who didn't. I don't see why you feel the need to justify you're opinion by ignoring the fact that BO isn't a measure of a films quality.
Box office certainly doesn't measure a film's quality.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cult-classics-that-bombed-2016-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/cult-classics-that-bombed-2016-6)
Quote from: Mr. Xenomorph on Jul 29, 2017, 05:13:27 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 05:04:58 PM
And as previously stated, what about blade runner or the thing, are they bad films?
I'm not saying Covenants a good film because I like it, far from it, it's just my opinion of it and I respect others views who didn't. I don't see why you feel the need to justify you're opinion by ignoring the fact that BO isn't a measure of a films quality.
[/.
Box office certainly doesn't measure a film's quality.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cult-classics-that-bombed-2016-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/cult-classics-that-bombed-2016-6)
Wow, so many great films. I love all of them... except maybe the room and troll 2...
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 05:04:58 PM
That's irrelevant. 13 mil clearly shows it's not pulling in crowds. films that were made for less have been huge hits at the cinema. People are not going to see it, pure and simple.
And it's an international marketplace, it's not just about US BO anymore.
And as previously stated, what about blade runner or the thing, are they bad films?
I'm not saying Covenants a good film because I like it, far from it, it's just my opinion of it and I respect others views who didn't. I don't see why you feel the need to justify you're opinion by ignoring the fact that BO isn't a measure of a films quality.
A film does well by measuring how much money it made compared to how much it cost to produce and market. Making 13 million for a small low budget horror film that cost 5 million to make (and by rule of thumb, let's assume 5 more to market) is a pretty nice profit. precentage-wise, compared to Covenant, that's like making 70 million in profit, and this is not even counting the fact that Covenant is part of a franchise, so it's expected to perform better than a movie with no ties to any other franchise.
Blader Runner's original cut was pretty terrible. It included Harrison Ford's terrible narration that is flat out unbearable. We are not talking about the Final Cut that's available today and is regarded a masterpiece. The Thing is indeed one of those few exceptions when a movie under-performs for unexplained reasons but gains popularity later on (Fight Club also comes to mind). But those movies are the exceptions that prove the rule. They are the rare cases.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 05:18:31 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 05:04:58 PM
That's irrelevant. 13 mil clearly shows it's not pulling in crowds. films that were made for less have been huge hits at the cinema. People are not going to see it, pure and simple.
And it's an international marketplace, it's not just about US BO anymore.
And as previously stated, what about blade runner or the thing, are they bad films?
I'm not saying Covenants a good film because I like it, far from it, it's just my opinion of it and I respect others views who didn't. I don't see why you feel the need to justify you're opinion by ignoring the fact that BO isn't a measure of a films quality.
A film does well by measuring how much money it made compared to how much it cost to produce and market. Making 13 million for a small low budget horror film that cost 5 million to make (and by rule of thumb, let's assume 5 more to market) is a pretty nice profit. precentage-wise, compared to Covenant, that's like making 70 million in profit, and this is not even counting the fact that Covenant is part of a franchise, so it's expected to perform better than a movie with no ties to any other franchise.
Blader Runner's original cut was pretty terrible. It included Harrison Ford's terrible narration that is flat out unbearable. We are not talking about the Final Cut that's available today and is regarded a masterpiece. The Thing is indeed one of those few exceptions when a movie under-performs for unexplained reasons but gains popularity later on (Fight Club also comes to mind). But those movies are the exceptions that prove the rule. They are the rare cases.
That's not a measure of popularity though is it. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Take a look at the link from Mr xenomorpth. The thing and blade runner are not isolated cases.
I like loads of films that didn't make large sums of money, makes no difference to how I feel about a film. I also despise a great number of films that did make loads of money, still doesn't make me like them.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 05:26:50 PM
That's not a measure of popularity though is it. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Take a look at the link from Mr xenomorpth. The thing and blade runner are not isolated cases.
I like loads of films that didn't make large sums of money, makes no difference to how I feel about a film. I also despise a great number of films that did make loads of money, still doesn't make me like them.
I did. That's a list comprised of films gathered in the span of decades. Per year, those are pretty isolated cases, and each year you always have one (I can name A Monster Calls from last year, for example). Some films on that list are now popular literally because of how bad they are (such as The Room).
The thing that all of those movies have in common: They are all single entries featuring an original idea that's not tied to any existing franchise or pop culture. They are not your Pirates of the Caribbean's or your Alien:Covenants or your Star Wars. They don't have brand familiarity, large fan base or strong marketing to push them, so sometimes they are overlooked (to the point when even movie critics miss them). When a franchise installment fails, it fails because of its quality, because it means that even the people who support the franchise backed away from it.
Should just move on, he's not going to listen to reason. BO is not an objective measure of qaulity, its a fact.
If it was then Transformers, Fast/Furious, and many other box office smashes would be great films, but they're not.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Jul 29, 2017, 05:35:21 PM
If it was then Transformers, Fast/Furious, and many other box office smashes would be great films, but they're not.
Transformers, Fast/Furious etc. are established franchises that cater to their demographic very well. They won't be winning any Oscars anytime soon, but they give their fans exactly what they want. The quality they produce is the quality that's expected of them.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 05:33:40 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 05:26:50 PM
That's not a measure of popularity though is it. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Take a look at the link from Mr xenomorpth. The thing and blade runner are not isolated cases.
I like loads of films that didn't make large sums of money, makes no difference to how I feel about a film. I also despise a great number of films that did make loads of money, still doesn't make me like them.
I did. That's a list comprised of films gathered in the span of decades. Per year, those are pretty isolated cases, and each year you always have one (I can name A Monster Calls from last year, for example). Some films on that list are now popular literally because of how bad they are (such as The Room).
The thing that all of those movies have in common: They are all single entries featuring an original idea that's not tied to any existing franchise or pop culture. They are not your Pirates of the Caribbean's or your Alien:Covenants or your Star Wars. They don't have brand familiarity, large fan base or strong marketing to push them, so sometimes they are overlooked (to the point when even movie critics miss them). When a franchise installment fails, it fails because of its quality, because it means that even the people who support the franchise backed away from it.
I think you're perception of the Alien 'brand' is popularity is very far from the mark. It's been in decline for years. Prometheus gave it a shot in the arm but it was a massive event movie with Ridley returning to sci fi.
Covenant didn't fail at the BO because the fans didn't turn out, they did. Some may not have liked it but they still went to see it. It's the wider audience that didn't and the reasons for that have all been covered in this thread, you're just choosing to ignore most of those reasons because you, personally, didnt like it.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Jul 29, 2017, 05:35:21 PM
Should just move on, he's not going to listen to reason. BO is not an objective measure of qaulity, its a fact.
If it was then Transformers, Fast/Furious, and many other box office smashes would be great films, but they're not.
You're right, he has a very narrow view of things.
Like I said, best just to move on and agree to disagree. Paranoid is clearly not going to be swayed by reality or facts in this case.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 05:44:02 PM
I think you're perception of the Alien 'brand' is popularity is very far from the mark. It's been in decline for years. Prometheus gave it a shot in the arm but it was a massive event movie with Ridley returning to sci fi.
Covenant didn't fail at the BO because the fans didn't turn out, they did. Some may not have liked it but they still went to see it. It's the wider audience that didn't and the reasons for that have all been covered in this thread, you're just choosing to ignore most of those reasons because you, personally, didnt like it.
I'd say the original hype behind Covenant was larger than the hype behind Prometheus, mainly due to what Alien:Isolation did. That game was the real shot in the arm for the franchise. Alien:Covenant was on the most anticipated lists of every movie outlet out there.
I'm choosing to ignore the reasons covered in this thread because I've been to Youtube. The amount of hate videos released on Covenant is something I haven't seen in years; people posting hour+ videos in which they dissect the film to point out how bad it is; discussions filled with dread and horror about the idea that there might actually be a sequel to this thing in spite of everything; People vocally contemplating if they should even still bother with the franchise. It's bad. Yet here we are, on a fan site, where people who didn't like the film usually wouldn't even visit (cause what's the point), and you guys think the state of affairs here represents the fandom. I don't mind the fact that other people like the film. I would be the biggest hypocrite in the world, seeing as my own film library consists of some pretty controversial picks, but it doesn't make those films less bad and liking Covenant doesn't make it a good film. Its characters alone are reason enough to throw it into the bad films category.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 06:02:32 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 05:44:02 PM
I think you're perception of the Alien 'brand' is popularity is very far from the mark. It's been in decline for years. Prometheus gave it a shot in the arm but it was a massive event movie with Ridley returning to sci fi.
Covenant didn't fail at the BO because the fans didn't turn out, they did. Some may not have liked it but they still went to see it. It's the wider audience that didn't and the reasons for that have all been covered in this thread, you're just choosing to ignore most of those reasons because you, personally, didnt like it.
I'd say the original hype behind Covenant was larger than the hype behind Prometheus, mainly due to what Alien:Isolation did. That game was the real shot in the arm for the franchise. Alien:Covenant was on the most anticipated lists of every movie outlet out there.
I'm choosing to ignore the reasons covered in this thread because I've been to Youtube. The amount of hate videos released on Covenant is something I haven't seen in years; people posting hour+ videos in which they dissect the film to point out how bad it is; discussions filled with dread and horror about the idea that there might actually be a sequel to this thing in spite of everything; People vocally contemplating if they should even still bother with the franchise. It's bad. Yet here we are, on a fan site, where people who didn't like the film usually wouldn't even visit (cause what's the point), and you guys think the state of affairs here represents the fandom. I don't mind the fact that other people like the film. I would be the biggest hypocrite in the world, seeing as my own film library consists of some pretty controversial picks, but it doesn't make those films less bad and liking Covenant doesn't make it a good film. Its characters alone are reason enough to throw it into the bad films category.
Ah yes, you tube is always a good place to start if you're after a balanced view.
I like the characters so I must be an idiot who likes 'bad' things.
It gives a more balanced view than a fan site, to be honest. Youtube is a place where people gather to upload and watch videos. It contains all sorts of opinions. Fan sites are places where people gather with a built-in positive view on on a subject, making them biased by design.
You liking the characters doesn't make you an idiot; that's just you taking criticism of the film personally. I said it before and I'll repeat myself again: I have nothing against you as a person; I am not talking about you as a person; I am talking about a film, not about you.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 06:16:16 PM
It gives a more balanced view than a fan site, to be honest. Youtube is a place where people gather to upload and watch videos. It contains all sorts of opinions. Fan sites are places where people gather with a built-in positive view on on a subject, making them biased by design.
You liking the characters doesn't make you an idiot; that's just you taking criticism of the film personally. I said it before and I'll repeat myself again: I have nothing against you as a person; I am not talking about you as a person; I am talking about a film, not about you.
Ok so you tell me why I like the film and characters when it's all so bad? Why do you think that is? Is it because I'm biased, stupid or just blind to what you and the you tubers can see?
I don't know why you like the film. I don't think it's my place to assume, either. You tell me why you like the film. In previous posts you agreed with me that the characters are underdeveloped, so there's that.
Covenant was Ridley Scott's lowest grossing sci-fi movie, even lower than Blade Runner.
I think Alien fans need to accept that this brand is on decline and has been since the first sequel, Aliens.
Prometheus and The Martian made more money because audiences are hungry for great sci-fi movies and Scott had the best track record of any director since Kubrick in that genre. Prometheus delivered what sci-fi fans wanted just not what Alien fans wanted.
The next Alien movies will almost certainly make less than Covenant. No Alien sequel, no matter how good, has succeeded in reversing the downward trend art the box office. This is not about quality: this is about what audiences want to see. Every time they make an Alien movie, more people lose interest in the series.
Prometheus was the right direction. The only question is whether its sequel would have done better than Covenant. I think, especially in hindsight, they should have stuck to their guns and made Prometheus 2. Or, at the very least, made another standalone sci-fi movie with Ridley Scott directing. Until Covenant, Scott had a perfect track record in that genre. It is the Alien franchise itself that harmed this movie at the box office. It was not something the broader audience wanted to see. They know of for a fact, now, that this trend will continue downwards no matter what. They should have made Prometheus 2 or The Forever War, or something else that would have been more fresh to audiences than a fifth Alien movie. Scott can knock it out of the park if they unshackle him from the Alien brand.
It's really too bad that they listened to the minority opinion that disliked Prometheus. They ruined what was potentially a more profitable and interesting franchise and gained absolutely nothing from it. It's kind of tragic that the epic potential of Prometheus was spoiled by fans of a franchise that has been in decline for thirty years.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 06:32:14 PM
I don't know why you like the film. I don't think it's my place to assume, either. You tell me why you like the film. In previous posts you agreed with me that the characters are underdeveloped, so there's that.
Err, that's not true at all. Some of the characters are under developed yes but no more so than in any other Alien film. This is because they are present to move the plot forward and that's normal for any genre film.
I never said they were all underdeveloped.
I'll tell you why I like the film and why you dont: because it's subjective, Its purely down to personal opinion and taste and has nothing to do with quality.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 29, 2017, 06:36:36 PM
Covenant was Ridley Scott's lowest grossing sci-fi movie, even lower than Blade Runner.
Bullshit: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bladerunner.htm
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 04:54:01 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 04:49:03 PM
I didn't like it comes at night and it's only made13 mil so far so must be a bad film by that logic.
Covenant didn't even make its budget domestically to this day, and was only just barely saved from being a flop thanks to international box office.
Pffft, biased much?
I just don't understand the hate on this film. It's all first-impression and word of mouth-driven angst. But if you sit down and watch the film, or re-watch it, is it really THAT bad? Not even close.
In fact, if you sit down and watch it, and study it, there's as much to like as Prometheus. Different content, within, but it's as rich in literary allusions as Prometheus was symbolism. A rich film that picky eaters of a divide franchise turn their noses up at.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 29, 2017, 06:57:38 PM
I just don't understand the hate on this film. It's all first-impression and word of mouth-driven angst. But if you sit down and watch the film, or re-watch it, is it really THAT bad? Not even close.
In fact, if you sit down and watch it, and study it, there's as much to like as Prometheus. Different content, within, but it's as rich in literary allusions as Prometheus was symbolism. A rich film that picky eaters of a divide franchise turn their noses up at.
I think it's richer than Prometheus personally. I found Prometheus a little hollow.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 29, 2017, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 04:54:01 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 04:49:03 PM
I didn't like it comes at night and it's only made13 mil so far so must be a bad film by that logic.
Covenant didn't even make its budget domestically to this day, and was only just barely saved from being a flop thanks to international box office.
Pffft, biased much?
Not really:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=alienparadiselost.htm
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 06:39:55 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 06:32:14 PM
I don't know why you like the film. I don't think it's my place to assume, either. You tell me why you like the film. In previous posts you agreed with me that the characters are underdeveloped, so there's that.
Err, that's not true at all. Some of the characters are under developed yes but no more so than in any other Alien film. This is because they are present to move the plot forward and that's normal for any genre film.
I never said they were all underdeveloped.
I'll tell you why I like the film and why you dont: because it's subjective, Its purely down to personal opinion and taste and has nothing to do with quality.
You said that most of them were underdeveloped and gave Oram as the exception, as a response to a post I wrote in which I posted that Oram has the most going for him out of the new cast, though even he doesn't have much. So yeah, we do kinda agree on that.
As for it all being subjective and nothing to do with quality, there's a pretty general consensus that Alien and Aliens are the best films in the series by far (with some people adding Alien 3 to the mix as well). Clearly those movies have some type of quality that newer entries lack.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 29, 2017, 06:36:36 PM
Covenant was Ridley Scott's lowest grossing sci-fi movie, even lower than Blade Runner.
I think Alien fans need to accept that this brand is on decline and has been since the first sequel, Aliens.
Prometheus and The Martian made more money because audiences are hungry for great sci-fi movies and Scott had the best track record of any director since Kubrick in that genre. Prometheus delivered what sci-fi fans wanted just not what Alien fans wanted.
The next Alien movies will almost certainly make less than Covenant. No Alien sequel, no matter how good, has succeeded in reversing the downward trend art the box office. This is not about quality: this is about what audiences want to see. Every time they make an Alien movie, more people lose interest in the series.
Prometheus was the right direction. The only question is whether its sequel would have done better than Covenant. I think, especially in hindsight, they should have stuck to their guns and made Prometheus 2. Or, at the very least, made another standalone sci-fi movie with Ridley Scott directing. Until Covenant, Scott had a perfect track record in that genre. It is the Alien franchise itself that harmed this movie at the box office. It was not something the broader audience wanted to see. They know of for a fact, now, that this trend will continue downwards no matter what. They should have made Prometheus 2 or The Forever War, or something else that would have been more fresh to audiences than a fifth Alien movie. Scott can knock it out of the park if they unshackle him from the Alien brand.
It's really too bad that they listened to the minority opinion that disliked Prometheus. They ruined what was potentially a more profitable and interesting franchise and gained absolutely nothing from it. It's kind of tragic that the epic potential of Prometheus was spoiled by fans of a franchise that has been in decline for thirty years.
It's all down to the simple, yet effective premise of Alien; It wasn't something meant to be developed into a franchise. Aliens and Alien 3 tried to expand on it, but even by Alien 3 you could already see that the premise was played out.
Scott had the right idea with exploring the space jockey, as it implied on a large alien universe still open for exploration. I think he just messed up with the execution.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 06:02:32 PM
I'm choosing to ignore the reasons covered in this thread because I've been to Youtube. The amount of hate videos released on Covenant is something I haven't seen in years; people posting hour+ videos in which they dissect the film to point out how bad it is; discussions filled with dread and horror about the idea that there might actually be a sequel to this thing in spite of everything; People vocally contemplating if they should even still bother with the franchise. It's bad.
You watch them because you agree with them. I look at them as riding the hype wave simply to gain hits for their youtube channel. They are looking for their ten minutes of fame. Their critiques are woeful, the film doesn't tick the boxes they'd like so they'll call it dumb - oh the irony.. Social media's torpedoing of films is the real problem for Hollywood because it largely consists of inane, self promotion via reactionary vitriol. If this is the new word of mouth then you are willfully being dictated to by idiots.*
*I'm talking about the innumerable rant and hate videos, not the reviews - good or bad - that have some substance.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 29, 2017, 07:11:19 PM
You watch them because you agree with them. I look at them as riding the hype wave simply to gain hits for their youtube channel. They are looking for their ten minutes of fame. Their critiques are woeful, the film doesn't tick the boxes they'd like so they'll call it dumb - oh the irony.. Social media's torpedoing of films is the real problem for Hollywood because it largely consists of inane, self promotion via reactionary vitriol. If this is the new word of mouth then you willfully being dictated to by idiots.*
*I'm talking about the innumerable rant and hate videos, not the reviews - good or bad - that have some substance.
Actually no, they just keep popping up on my feed because I watch Alien related content. I'm not specifically looking for hate videos. If I needed confirmation to my opinion, I wouldn't have come here.
The characters who are important to the story are developed. Those that are only important to the plot are not. This is how genre films work. No different to Aliens in that respect.
The amount of character development in Covenant is perfectly adequate as far as I'm concerned and I've never suggested otherwise.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 07:18:44 PM
Actually no, they just keep popping up on my feed because I watch Alien related content.
Same here, but I don't waste my time watching them. It's where the worst and most embarrassing of fandom reside. I come here and other film forums instead where there's more reasonable debate.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 29, 2017, 07:11:19 PM
I look at them as riding the hype wave simply to gain hits for their youtube channel. They are looking for their ten minutes of fame. Their critiques are woeful, the film doesn't tick the boxes they'd like so they'll call it dumb - oh the irony.. Social media's torpedoing of films is the real problem for Hollywood because it largely consists of inane, self promotion via reactionary vitriol. If this is the new word of mouth then you willfully being dictated to by idiots.*
*I'm talking about the innumerable rant and hate videos, not the reviews - good or bad - that have some substance.
I agree 100%.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 29, 2017, 07:25:47 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 29, 2017, 07:11:19 PM
I look at them as riding the hype wave simply to gain hits for their youtube channel. They are looking for their ten minutes of fame. Their critiques are woeful, the film doesn't tick the boxes they'd like so they'll call it dumb - oh the irony.. Social media's torpedoing of films is the real problem for Hollywood because it largely consists of inane, self promotion via reactionary vitriol. If this is the new word of mouth then you willfully being dictated to by idiots.*
*I'm talking about the innumerable rant and hate videos, not the reviews - good or bad - that have some substance.
I agree 100%.
As do I
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 07:23:47 PM
The characters who are important to the story are developed. Those that are only important to the plot are not. This is how genre films work. No different to Aliens in that respect.
The amount of character development in Covenant is perfectly adequate as far as I'm concerned and I've never suggested otherwise.
If important characters are developed, could you explain Daniels' character to me? She's supposed to be the protagonist, right? But her character is "empowered space female 4646657856 + wife of captain James Franco".
Quote from: Gash on Jul 29, 2017, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 07:18:44 PM
Actually no, they just keep popping up on my feed because I watch Alien related content.
Same here, but I don't waste my time watching them. It's where the worst and most embarrassing of fandom reside. I come here and other film forums instead where there's more reasonable debate.
I agree that the debate on this forum, side from a few specific people, has been pretty civil so far, so it's a good place for having it. But with that in mind, you have to agree that by coming here, you're:
A. Coming to a place where your opinion is pretty much the norm.
B. Leaving a place that better represents the actual public opinion on the film.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 29, 2017, 06:49:54 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 29, 2017, 06:36:36 PM
Covenant was Ridley Scott's lowest grossing sci-fi movie, even lower than Blade Runner.
Bullshit: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bladerunner.htm
Adjust it for inflation and look at the domestic gross.
Daniels isn't one of the key players in the tale Ridley is telling. Oram, Walter and David are.
The film is unusual in that respect.
But Waterstone performs well. I found Daniels likeable. Strong but compassionate. I thought the scene in which she stands up to Oram was excellent but also enjoyed the fact she showed her care for him when he admits he was wrong further down the line. She was relatable.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 07:50:33 PM
Daniels isn't one of the key players in the tale Ridley is telling. Oram, Walter and David are.
Then why am I following her for the entire film? Why is Scott wasting my time by having me follow someone that doesn't matter?
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:28:13 PM
Anyway,according to the polls on here the majority of fans did like it. It's the general cinema goer who didn't go and see it. Not enough of them anyway.
Yes, this is an important point. The dice was loaded since the beginning against Covenant, due to the mixed response to Prometheus, some uproar over Blomkamp's Alien movie being cancelled, a misguided marketing campaign and early leaks on social media accompanied by hostile criticism.
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 04:07:53 PM
If anything else, Covenant underperformed because it was marketed as a fanservice pulse rifle vs. xenomorph movie in a year when franchise fatigue has already reached record highs.
Not only that, but it FAILED to deliver on that account, further fueling the backlash.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 29, 2017, 06:57:38 PM
I just don't understand the hate on this film. It's all first-impression and word of mouth-driven angst. But if you sit down and watch the film, or re-watch it, is it really THAT bad? Not even close.
In fact, if you sit down and watch it, and study it, there's as much to like as Prometheus. Different content, within, but it's as rich in literary allusions as Prometheus was symbolism. A rich film that picky eaters of a divide franchise turn their noses up at.
Self-righteous negativity finds a life of its own, becoming a narrative, infecting and spreading among users. Humans are social creatures and most of them are so blind to the currents that move them. I personally do believe that people will start appreciating Covenant in the future once the backlash dies down.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 07:52:03 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 07:50:33 PM
Daniels isn't one of the key players in the tale Ridley is telling. Oram, Walter and David are.
Then why am I following her for the entire film? Why is Scott wasting my time by having me follow someone that doesn't matter?
Who told you you're supposed to be following Daniels? This is one of the reasons I think the film was marketed incorrectly.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 07:56:28 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 07:52:03 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 07:50:33 PM
Daniels isn't one of the key players in the tale Ridley is telling. Oram, Walter and David are.
Then why am I following her for the entire film? Why is Scott wasting my time by having me follow someone that doesn't matter?
Who told you you're supposed to be following Daniels? This is one of the reasons I think the film was marketed incorrectly.
The camera did, by giving her the most screen time.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jul 29, 2017, 07:55:01 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:28:13 PM
Anyway,according to the polls on here the majority of fans did like it. It's the general cinema goer who didn't go and see it. Not enough of them anyway.
Yes, this is an important point. The dice was loaded since the beginning against Covenant, due to the mixed response to Prometheus, some uproar over Blomkamp's Alien movie being cancelled, a misguided marketing campaign and early leaks on social media accompanied by hostile criticism.
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 04:07:53 PM
If anything else, Covenant underperformed because it was marketed as a fanservice pulse rifle vs. xenomorph movie in a year when franchise fatigue has already reached record highs.
Not only that, but it FAILED to deliver on that account, further fueling the backlash.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 29, 2017, 06:57:38 PM
I just don't understand the hate on this film. It's all first-impression and word of mouth-driven angst. But if you sit down and watch the film, or re-watch it, is it really THAT bad? Not even close.
In fact, if you sit down and watch it, and study it, there's as much to like as Prometheus. Different content, within, but it's as rich in literary allusions as Prometheus was symbolism. A rich film that picky eaters of a divide franchise turn their noses up at.
Self-righteous negativity finds a life of its own, becoming a narrative, infecting and spreading among users. Humans are social creatures and most of them are so blind to the currents that move them. I personally do believe that people will start appreciating Covenant in the future once the backlash dies down.
So do I, time will tell.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 07:56:28 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 07:52:03 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 07:50:33 PM
Daniels isn't one of the key players in the tale Ridley is telling. Oram, Walter and David are.
Then why am I following her for the entire film? Why is Scott wasting my time by having me follow someone that doesn't matter?
Who told you you're supposed to be following Daniels? This is one of the reasons I think the film was marketed incorrectly.
The camera did, by giving her the most screen time.
Not sure about that, havent timed it but I didn't see her as the focus of the story I was watching at all. It's what I expected but not what I got.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 07:52:03 PM
Then why am I following her for the entire film?
Uh, you're not? She's not the central character.
So if Daniels isn't the protagonist of the film, who is?
Is it Oram? he dies to give birth to the alien, and the movie goes through great lengths to make sure we don't like him.
Is it Walter? he dies off-screen 2 minutes after Oram, and he's an emotionless droid.
Is it David? We don't even meet him up until we're halfway into the film, he's a droid, and he's an evil asshole.
Is it Tennessee? He doesn't even participate in most of the stuff in the film, when he does participate, he plays second fiddle to Daniels, and his character is "guy with hat".
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 29, 2017, 08:05:07 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 07:52:03 PM
Then why am I following her for the entire film?
Uh, you're not? She's not the central character.
I did think the marketing gave that impression though, don't you agree?
They were selling a different movie to what we got. IMO a far more interesting film than i expected.
Going back a bit:
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 05:18:31 PM
Blader Runner's original cut was pretty terrible. It included Harrison Ford's terrible narration that is flat out unbearable. We are not talking about the Final Cut that's available today and is regarded a masterpiece. The Thing is indeed one of those few exceptions when a movie under-performs for unexplained reasons but gains popularity later on
I don't know how young you are, but the public didn't 'hate' Blade Runner until the Final Cut came along and made everything better. People skipped Blade Runner (and The Thing) because they came out during a summer that was absolutely
bursting with high-profile, feel-good sci-fi/adventure movies. People fell in love with Blade Runner (yes, the "terrible", "unbearable" version) and The Thing on home video, where they could be enjoyed without the cultural restraints and bias of 1982. The quality was always there, whether you enjoyed the voiceover narration or not.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 08:07:41 PM
So if Daniels isn't the protagonist of the film, who is?
Is it Oram? he dies to give birth to the alien, and the movie goes through great lengths to make sure we don't like him.
Is it Walter? he dies 2 minutes after Oram, and he's an emotionless droid.
Is it David? We don't even meet him up until we're halfway into the film, he's a droid, and he's an evil asshole.
Is it Tennessee? He doesn't even participate in most of the stuff in the film, when he does participate, he plays second fiddle to Daniels, and his character is "guy with hat".
The film doesn't go to great lengths to make you dislike Oram, quite the opposite if you ask me. Again, that's what I expected but Oram was actually a beautifully nuanced character that elicited a great deal of sympathy.
So Oram's the protagonist? He dies to give birth to the alien.
The protagonist or "hero" is David. He's the Byronic hero, or the tragic hero. Hero, in classical terms, doesn't translate to "Hi, I'm Batman, and I don't kill people."
If you look at this film in classical terms, it makes a lot more sense, but I think most people are viewing it like a Marvel film or any other modern blockbuster. In short, they're reading it perhaps in a way that is prohibitive to getting at the film's essence, and actual, central themes.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 29, 2017, 08:18:06 PM
The protagonist or "hero" is David. He's the Byronic hero, or the tragic hero. Hero, in classical terms, doesn't translate to "Hi, I'm Batman, and I don't kill people."
A tragic hero is a hero the audience empathizes with, who at some point makes a bad judgement call that leads to his destruction. David's pretty much an asshole since Prometheus, and he eventually succeeds with everything he does, meaning he made the right decision.
And then he said, lo, yee must shed the vale of the "Ripley clones".
The films are marketed that way to appeal to the broad casual viewers.
Even with Prometheus I went in not expecting a total Ripley clone because it was purely marketing. That doesn't bother me going in without that expectation.
For me this prequel series is David's journey. The anti-Ripley as it were.
One wants to destroy mankind, the other wants to save it.
And it JUST. GOT. INTERESTING.
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:23:48 PM
And then he said, lo, yee must shed the vale of the "Ripley clones".
The films are marketed that way to appeal to the broad casual viewers.
Even with Prometheus I went in not expecting a total Ripley clone because it was purely marketing. That doesn't bother me going in without that expectation.
For me this prequel series is David's journey. The anti-Ripley as it were.
One wants to destroy mankind, the other wants to save it.
And it JUST. GOT. INTERESTING.
Yep, providing we Actually get to see where it goes!
As long as they tie up David's story. I'm game for whatever.
Yep, David. But I don't think he's evil, or an arsehole. I think he's Giger, and I really like that.
Go David.
Hm cant see whats so interesting about David as a character. Its not like hes somehow conflicted about what he does, hes a mass murdering psycho with a creative streak.
Covenant is like another day in Dr. Evils office, thats not something i find very appealing tbh.
Lol and hes not Giger, thats almost an insult even if i know how you meant it.
In "another day in Dr. Evil's office", you'll at least have the film take place in Dr. Evil's office and follow Dr. Evil around; See things from his perspective. In Covenant we don't even meet David 'till we're half way into the film. Why should the audience focus on him after spending a whole hour following the filler crew?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 08:39:13 PM
In "another day in Dr. Evil's office", you'll at least have the film take place in Dr. Evil's office and follow Dr. Evil around; See things from his perspective. In Covenant we don't even meet David 'till we're half way into the film. Why should the audience focus on him after spending a whole hour following the filler crew?
Because David is the lead character?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 08:39:13 PM
In "another day in Dr. Evil's office", you'll at least have the film take place in Dr. Evil's office and follow Dr. Evil around; See things from his perspective. In Covenant we don't even meet David 'till we're half way into the film. Why should the audience focus on him after spending a whole hour following the filler crew?
Its just the same with Apocalypse Now though. You could argue Paradise is Davids office. And thats what Covenant basically is about.
David has the potential to be conflicted about what he does - he's the most human android invented. He's intelligent but naive. He's not a psycho. For all we know his affection for Shaw is what drove him to create life from her - but doing it in a way a precocious genius might - only seeing the beauty in what he's is doing and admiring the evolution he is offering the universe.
Much more interesting than any other character in any of the Alien films TBH.
One, the story isn't over. Plenty of room for David's tragedy to unfold.
Two, he loved Shaw and there's a good chance she didn't love him back. I detected a whiff of one-sided love, in him. He's an outsider, and shunned for being an individual. Certain amounts of tragedy are just integral to his being. At the end of Prometheus, he is decapitated, and he spends most of the film being abused.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 08:39:13 PM
In "another day in Dr. Evil's office", you'll at least have the film take place in Dr. Evil's office and follow Dr. Evil around; See things from his perspective. In Covenant we don't even meet David 'till we're half way into the film. Why should the audience focus on him after spending a whole hour following the filler crew?
He's actually the first character we meet.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 08:44:45 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 08:39:13 PM
In "another day in Dr. Evil's office", you'll at least have the film take place in Dr. Evil's office and follow Dr. Evil around; See things from his perspective. In Covenant we don't even meet David 'till we're half way into the film. Why should the audience focus on him after spending a whole hour following the filler crew?
Its just the same with Apocalypse Now though. You could argue Paradise is Davids office. And thats what Covenant basically is about.
Apocalypse now is a damn good comparison
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 08:44:45 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 08:39:13 PM
In "another day in Dr. Evil's office", you'll at least have the film take place in Dr. Evil's office and follow Dr. Evil around; See things from his perspective. In Covenant we don't even meet David 'till we're half way into the film. Why should the audience focus on him after spending a whole hour following the filler crew?
Its just the same with Apocalypse Now though. You could argue Paradise is Davids office. And thats what Covenant basically is about.
In Apocalypse Now Kurtz isn't the protagonist; Willard is. Kurtz is the antagonist, who's point of view you learn to understand and even empathize with by following Willard. You see how the hellish situation he's experiencing changes him, until by the end of the film Willard doesn't even seem sane anymore. In Covenant David's pretty much the same through the whole film, and at no point is he someone you empathize with.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 08:47:59 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 08:39:13 PM
In "another day in Dr. Evil's office", you'll at least have the film take place in Dr. Evil's office and follow Dr. Evil around; See things from his perspective. In Covenant we don't even meet David 'till we're half way into the film. Why should the audience focus on him after spending a whole hour following the filler crew?
He's actually the first character we meet.
It's a prologue to remind the audience who he is, so that there won't be a need to waste time on it later in the film. You don't actually follow him past that scene.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 29, 2017, 08:47:37 PM
One, the story isn't over. Plenty of room for David's tragedy to unfold.
Two, he loved Shaw and there's a good chance she didn't love him back. I detected a whiff of one-sided love, in him. He's an outsider, and shunned for being an individual. Certain amounts of tragedy are just integral to his being. At the end of Prometheus, he is decapitated, and he spends most of the film being abused.
This is all off-screen story that you're told rather than shown. It's what's referred to in movies as bad storytelling.
Sympathy for the mass murderer. It never gets old. :D
No offense guys , but "he got bullied in Prometheus", "he wasnt loved back", thats your argument? huuuummmmmmmmm
add: has a weird aesthetical worldview and just acts it out
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 08:54:41 PM
Sympathy for the mass murderer. It never gets old. :D
No offense guys , but "he got bullied in Prometheus", "he wasnt loved back", thats your argument? huuuummmmmmmmm
add: has a weird aesthetical worldview and just acts it out
The beginning of Covenant shows us his character is formed from much more than just simple bullying though.
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
I don't think so either. My question is who DO we supposed to empathize with? Who's our protagonist? Who do we want to see survive and not die?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 08:53:18 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 29, 2017, 08:47:37 PM
One, the story isn't over. Plenty of room for David's tragedy to unfold.
Two, he loved Shaw and there's a good chance she didn't love him back. I detected a whiff of one-sided love, in him. He's an outsider, and shunned for being an individual. Certain amounts of tragedy are just integral to his being. At the end of Prometheus, he is decapitated, and he spends most of the film being abused.
This is all off-screen story that you're told rather than shown. It's what's referred to in movies as bad storytelling.
His abuse isn't off screen, nor is his decapitation.
Second, "bad storytelling"? Uh, what? Sorry but I completely disagree with you. Jaws is almost entirely off-screen, and plenty of other films can imply or leave room to the viewers imagination. It's not "bad." It's just another device.
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
Be it as it may, thats may be where the prequels ultimately fail when it comes to appeal to enough people to watch these [expensive] films?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 08:53:18 PM
It's a prologue to remind the audience who he is, so that there won't be a need to waste time on it later in the film. You don't actually follow him past that scene.
It's considerably more than that. It's sets up the entire backstory to David's creation and his understanding of his place in human heirachy, and offers more enlightenment on David in Prometheus.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 08:53:18 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 29, 2017, 08:47:37 PM
One, the story isn't over. Plenty of room for David's tragedy to unfold.
Two, he loved Shaw and there's a good chance she didn't love him back. I detected a whiff of one-sided love, in him. He's an outsider, and shunned for being an individual. Certain amounts of tragedy are just integral to his being. At the end of Prometheus, he is decapitated, and he spends most of the film being abused.
This is all off-screen story that you're told rather than shown. It's what's referred to in movies as bad storytelling.
It's what I'd refer to as dialogue, and considerably more interesting for it. Film school students might call it bad storytelling because they're terrified of losing the attention span of the cinema-going gnat.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
I don't think so either. My question is who DO we supposed to empathize with? Who's our protagonist? Who do we want to see survive and not die?
I certainly empathised with Oram . Daniels too.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:01:53 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
Be it as it may, thats may be where the prequels ultimately fail when it comes to appeal to enough people to watch these [expensive] films?
Probably. Certainly doesn't help. People need someone to route for. They are used to films being structured in a certain way.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
I don't think so either. My question is who DO we supposed to empathize with? Who's our protagonist? Who do we want to see survive and not die?
I certainly empathised with Oram . Daniels too.
Still i dont know any trilogy that worked on an overarching evil protagonist. Even Aliens wouldve failed without Ripley, i suppose.
People even complain when an continuous antagonist is more or less missing, see the SW prequels (Darth Maul).
And i can somehow relate, though i definitely prefer a more creative approach. But in EP1 its Maul, then its Dooku then its this biomechanoid robot whatever, it just isnt very interesting.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
I don't think so either. My question is who DO we supposed to empathize with? Who's our protagonist? Who do we want to see survive and not die?
I certainly empathised with Oram . Daniels too.
Still i dont know any trilogy that worked on an overarching evil protagonist. Even Aliens wouldve failed without Ripley, i suppose.
No I can't think of one either. It's a pretty audacious thing to try. And risky.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
I don't think so either. My question is who DO we supposed to empathize with? Who's our protagonist? Who do we want to see survive and not die?
I certainly empathised with Oram . Daniels too.
Oram is pretty much made look bad when he doesn't let Daniels mourn James Franco (for no good reason, too, as far as I could tell). So the audience have a reason to dislike him from the start. Then, putting all the stupid decisions throughout the film aside, he dies so the audience has no reason to invest in him.
Daniels seems like the most obvious protagonist in the film: she gets the most screen time, the camera mostly follows her around, she beats the alien and survives to the end. But during the whole movie she's just there for the ride. She always has things happen to her instead of taking an initiative in order to show who she is as a person. Even the final confrontation with the alien is a situation that's forced on her, that gets resolved on the first try. Then, on top of that, there's the "evil ending", implying she's pretty much dead in the sequel. So again, the audience member watching this has to ask himself 'well, what was the point in what I just saw?'
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 09:11:01 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
I don't think so either. My question is who DO we supposed to empathize with? Who's our protagonist? Who do we want to see survive and not die?
I certainly empathised with Oram . Daniels too.
Still i dont know any trilogy that worked on an overarching evil protagonist. Even Aliens wouldve failed without Ripley, i suppose.
No I can't think of one either. It's a pretty audacious thing to try. And risky.
Damien.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 29, 2017, 09:12:28 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 09:11:01 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:08:41 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
I don't think so either. My question is who DO we supposed to empathize with? Who's our protagonist? Who do we want to see survive and not die?
I certainly empathised with Oram . Daniels too.
Still i dont know any trilogy that worked on an overarching evil protagonist. Even Aliens wouldve failed without Ripley, i suppose.
No I can't think of one either. It's a pretty audacious thing to try. And risky.
Damien.
Good call
The Omen i guess? Well i never watched the sequels so im kinda out. Were they financially successful? I guess at least the second was...
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 09:12:04 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 09:00:44 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Jul 29, 2017, 08:58:30 PM
I don't think its intended for the audience to sympathise with David.
I don't think so either. My question is who DO we supposed to empathize with? Who's our protagonist? Who do we want to see survive and not die?
I certainly empathised with Oram . Daniels too.
Oram is pretty much made look bad when he doesn't let Daniels mourn James Franco (for no good reason, too, as far as I could tell). So the audience have a reason to dislike him from the start. Then, putting all the stupid decisions throughout the film aside, he dies so the audience has no reason to invest in him.
Daniels seems like the most obvious protagonist in the film: she gets the most screen time, the camera mostly follows her around, she beats the alien and survives to the end. But during the whole movie she's just there for the ride. She always has things happen to her instead of taking an initiative in order to show who she is as a person. Even the final confrontation with the alien is a situation that's forced on her, that gets resolved on the first try. Then, on top of that, there's the "evil ending", implying she's pretty much dead in the sequel. So again, the audience member watching this has to ask himself 'well, what was the point in what I just saw?'
Oram is trying to assert his authority. Everything he does early in the film is about proving he is a leader. He makes bad decisions for the right reasons, he's a good, kind man but he lacks leadership skills even though it's a role he aspires to. He's very human and very real.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:16:23 PM
The Omen i guess? Well i never watched the sequels so im kinda out. Were they financially successful? I guess at least the second was...
I think they followed the law of diminishing returns but did ok.
QuoteI think they followed the law of diminishing returns but did ok.
If thats a law, then what is FOX complaining about. :D
QuoteIn Apocalypse Now Kurtz isn't the protagonist; Willard is.
Naw come on. Apocalypse Now is about war, and Kurtz is the personification of war, so to speak. Willard is just the average man/soldier, the representative of the audience.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:24:03 PM
QuoteI think they followed the law of diminishing returns but did ok.
If thats a law, then what is FOX complaining about. :D
Yeah, they should be grateful ;D
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 09:19:23 PM
Oram is trying to assert his authority. Everything he does early in the film is about proving he is a leader. He makes bad decisions for the right reasons, he's a good, kind man but he lacks leadership skills even though it's a role he aspires to. He's very human and very real.
Yeah, I get what the movie tries to set him up to do, but it doesn't establish a logical reasoning behind his actions. When he tells Daniels she can't mourn James Franco, there's no logical reason behind him not allowing it. The audience just sees him as being an asshole for no reason, and it's not even the type of asshole you meet in real life, who you just don't like as a person - it's the cliche asshole who behaves in a certain way just cause the movie needs him to do so. That type of stuff pisses people off, and for no reason, too, cause aside from that incident, he's one of the better characters in the film.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:24:03 PM
Naw come on. Apocalypse Now is about war, and Kurtz is the personification of war, so to speak. Willard is just the average man/soldier, the eyes of the audience.
Apocalypse Now is "The Odyssey set in hell", where hell is the war itself. Willard's journey on the river is supposed to paraphrase Odysseus's journey, while Kilgore is supposed to be the "cyclops" he has to trick in order to advance.
Willard almost has no arch of his own. Hes driving on the river wondering what went wrong in Kurtz' head. Hes literally only talking about Kurtz, when hes talking at all. Then he finally kills him, which was his mission from the get go. I can barely name any character traits of him that stick out.
Compare that to Joker from FMJ or Chris from Platoon, and youll see the blatantly obvious difference.
Orams decision regarding the funeral is about him showing he can be decisive and look at the bigger picture.
He's also trying to prove the point that his faith doesn't preclude him from being a leader by not allowing a show of faith via a funeral.
I think it's good writing, it's far deeper than the typical religious characters in movies and I'm including Prometheus in that.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:37:15 PM
Willard almost has no arch of his own. Hes driving on the river wondering what went wrong in Kutz' head. Then he finally kills him, which was his mission from the get go. I can barely name any character traits of him that stick out.
Compare that to Joker from FMJ, and youll see the blatantly obvious difference.
Willard has a pretty significant arc. He starts the film as a relatively regular person who can't get away from the war and has to come back. By the end of the film he's practically insane, and his actions seem more demonic than human. The film uses shadow to visually present his transformatin to the audience.
Lol by no means he went insane whaaat. He was temporarily tempted by Kurtz charisma but didnt fall for it and brought his mission to an successful end. He even saves the boy (from the war) if im right, its been a long time.
His conclusive description of war is that of a completely sane average man: the horror. Or is it not him repeating those words at the end? Yea its been long...
The shadow you mean is called night.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:48:36 PM
Lol by no means he went insane whaaat. He was temporarily tempted by Kurtz charisma but didnt fall for it and brought his mission to an successful end. He even saves the boy (from the war) if im right, its been a long time.
His conclusive description of war is that of a completely sane average man: the horror. Or is it not him repeating those words at the end? Yea its been long...
The shadow you mean is called night.
The film ends with Willard executing Kurtz in a ritualistic manner similar to a blood sacrifice. He 'becomes' the new Kurtz. You can see through his facial experssion that he's no longer the man he was. Willard specifically states that him killing Kurtz at the end had nothing to do with his mission. He wasn't even "in their army anymore".
As for the shadow, what I mean are shots like this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviemezzanine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fapocalypsenow.png&hash=723c5409c2276da9e670facf1da52e620a671a99)
Meant to show a similarity to shots like this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-qDAvtgvdk7s%2FT1UDpretLNI%2FAAAAAAAAAAY%2FoQwqzwURW6I%2Fs1600%2Fkurtz-apocalypse-now.gif&hash=1edc6ae586fb4ea1c2742d4de7cc6de91d33830a)
Those are shots that cast a shade on the character's face deliberately in order to demonstrate its descent to madness. In both cases there was a conscious choice made to both showcase the characters in dark environments, but also to cover their faces in darkness. This is all done to contrast the beginning of the film, where you mostly had sunny daytime shots in order to portray where the characters are mentally.
QuoteHe 'becomes' the new Kurtz.
Ha no.
QuoteWillard slowly walks down the steps, throwing down the
machete. The natives rise and throw down their weapons in
imitation as he walks through them. He moves to LANCE,
who is in the midst of all the natives. Willard looks at
him, then takes him by the hand and pulls him away with
him through the rest of the natives.
He may be temporarily taking on traits of Kurtz when hes in killing mode, but hes still going specifically after Kurtz (not randomly killing bystanders or something). Maybe not for his original mission reasons i give you that, as i said its been a long time. In the end hes obviously walking away from war, the primitive, the killing etc taking Lance with him.
^That's a plot summary, not the narrative. Plot and narrative aren't the same thing.
Plot or narrative hes not becoming the new Kurtz lol.
He's lost part of his mind by the end - he says it right from the outset ('they'd given me a mission and by the time it was finished I'd never want another') - but he's not literally the new Kurtz in that he's going to start his own commune.
Until we understand what happened to Shaw and what motivated David to wipe out the engineers we can only speculate as to what his true intentions are. It's easy to say that David is evil because of what we've seen, but what we haven't seen is his progression from subservient android into a love-stricken entity utilizing his own freewill. This is what makes David the most interesting character in the entire series.
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 29, 2017, 10:38:16 PM
Until we understand what happened to Shaw and what motivated David to wipe out the engineers we can only speculate as to what his true intentions are. It's easy to say that David is evil because of what we've seen, but what we haven't seen is his progression from subservient android into a love-stricken entity utilizing his own freewill. This is what makes David the most interesting character in the entire series.
But what you describe is his whole character development. A good film would've shown us THAT. The lack of it is precisely the sign of bad storytelling. Instead of watching him change and display some depth, he's basically just an asshole the whole time.
Wanting to leave the army under these "circumstances" and with everything hed been through sounds completely sane to me. I see no indication of him becoming Kurtz at all.
Kurtz even made him more aware of the flaws of the military but unlike him he sees that getting out is the solution not going all in pefect organism style.
QuoteEven the jungle wanted him dead.
And that's who he really who he
took his orders from, anyway.
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 10:43:33 PM
Wanting to leave the army under these "circumstances" and with everything hed been through sounds completely sane to me. I see no indication of him becoming Kurtz at all.
Kurtz even made him more aware of the flaws of the military but unlike him he sees that getting out is the solution not going all in pefect organism style.
QuoteEven the jungle wanted him dead.
And that's who he really who he
took his orders from, anyway.
That's the point though: Willard didn't need to kill Kurtz if he wanted to leave the army; That's not why he does it. He kills Kurtz because he abandons his own sense of morality, just like Kurtz did, and starts seeing himself as a god. Kurtz is aware that Willard is there to kill him and welcomes it, because it fit Kurtz's own philosophy.
QuoteHe kills Kurtz because he abandons his own sense of morality, just like Kurtz did, and starts seeing himself as a god.
Maybe, i say maybe because the scene is very ambivalent, he temporarily abandoned his "sense of morality" for the act of killing (then again he executed a mass murderer, so theres that), but he definitely
finds it back:
QuoteCLOSE ON WILLARD
hands on his face, reacting to what he's done.
The horror. The whole scene has a catharsis vibe. Him seeing himself as god, sorry thats so far off i wont even comment on, come on.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 10:42:04 PM
Quote from: newagescamartist on Jul 29, 2017, 10:38:16 PM
Until we understand what happened to Shaw and what motivated David to wipe out the engineers we can only speculate as to what his true intentions are. It's easy to say that David is evil because of what we've seen, but what we haven't seen is his progression from subservient android into a love-stricken entity utilizing his own freewill. This is what makes David the most interesting character in the entire series.
But what you describe is his whole character development. A good film would've shown us THAT. The lack of it is precisely the sign of bad storytelling. Instead of watching him change and display some depth, he's basically just an asshole the whole time.
It's entirely subjective. I think Covenant was very good, and just because it doesn't spell everything out doesn't mean it's a failure. We're still missing at least one ( maybe two ) full movie to connect everything together. As far as David is concerned, the important stuff is still in Covenant. We know he has freewill, creative spark, and existential issues. While I admit I'd love to see the Shaw stuff, David is still handled really well in Covenant. I can understand why some people think he just runs around acting like an asshole, but there is depth to David as a character that has been missing since at least Alien 3.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 10:09:27 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:48:36 PM
Lol by no means he went insane whaaat. He was temporarily tempted by Kurtz charisma but didnt fall for it and brought his mission to an successful end. He even saves the boy (from the war) if im right, its been a long time.
His conclusive description of war is that of a completely sane average man: the horror. Or is it not him repeating those words at the end? Yea its been long...
The shadow you mean is called night.
The film ends with Willard executing Kurtz in a ritualistic manner similar to a blood sacrifice. He 'becomes' the new Kurtz. You can see through his facial experssion that he's no longer the man he was. Willard specifically states that him killing Kurtz at the end had nothing to do with his mission. He wasn't even "in their army anymore".
As for the shadow, what I mean are shots like this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviemezzanine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fapocalypsenow.png&hash=723c5409c2276da9e670facf1da52e620a671a99)
Meant to show a similarity to shots like this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qDAvtgvdk7s/T1UDpretLNI/AAAAAAAAAAY/oQwqzwURW6I/s1600/kurtz-apocalypse-now.gif
Those are shots that cast a shade on the character's face deliberately in order to demonstrate its descent to madness. In both cases there was a conscious choice made to both showcase the characters in dark environments, but also to cover their faces in darkness. This is all done to contrast the beginning of the film, where you mostly had sunny daytime shots in order to portray where the characters are mentally.
WeaponizedAutism.txt
What?
Dude's trolling again, he should be banned.
This threads been pretty interesting though, it's surprising seeing how people view the same material. I don't think we are supposed to root for David, that's a big no for me. He's presumably about to kill the hero's of the film and also kills the Captain. I can't quite get my head around that view point, unless you like seeing the bad guy win.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 30, 2017, 12:09:25 AM
Dude's trolling again, he should be banned.
This threads been pretty interesting though, it's surprising seeing how people view the same material. I don't think we are supposed to root for David, that's a big no for me. He's presumably about to kill the hero's of the film and also kills the Captain. I can't quite get my head around that view point, unless you like seeing the bad guy win.
I think a lot of the folks here dont really mean that we should be rooting for David as in 'Go David, kill some and then some more', but that he as a character, even an evil one on some sort of negative heros journey, could be interesting enough to carry the prequels similar as to how Ripley carried the original films by overarching them with her personality - replaced in this case by the journey of an artificial consciousness.
Its quite an uneasy approach, just right for the Alienverse obviously, im not sure its working for me though, not because i dont like it in general but i dont find it that well executed and it should be obvious to everyone that this was not the actual approach they were routing for by the time of Prometheus. Thats where i get this patchwork rug vibe from Covenant.
Still hope Scotts gets a chance to bring a bit more closure to the whole thing with further installments though.
Your edit beat me to my response. It seems like this is the plan now, but I don't think that was ever the intention of the prequels and it comes across that way both as a fan and I'd imagine as a general movie goer. Presumably Scott witnessed Fassbender knock it out the park then decided he could run with it when the studio got cold feet.
I doubt there will be any satisfaction in seeing Davids end. We might not even get to see it.
At the very least, the absolute minimum, hopefully they'll have Alan Dean Foster write a finale in the form of a novel(s) if they don't wrap it up with a final film.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 30, 2017, 12:53:01 AM
Your edit beat me to my response. It seems like this is the plan now, but I don't think that was ever the intention of the prequels and it comes across that way both as a fan and I'd imagine as a general movie goer. Presumably Scott witnessed Fassbender knock it out the park then decided he could run with it when the studio got cold feet.
I doubt there will be any satisfaction in seeing Davids end. We might not even get to see it.
It doesnt help the general movie goer that there are years between the first and this one and probably a couple more till we see another one. There are just so many obstacles Scott (and the writers) had to face i suppose that it was almost impossible to give this product any more consistency (the original ground laid by Prometheus then the sudden demand from i guess mainly FOX to implement the Alien etc).
Maybe Scott gets 70-75m together and sort of a free pass creatively from FOX at what is probably his last Alien film, that would kinda be my dream scenario.
IF ANYONE READS THIS. THINK ABOUT IT FOX SUIT. YOU OWE THE SIR, AGREE!?
I agree. Small budget finish, there's almost nothing now he could do that would make it any worse for me so I'll take the final bullet just out of curiosity.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 30, 2017, 01:41:40 AM
I agree. Small budget finish, there's almost nothing now he could do that would make it any worse for me so I'll take the final bullet just out of curiosity.
You lack imagination. I'm sure it can get A LOT worse.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 30, 2017, 02:23:50 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 30, 2017, 01:41:40 AM
I agree. Small budget finish, there's almost nothing now he could do that would make it any worse for me so I'll take the final bullet just out of curiosity.
You lack imagination. I'm sure it can get A LOT worse.
Space Jockey's an 8 foot bald dude and David made the Alien. That's all I came for. I guess if I were to imagine a worse thing than that, Ripley's mum shows up or that David is Ash in disguise.
Fassbender played the focal character in "Hunger" and he was mostly absent until the second half of the film.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 30, 2017, 02:34:36 AM
Space Jockey's an 8 foot bald dude and David made the Alien. That's all I came for. I guess if I were to imagine a worse thing than that, Ripley's mum shows up or that David is Ash in disguise.
"Oh, no! David make the alien!" That bogus claim, again? And even if he made a version of the creature, why is that so bad? I seriously don't understand the tears shed over that concept.
It's normal for a villain to drive the plot and also be the most interesting character. David in Covenant is an antagonist all the way. He was more neutral or ambiguous in Prometheus, where Weyland was the true antagonist. Shaw and Daniels are the protagonists of the last two films, and Shaw was genuinely the center of Prometheus. Daniels, on the other hand, is a weak protagonist because she doesn't have any impact on the storyline except killing the final monster and motivating Walter in a way that mirrors Shaw as David's muse. It was a major miscalculation in the construction of the story. Shaw had a reason to be the center of her story, having conceived the mission, but Daniels is kind of just there until it's time to fight. Daniels being a poorly written heroine doesn't make David the true protagonist, imo, it's just a deficiency in the writing. In fact, Shaw is a more significant character in the story of Covenant than Daniels is despite being dead.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 30, 2017, 03:20:54 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 30, 2017, 02:34:36 AM
Space Jockey's an 8 foot bald dude and David made the Alien. That's all I came for. I guess if I were to imagine a worse thing than that, Ripley's mum shows up or that David is Ash in disguise.
"Oh, no! David make the alien!" That bogus claim, again? And even if he made a version of the creature, why is that so bad? I seriously don't understand the tears shed over that concept.
Bogus claim? It's a central theme in Covenant and the origin story. Why you continue to ignore this blatantly obvious facet is beyond me. It's one thing to disagree or even reinterpret; it's another to pretend it doesn't exist.
He makes an alien, mister. But the creature exists in some shape or form before David. Simple as that. I've covered this extensively and I'm not in denial or ignoring anything. Plenty of room to make my argument, which I will do with splendid, crotch-thrusting aplomb.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 30, 2017, 03:35:52 AM
He makes an alien, mister. But the creature exists in some shape or form before David. Simple as that. I've covered this extensively and I'm not in denial or ignoring anything. Plenty of room to make my argument, which I will do with splendid, crotch-thrusting aplomb.
It's probably best we don't start this again. I do agree though that other creatures do exist with or without David.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 30, 2017, 03:35:52 AM
He makes an alien, mister. But the creature exists in some shape or form before David. Simple as that. I've covered this extensively and I'm not in denial or ignoring anything. Plenty of room to make my argument, which I will do with splendid, crotch-thrusting aplomb.
The alien as we know it was created by David. You can argue the deacon et al. as precursors but the fact remains that the director intentionally crafted Covenant as the origin story for the Alien. Whether or not you agree with that is a different story and you're more than welcome to create your own explanations.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 30, 2017, 03:26:51 AM
It's normal for a villain to drive the plot and also be the most interesting character. David in Covenant is an antagonist all the way. He was more neutral or ambiguous in Prometheus, where Weyland was the true antagonist. Shaw and Daniels are the protagonists of the last two films, and Shaw was genuinely the center of Prometheus. Daniels, on the other hand, is a weak protagonist because she doesn't have any impact on the storyline except killing the final monster and motivating Walter in a way that mirrors Shaw as David's muse. It was a major miscalculation in the construction of the story. Shaw had a reason to be the center of her story, having conceived the mission, but Daniels is kind of just there until it's time to fight. Daniels being a poorly written heroine doesn't make David the true protagonist, imo, it's just a deficiency in the writing. In fact, Shaw is a more significant character in the story of Covenant than Daniels is despite being dead.
Pretty much agree with everything, except maybe Weyland being an antagonist in Prometheus; he just shows up near the end once David has enough information to justify getting him out of cryo, making the audience wonder why him being alive was hidden in the first place. The Prometheus crew would've done the exact same things with him being alive or dead.
David is the antagonist in Prometheus as well; He's responsible for a good chunk of the events that doom the expedition, and him getting Holloway killed is what drives Shaw's arc of shedding her naivety about the Engineers' intentions.
The thing about David is the he could have actually been written as the protagonist of Covenant by truly focusing the story on him instead of Daniels. All they needed to do was spend the first hour of the film with him and Shaw (being alive) on the Engineer planet; Watch the story through his eyes as he "falls in love" with Shaw, but has to endure her treating him like a tool same as Weyland did, which would've triggered his servant complex and eventually drove him into killing her and bombing the Engineers both she and Weyland wanted to find so badly. Only then have the Covenant crew arrive and watch them being seen through David's eyes as well; The alien shouldn't have even been in this story. This way the audience could've related to David's plight, understand his motivations better and actually see him as a tragic character that tried to make something better of himself but failed. Covenant's story was just not written to tell an actual story; it was written to bring the alien back on the screen. It's shown pretty much from the minute the Covenant receives the transmission.
Quote from: Predaker on Jul 30, 2017, 03:30:11 AM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 30, 2017, 03:20:54 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 30, 2017, 02:34:36 AM
Space Jockey's an 8 foot bald dude and David made the Alien. That's all I came for. I guess if I were to imagine a worse thing than that, Ripley's mum shows up or that David is Ash in disguise.
"Oh, no! David make the alien!" That bogus claim, again? And even if he made a version of the creature, why is that so bad? I seriously don't understand the tears shed over that concept.
Bogus claim? It's a central theme in Covenant and the origin story. Why you continue to ignore this blatantly obvious facet is beyond me. It's one thing to disagree or even reinterpret; it's another to pretend it doesn't exist.
Oh he will try - just watch...
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 11:49:52 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 10:09:27 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:48:36 PM
Lol by no means he went insane whaaat. He was temporarily tempted by Kurtz charisma but didnt fall for it and brought his mission to an successful end. He even saves the boy (from the war) if im right, its been a long time.
His conclusive description of war is that of a completely sane average man: the horror. Or is it not him repeating those words at the end? Yea its been long...
The shadow you mean is called night.
The film ends with Willard executing Kurtz in a ritualistic manner similar to a blood sacrifice. He 'becomes' the new Kurtz. You can see through his facial experssion that he's no longer the man he was. Willard specifically states that him killing Kurtz at the end had nothing to do with his mission. He wasn't even "in their army anymore".
As for the shadow, what I mean are shots like this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviemezzanine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fapocalypsenow.png&hash=723c5409c2276da9e670facf1da52e620a671a99)
Meant to show a similarity to shots like this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qDAvtgvdk7s/T1UDpretLNI/AAAAAAAAAAY/oQwqzwURW6I/s1600/kurtz-apocalypse-now.gif
Those are shots that cast a shade on the character's face deliberately in order to demonstrate its descent to madness. In both cases there was a conscious choice made to both showcase the characters in dark environments, but also to cover their faces in darkness. This is all done to contrast the beginning of the film, where you mostly had sunny daytime shots in order to portray where the characters are mentally.
WeaponizedAutism.txt
It's fine not to agree with what others are saying, but going around insulting them isn't acceptable
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 05:39:54 AM
The thing about David is the he could have actually been written as the protagonist of Covenant by truly focusing the story on him instead of Daniels. All they needed to do was spend the first hour of the film with him and Shaw (being alive) on the Engineer planet; Watch the story through his eyes as he "falls in love" with Shaw, but has to endure her treating him like a tool same as Weyland did, which would've triggered his servant complex and eventually drove him into killing her and bombing the Engineers both she and Weyland wanted to find so badly. Only then have the Covenant crew arrive and watch them being seen through David's eyes as well; The alien shouldn't have even been in this story. This way the audience could've related to David's plight, understand his motivations better and actually see him as a tragic character that tried to make something better of himself but failed. Covenant's story was just not written to tell an actual story; it was written to bring the alien back on the screen. It's shown pretty much from the minute the Covenant receives the transmission.
Agree. This is what I imagine if Covenant starts from David first. But it will be darker. General audience probably hates Covenant even more.
It's probably worth just doing the same thing in the next movie as Covenant. 10 year gap with flash backs. There's not really enough time to get to the other Derelict without some sort of Mcguffin time filler.
That's probably why riddles wanted another 2 movies.
Quote from: asil on Jul 30, 2017, 08:50:50 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 05:39:54 AM
The thing about David is the he could have actually been written as the protagonist of Covenant by truly focusing the story on him instead of Daniels. All they needed to do was spend the first hour of the film with him and Shaw (being alive) on the Engineer planet; Watch the story through his eyes as he "falls in love" with Shaw, but has to endure her treating him like a tool same as Weyland did, which would've triggered his servant complex and eventually drove him into killing her and bombing the Engineers both she and Weyland wanted to find so badly. Only then have the Covenant crew arrive and watch them being seen through David's eyes as well; The alien shouldn't have even been in this story. This way the audience could've related to David's plight, understand his motivations better and actually see him as a tragic character that tried to make something better of himself but failed. Covenant's story was just not written to tell an actual story; it was written to bring the alien back on the screen. It's shown pretty much from the minute the Covenant receives the transmission.
Agree. This is what I imagine if Covenant starts from David first. But it will be darker. General audience probably hates Covenant even more.
Yeah I think this route would turn off general audiences even more.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 30, 2017, 09:00:31 AM
It's probably worth just doing the same thing in the next movie as Covenant. 10 year gap with flash backs. There's not really enough time to get to the other Derelict without some sort of Mcguffin time filler.
That's probably why riddles wanted another 2 movies.
Next film, if there is one, will probably take place 7 years after Covenant, as that's how long it should take them to get to planet whatever. It should leave a nice 11 year gap between it and the events of Alien.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 30, 2017, 09:14:35 AM
Quote from: asil on Jul 30, 2017, 08:50:50 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 05:39:54 AM
The thing about David is the he could have actually been written as the protagonist of Covenant by truly focusing the story on him instead of Daniels. All they needed to do was spend the first hour of the film with him and Shaw (being alive) on the Engineer planet; Watch the story through his eyes as he "falls in love" with Shaw, but has to endure her treating him like a tool same as Weyland did, which would've triggered his servant complex and eventually drove him into killing her and bombing the Engineers both she and Weyland wanted to find so badly. Only then have the Covenant crew arrive and watch them being seen through David's eyes as well; The alien shouldn't have even been in this story. This way the audience could've related to David's plight, understand his motivations better and actually see him as a tragic character that tried to make something better of himself but failed. Covenant's story was just not written to tell an actual story; it was written to bring the alien back on the screen. It's shown pretty much from the minute the Covenant receives the transmission.
Agree. This is what I imagine if Covenant starts from David first. But it will be darker. General audience probably hates Covenant even more.
Yeah I think this route would turn off general audiences even more.
Maybe, but I don't think it would be by much. Plus, you would have had the added bonus of being able to make the film on a much smaller budget.
Consider Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane: Cloverfield was a found footage monster film that was all about wrecking New York; In 10 Cloverfield Lane they went on a much smaller scale story, and just had 3 people stuck in a basement trying to figure out if there's even anything happening outside. People loved 10 Cloverfield Lane, and while it didn't make the numbers of Cloverfield, it was a lot cheaper to produce. The irony is that the space aliens in 10 Cloverfield Lane, which were supposed to be there to draw a bigger crowd, were pointed out as the film's biggest flaw. This actually sits well with Covenant, as most of the people seem to point out that the alien bits in it were the worst part about it.
It's kind of true that some of the alien stuff in Covenant wasn't up to par with the rest of the film. The David/Walter stuff was so good I would have preferred more of that over xenomorphs, but the xenomorph shower scene is one of the more interesting scenes even if it's cliche and indulgent. I love the way it smiles after it destroys that guy's skull. Best shot in the entire movie imo.
Fox cant wriggle out of the series this easy. Sulking in the corner because they didn't make a huge profit to add to their huge wealth is straight up avarice. The story is still in stand by after covenant, and not continuing will deplete their reputation more than their finances. Greedy bastards.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 06:16:16 PM
It gives a more balanced view than a fan site, to be honest. Youtube is a place where people gather to upload and watch videos. It contains all sorts of opinions. Fan sites are places where people gather with a built-in positive view on on a subject, making them biased by design.
That is quite simply not true. There's quite a variety of opinons on here actually. And I love to see them expressed as long as people continue to do so in a mature manner. Speaking of which...
Quote from: Dachande on Jul 30, 2017, 08:18:47 AM
Quote from: Alionic on Jul 29, 2017, 11:49:52 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 10:09:27 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Jul 29, 2017, 09:48:36 PM
Lol by no means he went insane whaaat. He was temporarily tempted by Kurtz charisma but didnt fall for it and brought his mission to an successful end. He even saves the boy (from the war) if im right, its been a long time.
His conclusive description of war is that of a completely sane average man: the horror. Or is it not him repeating those words at the end? Yea its been long...
The shadow you mean is called night.
The film ends with Willard executing Kurtz in a ritualistic manner similar to a blood sacrifice. He 'becomes' the new Kurtz. You can see through his facial experssion that he's no longer the man he was. Willard specifically states that him killing Kurtz at the end had nothing to do with his mission. He wasn't even "in their army anymore".
As for the shadow, what I mean are shots like this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviemezzanine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fapocalypsenow.png&hash=723c5409c2276da9e670facf1da52e620a671a99)
Meant to show a similarity to shots like this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qDAvtgvdk7s/T1UDpretLNI/AAAAAAAAAAY/oQwqzwURW6I/s1600/kurtz-apocalypse-now.gif
Those are shots that cast a shade on the character's face deliberately in order to demonstrate its descent to madness. In both cases there was a conscious choice made to both showcase the characters in dark environments, but also to cover their faces in darkness. This is all done to contrast the beginning of the film, where you mostly had sunny daytime shots in order to portray where the characters are mentally.
WeaponizedAutism.txt
It's fine not to agree with what others are saying, but going around insulting them isn't acceptable
Alionic, please enjoy as 7 day sabbatical from this community. I'm really bored of the antagonistic and disrespectful attitude you've been expressing. If you return from your temporary ban with the same attitude, we'll make it a permanent one. Thanks.
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 07:29:46 AM
Quote from: Predaker on Jul 30, 2017, 03:30:11 AM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Jul 30, 2017, 03:20:54 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 30, 2017, 02:34:36 AM
Space Jockey's an 8 foot bald dude and David made the Alien. That's all I came for. I guess if I were to imagine a worse thing than that, Ripley's mum shows up or that David is Ash in disguise.
"Oh, no! David make the alien!" That bogus claim, again? And even if he made a version of the creature, why is that so bad? I seriously don't understand the tears shed over that concept.
Bogus claim? It's a central theme in Covenant and the origin story. Why you continue to ignore this blatantly obvious facet is beyond me. It's one thing to disagree or even reinterpret; it's another to pretend it doesn't exist.
Oh he will try - just watch...
It's made quite blatantly clear that as far as it stands at the minute David is responsible for the creation of
the Alien. Could that change in the future? Sure. There's some small degree of wiggle room, I guess. But the film makes it clear and Scott, as flakey as his thoughts are at times, has also made it clear that David is the creator of the Alien.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 30, 2017, 07:54:32 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 06:16:16 PM
It gives a more balanced view than a fan site, to be honest. Youtube is a place where people gather to upload and watch videos. It contains all sorts of opinions. Fan sites are places where people gather with a built-in positive view on on a subject, making them biased by design.
That is quite simply not true. There's quite a variety of opinons on here actually. And I love to see them expressed as long as people continue to do so in a mature manner.
Well, to make my point, I'll just display some data and match it with what we know. AvP Galaxy currently has two polls for the two Ridley Scott prequel films - Prometheus and Alien:Covenant. Here they are:
https://ibb.co/fWgY75 (https://ibb.co/fWgY75)
As you can see, both films appear to be very favorable according to the people on the site, with Prometheus doing somewhat better than Covenant.
As everyone here knows, Prometheus had such a negative backlash to it, Ridley Scott himself apologized for making it, calling it a mistake, right before the release of Covenant. As for Covenant itself, well, its poor box office numbers speak for themselves and are the reason we're in this discussion to begin with.
So what do we have? Very favorable poll numbers to both films, yet a very unfavorable public reaction to them. Clearly there's a disconnect between what the fan site polls show and how the films are actually viewed.
I'd suggest you read through the fan review thread before trying to generalize a whole group of people with any particular certainty. Hell, our own podcast on the film - while favouring slightly on the negative side - has differing opinions on the film.
And to be specific, I was addressing the "Fan sites are places where people gather with a built-in positive view on on a subject, making them biased by design" comment.
I'm just looking at the polls. Can you seriously look at them and argue that both films aren't viewed very favorably on the site?
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 30, 2017, 08:33:40 PM
And to be specific, I was addressing the "Fan sites are places where people gather with a built-in positive view on on a subject, making them biased by design" comment.
Yeah, I know. The polls reflect this.
How do you quantify this "very unfavourable public reaction"? The box office, and sites where people are able to react in their hundreds of thousands - IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes - indicate a favourable reaction (not
very favourable, but favourable).
QuoteBut the film makes it clear and Scott, as flakey as his thoughts are at times, has also made it clear that David is the creator of the Alien.
Indeed.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 08:35:38 PM
I'm just looking at the polls. Can you seriously look at them and argue that both films aren't viewed very favorably on the site?
:laugh: Yes. Yes, I can. Go read the reactions in the reviews thread and you'll find you're not as outnumbered as you seem to think you are. I'm sure the people who enjoy the film think they're boxed into a similar corner.
I'm an active part of many different corners of this fanbase and the opinions on this film are very diverse and there is no real consensus on the film. It's as split as Prometheus was, with the positive seemingly more silent.
I honestly never thought I'd be arguing against "all the people on a fansite love this tripe" kind of comments.
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 08:36:13 PM
How do you quantify this "very unfavourable public reaction"? The box office, and sites where people are able to react in their hundreds of thousands - IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes - indicate a favourable reaction (not very favourable, but favourable).
Well, is this not a thread specifically trying to address the film's low box office numbers and what they mean for the future of the prequels? I mean, why do you guys keep talking like box office numbers don't matter when box office numbers are the reason this thread exists?
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 08:36:13 PM
How do you quantify this "very unfavourable public reaction"? The box office, and sites where people are able to react in their hundreds of thousands - IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes - indicate a favourable reaction (not very favourable, but favourable).
Also a very valid point. All the aggregators sit at a more positive public reaction, same as Prometheus.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 08:40:34 PM
Well, is this not a thread specifically trying to address the film's low box office numbers and what they mean for the future of the prequels? I mean, why do you guys keep talking like box office numbers don't matter when box office numbers are the reason this thread exists?
Because you're talking about opinion polls.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 30, 2017, 08:42:39 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 08:40:34 PM
Well, is this not a thread specifically trying to address the film's low box office numbers and what they mean for the future of the prequels? I mean, why do you guys keep talking like box office numbers don't matter when box office numbers are the reason this thread exists?
Because you're talking about opinion polls.
I wasn't. People brought up the opinion polls in earlier messages to counter me stating that people didn't like Covenant, and the box office reflects it. I simply refuted that argument by stating that polls on fan sites will be favorable because those are fan sites, and the polls on this site are favorable.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 08:40:34 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 08:36:13 PM
How do you quantify this "very unfavourable public reaction"? The box office, and sites where people are able to react in their hundreds of thousands - IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes - indicate a favourable reaction (not very favourable, but favourable).
Well, is this not a thread specifically trying to address the film's low box office numbers and what they mean for the future of the prequels? I mean, why do you guys keep talking like box office numbers don't matter when box office numbers are the reason this thread exists?
When did I say box office numbers don't matter?
You specifically haven't, but it did come up. Numerous times. From different people.
Fans aren't just mindless drones who will accept a film just because it has Aliens in it. In fact I'd say fans are harsher critics than most.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 08:49:24 PM
You specifically haven't, but it did come up. Numerous times. From different people.
Whom?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 08:45:15 PM
I wasn't. People brought up the opinion polls in earlier messages to counter me stating that people didn't like Covenant, and the box office reflects it. I simply refuted that argument by stating that polls on fan sites will be favorable because those are fan sites, and the polls on this site are favorable.
Which is just one of different outlets that people have to express opinions on fan sites. As I said, read through the reviews thread for more expansively expressed opinions and you'll also find a lot of people disliked the film too. Opinions and over all opinions aren't cut and dry, I'm afraid.
I'm sure the people who love the film feel that everyone else hated it. And vice versa. It's just not that simple. Fansites aren't the echo chambers of positivity that you think they are. Same as they aren't the echo chamber of picky fans hating on it that others might think.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 30, 2017, 08:50:21 PM
Fans aren't just mindless drones who will accept a film just because it has Aliens in it. In fact I'd say fans are harsher critics than most.
Never said otherwise. What I did say was that fans who come to a fan site to talk about a recent film are usually those who liked it. Fans who didn't like the film usually don't bother.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 30, 2017, 08:52:20 PM
Which is just one of different outlets that people have to express opinions on fan sites. As I said, read through the reviews thread for more expansively expressed opinions and you'll also find a lot of people disliked the film too. Opinions and over all opinions aren't cut and dry, I'm afraid.
I'm sure the people who love the film feel that everyone else hated it. And vice versa. It's just not that simple. Fansites aren't the echo chambers of positivity that you think they are. Same as they aren't the echo chamber of picky fans hating on it that others might think.
Again, the argument was for polls, so I brought up the polls. What people write is not what's shown in the polls, therefore irrelevant to an argument regarding polls. If your argument is that the polls on this site don't reflect the mindset of the fanbase, we both agree.
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 08:50:52 PM
Whom?
Seriously? You want me to start scrolling back 10's of pages in order to give you names?
If it was 'numerous times from different people', I wouldn't have thought it'd be that difficult.
QuoteFans who didn't like the film usually don't bother.
How long have you been around fan sites?
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 08:59:17 PM
If it was 'numerous times from different people', I wouldn't have thought it'd be that difficult.
There you go:
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:28:13 PM
Anyway,according to the polls on here the majority of fans did like it. It's the general cinema goer who didn't go and see it. Not enough of them anyway.
Can we now stop pointing fingers and actually move on?
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 08:59:17 PM
How long have you been around fan sites?
Was a regular during the glorious days of avpnews back in the 90's, was on a few other lesser known sites that I honestly don't even remember at this point. Is there a point to this?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 09:04:09 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 08:59:17 PM
If it was 'numerous times from different people', I wouldn't have thought it'd be that difficult.
There you go:
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Jul 29, 2017, 01:28:13 PM
Anyway,according to the polls on here the majority of fans did like it. It's the general cinema goer who didn't go and see it. Not enough of them anyway.
Can we now stop pointing fingers and actually move on?
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 08:59:17 PM
How long have you been around fan sites?
Was a regular during the glorious days of avpnews back in the 90's, was on a few other lesser known sites that I honestly don't even remember at this point. Is there a point to this?
Thanks for the quote but how is that me suggesting Box office doesn't matter?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 08:57:02 PM
Again, the argument was for polls, so I brought up the polls. What people write is not what's shown in the polls, therefore irrelevant to an argument regarding polls. If your argument is that the polls on this site don't reflect the mindset of the fanbase, we both agree.
What you seemed to suggest is that fansites are basically echo chambers of positively and not a collection of assorted opinions. Doesn't matter that polls were what you arguing over. I completely disagree with your generalization about the type of people who come to a place like this. We're quite a varied bunch.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 30, 2017, 09:12:41 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 08:57:02 PM
Again, the argument was for polls, so I brought up the polls. What people write is not what's shown in the polls, therefore irrelevant to an argument regarding polls. If your argument is that the polls on this site don't reflect the mindset of the fanbase, we both agree.
What you seemed to suggest is that fansites are basically echo chambers of positively and not a collection of assorted opinions. Doesn't matter that polls were what you arguing over. I completely disagree with your generalization about the type of people who come to a place like this. We're quite a varied bunch.
Here is what I suggest: Do you think the poll numbers on this site reflect how the fanbase feels about Prometheus and Covenant? Yes, or No? If your answer is 'No', we agree.
QuoteCan we now stop pointing fingers and actually move on?
But, as Jonesy said, he's not saying box office numbers don't matter.
QuoteWas a regular during the glorious days of avpnews back in the 90's, was on a few other lesser known sites that I honestly don't even remember at this point. Is there a point to this?
Yes, as you perfectly well know. If you've been around fan sites you'd know there's a wide variety of opinions - not just people who liked a film. Or doesn't your opinion count? You hated Covenant and yet, here you are.
QuoteHere is what I suggest: Do you think the poll numbers on this site reflect how the fanbase feels about Prometheus and Covenant? Yes, or No?
Yes.
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 09:20:03 PM
But, as Jonesy said, he's not saying box office numbers don't matter.
I am not going to dig through past messages in order to unravel how this whole debate came to be. If you're curious, feel free to do so.
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 09:20:03 PM
Yes, as you perfectly well know. If you've been around fan sites you'd know there's a wide variety of opinions - not just people who liked a film. Or doesn't your opinion count? You hated Covenant and yet, here you are.
We are discussing statistics here. The polls show some people not liking those films, but the VASTLY general notion is the highest two ratings possible. Meaning: the polls show very favorable results for both films.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 09:26:26 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 09:20:03 PM
But, as Jonesy said, he's not saying box office numbers don't matter.
I am not going to dig through past messages in order to unravel how this whole debate came to be. If you're curious, feel free to do so.
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 09:20:03 PM
Yes, as you perfectly well know. If you've been around fan sites you'd know there's a wide variety of opinions - not just people who liked a film. Or doesn't your opinion count? You hated Covenant and yet, here you are.
We are discussing statistics here. The polls show some people not liking those films, but the VASTLY general notion is the highest two ratings possible. Meaning: the polls show very favorable results for both films.
I was a part of those debates and at no point t did anyone suggest box office doesn't matter, least of all me.
Ah, right, I remember now how it went down. You and a few other members argued that bad box office numbers don't equal a bad movie, and brought up examples of the few cases over the course of history when that was truly the case.
If Fox were reading this thread, they'll have certainly stopped by now! :D
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 09:36:08 PM
Ah, right, I remember now how it went down. You and a few other members argued that bad box office numbers don't equal a bad movie, and brought up examples of the few cases over the course of history when that was truly the case.
Saying that Box office numbers are not a fair reflection of a films quality is not the same as saying box office doesn't matter. Of course it matters.
Alright, fair enough. I just didn't think I'll find myself needing to retread that whole argument, I quite honestly forgot about it by now.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 09:26:26 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 09:20:03 PM
But, as Jonesy said, he's not saying box office numbers don't matter.
I am not going to dig through past messages in order to unravel how this whole debate came to be. If you're curious, feel free to do so.
More or less what I expected.
Quote
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 09:20:03 PM
Yes, as you perfectly well know. If you've been around fan sites you'd know there's a wide variety of opinions - not just people who liked a film. Or doesn't your opinion count? You hated Covenant and yet, here you are.
We are discussing statistics here. The polls show some people not liking those films, but the VASTLY general notion is the highest two ratings possible. Meaning: the polls show very favorable results for both films.
So a majority of people liked it. So what? Many of the people who liked generally didn't think it was perfect. The poll didn't offer a simplistic 'did you love it or hate it' question. Fortunately.
This board definitely represents the entire spectrum of opinion.
But, being a fan forum does mean there are more fans here than in the general audience. Covenant scores higher here than elsewhere.
There is also a psychological phenomenon where someone is more likely to take action (such as posting a review) based on negative emotions than positive ones. This principle is used in politics to influence votes. There are proportionally more negative comments than negative votes in polls.
It's worth noting that the general audience scores for Prometheus are higher than for Covenant, but the polls I've seen on this website show the opposite.
Prometheus user scores:
IMDB: 7.0/10
Rottentomatoes: 3.6/5
Metacritic: user score 6.6
Amazon: 3.9/5
Covenant user scores:
IMDB: 6.7/10
Rottentomatoes: 3.4/5
Metacritic: user score 6.1
Amazon: 3.3/5
Have there been any polls on this site that ask for a numerical rating of the Alien movies? I imagine that Prometheus would score lower here than it does at IMDB, Rottentomatoes, and Metacritic, and Covenant would score higher. The Prometheus vs. Covenant poll that I saw showed that Covenant is more popular here.
Perhaps I am imagining things, but I believe that the harshest hate of Prometheus comes from Alien fans, as does most of the love for Covenant. The rest of the world feels the opposite, which means that opinion here is skewed. As a result, Prometheus fans probably feel less welcome (I know I do) and Alien fans do enjoy a slight echo-chamber effect compared to other forums. Just sayin'.
Both the Prometheus and Covenant fan review threads have numerical ratings.
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 10:17:29 PM
Both the Prometheus and Covenant fan review threads have numerical ratings.
I see, but what are the average scores?
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 10:11:18 PM
More or less what I expected.
What's that supposed to mean?
It's been a rough ride for me as an ALIEN/Ridley Scott fan, these past few years. As someone who was initially overjoyed to hear he was returning to this franchise, it's been frustrating to find I strongly disliked his chosen handling of the 'backstory' to the 'Space Jocky's' origin and the 'Xenomorph's' creation! :-[
Some dodgy scripting and character moments aside, Ridley remains an awesome movie director and visualist, but the way he's chosen to 're-imagine' these otherworldly elements from his original movie, has left me decidedly cold.
I very much doubt the original writers of ALIEN would have gone down the route that Ridley has with this material, and I can only look on his prequel storyline as a kind of totally unrelated 'fanfic' to the original movie now...in the same way I look at the AvP movies.
Sure, there's enough in the prequels that's re-watchable for me, but I'd rather imagine these movies are totally unconnected to the way I look on Ridley's original 'Giger'-esque creatures. So I will. :P
On top of that, I'll get a lot more enjoyment out of them in future when I get around to doing a liberal re-edit of both movies for myself eventually.
But there's one thing I know for sure...I DEFINATELY want Ridley to film the conclusion to his storyline, no matter what! And if that means him only getting to do just one more instalment with a reduced budget, then so be it. Both of his prequels have had 'cliff-hanging' endings now (what happened next with Shaw and David taking off in PROMETHEUS, and what happens next after COVENANT's equally open-ended conclusion), and so I want him to be the one who has to tie things up with his DAVID-centric storyline in some way.
I may end up wishing to re-edit his next 'fanfic' instalment for myself too, but at least it would have the benefit of Ridley's personal visual stamp on it, and look as glorious in places as PROMETHEUS and COVENANT did...even if I don't care for the direction he took things in.
And thereafter, yes...let FOX give this particular movie universe a fresh take under a new director or two.
Quote from: Protozoid on Jul 30, 2017, 10:13:04 PM
This board definitely represents the entire spectrum of opinion.
But, being a fan forum does mean there are more fans here than in the general audience. Covenant scores higher here than elsewhere.
There is also a psychological phenomenon where someone is more likely to take action (such as posting a review) based on negative emotions than positive ones. This principle is used in politics to influence votes. There are proportionally more negative comments than negative votes in polls.
It's worth noting that the general audience scores for Prometheus are higher than for Covenant, but the polls I've seen on this website show the opposite.
Prometheus user scores:
IMDB: 7.0/10
Rottentomatoes: 3.6/5
Metacritic: user score 6.6
Amazon: 3.9/5
Covenant user scores:
IMDB: 6.7/10
Rottentomatoes: 3.4/5
Metacritic: user score 6.1
Amazon: 3.3/5
Have there been any polls on this site that ask for a numerical rating of the Alien movies? I imagine that Prometheus would score lower here than it does at IMDB, Rottentomatoes, and Metacritic, and Covenant would score higher. The Prometheus vs. Covenant poll that I saw showed that Covenant is more popular here.
Perhaps I am imagining things, but I believe that the harshest hate of Prometheus comes from Alien fans, as does most of the love for Covenant. The rest of the world feels the opposite, which means that opinion here is skewed. As a result, Prometheus fans probably feel less welcome (I know I do) and Alien fans do enjoy a slight echo-chamber effect compared to other forums. Just sayin'.
I'm just speaking personally here but my reasons for thinking covenant is a better film than Prometheus has nothing to do with me being an Alien fan. My issues with Prom were not based around a lack of Aliens and I didn't particularly want to see the Alien in Covenant. I just think it's a better film.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 10:22:11 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 10:11:18 PM
More or less what I expected.
Quote
What's that supposed to mean?
I expected to be fobbed off when I asked if you could support your assertion.
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 10:30:19 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 10:22:11 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 10:11:18 PM
More or less what I expected.
What's that supposed to mean?
I expected to be fobbed off when I asked if you could support your assertion.
A. It is not my job to catch you up on past debates. If you are unaware of the topic of discussion, it is up to you to do the reading.
B.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 09:36:08 PM
Ah, right, I remember now how it went down. You and a few other members argued that bad box office numbers don't equal a bad movie, and brought up examples of the few cases over the course of history when that was truly the case.
The problem is fox won't reboot the prequel series . That's what we got.
As far as imagining what o bannon and giger would have wanted in a prequel series. That better left to valaquen.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 10:32:00 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 10:30:19 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 10:22:11 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 10:11:18 PM
More or less what I expected.
What's that supposed to mean?
I expected to be fobbed off when I asked if you could support your assertion.
A. It is not my job to catch you up on past debates. If you are unaware of the topic of discussion, it is up to you to do the reading.
B.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 09:36:08 PM
Ah, right, I remember now how it went down. You and a few other members argued that bad box office numbers don't equal a bad movie, and brought up examples of the few cases over the course of history when that was truly the case.
A - he who makes a claim should be able to back it up and not offer up lazy excuses when they can't.
B - I don't recall this but it sounds accurate. So what?
I think the point of this conversation has gone astray somewhere.
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 10:32:00 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 10:30:19 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 10:22:11 PM
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 10:11:18 PM
More or less what I expected.
What's that supposed to mean?
I expected to be fobbed off when I asked if you could support your assertion.
A. It is not my job to catch you up on past debates. If you are unaware of the topic of discussion, it is up to you to do the reading.
B.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 09:36:08 PM
Ah, right, I remember now how it went down. You and a few other members argued that bad box office numbers don't equal a bad movie, and brought up examples of the few cases over the course of history when that was truly the case.
A - he who makes a claim should be able to back it up and not offer up lazy excuses when they can't.
B - I don't recall this but it sounds accurate. So what?
I think the point of this conversation has gone astray somewhere.
A - The claim and all subsequent arguments were made yesterday. They were backed up. You came over today and started demanding to be caught up, as if it's anyone's job.
B - I remembered what went on in that discussion and posted it on my own behalf. You missed it, apparently, and then made a condescending remark at my expense as if I don't back up my claims, even though I have been doing so for the past 40 pages.
But curiously are unwilling or unable to now.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Clearly. It didn't really answer anything though.
Nevermind.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 08:27:54 PM
As everyone here knows, Prometheus had such a negative backlash to it, Ridley Scott himself apologized for making it, calling it a mistake, right before the release of Covenant.
False. Scott said it was a mistake to assume the alien was overcooked, he did not say Prometheus was a mistake and he did not apologise for making it.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 30, 2017, 11:28:20 PM
False. Scott said it was a mistake to assume the alien was overcooked, he did not say Prometheus was a mistake and he did not apologise for making it.
http://www.slashfilm.com/ridley-scott-dials-back-alien-sequels/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/ridley-scott-dials-back-alien-sequels/)
http://www.screengeek.net/2017/05/11/ridley-scott-apologizes-prometheus-talks-alien-sequels/ (http://www.screengeek.net/2017/05/11/ridley-scott-apologizes-prometheus-talks-alien-sequels/)
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/alien-covenant-ridley-scott-admits-got-prometheus-wrong-teases-two-alien-sequels-exclusive-144721534.html (https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/alien-covenant-ridley-scott-admits-got-prometheus-wrong-teases-two-alien-sequels-exclusive-144721534.html)
Those links support what Gash said.
He said he was wrong about thinking the 'beast was cooked'.
Saying he apologised and that the film was a mistake, is baseless hyperbole.
Quote from: SM on Jul 30, 2017, 11:52:10 PM
Those links support what Gash said.
He said he was wrong about thinking the 'beast was cooked'.
Saying he apologised and that the film was a mistake, is baseless hyperbole.
"Ridley Scott Apologizes for 'Prometheus,' Dials Back 'Alien' Sequels"; "Ridley Scott Apologizes For Prometheus; Talks ALIEN Sequels"; "Ridley Scott admits he got Prometheus 'wrong', teases two Alien: Covenant sequels (exclusive)".
Either every media outlet on planet earth didn't understand what he said, or you guys are trying really, really, reaaaaally hard to defend something that's undefendable.
Your post is more confusing than a New York Times crossword.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 11:48:04 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jul 30, 2017, 11:28:20 PM
False. Scott said it was a mistake to assume the alien was overcooked, he did not say Prometheus was a mistake and he did not apologise for making it.
http://www.slashfilm.com/ridley-scott-dials-back-alien-sequels/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/ridley-scott-dials-back-alien-sequels/)
http://www.screengeek.net/2017/05/11/ridley-scott-apologizes-prometheus-talks-alien-sequels/ (http://www.screengeek.net/2017/05/11/ridley-scott-apologizes-prometheus-talks-alien-sequels/)
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/alien-covenant-ridley-scott-admits-got-prometheus-wrong-teases-two-alien-sequels-exclusive-144721534.html (https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/alien-covenant-ridley-scott-admits-got-prometheus-wrong-teases-two-alien-sequels-exclusive-144721534.html)
In which every single quote references only the status of the 'monster being done' in his opinion but that he'd re-evaluated it's draw.
Apart from the journo's click-bait titles to their articles - there is no apologising for Prometheus from Scott, and no admission that the film was a mistake.
How can you read those qoutes, and even link to them, thinking they back up your point? They simply don't.
The Yahoo interview is the original source.
Where does he apologise or say Prometheus was a mistake? He misjudged the appetite for the Alien and copped to that error. Nothing more.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 11:55:52 PM
Either every media outlet on planet earth didn't understand what he said, or you guys are trying really, really, reaaaaally hard to defend something that's undefendable.
Hmmm, do you read past the titles of click-bait journalism?
I think the main difference is that you guys cling on to every single word in his quote in order to reinterpret it in a way that doesn't attack a movie you love, while the rest of us read the quote and infer what it actually means.
Quote from: Gash on Jul 31, 2017, 12:00:50 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 11:55:52 PM
Either every media outlet on planet earth didn't understand what he said, or you guys are trying really, really, reaaaaally hard to defend something that's undefendable.
Hmmm, do you read past the titles of click-bait journalism?
Considering the above 'You're just reading it wrong because you're biased and I'm totally not, and I know what he really meant and you don't' I'm going with 'No'.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 31, 2017, 12:02:58 AM
I think the main difference is that you guys cling on to every single word in his quote in order to reinterpret it in a way that doesn't attack a movie you love, while the rest of us read the quote and infer what it actually means.
Ludicrous. You want to believe he's apologising for a film you personally don't like. Nothing in the quote backs that up, only the article it's framed by attempts to skew it - and you're suckered.
I like Prometheus though...
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 31, 2017, 12:09:39 AM
I like Prometheus though...
Can I infer from that that you don't?
Quote from: Gash on Jul 31, 2017, 12:10:36 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 31, 2017, 12:09:39 AM
I like Prometheus though...
Can I infer from that that you don't?
:laugh:
He did say "though" followed by a trailing off. You could run with that and hypothetically turn it into a click-bait title!
Alright, I'm done. The fanboyism is too strong. Believe what you will.
I believe you're misrepresenting what was said in the same way the clickbait articles did and then getting stroppy when people point it out.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 30, 2017, 08:35:38 PM
I'm just looking at the polls. Can you seriously look at them and argue that both films aren't viewed very favorably on the site?
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jul 30, 2017, 08:33:40 PM
And to be specific, I was addressing the "Fan sites are places where people gather with a built-in positive view on on a subject, making them biased by design" comment.
Yeah, I know. The polls reflect this.
Nothing in the Internet is the truth in real life. The best example is this:
The 3 biggest box office hits of all time are Avatar, Titanic and Star Wars VII. So, in real life, people love those 3 movies.
In Youtube, almost everyone hates Avatar, Titanic and Star Wars VII.
...this just in from ClickBaitYeah.com...
Ridley Scott has assessed fan reactions to Alien Covenant and determined beyond a sliver of a doubt that the consternation springs from disbelief in the backburster so graphically depicted in Ledward's death.Tearfully realizing his complicity in this abominable decision, he has decided in the next installment of the franchise, there'll be no more back bursters, but instead the much more terrifying bellybursters.The working title of the film is ALIEN: XENOTUBBIES, so named for the alien xenomorph embyros implanted in their abdomens.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Teletubbies.png)
More to come...(as we make it up)
Quote from: FenGiddel on Jul 31, 2017, 01:03:46 AM
...this just in from ClickBaitYeah.com...
Ridley Scott has assessed fan reactions to Alien Covenant and determined beyond a sliver of a doubt that the consternation springs from disbelief in the backburster so graphically depicted in Ledward's death.Tearfully realizing his complicity in this abominable decision, he has decided in the next installment of the franchise, there'll be no more back bursters, but instead the much more terrifying bellybursters.The working title of the film is ALIEN: XENOTUBBIES, so named for the alien xenomorph embyros implanted in their abdomens.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Teletubbies.png)
More to come...(as we make it up)
I know you are joking but the Strausee Brothers already did that with AvP:R.
Quote from: FenGiddel on Jul 31, 2017, 01:03:46 AM
...this just in from ClickBaitYeah.com...
Ridley Scott has assessed fan reactions to Alien Covenant and determined beyond a sliver of a doubt that the consternation springs from disbelief in the backburster so graphically depicted in Ledward's death.Tearfully realizing his complicity in this abominable decision, he has decided in the next installment of the franchise, there'll be no more back bursters, but instead the much more terrifying bellybursters.The working title of the film is ALIEN: XENOTUBBIES, so named for the alien xenomorph embyros implanted in their abdomens.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Teletubbies.png)
More to come...(as we make it up)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: FenGiddel on Jul 31, 2017, 01:03:46 AM
...this just in from ClickBaitYeah.com...
Ridley Scott has assessed fan reactions to Alien Covenant and determined beyond a sliver of a doubt that the consternation springs from disbelief in the backburster so graphically depicted in Ledward's death.Tearfully realizing his complicity in this abominable decision, he has decided in the next installment of the franchise, there'll be no more back bursters, but instead the much more terrifying bellybursters.The working title of the film is ALIEN: XENOTUBBIES, so named for the alien xenomorph embyros implanted in their abdomens.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Teletubbies.png)
More to come...(as we make it up)
There are some places in the universe you don't eh oh alone...
Quote from: BringbackJonesy! on Jul 30, 2017, 10:25:04 PM
It's been a rough ride for me as an ALIEN/Ridley Scott fan, these past few years. As someone who was initially overjoyed to hear he was returning to this franchise, it's been frustrating to find I strongly disliked his chosen handling of the 'backstory' to the 'Space Jocky's' origin and the 'Xenomorph's' creation! :-[
Some dodgy scripting and character moments aside, Ridley remains an awesome movie director and visualist, but the way he's chosen to 're-imagine' these otherworldly elements from his original movie, has left me decidedly cold.
I very much doubt the original writers of ALIEN would have gone down the route that Ridley has with this material, and I can only look on his prequel storyline as a kind of totally unrelated 'fanfic' to the original movie now...in the same way I look at the AvP movies.
Sure, there's enough in the prequels that's re-watchable for me, but I'd rather imagine these movies are totally unconnected to the way I look on Ridley's original 'Giger'-esque creatures. So I will. :P
On top of that, I'll get a lot more enjoyment out of them in future when I get around to doing a liberal re-edit of both movies for myself eventually.
But there's one thing I know for sure...I DEFINATELY want Ridley to film the conclusion to his storyline, no matter what! And if that means him only getting to do just one more instalment with a reduced budget, then so be it. Both of his prequels have had 'cliff-hanging' endings now (what happened next with Shaw and David taking off in PROMETHEUS, and what happens next after COVENANT's equally open-ended conclusion), and so I want him to be the one who has to tie things up with his DAVID-centric storyline in some way.
I may end up wishing to re-edit his next 'fanfic' instalment for myself too, but at least it would have the benefit of Ridley's personal visual stamp on it, and look as glorious in places as PROMETHEUS and COVENANT did...even if I don't care for the direction he took things in.
And thereafter, yes...let FOX give this particular movie universe a fresh take under a new director or two.
I agree with most of this. Even though I don't like the direction Scott has to finish this.
There are possible places to go with the liquid which keeps the universe open.
I f**king love Covenant. But, classical scholar and aficionado of literary and poetic allusions, 'n all.
You know how many movies we get nowadays with Byronic hero worship and British Romanticism at the forefront? Can't think of many that are so directly in tune with that ethos.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 31, 2017, 03:40:55 AM
Quote from: BringbackJonesy! on Jul 30, 2017, 10:25:04 PM
It's been a rough ride for me as an ALIEN/Ridley Scott fan, these past few years. As someone who was initially overjoyed to hear he was returning to this franchise, it's been frustrating to find I strongly disliked his chosen handling of the 'backstory' to the 'Space Jocky's' origin and the 'Xenomorph's' creation! :-[
Some dodgy scripting and character moments aside, Ridley remains an awesome movie director and visualist, but the way he's chosen to 're-imagine' these otherworldly elements from his original movie, has left me decidedly cold.
I very much doubt the original writers of ALIEN would have gone down the route that Ridley has with this material, and I can only look on his prequel storyline as a kind of totally unrelated 'fanfic' to the original movie now...in the same way I look at the AvP movies.
Sure, there's enough in the prequels that's re-watchable for me, but I'd rather imagine these movies are totally unconnected to the way I look on Ridley's original 'Giger'-esque creatures. So I will. :P
On top of that, I'll get a lot more enjoyment out of them in future when I get around to doing a liberal re-edit of both movies for myself eventually.
But there's one thing I know for sure...I DEFINATELY want Ridley to film the conclusion to his storyline, no matter what! And if that means him only getting to do just one more instalment with a reduced budget, then so be it. Both of his prequels have had 'cliff-hanging' endings now (what happened next with Shaw and David taking off in PROMETHEUS, and what happens next after COVENANT's equally open-ended conclusion), and so I want him to be the one who has to tie things up with his DAVID-centric storyline in some way.
I may end up wishing to re-edit his next 'fanfic' instalment for myself too, but at least it would have the benefit of Ridley's personal visual stamp on it, and look as glorious in places as PROMETHEUS and COVENANT did...even if I don't care for the direction he took things in.
And thereafter, yes...let FOX give this particular movie universe a fresh take under a new director or two.
I agree with most of this. Even though I don't like the direction Scott has to finish this.
There are possible places to go with the liquid which keeps the universe open.
As much as I love the xenomorph, I do hope that the liquid and its mysteries will be the main "monster" in the next installment.
As far as WY know the creature was thought to be lost, but there's definite story's to be told with the liquid.
You know I've been thinking about it a lot (clearly because I'm on here every day). The Universe was kind of closed anyway as far as the xeno goes post A3 and Rez, that only really leaves Pre-Alien which we have now been given some answers. Any further back in the timeline and the technology is not there to tell a story. Realistically Riddles (or anyone) had a 20-30 year window to do something with the Alien and this was his choice. It's not like we have many places to move in the timeline which is why Blomkamp was probably game for a sidestep that would open up more doors.
We can tell plenty of story's with the liquid though, some great ones I'd imagine if you get the right mix of horror/story. It can be more like the wider Universe that Scott had mentioned.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 31, 2017, 04:13:47 AM
The Universe was kind of closed anyway as far as the xeno goes post A3 and Rez,
Not necessarily. One of the xenomorphs might have snuck aboard the Betty. And there's Ripley 8, she has xeno dna. Plenty of potential there.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jul 31, 2017, 04:20:35 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 31, 2017, 04:13:47 AM
The Universe was kind of closed anyway as far as the xeno goes post A3 and Rez,
Not necessarily. One of the xenomorphs might have snuck aboard the Betty. And there's Ripley 8, she has xeno dna. Plenty of potential there.
Sounds crap already... :)
They could go in a stack of different direction after Resurrection. But I can't imagine them ever doing so.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 29, 2017, 12:45:51 PM
What incentive does the film industry have to produce good Alien films if I'm supporting the terrible ones? By giving such films money, I'm letting the industry know that I want more of what I'm getting. I don't want more of what I'm getting. I don't even want half of what I got so far.
I just watched Covenant 3 times in a row simply to support the franchise as a whole. I knew before hand that if it failed at the box office, FOX just wouldn't make anything Alien/AVP related for a while... ;D
Fun thing is, I actually liked the film even more with each consecutive viewing... it has its flaws, but it is also chock full of awesome little details... and the visuals are superb.
Quote from: Kronnang_Dunn on Jul 31, 2017, 07:34:57 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 29, 2017, 08:54:43 AM
What incentive does the film industry have to produce good Alien films if I'm supporting the terrible ones? By giving such films money, I'm letting the industry know that I want more of what I'm getting. I don't want more of what I'm getting. I don't even want half of what I got so far.
I watched Covenant 3 times in a row to support the franchise as a whole. I knew before hand that if it failed FOX just wouldn't make anything Alien/AVP related in a while... ;D
Fun thing is, I liked the film even more with each consecutive viewing... it has its flaws, but it is also chock full of awesome little details... and the visuals are superb.
That's good. I would've liked to have seen it more than once, but I was just too busy.
However it's silly to expect people to go and see something multiple times if they didn't like it very much the first time.
Why do any of these studios owe us anything? Think about it: Alien got made in the wake of Star Wars, but it was about as far removed from that film as one can get. It didn't really pander to a specific, larger demographic. it was the brainchild of a hive-mind of like-minded artists and rude mechanicals.
I'm always leery of studios cranking out what audiences want, because then you get mass-produced, assembly line affairs like Disney or Marvel films. Yes, Alien: Covenant had its writing tropes (what film doesn't feature writing devices short of the most avant-garde, post-modern art house affairs?) but it's a rich film. It might be a trove of worthless baubles for most fans of the series who bring their checklist to quality-check the next part on the assembly line, but just because a film doesn't cater to a mass-produced formula doesn't mean it's bad, or a failure. It's merely an instance of a fish unable to climb a tree.
Personally I don't want fanboy checklists streamlining the creative process. You think people would get sick-and-tired of that, but the average, unimaginative masses never do. It's bread and circus.--certainly not about richness.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jul 31, 2017, 04:20:35 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 31, 2017, 04:13:47 AM
The Universe was kind of closed anyway as far as the xeno goes post A3 and Rez,
Not necessarily. One of the xenomorphs might have snuck aboard the Betty. And there's Ripley 8, she has xeno dna. Plenty of potential there.
There's also Ripley 7's scar and another hidden planet with the Aliens on that maybe Ripley 8 can sense.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 31, 2017, 12:02:58 AM
I think the main difference is that you guys cling on to every single word in his quote in order to reinterpret it in a way that doesn't attack a movie you love, while the rest of us read the quote and infer what it actually means.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jul 31, 2017, 12:14:00 AM
Alright, I'm done. The fanboyism is too strong. Believe what you will.
Quote from: SM on Jul 31, 2017, 12:18:47 AM
I believe you're misrepresenting what was said in the same way the clickbait articles did and then getting stroppy when people point it out.
It's nothing to do with "fanboyism". It's to do with reading more than just a single line and making presumptions based on that. You seem to really hate being corrected with your presumptions. If you don't like actual discussion, perhaps a discussion board is not the place for you.
Quote from: Kronnang_Dunn on Jul 31, 2017, 07:34:57 AM
Fun thing is, I actually liked the film even more with each consecutive viewing... it has its flaws, but it is also chock full of awesome little details... and the visuals are superb.
Yeah. For me it works like this: You watch a movie differently after the first time. You already know the story, so you watch it for other things.
For example; I prefer the anthology version of Alien (with Brett and Dallas cocoon sequence). So what if that disconnects it from Cameron's queen? I know full well how the full franchise storyline used to work.
Nor do I really care that, according to Rawlings and Scott, the pacing slows to a crawl during the race to the climax. For me, the suspense and tension in the 3rd act dried up decades ago. But I like the mood of the cocoon sequence. (Besides, from a writer's point of view it ties off the mystery of the alien life cycle nicely - which O'Bannon carefully sets up in earlier scenes. )
When you watch a film again and again suspense dies off but mood lives on forever.
TC
I'm sure with time I'll warm to Covenant, I guess it's just a bit of a shock to the system. It's weird, I like the movie if I don't think about it too much. Perhaps you fellas are right in that it'll get better with time. I just feel like it's a missed opportunity.
Quote from: TC on Jul 31, 2017, 09:57:12 AM
Quote from: Kronnang_Dunn on Jul 31, 2017, 07:34:57 AM
Fun thing is, I actually liked the film even more with each consecutive viewing... it has its flaws, but it is also chock full of awesome little details... and the visuals are superb.
Yeah. For me it works like this: You watch a movie differently after the first time. You already know the story, so you watch it for other things.
For example; I prefer the anthology version of Alien (with Brett and Dallas cocoon sequence). So what if that disconnects it from Cameron's queen? I know full well how the full franchise storyline used to work.
Nor do I really care that, according to Rawlings and Scott, the pacing slows to a crawl during the race to the climax. For me, the suspense and tension in the 3rd act dried up decades ago. But I like the mood of the cocoon sequence. (Besides, from a writer's point of view it ties off the mystery of the alien life cycle nicely - which O'Bannon carefully sets up in earlier scenes. )
When you watch a film again and again suspense dies off but mood lives on forever.
TC
I'm in the exactly same boat. I've never complained about cocoon sequence and its supposed negative influence on the pacing. Now, Covenant had tightly adjusted pacing that would be extremely easy to disrupt with any minor addition, but Alien...no way.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 31, 2017, 11:06:15 AM
I'm sure with time I'll warm to Covenant, I guess it's just a bit of a shock to the system. It's weird, I like the movie if I don't think about it too much. Perhaps you fellas are right in that it'll get better with time. I just feel like it's a missed opportunity.
I think there's a good chance you will. The film surprised me too, the first half was pretty much what I expected but the 2nd half blow those expectations away which I personally liked.
Initially I felt the Alien was sold short a little and I really didn't like the baby alien scene. I now accept that the film isn't about the Alien itself and I love the birthing scene. Repeated viewings changed my perception of both aspects. I think it's right that it takes a back seat at this stage of the story and would expect it to be a much bigger focus in a sequel.
The change in direction regarding the lore may be harder for some to get over. Even if it doesn't change any actually facts, which I know is debatable, it does alter what is accepted and believed lore built up over years. Some will never be able to accept that and tbf that's completely understandable.
I know that this topic is a bit old (and forgive me if this has been brought up before, but I haven't been paying much attention to this thread), but I think one thing people should know is that "work stopped" does not mean that the film is dead.
When the THR article says that Fox is "reassessing" the series, there's a good chance that could have meant that Fox told those working on Awakening (concept artists, pre-vis artists, etc.) to hold on their work while they decide what they do next.
IDK, just something I wanted to bring up. As I always say, we just gotta wait and see what happens.
I doubt they be doing pre-production, but you're right in that it doesn't mean it's dead.
Quote from: Highland on Jul 31, 2017, 11:06:15 AM
I'm sure with time I'll warm to Covenant, I guess it's just a bit of a shock to the system. It's weird, I like the movie if I don't think about it too much. Perhaps you fellas are right in that it'll get better with time.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDjuLxfZ.jpg&hash=03f9fd82f8f44b9069a6e0e96e8cc9130f600b79)
Quote from: Highland on Jul 31, 2017, 11:06:15 AM
I'm sure with time I'll warm to Covenant, I guess it's just a bit of a shock to the system. It's weird, I like the movie if I don't think about it too much. Perhaps you fellas are right in that it'll get better with time.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/XreQmk7ETCak0/giphy.gif)
Wow, you go away for a while and stuff happens.
Ayyy Speedy! ;D
Quote from: Highland on Jul 31, 2017, 11:06:15 AM
I'm sure with time I'll warm to Covenant, I guess it's just a bit of a shock to the system. It's weird, I like the movie if I don't think about it too much. Perhaps you fellas are right in that it'll get better with time. I just feel like it's a missed opportunity.
You'll enjoy it more if you forget ALIEN ever happened.
Quote from: Anthony on Jul 31, 2017, 06:42:31 PM
I know that this topic is a bit old (and forgive me if this has been brought up before, but I haven't been paying much attention to this thread), but I think one thing people should know is that "work stopped" does not mean that the film is dead.
When the THR article says that Fox is "reassessing" the series, there's a good chance that could have meant that Fox told those working on Awakening (concept artists, pre-vis artists, etc.) to hold on their work while they decide what they do next.
IDK, just something I wanted to bring up. As I always say, we just gotta wait and see what happens.
Agreed that when it comes to a franchise sequel/prequel and the box office is just OK, then the viewer is left to wait and see what the studio will do.
- Besides the Alien franchise, the Fox studio is in a similar situation with Planet of the Apes.
"War for the Planet of the Apes" has a $150 million production budget. To get to 3 x its production budget (solid support for a sequel) would be $450 million box office. I don't think that "War" is going to get there. One reason is because censors are not allowing for a release date in China.
So, last October Fox was working on a 4th POTA reboot film. That will now probably be delayed.
- So, the delay of a sequel to "Covenant" is not unusual.
Fox is running a business. "Covenant" did OK money wise but it fell short of 3x its production budget which "Prometheus" was able to reach.
* We're back to waiting for what Fox will do.
;)
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Aug 02, 2017, 04:35:46 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 31, 2017, 11:06:15 AM
I'm sure with time I'll warm to Covenant, I guess it's just a bit of a shock to the system. It's weird, I like the movie if I don't think about it too much. Perhaps you fellas are right in that it'll get better with time. I just feel like it's a missed opportunity.
You'll enjoy it more if you forget ALIEN ever happened.
Saw on its day of release. Seen it multiple times since. Still love it.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: bb-15 on Aug 02, 2017, 04:50:17 AM
Quote from: Anthony on Jul 31, 2017, 06:42:31 PM
I know that this topic is a bit old (and forgive me if this has been brought up before, but I haven't been paying much attention to this thread), but I think one thing people should know is that "work stopped" does not mean that the film is dead.
When the THR article says that Fox is "reassessing" the series, there's a good chance that could have meant that Fox told those working on Awakening (concept artists, pre-vis artists, etc.) to hold on their work while they decide what they do next.
IDK, just something I wanted to bring up. As I always say, we just gotta wait and see what happens.
Agreed that when it comes to a franchise sequel/prequel and the box office is just OK, then the viewer is left to wait and see what the studio will do.
- Besides the Alien franchise, the Fox studio is in a similar situation with Planet of the Apes.
"War for the Planet of the Apes" has a $150 million production budget. To get to 3 x its production budget (solid support for a sequel) would be $450 million box office. I don't think that "War" is going to get there. One reason is because censors are not allowing for a release date in China.
So, last October Fox was working on a 4th POTA reboot film. That will now probably be delayed.
- So, the delay of a sequel to "Covenant" is not unusual.
Fox is running a business. "Covenant" did OK money wise but it fell short of 3x its production budget which "Prometheus" was able to reach.
* We're back to waiting for what Fox will do.
;)
Good point. But while it might not be unusual, it's definitely not what Fox is wanting for both series'.
I imagine when Ridley was given the go ahead for Covenant, Fox likely said, "We'll do your movie, but only if you put the Xenomorphs back in.". So when they saw that the film with Xenomorphs only did a little more than half of what Prometheus, the one that got backlash in part due to the lack of Xenomorphs, that's probably what's making them go, "Okay, should we move forward? How can we move forward?".
With Apes, I think it was bad timing with its release. Sandwiched between Spider-Man and Dunkirk, with no IMAX to help. August probably would've been better IMO.
Again, we just gotta wait and see.
On the bright side though, the careers for those involved in both War and Covenant seem to be doing just fine, despite underperforming BO. That's what matters most IMO.
War of the Planet of the Apes was a really safe film with not whole lot of substance to it. Cheap playing on emotions of the audience, cheap martyrdom...almost no relatable characters, and also an ape which obviously was written for comedic relief moments.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 06:58:49 AM
War of the Planet of the Apes was a really safe film with not whole lot of substance to it. Cheap playing on emotions of the audience, cheap martyrdom...almost no relatable characters, and also an ape which obviously was written for comedic relief moments.
Ape fan would practically say the same about Covenant I'd imagine. I've not seen the Ape film, I don't know what that has to do with Covenant though.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 02, 2017, 07:20:37 AM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 06:58:49 AM
War of the Planet of the Apes was a really safe film with not whole lot of substance to it. Cheap playing on emotions of the audience, cheap martyrdom...almost no relatable characters, and also an ape which obviously was written for comedic relief moments.
Ape fan would practically say the same about Covenant I'd imagine. I've not seen the Ape film, I don't know what that has to do with Covenant though.
Covenant doesn't have 82 score on Metacritic and 94% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 07:43:40 AM
Quote from: Highland on Aug 02, 2017, 07:20:37 AM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 06:58:49 AM
War of the Planet of the Apes was a really safe film with not whole lot of substance to it. Cheap playing on emotions of the audience, cheap martyrdom...almost no relatable characters, and also an ape which obviously was written for comedic relief moments.
Ape fan would practically say the same about Covenant I'd imagine. I've not seen the Ape film, I don't know what that has to do with Covenant though.
Covenant doesn't have 82 score on Metacritic and 94% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Because people liked it better maybe?
Quote from: Highland on Aug 02, 2017, 08:20:49 AM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 07:43:40 AM
Quote from: Highland on Aug 02, 2017, 07:20:37 AM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 06:58:49 AM
War of the Planet of the Apes was a really safe film with not whole lot of substance to it. Cheap playing on emotions of the audience, cheap martyrdom...almost no relatable characters, and also an ape which obviously was written for comedic relief moments.
Ape fan would practically say the same about Covenant I'd imagine. I've not seen the Ape film, I don't know what that has to do with Covenant though.
Covenant doesn't have 82 score on Metacritic and 94% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Because people liked it better maybe?
It's not why I brought those scores up, LOL!
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 08:29:01 AM
Quote from: Highland on Aug 02, 2017, 08:20:49 AM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 07:43:40 AM
Quote from: Highland on Aug 02, 2017, 07:20:37 AM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 06:58:49 AM
War of the Planet of the Apes was a really safe film with not whole lot of substance to it. Cheap playing on emotions of the audience, cheap martyrdom...almost no relatable characters, and also an ape which obviously was written for comedic relief moments.
Ape fan would practically say the same about Covenant I'd imagine. I've not seen the Ape film, I don't know what that has to do with Covenant though.
Covenant doesn't have 82 score on Metacritic and 94% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Because people liked it better maybe?
It's not why I brought those scores up, LOL!
Well you lost me with the first ape thread, I'm still lost now.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 02, 2017, 04:54:06 AM
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Aug 02, 2017, 04:35:46 AM
Quote from: Highland on Jul 31, 2017, 11:06:15 AM
I'm sure with time I'll warm to Covenant, I guess it's just a bit of a shock to the system. It's weird, I like the movie if I don't think about it too much. Perhaps you fellas are right in that it'll get better with time. I just feel like it's a missed opportunity.
You'll enjoy it more if you forget ALIEN ever happened.
Saw on its day of release. Seen it multiple times since. Still love it.
-Windebieste.
The reply wasn't meant for you which is why I quoted Highland directly. Your love of the film wasn't in question as far as I can tell? If you don't mind that it's David who is ultimately responsible for the down derelict and eggs in the first film, then The ALIEN universe and its continuity is just peachy keen.
Bah! Use Private Messaging if you don't want opinions from other people on the forum.
:P
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Aug 02, 2017, 11:47:02 AMIf you don't mind that it's David who is ultimately responsible for the down derelict and eggs in the first film, then The ALIEN universe and its continuity is just peachy keen.
Continuity was never the problem. It's not a problem for David to make the Alien except that it makes the universe smaller, seems like lazy storytelling, and disappoints some people's expectations for the creature and the universe.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 02, 2017, 06:52:15 PM
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Aug 02, 2017, 11:47:02 AMIf you don't mind that it's David who is ultimately responsible for the down derelict and eggs in the first film, then The ALIEN universe and its continuity is just peachy keen.
Continuity was never the problem. It's not a problem for David to make the Alien except that it makes the universe smaller, seems like lazy storytelling, and disappoints some people's expectations for the creature and the universe.
I think in a way it makes the universe richer, actually.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 02, 2017, 06:52:15 PM
Continuity was never the problem. It's not a problem for David to make the Alien except that it makes the universe smaller, seems like lazy storytelling, and disappoints some people's expectations for the creature and the universe.
I think in a way it makes the universe richer, actually.
How so?
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 02, 2017, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 02, 2017, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 02, 2017, 06:52:15 PM
Continuity was never the problem. It's not a problem for David to make the Alien except that it makes the universe smaller, seems like lazy storytelling, and disappoints some people's expectations for the creature and the universe.
I think in a way it makes the universe richer, actually.
How so?
I agree it's richer. Its just a personal view but I love the fact it's something I never imagined and to me, now, ancient creatures would be dull. The engineers creating us, we create Ai, David then bringing this horror upon us just feels so poetic and more complex to me. However, I totally understand it's not for everyone.
It's really not, but is anything? Each entry in the series is polarizing. Met plenty of people who think Alien is a stupid film, or Aliens, or 3, etc.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 02, 2017, 09:57:53 PM
It's really not, but is anything? Each entry in the series is polarizing. Met plenty of people who think Alien is a stupid film, or Aliens, or 3, etc.
Nobody ever slacks off Aliens for not having everybody wear suits, but okay, an airborne pathogen wasn't part of the plot so I can sort of see why even though it's still hypocritical and stupid from an in-film context.
One of the thing that boggles me most is how people defend Gorman panicking. I get that he's supposed to be a newbie, but why send a newbie on a dangerous mission to another planet? It's just "lazy" writing to further the plot. If this happened in Covenant people would go ape-shit over it ::)
Quote from: tleilaxu on Aug 02, 2017, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 02, 2017, 09:57:53 PM
It's really not, but is anything? Each entry in the series is polarizing. Met plenty of people who think Alien is a stupid film, or Aliens, or 3, etc.
Nobody ever slacks off Aliens for not having everybody wear suits, but okay, an airborne pathogen wasn't part of the plot so I can sort of see why even though it's still hypocritical and stupid from an in-film context.
One of the thing that boggles me most is how people defend Gorman panicking. I get that he's supposed to be a newbie, but why send a newbie on a dangerous mission to another planet? It's just "lazy" writing to further the plot. If this happened in Covenant people would go ape-shit over it ::)
Yep. But double-standards.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Aug 02, 2017, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 02, 2017, 09:57:53 PM
It's really not, but is anything? Each entry in the series is polarizing. Met plenty of people who think Alien is a stupid film, or Aliens, or 3, etc.
Nobody ever slacks off Aliens for not having everybody wear suits, but okay, an airborne pathogen wasn't part of the plot so I can sort of see why even though it's still hypocritical and stupid from an in-film context.
One of the thing that boggles me most is how people defend Gorman panicking. I get that he's supposed to be a newbie, but why send a newbie on a dangerous mission to another planet? It's just "lazy" writing to further the plot. If this happened in Covenant people would go ape-shit over it ::)
I could answer all of these, but you guy's won't care, please continue to pick holes in the one of the greatest Scifi movies of all time...
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 12:04:26 AM
I could answer all of these, but you guy's won't care, please continue to pick holes in the one of the greatest Scifi movies of all time...
And I could do it for Covenant. But please, keep picking holes in one of the greatest dark fantasies made in recent times.
It's called criticism. Film critics don't exist merely to praise what "should" be, in regards to greatness. Many different ways to analyze films. Just because I "pick holes" in Aliens doesn't mean I hate it. Quite the opposite. I love Aliens. But is it perfect? Nope. Plenty of things to point out about it. Ripley and just about everyone else in that film is incredibly stupid. Doesn't stop me from enjoying it. It's a great movie.
But so is Covenant. Is one better than the other? Who cares? But if you wanted me to answer that question, I'd say pound for pound, Aliens checks more boxes, but Covenant has more interesting material.
I don't think Aliens is an incompetent film, I has no major plot holes or particularly stupid character decisions, I just don't like it as a sequel to ALIEN.
I'm more interested in Covenant and Prometheus as companion pieces to ALIEN.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 12:04:26 AM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Aug 02, 2017, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 02, 2017, 09:57:53 PM
It's really not, but is anything? Each entry in the series is polarizing. Met plenty of people who think Alien is a stupid film, or Aliens, or 3, etc.
Nobody ever slacks off Aliens for not having everybody wear suits, but okay, an airborne pathogen wasn't part of the plot so I can sort of see why even though it's still hypocritical and stupid from an in-film context.
One of the thing that boggles me most is how people defend Gorman panicking. I get that he's supposed to be a newbie, but why send a newbie on a dangerous mission to another planet? It's just "lazy" writing to further the plot. If this happened in Covenant people would go ape-shit over it ::)
I could answer all of these, but you guy's won't care, please continue to pick holes in the one of the greatest Scifi movies of all time...
Not saying it's not a great film, just saying that when you take away the great-film-status it's pretty easy to start picking some things apart.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 03, 2017, 12:20:19 AM
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 12:04:26 AM
I could answer all of these, but you guy's won't care, please continue to pick holes in the one of the greatest Scifi movies of all time...
And I could do it for Covenant. But please, keep picking holes in one of the greatest dark fantasies made in recent times.
It's called criticism. Film critics don't exist merely to praise what "should" be, in regards to greatness. Many different ways to analyze films. Just because I "pick holes" in Aliens doesn't mean I hate it. Quite the opposite. I love Aliens. But is it perfect? Nope. Plenty of things to point out about it. Ripley and just about everyone else in that film is incredibly stupid. Doesn't stop me from enjoying it. It's a great movie.
But so is Covenant. Is one better than the other? Who cares? But if you wanted me to answer that question, I'd say pound for pound, Aliens checks more boxes, but Covenant has more interesting material.
There is a completely valid reason explained in the film why Gorman chosen which allows the story flow in a sensible way.
Also I completely get defending Covenant because you like it, that's normal and there's nothing wrong with that at all. What's not normal is taking one of the franchises tent pole movies and the reason Covenant exists and trying to shit all over it to defend your points in some kind of backwards justification.
That's mental, there must be a condition or a word for this.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Aug 02, 2017, 11:50:41 PM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 02, 2017, 09:57:53 PM
It's really not, but is anything? Each entry in the series is polarizing. Met plenty of people who think Alien is a stupid film, or Aliens, or 3, etc.
Nobody ever slacks off Aliens for not having everybody wear suits, but okay, an airborne pathogen wasn't part of the plot so I can sort of see why even though it's still hypocritical and stupid from an in-film context.
One of the thing that boggles me most is how people defend Gorman panicking. I get that he's supposed to be a newbie, but why send a newbie on a dangerous mission to another planet? It's just "lazy" writing to further the plot. If this happened in Covenant people would go ape-shit over it ::)
Alien is an old movie that has held up surprisingly well. It's important to remember that, when it came out, there had never been anything quite like it. It's not scary any more, but the film is still a masterpiece.
In Aliens, colonists had been living on LV426 for some time with atmosphere processors actively converting the poison gas clouds into breathable air. There was no special reason to suspect airborne pathogens. I would think the big fusion towers and the air filtration systems in the colony would take care of all that. And if the green lieutenant isn't a movie trope, it should be. Green lieutenants are probably as real as veteran platoon sergeants. It was also part of the story that the ultra-tough, gung-ho marines fall apart in the face of this unknown enemy. And if it happened in Covenant, it might also make sense. There's no point thinking too much about it. Mostly, it's another old movie that's held up quite well.
He's green because the company think Ripley is full of S**t, there's been people living on LV426 for years and Burke has an ulterior motive.
Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 03, 2017, 12:20:19 AM
And I could do it for Covenant. But please, keep picking holes in one of the greatest dark fantasies made in recent times.
I will be more interested in what you think about it in 10 years. Honestly, Prometheus and Covenant needed to stand on their own. They needed total dissociation from the Alien franchise. The Engineers are some other alien race, no references to the xenomorph, no references to the Space Jockey, no Weyland, no Weyland-Yutani, none of that. The movies needed to be their own thing because being attached to Alien made them too convoluted. Maybe the story should have been even simpler. It's about unloved androids who develop this absolutely amazing nanotech goo that can create or destroy, depending on how it's used. There are elements of greatness floating around in those movies, but too little of that made ot to the screen. What we got was what we got.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 12:46:27 AM
He's green because the company think Ripley is full of S**t, there's been people living on LV426 for years and Burke has an ulterior motive.
He's green because he lacks experience. What you say makes sense, but it could as easily be, that was the closest available ship and no one saw a problem sending that particular squad of ultimate badasses on what was probably a milk run.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 03, 2017, 12:54:49 AM
The movies needed to be their own thing because being attached to Alien made them too convoluted.
I don't agree with that.
The movies are pretty straight forward.
To be honest I'm confused how the inclusion of the alien can be seen as a negative.
I don't get it :-\
Nor do I.
Maybe it was David creating them that turned people off...?
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 03, 2017, 12:54:49 AM
Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 03, 2017, 12:20:19 AM
And I could do it for Covenant. But please, keep picking holes in one of the greatest dark fantasies made in recent times.
I will be more interested in what you think about it in 10 years. Honestly, Prometheus and Covenant needed to stand on their own. They needed total dissociation from the Alien franchise. The Engineers are some other alien race, no references to the xenomorph, no references to the Space Jockey, no Weyland, no Weyland-Yutani, none of that. The movies needed to be their own thing because being attached to Alien made them too convoluted. Maybe the story should have been even simpler. It's about unloved androids who develop this absolutely amazing nanotech goo that can create or destroy, depending on how it's used. There are elements of greatness floating around in those movies, but too little of that made ot to the screen. What we got was what we got.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 12:46:27 AM
He's green because the company think Ripley is full of S**t, there's been people living on LV426 for years and Burke has an ulterior motive.
He's green because he lacks experience. What you say makes sense, but it could as easily be, that was the closest available ship and no one saw a problem sending that particular squad of ultimate badasses on what was probably a milk run.
No.
He's green, he's meant to be green because Burke chose him - because he's green. That's the point, it's not an accidental plot point to make everyone die randomly.
It's no different to Covenant explaining that Oram is green because the other Captain died in his cryopod. Both people are inexperienced for valid reasons.
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 01:07:54 AM
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 03, 2017, 12:54:49 AM
The movies needed to be their own thing because being attached to Alien made them too convoluted.
I don't agree with that.
The movies are pretty straight forward.
To be honest I'm confused how the inclusion of the alien can be seen as a negative.
I don't get it :-\
Because Ridley treats the alien like it's just some afterthought. To him, the beast is cooked, and he treats it exactly that way. But apparently Fox says, "include the alien." So he does, but he fixes it so the alien is the butt of the joke. Who is the ultimate monster in Covenant? The android. What Ash describes in Alien is David in Covenant.
So Ridley should repeat himself...?
After seeing the Advent short, I want a sequel even more.
Is there anyone we can bombard with Tweets to make it known if we want the sequel?
If they don't make a sequel to Covenant, I hope they can at least commission a novel out of Ridley's plans.
QuoteQuoteQuote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 12:46:27 AM
He's green because the company think Ripley is full of S**t, there's been people living on LV426 for years and Burke has an ulterior motive.
He's green because he lacks experience. What you say makes sense, but it could as easily be, that was the closest available ship and no one saw a problem sending that particular squad of ultimate badasses on what was probably a milk run.
No.
He's green, he's meant to be green because Burke chose him - because he's green. That's the point, it's not an accidental plot point to make everyone die randomly.
It's no different to Covenant explaining that Oram is green because the other Captain died in his cryopod. Both people are inexperienced for valid reasons.
Having a green lieutenant served the plot, so we got a green lieutenant. The rest of it, we don't know the relationship between WY and Colonial Marines, we have no reason to think Burke can pick his own lieutenant, etc. You want to say all that, say it and be happy. It really doesn;t matter.
*Fixed quotes. Hicks.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 03, 2017, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 01:07:54 AM
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 03, 2017, 12:54:49 AM
The movies needed to be their own thing because being attached to Alien made them too convoluted.
I don't agree with that.
The movies are pretty straight forward.
To be honest I'm confused how the inclusion of the alien can be seen as a negative.
I don't get it :-\
Because Ridley treats the alien like it's just some afterthought. To him, the beast is cooked, and he treats it exactly that way. But apparently Fox says, "include the alien." So he does, but he fixes it so the alien is the butt of the joke. Who is the ultimate monster in Covenant? The android. What Ash describes in Alien is David in Covenant.
In a way David is the xenomorph.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 12:32:00 AM
Also I completely get defending Covenant because you like it, that's normal and there's nothing wrong with that at all.
So you're saying it's OK to do it, as long as it's done a way that you consider alright, or "normal." You do realize "normal" is relative, right?
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 12:32:00 AM
What's not normal is taking one of the franchises tent pole movies and the reason Covenant exists and trying to shit all over it to defend your points in some kind of backwards justification.
First, your use of the word normal doesn't really concern me. I mean, normal as in average, or generally-accepted, or what? Einstein wasn't normal, at all, and he changed the world. Neither Cameron nor Ridley are "normal," neither, nor was Giger. And given how much worshiping is done at their feet, around here, why is normal suddenly so important? I would argue that it isn't. F**k normal.
Second, why is something coming first automatically determining of it being sacred or bulletproof? So what if Alien is a classic, or Aliens? So what if they predate Covenant? I can still compare them side by side and find similar flaws. It's normal to compare various entries for purposes of clarification, but you're acting like it's this insane act. It's not.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 12:32:00 AM
That's mental, there must be a condition or a word for this.
No, what's mental is you calling it "backwards justification." That's just confusing. I really don't know what you mean, here.
QuoteThere's no point thinking too much about it. Mostly, it's another old movie that's held up quite well.
And Prometheus, after 5 years, has evidently held up better than it did, initially. Look at the Wizard of Oz: It wasn't a "classic" until the 1950s, 20-odd years after its initial release. Given time, how will people feel about Covenant? I think people just need something to attack so they can say about their favorite old films that those are awesome.
QuoteFirst, your use of the word normal doesn't really concern me.
QuoteF**k normal.
:laugh:
Nicks on drugs. Nobody watched Aliens. I learned two things.
No, I'm sober. Are you on drugs? It's OK if you are. But one doesn't need to be stoned, high, or otherwise baked in order to have an open mind.
Quote from: newagescamartist on Aug 03, 2017, 01:28:49 AM
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 03, 2017, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 01:07:54 AM
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 03, 2017, 12:54:49 AM
The movies needed to be their own thing because being attached to Alien made them too convoluted.
I don't agree with that.
The movies are pretty straight forward.
To be honest I'm confused how the inclusion of the alien can be seen as a negative.
I don't get it :-\
Because Ridley treats the alien like it's just some afterthought. To him, the beast is cooked, and he treats it exactly that way. But apparently Fox says, "include the alien." So he does, but he fixes it so the alien is the butt of the joke. Who is the ultimate monster in Covenant? The android. What Ash describes in Alien is David in Covenant.
In a way David is the xenomorph.
I think you're right.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 02:03:30 AM
Nicks on drugs. Nobody watched Aliens. I learned two things.
::) :P :-X
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 01:07:54 AM
To be honest I'm confused how the inclusion of the alien can be seen as a negative.
I don't get it :-\
Quote from: SM on Aug 03, 2017, 01:12:47 AM
Nor do I.
Maybe it was David creating them that turned people off...?
I know a lot of people didn't like the David creation angle. I certainly didn't. But for me, it's also that the Alien's inclusion seems tacked on at the end and they're running out of runtime so it all feels rushed and we get the accelerated life cycle (which I wasn't a fan of, even if I can fan explain it away).
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 02:03:30 AM
Nicks on drugs. Nobody watched Aliens. I learned two things.
Behave please, guys. I've had to warn Nick about superior attitude in the past and I know you're something of a pot stirrer, Highland. Let's play friendly or not play at all.
Except this time I didn't do anything. Not sure why you're pointing that out.
All I said was it's great that people defend Covenant if they like it, but continually dragging down the other entries in the series to do so is not cool and a bit twisted, especially considering those movies have overwhelmingly been proven to be quality entries. Then Nick started off on something about Einstein for some reason just because I used the word "normal". I don't understand it either.
Apologies, I don't really plan on conversing with him.
Moving on.
Quote from: SM on Aug 03, 2017, 01:22:23 AM
So Ridley should repeat himself...?
Be damned if he does, be damned if he doesn't.
What accelerated life cycle? I keep hearing about this, but see no evidence of this in the movie... No time indication on Oram's incubation, and Lope's alien had plenty of time to grow imo, since mother's system was acting funky. The cycle and the impregnation was all fine imo.
Avp's incubation... Now that one was on speed or something lol.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 07:40:58 AM
Then Nick started off on something about Einstein for some reason just because I used the word "normal". I don't understand it either.
"Either"? By which you mean he doesn't get it, as well. Maybe he does.
In any case, I don't think it's that difficult to understand. You're talking about those who criticize Aliens by comparing it to Covenant as not normal, in the pejorative sense. I merely pointed out that being not normal is something to be celebrated.
I feel as though I should be able to explain, or defend myself, here, as part of the conversation.
Can we all now move on and rejoice being f**ked up? :D
Quote from: Hemi on Aug 03, 2017, 07:51:01 AM
What accelerated life cycle? I keep hearing about this, but see no evidence of this in the movie... No time indication on Oram's incubation, and Lope's alien had plenty of time to grow imo, since mother's system was acting funky. The cycle and the impregnation was all fine imo.
Avp's incubation... Now that one was on speed or something lol.
The hugger was on Lope for barely a few seconds before Cole cut it off and it died. The gestation time for the thing to grow wasn't really an issue (we don't know how long it was but it could've been hours). It being attached to him for so short a time was at odds with what has been previously established. Not even AvP had the huggers being attached for so little time.
Well Ridley Scott made the first movie, so if anyone can break the rules, it's him.
Can we please have more sequel thingies, Sir Scott? Just like 'ALIEN: Covenant'..? All subversive, meaningful, content laden and forcing audiences to rethink what they assume they know?
It was excellent! Moar plz.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Hemi on Aug 03, 2017, 07:51:01 AM
What accelerated life cycle? I keep hearing about this, but see no evidence of this in the movie... No time indication on Oram's incubation, and Lope's alien had plenty of time to grow imo, since mother's system was acting funky. The cycle and the impregnation was all fine imo.
Avp's incubation... Now that one was on speed or something lol.
Lope's Alien has plenty of time to grow, however he's infected in a space of about 10 seconds.
Without the scene of Daniels falling to sleep to indicate any passage and the way the film is edited together, Oram's incubation does seem to be an incubation of AvP proportions.
Viewers weren't the only ones to notice this. ADF felt obliged to justify it in the novelization.
Quote from: Scorpio on Aug 03, 2017, 08:13:17 AM
Well Ridley Scott made the first movie, so if anyone can break the rules, it's him.
He was one of a group of creative forces who made the first film.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 08:14:42 AM
Can we please have more sequel thingies, Sir Scott? Just like 'ALIEN: Covenant'..? All subversive, meaningful, content laden and forcing audiences to rethink what they assume they know?
It was excellent! Moar plz.
Less condescension please.
I feel like I'm being singled out, here, by Corporal, for having a "superior attitude." Like that isn't biased, at all.
I can't even talk back and forth with someone without having him standing behind me, spanking his palm with a blackjack, it feels like.
Take it to the PMs.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 03, 2017, 08:16:34 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 08:14:42 AM
Can we please have more sequel thingies, Sir Scott? Just like 'ALIEN: Covenant'..? All subversive, meaningful, content laden and forcing audiences to rethink what they assume they know?
It was excellent! Moar plz.
Less condescension please.
No I think Winde's actually being sincere there.
Nah, he's taking the piss out of people who dislike the film. There seems to have been a rise in an attitude where apparently people who dislike Covenant or Prometheus are incapable of "understanding" all the multitude of layers and etc.
I was being on topic. And really? Scott is pulling the rug out from underneath our fannish acceptance of what we believe. Turns out, he's out to make us all question our conventions and make these movies 'alien' to us again. Fans are not the authorities here. We never were. If it takes 10 seconds for a facehugger to perform an implantation on a host then fans must accept that. Complain as much as they like. It doesn't change what's in the movie
Some will adapt. Others will complain.
Just like we had to adapt to accept the Queen in 1986. Just like we had to adapt to accept Aliens are easily killed by sustained gunfire. Just like we had to adapt when Ripley, Hicks and Newt were killed. ...and so on and so forth.
Scott's in charge once again and I welcome what he's bringing to the table. While it hasn't been perfect, it's been fascinating, absorbing, mesmerising, intriguing and... 'alien' in ways that push the envelope beyond anything we've seen in years.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 08:39:15 AM
If it takes 10 seconds for a facehugger to perform an implantation on a host then fans must accept that. Complain as much as they like. It doesn't change what's in the movie
When it contradicts the rules established in the other films, yes, people will complain about it. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with people taking issue with that.
It doesn't compare to your comparisons. Alien hadn't established a reproductive method (deleted scene, doesn't count), the Alien never took weapons fire in the first film...Hicks and Newt weren't granted some specific time frame of life or immunity to safety supports.
It's great that those things don't bother you. I'm somewhat jealous they don't. Personally, I really enjoyed the film until the Alien's inclusion and then it went down hill for me.
However, it doesn't make me or anyone else who dislike those aspects stupid. Or unable to comprehend all the "subversive" or "meaningful" layers or whatever in the film. I'm really bored of seeing that kind of attitude thrown back at people who dislike aspects of the fulm.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 03, 2017, 08:36:58 AM
Nah, he's taking the piss out of people who dislike the film. There seems to have been a rise in an attitude where apparently people who dislike Covenant or Prometheus are incapable of "understanding" all the multitude of layers and etc.
This is how I've felt. I'm not getting involved in anymore debates as far as what I did and didn't like, I think everyone's said what they have to say and honestly it's a bit like being gang tackled.
QuoteScott is pulling the rug out from underneath our fannish acceptance of what we believe
It's nothing to do with fannish behavoir. When a franchise has set up some ground rules over a period of 30 years then the current movie breaks those rules it's completely fair to question that.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 03, 2017, 08:46:05 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 08:39:15 AM
If it takes 10 seconds for a facehugger to perform an implantation on a host then fans must accept that. Complain as much as they like. It doesn't change what's in the movie
When it contradicts the rules established in the other films, yes, people will complain about it. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with people taking issue with that.
Except we've seen time and again how malleable those rules are when it comes to the Alien. There isn't a single movie that hasn't adjusted or added to the life cycle. Actually, Paul W.S. Anderson is the only director to not make such modifications.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 03, 2017, 08:46:05 AMIt doesn't compare to your comparisons. Alien hadn't established a reproductive method (deleted scene, doesn't count), the Alien never took weapons fire in the first film...Hicks and Newt weren't granted some specific time frame of life or immunity to safety supports.
The deleted scene does count. I was around when the movie was released. The scene was well documented in various media - The book, 'Giger's Alien' being a fine example.
It was an accepted part of the very small EU that existed at the time. We had to throw all those notions away when the 2nd movie was released. That was 6 years of believing we knew the answer. 6 years of speculating at SF club meetings and conventions of that time... gone. Then, it was re-introduced in the 2003 Director's cut.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 03, 2017, 08:46:05 AMIt's great that those things don't bother you. I'm somewhat jealous they don't. Personally, I really enjoyed the film until the Alien's inclusion and then it went down hill for me.
However, it doesn't make me or anyone else who dislike those aspects stupid. Or unable to comprehend all the "subversive" or "meaningful" layers or whatever in the film. I'm really bored of seeing that kind of attitude thrown back at people who dislike aspects of the fulm.
A fine example of how we must alter our perception takes place when the Alien boards the heavy lifter.
Tennessee torches it with the thruster nozzel and it has NO EFFECT on it whatsoever. We are now FORCED to accept fire does NO DAMAGE to an adult Alien. None. At all. In any shape or form whatsoever... lol. If we have to make those kinds of adjustments to keep pace and enjoy these movies they way they are intended, we must adapt and accept. What else is there that we have to change what we
think (ASSUME) we know? 10 second facehugger sounds like another adjustment fans should deal with. Don't like it? Sure, complain. It will just cripple your appreciation of the movie for no reason.
By the way, I never said anyone was stupid. I understand the movie doesn't appeal to everyone. Hey, I don't expect it to.
-Windebieste.
The Alien was scared of fire.... that was all we knew as far I can remember. It was never established that fire could hurt Aliens, at least not from my memory. I don't see why that point is a big deal.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 03, 2017, 08:16:34 AM
Lope's Alien has plenty of time to grow, however he's infected in a space of about 10 seconds.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 03, 2017, 08:46:05 AM
When it contradicts the rules established in the other films
I always chalked that off to how long the facehugger had been out of its egg. From what I remember it was quite a while. So perhaps the facehugger was ready to blow its load super quick. :P
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 09:07:12 AM
Actually, Paul W.S. Anderson is the only director to not make such modifications.
Except the rapid gestation time.
Yeah, I don't agree with the "rules" line. We actually never see anyone else being hugged apart from Kane and Ripley, and the latter scene was very oneiric in its nature so whatever discussion is to be had here is in the speculatory realm. And Kane had to be fed with oxygen in order to survive, so we don't know it would have turned the same way in every single scenario. My problem with it in the film was that I kind of were confused that chest-bursting of Lope took place and my first time seeing the movie I didn't even realize it was him as things were happening very fast towards the end.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 03, 2017, 09:14:58 AM
Kane had to be fed with oxygen in order to survive
Probably the result of being hugged in a toxic atmosphere. Same for Newt's father.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 09:07:12 AMThe deleted scene does count.
It doesn't, because they took it out of the film. It doesn't matter if the comparative minority who were clued up on the film knew about it, the
vast majority of people who only saw the movie in theatres wouldn't, and Cameron/whoever else has no duty to follow up on something that got removed from the final cut.
That would be like saying Mr. White shouldn't have been in
SPECTRE because he gets killed in a deleted scene from
Quantum of Solace.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 09:07:12 AM
A fine example of how we must alter our perception takes place when the Alien boards the heavy lifter. Tennessee torches it with the thruster nozzel and it has NO EFFECT on it whatsoever. We are now FORCED to accept fire does NO DAMAGE to an adult Alien. None. At all. In any shape or form whatsoever... lol. If we have to make those kinds of adjustments to keep pace and enjoy these movies they way they are intended, we must adapt and accept. What else is there that we have to change what we think (ASSUME) we know? 10 second facehugger sounds like another adjustment fans should deal with. Don't like it? Sure, complain. It will just cripple your appreciation of the movie for no reason.
The films never show that it hurts them (in fact, Ripley's 'scared of fire' line is almost entirely taken from Ash's 'Most animals retreat from fire' and torching the eggs).
Alien 3 dousing the thing in molten lead would kind of establish that fire likely wouldn't hurt them much earlier.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Aug 03, 2017, 08:46:05 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 08:39:15 AM
If it takes 10 seconds for a facehugger to perform an implantation on a host then fans must accept that. Complain as much as they like. It doesn't change what's in the movie
When it contradicts the rules established in the other films, yes, people will complain about it.
Lol what if some of the rules were shit in the first place? I'll make an analogy in the translation field of work - sometimes certain works, be it books, be it video games had used shitty translations in the past...and translators are forced to use them to keep things "canon" and unified. But this ain't no translation. Would you be, in Ridley's shoes, compelled to use shit elements just because they were there?
I'm not saying he has the monopoly of being right, etc., and everybody is entitled to criticize his new ideas too, but I think windie is on to something.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 03, 2017, 09:17:34 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 09:07:12 AM
A fine example of how we must alter our perception takes place when the Alien boards the heavy lifter. Tennessee torches it with the thruster nozzel and it has NO EFFECT on it whatsoever. We are now FORCED to accept fire does NO DAMAGE to an adult Alien. None. At all. In any shape or form whatsoever... lol. If we have to make those kinds of adjustments to keep pace and enjoy these movies they way they are intended, we must adapt and accept. What else is there that we have to change what we think (ASSUME) we know? 10 second facehugger sounds like another adjustment fans should deal with. Don't like it? Sure, complain. It will just cripple your appreciation of the movie for no reason.
The films never show that it hurts them (in fact, Ripley's 'scared of fire' line is almost entirely taken from Ash's 'Most animals retreat from fire' and torching the eggs). Alien 3 dousing the thing in molten lead would kind of establish that fire likely wouldn't hurt them much earlier.
Yeah, I always had the problem with that, too, because nothing shown in Alien suggests this species actually retreated from fire.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 03, 2017, 09:19:26 AMLol what if some of the rules were shit in the first place?
What exactly is "shit" about implantation taking 24 hours?
It worked just fine in the first few films, and it's a hell of a lot more believable than it happening in 2 seconds.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 09:07:12 AM
Except we've seen time and again how malleable those rules are when it comes to the Alien. There isn't a single movie that hasn't adjusted or added to the life cycle. Actually, Paul W.S. Anderson is the only director to not make such modifications.
Paul Anderson made no modifications? He also sped up the life cycle and people complained about it. I'm not saying don't add to the lore with things like the Queen or the Runner. But they're explained. There maybe reasons why the hugger takes a different amount of time. Can I come up with theories? Sure, I can. Does the film give me a reason? No, it doesn't so it's broken a rule and offered nothing to explain why.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 09:17:08 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 09:07:12 AMThe deleted scene does count.
It doesn't, because they took it out of the film. It doesn't matter if the comparative minority who were clued up on the film knew about it, the vast majority of people who only saw the movie in theatres wouldn't, and Cameron/whoever else has no duty to follow up on something that got removed from the final cut.
That would be like saying Mr. White shouldn't have been in SPECTRE because he gets killed in a deleted scene from Quantum of Solace.
As HuDa says. It wasn't in the film everyone saw so it doesn't count and Cameron was under no obligation to follow that route. Deleted scenes are just ancillary materials. Interesting asides that may explain things or be fun to discuss but at the end of the day, they weren't in the film on screen.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 03, 2017, 09:17:34 AM
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 09:07:12 AM
A fine example of how we must alter our perception takes place when the Alien boards the heavy lifter. Tennessee torches it with the thruster nozzel and it has NO EFFECT on it whatsoever. We are now FORCED to accept fire does NO DAMAGE to an adult Alien. None. At all. In any shape or form whatsoever... lol. If we have to make those kinds of adjustments to keep pace and enjoy these movies they way they are intended, we must adapt and accept. What else is there that we have to change what we think (ASSUME) we know? 10 second facehugger sounds like another adjustment fans should deal with. Don't like it? Sure, complain. It will just cripple your appreciation of the movie for no reason.
The films never show that it hurts them (in fact, Ripley's 'scared of fire' line is almost entirely taken from Ash's 'Most animals retreat from fire' and torching the eggs). Alien 3 dousing the thing in molten lead would kind of establish that fire likely wouldn't hurt them much earlier.
And ninjaed again by SiL.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 03, 2017, 09:19:26 AM
Lol what if some of the rules were shit in the first place?
As I mentioned above, if it was explained within the narrative I likely wouldn't have had that much of an issue with it. I can come up with my own explanations but as it stands, it broke a rule. And not one I think was shit. Do you think it is?
Absolutely nothing in the first two films established exactly how long any of the life cycle stages took.
Irrelevant, it was clearly a hell of a lot longer than 2 seconds.
QuoteWhat exactly is "shit" about implantation taking 24 hours?
Yeah. What an odd thing to say.
As for fire - Ripley fired the flamethrower and Queen called her Aliens off. They clearly don't like fire. It hurts even if it doesn't do them any damage.
QuoteThere maybe reasons why the hugger takes a different amount of time. Can I come up with theories? Sure, I can. Does the film give me a reason? No, it doesn't so it's broken a rule and offered nothing to explain why.
Agreed. This is nothing like adding an aspect - it's changing an aspect.
QuoteAbsolutely nothing in the first two films established exactly how long any of the life cycle stages took.
First film gave us ballparks, based on times mentioned in the film that certainly weren't 'hugger attached to host for a few seconds'.
@ SiL: Absolutely. But now we have conclusive, irrefutable evidence. It also means the Narcissus engines probably did no harm, either.
@ Salt The Fries: Revisions in commonly accepted knowledge are also well documented in Paleontological studies - where changes to understood 'facts' regarding partially understood organisms are changing all the time. For example: there is no such thing as a 'brontosaurus', birds are dinosaurs, anomalocaris was a single organism and not several of them, and so on and so forth.
When it comes to a fiction that has demonstrated many times how malleable its core organism is, then changes are apparently not permitted because fans are the authorities. That's complete bollocks.
It's ludicrous to believe that.
@ Corporal Hicks:
It doesn't matter if it's not in the film? So many arguments on these forums should fall because of that statement. Besides, like I said. It was considered part of the EU at the time. Like a lot of the EU - that's not in the films.
'AvP's facehugger issue isn't a problem with the lifecycle. It's a problem with editing and other issues failing to convey the passage of time.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: necrotard on Aug 03, 2017, 09:27:39 AM
Absolutely nothing in the first two films established exactly how long any of the life cycle stages took.
I think Alien shows it was clearly longer than a few seconds. Hours would seem more appropriate.
As an interesting aside, I believe one of the reasons the Burke cocoon scene was cut from Aliens was because Cameron realized enough time wouldn't have passed for the facehugger to be off him.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 09:36:13 AM
@ SiL: Absolutely. But now we have conclusive, irrefutable evidence. It also means the Narcissus engines probably did no harm, either.
Perhaps not, but they certainly propelled it away from the shuttle.
Quote@ Salt The Fries: Revisions in commonly accepted knowledge are also well documented in Paleontological studies - where changes to understood 'facts' are changing all the time. For example: there is no such thing as a 'brontosaurus', birds are dinosaurs, anomalocaris was a single organism - not several, and so on and so forth.
When it comes to a fiction that has demonstrated many times how malleable its core organism is, then changes are apparently not permitted because fans are the authorities. That's complete bollocks.
It's ludicrous to believe that.
The difference here being that this is a fictional creation. And yes, the rules are fictional and malleable. But as has been reiterated there's nothing wrong with changing or adding things - if there's a reason. In Paleontology, there's a reason those facts are reinterpreted.
It's ludicrous and complete bollocks to believe that people who are invested in something that has been portrayed in a specific manner might not have some issue with it when they're offered no reason as to why the change.
QuoteIt doesn't matter if it's not in the film? So many arguments on these forums should fall because of that statement. Besides, like I said. It was considered part of the EU at the time. Like a lot of the EU - that's not in the films.
In terms of one film following another, no, it doesn't matter. This isn't the same as a film contradicting something in the EU. Or, as in the case of Covenant, contradicting something actually demonstrated in the previous films.
QuoteAs an interesting aside, I believe one of the reasons the Burke cocoon scene was cut from Aliens was because Cameron realized enough time wouldn't have passed for the facehugger to be off him.
He's never mentioned that as a reason, even if it makes sense. The problem comes when you compare it to Newt who was abducted several minutes after. If Burke's hugger had dropped off and he could feel it, Ripley should've found Newt with a hugger attached.
QuotePerhaps not, but they certainly propelled it away from the shuttle.
Script said it was incinerated and exploded...
Exactly, how long does a facehugger have to be in place to achieve implantation then? Is it possible to even provide a 'correct' answer, in minutes? Can anyone actually provide an answer to that?* I don't think so. What if there are variables that affect that time, like being facehugged while wearing a compression suit compared to being facehugged in a breathable atmostphere? Then all bets are off, anyway. If it takes 2 hours or 12, does it really make a difference, anyway?
The only thing that's broken here is preconceptions. That's all.
-Windebieste.
*Remember, Kiddies. EU does not count. Them's the rules. Apparently.
There's medical notes in Aliens that say there's an impregnation period. I've mentioned this several times now, but Aliens doesn't count for some reason.
Better to just say "David did it" because it makes more sense.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 09:47:17 AM
Exactly, how long does a facehugger have to be in place to achieve implantation then? Is it possible to even provide a 'correct' answer, in minutes? Can anyone actually provide an answer to that?* I don't think so.
Longer than 10 seconds. Of course no-one can provide an exact and you're just going to extremes now.
QuoteWhat if there are variables that affect that time, like being facehugged while wearing a compression suit compared to being facehugged in a breathable atmostphere? Then all bets are off, anyway. If it takes 2 hours or 12, does it really make a difference, anyway?
Like I said above, I can come up with plenty of possible explanations to explain away differences like this. In Alien it took longer because the eggs were older, or it had to support Kane back to the spaceship. The Covenant's Aliens are quicker because that's how David designed them. In AvP the Predator's messed with the Queen, etc, etc.
But that's not what we're told. As far as we've seen, the implantation process takes at least a few hours.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 09:51:31 AM
There's medical notes in Aliens that say there's an impregnation period. I've mentioned this several times now, but Aliens doesn't count for some reason.
Better to just say "David did it" because it makes more sense.
"Removed surgically before embryo implantation."
Quote from: SM on Aug 03, 2017, 09:33:08 AM
As for fire - Ripley fired the flamethrower and Queen called her Aliens off. They clearly don't like fire. It hurts even if it doesn't do them any damage.
I thought that had more to do with burning the eggs.
Though she does flinch at the powerloader's torch.
Quote from: SM on Aug 03, 2017, 09:44:19 AM
Script said it was incinerated and exploded...
It's not portrayed like that on screen, though.
...and the Surgeons killed him taking it off. Obviously though they didn't have the Weyland 3000 Pen knife.
QuoteI thought that had more to do with burning the eggs
Yup I was going to reply with that too, in the end it doesn't matter for the point. There's no story conflict with fire regardless.
QuoteIt's not portrayed like that on screen, though.
I'm losing track of whether deleted scenes count or not. Probably only if they support one's point of view... ;)
Quote"Removed surgically before embryo implantation."
Indeed.
Estimation of impregnation times in Alien based on the various times mentioned in dialogue is the ballpark of 12-16 hours.
EDIT - Changed 'gestation' to 'impregnation'.
Quote from: SM on Aug 03, 2017, 10:02:10 AM
I'm losing track of whether deleted scenes count or not. Probably only if they support one's point of view... ;)
Quote"Removed surgically before embryo implantation."
Indeed.
Estimation of gestation times in Alien based on the various times mentioned in dialogue is the ballpark of 12-16 hours.
Let's salute John J. Marachuk.
Too many variables still exist to nail a single time for implantation and how long the organism is in situ under different conditions. These are 2 very different activities the organism is exhibiting. Gestation is also completely independent. They may all take place at different times
Besides, the quote,"Removed surgically before embryo implantation." provides no indication of time.
As far as being pedantic goes. Yeah, sure. Why not? I've seen worse around here. lol.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 10:06:16 AM
Too many variables still exist to nail a single time for implantation and how long the organism is in situ under different conditions. These are 2 very different activities the organism is exhibiting. Gestation is also completely independent. They may all take place at different times
Besides, the quote,"Removed surgically before embryo implantation." provides no indication of time.
As far as being pedantic goes. Yeah, sure. Why not? I've seen worse around here. lol.
-Windebieste.
So they took it off before 10 seconds.
Quote from: SM on Aug 03, 2017, 10:02:10 AM
I'm losing track of whether deleted scenes count or not. Probably only if they support one's point of view... ;)
I'm guessing that's directed at me mentioning the Burke scene earlier? I did say that was just a fun little aside for a reason as to why it was removed, not using the actual content of the scene to back myself up. :)
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 10:06:16 AM
Besides, the quote,"Removed surgically before embryo implantation." provides no indication of time.
It kinda does. Unless Hadley's Hope's surgeons were some sort of miracle workers, I don't think they'd have achieved that in under 10 seconds if they're going in surgically. Surgical implies some level of complication. Not just the cutting off the facehugger as in Covenant.
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 10:06:16 AM
Too many variables still exist to nail a single time for implantation and how long the organism is in situ under different conditions. These are 2 very different activities the organism is exhibiting. Gestation is also completely independent. They may all take place at different times
Acknowledged. And unfortunately the editing in Covenant throws a little confusion on both activities within the film.
QuoteAs far as being pedantic goes. Yeah, sure. Why not? I've seen worse around here. lol.
It's not pedantic and once again, you're just dismissing away other people's legitimate concerns with attitude.
I'd rather accept that David just made some fan dangled version of the Alien for his first set than go out of my way to bust up the canon, I can't even get my head around that.
Well, that's the other option. David's early versions are simply different in many, many ways.
It also means acceptance for the duration of the organism on Lope's face.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 10:14:55 AM
I'd rather accept that David just made some fan dangled version of the Alien for his first set than go out of my way to bust up the canon, I can't even get my head around that.
I agree.
I've got nothing against that explanation either. ADF mentioned something similar in the novelization which I liked. I appreciated the attempt at the explanation. It's something we talked about in the recent interview.
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 10:16:46 AM
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 10:14:55 AM
I'd rather accept that David just made some fan dangled version of the Alien for his first set than go out of my way to bust up the canon, I can't even get my head around that.
I agree.
Lol so what do you suggest, that once WY learned of the Alien, they wanted its mass production and thus gimped the model? :D
Who knows at this time.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the company think they have the right to own the alien, considering one of their products made it.
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 11:04:15 AM
Who knows at this time.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the company think they have the right to own the alien, considering one of their products made it.
I doubt the next film (if it ever gets made) will actually touch this particular aspect, I'm fine with whatever liberty Scott took in Covenant, but nonetheless I think that confrontation of WY, David, Engineers, Neos and Xeno will be super interesting.
Quote
I'm guessing that's directed at me mentioning the Burke scene earlier?
No, not directed at you.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 03, 2017, 10:14:55 AM
I'd rather accept that David just made some fan dangled version of the Alien for his first set than go out of my way to bust up the canon, I can't even get my head around that.
Yep. Eggs looked a bit different. Alien looked a bit different. It's a stretch - but not a terribly big one.
That's pretty much what Foster outright said in the book.
I have to re-read it. I came to the rationalisation when I saw the film, but missed it in the novelisation.
He expands the David's lab scene to have David show a Facehugger/egg that were made by the Engineers long ago, and he essentially says he's been trying to recreate the creature. I have a feeling later on he also says the Alien now grows faster (hence why it's born a little man) because David's fiddled with it.
Not quite what I was getting at. I was more saying that David's first whack at the Alien produced something that impregnates incredibly quickly; later iterations (for whatever reasons yet to be revealed) impregnate slower.
(Leaving the creation or re-creation debate aside).
"Different"? Different to what? It's the first occurence of eggs in an Alien film. How could an author of a novelization explain that?
Quote from: windebieste on Aug 03, 2017, 08:39:15 AM
Some will adapt. Others will complain.
Just like we had to adapt to accept the Queen in 1986. Just like we had to adapt to accept Aliens are easily killed by sustained gunfire. Just like we had to adapt when Ripley, Hicks and Newt were killed. ...and so on and so forth.
The Queen never really contradicted anything. Aliens were always easily killable, its just that the first Alien was not up against armed marines. Also I believe commentary from the first film mentions how they are just animals. Never had an issue with Ripley dying, her story was complete and she had to endure her nightmare coming true which was interesting. Hicks and Newt, their death would not have bothered me but the way it was done was cheap. Honestly there should have been a film in between Aliens and Alien 3 to expand on the development from Aliens and not make their deaths so cheap in 3. Also such a middle film could have explained the egg.
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 03, 2017, 09:14:58 AM
Kane had to be fed with oxygen in order to survive
Probably the result of being hugged in a toxic atmosphere. Same for Newt's father.
Russ was not facehugged in a toxic atmosphere... :P the air was breathable thanks to the APthough still bad weather . Same goes for Marachuk and the other victim who was also killed through the surgery and both of those huggers were removed before implantation, so whatever the implantation time is, its not seconds...or at least its not supposed to be. It is probably occurs just before halfway (using the 24hr version process)
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 03, 2017, 12:21:42 PM
so whatever the implantation time is, its not seconds...or at least its not supposed to be.
Depends. The facehugger had been out of the egg for quite some time. Maybe it was ready to bust a nut.
That said, and as others have mentioned, these aren't exactly the same creatures we've seen in previous movies.
Close, but there are clear differences.
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 12:34:53 PMThat said, and as others have mentioned, these aren't exactly the same creatures we've seen in previous movies.
Ridley Scott says they are.
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 12:34:53 PMClose, but there are clear differences.
There have always been differences in the how the Aliens look from film to film.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 12:37:00 PM
There have always been differences in the how the Aliens look from film to film.
Of course and each film brings differences to their structure and behaviour.
One previous example is Ripley's long gestation time, which with alien 3 has always been chalked off to the embryo being a queen or Ripley's body being damaged whilst impregnated during the crash, but the film never states that in detail. So should that be considered inconsistent with previous films?
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 12:37:00 PM
Ridley Scott says they are.
They are the alien, yes. Will they act/look exactly the same? Not always. To be expected really.
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 12:42:30 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 12:37:00 PM
There have always been differences in the how the Aliens look from film to film.
Of course and each film brings differences to their structure and behaviour.
One previous example is Ripley's long gestation time, which with alien 3 has always been chalked off to the embryo being a queen or Ripley's body being damaged whilst impregnated during the crash, but the film never states that in detail. So should that be considered inconsistent with previous films?
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 12:37:00 PM
Ridley Scott says they are.
They are the alien, yes. Will they act/look exactly the same? Not always. To be expected really.
I think people are open to different reasons and canon when the purpose isn't "we need to get this movie moving along quickly".
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 12:37:00 PM
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 12:34:53 PMThat said, and as others have mentioned, these aren't exactly the same creatures we've seen in previous movies.
Ridley Scott says they are.
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 12:34:53 PMClose, but there are clear differences.
There have always been differences in the how the Aliens look from film to film.
In Covenant the Protomorph was an early attempt of David's at creating the Alien. Its close but not quite there yet as evidenced by some subtle differences: Differences in egg shapes, incubation speeds, accelerated growth, etc. Its David's rough draft (He admits that his progress had stalled due to lack of hosts) and I see no conflict with the other films. The Alien's we see in the other 4 films are going to be the result of David perfecting his creation as he experiments with the 2000 colonists in hypersleep.
I really hope FOX make another AvP film on Earth at present time just to say that is the true canon. It looks like this is how It works. The latest film is the only one that counts. That would be so funny.
Surely the whole point of the rapid implantation is...
1. To show just how tenacious a facehugger can be, when it's sole purpose is face rape despite being attacked, wounded etc.
2. To show a different aspect of it, in a different environment.
3. Precisely to leave you doubting implantation could have taken place so that the birthing of a new alien on the Covenant is a WTF moment. Surely if you get in an in-movie explanation before the event you've ruined that revelation - but I suppose that would be another 'obvious' twist to complain about.
4. That in retrospect you can say, ah, the hugger curled up and died. job done.
Also. the hugger's securely fixed on Lope's face for 13 seconds - sexual intercourse within the animal kingdom is often shorter than that, so it's hardly beyond belief.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 08:50:33 PMSurely the whole point of the rapid implantation is...
1. To show just how tenacious a facehugger can be, when it's sole purpose is face rape despite being attacked, wounded etc.
So why didn't it do that quickly with Kane?
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 08:50:33 PM2. To show a different aspect of it, in a different environment.
So... if a woman got pregnant in a different environment, the child could be born in five minutes?
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 08:50:33 PM3. Precisely to leave you doubting implantation could have taken place so that the birthing of a new alien on the Covenant is a WTF moment. Surely if you get in an in-movie explanation before the event you've ruined that revelation - but I suppose that would be another 'obvious' twist to complain about.
You said it yourself, Covenant's twists were about as subtle as a child drawing in on a big sheet of paper with crayon. It was obvious there was going to be one more Alien from the moment they got back to the ship.
Not as glaringly obvious as the David "twist", but it was still pretty obvious the film wasn't done yet.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 08:50:33 PM4. That in retrospect you can say, ah, the hugger curled up and died. job done.
Wut?
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 08:50:33 PMAlso. the hugger's securely fixed on Lope's face for 13 seconds - sexual intercourse within the animal kingdom is often shorter than that, so it's hardly beyond belief.
Again, why then did it take so long with Kane?
Sure, the script might have good reasons for it to be so quick, but
Prometheus' script had good reasons to kill off Millburn and Fifield. It was the execution that was so inept.
What about this:
Maybe the facehugger has always impregnated its hosts quickly. Maybe the rest of time it was simply monitoring the embryo (and host) until it was ready to hatch... but obviously didn't have that luxury in this case.
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Aug 03, 2017, 09:28:57 PM
What about this:
Maybe the facehugger has always impregnated its hosts quickly. Maybe the rest of time it was simply monitoring the embryo (and host) until it was ready to hatch... but obviously didn't have that luxury in this case.
This is what I've just assumed. It impregnates and immobilizes the host immediately, keeps it alive for as long as it can, then dies when the embryo is almost ready.
Aliens says no.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 09:12:07 PM
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 08:50:33 PMSurely the whole point of the rapid implantation is...
1. To show just how tenacious a facehugger can be, when it's sole purpose is face rape despite being attacked, wounded etc.
So why didn't it do that quickly with Kane?
Because it was keeping him alive? Because it was indulging in Tantric sex? Because Facehuggers do their own thing?
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 09:12:07 PM
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 08:50:33 PM2. To show a different aspect of it, in a different environment.
So... if a woman got pregnant in a different environment, the child could be born in five minutes?
Well, no. Because the alien was born hours later. How is that even part of the issue?
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 09:12:07 PM
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 08:50:33 PM3. Precisely to leave you doubting implantation could have taken place so that the birthing of a new alien on the Covenant is a WTF moment. Surely if you get in an in-movie explanation before the event you've ruined that revelation - but I suppose that would be another 'obvious' twist to complain about.
You said it yourself, Covenant's twists were about as subtle as a child drawing in on a big sheet of paper with crayon. It was obvious there was going to be one more Alien from the moment they got back to the ship.
Not as glaringly obvious as the David "twist", but it was still pretty obvious the film wasn't done yet.
Thus proving my point. But apparently you'd rather it was yet more obviously signposted.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 09:12:07 PM
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 08:50:33 PM4. That in retrospect you can say, ah, the hugger curled up and died. job done.
Wut?
Try watching the film and picking up on the visual clues. The hugger gets thrown aside but instead of jumping back into the fray as it does in Aliens, it withers and dies. Not obvious enough?
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 09:12:07 PM
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 08:50:33 PMAlso. the hugger's securely fixed on Lope's face for 13 seconds - sexual intercourse within the animal kingdom is often shorter than that, so it's hardly beyond belief.
Again, why then did it take so long with Kane?
Again, because it attacked him in an alien atmosphere and kept him alive. It wasn't being attacked, it wasn't in a hurry. Why is it so hard to grasp that totally different circumstances would make one huggers attack more desperate and the others more measured.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 03, 2017, 10:34:59 PM
Aliens says no.
The thought that a hugger could put it's tube down someones throat immediately without it also implanting immediately is harder to believe.
ADF's novelisation of ALIEN mentions the shadow within Kane's chest, from the first examination, long before the hugger dies.
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 09:12:07 PM
So why didn't it do that quickly with Kane?
Could have been because it hugged him in a toxic atmosphere. Stayed on, feeding him oxygen to get the job done.
Also the one that got Lope had been out of its egg for a while before it attacked. Could have been ready to shoot :P
I don't really buy many of the justifications, but yes, Kane was in a toxic atmosphere and it had to keep him alive (thus staying on him) at least until they got back to the ship.
But then it stayed on for a lot longer.
True.
And as pointed out earlier in Aliens the atmosphere is breathable.
I'm sticking with it was out the egg for longer. It was super randy.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 10:39:34 PM
ADF's novelisation of ALIEN mentions the shadow within Kane's chest, from the first examination, long before the hugger dies.
Good point. I know it doesn't 'stand up in court', but ADF is very high on my totem pole (and hell, this was scripted and filmed, too).
^Indeed on all points
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 10:39:34 PMBecause it was keeping him alive?
It was on him for
hours even after they got back aboard the ship, by which point it had no need to keep him alive.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 10:39:34 PMBut apparently you'd rather it was yet more obviously signposted.
That wasn't what I said at all.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 10:39:34 PMTry watching the film and picking up on the visual clues. The hugger gets thrown aside but instead of jumping back into the fray as it does in Aliens, it withers and dies. Not obvious enough?
Again, wut?
I never argued that it hadn't done the job. I'm saying the fact it did it so ridiculously quickly is bogus. "Visual ques" have nothing to do with that.
I already told you I'd called there being another Alien. I wanted it to be
less obvious (admittedly a futile wish given that they showed so much of the Alien on the ship in the trailer).
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 10:39:34 PMAgain, because it attacked him in an alien atmosphere and kept him alive. It wasn't being attacked, it wasn't in a hurry. Why is it so hard to grasp that totally different circumstances would make one huggers attack more desperate and the others more measured.
See my first point. Kane was on the ship for most of that time.
If it could've done it in five seconds, why take hours when that just gives the host's buddies time to piss about trying to cut you off and potentially killing you, the host and the Chestburster?
The facehugger staying on the victim's face for hours ensures that the embryo will grow in optimal conditions. Remember that it was feeding Kane with oxygen, maybe even nutrients.
There's no reason it would take hours for the embryo (black goo DNA strand?) to travel down the hugger's tube.
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Aug 03, 2017, 09:28:57 PM
What about this:
Maybe the facehugger has always impregnated its hosts quickly. Maybe the rest of time it was simply monitoring the embryo (and host) until it was ready to hatch... but obviously didn't have that luxury in this case.
Very close, as I have said before. implantation occurs somewhere in the first few
hours but remains attached after implantation for a further 16/20 mins to 16/20 hours. This is mentioned in the WYR.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 10:39:34 PM
Because it was keeping him alive? Because it was indulging in Tantric sex? Because Facehuggers do their own thing?
Also. the hugger's securely fixed on Lope's face for 13 seconds - sexual intercourse within the animal kingdom is often shorter than that, so it's hardly beyond belief.
Again, because it attacked him in an alien atmosphere and kept him alive. It wasn't being attacked, it wasn't in a hurry. Why is it so hard to grasp that totally different circumstances would make one huggers attack more desperate and the others more measured.
The thought that a hugger could put it's tube down someones throat immediately without it also implanting immediately is harder to believe.
Russ, Marachuck and some other guys or as Sil said "
Aliens says no" Instead of all this grasping at straws, why can't folks just admit that its a just a stupid contradiction?
Since you seem to like using sexual metaphor stuff regarding the facehugger, the reason why it wouldn't just implant immediately upon forcing its ovipositor into someone's throat would then be same as why men don't immediately ejaculate when only just engaging in intercourse. :P
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 10:53:38 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 09:12:07 PM
So why didn't it do that quickly with Kane?
Could have been because it hugged him in a toxic atmosphere. Stayed on, feeding him oxygen to get the job done.
Also the one that got Lope had been out of its egg for a while before it attacked. Could have been ready to shoot :P
It wasn't out of the egg that long and in fact we don't even know when that egg opened.
Quote from: Kane's other son on Aug 04, 2017, 09:50:52 AM
The facehugger staying on the victim's face for hours ensures that the embryo will grow in optimal conditions. Remember that it was feeding Kane with oxygen, maybe even nutrients.
There's no reason it would take hours for the embryo (black goo DNA strand?) to travel down the hugger's tube.
It was feeding Russ oxygen too. Its nothing to do with hostile atmosphere, facehuggers are or were designed to keep their host alive, the whole point of those sacs is to give them oxygen when attached and the only reason they would need to give oxygen is if they have to stay attached longer than a host could survive when being smothered....which they do, its supposed to be hours.
The lope incident isn't just a contradiction, because no matter how much certains fans want to grasp at straws but it will always renders certain qualities of a facehugger completely redudant. Because if it can implant in seconds, it has no need of those air sacs, it does not even need those sedatives since those are just there to put a host down for hours and to ensure it cannot be removed without killing a host.
Alien Covenant is not a bad film at all, I enjoyed it but there are major flaws and honestly, folks should stop being in denial about it, I get that there is some who don't see any issues because they may not care about lore etc but those that are trying too hard to explain or justify it must be aware on some level.
Admiting there is an issue with a film does not make it a bad film, Alien and Aliens had some issues too and they are great films. There is nothing wrong with being concerned or criticizing parts of a movie, especially one that has issue that stick out like a sore thumb.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 04, 2017, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Aug 03, 2017, 09:28:57 PM
What about this:
Maybe the facehugger has always impregnated its hosts quickly. Maybe the rest of time it was simply monitoring the embryo (and host) until it was ready to hatch... but obviously didn't have that luxury in this case.
Very close, as I have said before. implantation occurs somewhere in the first few hours but remains attached after implantation for a further 16/20 mins to 16/20 hours. This is mentioned in the WYR.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 03, 2017, 10:39:34 PM
Because it was keeping him alive? Because it was indulging in Tantric sex? Because Facehuggers do their own thing?
Also. the hugger's securely fixed on Lope's face for 13 seconds - sexual intercourse within the animal kingdom is often shorter than that, so it's hardly beyond belief.
Again, because it attacked him in an alien atmosphere and kept him alive. It wasn't being attacked, it wasn't in a hurry. Why is it so hard to grasp that totally different circumstances would make one huggers attack more desperate and the others more measured.
The thought that a hugger could put it's tube down someones throat immediately without it also implanting immediately is harder to believe.
Russ, Marachuck and some other guys or as Sil said "Aliens says no" Instead of all this grasping at straws, why can't folks just admit that its a just a stupid contradiction?
Since you seem to like using sexual metaphor stuff regarding the facehugger, the reason why it wouldn't just implant immediately upon forcing its ovipositor into someone's throat would then be same as why men don't immediately ejaculate when only just engaging in intercourse. :P
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 03, 2017, 10:53:38 PM
Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 03, 2017, 09:12:07 PM
So why didn't it do that quickly with Kane?
Could have been because it hugged him in a toxic atmosphere. Stayed on, feeding him oxygen to get the job done.
Also the one that got Lope had been out of its egg for a while before it attacked. Could have been ready to shoot :P
It wasn't out of the egg that long and in fact we don't even know when that egg opened.
Quote from: Kane's other son on Aug 04, 2017, 09:50:52 AM
The facehugger staying on the victim's face for hours ensures that the embryo will grow in optimal conditions. Remember that it was feeding Kane with oxygen, maybe even nutrients.
There's no reason it would take hours for the embryo (black goo DNA strand?) to travel down the hugger's tube.
It was feeding Russ oxygen too. Its nothing to do with hostile atmosphere, facehuggers are or were designed to keep their host alive, the whole point of those sacs is to give them oxygen when attached and the only reason they would need to give oxygen is if they have to stay attached longer than a host could survive when being smothered....which they do, its supposed to be hours.
The lope incident isn't just a contradiction, because no matter how much certains fans want to grasp at straws but it will always renders certain qualities of a facehugger completely redudant. Because if it can implant in seconds, it has no need of those air sacs, it does not even need those sedatives since those are just there to put a host down for hours and to ensure it cannot be removed without killing a host.
Alien Covenant is not a bad film at all, I enjoyed it but there are major flaws and honestly, folks should stop being in denial about it, I get that there is some who don't see any issues because they may not care about lore etc but those that are trying too hard to explain or justify it must be aware on some level.
Admiting there is an issue with a film does not make it a bad film, Alien and Aliens had some issues too and they are great films. There is nothing wrong with being concerned or criticizing parts of a movie, especially one that has issue that stick out like a sore thumb.
You're right, I love Covenant but it definitely takes liberties with the lore. Some of these things aren't necessary facts and they can be explained away but ultimately it has altered accepted lore and elements that were intended in the originals.
None of that bothers me because I think the films great but I can understand how irksome it can be to others.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 04, 2017, 11:35:57 AM
in fact we don't even know when that egg opened.
Precisely.
But somewhere within the 8 or so hours between Oram getting hugged and Lope.
-David is floating in space with a ship full of experimental hosts. What will become of this?
-If David is the creator, why in the hell is there an engineer-like ship filled with eggs on LV-426?
-Was that giant corpse on LV-426 actually an engineer or was Ridley planning to subvert our expectations yet again?
-What "ritual" is David teasing in the Advent short?
Never getting these answers will annoy me more than any life-cycle tweaks/contradictions in any of the movies thus far.
Quote from: necrotard on Aug 04, 2017, 11:58:09 AM
-David is floating in space with a ship full of experimental hosts. What will become of this?
-If David is the creator, why in the hell is there an engineer-like ship filled with eggs on LV-426?
-Was that giant corpse on LV-426 actually an engineer or was Ridley planning to subvert our expectations yet again?
-What "ritual" is David teasing in the Advent short?
Never getting these answers will annoy me more than any life-cycle tweaks/contradictions in any of the movies thus far.
Yep me too
Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 04, 2017, 11:53:02 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 04, 2017, 11:35:57 AM
in fact we don't even know when that egg opened.
Precisely.
But somewhere within the 8 or so hours between Oram getting hugged and Lope.
As far as we know, it was
minutes and not hours, though it is possible it could have been at least an hour. It does not help that the pacing and editing makes things happen faster.
One thing for all of you to ponder on: what if sped-up properties of impregnation came as a result of eggs being directly subjected to accelerant by David as opposed to eggs we know from Alien which might be Xeno-made?
What if every subsequent Xeno born within their own life-cycle was genetically inferior and dilluted version of the "Xeno zero" (which enjoys the benefits of the accelerant the most) that was artificially created by David.
That explanation doesn't make the accelerated impregnation/burst/growth rate any less stupid
Well, it's now a matter of applying actual science vs holding on to something that we all used to take it for granted "just because".
There's no point in trying to apply actual science for a stupid decision they made to move the plot forward
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Aug 04, 2017, 03:36:45 PM
There's no point in trying to apply actual science for a stupid decision they made to move the plot forward
^ this.
You just said that coz I said a reasonable thing and you can't refute it ;)
if you say so, but the way we've seen the goo act in Prometheus kind of contradicts your theory anyway. Granted it isn't the exact same species.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 04, 2017, 06:22:44 PM
You just said that coz I said a reasonable thing and you can't refute it ;)
Lot of stuff said in this thread is reasonable, but the gymnastics people like you are doing to smooth over all this stuff that doesn't fit is ridiculous. You've put more energy into it than Ridley himself. In fact, I'll go you one further: Ridley doesn't give a rat's ass about any of it.
Alien is a movie he made a long time ago. What he's doing now is other stuff, but he's abusing Alien's reputation to do it. And he surely had the studio telling him, "Put the alien in that." So he did, but he did it in this half-assed way that mangles the pacing and story flow of his movies while reducing the creature to nothing noteworthy, a bug to squash.
Some of you people are eating it up, yum yum. Ridley's laughing 'cause all he cares about is big bald white folk who may or may not have made us and androids with ai imperatives that resemble skynet's programming. Some of you think that's great. Maybe it is. As I said earlier, David making the Alien is not a continuity issue. It does change the whole story.
If the movies were actually better movies, it might be fine. But the movies we're getting are just not that great. They have serious problems with flow, pacing, story presentation, character development, internal logic, and so on. The energy you and other people here spend to resolve the problems with these deeply flawed movies is remarkable. This overgrown thread is a testament to all that.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 04, 2017, 07:14:24 PM
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 04, 2017, 06:22:44 PM
You just said that coz I said a reasonable thing and you can't refute it ;)
Lot of stuff said in this thread is reasonable, but the gymnastics people like you are doing to smooth over all this stuff that doesn't fit is ridiculous. You've put more energy into it than Ridley himself. In fact, I'll go you one further: Ridley doesn't give a rat's ass about any of it.
Alien is a movie he made a long time ago. What he's doing now is other stuff, but he's abusing Alien's reputation to do it. And he surely had the studio telling him, "Put the alien in that." So he did, but he did it in this half-assed way that mangles the pacing and story flow of his movies while reducing the creature to nothing noteworthy, a bug to squash.
Some of you people are eating it up, yum yum. Ridley's laughing 'cause all he cares about is big bald white folk who may or may not have made us and androids with ai imperatives that resemble skynet's programming. Some of you think that's great. Maybe it is. As I said earlier, David making the Alien is not a continuity issue. It does change the whole story.
If the movies were actually better movies, it might be fine. But the movies we're getting are just not that great. They have serious problems with flow, pacing, story presentation, character development, internal logic, and so on. The energy you and other people here spend to resolve the problems with these deeply flawed movies is remarkable. This overgrown thread is a testament to all that.
I dunno about all that, I just like the movie. I don't see why people like you have such a hard time accepting that.
I think it has less to do with knowing some people like it and more to do with the fact that it has some glaring flaws
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Aug 04, 2017, 08:25:37 PM
I think it has less to do with knowing some people like it and more to do with the fact that it has some glaring flaws
That again though is just down to the eye of the beholder. I think it has a few minor flaws but think the good far outweighs them and don't believe it has any glaring ones.
To be told this is just because I'm 'eating it up, yum yum, is incredibly insulting, ignorant and arrogant.
And sadly predictable.
Some people are incapable or liking or not liking it, without slagging off the opposing view.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 04, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
To be told this is just because I'm 'eating it up, yum yum, is incredibly insulting, ignorant and arrogant.
Agreed. Of course we know there are flaws (hell, I had to ask my son where the 2nd alien came from, because I didn't recognize the victim). But it's the film we've got, and some of us are trying to 'make lemonade' with it. What's wrong with that?
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 04, 2017, 06:17:27 PM
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Aug 04, 2017, 03:36:45 PM
There's no point in trying to apply actual science for a stupid decision they made to move the plot forward
^ this.
Not that.
Considering there is no "actual science"...
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 04, 2017, 11:35:57 AM
Since you seem to like using sexual metaphor stuff regarding the facehugger, the reason why it wouldn't just implant immediately upon forcing its ovipositor into someone's throat would then be same as why men don't immediately ejaculate when only just engaging in intercourse. :P
Well, if you can't see the obvious - that the facehugger is a sexual metaphor in itself - there's not much point in starting alien education 101 on you is there?
And, jeez, the reason (most) men don't ejaculate when only just engaging in intercourse is because it's a pleasurable act that is going to be more pleasurable if it's not over and done with in ten seconds. But that's not true in the animal kingdom where procreation is the aim and sex does only last seconds. It is therefore perfectly in keeping with nature and no stretch to believe at all.
But of course, whilst Dallas was listening to Mozart in the shuttle Ash was playing Barry White in the infirmary.
;D
Quote from: Gash on Aug 04, 2017, 10:19:36 PM
But of course, whilst Dallas was listening to Mozart in the shuttle Ash was playing Barry White in the infirmary.
:D
There are some epic mental gymnastics going on though. If Ridley Scott decides that the Biomechanical elements of the Alien happen because the Alien goo accidentally spilled onto a floppy disk, there would 100% be a 27 page thread with a lot of fans saying "What the hell man?" whilst there will be a core group of about 15 people saying "Makes perfect sense, I don't see the issue, here's the life cycle of some floppy discs I found back in my dads office"
Only 27?
He missed a zero in there I feel.
Depends if Nick posts cause we gota reference documents and stuff.
::)
Quote from: SM on Aug 04, 2017, 08:55:28 PM
And sadly predictable.
Some people are incapable or liking or not liking it, without slagging off the opposing view.
Or making Ridley Scott some scapegoat for instance. I suppose Im slogging off but Im just annoyed with the whole things over-all. I have many issues with the film and some of them are things that I believe remain defensible anyway. For instance, I greatly dislike that David is made to seem the Creator of the Xeno in the film, and there isn't a concrete statement made (until now with the ADVENT viral) regarding whether it existed prior. But I also love the idea of his android resentment of humanity's ability to mate/pro-create and this vague sexual-frustration having been the source of creating the biomechanical freudiannightmare that is the alien. It absolutely fits with the themes whether its what I wanted not. Recognizing that just because something happens that you wish didn't doesnt make the film BAD, is positive even when your criticising it. And that's just the thing. Liking and disliking is one thing, getting carried away, which is what happened to al ot of this fan base, after this film was released is entirely another. There is little objectivity. It's either an abortion that ruined the franchise forever and Ridley Scott needs to kill himself and never touch the series he created ever again, or people thought it was great and cant wait to see more. It's quite silly, isn't it? Meanwhile, it's basically a mid-range Alien film. Nowhere near the worst, and not on par with the best.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 04, 2017, 10:19:36 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 04, 2017, 11:35:57 AM
Since you seem to like using sexual metaphor stuff regarding the facehugger, the reason why it wouldn't just implant immediately upon forcing its ovipositor into someone's throat would then be same as why men don't immediately ejaculate when only just engaging in intercourse. :P
Well, if you can't see the obvious - that the facehugger is a sexual metaphor in itself - there's not much point in starting alien education 101 on you is there?
And, jeez, the reason (most) men don't ejaculate when only just engaging in intercourse is because it's a pleasurable act that is going to be more pleasurable if it's not over and done with in ten seconds. But that's not true in the animal kingdom where procreation is the aim and sex does only last seconds. It is therefore perfectly in keeping with nature and no stretch to believe at all.
But of course, whilst Dallas was listening to Mozart in the shuttle Ash was playing Barry White in the infirmary.
Honestly. There are plenty of reasons its not that strange in this film. First. We are not seeing the final version of the xeno. We know that, so it could change. Second, the Facehugger was immediately under attack, and you could argue that it's seed was released for that reason. Lastly, all the hate over how quickly it's birthed is kind of unfounded. It takes about an hour for them to get on the ship and then, they go to sleep, wake up, make breakfast etc etc.
I don't understand what's unclear about David being the creator.
The only evidence against it that I keep seeing people reference is the mural from Prometheus which doesn't even look like a xeno anyway.
It's not about making Riddles a scapegoat - he is the guy in the chair and it's ultimately his responsibility. If someone hates the film; they're going to blame him which is pretty fair. More often they'll blame this amorphous thing named 'Fox'.
QuoteLastly, all the hate over how quickly it's birthed is kind of unfounded. It takes about an hour for them to get on the ship and then, they go to sleep, wake up, make breakfast etc etc.
The not really the issue though.
We don't know that it's not the final version of the xeno, we are just assuming that because it looks different, but they always look different.
Quote from: SM on Aug 05, 2017, 04:39:51 AM
It's not about making Riddles a scapegoat - he is the guy in the chair and it's ultimately his responsibility. If someone hates the film; they're going to blame him which is pretty fair. More often they'll blame this amorphous thing named 'Fox'.
QuoteLastly, all the hate over how quickly it's birthed is kind of unfounded. It takes about an hour for them to get on the ship and then, they go to sleep, wake up, make breakfast etc etc.
The not really the issue though.
Yes, It's perfectly reasonable to blame Ridley if the film isn't satisfying to you. So long as you're not saying he's senile or lost it and crap like that then I think it's valid to question the decisions he's made.
Either the films you're cuppa tea or it's not, it's that simple really.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 05, 2017, 05:29:39 AM
We don't know that it's not the final version of the xeno, we are just assuming that because it looks different, but they always look different.
No, we don't know it isn't but I think it's fairly likely. It's not just the different look, I thought Davids reaction to seeing his pets defeated was an indication and it also follows the themes that he would want to perfect it.
I think I'll be disappointed if it doesn't go that way. If it ever happens of course.
It's not like the xenos in Covenant ( or the huggers) are massively different though. You can do hand wavey things with the plot but as far as improvements go I'm not sure how you express that on film other than David saying "my perfect creature" ... at which point we see the same life cycle and the same Alien ( probably getting blown out an airlock).
I guess the only thing I can think of is a queen to finish/start the life cycle.
QuoteYes, It's perfectly reasonable to blame Ridley if the film isn't satisfying to you. So long as you're not saying he's senile or lost it and crap like that then I think it's valid to question the decisions he's made.
Either the films you're cuppa tea or it's not, it's that simple really.
Quite.
It was a decent overall film but in the end its formula depended on really broken premises and poorly written characters that were not very convincing in their roles. They aren't going to stop the sequels but they won't let Ridley do more than one, hopefully he closes his arc sensibly. The belly-aching has gotten so bad since Prometheus. These weren't bad films and they'll hold weight unlike the previous installments in this beloved franchise. As for the Facehugger incubating for a short period of time and it being relative to science; there is no way you can cut it, Alien is just not concerned with actual biology. I like to believe it attached itself later or the Alien caught up with the character later on.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 04, 2017, 10:19:36 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 04, 2017, 11:35:57 AM
Since you seem to like using sexual metaphor stuff regarding the facehugger, the reason why it wouldn't just implant immediately upon forcing its ovipositor into someone's throat would then be same as why men don't immediately ejaculate when only just engaging in intercourse. :P
Well, if you can't see the obvious - that the facehugger is a sexual metaphor in itself - there's not much point in starting alien education 101 on you is there?
Perfectly aware of that as it was giger's style so don't be rude. I commented because you almost use it as if its a fact rather a metaphor that the hugger is sexually reproducing, which its not. Parasitism is not sexual, there is no "tantric sex" etc even if you were just joking, its simply just evoking all that stuff in our minds. There is plenty of metaphors to be found in the Alien franchise, well back then anyway, the newer movies obviously lacked giger's touch.
Quote from: CainsSon on Aug 05, 2017, 04:33:09 AM
Honestly. There are plenty of reasons its not that strange in this film. First. We are not seeing the final version of the xeno. We know that, so it could change. Second, the Facehugger was immediately under attack, and you could argue that it's seed was released for that reason. Lastly, all the hate over how quickly it's birthed is kind of unfounded. It takes about an hour for them to get on the ship and then, they go to sleep, wake up, make breakfast etc etc.
Marachuk. Marachuk. Marachuk. Also other victim, other victim, other victim. :P
To clarify, both of these hosts had their facehugger under attack, yet both of them didn't implant anything.
Around 8 hours or so actually if the comments about mother being down for that amount is anything to go by. Meaning it kind of contradicts what is already in the movie with Oram, who's incubation was probably only minutes.
I agree that those that dislike or like a film should not attack those of a different opinion, after all we are all entitled to our different views. The only time I would probably question (civily of course) another's negative opinion on a film, is if their reasons for doing so can actually be found in a film that they consider their favorite, making their reasons hypocritical.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 05, 2017, 12:23:41 PM
Marachuk. Marachuk. Marachuk. Also other victim, other victim, other victim. :P
To clarify, both of these hosts had their facehugger under attack, yet both of them didn't implant anything.
Lope's facehugger could have stayed on his face for hours. It didn't fall off on its own. They pried it off.
We don't know how long it takes to implant the alien. We just know how long the hugger stays attached on a face on its own.
Quote from: Kane's other son on Aug 05, 2017, 12:37:58 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 05, 2017, 12:23:41 PM
Marachuk. Marachuk. Marachuk. Also other victim, other victim, other victim. :P
To clarify, both of these hosts had their facehugger under attack, yet both of them didn't implant anything.
Lope's facehugger could have stayed on his face for hours. It didn't fall off on its own. They pried it off.
We don't know how long it takes to implant the alien. We just know how long the hugger stays attached on a face on its own.
[/b]
As I just said, Marachuk and another victim had their facehugger forcibly removed as well, yet both of the parasites did not implant anything. Bishop:"
surgically removed before implantation"
Around 24 hours according to some sources, implantation does take place hours
before then but the Hugger itself can remain attached for more than a day likely to ensure the implant developes unimpeded. While the exact time is inconsistent, its mostly hours, only the AVP films, Covenant and a few other formats have had it at minutes.
pretty certain David implanted him when he was fixing the gauze.........
completely hilarious that you are all arguing over a totally moot point lol
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 04, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Aug 04, 2017, 08:25:37 PM
I think it has less to do with knowing some people like it and more to do with the fact that it has some glaring flaws
That again though is just down to the eye of the beholder. I think it has a few minor flaws but think the good far outweighs them and don't believe it has any glaring ones.
To be told this is just because I'm 'eating it up, yum yum, is incredibly insulting, ignorant and arrogant.
Yeah, that was rude. Sorry. But glaring flaws are the problem. Gymnastics are required to make sense of them. Important material that could have solved a lot of those problems and strengthened the movie are available only through viral videos and ancillary materials. Scott says that's because the movie could be only two hours long, but that was his decision. Plenty of movies run longer than two hours these days. Sometimes, that's to the film's detriment. I think, in this case, another 20 or 30 minutes of runtime, even more, could have made a big and positive difference. If we have 6 minutes for Fassbender to love himself, it seems we could have had a bit more screen time to learn what happened to Shaw (as one example). it might have been nice to get some insight as to why the Engineers at LV223 seemed so advanced while the Engineers on Planet 4 (for lack of better designation) seem so primitive. Who were those guys, anyway? Why was the architecture more like Rome of earth than the biomechanical aesthetic of the spacefaring Engineers? I don't expect answers to any of this. I'm putting it out there as something that could have been done to legitimately smooth things over. More runtime could have strengthened the movie.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 04, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Aug 04, 2017, 08:25:37 PM
I think it has less to do with knowing some people like it and more to do with the fact that it has some glaring flaws
That again though is just down to the eye of the beholder. I think it has a few minor flaws but think the good far outweighs them and don't believe it has any glaring ones.
To be told this is just because I'm 'eating it up, yum yum, is incredibly insulting, ignorant and arrogant.
Yeah, that was rude. Sorry. But glaring flaws are the problem. Gymnastics are required to make sense of them. Important material that could have solved a lot of those problems and strengthened the movie are available only through viral videos and ancillary materials. Scott says that's because the movie could be only two hours long, but that was his decision. Plenty of movies run longer than two hours these days. Sometimes, that's to the film's detriment. I think, in this case, another 20 or 30 minutes of runtime, even more, could have made a big and positive difference. If we have 6 minutes for Fassbender to love himself, it seems we could have had a bit more screen time to learn what happened to Shaw (as one example). it might have been nice to get some insight as to why the Engineers at LV223 seemed so advanced while the Engineers on Planet 4 (for lack of better designation) seem so primitive. Who were those guys, anyway? Why was the architecture more like Rome of earth than the biomechanical aesthetic of the spacefaring Engineers? I don't expect answers to any of this. I'm putting it out there as something that could have been done to legitimately smooth things over. More runtime could have strengthened the movie.
No worries, thanks for apologising.
I agree about the runtime, hell, I'd have happily sat through 3hrs! But I don't think that's all down to Ridley. A film of this kind which i believe is a little niche is kept short from a business perspective. At least that's what I think is the reason anyway.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 04, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Aug 04, 2017, 08:25:37 PM
I think it has less to do with knowing some people like it and more to do with the fact that it has some glaring flaws
That again though is just down to the eye of the beholder. I think it has a few minor flaws but think the good far outweighs them and don't believe it has any glaring ones.
To be told this is just because I'm 'eating it up, yum yum, is incredibly insulting, ignorant and arrogant.
Yeah, that was rude. Sorry. But glaring flaws are the problem. Gymnastics are required to make sense of them. Important material that could have solved a lot of those problems and strengthened the movie are available only through viral videos and ancillary materials. Scott says that's because the movie could be only two hours long, but that was his decision. Plenty of movies run longer than two hours these days. Sometimes, that's to the film's detriment. I think, in this case, another 20 or 30 minutes of runtime, even more, could have made a big and positive difference. If we have 6 minutes for Fassbender to love himself, it seems we could have had a bit more screen time to learn what happened to Shaw (as one example). it might have been nice to get some insight as to why the Engineers at LV223 seemed so advanced while the Engineers on Planet 4 (for lack of better designation) seem so primitive. Who were those guys, anyway? Why was the architecture more like Rome of earth than the biomechanical aesthetic of the spacefaring Engineers? I don't expect answers to any of this. I'm putting it out there as something that could have been done to legitimately smooth things over. More runtime could have strengthened the movie.
Great points. It doesn't help when Pietro Scalia admits there was a 12 minute bridge of Prometheus and Covenant that delve into what occurred with Shaw and David, and that was cut for pacing since they liked the introduction with David and Weyland. Then, they trimmed those twelve minutes to a two minute crossing viral. Stupid in my part. I would of liked to seen this at least as a deleted scene, though they didn't even bother put it in on the blu-ray.
Then, the whole advent viral feels like a mid or end credits stinger that could have helped explain David's twisted thought process, and also helped the audience get ready for what's going to occur in the final film. Though, that was left to the side also. I had to tell a person to watch the film, then watch the short so they got an idea of what was occurring with David, Shaw, the engineers and the path for the final film. Afterwards, they told me, they were shocked though, made the film better in their point of view.
Having read that Fox was pushing Scott to trim the film down to extent of not even showing the bombing sequence, shows that Fox was at it again on meddling with the film. Though, Scott could of told them, hey give me an extended cut like Kingdom of Heaven, and I'll do the trims you want, so in that part, he washes his hands, though not even that. In the end, I like the film since I see what Scott was going for from the interviews, virals, etc though I agree, this film needed to be at least 30 minutes longer. I again say, FOX I hope you're reading this, release a damn extended cut!
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 04, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Aug 04, 2017, 08:25:37 PM
I think it has less to do with knowing some people like it and more to do with the fact that it has some glaring flaws
That again though is just down to the eye of the beholder. I think it has a few minor flaws but think the good far outweighs them and don't believe it has any glaring ones.
To be told this is just because I'm 'eating it up, yum yum, is incredibly insulting, ignorant and arrogant.
Yeah, that was rude. Sorry. But glaring flaws are the problem. Gymnastics are required to make sense of them. Important material that could have solved a lot of those problems and strengthened the movie are available only through viral videos and ancillary materials. Scott says that's because the movie could be only two hours long, but that was his decision. Plenty of movies run longer than two hours these days. Sometimes, that's to the film's detriment. I think, in this case, another 20 or 30 minutes of runtime, even more, could have made a big and positive difference. If we have 6 minutes for Fassbender to love himself, it seems we could have had a bit more screen time to learn what happened to Shaw (as one example). it might have been nice to get some insight as to why the Engineers at LV223 seemed so advanced while the Engineers on Planet 4 (for lack of better designation) seem so primitive. Who were those guys, anyway? Why was the architecture more like Rome of earth than the biomechanical aesthetic of the spacefaring Engineers? I don't expect answers to any of this. I'm putting it out there as something that could have been done to legitimately smooth things over. More runtime could have strengthened the movie.
The architecture isn't primitive lol!
Quote from: prometheusfire08 on Aug 05, 2017, 03:26:00 PM
pretty certain David implanted him when he was fixing the gauze.........
completely hilarious that you are all arguing over a totally moot point lol
That's what I thought too, but when I posted it here people made fun of me.
Quote from: 0321recon on Aug 05, 2017, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 04, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Aug 04, 2017, 08:25:37 PM
I think it has less to do with knowing some people like it and more to do with the fact that it has some glaring flaws
That again though is just down to the eye of the beholder. I think it has a few minor flaws but think the good far outweighs them and don't believe it has any glaring ones.
To be told this is just because I'm 'eating it up, yum yum, is incredibly insulting, ignorant and arrogant.
Yeah, that was rude. Sorry. But glaring flaws are the problem. Gymnastics are required to make sense of them. Important material that could have solved a lot of those problems and strengthened the movie are available only through viral videos and ancillary materials. Scott says that's because the movie could be only two hours long, but that was his decision. Plenty of movies run longer than two hours these days. Sometimes, that's to the film's detriment. I think, in this case, another 20 or 30 minutes of runtime, even more, could have made a big and positive difference. If we have 6 minutes for Fassbender to love himself, it seems we could have had a bit more screen time to learn what happened to Shaw (as one example). it might have been nice to get some insight as to why the Engineers at LV223 seemed so advanced while the Engineers on Planet 4 (for lack of better designation) seem so primitive. Who were those guys, anyway? Why was the architecture more like Rome of earth than the biomechanical aesthetic of the spacefaring Engineers? I don't expect answers to any of this. I'm putting it out there as something that could have been done to legitimately smooth things over. More runtime could have strengthened the movie.
Great points. It doesn't help when Pietro Scalia admits there was a 12 minute bridge of Prometheus and Covenant that delve into what occurred with Shaw and David, and that was cut for pacing since they liked the introduction with David and Weyland. Then, they trimmed those twelve minutes to a two minute crossing viral. Stupid in my part. I would of liked to seen this at least as a deleted scene, though they didn't even bother put it in on the blu-ray.
Then, the whole advent viral feels like a mid or end credits stinger that could have helped explain David's twisted thought process, and also helped the audience get ready for what's going to occur in the final film. Though, that was left to the side also. I had to tell a person to watch the film, then watch the short so they got an idea of what was occurring with David, Shaw, the engineers and the path for the final film. Afterwards, they told me, they were shocked though, made the film better in their point of view.
Having read that Fox was pushing Scott to trim the film down to extent of not even showing the bombing sequence, shows that Fox was at it again on meddling with the film. Though, Scott could of told them, hey give me an extended cut like Kingdom of Heaven, and I'll do the trims you want, so in that part, he washes his hands, though not even that. In the end, I like the film since I see what Scott was going for from the interviews, virals, etc though I agree, this film needed to be at least 30 minutes longer. I again say, FOX I hope you're reading this, release a damn extended cut!
"They" didn't agree completely. Scalia wanted to use the Weyland viral shot by Jake Scott to open the film. It was never meant for that purpose. Scott wanted to cut it and Scalia talked him out of it. The bombing scene barely made it into the film at Scott's insistence. My reading of this is that very few people during the writing and editing process agreed with Scott and that made it difficult for him to get his way.
It was different with Kingdom of Heaven partly because it had a different editor, Dody Dorn, who fought for the longer cut from the beginning. She would not let the dictates of pacing override what she thought was best for the story. She didn't want them to cut an important subplot, for example, that Scott had to fight just to get permission to shoot. This parallels Covenant in that both films had a major subplot involving a female character that interrupted the flow of the main narrative, but was absolutely crucial to the story, the motivations, and was one of the reasons Scott wanted to make the film in the first place. Dody Dorn fought for story and character and fought against studio pressure to make compromises for pacing. Scalia, on the other hand, compromised story for paciness even beyond what was necessary, particularly with Prometheus.
More and more I think the real problem people have with Scott's last two Alien movies is Scalia. His tastes differ heavily from what audiences want. I miss Dody Dorn. She can be flashy like Scalia but she would not compromise story and emotional connection to character for pacing or structural neatness. I hope that, in a decade or so, the studio releases extended editions of these movies without Scalia that is closer to the scripts.
Quote from: Protozoid on Aug 05, 2017, 06:11:59 PM
Quote from: 0321recon on Aug 05, 2017, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 04:03:18 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 04, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Aug 04, 2017, 08:25:37 PM
I think it has less to do with knowing some people like it and more to do with the fact that it has some glaring flaws
That again though is just down to the eye of the beholder. I think it has a few minor flaws but think the good far outweighs them and don't believe it has any glaring ones.
To be told this is just because I'm 'eating it up, yum yum, is incredibly insulting, ignorant and arrogant.
Yeah, that was rude. Sorry. But glaring flaws are the problem. Gymnastics are required to make sense of them. Important material that could have solved a lot of those problems and strengthened the movie are available only through viral videos and ancillary materials. Scott says that's because the movie could be only two hours long, but that was his decision. Plenty of movies run longer than two hours these days. Sometimes, that's to the film's detriment. I think, in this case, another 20 or 30 minutes of runtime, even more, could have made a big and positive difference. If we have 6 minutes for Fassbender to love himself, it seems we could have had a bit more screen time to learn what happened to Shaw (as one example). it might have been nice to get some insight as to why the Engineers at LV223 seemed so advanced while the Engineers on Planet 4 (for lack of better designation) seem so primitive. Who were those guys, anyway? Why was the architecture more like Rome of earth than the biomechanical aesthetic of the spacefaring Engineers? I don't expect answers to any of this. I'm putting it out there as something that could have been done to legitimately smooth things over. More runtime could have strengthened the movie.
Great points. It doesn't help when Pietro Scalia admits there was a 12 minute bridge of Prometheus and Covenant that delve into what occurred with Shaw and David, and that was cut for pacing since they liked the introduction with David and Weyland. Then, they trimmed those twelve minutes to a two minute crossing viral. Stupid in my part. I would of liked to seen this at least as a deleted scene, though they didn't even bother put it in on the blu-ray.
Then, the whole advent viral feels like a mid or end credits stinger that could have helped explain David's twisted thought process, and also helped the audience get ready for what's going to occur in the final film. Though, that was left to the side also. I had to tell a person to watch the film, then watch the short so they got an idea of what was occurring with David, Shaw, the engineers and the path for the final film. Afterwards, they told me, they were shocked though, made the film better in their point of view.
Having read that Fox was pushing Scott to trim the film down to extent of not even showing the bombing sequence, shows that Fox was at it again on meddling with the film. Though, Scott could of told them, hey give me an extended cut like Kingdom of Heaven, and I'll do the trims you want, so in that part, he washes his hands, though not even that. In the end, I like the film since I see what Scott was going for from the interviews, virals, etc though I agree, this film needed to be at least 30 minutes longer. I again say, FOX I hope you're reading this, release a damn extended cut!
"They" didn't agree completely. Scalia wanted to use the Weyland viral shot by Jake Scott to open the film. It was never meant for that purpose. Scott wanted to cut it and Scalia talked him out of it. The bombing scene barely made it into the film at Scotts insistence. My reading of this is that very few people during the writing and editing process agreed with Scott for him to get his way.
It was different with Kingdom of Heaven partly because it had a different editor, Dody Corn, who fought for the longer cut from the beginning. She would not let the dictates of pacing override what sue thought was best for the story. Sue didn't want them to cut an important subplot, for example, that Scott had to fight just to get permission to shoot. This parallels Covenant in that both films had a major subplot involving a female character that interrupted the flow of the main narrative, but was absolutely crucial to the story, the motivation of the female lead, and was one of the reasons Scott wanted to make the film in the first place. Dody Dorn fought for story and character and fought against studio pressure to make compromises for pacing. Scalia, on the other hand, compromised story for paciness even h yond what was necessary, particularly with Prometheus.
More and more I think the real problem people have with Scott's last two Alien movies is Scalia. His tastes differ heavily from what audiences want. I miss Dody Dorn. She can be flashy like Scalia but she would not compromise story and emotional connection to character for pacing or structural neatness. I hope that, in a decade or so, the studio releases extended editions of these movies without Scalia that is closer to the scripts.
You're right. I remember watching the behind the scenes of Kingdom of Heaven and she citing with Ridley. I have to ask what happened with Ridley and Dody so that Scalia is back butchering his films left and right. If Dody had edited Prometheus we'd be singing another tune regarding Covenant/Paradise.
If nothing occurred between Dody and Ridley, I hope she would come back and re-edit both films to see what Ridley and his screenwriters were going for though, I won't hold my breath for that occurring any time soon.
Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 05, 2017, 05:15:16 PM
The architecture isn't primitive lol!
The CG views say you're right, though maybe not more advanced than ours. From the ground, the people, their clothes, and their ostensibly urban environment look strangely primitive. They don't look like an advanced race of space travelers. The Citadel structure is enormous compared to surrounding buildings, the landing field seems large, and the scorpion-tail skyhook fits right in with LV223 engineer aesthetic. It actually looks different enough from everything else to to make me wonder if maybe these ground-dwellers and the spacefarers are two different groups. I doubt the ground-dwellers made that skyhook. Also, there is no sign of ground vehicles, other aircraft, or any sort of transportation except for the Juggernauts in their hangar. So riddle me this, my fine feathered friend: Who are these people and how do they relate to the Engineers as seen on LV223? Since David slaughtered them, it may not matter; but I'd love to know.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 05, 2017, 04:14:42 PM
No worries, thanks for apologising.
I agree about the runtime, hell, I'd have happily sat through 3hrs! But I don't think that's all down to Ridley. A film of this kind which i believe is a little niche is kept short from a business perspective. At least that's what I think is the reason anyway.
Cool!
I agree, I'd sit through 3hr version that works really well. You could be right about the time limit, though later posts provide really interesting discussion about the editors having a lot of influence on that.
Quote from: 0321recon on Aug 05, 2017, 07:25:26 PM
More and more I think the real problem people have with Scott's last two Alien movies is Scalia. His tastes differ heavily from what audiences want. I miss Dody Dorn. She can be flashy like Scalia but she would not compromise story and emotional connection to character for pacing or structural neatness. I hope that, in a decade or so, the studio releases extended editions of these movies without Scalia that is closer to the scripts.
***
You're right. I remember watching the behind the scenes of Kingdom of Heaven and she citing with Ridley. I have to ask what happened with Ridley and Dody so that Scalia is back butchering his films left and right. If Dody had edited Prometheus we'd be singing another tune regarding Covenant/Paradise.
If nothing occurred between Dody and Ridley, I hope she would come back and re-edit both films to see what Ridley and his screenwriters were going for though, I won't hold my breath for that occurring any time soon.
Your insights about the editing are great! I doubt we'll find out exactly what happened, but thanks for all that. Naturally I think the movie would be better with that 12 minutes restored along with other cut scenes. I wonder what would have happened if the movie had been edited in nonlinear time, like Pulp Fiction?
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 07:36:55 PM
Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 05, 2017, 05:15:16 PM
The architecture isn't primitive lol!
The CG views say you're right, though maybe not more advanced than ours. From the ground, the people, their clothes, and their ostensibly urban environment look strangely primitive. They don't look like an advanced race of space travelers. The Citadel structure is enormous compared to surrounding buildings, the landing field seems large, and the scorpion-tail skyhook fits right in with LV223 engineer aesthetic. It actually looks different enough from everything else to to make me wonder if maybe these ground-dwellers and the spacefarers are two different groups. I doubt the ground-dwellers made that skyhook. Also, there is no sign of ground vehicles, other aircraft, or any sort of transportation except for the Juggernauts in their hangar. So riddle me this, my fine feathered friend: Who are these people and how do they relate to the Engineers as seen on LV223? Since David slaughtered them, it may not matter; but I'd love to know.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 05, 2017, 04:14:42 PM
No worries, thanks for apologising.
I agree about the runtime, hell, I'd have happily sat through 3hrs! But I don't think that's all down to Ridley. A film of this kind which i believe is a little niche is kept short from a business perspective. At least that's what I think is the reason anyway.
Cool!
I agree, I'd sit through 3hr version that works really well. You could be right about the time limit, though later posts provide really interesting discussion about the editors having a lot of influence on that.
Quote from: 0321recon on Aug 05, 2017, 07:25:26 PM
More and more I think the real problem people have with Scott's last two Alien movies is Scalia. His tastes differ heavily from what audiences want. I miss Dody Dorn. She can be flashy like Scalia but she would not compromise story and emotional connection to character for pacing or structural neatness. I hope that, in a decade or so, the studio releases extended editions of these movies without Scalia that is closer to the scripts.
***
You're right. I remember watching the behind the scenes of Kingdom of Heaven and she citing with Ridley. I have to ask what happened with Ridley and Dody so that Scalia is back butchering his films left and right. If Dody had edited Prometheus we'd be singing another tune regarding Covenant/Paradise.
If nothing occurred between Dody and Ridley, I hope she would come back and re-edit both films to see what Ridley and his screenwriters were going for though, I won't hold my breath for that occurring any time soon.
Your insights about the editing are great! I doubt we'll find out exactly what happened, but thanks for all that. Naturally I think the movie would be better with that 12 minutes restored along with other cut scenes. I wonder what would have happened if the movie had been edited in nonlinear time, like Pulp Fiction?
That's what I'm thinking at the moment. Begin the film with the David and Weyland sequence. Then cut with the Covenant crew viral of them having fun before going into cryo (even if some of the scene is cringe, though help cement crew in our minds). Then, cut back to ten years and show the events in Paradise, then finally cut back to the Covenant crew waking up into disaster. With that we have a connection with the crew, then were shocked to the events in both Paradise and the deaths that occur in the Covenant setting the tone of foreboding and doom.
Went to film school and our professors taught us to edit a sequence depending on character, and story instead of pacing. This could have been one of the solutions to fix this problem. However, sadly it seems that wasn't done in this case.
Quote from: 0321recon on Aug 05, 2017, 08:04:17 PM
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 07:36:55 PM
Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 05, 2017, 05:15:16 PM
The architecture isn't primitive lol!
The CG views say you're right, though maybe not more advanced than ours. From the ground, the people, their clothes, and their ostensibly urban environment look strangely primitive. They don't look like an advanced race of space travelers. The Citadel structure is enormous compared to surrounding buildings, the landing field seems large, and the scorpion-tail skyhook fits right in with LV223 engineer aesthetic. It actually looks different enough from everything else to to make me wonder if maybe these ground-dwellers and the spacefarers are two different groups. I doubt the ground-dwellers made that skyhook. Also, there is no sign of ground vehicles, other aircraft, or any sort of transportation except for the Juggernauts in their hangar. So riddle me this, my fine feathered friend: Who are these people and how do they relate to the Engineers as seen on LV223? Since David slaughtered them, it may not matter; but I'd love to know.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 05, 2017, 04:14:42 PM
No worries, thanks for apologising.
I agree about the runtime, hell, I'd have happily sat through 3hrs! But I don't think that's all down to Ridley. A film of this kind which i believe is a little niche is kept short from a business perspective. At least that's what I think is the reason anyway.
Cool!
I agree, I'd sit through 3hr version that works really well. You could be right about the time limit, though later posts provide really interesting discussion about the editors having a lot of influence on that.
Quote from: 0321recon on Aug 05, 2017, 07:25:26 PM
More and more I think the real problem people have with Scott's last two Alien movies is Scalia. His tastes differ heavily from what audiences want. I miss Dody Dorn. She can be flashy like Scalia but she would not compromise story and emotional connection to character for pacing or structural neatness. I hope that, in a decade or so, the studio releases extended editions of these movies without Scalia that is closer to the scripts.
***
You're right. I remember watching the behind the scenes of Kingdom of Heaven and she citing with Ridley. I have to ask what happened with Ridley and Dody so that Scalia is back butchering his films left and right. If Dody had edited Prometheus we'd be singing another tune regarding Covenant/Paradise.
If nothing occurred between Dody and Ridley, I hope she would come back and re-edit both films to see what Ridley and his screenwriters were going for though, I won't hold my breath for that occurring any time soon.
Your insights about the editing are great! I doubt we'll find out exactly what happened, but thanks for all that. Naturally I think the movie would be better with that 12 minutes restored along with other cut scenes. I wonder what would have happened if the movie had been edited in nonlinear time, like Pulp Fiction?
That's what I'm thinking at the moment. Begin the film with the David and Weyland sequence. Then cut with the Covenant crew viral of them having fun before going into cryo (even if some of the scene is cringe, though help cement crew in our minds). Then, cut back to ten years and show the events in Paradise, then finally cut back to the Covenant crew waking up into disaster. With that we have a connection with the crew, then were shocked to the events in both Paradise and the deaths that occur in the Covenant setting the tone of foreboding and doom.
Went to film school and our professors taught us to edit a sequence depending on character, and story instead of pacing. This could have been one of the solutions to fix this problem. However, sadly it seems that wasn't done in this case.
Personally, I think the best way to make lemonade out the footage that was shot would be:
1. All of the footage filmed for virals remain as virals. No opening with Weyland.
2. Open the movie on the Covenant with Walter.
3. The flashback is 12 minutes long and has all of the Shaw stuff.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 05, 2017, 12:23:41 PM
. I commented because you almost use it as if its a fact rather a metaphor that the hugger is sexually reproducing, which its not. Parasitism is not sexual.
Face rape, birth, Kane's son...
The Facehugger is not a parasite, it's an 'ambulatory penis' - that was the intention from O'Bannon, Giger et al.
Perhaps these facts have been watered down by the sequels, but I doubt it.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 07:36:55 PM
Quote from: System Apollo on Aug 05, 2017, 05:15:16 PM
The architecture isn't primitive lol!
The Citadel structure is enormous compared to surrounding buildings, the landing field seems large, and the scorpion-tail skyhook fits right in with LV223 engineer aesthetic. It actually looks different enough from everything else to to make me wonder if maybe these ground-dwellers and the spacefarers are two different groups. I doubt the ground-dwellers made that skyhook.
The issue here imo is gut reaction vs. trying to find out the intent of the various filmmakers of the Alien franchise, including with the two prequels.
The Engineer home world architecture leads to your gut, telling you to doubt that the "ground-dwellers made that skyhook". OK, that's fine for you. It can be your personal canon for instance.
- However, I don't have the same gut reactions as you do as we are different people.
* And I'm a person who goes into the details of what the filmmakers intended.
- To me in a fictional universe, when the filmmakers try to establish something, this determines what is "true" in that fictional world.
* The co-script writer of "Prometheus", Jon Spaihts, determined (in his draft scripts) that the Engineers had a mixture of architecture and physical appearance of creatures which included both Giger's designs and classical European / Middle-east architecture / design.
* In "Prometheus" the mixture of Giger and classic design is clearly shown in the Shrine room.
- The relief / wall sculpture is dominated by Giger design elements.
- However the ceiling painting is based on classic European art. The giant head sculpture is influenced by classic Egyptian, Greek/Roman design.
- The Engineers themselves look like classic Greek/European sculpture.
- But the Deacon has a Giger influenced design.
* In "Covenant" the Engineer design language started by Jon Spaihts continues (the mixture of Giger and classic Greek/European elements).
- Conclusion about this fictional world; the ground-dwellers in "Covenant" made what we see in the Engineer city.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 07:36:55 PMThe CG views say you're right, though maybe not more advanced than ours. From the ground, the people, their clothes, and their ostensibly urban environment look strangely primitive. They don't look like an advanced race of space travelers.
Imo the creators of a fictional world can have old style architecture, clothing in an advanced, future culture.
This is true in these science fiction franchises; Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, and so on.
And now imo this is true in the Alien franchise.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 07:36:55 PMAlso, there is no sign of ground vehicles, other aircraft, or any sort of transportation except for the Juggernauts in their hangar.
What is seen is only a glimpse of a large plaza on the Engineer planet.
If I looked at just an overhead view of the Louvre Museum or of the Egyptian pyramids, I would not know all the technology of earth such as the Hadron Collider.
One glimpse of a world does not = seeing the total technology of a world.
- Instead again, with a fictional universe what the creators of that universe intend is useful in understanding what is going on.
;)
Quote from: Protozoid on Aug 05, 2017, 08:39:05 PM
Personally, I think the best way to make lemonade eight the footage that was shot would be:
1. All of the footage filmed for virals remain as virals. No opening with Weyland.
2. Open the movie on the Covenant with Walter.
3. The flashback is 12 minutes long and has all of the Shaw stuff.
You also had great input about the editing. Didn't mean to exclude you. I don't know the best way to make lemonade, but I'm sure there is enough footage to do something more than was done. It's unfortunate.
Cutting the brilliant Weyland prologue would also be removing a certain arc coming full circle with the ending.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 09:03:19 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on Aug 05, 2017, 08:39:05 PM
Personally, I think the best way to make lemonade eight the footage that was shot would be:
1. All of the footage filmed for virals remain as virals. No opening with Weyland.
2. Open the movie on the Covenant with Walter.
3. The flashback is 12 minutes long and has all of the Shaw stuff.
You also had great input about the editing. Didn't mean to exclude you. I don't know the best way to make lemonade, but I'm sure there is enough footage to do something more than was done. It's unfortunate.
No way would I ever remove the weyland opening, it's one of the best scenes across either of the prequels and some of the most intelligent dialogue too.
@bb-15: Let's agree to disagree about this.
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 09:20:33 PM
@bb-15: Let's agree to disagree about this.
Fine with me.
cheers
;)
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 05, 2017, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Aug 05, 2017, 09:03:19 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on Aug 05, 2017, 08:39:05 PM
Personally, I think the best way to make lemonade eight the footage that was shot would be:
1. All of the footage filmed for virals remain as virals. No opening with Weyland.
2. Open the movie on the Covenant with Walter.
3. The flashback is 12 minutes long and has all of the Shaw stuff.
You also had great input about the editing. Didn't mean to exclude you. I don't know the best way to make lemonade, but I'm sure there is enough footage to do something more than was done. It's unfortunate.
No way would I ever remove the weyland opening, it's one of the best scenes across either of the prequels and some of the most intelligent dialogue too.
I agree. I'd leave that alone. Though, like I mentioned before I'd add back those 12 minutes with Shaw since their pivotal to the film.
I hope they get to finish this series. My wish would be ending the prequels in a way that neatly sets up Alien. For example, putting the eggs onboard the alien spacecraft and exploring what the distress call was all about.
Quote from: Salt The Fries on Aug 04, 2017, 12:15:24 PM
One thing for all of you to ponder on: what if sped-up properties of impregnation came as a result of eggs being directly subjected to accelerant by David as opposed to eggs we know from Alien which might be Xeno-made?
What if every subsequent Xeno born within their own life-cycle was genetically inferior and dilluted version of the "Xeno zero" (which enjoys the benefits of the accelerant the most) that was artificially created by David.
While I don't necessarily agree with the second part of that theory, something ADF mentioned in the novelization was that David has deliberately sped up the life cyle. That's something I could buy into.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 04, 2017, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: JokersWarPig on Aug 04, 2017, 08:25:37 PM
I think it has less to do with knowing some people like it and more to do with the fact that it has some glaring flaws
That again though is just down to the eye of the beholder. I think it has a few minor flaws but think the good far outweighs them and don't believe it has any glaring ones.
To be told this is just because I'm 'eating it up, yum yum, is incredibly insulting, ignorant and arrogant.
Quote from: SM on Aug 04, 2017, 08:55:28 PM
And sadly predictable.
Some people are incapable or liking or not liking it, without slagging off the opposing view.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Aug 05, 2017, 05:31:05 AM
Yes, It's perfectly reasonable to blame Ridley if the film isn't satisfying to you. So long as you're not saying he's senile or lost it and crap like that then I think it's valid to question the decisions he's made.
Either the films you're cuppa tea or it's not, it's that simple really.
Indeed. Look guys, it makes me sad that I have to come on here and play school teacher so often. We're supposed to be adults. Why are so many of you incapable of acting like that? If you can't disagree respectfully or maturely, just don't interact.