Scott: We are going to make another Alien movie

[426Buddy]

If there was a biohazard risk (a la Planet 4 pathogen) then Ripley would've known about/ been affected by it.

From the marines perspective would Ripleys, at the time, brief brush with the alien mean that you could be sure you know all of its capabilities or even its full lifecycle? Not to mention they have no idea what else could have been on the derelict. Just sending the marines into a situation with a possible alien lifeform would merit taking quarantine precautions one would think.

Granted they didnt really believe Ripley.

[tleilaxu]

Yes, so why would it not make sense for the Marines to wear such gear then?

Because LV-426 had already been surveyed, colonized, and had it's atmosphere processed. There would be little to no risk of a pathogen of that kind existing on a dead rock that has been terraformed by and with often used methods, and the Alien if it was involved was also a known quantity.

There were people living on LV-426 for decades.  They knew there was nothing there, and in some ways they were right.  The derelict was not from there.  The aliens were not from there.  Decades of tests told them there was nothing in the air or in the ground that would make you sick.  So if they made the air breathable over time, it's reasonable to go helmets off.

I'm trying to remember how Russ and Anne were walking around.  Did they have helmets?

This is not what he's asking. It doesn't matter if people had been living there for decades, they had NO idea if there was super-magical alien microbe contamination from the derelict or anything.

[SM]

They had a pretty good idea.

[Paranoid Android]

They had 20 years worth of an idea.

[Perfect-Organism]

Suspend your disbelief and enjoy the film...

[Scorpio]

No, that's just not the same kind of thing. Massive stellar events are nothing like biological quarantine and standard safety measures. f**king Hell people, we practice this kind of stuff in the grocery business to keep people from getting horrifically ill from cross contamination. Masks, gloves, hair nets. This is our own planet trying to kill us.

Of course you'd wear biohazard gear. Especially something to cover your face and mouth. Just because a local sampling of the air reads clear doesn't mean you won't have exactly what happened, happened.

No but how were they supposed to know?  And why take precautions for things unlikely to happen (from their perspective)?

[OpenMaw]

There's a big difference between landing in America for the first time and drinking out of a river versus going to a frontier town several decades later and drinking water handed to you in a glass. Chances are the former is going to give you an awful intestinal parasite, and the latter has been boiled and purified.

No but how were they supposed to know?  And why take precautions for things unlikely to happen (from their perspective)?

It's far better to air on the side of caution until you know for sure. It's actually not unlikely, at all. If we found a planet that was practically tailor suited to our biology, then it's very likely to have some nasty bacteria, viruses, and pathogens hanging around that will kill us.

[Scorpio]

Once again they scanned the planet, so they didn't have to worry about that problem.

[OpenMaw]

Once again they scanned the planet, so they didn't have to worry about that problem.

Except they clearly did have to worry about that problem, because their stupidity and lack of safety precaution got them all killed.

[TC]

Stopped reading at "We audiences are a forgiving lot".

j/k

Audiences are not forgiving at all though, especially when it comes to a franchise film.

If you'd kept reading you would have found out what happens when the forgiveness is over and the poo-flinging begins.   

All this argument about what constitutes proper biosecurity practices in a space movie is a red herring. If you feel like what was shown to you was unrealistic, I would agree but we need to ask, so what? Other sci-fi movies have plots that are equally unscientific but without incurring audience blowback. So what's the difference?

The difference is that in Covenant it's become personal; we feel like our good nature (to "willingly suspend our disbelief") has been taken advantage of in a way that treats us as gullible and stupid. (Other readers can see my earlier post if that needs explanation.)

Woe betide any filmmaker that dares to do that.

As for not having suits, that stuff doesn't bother me in films like this. Its hardly important unless you understandably dont like the film already, then it becomes an easy criticism.

Exactly. If you enjoy the film, if you feel respected by the storyteller, if there's goodwill all round, then you're far more likely to allow the filmmaker license to stretch reality in ways that make the storytelling easier.

This is also a large part of the reason why there's so much hate going on with a section of The Last Jedi's fanbase. It's become personal because they feel disrespected.

TC

[Paranoid Android]

All this argument about what constitutes proper biosecurity practices in a space movie is a red herring. If you feel like what was shown to you was unrealistic, I would agree but we need to ask, so what? Other sci-fi movies have plots that are equally unscientific but without incurring audience blowback. So what's the difference?

The difference is that in Covenant it's become personal; we feel like our good nature (to "willingly suspend our disbelief") has been taken advantage of in a way that treats us as gullible and stupid. (Other readers can see my earlier post if that needs explanation.)

Woe betide any filmmaker that dares to do that.

The difference is tone and previously established movie-universe-logic. The Alien films, Covenant included, play it straight and have a tone that conveys to the audience that they're supposed to take the things unfolding on screen seriously. When combined with the fact that you already had mere space truckers take more precautions to ensure their safety all the way back in film #1 in 1979, you get to second-guess everything you see in Covenant because the writing doesn't support either the tone or the previously established logic. If you had the Looney Toons theme playing in the background while the characters made their decisions, Covenant might've worked better because then the audience would've known how to treat what they see.

Something like Alien:Resurrection took a lot of flack for its tone not matching with the rest of the franchise, but when you watch that film on its own you know not to take it as seriously as previous films because the writing matches the tone of the film. The film feels cartoony and lighthearted.

[tleilaxu]

They had 20 years worth of an idea.

Right, because they explored the Derelict for 20 years.

There's a big difference between landing in America for the first time and drinking out of a river versus going to a frontier town several decades later and drinking water handed to you in a glass. Chances are the former is going to give you an awful intestinal parasite, and the latter has been boiled and purified.

Again... There's no reaching you guys.

[TC]

The difference is tone and previously established movie-universe-logic.
...

"Tone" yes.

But now we've gone beyond a specific discussion about proper biosecurity protocols and delved into other areas of silliness.

Somewhere in this forum I questioned the tone of the scene where Karine and Maggie, one after the other, slip over in the same puddle of blood in the lander's medbay. I called it a Keystone-Cops-and-the-banana-skin scene. But as inappropriate as that was, I think it was intentional on Ridley Scott's part. (Also the bit where Maggie sprays off a clip of automatic gunfire and manages to hit everything in the lander except the alien - WTF, right?) But I think Scott's intended effect was supposed to be:  feeble ineptitude of good guys will cause the audience's pulse to race while they rise out of their seats in unison, clenching the backs of the seats in front, while yelling their alarm out loud at the screen.

But this only works if the characters have already engaged your sympathy. Otherwise all you've done is replicate that cliche where the vulnerable girl runs through the forest to escape the villain who is close behind when she trips over a tree root, wasting valuable seconds... IOW just another "roll your eyes" moment.

Anyway, my point is that Karine/Maggie's demise had the tone all wrong.

TC

[Paranoid Android]

They had 20 years worth of an idea.

Right, because they explored the Derelict for 20 years.

No, because they have established a colony and lived there for 20 years. A colony, as in the place where the marines go, where the whole bloody film takes place. The marines don't even go to the derelict. You're making a comparison between a place nobody goes to, and a place everybody goes to, somehow thinking one justifies the other.

[PsyKore]

Once again they scanned the planet, so they didn't have to worry about that problem.

Except they clearly did have to worry about that problem, because their stupidity and lack of safety precaution got them all killed.

Isn't this intended though? Because the movie has a point of humans putting too much faith in their technology.