AvPGalaxy Forums

A brand new Alien: Covenant still shows an armed Daniels. Entertainment Weekly has just posted a new still of Katherine Waterston as Daniels! The new still shows an armed Waterston channeling her inner Ripley in this Aliens looking costume. Alongside the brand new image are several comments by Waterston and Ridley Scott:

“If 2012's kinda-sorta Alien prequel Prometheus was confusing, Scott says this film will provide some answers. ­"Covenant is really going to show you who did it and why."

There’s nothing new really said in the other comments but you can check out the full article for the additional comments.

Waterson recently spoke about similarities between Daniels and Ripley, saying that: “"We [Ridley Scott] never really talked about it," Waterston replied. "I mean, I — obviously I love her, and I love what she did," Waterson explained, adding that there were "obvious parallels" to be found between the two characters. Waterston made sure to add, "But we never — we never talked about that."

Keep a close eye on Alien vs. Predator Galaxy for the latest on Alien: Covenant! You can follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to get the latest on your social media walls. You can also join in with fellow Alien fans on our forums!

Link To Post

I couldn't resist ;D

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/62/14/88/6214887378a6eaa7e2896a12cb68925a.jpg)

Great picture, looks very retro aliens, i'm loving what i see

I don't like Daniels' hair at all, but oooooh well.

Pretty good. This time, it's war!

Give me the trailer now!

I seriously cannot wait to see this movie.

What the f**k...why copy everything? Im so confused. Really Ridley is the director?

Dat ACOG ;)

can clearly remember the hype with all the teasers, trailers and stills before prometheus came out. everything was so perfect but then it came out and ... ouch

not saying prometheus is bad but .... you know what i mean guys

Pff. Is that a Mossimo tank top? I refuse to believe that in 100+ years we'll still be running around in the same tank tops. They could have at least put some piping on there.

Quote from: Lonely Universe on Dec 20, 2016, 08:31:27 PM
Pff. Is that a Mossimo tank top? I refuse to believe that in 100+ years we'll still be running around in the same tank tops. They could have at least put some piping on there.

But Hawaiian shirts are fine then I guess?

Maybe Prometheus will make sense after this movie. Probably gonna rewatch Prometheus with my girlfriend, i think i need to go back to it

haha, Ridley stole NB's Ripley idea by hiring a Ripley look alike. I can imagine the fight over using old Ripley vs another actress who looks like Ripley. It's the same damn thing.

Quote from: Ridley Scott on Dec 20, 2016, 08:13:30 PM
Covenant is really going to show you who did it and why.

Who did what? Create Aliens?

Not looking forward to that, if so. :-[ I always preferred them as having evolved naturally.

Well, read that as 'one armed Daniels' and now I don't know what to think.

Quote from: Lonely Universe on Dec 20, 2016, 08:31:27 PM
Pff. Is that a Mossimo tank top? I refuse to believe that in 100+ years we'll still be running around in the same tank tops. They could have at least put some piping on there.

Ha! Nice.

Quote from: szkoki on Dec 20, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
What the f**k...why copy everything? Im so confused. Really Ridley is the director?

They don't copy anything. This haircut was Waterston's idea taken from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 20, 2016, 08:53:15 PM

Quote from: Ridley Scott on Dec 20, 2016, 08:13:30 PM
Covenant is really going to show you who did it and why.

Who did what? Create Aliens?

Not looking forward to that, if so. :-[ I always preferred them as having evolved naturally.

I think that's the direction the prequels are heading in.

Loving the vibe of the still. Hope she's not too like Ripley in terms of character.

Quote from: Lonely Universe on Dec 20, 2016, 08:31:27 PM
Pff. Is that a Mossimo tank top? I refuse to believe that in 100+ years we'll still be running around in the same tank tops. They could have at least put some piping on there.

We still wear denim jeans which has been used in USA since the mid 19th century. Besides, it's just a bloody top :)

OMG! SHE HAS A GUN AND SHORT HAIR AND A TANK TOP ON! RIP-LEY-OFF!!! (see what i did there?)

Quote from: Ingwar on Dec 20, 2016, 08:59:48 PM

Quote from: Lonely Universe on Dec 20, 2016, 08:31:27 PM
Pff. Is that a Mossimo tank top? I refuse to believe that in 100+ years we'll still be running around in the same tank tops. They could have at least put some piping on there.

We still wear denim jeans which has been used in USA since the mid 19th century. Besides, it's just a bloody top :)

I think Lonely Universe is satirising all the gun tech posts.

Isn't that weaver? Oh sorry my mistake. Don't fix it... let's do a re-run... :'(

Loving that new pic!  ;D

I don't think I can handle much more of this, enough already, please release a trailer Fox

Quote from: Predatorium on Dec 20, 2016, 08:25:57 PM
Dat ACOG ;)

I see what you did thurrr, and thats a 2003 haircut.

But this pic, gives me more confidence this movie is more then the 4chan movie spoiler release thing.

Aaahh Steyer on praxis.. :)

E.W.'s stills always look so bad. Recalling those from the latest Terminator and X-Men films...

The guns look far to modern imo

Quote from: JokersWarPig on Dec 20, 2016, 09:53:54 PM
The guns look far to modern imo

This is in the future, so technically the gun looks too old, unless you're saying it lacks the "retro-future" aesthetic in which case, it might look too modern. These things really stop making sense, after awhile.

Perhaps saying it doesn't fit in with Alien "used future" is more readily understood than saying too modern. The word "modern" has no place in an ahistorical, fantastical film like Covenant.

Gun is Steyer Austria with RIS Rail systems ;)

Whilst this looks promising there's the slight risk that this could be overly focused on fan service being referential to Alien and Aliens to  the point where its distracting.

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 20, 2016, 08:53:15 PM

Quote from: Ridley Scott on Dec 20, 2016, 08:13:30 PM
Covenant is really going to show you who did it and why.

Who did what? Create Aliens?

Not looking forward to that, if so. :-[ I always preferred them as having evolved naturally.

Except that having been engineered gives them purpose; and for story telling a purpose is essential.  The genetically engineered dinosaurs in 'Jurassic Park' had purpose even if they were just considered to be theme park attractions.  It's when that purpose goes awry the story becomes worth telling. 

I'm sure that's where Scott is taking this whole trilogy. 

-Windebieste.

Nice!! Look at that gun!! Thank Hicks. 8)

I think she'll be a bit softer than Ripley, making her transformation into badass survivor stand out more.  Ripley was kind of cold and a bit of bitch in Alien.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 20, 2016, 08:58:45 PM
I think that's the direction the prequels are heading in.

Up until now, there was still at laest some kind of hope that might have just been a red herring. I guess that, if that's what the quote is alluding to, that's how it is now.

Quote from: windebieste on Dec 20, 2016, 10:40:35 PM
Except that having been engineered gives them purpose; and for story telling a purpose is essential.  The genetically engineered dinosaurs in 'Jurassic Park' had purpose even if they were just considered to be theme park attractions.  It's when that purpose goes awry the story becomes worth telling. 

I'm sure that's where Scott is taking this whole trilogy.

No, it either gives them an old, now-irrelevant purpose or, alternatively, just makes them a mere biological experiment.

In both of those cases, it makes the creatures a lot less potentially interesting. If they arose naturally, it implies there's possibly still an ecosystem out there so dangerous, that the Alien's "structural perfection" came out of biological necessity.

I always loved that quote from one of the novels, where a character theorises that, on their own planet, they might be little more than the mice. Thinking of that really fired my imagination, making me picture a truly nightmarish ecosystem of all manner of cosmic horrors. It would bring the Alien as close as possible to O'Bannon's original concept of them being somehow related to Lovecraft's blood-thirsty deities: An unholy natural selection, as it were. It makes the Alien a fragment of something potentially greater and even more murderously obscene. An entire fossil record composed of deathly terrors.

If they turn out to be just an isolated result of bald dudes f**king around with a petri dish, to me, that devalues the Alien as much as the Engineers devlued the potential of the Space Jockey.

To me, that's an infinitely more thought-provoking question. Not, "Who made them?" But, "What kind of environment could be so horrifying that evolution selected them to survive?"

Aliens don't need to have been artificially created for the purpose of a story. Story = goal(s) + obstacle. Aliens always take up the 'obstacle' role, regardless of their origins.

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 20, 2016, 08:53:15 PM

Quote from: Ridley Scott on Dec 20, 2016, 08:13:30 PM
Covenant is really going to show you who did it and why.

Who did what? Create Aliens?

Not looking forward to that, if so. :-[ I always preferred them as having evolved naturally.

That was also the first thing that worried me when I read that. I really hope they're not going that route...

Also, this bombardment of news makes me believe very strongly that the trailer is imminent.

How could they evolve naturally?  They are clearly technology and biology fused together, not a natural creature that evolved on its own.  In fact, Prometheus even implies that even humans didn't evolve naturally.

The more things are revealed about this the more underwhelming it seems.

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 21, 2016, 12:21:44 AM
I always loved that quote from one of the novels, where a character theorises that, on their own planet, they might be little more than the mice. Thinking of that really fired my imagination, making me picture a truly nightmarish ecosystem of all manner of cosmic horrors. It would bring the Alien as close as possible to O'Bannon's original concept of them being somehow related to Lovecraft's blood-thirsty deities: An unholy natural selection, as it were. It makes the Alien a fragment of something potentially greater and even more murderously obscene. An entire fossil record composed of deathly terrors.

I just want everyone to read what you just said. Beautifully worded.

Let's hope in the end the prequels reveal the Jockey as separate from the Engineers & all of their creations. That way this is still a possibility & none of the mystique is ruined.

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 21, 2016, 12:21:44 AM
O'Bannon's original concept of them being somehow related to Lovecraft's blood-thirsty deities:

Weren't the Shoggoths created by the Elder Things?

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 21, 2016, 12:21:44 AM

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 20, 2016, 08:58:45 PM
I think that's the direction the prequels are heading in.

Up until now, there was still at laest some kind of hope that might have just been a red herring. I guess that, if that's what the quote is alluding to, that's how it is now.

Quote from: windebieste on Dec 20, 2016, 10:40:35 PM
Except that having been engineered gives them purpose; and for story telling a purpose is essential.  The genetically engineered dinosaurs in 'Jurassic Park' had purpose even if they were just considered to be theme park attractions.  It's when that purpose goes awry the story becomes worth telling. 

I'm sure that's where Scott is taking this whole trilogy.

No, it either gives them an old, now-irrelevant purpose or, alternatively, just makes them a mere biological experiment.

In both of those cases, it makes the creatures a lot less potentially interesting. If they arose naturally, it implies there's possibly still an ecosystem out there so dangerous, that the Alien's "structural perfection" came out of biological necessity.

I always loved that quote from one of the novels, where a character theorises that, on their own planet, they might be little more than the mice. Thinking of that really fired my imagination, making me picture a truly nightmarish ecosystem of all manner of cosmic horrors. It would bring the Alien as close as possible to O'Bannon's original concept of them being somehow related to Lovecraft's blood-thirsty deities: An unholy natural selection, as it were. It makes the Alien a fragment of something potentially greater and even more murderously obscene. An entire fossil record composed of deathly terrors.

If they turn out to be just an isolated result of bald dudes f**king around with a petri dish, to me, that devalues the Alien as much as the Engineers devlued the potential of the Space Jockey.

To me, that's an infinitely more thought-provoking question. Not, "Who made them?" But, "What kind of environment could be so horrifying that evolution selected them to survive?"

Aliens don't need to have been artificially created for the purpose of a story. Story = goal(s) + obstacle. Aliens always take up the 'obstacle' role, regardless of their origins.

I love your idea very much and I rather agree with you.

I think the alien that we know is the original creature and it was destroyed a long time ago.
Engineer seeks to recreate this ancestral creature using what remains of her: The black goo.
The alien cycle is far too complex to be created by a simple experiment. To recreate the alien you must: A facehugger; A chestbuster, the alien and the queen. Too much to be a simple black goo mix

However I am in disagreement with you on one point. Engineers are not something missed. They are directly inspired by the humanoid creatures of giger.

As far as we know, Engineers themselves may yet turn out to serve that role of "Lovecraft's blood-thirsty deities".  It's just now they have a tool of destruction. 

The Alien.

-Windebieste.

In fact I remain convinced that the engineers are different from the space jockey.

In 2 interviews (Ian White and a designer that Hicks had interviewed), it was questioned that the engineers were serving a superior entity and had stolen the black goo from elder entity.

Quote from: windebieste on Dec 20, 2016, 10:40:35 PM

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 20, 2016, 08:53:15 PM

Quote from: Ridley Scott on Dec 20, 2016, 08:13:30 PM
Covenant is really going to show you who did it and why.

Who did what? Create Aliens?

Not looking forward to that, if so. :-[ I always preferred them as having evolved naturally.

Except that having been engineered gives them purpose; and for story telling a purpose is essential.  The genetically engineered dinosaurs in 'Jurassic Park' had purpose even if they were just considered to be theme park attractions.  It's when that purpose goes awry the story becomes worth telling. 

I'm sure that's where Scott is taking this whole trilogy. 

-Windebieste.

What purpose did the shark in Jaws have that went awry?

That's a good point.  ...and it's been a long time since I've seen it but I'll give a go:

The shark was a catalyst to other events happening on Amity Island.  The shark itself doesn't appear that much until the end of the movie.  The bulk of the film is about how the shark affects the population of Amity Island.

The economy and reputation of the resort was under threat of going awry.  The shark was the catalyst. 

-Windebieste.

Creating them via a process of genetically enginered, artificial selection doesn't rule out natural evolution, it's just faster. This serves a thematic purpose, yet doesn't negate the idea of the creature/virus evolving and adapting via natural selection. Haag said their origin wouldn't be revealed in his interview, so I'm getting lots of contradictory info here, hence why I'm reserving analysis until the film is out.

Anyone else seeing a Steyr Aug with an MGO optic slapped on top dressed as future tech?

Looks ok though I guess

Quote from: SiL on Dec 21, 2016, 01:22:22 AM

Quote from: windebieste on Dec 20, 2016, 10:40:35 PM

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 20, 2016, 08:53:15 PM

Quote from: Ridley Scott on Dec 20, 2016, 08:13:30 PM
Covenant is really going to show you who did it and why.

Who did what? Create Aliens?

Not looking forward to that, if so. :-[ I always preferred them as having evolved naturally.

Except that having been engineered gives them purpose; and for story telling a purpose is essential.  The genetically engineered dinosaurs in 'Jurassic Park' had purpose even if they were just considered to be theme park attractions.  It's when that purpose goes awry the story becomes worth telling. 

I'm sure that's where Scott is taking this whole trilogy. 

-Windebieste.

What purpose did the shark in Jaws have that went awry?

You can only do so many permutations of monster-running-down-a-tin-can. Something somewhere has to have purpose or substance to keep it interesting.

My thoughts exactly, at least attempt something like the M41 from aliens, (which was made from parts of a Famas and pump action shotgun) at least it looked legit.

My thoughts as well m8 I really hope the space jockeys are not the engineers

Quote from: Bworko on Dec 21, 2016, 01:13:55 AM
In 2 interviews (Ian White and a designer that Hicks had interviewed), it was questioned that the engineers were serving a superior entity and had stolen the black goo from elder entity.

That's the direction I'd like to see them go. I like this fan theory of the Engineers imitating the Space Jockeys and this accelerant is something they stole from the Jockeys that is a template for the Aliens that just keeps getting corrupted and created corrupted Alien-like creatures.

Yeah Steyr with ACOG. Total bullshit.

Quote from: NickisSmart on Dec 20, 2016, 09:56:21 PM

Quote from: JokersWarPig on Dec 20, 2016, 09:53:54 PM
The guns look far to modern imo

This is in the future, so technically the gun looks too old, unless you're saying it lacks the "retro-future" aesthetic in which case, it might look too modern. These things really stop making sense, after awhile.

Perhaps saying it doesn't fit in with Alien "used future" is more readily understood than saying too modern. The word "modern" has no place in an ahistorical, fantastical film like Covenant.

No I was pointing out they're using a modern day weapon and not even trying to hide the fact. She's holding a Styer and the other production image of the security forces had them armed with rifles from the M16/AR family.

They're using modern weaponry in a movie set in the future, it's easy to see with all the rails attached to them.
Shouldn't we be seeing something closer related to the pulse rifle? Something that we can see was a predecessor to what we saw in Aliens?

Quote from: Canon_Barbarian on Dec 21, 2016, 11:18:28 AM
Yeah Steyr with ACOG. Total bullshit.

Ever heard of an M1911? And how long that is in service? And how reliable it is.
What if the Covenant took off at around 2050 thats like 30 years from now,
you dont think if a spaceship took off from 2050 would have our modern guns?
Although it would be cool to see some modified guns like what they did with the pulse rifle,

Quote from: Canon_Barbarian on Dec 21, 2016, 11:18:28 AMYeah Steyr with ACOG. Total bullshit.

They've at least futured it up a bit. The guns in Prommy were just regular target pistols and shotguns with bits painted orange and the muzzle flare turned blue.

Anyway, cool photo.

Quote from: SiL on Dec 21, 2016, 01:22:22 AM

Quote from: windebieste on Dec 20, 2016, 10:40:35 PM

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 20, 2016, 08:53:15 PM

Quote from: Ridley Scott on Dec 20, 2016, 08:13:30 PM
Covenant is really going to show you who did it and why.

Who did what? Create Aliens?

Not looking forward to that, if so. :-[ I always preferred them as having evolved naturally.

Except that having been engineered gives them purpose; and for story telling a purpose is essential.  The genetically engineered dinosaurs in 'Jurassic Park' had purpose even if they were just considered to be theme park attractions.  It's when that purpose goes awry the story becomes worth telling. 

I'm sure that's where Scott is taking this whole trilogy. 

-Windebieste.

What purpose did the shark in Jaws have that went awry?

Humans came to its house and then he (the shark) got angry.

Quote from: Infected on Dec 21, 2016, 01:23:35 PM
Ever heard of an M1911? And how long that is in service? And how reliable it is.
What if the Covenant took off at around 2050 thats like 30 years from now,
you dont think if a spaceship took off from 2050 would have our modern guns?
Although it would be cool to see some modified guns like what they did with the pulse rifle,

Even if it is 2050, they should update guns and optics at least a bit. Cryo tubes, spaceships + modern not-futuristic weaponry looks dump.
But movie probably take place after Prometheus, somewhere around 2100, so AUG is bullshit.

Hope it will be adequate explanation for AUG and ACOG, but I suspect Ridley just doesn't give a shit.

Why does it need an "adequate explanation"? They dressed up something they could get there hands on. I don't see what the big deal is.

Cameron gave the Marines in Aliens VP70s, a gun that's been out of production for 27 years already, without bothering to even put any dressing on it. Likewise Hicks had an ancient (by the time) pump-action and Vasquez had a Smith & Wesson that was over 200 years old.

Suspend disbelief for a minute.

Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 21, 2016, 02:52:22 PM
Why does it need an "adequate explanation"? They dressed up something they could get there hands on. I don't see what the big deal is.

Cameron gave the Marines in Aliens VP70s, a gun that's been out of production for 27 years already, without bothering to even put any dressing on it. Likewise Hicks had an ancient (by the time) pump-action and Vasquez had a Smith & Wesson that was over 200 years old.

Suspend disbelief for a minute.

You're making too much sense here lol

I was skeptical when i saw the soldier dudes with M4, but now....... AUG + ACOG? really?

So we can have super high tech crytubes but can't have the Pulse Rifle or anything else more futuristic?
And it seens like someone forgot about the Storm Rifle at Weyland Security time-line.

Ridley is getting nuts on Alien universe since Prometheus, now its for sure. Someone retire this guy.

Well the VP70 isn't a pistol that's widely recognized, I'd imagine that's one reason he chose it. It looked (for the time) different enough to be a futuristic service pistol. I'm assuming it's USCM issued since Goreman is the only person we see with one.

Hick's shotgun was a personal weapon, that's something (based on dialogue) we can figure was personally owned by him. It wasn't a USCM issued weapon. I'd imagine the USCM issued shotgun would look more in line with the pulse rifle.
Vaz's pistol you can argue is also a personally owned weapon given the fact it's different from Goremans and can be easily identified.
Since these weapons are their personally owned weapons that means they were purchased via civilian means.

In keeping with the Vietnam logic though, it wasn't uncommon for soldiers to get weapons through unofficial channels or by family members sending them through the mail. I've read this was most often knives and smaller things, but in rare instances I've read WW2 weaponry could be acquired. Large weapons being sent to troops though was a common among snipers more so since the US Military didn't have an official sniper rifle during the beginning of the war. Personally owned or purchased hunting rifles were very common in the beginning of the war.

I know it's Ridley's movie, and I know he doesn't really have to follow anything after Alien, but keeping things a little bit in what was already established would be nice, or at least disguising the weapons a bit so they don't look like something you'd see a US or Australian military member with. It comes off as lazy to me.

Quote from: FUBAR1945 on Dec 21, 2016, 03:28:11 PMAnd it seens like someone forgot about the Storm Rifle at Weyland Security time-line.

You mean the gun that can somehow shoot someone from like 35km away and is infinitely more futuristic than anything we see in Aliens?

I hope it will be much better as AVP2  or Alien 4.. :(((   I'm affraid of it will be fail again. :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(

This thread is getting out of hand. You guys have no problem suspending disbelief when it comes to outer space colonists travelling much farther into the cosmos than we have done or will do in the next 200 years, to colonize a planet that appears to have been at some point the home of God-like humanoid creatures who may have had a hand in terraforming earth among other planets, seeding them with life and contributing to human evolution, AND on top of that, there are foreign alien entities unlike anything ever recorded- but yet you can't fathom guns that already exist and work in real life, being used by these fictional characters?? ???

Agreed, guns are guns.  As long as they look real, why give a shit?

Because Ridley's failed me once before and now he's already failing me again  ::)

Me me me MEEEEE!

Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Dec 21, 2016, 04:46:27 PM
Me me me MEEEEE!

:laugh: :laugh:

Over look it if you want, it's still lazy.  8)

Quote from: JokersWarPig on Dec 21, 2016, 04:50:49 PM
Over look it if you want, it's still lazy.  8)

again, i will say it... its like judging a fast and the furious movie simply based upon the wheels used on the cars in the film.

It's not an unreasonable complaint to have. Aliens gave us iconic and original weaponry. To want more originality isn't an issue. I'm a little disappointed myself that we're not even seeing any attempt at redressing these guns to look different.

That said, it's not going to kill the film. This isn't Aliens. We're not going to have a focus on the hardware and how impressive it is. There's going to be no "I'd like to introduce you to a personal friend of mine" kind of thing. That's just not what this film is going to entail.

Yeah, it's a little disappointing for those interested in the hardware but it's not going to kill the film.

Quote from: JokersWarPig on Dec 21, 2016, 04:38:39 PM
Because Ridley's failed me once before and now he's already failing me again  ::)

You seem hard to please.

David did it because "he could"

Quote from: Canon_Barbarian on Dec 21, 2016, 02:36:25 PM

Quote from: Infected on Dec 21, 2016, 01:23:35 PM
Ever heard of an M1911? And how long that is in service? And how reliable it is.
What if the Covenant took off at around 2050 thats like 30 years from now,
you dont think if a spaceship took off from 2050 would have our modern guns?
Although it would be cool to see some modified guns like what they did with the pulse rifle,

Even if it is 2050, they should update guns and optics at least a bit. Cryo tubes, spaceships + modern not-futuristic weaponry looks dump.
But movie probably take place after Prometheus, somewhere around 2100, so AUG is bullshit.

Hope it will be adequate explanation for AUG and ACOG, but I suspect Ridley just doesn't give a shit.

The m16 is from 1960 thats 56 years ago, still to this day it hasnt change much has it?
So if the Covenant left at 2050, it would have taken guns but no gun factory nor would it take a development team that would create guns while they are traveling through space.
ah whatever just deal with it. :)

hmmm... first photo from covenant that worries me a little. There's no need for another Ripley. Remember that chick from AVP2 screaming "HOLD ON!" while driving the APC? Not good.

Why is that an issue? The Magnificent Seven was practically a note-for-note rehash of Seven Samurai, but it didn't stop it from being a good film, in it's own right. The Bear by William Faulkner was a "white indian" adventure story (at least concerning its aesthetics) but that didn't stop it from being a famous, complex piece of literature.

AvP2 didn't suck because it had a Ripley clone in it, anymore than the second movie did for borrowing very generously from the first film in terms of tropes, texture and plot. AvP2 sucked because it was a bad film, period. Covenant could have a "Ripley clone" in it, or, you could look at it like "the strongest most resilient character surviving." To me, this just makes sense, and the gender and look is purely cosmetic. To fret about those matters is to fret about window dressing. What matters is the craft of the filmmakers.

Quote from: NickisSmart on Dec 21, 2016, 06:05:33 PM

Quote from: JokersWarPig on Dec 21, 2016, 04:38:39 PM
Because Ridley's failed me once before and now he's already failing me again  ::)

You seem hard to please.

It's not that I'm hard to please, it's that it comes off as lazy and I'm afraid that means the whole production will seem "lazy" when I finally do see it.

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 21, 2016, 05:40:22 PM
Aliens gave us iconic and original weaponry. To want more originality isn't an issue. I'm a little disappointed myself that we're not even seeing any attempt at redressing these guns to look different.

QuoteYeah, it's a little disappointing for those interested in the hardware but it's not going to kill the film.

What Hick's said here sums up how I feel.

Quote from: slipknotpredator on Dec 21, 2016, 08:24:35 PM
hmmm... first photo from covenant that worries me a little. There's no need for another Ripley. Remember that chick from AVP2 screaming "HOLD ON!" while driving the APC? Not good.

Good Lord, I had pushed that down into the recesses of my mind...

---

Quote from: SsgtJira on Dec 20, 2016, 10:07:21 PM
Gun is Steyer Austria with RIS Rail systems ;)

That's pretty cool that you know this.

Quote from: JokersWarPig on Dec 21, 2016, 10:23:03 PM

It's not that I'm hard to please, it's that it comes off as lazy and I'm afraid that means the whole production will seem "lazy" when I finally do see it.

I don't think it "means" much of anything at this point, except that you might be jumping the gun, so to speak. So if you think the guns are "lazy" then everything will be? That's like saying that you don't like Aragorn's sword, ergo you think every other production aspect of LOTR will be just as "bad." That's a tad extreme, especially since guns might not be the focus of the film, even if some people want them to be.

Have you seen any of the other stills thus far? They don't exactly scream lazy to me, even if what's-her-face looks like Ripley and is holding a modified Steyr. I'm not willing to discount everything good that I've seen thus far on account that the firearm isn't decorated enough. To be honest, I'd rather have it look like a real gun than a silly toy. It looks like a gun that shoots bullets. Beats whatever the hell guns they had in Alien: Resurrection. Hell, just play Alien: Isolation. The shotgun in that game is based off a real gun. God forbid. Does that make the production "lazy" as a whole? Of course not.

AvP:R was an epic merc fest! I had such a blast watching that film (Im being serious)... Literally every 2 minutes someone dies in a rather horrible way or another!

Outside of the merc fest... it was shit lol But at least it was FUN shit ;)

But I REALLY doubt A:C is going to be a turd. For the most part these days, people are TOO harsh on films and expect WAY too much from them anymore. Instead of viewing them as a form of entertainment created by HUMAN BEINGS (to err is human) that is there for the sole purpose of viewing for 2-3 hours worth of enjoyment, weve all gotten to the point of such high expectations of EVERY piece of cinema we go see (at least it seems like it).

Oh sweet raptor Jesus, Katherine Waterson may resemble Ripley in being the heroine of the film (much like Shaw was in Prometheus)... BIG DEAL. She may have to put on her big girl pants and suck up the sense of fear to save her own butt (and possibly others) and look out, she might be toting around a machine gun and shotgun to shoot Aliens with... Make her an Ellen Ripley clone this does not. It just shows a female being bad ass and owning her shit!

I guess Im just super happy we finally get answers to the first film. We get to see characters we care about further evolve... and we get to see a creature weve all loved for the past (almost) 40 years get some kind of explanation as to what it might actually be. I choose to go into this film ignoring little details everyone here is nit picking and arguing about. Why not lose yourself in what the movie might be instead of your preconceived notions about whats wrong with it based on silly little details. Ridley Scott is finally giving us, what looks like, and amazing film that is the first of 3 before we go straight back into Alien again.

But then again... I tend to look at life in a little more positive way than most for the things I love and take interest in (never mind I write loud, evil and angry industrial music lol)

The closest to a Ripley clone was in AVPR.  Driving an APC and with a little girl, yes, but other than that she was quite different. 

Shaw and Lex weren't Ripley clones at all.

Actually the only real Ripley clones are in Alien Resurrection.  :P

I don't see 'Ripley clone' here except girl with a gun.  Ripley didn't even have short hair in Aliens and she wasn't wearing a tank top.  If she yells "Get away from her you bitch!" though I'm walking out of the theatre.  :P

QuoteActually the only real Ripley clones are in Alien Resurrection.

;D

Woman with a gun is hardly a 'Ripley clone' anyway, just 'cos the actual Ripley used one for 20 minutes in one film.  She didn't strut around the place posing with guns in the films - she used them when necessary.  Even in Resurrection, she hands over her gun to Hillard, then throws the flamethrower away after torching the failed clones.

Quote from: SM on Dec 22, 2016, 12:59:47 AM

QuoteActually the only real Ripley clones are in Alien Resurrection.

;D

Woman with a gun is hardly a 'Ripley clone' anyway, just 'cos the actual Ripley used one for 20 minutes in one film.  She didn't strut around the place posing with guns in the films - she used them when necessary.  Even in Resurrection, she hands over her gun to Hillard, then throws the flamethrower away after torching the failed clones.

That's true, outside of Aliens, she only fires one shot in Alien Resurrection.  Classic Ripley uses a flamethrower and is dressed in jumpsuit (with cat, not little girl).  Aliens Ripley takes more after Rambo.

Quote from: DorkiDori on Dec 20, 2016, 09:06:01 PM
OMG! SHE HAS A GUN AND SHORT HAIR AND A TANK TOP ON! RIP-LEY-OFF!!! (see what i did there?)

Are bad puns ban-worthy here, Hicks?

Quote from: Xeneus on Dec 22, 2016, 01:16:14 AM

Quote from: DorkiDori on Dec 20, 2016, 09:06:01 PM
OMG! SHE HAS A GUN AND SHORT HAIR AND A TANK TOP ON! RIP-LEY-OFF!!! (see what i did there?)

Are bad puns ban-worthy here, Hicks?

Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answers to?? :laugh:

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/20122016_05.jpg)


(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joblo.com%2Fnewsimages1%2Felevator.jpg&hash=b3bc9a3423e11d4830e9aaac5444a08dfaccc4da)

I'm sorry guys but the moment I saw that image I thought it was that one dude from Deep Rising, the dude in the middle with the gun... just to be super obvious.

Or the guys from Contra:

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F199.101.98.242%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F55137-Contra_%28USA%29-9.jpg&hash=ccb4ce561484cbfc9a804dace7c8d8afd0bb334d)

This is totally a good thing. :)

Oh my god she really does look like the guy form Contra... meh I can live with Contra: The Alien Wars.

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2016%2F02%2F15%2F05%2F3139076900000578-0-image-m-17_1455515718860.jpg&hash=61923b682116e4674c357df50b64c7821dfc12eb)
(https://cdn.cloudpix.co/images/arnold-schwarzenegger/arnold-schwarzenegger-in-predator-muscles-352d1badd7a714146e2a13601cac0b4a-large-427277.jpg)

How did you guys not know that?  :laugh:

Quote from: Xeneus on Dec 22, 2016, 01:16:14 AM

Quote from: DorkiDori on Dec 20, 2016, 09:06:01 PM
OMG! SHE HAS A GUN AND SHORT HAIR AND A TANK TOP ON! RIP-LEY-OFF!!! (see what i did there?)

Are bad puns ban-worthy here, Hicks?

I'm evil but I'm not that evil.  :P Repeated bad puns might push me too far though...

Quote from: Corporal HicksHow did you guys not know that?  :laugh:

Well I didn't automatically think Lance from Contra but I guess I should have considering I thought she was a guy at first.

Quote from: whiterabbit on Dec 22, 2016, 01:28:31 AM(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joblo.com%2Fnewsimages1%2Felevator.jpg&hash=b3bc9a3423e11d4830e9aaac5444a08dfaccc4da)

I'm sorry guys but the moment I saw that image I thought it was that one dude from Deep Rising, the dude in the middle with the gun... just to be super obvious.

Holy shit, that's one of my favourite movies ever and no one else has ever heard of it!

Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 22, 2016, 09:46:46 AM

Quote from: whiterabbit on Dec 22, 2016, 01:28:31 AM(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joblo.com%2Fnewsimages1%2Felevator.jpg&hash=b3bc9a3423e11d4830e9aaac5444a08dfaccc4da)

I'm sorry guys but the moment I saw that image I thought it was that one dude from Deep Rising, the dude in the middle with the gun... just to be super obvious.

Holy shit, that's one of my favourite movies ever and no one else has ever heard of it!

Tons of other people have heard of it, there was like a thread not too long ago where we all agreed it was an awesome movie. :P

Obviously I totally missed that :laugh:

Quote from: NickisSmart on Dec 21, 2016, 10:55:58 PM

Quote from: JokersWarPig on Dec 21, 2016, 10:23:03 PM

It's not that I'm hard to please, it's that it comes off as lazy and I'm afraid that means the whole production will seem "lazy" when I finally do see it.

I don't think it "means" much of anything at this point, except that you might be jumping the gun, so to speak. So if you think the guns are "lazy" then everything will be? That's like saying that you don't like Aragorn's sword, ergo you think every other production aspect of LOTR will be just as "bad." That's a tad extreme, especially since guns might not be the focus of the film, even if some people want them to be.

Have you seen any of the other stills thus far? They don't exactly scream lazy to me, even if what's-her-face looks like Ripley and is holding a modified Steyr. I'm not willing to discount everything good that I've seen thus far on account that the firearm isn't decorated enough. To be honest, I'd rather have it look like a real gun than a silly toy. It looks like a gun that shoots bullets. Beats whatever the hell guns they had in Alien: Resurrection. Hell, just play Alien: Isolation. The shotgun in that game is based off a real gun. God forbid. Does that make the production "lazy" as a whole? Of course not.

It's not an extreme view at all. The behind the scenes stills we've seen of creatures look great, that kind of care should be put into every part of the film. This still and the security force still show us that the same amount of attention to detail isn't being put into everything, other wise we'd see these weapons dressed up.


Hell, in Alien 3 Fincher repainted the Pulse Rifles in order to keep things cohesive (and that production wasn't the best to begin with).
This was even floating around when Prometheus was the big Aliens topic, so at some point in Ridley's prequels we were supposed to see predecessors to the pulse rifle.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi345.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp390%2FAkuze-Casualty%2F494b6ad1-392e-4c17-bf0b-680e6a5be77d_zpsrfskfgcc.png&hash=28f7911a8e6928e53872f55fd20e92a293f4808b) (http://s345.photobucket.com/user/Akuze-Casualty/media/494b6ad1-392e-4c17-bf0b-680e6a5be77d_zpsrfskfgcc.png.html)

I never said it was going to be a bad movie because of this, I never said I hate the movie because of this. I said it seems lazy and it makes me worry other aspects of production are being treated the same way.

Quote from: JokersWarPig on Dec 22, 2016, 01:38:05 PMThis was even floating around when Prometheus was the big Aliens topic, so at some point in Ridley's prequels we were supposed to see predecessors to the pulse rifle.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi345.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp390%2FAkuze-Casualty%2F494b6ad1-392e-4c17-bf0b-680e6a5be77d_zpsrfskfgcc.png&hash=28f7911a8e6928e53872f55fd20e92a293f4808b) (http://s345.photobucket.com/user/Akuze-Casualty/media/494b6ad1-392e-4c17-bf0b-680e6a5be77d_zpsrfskfgcc.png.html)

That thing was just a stupid kitbash knocked up for the marketing. It looks crap and its supposed functionality is ridiculously far-fetched.

It much rather see something more grounded, especially as this isn't a military ship.

Quote from: JokersWarPig on Dec 22, 2016, 01:38:05 PM

I never said it was going to be a bad movie because of this, I never said I hate the movie because of this. I said it seems lazy and it makes me worry other aspects of production are being treated the same way.

Why? Maybe they simply aren't interested in reinventing the wheel for the guns. Furthermore, you say "the behind the scenes stills we've seen of creatures look great, that kind of care should be put into every part of the film." So clearly you have nothing to worry about as far as the creatures go (or the sets, for that matter, which all look fine, as we've been shown thus far:

Spoiler

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0NIx9JUkAAWLpb.jpg:large)

[close]

). In fact, based on what we've seen thus far, the guns seem to be the only thing to gripe about, if being lackluster in the sense that they aren't disguised as "futuristic" guns is something to lament.

However, I will say District 9 was a lot of fun with the alien weaponry and so on, but there were plenty of normal, conventional, modern, human firearms, too, in that film. So, just because you see one Steyr in a production pic doesn't for a second mean that's all we're going to get. Also, the production stills for movies, including Alien, show actors holding props that they don't actually use in the film, so perhaps we'll see something else in the arms of our new heroine?

Also, the comment of the pulse rifles in Alien 3 doesn't compute, for me. Covenant predates Aliens; how do you know when those weapons came into service? Scott isn't obligated to put them into the film (though I'd be perfectly happy if he did). There can be plenty of explanations for the visual differences in the different films (such as the sleek, futuristic look of the Prometheus versus the Nostromo, despite the latter existing after the Prometheus). For me, it'd seem strange if every person with a gun used all the same kind of gun. That's not how it works, on Earth, now, even. Cohesiveness or lack thereof doesn't necessarily translate to laziness if that lack can be explained.

Furthermore, this is Ridley Scott. Are you really worried about his visual style being lazy? If anything, the script or story is to be worried about, but how would you get that from them using a Steyr in a production still?

More grounded, stock weapons on a Colony ship is the right decision logically, and it follows from the more tactile, grounded instruments that will feature in the ship as well (granted, there is a compromise between the design in Prometheus and the grungy, utilitarian design seen on the Nostromo), this is not a "state of the badass art" military ship. As Nick said, the weapons in Isolation were not stylised in any way; the weapons being understated makes the fear and vulnerability more palpable.

Well, furthermore, those weapons were totally useless against the alien, itself. Yes, they're guns, but all they really give you is a false sense of security. I suspect in Covenant, it will be more akin to Aliens, with the guns being potentially able to at least wound the beasts; but being in outer space, the last thing you'd want to do on board a space ship is start a firefight. Doesn't, at one point

Spoiler

a fire start on board the ship, killing at least one crew member?

[close]

It makes me thing they'll be using the guns more on the surface of the planet, or as a last, desperate defense.

On the planet, I think the beasts will be different than the xenos of the past that we've seen, so I'm not sure how effective the weapons will be. Obviously they can't be very effective or there'd be no threat--unless Ridley pulls an Aliens:

In Aliens, Cameron's approach was to make the guns lethal to the aliens, but even then, they were ineffective against the hive, as a whole (ergo, Ripley's suggestion to take off and nuke the site from orbit); furthermore, Cameron even made the weapons' leathality a disadvantage to the marines, with the potential damaging of the cooling system of the atmospheric processor potentially resulting in a thermonuclear explosion. Adios, muchachos. He essentially said, in an old interview, that Zulu Dawn can be just as exciting as a slasher film with one guy running around the house, chasing someone with a knife. For all intents and purposes, his approach worked. Yes, those guns were effective against the aliens, individually, but even then, it wasn't safe to kill them--just ask Drake or Hicks. The weapons, even with their lethal effectiveness, still reaffirmed Parker's statement in Alien: "It's got a wonderful defense mechanism; you don't dare kill it." On top of that, in Aliens, even if you did kill a few of the beasts (or even most of them) the surviving members of the hive would do you in, assuming you didn't die from injuries sustained in the battle (acid, or, in Frost's case,  friendly fire--pun intended).

"You don't dare kill it" would be a great subtitle! And yeah, agreed, I do hope however that the weapons are useless on the big chaps.

Quote from: NickisSmart on Dec 23, 2016, 04:08:22 AMHowever, I will say District 9 was a lot of fun with the alien weaponry and so on, but there were plenty of normal, conventional, modern, human firearms, too, in that film.

District 9 was set in the present day.

Your point? Plenty of "modern" weapons have been in use for 50+60 years. What do you want? Ray guns?

Furthermore, notice the weapons by the rebels being AK-47s and the like. AKs were first mass-produced in 1948. That gun is nearly seven years old.

The Steyr was produced in 1978, give or take. So in 70 years past that date, it'd still be in use in 2048.

In 2103, Covenant begins. That's another 53 years. I'd bet money people like the rebels in District 9 will still be using AKs in another 53 years, from now. It doesn't seem far-fetched for me to see the Steyr being used for another 53, past the initial 70 years, provided it is modified. Hell, if you think about it, the pulse rifle is essentially a modified WW2 Thompson sub-machine gun.

In other words, people are complaining about superficial details. I can't imagine firearms changing radically in the next 87 years, short of ray guns or something equally hyperbolic.

Quote from: NickisSmart on Dec 24, 2016, 10:53:12 AMYour point? Plenty of "modern" weapons have been in use for 50+60 years. What do you want? Ray guns?

No, I was just pointing out you wouldn't expect to see any futuristic human tech in that film.

No, though that's not why I mentioned it. The point of that film is the contrast between the human guns and the alien guns, and the radically-advanced nature of the alien tech revealed through its juxtaposition with our modern weaponry. In Covenant, however, I expect the alien weaponry to be the xenos, themselves.

An unwatermarked version of this still is available in our gallery - http://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/8946510200000_28129.jpg

Quote from: whiterabbit on Dec 22, 2016, 10:33:41 AM

Quote from: HuDaFuK on Dec 22, 2016, 09:46:46 AM

Quote from: whiterabbit on Dec 22, 2016, 01:28:31 AM(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joblo.com%2Fnewsimages1%2Felevator.jpg&hash=b3bc9a3423e11d4830e9aaac5444a08dfaccc4da)

I'm sorry guys but the moment I saw that image I thought it was that one dude from Deep Rising, the dude in the middle with the gun... just to be super obvious.

Holy shit, that's one of my favourite movies ever and no one else has ever heard of it!

Tons of other people have heard of it, there was like a thread not too long ago where we all agreed it was an awesome movie. :P

Those guns were insane...

Loved that movie! :) and that island at the end was like skull island n the water around an extension of that...shame they didn't do a follow-up..

All things being equal, Waterston could really shine in this. She's proven her range (see recent psychodrama Queen of Earth) and is undoubtedly beautiful, but has a kind of dorky charm that I'm really hoping gets utilised in her character's arc to differentiate her from Ripley as far as possible.
Perhaps Daniels isn't a natural leader or fighter, but through the story manages to mine reserves she didn't know she had.
Of course you're always gonna have the Ripley archetype that is an inevitable part of the franchise's box-ticking, but I thought they succeeded with Shaw in the last film (despite some abysmal dialogue) in carving out a new niche.
And if Daniels is paired with Danny McBride as some kind of beta male who has to rise to the occasion (I'm basing this on his affable schlubbiness and overcompensating with that Stetson hat), you could really end up rooting for them... That's assuming they don't get drowned out by an oversized cast and an overextended script...