[New Article] American Cinematographer show a pic of alternate mutant Fifield

[Gazz]

I didn't even pay that any attention. Saw the thumbnail and thought it was concept art. But yeah, that's definitely mutant fifield.

I like it.

[Bat Chain Puller]

I like it.

Me too. And if he's able to express a rabid rage/fear/sorrow as he murders the cargo bay crew, I'll LOVE it.

[Ooze on First]

I continue to weep at the lost opportunities. 
That Fifield is 100% scarier/creepier than the one in the movie.

Please, please, please put THIS one on the DVD/BR.

[fiveways]

I continue to weep at the lost opportunities. 
That Fifield is 100% scarier/creepier than the one in the movie.

Please, please, please put THIS one on the DVD/BR.

I'm starting to think the "I am a business man" quote from Ridley is truer and truer.  We will see these on DVD/BR.  They knew saying that they were releasing an edited version would be box office death.

[SpeedyMaxx]

I can understand why they went for practical makeup on Sean Harris if Ridley preferred his performance w/o much CGI.  He's a hell of an actor.

That said, I think this thing (and another like it!) would've been even more fun.

[And stuff]

Looks too Gollum-y for my taste, at least from those pictures.  Maybe if he turned his head I'd change my mind.  Still better than the one we saw in the film.

[Bat Chain Puller]

Other than 'crouching' and being generally greyish in color and ghoulish in nature ... I'd say he looks nothing like Gollum.


Gollums magic was in his performance. His design wasn't much more than a big eyed, emaciated Peter Lorre. The Fifield creature on display here has potential. We'll see how his character is portrayed soon enough.

[Ash 937]

While I do agree that this is scarier, it also looks like a lot of CGI wizardry would have to go into this version of Fifield to make it work on screen.  He is definitely more Gollum-ish here.  I'd prefer what we got in the actual movie if this version moved in a way that was slightly more awkward and cartoony due to the constraints of CGI.

Remember guys, this is just a picture...

[spinksy]

They should have used this one!!

[And stuff]

Other than 'crouching' and being generally greyish in color and ghoulish in nature ... I'd say he looks nothing like Gollum.


Gollums magic was in his performance. His design wasn't much more than a big eyed, emaciated Peter Lorre. The Fifield creature on display here has potential. We'll see how his character is portrayed soon enough.

Come to think of it, this Fifield design does kind of look like Peter Jackson's Gollum too.  I was thinking the iconic Gollum form the animated movies, especially the eyes, but it looks like a mix of the two ironically enough.  A dark ghoulish mix.  Still, I would've liked to see this Gollum'ish Fifield in action - it's hard to judge from a couple halfway drawn concept pieces.

[Aceburster]

  CGIfield + Deacon = Golum. Conspiracy?

[smurf80]

Looks too Gollum-y for my taste, at least from those pictures.  Maybe if he turned his head I'd change my mind.  Still better than the one we saw in the film.

I agree although I think he is starting to look like the little green martians out of Mars Attacks especially with those eyes....

[samoht]

I am so disappointed that we didn't get this.
It would have been so much better.

[fiveways]

I still have a feeling we might get this on the BR/DVD release.  There appears to at least be a fair bit of it done.  It will probably show up at least as an outtake.

[Dorian Gray]

Looks too Gollum-y for my taste, at least from those pictures.  Maybe if he turned his head I'd change my mind.  Still better than the one we saw in the film.

I agree although I think he is starting to look like the little grean martians out of Mars Attacks especially with those eyes....

I was thinking he looks a lot like Rubber Johnny.
]