https://twitter.com/THR/status/926135786763726849 (https://twitter.com/THR/status/926135786763726849)
It seems like Scott isn't fully satisfied about A:C. Was it entirely studio's call to fit Alien into the movie?
I've no doubt it was all from the studio. The bts chatter I've heard also seems to back that up.
Wouldn't surprise me.
He called him Deni? Is he serious? silent s huh?
SWAVE!!!!
I'm not bothered at all about this, if the alien just gets a cameo in the next one that is fine.
Quote from: acrediblesource on Nov 03, 2017, 12:41:08 AM
He called him Deni? Is he serious? silent s huh?
SWAVE!!!!
Well the dude's French, and it's how you pronounce his name, soo...
He's not French, he's Canadian.
French Canadian. It's a French name.
I suppose you are English Australian, then? :)
He is literally from the French-Canadian parts of Canada, that are known as the French-Canadian parts of Canada, where French is the main language, hence both his name and his accent. I was wrong to say he was French, but getting touchy at "French Canadian" is really weird.
edit
f**king Canada. French Canadian parts of Canada. D'oh :P (I originally wrote he was from the French-Canadian parts of France, which do not exist, and are not a thing.)
If Ridley's bored then just give this franchise to someone else.
I'd like to see
Michael Dougherty
and
Joon-ho Bong
take a crack at this.
The beast has "run out" in the same way darth vader or batman has "run out". maybe give it to someone new riddles, someone who will actually use the beast.
shoulda kept your android boyfriends playing flutes for your own franchise.
Don't really care if it was all from the studio (which was my guess back then). Ridley Scott stood behind that decision. He gave interviews talking about how he was wrong with Prometheus and how the Alien films are "all about this guy right there" *points to an Alien poster*. He needs to own up to it.
I said it before: this franchise has been hijacked by a director who doesn't even want to make Alien films.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 03, 2017, 08:54:47 AM
I said it before: this franchise has been hijacked by a director who doesn't even want to make Alien films.
It's definitely easy to tell Ridley wants to be telling stories about David but was only able to do so within Alien. And I think it's a detriment to both Alien and Prometheus/David. And I don't like where this current iteration of the story seems to be going.
Let's give the Alien franchise to someone who would like to make Alien films. Where Covenant really fell down for me was when the Aliens showed up. You could really tell they'd been shoehorned in there.
If both films had been good (rather than just pretty things to look at), nobody would care what they were about.... aliens, robots, engineers, whatever.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 03, 2017, 08:54:47 AM
Don't really care if it was all from the studio (which was my guess back then). Ridley Scott stood behind that decision. He gave interviews talking about how he was wrong with Prometheus and how the Alien films are "all about this guy right there" *points to an Alien poster*. He needs to own up to it.
I said it before: this franchise has been hijacked by a director who doesn't even want to make Alien films.
Yeah, I have to admit I was wrong and I brought his rekindled enthusiasm as genuine.
I think in hindsight the studio probably backed the wrong horse. If they want to finance Prometheus 3 then by all means that's cool but I'd give the Alien moniker to someone else, I don't think Ridley can use the beast effectively anymore demonstrated by his poor creative decisions in much of Covenant. Perfectly good man in suit on set and he authorises a paint over with awful cgi
I would rather Ridley Scott handling the beast than anyone else, despite his comments. The alien actually was a threat again and not a joke.
You don't say? The last 2 movies was like a magician that at the end of the show reveal all his tricks. If you explain everything about something it will lose a lot of its beauty, especially something like the Xenomorph. It went from the scariest thing from the unknown, to a bad science project...
Cannot agree with Scott. Beast hasn't run out. You could make dozens great stand alone Alien moves. It's not about Xenomorph being in the film. It's all about how you use it.
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 03, 2017, 09:36:39 AM
I would rather Ridley Scott handling the beast than anyone else, despite his comments. The alien actually was a threat again and not a joke.
I don't feel like it was. I think they were both offed rather easily and not portrayed effectively in the film as anything less than charging beasts. I'd been hoping for a little more menace. At least I got my 5 second creepy shot but otherwise I didn't think too much of the use of the Aliens in the film.
Quote from: Ingwar on Nov 03, 2017, 09:44:15 AM
Cannot agree with Scott. Beast hasn't run out. You could make dozens great stand alone Alien moves. It's not about Xenomorph being in the film. It's all about how you use it.
Definitely. Isolation showed us the Alien can still be made scary. Granted, different platform, but just because it's a known shape and design doesn't mean it can't be used better in the films too.
Reassure me... That does not mean that there will be no Xeno at all ? We must see them : the queen, the eggs in the Derelict, the modification from organic to biomechanoid, an if it's possible, an infestation of all colonists... Am I right ?
The only reason "The Beast" is running out of steam is because it isn't being used right. Especially by Ridley
Yeah well he is right. This monster is milked to death and it needs to be contextualized.
I don't think the Alien is being used correctly. I like how he set up the neomorphs, and how he was able to film the suspense leading up to the births of them, however after that he treated them like common monster movie monsters.
The Alien needs to be treated with suspense almost always.if you just show it running around the ship then it's gonna get old quick.
I personally believe the Alien needs to move to TV with a series on FX. As a movie I don't think it's gonna work anymore, and that's primarily due to the first two movies being so perfect as they were.
If Alien Isolation can use the creature correctly, then so can anyone.
Maybe another director could bring something interesting, but who, that's the question...
I guess the series is gonna continue plodding on an uncertain direction, then. Backtrack here, a retcon there, hand-wave this, ah fuggedaboutit.
Or better yet, just give it to someone who actually likes the Alien series and give up on these prequels.
Calling it now: Alien Dinosaurs VS. Alien Dragons. Imagine the greatness. ;)
Seriously tho, I just want a final conclusion with David, I am satisfied with that.
Fox could pull a Terminator Genysis and disregard Covenant. let Scott continue his own series of films and hand over the franchise to someone else or let Blomkamp do his thing since this was a true misfire. I liked Covenant though once the xeno showed up, I was meh. They could had just stuck with the neo and it would had been great. I guess Fox just didn't think long term with these films.
I'd first do an Alien film either the alternative alien 3 to bring the crowds in. If it becomes successful, they could split the earnings and from their Scott's films are financed.
I took from his comments that the Alien as it has been presented is almost worn out and I believe he's correct. However, he also closed by saying how something new is needed, so he's not proposing ending the franchise, just evolving it.
I didn't love the prequels thus far but I'm trying (hard) to reserve judgement until Ridley's story is concluded.
Maybe if Scott hadn't been so pig headed and let that Alien 5 movie get the Green-light then maybe we could have got something the fans actually wanted. He's Blaming the Alien creature itself for Covenant being average movie at best.
Can't wait for the next one, myself. Love every entry in the series!
The next one is gonna be great, I know it!
Oh Ridley. The movie doesn't have to be about the aliens. Just treat the aliens with respect. They're a piece of the puzzle. They're an element. Like the spaceships. The robots. The weaponry.
Come on dude.
As someone on here stated before, The Martian Ridley is so different from Covenant Ridley.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on Nov 03, 2017, 03:38:25 PM
Oh Ridley. The movie doesn't have to be about the aliens. Just treat the aliens with respect. They're a piece of the puzzle. They're an element. Like the spaceships. The robots. The weaponry.
Come on dude.
As someone on here stated before, The Martian Ridley is so different from Covenant Ridley.
Ridley is a businessman. He only made Prometheus and Alien: Covenant to won some money for his more personal movies like THE CARTEL.
Michael Bay always does that: He hates his Transformers movies but he need those for his personal movies PAIN & GAIN and 13 HOURS.
Does this mean no more "f*cking Aliens"?
Quote from: SiL on Nov 03, 2017, 01:34:04 AM
Quote from: acrediblesource on Nov 03, 2017, 12:41:08 AM
He called him Deni? Is he serious? silent s huh?
SWAVE!!!!
Well the dude's French, and it's how you pronounce his name, soo...
Yeah, if you watch all the 2049 behind-the-scenes footage you'll find that
everyone on set refers to Denis Villeneuve as "Deni".
Incidentally, Villeneuve also refers to Blade Runner 2049 as "Blade Runner two-thousand-and-forty-nine" not "twenty-forty-nine".
This series will never be what any of you want it to be.
Its moment of creative vitality was from 1979-1986. You simply can't recapture that. Just can't.
Novelty and freshness are incredibly hard qualities to sustain across a horror franchise. This is especially true of the Alien films, whose universe is comprised of a limited number of tropes that grow staler with each entry.
You can try to do something different with the series but the fans will get upset that you've abandoned them. You can give them what they say they want, and they will complain it's more of the same. There's no pleasing anyone. [Certainly not general audiences, who more or less checked out on the series after Alien 3.]
Well the aliens scenes are arguably the least interesting thing in Covenant, I mean two Xenomorphs rather than one though one and CGI and in broad daylight, no real suspense or terror right there if you ask me.
It was as if Ridley gave the finger to producers, "you want the xeno and all sort of aliens no problem but I couldn't care less and here's the proof".
I still want to defend him despite questionable choices, the way he avoids what he started with Prometheus etc...
What I like is that he didn't give us the obvious and predictable prequel, he tried something and I like the whole David arc. Some may argue that it doesn't fit the Alien franchise but I really want to see what he's going to do if only he can hire good screenwriters.
Quote from: skhellter on Nov 03, 2017, 01:59:13 AM
If Ridley's bored then just give this franchise to someone else.
Indeed. It'd be nice to get a director who doesn't bring contempt for the subject matter to the project right from the start.
I don't think Ridley has any contempt. It's more like "been there, done that."
He tried to expand the universe but the results were imperfect and idiosyncratic so the studio saddled him with the classic Xeno. I think he did what he could with it, but there's ultimately not much left that hasn't been done.
That said, I loved Convenant. It gets better for me with each viewing. I'm sad that many can't appreciate it the same way but as David says, "No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams."
Ridley's not wrong. The xenomorph is pretty much played out. The entire point of expanding the universe was to introduce more ideas and inject fresh narratives. If Fox was smart they'd let him finish the trilogy and not interject because maybe, just maybe, he'd give them material for an entirely new direction to take without having to milk the crap out of the same old movie monster for the next 30 years.
Amen.
Couldn't agree more ; the man clearly has fresh ideas and is still at the top of his game visually speaking, let him finish it !
When the guy who originally brought the Alien to the big screen has lack of enthusiasm you know its a bad sign
Not surprised, it's apparent that the film was conceived at the studio board meeting room.
Covenant wasnt a good horror, it wasnt a good action film, it wasnt a good philosophy film and it was f**king boring and stupid at the same time, surprisingly average looking too being a Ridley Scott film. It's genuinely worse than Resurrection, perhaps even Aliens V Predator, been a while since i watched it .
Ultimately Scott prequels failed at everything that made the Alien stand apart from the crowd, why i really loved the series first place:
no atmosphere, no real tension or dread, zero realism and plausibilty, no strong relatable characters, no coherent story, mostly no convincing creature effects and Giger biomechanic aesthetics. The cosmic horror of the unknown is almost entirely absent, worst of all it tries it best to make it seem like it has always been absent, thus undermining the impact and value of the whole franchise in a way no shitty prequel has succeeded. Origin stories are almost universally horrible but this takes the cake.
Only thing that needed to explain about the Alien was already perfectly said by Ash "A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality." The possibility that something like this could exist in the cold vast empty universe if far more chilling than the idea that Alien was made by design.
What Scott did, is far worse what Lucas did to Star Wars. After Prometheus there was still hope, after Covenant the prequels are best left forgotten or rebooted.
Quote from: newagescamartist on Nov 03, 2017, 05:27:17 PM
Ridley's not wrong. The xenomorph is pretty much played out.
Poppycock!
The alien has always been a goldmine of writing potential.
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 03, 2017, 05:47:33 PM
Covenant wasnt a good horror, it wasnt a good action film, it wasnt a good philosophy film and it was f**king boring and stupid at the same time, surprisingly average looking too being a Ridley Scott film. It's genuinely worse than Resurrection, perhaps even Aliens V Predator, been a while since i watched it .
I rewatched it after Covenant and I gotta say it's an ok film. With the franchise standards being as low as they are now, I even freely admit it's pretty good and my hate of it revolved around comparing it to truly good films.
AvP:R is still crap though. Nothing can redeem that film.
He's right the creature needs reinvented. Wrong that it has been played out. A reboot of sorts is probably the best way forward for the studio. With Ridley as producer.
It's just a film series about velociraptors with banana heads.
You guys need to relax a bit.
The Martian Ridley to this is different because he was given a completed film, the Martian is the book, he had no narrative input. He just put his beautiful visuals into it. That's all.
Ridley is only as good as the script he's given or chooses and he can't choose a good script.
Those saying the alien was the worst part of covenant, sure, but that's only because the story teller chose it that way.
No matter how much everyone loves him, he's not right for the franchise, Prometheus and covenant, could have been a new universe, if he doesn't like alien, don't make an alien film. He has enough money he can make his own new universe movie, it all boils down to greed and yes men
Quote
I rewatched it after Covenant and I gotta say it's an ok film. With the franchise standards being as low as they are now, I even freely admit it's pretty good and my hate of it revolved around comparing it to truly good films.
AvP:R is still crap though. Nothing can redeem that film.
I remember it being ok until the main gal made friends with predator, that wtf moment where she held alien head as a shield took me right out of the film and started hating it. Being an unrelated spinoff, the film didn't bother me much in the end but i don't care about it either.
AvP:R was so bad it wasn't even worth a download, deleted that shit 30mins in. I thought i was high or something.
Quote from: BonesawT101 on Nov 03, 2017, 06:47:17 PM
He's right the creature needs reinvented. Wrong that it has been played out. A reboot of sorts is probably the best way forward for the studio. With Ridley as producer.
I don't think everything Ridley says should be taken as gospel. The reception for Covenant wasn't lukewarm because the large majority are sick of Aliens, it's because it was average at best. Completely unspectacular. I reckon most complaints were levelled at the dumbass characters and terrible CGI.
As it stands now Covenant has been and gone and gathered a generally mixed-to-poor reputation the Alien probably does need to go on ice for 5-10 years again. Take a swing at the next generation of youths.
Quote from: skhellter on Nov 03, 2017, 06:48:09 PM
It's just a film series about velociraptors with banana heads.
You guys need to relax a bit.
Yeah this. They've been generic movie monster fodder for 4 or 5 movies in a row now. Javier Botet not doing weird contortionist shit in the suit was such wasted potential, man.
No- just give the fans the film they want
Quote
Quote from: skhellter on Nov 03, 2017, 06:48:09 PM
It's just a film series about velociraptors with banana heads.
You guys need to relax a bit.
Yeah this. They've been generic movie monster fodder for 4 or 5 movies in a row now. Javier Botet not doing weird contortionist shit in the suit was such wasted potential, man.
I hope you don't count AvP films, cause they are not related and to think of it, Scott prequels shouldn't be either, but they are. Previous shit films in the franchise doesn't justify the next one beign shit and why make them all if good monster movie in outerspace is no longer possible. Make something else perhaps.
Quote from: skhellter on Nov 03, 2017, 06:48:09 PM
It's just a film series about velociraptors with banana heads.
You guys need to relax a bit.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ;D
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 03, 2017, 07:11:13 PM
Quote
Quote from: skhellter on Nov 03, 2017, 06:48:09 PM
It's just a film series about velociraptors with banana heads.
You guys need to relax a bit.
Yeah this. They've been generic movie monster fodder for 4 or 5 movies in a row now. Javier Botet not doing weird contortionist shit in the suit was such wasted potential, man.
I hope you don't count AvP films, cause they are not related and to think of it, Scott prequels shouldn't be either, but they are. Previous shit films in the franchise doesn't justify the next one beign shit and why make them all if good monster movie in outerspace is no longer possible. Make something else perhaps.
I don't include AvP as part of the true narrative but when talking about the Alien as a character/monster being played out, you cannot emphasis enough how much damage the AvP films did.
Quote
I don't include AvP as part of the true narrative but when talking about the Alien as a character/monster being played out, you cannot emphasis enough how much damage the AvP films did.
The damage was there, but not many took AvP seriosly, did anybody? Nothing compare to how Scott f**ked up with the prequels.
Just split the franchise.
Let Ridley continue his Engineer/Android movies, drop Alien from the title and market it the right way so people know what to expect.
And let others do actual Alien/Xenomorph movies.
Quote from: 0321recon on Nov 03, 2017, 02:06:58 PM
Fox could pull a Terminator Genysis and disregard Covenant. let Scott continue his own series of films and hand over the franchise to someone else or let Blomkamp do his thing since this was a true misfire. I liked Covenant though once the xeno showed up, I was meh. They could had just stuck with the neo and it would had been great. I guess Fox just didn't think long term with these films.
+1
I think the neo and other variations would've been pretty sweet and a decent replacement for the typical xeno.
Nothing will surpass the original Alien. It's a true icon of cinema. Not neomorphs, deacons, engineers or anything else. They should have figured out how to use the alien proper, but show it in a new light (eg Cameron's queen).
QuoteAnd, from some behind-the-scenes chatter that Alien vs. Predator Galaxy has heard it would seem that the decision to include the Aliens in Prometheus 2 came down from the studio.
Well prior to Damon Lindelof's involvement, Prometheus was conceived originally as an Alien movie. In fact I remember Jon Spaihts claiming that FOX was primarily responsible for the most drastic changes of that story. So it's basically the same thing again.
However (and as others have already said) in Ridley's mind, this prequel saga is not about the Space Jockeys, nor the Aliens. It's all about David, and apparently Scott is just using the franchise to sell his recent obsession :P
Quote from: acidreign on Nov 03, 2017, 04:55:03 PM
This series will never be what any of you want it to be.
Its moment of creative vitality was from 1979-1986. You simply can't recapture that. Just can't.
Novelty and freshness are incredibly hard qualities to sustain across a horror franchise. This is especially true of the Alien films, whose universe is comprised of a limited number of tropes that grow staler with each entry.
You can try to do something different with the series but the fans will get upset that you've abandoned them. You can give them what they say they want, and they will complain it's more of the same. There's no pleasing anyone. [Certainly not general audiences, who more or less checked out on the series after Alien 3.]
The above pretty much encapsulates the situation at hand. At the end of the day, if you want to look at things from a more neutral, level-headed perspective, the hardcore fans of any series are not the target audience - rather, it is the general public that will help push a film into blockbuster territory.
The studios follow the TRENDS. And if you look at trends, you can understand why FOX did what they did with both Prometheus and Covenant.
From my own reading of the events, FOX made the decision to distance Prometheus from the Alien series because at that moment in time original sci-fi properties were dominating at the box office (
Avatar,
Inception for example). Considering the haul of
Prometheus (and the recent comments about the profitability of the film), it was clearly a good business move.
From a creative stand point, Prometheus would probably NOT have been much different in terms of story had it closer ties with the original Alien. Sure, substitute a chestburster in the MedPod scene or add a xenomorph instead of the Fifield mutation - but it probably wouldn't have been that much different in terms of the tone, characters, and even philosophical nature of Prometheus.
Importantly, I think many fans have misread why FOX wanted to return to the Alien brand with Covenant. I don't think it was solely because of divided opinions of Prometheus. You have to analyze the trends, the film market, and the business. Look at the resounding box office successes of
Star Wars: The Force Awakens or
Jurassic World. Combine this with other successful business ventures such as the Alien: Isolation video game becoming a top selling hit or the success of the Alien themed Halloween attraction at Universal Studios. FOX was looking at this and thinking, "Nostalgia is in. Star Wars. Jurassic Park. Alien is popular in video game form and at a theme park."
So, my read of the situation, is that FOX felt that returning to the Alien brand would tap into this nostalgia that has been so wildly successful. Unfortunately what they failed to realize is that unlike those other properties, Alien is not going to have multiple generations of family members going to the theaters and introducing kids to the Alien series.
Certainly, after Covenant, what is clear is that the nostalgia trend is not helping Alien.
Again, from a creative standpoint, whether you branded Covenant as
Alien or
Prometheus, I don't think much would've changed creatively. Frankly, the criticism of Covenant regarding the appearance of the Xenomorph is more about fans' own personal hopes/dreams/visions of the creature than storytelling. So, if you substitute a Xenomorph for a Neomorph or Deacon or another creature at the end of the film, that would've made the film not much different from a story structure, narrative, or character perspective.
This new prequel series is thematically linked to the notion of "creation" - that is Scott's main storytelling concern in these new entries. Scott obviously wanted to elevate the Alien series beyond a horror-science fiction-thriller and take the very subtle (yet present) themes from the original series but place them in a more noticeable position. That likely wouldn't have changed no matter how you branded these films.
With the current situation, it's quite possible FOX doesn't know what to do. They may give Scott more freedom to explore and just lower the budget. In the end, perhaps that is the best circumstance for ending this series on an interesting note.
Alien: Isolation wasn't a top selling hit professor.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Nov 03, 2017, 05:12:07 PM
Indeed. It'd be nice to get a director who doesn't bring contempt for the subject matter to the project right from the start.
But who will make Alien great again?
So Covenant is a corporate product conceived by the staff of the corporate in a board meeting room, a product that only the corporation need. I don't need this, can't say about others. Prof. a might have given us an explanation but certainly not a justification for this mess. What i get is, this film is made by analysts not filmmakers
The issue with the prequels go a lot futher than what the fans personally expect from the movie. Covenant is just mediocre filmmaking all the way. Of course xenomorph instead of neomorph doesn't change much because the movie still the same mess. Actually the neomorphs made the alien seem weaker, so there's that.
And yes it's more and more difficult to come up with original ideas as the time passes but is it impossible to have strong characters worth rooting for, a coherent story, some actual dread or at least creature fx that could be near the quality to film made almost 40 years ago. f**k me is filmmaking truly dead. It isn't, just saw Good Time in cinemas twice. Hollywood couldn't sink much lower though.
Alien series doesn't particularly need any novelties to be successful, first try to make the basics work and then you expand the universe. Ridley had the ambition to do something but he didn't know wtf he was doing, the writers made matters worse. If Prometheus sequel went where it was set to go, maybe something interesting could have come out of it. What we got was a second rate monster/frankestein flick with Fassbender quoting some poems.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Nov 03, 2017, 09:30:31 PM
Alien: Isolation wasn't a top selling hit professor.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Nov 03, 2017, 05:12:07 PM
Indeed. It'd be nice to get a director who doesn't bring contempt for the subject matter to the project right from the start.
But who will make Alien great again?
I may get ridiculed for this but I kinda think James Wan would be a good fit? Insidious and The Conjuring Part 2 are creepy, spooky and have great memorable characters. Hell, stick Patrick Wilson in as the lead and forget he was ever in Prometheus for 5 seconds. Even Gareth Edwards would be a sound choice. Thought Godzilla was no more than a 7/10 but he understood how to make the creature effective.
THEN WHY THE BLANKETY BLANK DO YOU KEEP MAKING THESE MOVIES RIDLEY?
It's been painfully obvious that Scott has had zero interest in making another Alien movie, even before Prometheus. And I've always felt like Covenant was a hate-filled letter to the fans of the alien, like a big ol' middle finger because we didn't like his "cerebral" art film Prometheus.
@Prof. a
You shouldn't follow trends because they change. The most important thing is good story.
I wonder how the story is going to continue, then. If it continues at all.
Quote from: Ingwar on Nov 03, 2017, 09:46:21 PM
@Prof. a
You shouldn't follow trends because they change. The most important thing is good story.
I'm pretty sure he was trying to explain the studio's logic behind making Covenant. I don't think he necessarily encourages such an approach.
And I do agree with his analysis. Here's what I wrote on the subject a couple of months ago. Seems pretty relevant now:
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 10, 2017, 04:55:45 PM
I don't think adding the alien in was a result of taking in criticism about Prometheus. Here's a timeline to illustrate:
2012 - Ridley Scott makes Prometheus; Says Prometheus is not a prequel to Alien; Says Alien is 'cooked'; Film gets mixed reactions from fans.
2013 - Aliens:Colonial Marines comes out; Gets annihilated both by critics and fans; Reinforces 'Alien = cooked' claim.
2014 - Alien:Isolation comes out; Gets high praise from fans and critics alike; Questions 'Alien = cooked' claim.
2015 - Neil Blomkamp releases Aliens related concept art; Claims to have idea for a sequel; Claims concept art + sequel ideas were Alien:Isolation inspired; Gets overwhelmingly positive reactions from fans.
2015 - Ridley Scott announces Prometheus 2 is now Alien:Paradise Lost; Says it's a prequel to Alien.
2017 - Blomkamp confirms Alien sequel = dead; Ridley Scott prequel now only option.
2017 - Ridley Scott apologizes for making Prometheus; Alien no longer cooked.
The way I see it, "Prometheus 2" only got made because the Alien brand was enjoying a type of renaissance due to Alien:Isolation. The studios wanted to capitalize on the renewed interest in the brand, and preferred an Alien film with Ridley Scott at the helm over Neil Blomkamp, so they told Scott the only way his sequel gets made is if he shoves fan service in it and makes it about the alien. That's also why the actual complaints about Prometheus (vague plot, dumb characters) never registered and why the end result is so disjointed.
Quote from: Evanus on Nov 03, 2017, 09:50:46 PM
I wonder how the story is going to continue, then. If it continues at all.
If it does continue, then it's pretty obvious where it's heading, what's more obvious is, Ridley Scott gonna say that he will scare the living shit out of you.
Craig Zahler would be perfect for an Alien movie.
He who wrote and directed Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99, both great movies made on a low budget.
Blomkamp for an Aliens type movie.
Or let them do one together.
@Paranoid Android
Too bad that fan service didn't work with Covenant. Alien franchise is in shambles. Too many people involved. Too many changes are being made. No consistency with lore. For studio and producers it's just another day in the office to make money. It's business.
The beast may be cooked, but you can only blame the chef for why the resulting dish tastes like shit.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 03, 2017, 10:01:55 PM
Craig Zahler would be perfect for an Alien movie.
He who wrote and directed Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99, both great movies made on a low budget.
Blomkamp for an Aliens type movie.
Or let them do one together.
Bone Tomahawk was a cool, creepy movie. Maybe he needs a little more experience but hey, why not.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Nov 03, 2017, 10:05:52 PM
The beast may be cooked, but you can only blame the chef for why the resulting dish tastes like shit.
;D
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 03, 2017, 09:56:11 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Nov 03, 2017, 09:46:21 PM
@Prof. a
You shouldn't follow trends because they change. The most important thing is good story.
I'm pretty sure he was trying to explain the studio's logic behind making Covenant. I don't think he necessarily encourages such an approach.
And I do agree with his analysis. Here's what I wrote on the subject a couple of months ago. Seems pretty relevant now:
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 10, 2017, 04:55:45 PM
I don't think adding the alien in was a result of taking in criticism about Prometheus. Here's a timeline to illustrate:
2012 - Ridley Scott makes Prometheus; Says Prometheus is not a prequel to Alien; Says Alien is 'cooked'; Film gets mixed reactions from fans.
2013 - Aliens:Colonial Marines comes out; Gets annihilated both by critics and fans; Reinforces 'Alien = cooked' claim.
2014 - Alien:Isolation comes out; Gets high praise from fans and critics alike; Questions 'Alien = cooked' claim.
2015 - Neil Blomkamp releases Aliens related concept art; Claims to have idea for a sequel; Claims concept art + sequel ideas were Alien:Isolation inspired; Gets overwhelmingly positive reactions from fans.
2015 - Ridley Scott announces Prometheus 2 is now Alien:Paradise Lost; Says it's a prequel to Alien.
2017 - Blomkamp confirms Alien sequel = dead; Ridley Scott prequel now only option.
2017 - Ridley Scott apologizes for making Prometheus; Alien no longer cooked.
The way I see it, "Prometheus 2" only got made because the Alien brand was enjoying a type of renaissance due to Alien:Isolation. The studios wanted to capitalize on the renewed interest in the brand, and preferred an Alien film with Ridley Scott at the helm over Neil Blomkamp, so they told Scott the only way his sequel gets made is if he shoves fan service in it and makes it about the alien. That's also why the actual complaints about Prometheus (vague plot, dumb characters) never registered and why the end result is so disjointed.
2017 - the beast is done, cooked. Perhaps look in the mirror why it's cooked.
Agree with the analysis.
Wonder what happened to the so called Alien rule book that was often mentioned during the production of Alien Covenant, i hope it wasn't written by analysists.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 03, 2017, 10:01:55 PM
Craig Zahler would be perfect for an Alien movie.
He who wrote and directed Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99, both great movies made on a low budget.
Kinda depressing that he's not directing one of his earlier works, Wraiths of the Broken Land. Ridley Scott is.
Please read my thread on how censorship keeps Alien films based on HRGigers ideas from happenning. Thats why the beast is juiced and the franchise is toast.
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=59110.0
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 03, 2017, 09:38:55 PM
So Covenant is a corporate product conceived by the staff of the corporate in a board meeting room, a product that only the corporation need. I don't need this, can't say about others. Prof. a might have given us an explanation but certainly not a justification for this mess. What i get is, this film is made by analysts not filmmakers
The issue with the prequels go a lot futher than what the fans personally expect from the movie. Covenant is just mediocre filmmaking all the way. Of course xenomorph instead of neomorph doesn't change much because the movie still the same mess. Actually the neomorphs made the alien seem weaker, so there's that.
And yes it's more and more difficult to come up with original ideas as the time passes but is it impossible to have strong characters worth rooting for, a coherent story, some actual dread or at least creature fx that could be near the quality to film made almost 40 years ago. f**k me is filmmaking truly dead. It isn't, just saw Good Time in cinemas twice. Hollywood couldn't sink much lower though.
LoL Are you really suggesting Covenant was a 'fanboy' film who's ideas were market researched in a corporate boardroom? Watch the masterclass videos on the Covenant extras; they have Scott explicitly telling us he tried to make the film unconventional and new, whether the end result worked or not.
An Alien fanboy film conjured up in a corporate boardroom like the Force Awakens was would have included multiple xenomorphs against marines at the very least. I guarantee you the hardcore fanbase didn't want David creating the xeno, neomorphs, and the creation themes.
Quote from: BigDaddyJohn on Nov 03, 2017, 10:07:23 PM
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 03, 2017, 10:01:55 PM
Craig Zahler would be perfect for an Alien movie.
He who wrote and directed Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99, both great movies made on a low budget.
Blomkamp for an Aliens type movie.
Or let them do one together.
Bone Tomahawk was a cool, creepy movie. Maybe he needs a little more experience but hey, why not.
It was a decent movie, but the ending leaves you with this bad taste in your mouth. It's another Hollywood ending, the Lovers are reunited, and there's that damn connotation of natives and their customs being dehumanized to justify their extinction in the real world.
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 03, 2017, 09:38:55 PM
So Covenant is a corporate product conceived by the staff of the corporate in a board meeting room, a product that only the corporation need. I don't need this, can't say about others. Prof. a might have given us an explanation but certainly not a justification for this mess. What i get is, this film is made by analysts not filmmakers
The issue with the prequels go a lot futher than what the fans personally expect from the movie. Covenant is just mediocre filmmaking all the way. Of course xenomorph instead of neomorph doesn't change much because the movie still the same mess. Actually the neomorphs made the alien seem weaker, so there's that.
And yes it's more and more difficult to come up with original ideas as the time passes but is it impossible to have strong characters worth rooting for, a coherent story, some actual dread or at least creature fx that could be near the quality to film made almost 40 years ago. f**k me is filmmaking truly dead. It isn't, just saw Good Time in cinemas twice. Hollywood couldn't sink much lower though.
Alien series doesn't particularly need any novelties to be successful, first try to make the basics work and then you expand the universe. Ridley had the ambition to do something but he didn't know wtf he was doing, the writers made matters worse. If Prometheus sequel went where it was set to go, maybe something interesting could have come out of it. What we got was a second rate monster/frankestein flick with Fassbender quoting some poems.
I think that Covenant is a movie that appeals to people who have an aesthetic interest/fascination with the creature itself beyond it being very good at chasing your protagonist around in dark corridors to create tension.
People just like different things about Alien. Some think Alien Isolation is the true essence of Alien, hiding behind coffee tables while the Xeno scuttles around, while others are fascinated with creation, birth and how the creature itself is formed and works. But to call Covenant a "corporate product" is to directly ignore the artistic and transgressive elements in the movie. The infamous kiss and the ending are NOT things designed for the average movie-goer, they are there to provide pleasure in transgression.
Quote
LoL Are you really suggesting Covenant was a 'fanboy' film who's ideas were market researched in a corporate boardroom? Watch the masterclass videos on the Covenant extras; they have Scott explicitly telling us he tried to make the film unconventional and new, whether the end result worked or not.
An Alien fanboy film conjured up in a corporate boardroom like the Force Awakens was would have included multiple xenomorphs against marines at the very least. I guarantee you the hardcore fanbase didn't want David creating the xeno, neomorphs, and the creation themes.
It did have multiple xenomorphs/neomorphs chasing not marines but humans armed with all sorts of guns did it not. If i recollect correctly, early rumors suggested that Ridley had a completely different idea with the Prometheus sequel, drifting further away from xenomorph, the possibilities were endless. As an Alien fanboy, i would have much preffered that. That sadly didn't happen because the studio shoehorned some half assed xenomorphs in and wanted to explain what needed to remain mystery, because origin stories are a trend and seem to be profitable. There's nothing new or unconvential about Covenant apart some Fassbender moments , all it was just a bunch of monsters killing some idiots one by one. Half baked creationist themes and a classic literature loving android doesn't elevate it something more meaningful.
Scott wanted to do Prometheus which could be a standalone thing in the Alien universe.
The alien in Covenant was like a cameo he nit wanted to do to much with it..Prometheus and Covenant was not needed to be an Alien prequel it was unnecessary. I can't understand if he's not want to do anything with the xenos why can't he let Blomkamp to do his Alien?
Maybe Fox decide to go forward with Blomkamp's Aliens sequel like the Terminator also got sequel by Cameron and Tim Miller to continue from T2.
Unfortunately audiences today don't have the patience for the slow, drawn out, yet dreadful introduction of the beast that was present in the first two films. People want action and scares immediately and often. An earlier comment spoke of doing a show on FX and I've also been thinking that (Netflix or a premium network like HBO would be my preferred choice). 10 episode season 45-60 min episodes would fit the franchise perfectly. It'd allow for tons of character development (considering both Prometheus and covenant had so many characters that their deaths were essentially meaningless) as well as the flexibility to create a good story that doesn't get cut and rushed down to two hours; thus allowing for that tension to build like the first two films. Considering the successes of Hannibal, Bates Motel, and Scream tv series, horror tv shows are outdoing their movie counterparts (in my opinion) and are breathing new life into their respective franchises. Also, it's the only media outlet that the Alien franchise hasn't ventured into and thus has an originality aspect in and of itself.
PS: did you guys see that android who just recieved citizenship in Saudi Arabia? Soooo creepy when it smiles!
God damn it Scott, God damn it all to hell. Give us them Engineers and GOD! There is no need to have any of these movies run into the derelict. Leave that bit totally alone. Go all the way off track if you need to. Make David a lazy bootlegger.
Quotefrom tleilaxu
I think that Covenant is a movie that appeals to people who have an aesthetic interest/fascination with the creature itself beyond it being very good at chasing your protagonist around in dark corridors to create tension.
People just like different things about Alien. Some think Alien Isolation is the true essence of Alien, hiding behind coffee tables while the Xeno scuttles around, while others are fascinated with creation, birth and how the creature itself is formed and works. But to call Covenant a "corporate product" is to directly ignore the artistic and transgressive elements in the movie. The infamous kiss and the ending are NOT things designed for the average movie-goer, they are there to provide pleasure in transgression.
Alien Isolation worked because the developers understood what made the classic Alien film special and they gave us that experience in a videogame form, it wasn't suppesed to break any new ground in the lore but in a way it advanced the story better than the prequels did. I don't think it's perfect at all, but it's the best thing we've got from the franchise in the last decade.
By default you seem to often come up with a silly reasoning that anyone who doesn't like Covenant automatically lusts for bunch of wisecracking marines mowing hordes of xenos with their pulse rifles and smartguns. How come we hate Colonial Marines then if we are so keen of that stuff? Couldn't it be that Covenant and Colonial Marines just don't represent any qualities why we became fans of the Alien series?
Edit:
About the need of explaining everything about the xenomorph i found that comment from youtube pretty amusing (sorry if a repost)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi66.tinypic.com%2F2yxr76c.png&hash=888653426f21647fd7c312a526450e2ca6cb9c05)
I'm all about expanding the mythos and adding layers, but i prefer something that doesn't complitely ruin the mystery, one of the most imporant reasons why the A L I E N was such a perfect nightmare creature.
I'm not kidding, but there really is a Jaws prequel script floating around. It's called The Fisherman, and is all about young Quint's experience on the Indianapolis.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Nov 04, 2017, 01:16:30 AM
I'm not kidding, but there really is a Jaws prequel script floating around. It's called The Fisherman, and is all about young Quint's experience on the Indianapolis.
Not surprised if they go with it, they are running out of classics to ruin.
And they'll probably get Chris Pratt to play Quint...
:-
And there's the Willy Wonka prequel written on spec, which from a basic scan contains Nazis and at least one almost gay joke.
Ridley you had your chance. The problem isn't with the "beast" (alien), it's with the mundane choice of making engineers into just another super-human. Totally blew the opportunity you had here to create yet another mysterious creature that made viewers raise even more questions about what they were and why they were tangled up with the alien in the first place. Questions are what keeps a franchise alive. Instead you either thought the viewer was too stupid to believe that a non-human-like creature could be related to the alien in some way, or your imagination has run dry, and you ended up over-simplifying the entire mystery. Time to pass the baton along to someone with some actual creativity!
Quote from: ripp3r on Nov 04, 2017, 01:47:48 AM
Questions are what keeps a franchise alive.
Correct. Prometheus and Covenant have plenty of unanswered questions.
I think Ridley Scott has almost run out, personally.
Quote from: Adam802 on Nov 04, 2017, 03:32:18 AM
I think Ridley Scott has almost run out, personally.
If/when you get to 79, have 6 movies out in one year, then you can say that. :)
This, plus all the preachy undertones of atheism. We get it, we get youre atheist. Nobody cares, we came for the creatures and the space marines and the glory from the novels and comics and more of Aliens. The Engineers were supposed to be alien themselves, not giant people making monsters.
The world and universe of Aliens was what people wanted more and more of. Not...not a thriller, atheism-is-right preaching, philosophical quandrumalation.
His story was boo boo, and he blames the monster. The monster is fine, his writing is horrible and does not belong in the Aliens universe. Make a movie with nothing to do with Aliens at all and name it something like "Ancestors of Stars" or something, and then see what happens. Don't make a tie in to a movie like, oh I dont know, Starship Troopers, and make it about giant space people pooping pyramids, and get mad because people go "Where's the ST stuff?"
Sorry, my last post was trying to agree with Ripp3r's quote:
"Ridley you had your chance. The problem isn't with the "beast" (alien), it's with the mundane choice of making engineers into just another super-human. Totally blew the opportunity you had here to create yet another mysterious creature that made viewers raise even more questions about what they were and why they were tangled up with the alien in the first place. Questions are what keeps a franchise alive. Instead you either thought the viewer was too stupid to believe that a non-human-like creature could be related to the alien in some way, or your imagination has run dry, and you ended up over-simplifying the entire mystery. Time to pass the baton along to someone with some actual creativity! "
Ripper nailed it on the head. Completely.
All you guys who think that the beast is not done, exactly what new can you do with it? How many variations of the chestburster and the aliens jumping on people can we have? How would this be any different than what we've already seen, 30+ years ago? Do you really believe that people would show up for a "more of everything" remake of Aliens or that the reason the new films were not super hits was the lack of Giger corridors and an aesthetic that's 40 years old?
At the end of the day, Alien is a monster movie and this monster is very familiar after all these years.
By the way, Isolation was great BUT it was scary because it was an interactive experience, and, more importantly, it was not a commercial hit.
There is only one person to blame for that. Mr Scott kyboshed a promising sequel/reboot to continue with his own, decidedly average, vanity projects.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Every time this series tries to go in a new direction, fans hate it and want a return to what's familiar. And we get mediocrity as a result.
The series is littered with multiple really bad choices post Cameron's Aliens. I don't think that's the creatures fault.
If this is really what he thinks then why not just allow Blomkamp to make his movie?!
I don't understand why people keep blaming the poor alien for terrible script writing. At the end of the day, the alien is just an awesome monster that kills people. It's a prop. Blaming it for being "cooked" is the same as blaming the failure of your film on a gun or a ship.
To bring this analogy closer to home: no director is complaining about how Zombies are "cooked", or Godzilla, or King Kong, or Vampires, or any other movie monster, really. Why are there no "Rogue AI that wants to destroy humanity is cooked" claims? When those things are used correctly, They work; They fail spectacularly when they are used as a gimmick.
The Alien worked in Alien:Isolation because it was used correctly: The developers did a great job recreating the feel of the original film in terms of aesthetics, emphasis on sound and even the story set pieces (takes a while before the alien is introduced, don't waste time on having it introduced via its life cycle, when the alien is introduced, it's a true menace), and most importantly, they built the game mechanics to recreate that fear of the alien even when the alien is not present. In short, Alien:Isolation worked so well because the game was built around making the alien work; Covenant and Aliens:Colonial Marines (just to kill that silly "worked because interactive game" argument) failed because they treated the alien as a byproduct.
To answer "exactly what new can you do with it": The problem isn't that "people are tired of seeing the alien kill people"; The problem is people are tired of seeing directors not caring about how the alien kills people, but rather about new things that don't even work. Alien:Resurrection failed because of the Newborn; Prometheus failed because of its own new ideas not being implemented well (the alien barely was even a part of that film); Covenant failed because of both new ideas not being implemented well and the alien being shoehorned in. Those films don't fail because people are tired of the alien - they fail because of just about everything else. The alien is the one thing people keep coming back for, in case nobody noticed.
Scott doesn't understand that. He ain't fanboy.
Quote from: Kane's other son on Nov 04, 2017, 06:59:22 AM
All you guys who think that the beast is not done, exactly what new can you do with it? How many variations of the chestburster and the aliens jumping on people can we have? How would this be any different than what we've already seen, 30+ years ago? Do you really believe that people would show up for a "more of everything" remake of Aliens or that the reason the new films were not super hits was the lack of Giger corridors and an aesthetic that's 40 years old?
Ultimately that's not our job. We can talk with our money as cinemagoers but we're not paid to invent new scenarios involving the Alien character. Covenant didn't make as much money as Fox had hoped for but $240million ain't too shabby for a film that was shredded by audiences word of mouth.
The look and shape of the Alien is iconic and we're gonna get further instalments whether Ridley Scott thinks it is played out or not. Hopefully the next scribe is inventive enough to avoid yet another retread of Covenant's last 15 minutes and the next director has enough flair to present the Alien as extra-terrestrial and not a killer hard-on bug.
It's a shame at that roundtable Ridley couldn't acknowledge twice in a row we've been spoonfed dumb, illogical character decisions and maybe we're really burned out by that.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 04, 2017, 09:16:58 AM
I don't understand why people keep blaming the poor alien for terrible script writing. At the end of the day, the alien is just an awesome monster that kills people. It's a prop. Blaming it for being "cooked" is the same as blaming the failure of your film on a gun or a ship.
To bring this analogy closer to home: no director is complaining about how Zombies are "cooked", or Godzilla, or King Kong, or Vampires, or any other movie monster, really. Why are there no "Rogue AI that wants to destroy humanity is cooked" claims? When those things are used correctly, They work; They fail spectacularly when they are used as a gimmick.
The Alien worked in Alien:Isolation because it was used correctly: The developers did a great job recreating the feel of the original film in terms of aesthetics, emphasis on sound and even the story set pieces (takes a while before the alien is introduced, don't waste time on having it introduced via its life cycle, when the alien is introduced, it's a true menace), and most importantly, they built the game mechanics to recreate that fear of the alien even when the alien is not present. In short, Alien:Isolation worked so well because the game was built around making the alien work; Covenant and Aliens:Colonial Marines (just to kill that silly "worked because interactive game" argument) failed because they treated the alien as a byproduct.
To answer "exactly what new can you do with it": The problem isn't that "people are tired of seeing the alien kill people"; The problem is people are tired of seeing directors not caring about how the alien kills people, but rather about new things that don't even work. Alien:Resurrection failed because of the Newborn; Prometheus failed because of its own new ideas not being implemented well (the alien barely was even a part of that film); Covenant failed because of both new ideas not being implemented well and the alien being shoehorned in. Those films don't fail because people are tired of the alien - they fail because of just about everything else. The alien is the one thing people keep coming back for, in case nobody noticed.
Absolutely well said!
You wrong Ridley, you so wrong.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 04, 2017, 09:16:58 AM
I don't understand why people keep blaming the poor alien for terrible script writing. At the end of the day, the alien is just an awesome monster that kills people. It's a prop. Blaming it for being "cooked" is the same as blaming the failure of your film on a gun or a ship.
Exactly. Same goes for Jaws. The original was brilliant, the sequels sucked... but not because of the shark.
How many times exactly did Ridley Scott say, that the Alien is cooked and boring?
Jesus, we got it. The Alien sucks for you.
Then, could you please stop making movies for this franchise? Please?
::)
I figure this also deserves mention: if the alien is indeed "cooked", why do the visual and narrative nods to Alien/Aliens work so well in Stranger Things? Anyone who watches that show pretty much agrees that the Demagorgon design is inferior to the alien, so what's the deal there? A cheap alien knockoff works great in a beloved TV series, but the real deal is cooked?
Guys from Stranger Things know how to use it. Scott doesn't have a clue.
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 04, 2017, 11:21:00 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 04, 2017, 09:16:58 AM
I don't understand why people keep blaming the poor alien for terrible script writing. At the end of the day, the alien is just an awesome monster that kills people. It's a prop. Blaming it for being "cooked" is the same as blaming the failure of your film on a gun or a ship.
Exactly. Same goes for Jaws. The original was brilliant, the sequels sucked... but not because of the shark.
No. It was because the situations involving the shark are not endless and after a while you are just repeating things.
The thing about Alien is that it has the opportunity to evolve and change thus giving it the ability to be fresh and new in different movies. Each Alien movie the Alien is different, from the way it acts to the way it looks. This is mainly the result the people designing the suits but as fans we chocked it up to being the biology making it different which makes it far more interesting. In Aliens they are older, in Alien 3 it comes out of a dog or ox, in Resurrection they are genetically merged with human DNA further than they normally are. Prometheus and Covenant made the Aliens a result of the black goo giving the species an even larger opportunity to look different and act different. Between the two prequels we have seen many different variations of the creature each being unique in their own way while still containing some characteristics of the original.
My point is the Alien is not cooked and I fully agree with people who are saying that people just don't know how to use it in film. With a good script and production along with an understanding of the Alien beast itself, a new Alien movie could be just as good as the original. Scott messed up in covenant but that docent mean it has to be the end there is still hope and opportunity for a sequel to it and for future films in the franchise to be able to explore different aspects of the Alien itself or an entirely different species.
And now I wonder what cooked xeno tastes like.
I read or saw an interview of Scott saying this same thing before the release of Prometheus, which must be why Prometheus was going in a different direction. A direction I wish he'd stay after seeing covenant.
Covenant finally killed the alien for me by reducing it's origin to merely an extension of humans, so the alien is not so alien anymore. It's the ambiguity that made it interesting in the first 1979 film.
I feel I'm in the minority by saying I really liked the direction Prometheus was going, despite its flaws. So, I think this is a good move because I also think the alien is f**ked. Unfortunately.
RE: the video excerpt and what Mr Scott has said: Absolute bollocks. He's just back-pedalling because it all went to shit. He owned Covenant a little more than he should have and the result is as it is.
The blame is not soley with him though, as the studio should have passed judgement on him being a little "jaded" by "the beast" and f**king given it to someone who actually gives a shit about this franchise (along with better writer(s)). For example, look at what Denis Villeneuve did with our beloved Blade Runner... a proper labour of love. Scott's problem is he just appears to be doing it to get his retirement fund in, bashing out films nice n quick and with very little in the way of artistic integrity. You can hear it in the way he speaks about these projects, it's almost like they've sat someone from accounts down in the chair.
Get out whilst the going's mediocre, Mr Scott, it'll be kinder than if the going's straight up shite, like Alien: Covenant was.
good director, terrible story writer.
Dan O'Bannon and James Cameron are the two who made Alien any good. Ridley needs to back off.
Now, Denis might do a good Alien film... I'd still like to see Danny Boyle's Alien too. That would be amazing.
Quote from: Robot6 on Nov 04, 2017, 03:21:52 PM
RE: the video excerpt and what Mr Scott has said: Absolute bollocks. He's just back-pedalling because it all went to shit. He owned Covenant a little more than he should have and the result is as it is.
The blame is not soley with him though, as the studio should have passed judgement on him being a little "jaded" by "the beast" and f**king given it to someone who actually gives a shit about this franchise (along with better writer(s)). For example, look at what Denis Villeneuve did with our beloved Blade Runner... a proper labour of love.
I agree. Scott is not only to blame. Fox wanted to save some cash instead of taking risks and breaking the universe with Scott's prequels and Blomkamp's alternate Alien3. It was well-known that Scott wasn't keen with the xeno from 2010. Prometheus was successful enough to warrant a sequel. Fox should had green-light Paradise and Blomkamp's film at the same time, and see what result came from that. Though, now were stuck between a rock and a hard place. The only thing they could do, is either reboot the entire damn thing or disregard Covenant as a whole, and break the universe letting Scott do his thing while Blomkamp or someone else continues the franchise post Aliens or Alien3.
If I were an exec at Fox with the money Covenant got, I'd toss Covenant to the side, greenlight Blomkamp's film, knowing people will come in droves for Sigourney Weaver and Michael Biehn, from that money finance Scott's Prometheus 2 and whatever other film that goes after Blomkamp's project.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Nov 04, 2017, 02:48:35 PM
And now I wonder what cooked xeno tastes like.
Like chicken with too much Wasabi.
Quote from: 0321recon on Nov 04, 2017, 03:50:34 PM
Quote from: Robot6 on Nov 04, 2017, 03:21:52 PM
RE: the video excerpt and what Mr Scott has said: Absolute bollocks. He's just back-pedalling because it all went to shit. He owned Covenant a little more than he should have and the result is as it is.
The blame is not soley with him though, as the studio should have passed judgement on him being a little "jaded" by "the beast" and f**king given it to someone who actually gives a shit about this franchise (along with better writer(s)). For example, look at what Denis Villeneuve did with our beloved Blade Runner... a proper labour of love.
I agree. Scott is not only to blame. Fox wanted to save some cash instead of taking risks and breaking the universe with Scott's prequels and Blomkamp's alternate Alien3. It was well-known that Scott wasn't keen with the xeno from 2010. Prometheus was successful enough to warrant a sequel. Fox should had green-light Paradise and Blomkamp's film at the same time, and see what result came from that. Though, now were stuck between a rock and a hard place. The only thing they could do, is either reboot the entire damn thing or disregard Covenant as a whole, and break the universe letting Scott do his thing while Blomkamp or someone else continues the franchise post Aliens or Alien3.
If I were an exec at Fox with the money Covenant got, I'd toss Covenant to the side, greenlight Blomkamp's film, knowing people will come in droves for Sigourney Weaver and Michael Biehn, from that money finance Scott's Prometheus 2 and whatever other film that goes after Blomkamp's project.
I don't sure people are dying to see Weaver and Biehn. The new Star Wars worked because its new leads are young and attractive people. The same with Jurassic World. People don't care about 1 woman in her late 60s(Weaver) and a man in his late 60s.
The lead of the new Terminator is a new and young woman. Arnold and Linda are going to be supporting.
Wiever and Biehn in a Blomkamp sequel - not gonna work, might be a interesting misfire though. I personally want Blomkamp to stay away from the Alien movies period, even if i really like District 9, the rest is meh. However Blomkamp would be a perfect canditate for another AvP movie, i'd certainly watch that.
Young and attractive people in a Alien films - even worse idea. Prometheus and Covenant featured enough Abercrombie models. I don't want Alien movies resemble The 100 series.
Since the Alien series is f**ked anyhow i no longer care what they do, i can always imagine the original trilogy is all there is, the rest is nothing more than corporate product trying to milk the franchise as dry as possible or fanfiction.
Quote from: PierreVW on Nov 04, 2017, 05:30:44 PM
Quote from: 0321recon on Nov 04, 2017, 03:50:34 PM
Quote from: Robot6 on Nov 04, 2017, 03:21:52 PM
RE: the video excerpt and what Mr Scott has said: Absolute bollocks. He's just back-pedalling because it all went to shit. He owned Covenant a little more than he should have and the result is as it is.
The blame is not soley with him though, as the studio should have passed judgement on him being a little "jaded" by "the beast" and f**king given it to someone who actually gives a shit about this franchise (along with better writer(s)). For example, look at what Denis Villeneuve did with our beloved Blade Runner... a proper labour of love.
I agree. Scott is not only to blame. Fox wanted to save some cash instead of taking risks and breaking the universe with Scott's prequels and Blomkamp's alternate Alien3. It was well-known that Scott wasn't keen with the xeno from 2010. Prometheus was successful enough to warrant a sequel. Fox should had green-light Paradise and Blomkamp's film at the same time, and see what result came from that. Though, now were stuck between a rock and a hard place. The only thing they could do, is either reboot the entire damn thing or disregard Covenant as a whole, and break the universe letting Scott do his thing while Blomkamp or someone else continues the franchise post Aliens or Alien3.
If I were an exec at Fox with the money Covenant got, I'd toss Covenant to the side, greenlight Blomkamp's film, knowing people will come in droves for Sigourney Weaver and Michael Biehn, from that money finance Scott's Prometheus 2 and whatever other film that goes after Blomkamp's project.
I don't sure people are dying to see Weaver and Biehn. The new Star Wars worked because its new leads are young and attractive people. The same with Jurassic World. People don't care about 1 woman in her late 60s(Weaver) and a man in his late 60s.
The lead of the new Terminator is a new and young woman. Arnold and Linda are going to be supporting.
I agree with you though I'm just throwing a bone for those who claim that Weaver and Biehn are going to resurrect the series since I come across several people with this mindset.
In my personal view, I'm happy with the original trilogy since it told a great story and it should had been left at that. It was a good idea in delving into the mythos with Prometheus, though Covenant did screw things up with not given us a proper Prometheus sequel, and what's worse shoe-horning the xeno in away to mesh both worlds together. Fox screwed the pooch and Scott went along with it. Let's see what happens now.
As I said before, and a lot of you have the same opinion, the beast hasn't run out. I has been misused. And frankly speaking it all started with ... Aliens. That's the fact. It's great movie but it changed Xenomorph into a bug. Alien 3 came back to the roots but then we got ... Resurrection, AvP, AvP:R and Covenant.
I totally agree with Hybrid Network analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odz8Wam7n-Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odz8Wam7n-Y)
Thanks Ingwar, I helped Luke put that video together.
Quote from: Whos_Nick on Nov 04, 2017, 08:20:38 PM
Thanks Ingwar, I helped Luke put that video together.
You welcome :) Is there anybody else here from Hybrid Network?
Which is why he can't make a good Alien film. He no longer respects the character, or the fans. If the beast isn't effective anymore it's because the studios and the filmakers have tarnished it with shitty films. But at this point maybe hes right. maybe the answer is to let it rest....for a while...
It seems obvious that the studio forced certain ultimatums on Scott, and Scott does play ball. My opinion is that Prometheus was a franchise launcher that wasn't allowed to play out the way the creator planned in the second installment. At least a straight Prometheus sequel would have felt more inspired.
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 03, 2017, 08:29:33 PM
The above pretty much encapsulates the situation at hand. At the end of the day, if you want to look at things from a more neutral, level-headed perspective, the hardcore fans of any series are not the target audience - rather, it is the general public that will help push a film into blockbuster territory.
The studios follow the TRENDS. And if you look at trends, you can understand why FOX did what they did with both Prometheus and Covenant.
From my own reading of the events, FOX made the decision to distance Prometheus from the Alien series because at that moment in time original sci-fi properties were dominating at the box office (Avatar, Inception for example). Considering the haul of Prometheus (and the recent comments about the profitability of the film), it was clearly a good business move.
From a creative stand point, Prometheus would probably NOT have been much different in terms of story had it closer ties with the original Alien. Sure, substitute a chestburster in the MedPod scene or add a xenomorph instead of the Fifield mutation - but it probably wouldn't have been that much different in terms of the tone, characters, and even philosophical nature of Prometheus.
Importantly, I think many fans have misread why FOX wanted to return to the Alien brand with Covenant. I don't think it was solely because of divided opinions of Prometheus.
You have to analyze the trends, the film market, and the business. Look at the resounding box office successes of Star Wars: The Force Awakens or Jurassic World. Combine this with other successful business ventures such as the Alien: Isolation video game becoming a top selling hit or the success of the Alien themed Halloween attraction at Universal Studios. FOX was looking at this and thinking, "Nostalgia is in. Star Wars. Jurassic Park. Alien is popular in video game form and at a theme park."
So, my read of the situation, is that FOX felt that returning to the Alien brand would tap into this nostalgia that has been so wildly successful. Unfortunately what they failed to realize is that unlike those other properties, Alien is not going to have multiple generations of family members going to the theaters and introducing kids to the Alien series.
Certainly, after Covenant, what is clear is that the nostalgia trend is not helping Alien.
Again, from a creative standpoint, whether you branded Covenant as Alien or Prometheus, I don't think much would've changed creatively. Frankly, the criticism of Covenant regarding the appearance of the Xenomorph is more about fans' own personal hopes/dreams/visions of the creature than storytelling. So, if you substitute a Xenomorph for a Neomorph or Deacon or another creature at the end of the film, that would've made the film not much different from a story structure, narrative, or character perspective.
This new prequel series is thematically linked to the notion of "creation" - that is Scott's main storytelling concern in these new entries. Scott obviously wanted to elevate the Alien series beyond a horror-science fiction-thriller and take the very subtle (yet present) themes from the original series but place them in a more noticeable position. That likely wouldn't have changed no matter how you branded these films.
With the current situation, it's quite possible FOX doesn't know what to do. They may give Scott more freedom to explore and just lower the budget. In the end, perhaps that is the best circumstance for ending this series on an interesting note.
If Ridley Scott wanted to tell his so-called new mythology, wouldn't have it been easier to make an entire new universe instead of something related to the Alien franchise? Like James Cameron's Avatar, for example. Here you have a movie with a story mostly formed by old ideas (ancient astronauts, creationism and AI implications are not precisely new topics, such as the themes that we can find in Avatar), but taking place in its own universe. That's right, nothing is related to the director's previous franchises. Also, and back on topic, all these "new ideas" are poorly executed, turning these prequels into pretentious films. It didn't add something worthy into the Alien mythos at all and felt shoehorned in.
Let Scott finish the prequels with one more film before Fox goes full Disney-esque on us with loud explosions and marine space lasers against Alien Queens (and retcons).
If Ridley Scott wanted to tell his so-called new mythology, wouldn't have it been easier to make an entire new universe instead of something related to the Alien franchise?
Because. You don't understood this. One of millions (not alone) reasons - destroy the ugly AvP. And yes - Prometheus and Covenant better than AvP.
Quote from: Alionic on Nov 04, 2017, 09:39:50 PM
Let Scott finish the prequels with one more film before Fox goes full Disney-esque on us with loud explosions and marine space lasers against Alien Queens (and retcons).
Yup. Let's just wrap this sucker up and kill the lights.
Quote from: Alionic on Nov 04, 2017, 09:39:50 PM
Let Scott finish the prequels with one more film before Fox goes full Disney-esque on us with loud explosions and marine space lasers against Alien Queens (and retcons).
I agree. Ridley Scott deserves 1 final to close his quadrology.
Quote from: Ingwar on Nov 04, 2017, 08:27:31 PM
Quote from: Whos_Nick on Nov 04, 2017, 08:20:38 PM
Thanks Ingwar, I helped Luke put that video together.
You welcome :) Is there anybody else here from Hybrid Network?
Just me here
I do believe that it is possible to do something that will keep the alien franchise relevant, but sadly we have gotten sequel-ities from the movies with the studio pushing for more and more elaborate creature scenes.
Go back to the original and keep it simple but terrifying. In the original we dont even see the creature very much which is why it work so well. Most of the scenes vere up close and personal.
Hire a crew, actor and all that but keep the alien hidden even from the actors. That way its more of a surprise when it actually shows up. You could even have the actors doing scenes but not knowning that it is planned to have the creature attack right in the middle of a scene.
I do admit that i liked prometeus more then i did alien covenant. They could have expanded and added onto the franchise but again the studio pushed for more alien.
i am looking forward to what may come next in the prometeus trilogy, but at the same time im not keeping my hopes up. I didnt with alien covenant.
but nothing is impossible........
I'm probably the only person here who agrees it is played out. Between all the bad comics, bad books, questionable crossovers and sequels, mostly crappy video games (isolation was fun but it's a pretty typical idea done well) and general tie-in merch it feels played out. Taxing it with the baggage of Covenant just kills any interest i would have in anything featuring it. The universe now feels small and totally centered around humanity. Gone is the dark weird Giger ideas, gone are the Lovecraftian ancient unspeakable horror. When you take that away you at least take away my interest.
I hope for the people who want it Scott finishes his prequel trilogy for you. I more worry that a budget reduction might really hurt it if he had grand ideas. I will be waiting for it to show up on Netflix instead of lining up to see it.
I enjoyed both Prometheus and alien covenant. But its not played out the ideas just arent what people are into. Alien isolation did it really well.
But it might be that the alien has outlived its movie franchise and has cemented a solid place in video games instead
I prefer to think of Scott's prequels as non-canon anyway.
The Alien does not have to be dead, we just need the prequels to be finished up with one more film that can clean up loose ends and add the beauty of the Alien back into the franchise. If Scott makes one more film that ends the prequels it should tie together Covenant and Prometheus but clean up any mess they created and allow the events to flow into the original films without having too much impact.
Have us find out David recreated the xenomorph from something the engineers already had (either they created or discovered it, leave it vague so there can be mystery). In order to make Covenant not be a waste of time the Engineers would need to play a large role in the next film like getting revenge on the malfunctioning David who thinks he is a god but isn't.
The prequels can end with an ominous message that there is worse out there and David was a fool for stealing fire from the gods.
Quote from: Alionic on Nov 04, 2017, 09:39:50 PM
Let Scott finish the prequels with one more film before Fox goes full Disney-esque on us with loud explosions and marine space lasers against Alien Queens (and retcons).
Something similar to the Disney route wouldn't be bad imo. I'd love a Weyland-Yutani movie universe. As long as it's rated-R.
Weyland-Yutani is into science, military and exploration. Perfect for thriller, action or adventure type movies. All with the necessary dose of horror ofcourse. ;D
Obviously if you make the xenos into an all out cgi crap gest they're gonna suck. Rids should start a new franchise with weird sh!t and leave Alien movies to someone else. Just saw Blade Runner last night...ok movie but nothing too special...maybe he should just retire..
Exactly . The only person that can revive the Alien franchise is James Cameron . Not necessarily making aliens part 2 .but I believe he is the one who can create a great story and characters . Add the fact that he KNOWS and RESPECTS the alien franchise..
Quote from: Nostromo on Nov 05, 2017, 01:54:36 PM
Obviously if you make the xenos into an all out cgi crap gest they're gonna suck. Rids should start a new franchise with weird sh!t and leave Alien movies to someone else. Just saw Blade Runner last night...ok movie but nothing too special...maybe he should just retire..
The original?
Quote from: Ingwar on Nov 04, 2017, 06:41:30 PM
As I said before, and a lot of you have the same opinion, the beast hasn't run out. I has been misused. And frankly speaking it all started with ... Aliens. That's the fact. It's great movie but it changed Xenomorph into a bug. Alien 3 came back to the roots but then we got ... Resurrection, AvP, AvP:R and Covenant.
I totally agree with Hybrid Network analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odz8Wam7n-Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odz8Wam7n-Y)
"And so the Alien, the Xenomorph, becomes a project, a culmination of experimentation and a pursuit to to achieve the closest thing to Godhood - and
that degrades it, takes away all of its impact."
This guy must be so far up his own ass he doesn't even realize what he's saying. Furthermore, the themes of distorted sexuality are still present in Covenant. In fact, they are accentuated by the overriding theme of creation.
Glad I'm using adblocker so this f**king hack doesn't get a single cent from ad revenue.
Leaving aside the whole tone of 'Aliens made them into bugs', it all falls apart for me when he says "it's no longer a twisted manifestation of sexual fear". I don't see how Covenant changed anything. It's been speculated forever that Alien could've been engineered, and David even taps into this by telling Oram the huggers are waiting for "mother", and his possible 'sexual awakening' by kissing David, and then more passionately kissing Daniels.
Plus there's the tired and dull old chestnut about how the Alien is entirely Giger's doing and not "Dan O'Brannon" (SIC) or anyone else.
And HR Giger was Giger's professional name - it wasn't colloquial.
Quote from: Rattlehed on Nov 05, 2017, 05:39:32 PM
Exactly . The only person that can revive the Alien franchise is James Cameron . Not necessarily making aliens part 2 .but I believe he is the one who can create a great story and characters . Add the fact that he KNOWS and RESPECTS the alien franchise..
until smurf thundercats 5 is done in 15 years i wouldn't expect much from jimmy jims outside of his avatar junk.
I could get on board with some of blomkamp's ideas of he could just get over his A3 hate boner.
Quote from: SM on Nov 05, 2017, 10:42:24 PM
Leaving aside the whole tone of 'Aliens made them into bugs', it all falls apart for me when he says "it's no longer a twisted manifestation of sexual fear". I don't see how Covenant changed anything. It's been speculated forever that Alien could've been engineered, and David even taps into this by telling Oram the huggers are waiting for "mother", and his possible 'sexual awakening' by kissing David, and then more passionately kissing Daniels.
Plus there the tired and dull old chestnut about how the Alien is entirely Giger's doing and not "Dan O'Brannon" (SIC) or anyone else.
And HR Giger was Giger's professional name - it wasn't colloquial.
I agree with you. All themes of sexual depravity and rape are actually reinforced by Covenant since David 'loves' Shaw and wanted to procreate with her. However, not being able to, used his experimentation to make that a reality at the cost of her life. Seeing that Proto xeno stretch its arms at David made me think of it being his child with Shaw. Its twisted and disgusting, The themes haven't being tarnished or thrown away.
Yeah I think you could make an argument that the mystery is gone. But the themes of the original remain intact. Possibly even enhanced with David mutilating the whole idea of procreation in his effort to wipe out a species that he believes is dying.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 01:26:47 AM
Yeah I think you could make an argument that the mystery is gone. But the themes of the original remain intact. Possibly even enhanced with David mutilating the whole idea of procreation in his effort to wipe out a species that he believes is dying.
Well said.
Cheers. ;D
Lovecraftian ancient creature/monster thing is not mysterious at all. What's so good about it? It's dull and generic and has been done many many times before.
They should not have brought in this alien astronaut story line at all and instead work on Alien 5 to complete the franchise. Anything else to develop, like the novels, could be done for much lower budgets and through other means, such as a TV mini-series released via streaming coupled with merchandising.
"Rattlehed Posted about 11 hours ago
Exactly . The only person that can revive the Alien franchise is James Cameron . Not necessarily making aliens part 2 .but I believe he is the one who can create a great story and characters . Add the fact that he KNOWS and RESPECTS the alien franchise.."
Yup at this point I agree Ridley should just finish this trilogy at some point and let Cameron run the next movies. If he did a lot of the writing for Aliens he knows his stuff too just like the 2 original writers but with action too added, too bad but better than anyone else having a crack at it.
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 06, 2017, 02:36:53 AM
Lovecraftian ancient creature/monster thing is not mysterious at all. What's so good about it?
What's so good about it? Well, there is a movie called ...
Alien and it's bloody good. Don't you think?
And that was made 40 years ago.
And no good Lovecraftian horror films have been made since? Like, say, The Thing, In the Mouth of Madness and The Mist?
You got this little show running right now, called Stranger Things, maybe you've heard of it. Does fantastic Lovecraftian horror.
Quote from: Ingwar on Nov 06, 2017, 05:51:26 AM
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 06, 2017, 02:36:53 AM
Lovecraftian ancient creature/monster thing is not mysterious at all. What's so good about it?
What's so good about it? Well, there is a movie called ... Alien and it's bloody good. Don't you think?
Ditto
Thank heavens Fox and Ridley saved us from these boring unmysterious Alien films. Hollywood should save The Thing, Predator, Jaws... next, nothing like
fixing a classic in to the narrow corner with some diluted origin story.
The beautiful thing about mystery is you really didn't know for sure if Alien was this Lovecraftian ancient creature (which by itself is extremely fascinating), it could have been something else, only your imagination was the limitation.
I have to use this quote again by a man who liked to explain through science and equation, even he realised that:
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science"
Alien stripped from it's mysteries in no longer effective. Again think about it, that was the reason why original Alien worked so well.
Partially agree with SM about the sexual undertones, Covenant definately presents sexual themes from a different angle but again backs in to a corner imo.
As of this moment Ridley pretty much
killed the Alien franchise with two blows. Prometheus demistified space jockey in to a bald albino, but there was still hope left for the sequel to improve on the engineers and amongst the incoherent mess there really was some stuff introduced worth expanding. Instead we got Covenant, not only it pissed on Prometheus but it had to squash the Alien creature as well.
I'm not 100% against David being the father of the Alien, but i'm unable to accept the way it was written and executed. And why not let David just create neomorphs to pull the android/Frankenstein needing to create arc and if you must, have xenomorphs later show up to let us know who's really running thingz.
Only way the series could go on/recover is reboot the whole prequel thing or as many have mentioned here, reveal that xenomorph wasn't designed by David. Continuation of the story with Ridley at the helm will almost certainly guaranteed to suck, the man is just not interested and Covenant made it pretty obvious how the sequel will tie in to Alien 1979.
Problem is you want to keep the alien origin mysterious then you have no movie.
Lovecraftian/cosmic horror of the unknown? Again, who cares? It just means monster movie.
Lots of monster movies don't explain where the creature came from, how does this make it better?
It just means no origin story, monsters killing people type movie.
The only reason the Alien series got away with it is because it created a great character called Ripley and wasn't about the monster.
Nobody cares about 'ancient cosmic Lovecraftian horror'. Yeah it sounds cool but in reality it's a boring trope that has been done to death.
In demystifying the origins of the Alien, Ridley has made the extraordinary ordinary.
Exploring the space jockey was great idea. David and black goo shows a tremendous lack of imagination.
He played it safe and has made the franchise smaller and far less interesting.
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 06, 2017, 09:31:54 AM
Problem is you want to keep the alien origin mysterious then you have no movie.
Lovecraftian/cosmic horror of the unknown? Again, who cares? It just means monster movie.
Lots of monster movies don't explain where the creature came from, how does this make it better?
It just means no origin story, monsters killing people type movie.
The only reason the Alien series got away with it is because it created a great character called Ripley and wasn't about the monster.
Nobody cares about 'ancient cosmic Lovecraftian horror'. Yeah it sounds cool but in reality it's a boring trope that has been done to death.
Speak for yourself, I for one gravely disagree. There are very few movies in existence that have done Lovecraft justice.
And again it's not about limiting Lovecraftian horrors, it's about mystery in broader sense.
And if you think you couldn't have made another Alien film without preserving it's mysterious side, then you simply lack imagination. No mystery no alien. It is possible to expand the story without ruining the main
attraction.
Agree that characters like Ripley made a huge contribution to Alien but you can't downplay the creature itself, it's the juxtaposition of alien vs man is why the movie was so successful because both of the sides were handled masterfully.
Lovecraftian horror doesn't work long term because it relies on mystery and you can only do so much before it stagnates. Stories need to evolve or you are just stuck with the same thing over and over again.
The prequels have tried to move the mystery into different areas like the black goo. Its an attempt to freshen things up and broaden the possibilities.
Some like this and some don't.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 06, 2017, 09:59:36 AM
Lovecraftian horror doesn't work long term because it relies on mystery and you can only do so much before it stagnates. Stories need to evolve or you are just stuck with the same thing over and over again.
The prequels have tried to move the mystery into different areas like the black goo. Its an attempt to freshen things up and broaden the possibilities.
Some like this and some don't.
It would have worked had he stuck to what he was doing the first time, which was to take the DNA in his words and make something else. Prometheus had tons of potential.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 06, 2017, 09:59:36 AM
Lovecraftian horror doesn't work long term because it relies on mystery and you can only do so much before it stagnates. Stories need to evolve or you are just stuck with the same thing over and over again.
The prequels have tried to move the mystery into different areas like the black goo. Its an attempt to freshen things up and broaden the possibilities.
Some like this and some don't.
This argument doesn't really hold water because, again, you can easily counter it with Stranger Things, which is a series with clear Lovecraftian elements and one of the most popular shows today. The series is by its very nature long term, and on top of that, it apes Alien and Aliens, so it intentionally doesn't try to do anything new. The show's runtime up until now has been 14 hours and 10 minutes; The Alien franchise runtime up until now can be summed up in about 12 hours (not counting the AvP films, since they're a separate universe). One works without trying anything new, the other keeps failing because it keeps shoving new stuff in.
The reason is because stories
don't need to "evolve"; Stories need to take the core elements of what worked originally, and gradually build on top of them. The alien's mysterious origin is a core element of the story. It's a cautionary tale against the human thirst for knowledge and discovery, designed to point out that there might be things out there we don't want to find. Aliens worked because it built on top of that and never tried to undermine it. This very element is very much present in Stranger Things via the Upside Down. The whole premise of the series is that humans, in their thirst for knowledge, end up unintentionally opening a portal to a parallel dimension that's full of all kinds of horrors lurking in the shadows. But unlike the Alien franchise, the show doesn't kill its mystery. They build on top of it by exploring deeper into the Upside Down. The easy and obvious move for the Alien franchise was to explore deeper into the unknown universe (which was what I expected Ridley Scott to do when he decided to tell the story of the space jockey), but instead we got what we got.
When you start removing core elements of your own original story, you're no longer telling that story, which is the biggest sin of these prequels. They are the real life manifestation of the alien lifecycle: They took the original story, violently raped and killed it, and gave birth to something that only has a few surface level similarities to that story.
Stranger Things is a hybrid of many different things, lovecraft being one of the smaller elements. Its connections to Alien are tenuous.
It trades off a generations love and nostalgia for the eighties and uses dozens of touchstones from that era to tap into peoples affections. Chief among them are ET, stand by me, close encounters and 80's horror as a whole.
Of course stories need to evolve, Stranger Things will do as well.
Alien was just a B movie. A simple monster movie. It was very well made and had the ace up its sleeve of the monster being truly original but it doesn't hold that power anymore because of multiple sequels, spin offs and imitators. Its been done to death now, needed to broaden and it has.
The issue isn't that its evolved, its that it hasn't evolved in a way that appealed to you. If it had gone in a different direction you may have liked it and I might not have. That's how it goes, you can't please everyone.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 06, 2017, 11:04:37 AM
Stranger Things is a hybrid of many different things, lovecraft being one of the smaller elements. Its connections to Alien are tenuous.
If you consider the main antagonist and the whole universe behind it as "tonuous", then sure. ::)
Quote
Its been done to death now, needed to broaden and it has.
Alien:Isolation begs to differ. So do the Demogorgon, Demodogs and Mind Flayer.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 06, 2017, 11:14:34 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 06, 2017, 11:04:37 AM
Stranger Things is a hybrid of many different things, lovecraft being one of the smaller elements. Its connections to Alien are tenuous.
If you consider the main antagonist and the whole universe behind it as "tonuous", then sure. ::)
Quote
Its been done to death now, needed to broaden and it has.
Alien:Isolation begs to differ. So do the Demogorgon, Demodogs and Mind Flayer.
Yes I do consider it tenuous. Its formulaic and just dressing and in no way what makes Stranger Things a success. You wont find anyone who puts the demogorgon up as one of the reasons they like the show.
Alien Isolation is just a game and a pretty formulaic, dull one at that which was not a commercial success. It would make a truly terrible film, just another dull clone of the original.
The Demogorgon is a pretty shit design to be fair.
It's the characters (and 80's Nostalgia) that make the show successful.
Quote from: skhellter on Nov 06, 2017, 11:41:39 AM
The Demogorgon is a pretty shit design to be fair.
It's the characters (and 80's Nostalgia) that make the show successfull.
Very much so. The Demogorgon could be any old generic design and it wouldn't harm the show in the slightest.
Nobody is asking for a straight Alien remake. Exploring space jockey was the right path, the result was a lacking but it was still possible to make it work with the sequel, Covenant blew that out of the airlock. The potential was immense, it's really sad. it's not just the questionable ideas that are the culprit, the prequels are lacking in just about every area compared to the original trilogy. The quality just isn't there anymore.
Haven't seen Stranger Things yet, but IT is another film that relies heavily on nostalgia.
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 06, 2017, 12:02:26 PM
Nobody is asking for a straight Alien remake. Exploring space jockey was the right path, the result was a lacking but it was still possible to make it work with the sequel, Covenant blew that out of the airlock. The potential was immense, it's realy sad. it's not just the questionable ideas that are the culprit, the prequels are lacking in just about every area compared to the original trilogy. The quality just isn't there anymore.
Haven't seen Stranger Things yet, but IT is another film that relies heavily on nostalgia.
That's what I mean, it had to evolve.
Its just that when you evolve something it isn't going to do that in a direction that pleases everyone, that's just not possible.
Some like it, some don't.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 06, 2017, 12:07:48 PM
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 06, 2017, 12:02:26 PM
Nobody is asking for a straight Alien remake. Exploring space jockey was the right path, the result was a lacking but it was still possible to make it work with the sequel, Covenant blew that out of the airlock. The potential was immense, it's realy sad. it's not just the questionable ideas that are the culprit, the prequels are lacking in just about every area compared to the original trilogy. The quality just isn't there anymore.
Haven't seen Stranger Things yet, but IT is another film that relies heavily on nostalgia.
That's what I mean, it had to evolve.
Its just that when you evolve something it isn't going to do that in a direction that pleases everyone, that's just not possible.
Some like it, some don't.
It didn't necessarily need to evolve in a way that it changes how we look at the classic movies, but space jockey was one of the obvious routes to take. There was no need to completely demistify Alien in the process.
And what's Alien Isolations financial success got to with anything, it didn't sell huge numbers cause it's a niche genre in gaming and Aliens:Colonial Marines didn't do it any favours. The story was simple and succeeded what it was set out to to, give us the Alien experience in videogame form. Covenant missed the mark, it was so-so at horror, sci-fi, action and philoshophy.
Quote from: skhellter on Nov 06, 2017, 11:41:39 AM
The Demogorgon is a pretty shit design to be fair.
It's the characters (and 80's Nostalgia) that make the show successful.
That's the point!Stranger Things does Lovecraft, and does it well, while implementing an inferior design to the alien.
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 06, 2017, 12:15:30 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 06, 2017, 12:07:48 PM
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 06, 2017, 12:02:26 PM
Nobody is asking for a straight Alien remake. Exploring space jockey was the right path, the result was a lacking but it was still possible to make it work with the sequel, Covenant blew that out of the airlock. The potential was immense, it's realy sad. it's not just the questionable ideas that are the culprit, the prequels are lacking in just about every area compared to the original trilogy. The quality just isn't there anymore.
Haven't seen Stranger Things yet, but IT is another film that relies heavily on nostalgia.
That's what I mean, it had to evolve.
Its just that when you evolve something it isn't going to do that in a direction that pleases everyone, that's just not possible.
Some like it, some don't.
It didn't necessarily need to evolve in a way that it changes how we look at the classic movies, but space jockey was one of the obvious routes to take. There was no need to completely demistify Alien in the process.
And what's Alien Isolations financial success got to with anything, it didn't sell huge numbers cause it's a niche genre in gaming and Aliens:Colonial Marines didn't do it any favours. The story was simple and succeeded what it was set out to to, give us the Alien experience in videogame form. Covenant missed the mark, it was so-so at horror, sci-fi, action and philoshophy.
So when Isolation, which you liked, wasn't a success its because its niche and other factors did it no favours but when Covenant, which you didn't like, isn't a success its just because its rubbish. I see.
I personally don't think Isolation is relevant at all. On account of it being a game not a film.
Quote
So when Isolation, which you liked, wasn't a success its because its niche and other factors did it no favours but when Covenant, which you didn't like, isn't a success its just because its rubbish. I see.
You got it, bad quality of the film was one of the factors why the film wasn't a hit. The numbers on Covenant speak for themselves, bad word of mouth spread really fast, that pointless and boring marketing material didn't help either.
I did have my issues with Alien:Isolation, but being a videogame made it easier to swallow, ultimately it succeeded what it was set out to do and understood the source material, unlike Covenant.
Mr Obvious here, just in case: i believe box office success does not mean or guarantee the film is good. These days it's more likely the other way around.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 06, 2017, 12:23:13 PM
Stranger Things does Lovecraft, and does it well
Stranger Things is Lovecraft
regurgitated for manchildren and nostalgic adults.
does it well :-X
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 06, 2017, 12:46:11 PM
Quote
So when Isolation, which you liked, wasn't a success its because its niche and other factors did it no favours but when Covenant, which you didn't like, isn't a success its just because its rubbish. I see.
You got it, bad quality of the film was one of the factors why the film wasn't a hit. The numbers on Covenant speak for themselves, bad word of mouth spread really fast, that pointless and boring marketing material didn't help either.
I did have my issues with Alien:Isolation, but being a videogame made it easier to swallow, ultimately it succeeded what it was set out to do and understood the source material, unlike Covenant.
Mr Obvious here, just in case: i believe box office success does not mean or guarantee the film is good. These days it's more likely the other way around.
Your'e still making excuses for something you like and not applying the same standards to something you didn't.
Covenant did what it set out to do, you just didn't like what it set out to do.
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 06, 2017, 12:15:30 PM
And what's Alien Isolations financial success got to with anything, it didn't sell huge numbers cause it's a niche genre in gaming and Aliens:Colonial Marines didn't do it any favours. The story was simple and succeeded what it was set out to to, give us the Alien experience in videogame form. Covenant missed the mark, it was so-so at horror, sci-fi, action and philoshophy.
Alien:Isolation
did sell huge numbers. This is a common misconception.
Alien:Isolation was SEGA's most profitable game of 2015, selling almost triple the amount of copies compared to Football Manager 2015 - the next game down the line. You can see it on page 6 of their financial statement for 2015:
https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/201503_4q_tanshinhosoku_e_final_.pdf (https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/201503_4q_tanshinhosoku_e_final_.pdf)
The misconception is due to SEGA's own warped idea of what a success is. You see, Alien:Isolation is a AAA game, and AAA publishers currently hold a very bizarre approach to their games: It is not enough for a game to make good money - it has to make ALL the money. This is why SEGA view the game's sales as "weak". The game performed great, but it didn't break the entire market.
The Dead Space franchise actually had a similar story with EA not being content with the game simply doing well, forcefully shoving Microtransactions into Dead Space 3 and eventually bringing about the death of both the franchise and the development company that created it.
The fact that one of the founding father's of the franchise can be so ignorant really makes me sad.
The Alien is only ever as good as it is used.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 06, 2017, 01:01:30 PM
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 06, 2017, 12:15:30 PM
And what's Alien Isolations financial success got to with anything, it didn't sell huge numbers cause it's a niche genre in gaming and Aliens:Colonial Marines didn't do it any favours. The story was simple and succeeded what it was set out to to, give us the Alien experience in videogame form. Covenant missed the mark, it was so-so at horror, sci-fi, action and philoshophy.
Alien:Isolation did sell huge numbers. This is a common misconception.
Alien:Isolation was SEGA's most profitable game of 2015, selling almost triple the amount of copies compared to Football Manager 2015 - the next game down the line. You can see it on page 6 of their financial statement for 2015:
https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/201503_4q_tanshinhosoku_e_final_.pdf (https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/201503_4q_tanshinhosoku_e_final_.pdf)
The misconception is due to SEGA's own warped idea of what a success is. You see, Alien:Isolation is a AAA game, and AAA publishers currently hold a very bizarre approach to their games: It is not enough for a game to make good money - it has to make ALL the money. This is why SEGA view the game's sales as "weak". The game performed great, but it didn't break the entire market.
The Dead Space franchise actually had a similar story with EA not being content with the game simply doing well, forcefully shoving Microtransactions into Dead Space 3 and eventually bringing about the death of both the franchise and the development company that created it.
I don't claim to be an expert on such things but that document seems to be based on units? I thought the reason it was regarded as a bit of a flop is because it had to be shifted for discounted prices.
I know I bought my copy 2 weeks after release and it was already in the bargain bucket at my local game. I only paid £14 for it and they already had dozens of used copies in store too.
I'm not a big gamer anymore though so admit I don't know much about the market.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 06, 2017, 01:18:15 PM
I don't claim to be an expert on such things but that document seems to be based on units? I thought the reason it was regarded as a bit of a flop is because it had to be shifted for discounted prices.
It was regarded as having weak sales in terms of units, and it was in a report that stated SEGA selling overall 1 million units more than they originall forecasted.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/11/sega-laments-weak-sales-as-alien-isolation-shifts-21-million (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/11/sega-laments-weak-sales-as-alien-isolation-shifts-21-million)
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 06, 2017, 01:01:30 PM
Alien:Isolation did sell huge numbers. This is a common misconception.
Alien:Isolation was SEGA's most profitable game of 2015, selling almost triple the amount of copies compared to Football Manager 2015 - the next game down the line. You can see it on page 6 of their financial statement for 2015:
https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/201503_4q_tanshinhosoku_e_final_.pdf (https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/201503_4q_tanshinhosoku_e_final_.pdf)
The misconception is due to SEGA's own warped idea of what a success is. You see, Alien:Isolation is a AAA game, and AAA publishers currently hold a very bizarre approach to their games: It is not enough for a game to make good money - it has to make ALL the money. This is why SEGA view the game's sales as "weak". The game performed great, but it didn't break the entire market.
The Dead Space franchise actually had a similar story with EA not being content with the game simply doing well, forcefully shoving Microtransactions into Dead Space 3 and eventually bringing about the death of both the franchise and the development company that created it.
You need to factor in high development costs (it was built on an custom, in-house game engine developed specifically for the game) as well as the very pricey licensing and royalty fees due to Fox.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Nov 06, 2017, 04:26:28 PM
You need to factor in high development costs (it was built on an custom, in-house game engine developed specifically for the game) as well as the very pricey licensing and royalty fees due to Fox.
I don't see why.
I don't have data on Isolation's budget because it was never disclosed ,to my knowledge, but page 5 of SEGA's financial statement shows an increase in profit of 12% for packaged games, 15% for digital games and an overall 41% increase in units sold. Alien:Isolation sold more units than all of SEGA's games combined for that year, so it had to have been profitable in order for SEGA to show profits. The other games could not have carried it.
As for the license, SEGA pays Fox for having it regardless of whether or not they actually produce any content. I don't think it even factors into the costs of making the game.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 06, 2017, 09:59:36 AM
Lovecraftian horror doesn't work long term because it relies on mystery and you can only do so much before it stagnates. Stories need to evolve or you are just stuck with the same thing over and over again.
The prequels have tried to move the mystery into different areas like the black goo. Its an attempt to freshen things up and broaden the possibilities.
Some like this and some don't.
I don't know what the f**k "Lovecraftian" even means anymore. It gets thrown around rather arbitrarily it seems. What's so Lovecraftian about The Thing? Is it because it takes place in the arctic? Is it because the creature could maybe be viewed as an analog to a Shoggoth?
I haven't seen enough of Stranger Things to comment about it being "Lovecraftian" or not, but my intuition tells me it's just another thing where surface similarities to Lovecraft's stories are interpreted as being decidedly "Lovecraftian".
I always took 'Lovecraft horror' to be something along the lines of existential dread which is unexplainable in one form or another (dimensions, etc).
The closest thing to Lovecraft horror I've seen recently on screen is the Mind Flayer in Stranger Things S2.
The void, came out last year and the most lovecraftian thing I've seen in a very long time.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 06, 2017, 06:20:43 PMI don't know what the f**k "Lovecraftian" even means anymore. It gets thrown around rather arbitrarily it seems. What's so Lovecraftian about The Thing? Is it because it takes place in the arctic? Is it because the creature could maybe be viewed as an analog to a Shoggoth?
I haven't seen enough of Stranger Things to comment about it being "Lovecraftian" or not, but my intuition tells me it's just another thing where surface similarities to Lovecraft's stories are interpreted as being decidedly "Lovecraftian".
The Thing is heavily inspired by a Lovecraft story and has a lot of the same elements.
Horror from another world, a small amount of characters, a quest for knowledge combined with paranoia and insanity, a possible end of mankind, mankind not being so superiour as they think, no happy ending,...
Other movies that come to mind are The Prince Of Darkness and In The Mouth Of Madness.
Stranger Things has some of those elements but the vibe is totally different so I wouldn't call it Lovecraftian.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 06, 2017, 07:27:27 PM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 06, 2017, 06:20:43 PMI don't know what the f**k "Lovecraftian" even means anymore. It gets thrown around rather arbitrarily it seems. What's so Lovecraftian about The Thing? Is it because it takes place in the arctic? Is it because the creature could maybe be viewed as an analog to a Shoggoth?
I haven't seen enough of Stranger Things to comment about it being "Lovecraftian" or not, but my intuition tells me it's just another thing where surface similarities to Lovecraft's stories are interpreted as being decidedly "Lovecraftian".
The Thing is heavily inspired by a Lovecraft story and has a lot of the same elements.
Horror from another world, a small amount of characters, a quest for knowledge combined with paranoia and insanity, a possible end of mankind, mankind not being so superiour as they think, no happy ending,...
Other movies that come to mind are The Prince Of Darkness and In The Mouth Of Madness.
Stranger Things has some of those elements but the vibe is totally different so I wouldn't call it Lovecraftian.
I agree with all of what you said. Carpenter always said Lovecraft was among his inspirations, especially for In The Mouth Of Madness, this movie is a huge homage to Lovecraft and Stephen King too.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 06, 2017, 07:27:27 PM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 06, 2017, 06:20:43 PMI don't know what the f**k "Lovecraftian" even means anymore. It gets thrown around rather arbitrarily it seems. What's so Lovecraftian about The Thing? Is it because it takes place in the arctic? Is it because the creature could maybe be viewed as an analog to a Shoggoth?
I haven't seen enough of Stranger Things to comment about it being "Lovecraftian" or not, but my intuition tells me it's just another thing where surface similarities to Lovecraft's stories are interpreted as being decidedly "Lovecraftian".
The Thing is heavily inspired by a Lovecraft story and has a lot of the same elements.
Horror from another world, a small amount of characters, a quest for knowledge combined with paranoia and insanity, a possible end of mankind, mankind not being so superiour as they think, no happy ending,...
Other movies that come to mind are The Prince Of Darkness and In The Mouth Of Madness.
Stranger Things has some of those elements but the vibe is totally different so I wouldn't call it Lovecraftian.
The Thing is inspired by At the Mountains of madness, but the only similarities is really the Antarctic setting and the fact that the monster can shapeshift. It's not Lovecraftian. I'd say Alien has a Lovecraftian feel in the sense that they find this ancient spaceship that has a design that sort of defies human intellect. I don't think Prince of Darkness is very Lovecraftian at all, especially not the Alice Cooper zombie... I haven't seen In the Mouth of Madness yet.
Pretty much... That's how it works.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Nov 03, 2017, 09:30:31 PM
Alien: Isolation wasn't a top selling hit professor.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Nov 03, 2017, 05:12:07 PM
Indeed. It'd be nice to get a director who doesn't bring contempt for the subject matter to the project right from the start.
But who will make Alien great again?
It's funny how every time the issue of hit/miss comes up, an argument ensues. I was there arguing the merits of Covenant as "not a flop, but lower than expected." And now, we've got a debate on the sales of Alien: Isolation.
Link: http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/21/alien-isolation-sales-hit-1-million-but-lag-behind-aliens-colonial-marines-5031062/
(http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/21/alien-isolation-sales-hit-1-million-but-lag-behind-aliens-colonial-marines-5031062/)
Quote from article: "It's not a flop but it's hard to say actually
what size of hit Alien: Isolation has been..."
As for my previous analysis - it was just that - an analysis, not my personal thoughts. I will say that hardcore fans do have a tendency to develop their own, very ingrained thoughts on a series. When those thoughts don't come to fruition, they become very frustrated and upset. What's important to recognize is that filmmaking and storytelling is not a democracy - we don't get a say in directly changing the story. You're either along for the ride or not. You can appreciate the merits of a work or criticize them - people shouldn't project their own visions onto someone else's films. You are bound for disappointment.
As for those hoping to see either more of the "beast" or even a Blomkamp style film - I wouldn't get my hopes up. If the branding and marketing of Covenant (directly showing the Alien in broad daylight) wasn't enough to create a blockbuster film - why would a shoot'em up style Aliens vs. Marines film do any better? If the broad public wasn't interested in Covenant, they are not likely going to be interested in more Aliens, more shooting, more fighting - otherwise, Covenant would have been a bigger hit. There are interesting ideas and suggestions from fans here but none are likely going to happen. Why would a spin-off or TV series work? If the Alien itself doesn't resonate with a huge chunk of the public, why would Weyland-Yutani or some other element resonate.
Even critics of Prometheus and Covenant recognize that Fassbender's portrayal of David has been the strongest thing about the prequel films. Look at the reviews online. While this may upset some, it is why David/Fassbender becomes the centerpiece moving forward. There was even some talk about Fassbender getting an Oscar nom for Prometheus - didn't happen, but just the mere conversation was notable considering the Academy's general lack of recognition for sci-fi acting.
QuoteIf the broad public wasn't interested in Covenant, they are not likely going to be interested in more Aliens, more shooting, more fighting - otherwise, Covenant would have been a bigger hit.
Covenant is hardly comparable to Aliens in terms of action and shooting. It's more akin to Resurrection.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
QuoteIf the broad public wasn't interested in Covenant, they are not likely going to be interested in more Aliens, more shooting, more fighting - otherwise, Covenant would have been a bigger hit.
Covenant is hardly comparable to Aliens in terms of action and shooting. It's more akin to Resurrection.
While that may be true, that has nothing to do with the marketing or public perception of the film. People don't know what the movie is until they see it and the general public isn't as keyed in as some people on these forums. Sure, reviews can help but they aren't the be-all and end-all for box office. People see "aliens" and guns (look at the trailers for Covenant), that's no different in how another Aliens vs Marines film would be marketed and likely perceived by the public.
For those pushing for a Blomkamp style film, Covenant being a HUGE box office success would ironically have been better for you. That means the appetite for Xenos is there. FOX is very uncertain now and is more likely to move away from the nostalgia trips. Many hoped Covenant's B.O. would alter the direction - it is going to, just in the opposite direction of Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 06, 2017, 09:01:12 PM
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
QuoteIf the broad public wasn't interested in Covenant, they are not likely going to be interested in more Aliens, more shooting, more fighting - otherwise, Covenant would have been a bigger hit.
Covenant is hardly comparable to Aliens in terms of action and shooting. It's more akin to Resurrection.
While that may be true, that has nothing to do with the marketing or public perception of the film. People don't know what the movie is until they see it and the general public isn't as keyed in as some people on these forums. Sure, reviews can help but they aren't the be-all and end-all for box office. People see "aliens" and guns (look at the trailers for Covenant), that's no different in how another Aliens vs Marines film would be marketed and likely perceived by the public.
For those pushing for a Blomkamp style film, Covenant being a HUGE box office success would ironically have been better for you. That means the appetite for Xenos is there. FOX is very uncertain now and is more likely to move away from the nostalgia trips. Many hoped Covenant's B.O. would alter the direction - it is going to, just in the opposite direction of Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
Don't you think poor word-of-mouth ultimately hurt Covenant? It's all well and good seeing a xenomorph in a TV trailer but if your friend or friends or the review you're reading in the paper tells you it's shit you're not gonna see it?
I do not think removing the Aliens yet again from an "Alien" film will result in increased revenue.
Also, Fassbender as David did reap lots of praise. However, Fassbender is not a box-office draw, as exemplified by Assassins Creed, Steve Jobs and The Snowman.
Quote from: SuicideDoors on Nov 06, 2017, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 06, 2017, 09:01:12 PM
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
QuoteIf the broad public wasn't interested in Covenant, they are not likely going to be interested in more Aliens, more shooting, more fighting - otherwise, Covenant would have been a bigger hit.
Covenant is hardly comparable to Aliens in terms of action and shooting. It's more akin to Resurrection.
While that may be true, that has nothing to do with the marketing or public perception of the film. People don't know what the movie is until they see it and the general public isn't as keyed in as some people on these forums. Sure, reviews can help but they aren't the be-all and end-all for box office. People see "aliens" and guns (look at the trailers for Covenant), that's no different in how another Aliens vs Marines film would be marketed and likely perceived by the public.
For those pushing for a Blomkamp style film, Covenant being a HUGE box office success would ironically have been better for you. That means the appetite for Xenos is there. FOX is very uncertain now and is more likely to move away from the nostalgia trips. Many hoped Covenant's B.O. would alter the direction - it is going to, just in the opposite direction of Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
Don't you think poor word-of-mouth ultimately hurt Covenant? It's all well and good seeing a xenomorph in a TV trailer but if your friend or friends or the review you're reading in the paper tells you it's shit you're not gonna see it?
Also, Fassbender as David did reap lots of praise. However, Fassbender is not a box-office draw, as exemplified by Assassins Creed, Steve Jobs and The Snowman.
From the three films you mention, Steve Jobs was the only film that got good praises from mainstream critics and still tanked. Assassins Creed and The Snowman were rightfully trashed to kingdom come from both audiences and critics.
Other reasons for their failures With Assassins Creed it didn't help being released a few days after Force Awakens, and The Snowman wasn't even finished when the studio stopped the production, leaving 15% of the script un-shoot and releasing that mess to theaters.
Sadly it all goes to the flavor of the month with the audiences or how the films are treated by the studio that lead to these bombs.
Quote from: SuicideDoors on Nov 06, 2017, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 06, 2017, 09:01:12 PM
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
QuoteIf the broad public wasn't interested in Covenant, they are not likely going to be interested in more Aliens, more shooting, more fighting - otherwise, Covenant would have been a bigger hit.
Covenant is hardly comparable to Aliens in terms of action and shooting. It's more akin to Resurrection.
While that may be true, that has nothing to do with the marketing or public perception of the film. People don't know what the movie is until they see it and the general public isn't as keyed in as some people on these forums. Sure, reviews can help but they aren't the be-all and end-all for box office. People see "aliens" and guns (look at the trailers for Covenant), that's no different in how another Aliens vs Marines film would be marketed and likely perceived by the public.
For those pushing for a Blomkamp style film, Covenant being a HUGE box office success would ironically have been better for you. That means the appetite for Xenos is there. FOX is very uncertain now and is more likely to move away from the nostalgia trips. Many hoped Covenant's B.O. would alter the direction - it is going to, just in the opposite direction of Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
Don't you think poor word-of-mouth ultimately hurt Covenant? It's all well and good seeing a xenomorph in a TV trailer but if your friend or friends or the review you're reading in the paper tells you it's shit you're not gonna see it?
I do not think removing the Aliens yet again from an "Alien" film will result in increased revenue.
Also, Fassbender as David did reap lots of praise. However, Fassbender is not a box-office draw, as exemplified by Assassins Creed, Steve Jobs and The Snowman.
Word of mouth plays a role as do a myriad of other factors. Personally, I think the biggest culprit is the decline of the North American box office due to high ticket prices, streaming, piracy, competition for eyeballs, and overall economic factors.
But for fans to say that word of mouth is the major blame is very, very obtuse. It contributes but keep in mind, Alien: Covenant is described as having generally positive reviews (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien%3A_Covenant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien%3A_Covenant)) with a high approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Fassbender's appeal is limited, but considering the praise, the franchise will move in that direction rather than Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
I'm just reading the tea leaves. But, for those hoping for nostalgia trips and angry at Covenant for not being more like
Aliens
- you're probably going to get a whole lot angrier following the new direction they are seemingly plotting.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 06, 2017, 05:32:13 PM
As for the license, SEGA pays Fox for having it regardless of whether or not they actually produce any content. I don't think it even factors into the costs of making the game.
They had a license for three games so the cost of that would have been factored into ACM, A:I and Infestation's production costs. SEGA also pays royalties on sales so the profits would be shared between SEGA and Fox.
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 06, 2017, 08:42:24 PM
It's funny how every time the issue of hit/miss comes up, an argument ensues. I was there arguing the merits of Covenant as "not a flop, but lower than expected." And now, we've got a debate on the sales of Alien: Isolation.
Link: http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/21/alien-isolation-sales-hit-1-million-but-lag-behind-aliens-colonial-marines-5031062/
(http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/21/alien-isolation-sales-hit-1-million-but-lag-behind-aliens-colonial-marines-5031062/)
Quote from article: "It's not a flop but it's hard to say actually what size of hit Alien: Isolation has been..."
Here's what Tim Heaton, Creative Assembly's studio director had to say:
Quote from: Tim Heaton"2.1 million sales? It just didn't break out..., Am I happy about that? I'm not happy about that, right. I think it did under-index in America. I think the genre just didn't shine with an audience that would let us break out. 2 million is fine, right – let's be clear – but we were unsure right till the very end about whether we would hit that break out space or not. Making a AAA console game is bloody hard. We absolutely sweated blood for that game, we came through, and felt really happy at the end of it. Alien: Isolation 2 is not out of the question, because we're so proud of it and there's possibly more to be said. But do we really want to be spending very significant amounts of money, and getting close to break-even or just about in the black? That's not where Sega wants to be, when we have a brilliant portfolio of other games that do great business."
Tim Heaton - Creative Assembly studio director
I'm seeing a lot of Cameron love. Well, Wait 8 years for him. Cameron is free in 2025.
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 06, 2017, 09:22:47 PM
Quote from: SuicideDoors on Nov 06, 2017, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 06, 2017, 09:01:12 PM
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
QuoteIf the broad public wasn't interested in Covenant, they are not likely going to be interested in more Aliens, more shooting, more fighting - otherwise, Covenant would have been a bigger hit.
Covenant is hardly comparable to Aliens in terms of action and shooting. It's more akin to Resurrection.
While that may be true, that has nothing to do with the marketing or public perception of the film. People don't know what the movie is until they see it and the general public isn't as keyed in as some people on these forums. Sure, reviews can help but they aren't the be-all and end-all for box office. People see "aliens" and guns (look at the trailers for Covenant), that's no different in how another Aliens vs Marines film would be marketed and likely perceived by the public.
For those pushing for a Blomkamp style film, Covenant being a HUGE box office success would ironically have been better for you. That means the appetite for Xenos is there. FOX is very uncertain now and is more likely to move away from the nostalgia trips. Many hoped Covenant's B.O. would alter the direction - it is going to, just in the opposite direction of Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
Don't you think poor word-of-mouth ultimately hurt Covenant? It's all well and good seeing a xenomorph in a TV trailer but if your friend or friends or the review you're reading in the paper tells you it's shit you're not gonna see it?
I do not think removing the Aliens yet again from an "Alien" film will result in increased revenue.
Also, Fassbender as David did reap lots of praise. However, Fassbender is not a box-office draw, as exemplified by Assassins Creed, Steve Jobs and The Snowman.
Word of mouth plays a role as do a myriad of other factors. Personally, I think the biggest culprit is the decline of the North American box office due to high ticket prices, streaming, piracy, competition for eyeballs, and overall economic factors.
But for fans to say that word of mouth is the major blame is very, very obtuse. It contributes but keep in mind, Alien: Covenant is described as having generally positive reviews (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien%3A_Covenant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien%3A_Covenant)) with a high approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Fassbender's appeal is limited, but considering the praise, the franchise will move in that direction rather than Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
I'm just reading the tea leaves. But, for those hoping for nostalgia trips and angry at Covenant for not being more like Aliens
- you're probably going to get a whole lot angrier following the new direction they are seemingly plotting.
Absolutely, I happen to agree the decline of the North American Box Office is chief reason Covenant under-performed.
You mention high ticket prices and streaming; these are clearly fundamentals when a less-than-frequent cinemagoer is weighing up spending their money to go to the pictures. A LOT of Alien Covenant's positive reviews from its 68% Rotten Tomatoes score are 3/5's. I mean, a 3/5 is barely a pass. Over here in the UK, a cinema ticket is usually £11/£12 a pop (more if you're to see the movie in 3d or IMAX), it's hard to justify buying a couple of tickets for a film that is just above average. I don't do it myself but film's are so easy to download these days or they're on blu-ray/digital download a few months after.
Back to word-of-mouth, Covenant has a 56% audience approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a "B" cinemascore which is the yardstick for polling audiences reaction on the film's opening weekend. A B is actually extremely low for cinemascore. Most film's get B+'s and A's. So for those that did see Covenant, it seems a majority flat-out did not like it, and that spread after its opening weekend to damage its legs.
It seems a majority of those enticed to the cinema by the Alien-heavy ads thought it was crap. I mean, you wouldn't have even got those people in the cinema in the first place if the Alien is as played out as Scott is suggesting? I know it's not rocket science but if it was a better film, it would have made more money. Word of mouth helped play a huge part in burying it quickly.
I just think there's not the appetite for sci-fi horror films right now. Back in the early 1980s there were Alien clones out the wazoo. When did a film like that kill at the box office and critically recently though? Science fiction in general has been very hit and miss.
Life didn't do terribly well, The Thing tanked a few years back. Films more 'reality' based without monsters like The Martian and Interstellar have fared better. Passengers was probably helped by two bankable stars, but didn't do well with critics. Avatar was more in the mold of Star Wars with it's more fantastical elements.
They just don't seem to be making alien monster movies much anymore, perhaps because no one is interested. Earth based horror movies (eg. IT) seem to do a lot better.
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 06, 2017, 09:22:47 PM
Quote from: SuicideDoors on Nov 06, 2017, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 06, 2017, 09:01:12 PM
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
QuoteIf the broad public wasn't interested in Covenant, they are not likely going to be interested in more Aliens, more shooting, more fighting - otherwise, Covenant would have been a bigger hit.
Covenant is hardly comparable to Aliens in terms of action and shooting. It's more akin to Resurrection.
While that may be true, that has nothing to do with the marketing or public perception of the film. People don't know what the movie is until they see it and the general public isn't as keyed in as some people on these forums. Sure, reviews can help but they aren't the be-all and end-all for box office. People see "aliens" and guns (look at the trailers for Covenant), that's no different in how another Aliens vs Marines film would be marketed and likely perceived by the public.
For those pushing for a Blomkamp style film, Covenant being a HUGE box office success would ironically have been better for you. That means the appetite for Xenos is there. FOX is very uncertain now and is more likely to move away from the nostalgia trips. Many hoped Covenant's B.O. would alter the direction - it is going to, just in the opposite direction of Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
Don't you think poor word-of-mouth ultimately hurt Covenant? It's all well and good seeing a xenomorph in a TV trailer but if your friend or friends or the review you're reading in the paper tells you it's shit you're not gonna see it?
I do not think removing the Aliens yet again from an "Alien" film will result in increased revenue.
Also, Fassbender as David did reap lots of praise. However, Fassbender is not a box-office draw, as exemplified by Assassins Creed, Steve Jobs and The Snowman.
Word of mouth plays a role as do a myriad of other factors. Personally, I think the biggest culprit is the decline of the North American box office due to high ticket prices, streaming, piracy, competition for eyeballs, and overall economic factors.
But for fans to say that word of mouth is the major blame is very, very obtuse. It contributes but keep in mind, Alien: Covenant is described as having generally positive reviews (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien%3A_Covenant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien%3A_Covenant)) with a high approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Fassbender's appeal is limited, but considering the praise, the franchise will move in that direction rather than Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
I'm just reading the tea leaves. But, for those hoping for nostalgia trips and angry at Covenant for not being more like Aliens
- you're probably going to get a whole lot angrier following the new direction they are seemingly plotting.
Alien Covenant - 68% average rating 6.3. Audience score 56% which is pretty low by RT standars. Metascore is 65, not much better than Alien Resurrections 63.
Covenant score noticeably worse than Prometheus on IMDB and Letterboxd.
Everybody i know either hated it or thought it was average. I think you underestimate the impact of word of mouth.
Edit: Suicide Doors beat me to it
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 10:28:37 PM
I just think there's not the appetite for sci-fi horror films right now. Back in the early 1980s there were Alien clones out the wazoo. When did a film like that kill at the box office and critically recently though? Science fiction in general has been very hit and miss.
Life didn't do terribly well, The Thing tanked a few years back. Films more 'reality' based without monsters like The Martian and Interstellar have fared better. Passengers was probably helped by two bankable stars, but didn't do well with critics. Avatar was more in the mold of Star Wars with it's more fantastical elements.
They just don't seem to be making alien monster movies much anymore, perhaps because no one is interested. Earth based horror movies (eg. IT) seem to do a lot better.
Absolutely true. In hindsight, maybe Fox should have interpreted Life's box-office reception as a foreboding warning - and pushed Covenant back to its original slot of August. I'm not saying it would have performed dramatically better, but it would have been able to breathe more without The Mummy, Baywatch and GOTG2 breathing down its neck.
Sci-Fi/Horror needs a renaissance STAT.
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 06, 2017, 10:29:58 PM
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 06, 2017, 09:22:47 PM
Quote from: SuicideDoors on Nov 06, 2017, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 06, 2017, 09:01:12 PM
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
QuoteIf the broad public wasn't interested in Covenant, they are not likely going to be interested in more Aliens, more shooting, more fighting - otherwise, Covenant would have been a bigger hit.
Covenant is hardly comparable to Aliens in terms of action and shooting. It's more akin to Resurrection.
While that may be true, that has nothing to do with the marketing or public perception of the film. People don't know what the movie is until they see it and the general public isn't as keyed in as some people on these forums. Sure, reviews can help but they aren't the be-all and end-all for box office. People see "aliens" and guns (look at the trailers for Covenant), that's no different in how another Aliens vs Marines film would be marketed and likely perceived by the public.
For those pushing for a Blomkamp style film, Covenant being a HUGE box office success would ironically have been better for you. That means the appetite for Xenos is there. FOX is very uncertain now and is more likely to move away from the nostalgia trips. Many hoped Covenant's B.O. would alter the direction - it is going to, just in the opposite direction of Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
Don't you think poor word-of-mouth ultimately hurt Covenant? It's all well and good seeing a xenomorph in a TV trailer but if your friend or friends or the review you're reading in the paper tells you it's shit you're not gonna see it?
I do not think removing the Aliens yet again from an "Alien" film will result in increased revenue.
Also, Fassbender as David did reap lots of praise. However, Fassbender is not a box-office draw, as exemplified by Assassins Creed, Steve Jobs and The Snowman.
Word of mouth plays a role as do a myriad of other factors. Personally, I think the biggest culprit is the decline of the North American box office due to high ticket prices, streaming, piracy, competition for eyeballs, and overall economic factors.
But for fans to say that word of mouth is the major blame is very, very obtuse. It contributes but keep in mind, Alien: Covenant is described as having generally positive reviews (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien%3A_Covenant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien%3A_Covenant)) with a high approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Fassbender's appeal is limited, but considering the praise, the franchise will move in that direction rather than Blomkamp/Aliens vs. Marines.
I'm just reading the tea leaves. But, for those hoping for nostalgia trips and angry at Covenant for not being more like Aliens
- you're probably going to get a whole lot angrier following the new direction they are seemingly plotting.
Alien Covenant - 68% average rating 6.3. Audience score 56% which is pretty low by RT standars. Metascore is 65, not much better than Alien Resurrections 63.
Covenant score noticeably worse than Prometheus on IMDB and Letterboxd.
Everybody i know either hated it or thought it was average. I think you underestimate the impact of word of mouth.
Edit: Suicide Doors beat me to it
Hey at least someone agrees! :)
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 10:28:37 PM
I just think there's not the appetite for sci-fi horror films right now. Back in the early 1980s there were Alien clones out the wazoo. When did a film like that kill at the box office and critically recently though? Science fiction in general has been very hit and miss.
Life didn't do terribly well, The Thing tanked a few years back. Films more 'reality' based without monsters like The Martian and Interstellar have fared better. Passengers was probably helped by two bankable stars, but didn't do well with critics. Avatar was more in the mold of Star Wars with it's more fantastical elements.
They just don't seem to be making alien monster movies much anymore, perhaps because no one is interested. Earth based horror movies (eg. IT) seem to do a lot better.
I really thought IT would flop, but the dialogue and 80s nostalgia in this movie really carried it despite some lame modern jump-scares and Hollywood clichés.
I probably sound like a broken record by now, but I really think the marketing campaign was hugely responsible for the disappointing performance of Covenant. When you set the movie up to be an action-filled horror sci-fi and you get something that is more like, I don't know, a Hannibal episode mixed with Alien/Prometheus, people will be disappointed because it did not live up to the expectations you set up.
I mean, the tag-line on all those ads was "RUN. PRAY. HIDE" - really, Fox?
If you'd told people from the start that they'd be getting
Quote"When you close your eyes, do you dream of me?"
"I don't dream at all."
instead of "RUN. PRAY. HIDE" I am pretty damn sure the reception would've been a lot better.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 10:28:37 PM
I just think there's not the appetite for sci-fi horror films right now. Back in the early 1980s there were Alien clones out the wazoo. When did a film like that kill at the box office and critically recently though? Science fiction in general has been very hit and miss.
Life didn't do terribly well, The Thing tanked a few years back. Films more 'reality' based without monsters like The Martian and Interstellar have fared better. Passengers was probably helped by two bankable stars, but didn't do well with critics. Avatar was more in the mold of Star Wars with it's more fantastical elements.
They just don't seem to be making alien monster movies much anymore, perhaps because no one is interested. Earth based horror movies (eg. IT) seem to do a lot better.
I'm gonna wait to see how
Annihilation performs both critically and financially. If it flops, then yeah, I think you're right about sci-fi horror not being feasible for studios anymore.
Quote from: Alionic on Nov 06, 2017, 11:10:06 PM
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 10:28:37 PM
I just think there's not the appetite for sci-fi horror films right now. Back in the early 1980s there were Alien clones out the wazoo. When did a film like that kill at the box office and critically recently though? Science fiction in general has been very hit and miss.
Life didn't do terribly well, The Thing tanked a few years back. Films more 'reality' based without monsters like The Martian and Interstellar have fared better. Passengers was probably helped by two bankable stars, but didn't do well with critics. Avatar was more in the mold of Star Wars with it's more fantastical elements.
They just don't seem to be making alien monster movies much anymore, perhaps because no one is interested. Earth based horror movies (eg. IT) seem to do a lot better.
I'm gonna wait to see how Annihilation performs both critically and financially. If it flops, then yeah, I think you're right about sci-fi horror not being feasible for studios anymore.
But Annihilation has a smaller budget. It's going to do mediocre numbers at the box office. Just like Alien: Covenant and Life.
Real life stories is the It thing these days. Just look at the James Wan Blockbusters: The Conjuring 1 & 2, The Nun, Annabelle 1 & 2.
Some interesting comments. I still believe that many are overestimating the so-called "word of mouth" for average cinemagoers.
War for the Planet of the Apes was considered by some to have underperformed akin to Alien: Covenant. Like Covenant, some erroneously have called it a flop (it really isn't) but certainly there were hopes for higher box office totals. However, it received great reviews, has a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, and is being bandied about as a potential Academy Award contender for Best Picture.
So, "word-of-mouth" has limits. If it was a major indicator for success, "War" would've done better.
At the end of the day, there is no 100% accurate scientific metric. The reality is that what FOX interprets from the numbers is more important than what you, I, or anyone else determines to be the "truth." FOX seems to be moving away from the "Alien" brand as a result - Scott's comments are reminiscent of those while Prometheus was in development.
The "just make a better film and people will see it" is not realistic. If it was, then why are so many Academy Award winners for Best Picture not hits and many in the public are unfamiliar with the titles?
I conduct mini-surveys with my students and when asked about this issue, most say they don't base their opinion on Rotten Tomatoes or some other aggregator. It's not a scientific survey - but noteworthy. Interestingly, most of these students (18-22 years) have never heard or seen any Alien film. And that my friends is perhaps the greater issue . . .
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 06, 2017, 08:07:45 PMThe Thing is inspired by At the Mountains of madness, but the only similarities is really the Antarctic setting and the fact that the monster can shapeshift. It's not Lovecraftian. I'd say Alien has a Lovecraftian feel in the sense that they find this ancient spaceship that has a design that sort of defies human intellect. I don't think Prince of Darkness is very Lovecraftian at all, especially not the Alice Cooper zombie... I haven't seen In the Mouth of Madness yet.
The Alien itself is an ancient evil from a unknown world with the possibility of destroying mankind.
The Thing is an intelligent being from another world. And there's a scientist going mad.
Prince Of Darkness. The beginning is typical Lovecraft. Someone dies, leaves behind an object that leads to investigating some ancient evil.
In The Mouth Of Madness is just great imo. One of my all time favorite movies.
Best recent HPL inspired movie I saw was The Creature Below.
One notable point about Lovecraft is raised here:
"Lovecraftian Lies: Why Video Games Cannot be 'Lovecraftian'"
http://onlysp.com/lovecraftian-analysis/
but also applies to various movies and TV shows described as "Lovecraftian."
That is, the main premise in Lovecraft's stories is that the cosmic universe is bleak and neutral, or as the article puts it, a "cosmo-centric universe where humans are utterly insignificant." This ironically works against seeing the stories or works that may be inspired by it (like the Alien films) as entertaining because those seeking entertainment are part of the same human race that is seen as worthless.
Quote from: Prof. a on Nov 07, 2017, 12:09:45 AM
Some interesting comments. I still believe that many are overestimating the so-called "word of mouth" for average cinemagoers.
War for the Planet of the Apes was considered by some to have underperformed akin to Alien: Covenant. Like Covenant, some erroneously have called it a flop (it really isn't) but certainly there were hopes for higher box office totals. However, it received great reviews, has a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, and is being bandied about as a potential Academy Award contender for Best Picture.
So, "word-of-mouth" has limits. If it was a major indicator for success, "War" would've done better.
At the end of the day, there is no 100% accurate scientific metric. The reality is that what FOX interprets from the numbers is more important than what you, I, or anyone else determines to be the "truth." FOX seems to be moving away from the "Alien" brand as a result - Scott's comments are reminiscent of those while Prometheus was in development.
The "just make a better film and people will see it" is not realistic. If it was, then why are so many Academy Award winners for Best Picture not hits and many in the public are unfamiliar with the titles?
I conduct mini-surveys with my students and when asked about this issue, most say they don't base their opinion on Rotten Tomatoes or some other aggregator. It's not a scientific survey - but noteworthy. Interestingly, most of these students (18-22 years) have never heard or seen any Alien film. And that my friends is perhaps the greater issue . . .
Great point, especially with regards of the younger audiences not even knowing about the Alien franchise.
Quote from: monkeylove on Nov 07, 2017, 01:17:58 AM
One notable point about Lovecraft is raised here:
"Lovecraftian Lies: Why Video Games Cannot be 'Lovecraftian'"
http://onlysp.com/lovecraftian-analysis/
but also applies to various movies and TV shows described as "Lovecraftian."
That is, the main premise in Lovecraft's stories is that the cosmic universe is bleak and neutral, or as the article puts it, a "cosmo-centric universe where humans are utterly insignificant." This ironically works against seeing the stories or works that may be inspired by it (like the Alien films) as entertaining because those seeking entertainment are part of the same human race that is seen as worthless.
Only Lovecraft can do Lovecraft. The term 'Lovecraftian' gets bandied about, like the term 'Giger-esque'.
Alien might be called 'Lovecraftian', in a sense, but none of the sequels to Alien have anything to do with Lovecraft.
Aliens is a love letter to Starship Troopers (the 1959 novel). Has nothing to do with Lovecraft. Neither does any of the others.
Anderson's AVP and Prometheus is probably more 'Lovecraftian' than any of the others, being loosely based on At the Mountains of Madness.
So don't know where all this fanboy whingeing comes from (no offense). The Alien series was never really 'Lovecraftian' in the first place.
Demogorgon in ST = poor design but scary.
Xenomorph in A:C = great design but not scary at all.
Creature's design is not a key factor. It's about circumstances in which it's used and how it's used.
Its not the Xenomorphs fault at all, its the way it has been handled since Alien ressurection thats the problem. Lazy directors and poor choices in design and how its portrayed on screen.
So if anyone is to blame its you Ridley.
Quote from: dave1978 on Nov 07, 2017, 10:52:07 AM
Its not the Xenomorphs fault at all, its the way it has been handled since Alien ressurection thats the problem. Lazy directors and poor choices in design and how its portrayed on screen.
So if anyone is to blame its you Ridley.
Alien 3 shouldn't be let off the hook quite so easily. In terms of giving the audience something new, interesting and exciting, an alien that runs around on all fours doesn't really cut it.
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2017, 10:28:37 PM
I just think there's not the appetite for sci-fi horror films right now. Back in the early 1980s there were Alien clones out the wazoo. When did a film like that kill at the box office and critically recently though? Science fiction in general has been very hit and miss.
Life didn't do terribly well, The Thing tanked a few years back. Films more 'reality' based without monsters like The Martian and Interstellar have fared better. Passengers was probably helped by two bankable stars, but didn't do well with critics. Avatar was more in the mold of Star Wars with it's more fantastical elements.
They just don't seem to be making alien monster movies much anymore, perhaps because no one is interested. Earth based horror movies (eg. IT) seem to do a lot better.
Agreed. I think people think it will just be more of the same and seen it all before. In most case they are probably right as well.
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 07, 2017, 11:20:58 AM
Quote from: dave1978 on Nov 07, 2017, 10:52:07 AM
Its not the Xenomorphs fault at all, its the way it has been handled since Alien ressurection thats the problem. Lazy directors and poor choices in design and how its portrayed on screen.
So if anyone is to blame its you Ridley.
Alien 3 shouldn't be let off the hook quite so easily. In terms of giving the audience something new, interesting and exciting, an alien that runs around on all fours doesn't really cut it.
The first realization of the DNA reflex, acid spitting, some behavioural stuff when it sensed another Alien (granted, I wish we'd have seen the Alien taking Ripley and the others back as potential hosts) but there was more going for the Alien in 3 than just running around on all fours.
And to be fair, Resurrection had some interesting stuff in it too.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Nov 07, 2017, 12:46:49 PM
The first realization of the DNA reflex, acid spitting, some behavioural stuff when it sensed another Alien (granted, I wish we'd have seen the Alien taking Ripley and the others back as potential hosts) but there was more going for the Alien in 3 than just running around on all fours.
And to be fair, Resurrection had some interesting stuff in it too.
Hardly what you would call spectacle, and incredibly disappointing after the highs of Aliens; particularly the introduction of the queen. For it to have worked the plot needed to have been an absolute belter and played out by a cast of characters that were sympathetic and not paper thin.
You hadn't mentioned anything about spectacle. Could Alien 3 have been a better movie? Yes. Did it do anything significantly new with the Alien. It sure did.
Yeah, we learned that the alien's vision is oddly similar to a fish eye lense. :laugh:
Just one of a few things. :P
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Nov 07, 2017, 01:51:52 PM
You hadn't mentioned anything about spectacle. Could Alien 3 have been a better movie? Yes. Did it do anything significantly new with the Alien. It sure did.
But nowhere near enough. After Aliens, which presented the familiar in a different way
and gave the audience something new (the queen), Alien 3 takes a backwards step. There's nothing new or exciting. Add to that the terribly pedestrian plot and cannon-fodder cast, it's dullsville. There's barely a lick of imagination present.
You guys made good points before. It's insane how illogical and unpredictable box office returns can be.
Movies like Blade Runner 2 which I thought was going to destroy at the box office due to the top shelf director who also did The Arrival, Sicario, and the phenomenal Prisoners, literally 2 of the most famous male actors of today in Ryan Gosling and Jared Leto, 1 of the most famous male actors of all time in Harrison Ford, Ridley Scott producing, the original writer returning, etc. but for reasons I'll never fully comprehend, its underperforming.
Then you have movies like Bad Moms that break $100 million domestically, fast-tracking a sequel also for reasons I'll never fully comprehend.
Even the returns on IT, which I loved and saw twice, surprised me because although it is very scary, it is very obscure especially if you're familiar with the novel, compared to more easily digested mindless jump-scare spookers and slashers.
It seems to be a roll of the dice with sci-fi horror/thrillers. Prometheus and Gravity did well, while Life, Passengers, Covenant, and Independence Day 2 did not, although the former were both released 5 and 4 years ago respectively.
What would it take to reinvigorate the genre?
*Edit: You might think audience appetite for sci-fi stuff would only grow parallel to the rise in real world technology.
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Nov 07, 2017, 03:20:18 PM
You guys made good points before. It's insane how illogical and unpredictable box office returns can be.
Movies like Blade Runner 2 which I thought was going to destroy at the box office due to the top shelf director who also did The Arrival, Sicario, and the phenomenal Prisoners, literally 2 of the most famous male actors of today in Ryan Gosling and Jared Leto, 1 of the most famous male actors of all time in Harrison Ford, Ridley Scott producing, the original writer returning, etc. but for reasons I'll never fully comprehend, its underperforming.
Then you have movies like Bad Moms that break $100 million domestically, fast-tracking a sequel also for reasons I'll never fully comprehend.
Even the returns on IT, which I loved and saw twice, surprised me because although it is very scary, it is very obscure especially if you're familiar with the novel, compared to more easily digested mindless jump-scare spookers and slashers.
It seems to be a roll of the dice with sci-fi horror/thrillers. Prometheus and Gravity did well, while Life, Passengers, Covenant, and Independence Day 2 did not, although the former were both released 5 and 4 years ago respectively.
What would it take to reinvigorate the genre?
*Edit: You might think audience appetite for sci-fi stuff would only grow parallel to the rise in real world technology.
Blade Runner 2049 might be a fantastic piece of film making, but it doesn't have mass market appeal. But there's nothing wrong with that. Not everything should be mass market.
Kudos to the guys that got it made, and who sadly might go out of business as a result.
Personally, throwing all these new variants into tin mix is part of the problem. We don't need a new cloned cyborg-pred-alien-Engineer-salami-parrot hybrid. It makes the whole thing unbelievable. Likewise with the constantly shape-shifting forms from the black goo. They actually become less surprising the more attempted surprises that are thrown at us.
Just give me a decent 'pure' Alien film and I'll be happy. I think audiences would be too. The first three Aliens comic book series, for instance, plus some of those that had novelisations, set a good precedent for the kinds of story you can tell well with the alien. Genocide and Rogue would be amazing (alright, both of these include alien variants, but it doesn't feel like one-up-manship). I'd love Outbreak/Earth Hive too, and Music of the Spears is absolutely bonkers but might just work too.
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 07, 2017, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Nov 07, 2017, 03:20:18 PM
You guys made good points before. It's insane how illogical and unpredictable box office returns can be.
Movies like Blade Runner 2 which I thought was going to destroy at the box office due to the top shelf director who also did The Arrival, Sicario, and the phenomenal Prisoners, literally 2 of the most famous male actors of today in Ryan Gosling and Jared Leto, 1 of the most famous male actors of all time in Harrison Ford, Ridley Scott producing, the original writer returning, etc. but for reasons I'll never fully comprehend, its underperforming.
Then you have movies like Bad Moms that break $100 million domestically, fast-tracking a sequel also for reasons I'll never fully comprehend.
Even the returns on IT, which I loved and saw twice, surprised me because although it is very scary, it is very obscure especially if you're familiar with the novel, compared to more easily digested mindless jump-scare spookers and slashers.
It seems to be a roll of the dice with sci-fi horror/thrillers. Prometheus and Gravity did well, while Life, Passengers, Covenant, and Independence Day 2 did not, although the former were both released 5 and 4 years ago respectively.
What would it take to reinvigorate the genre?
*Edit: You might think audience appetite for sci-fi stuff would only grow parallel to the rise in real world technology.
Blade Runner 2049 might be a fantastic piece of film making, but it doesn't have mass market appeal. But there's nothing wrong with that. Not everything should be mass market.
Kudos to the guys that got it made, and who sadly might go out of business as a result.
Blade Runner 2049 is too boring, long and slow for modern moviegoers. It's easy to see why it was a flop at the box office.
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 07, 2017, 01:56:54 AM
Quote from: monkeylove on Nov 07, 2017, 01:17:58 AM
One notable point about Lovecraft is raised here:
"Lovecraftian Lies: Why Video Games Cannot be 'Lovecraftian'"
http://onlysp.com/lovecraftian-analysis/
but also applies to various movies and TV shows described as "Lovecraftian."
That is, the main premise in Lovecraft's stories is that the cosmic universe is bleak and neutral, or as the article puts it, a "cosmo-centric universe where humans are utterly insignificant." This ironically works against seeing the stories or works that may be inspired by it (like the Alien films) as entertaining because those seeking entertainment are part of the same human race that is seen as worthless.
Only Lovecraft can do Lovecraft. The term 'Lovecraftian' gets bandied about, like the term 'Giger-esque'.
Alien might be called 'Lovecraftian', in a sense, but none of the sequels to Alien have anything to do with Lovecraft.
Aliens is a love letter to Starship Troopers (the 1959 novel). Has nothing to do with Lovecraft. Neither does any of the others.
QuoteAnderson's AVP and Prometheus is probably more 'Lovecraftian' than any of the others, being loosely based on At the Mountains of Madness.
So don't know where all this fanboy whingeing comes from (no offense). The Alien series was never really 'Lovecraftian' in the first place.
Yeah, these movies might be the most Lovecraftian in a sense but they're the last movies any of these "Alien lost its Lovecraftian feel" bandwagoners would call Lovecraftian :laugh:
In the end it just ends up meaning something like "dark + ancient things that I like" or "big tentacle-stuff".
Quote from: PierreVW on Nov 07, 2017, 06:29:53 PM
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 07, 2017, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Nov 07, 2017, 03:20:18 PM
You guys made good points before. It's insane how illogical and unpredictable box office returns can be.
Movies like Blade Runner 2 which I thought was going to destroy at the box office due to the top shelf director who also did The Arrival, Sicario, and the phenomenal Prisoners, literally 2 of the most famous male actors of today in Ryan Gosling and Jared Leto, 1 of the most famous male actors of all time in Harrison Ford, Ridley Scott producing, the original writer returning, etc. but for reasons I'll never fully comprehend, its underperforming.
Then you have movies like Bad Moms that break $100 million domestically, fast-tracking a sequel also for reasons I'll never fully comprehend.
Even the returns on IT, which I loved and saw twice, surprised me because although it is very scary, it is very obscure especially if you're familiar with the novel, compared to more easily digested mindless jump-scare spookers and slashers.
It seems to be a roll of the dice with sci-fi horror/thrillers. Prometheus and Gravity did well, while Life, Passengers, Covenant, and Independence Day 2 did not, although the former were both released 5 and 4 years ago respectively.
What would it take to reinvigorate the genre?
*Edit: You might think audience appetite for sci-fi stuff would only grow parallel to the rise in real world technology.
Blade Runner 2049 might be a fantastic piece of film making, but it doesn't have mass market appeal. But there's nothing wrong with that. Not everything should be mass market.
Kudos to the guys that got it made, and who sadly might go out of business as a result.
Blade Runner 2049 is too boring, long and slow for modern moviegoers. It's easy to see why it was a flop at the box office.
No it's not easy to see. The movie was well received (despite the Neill Blomkamp-esque script), people, millenials in particular, just didn't go see it.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 07, 2017, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 07, 2017, 01:56:54 AM
Quote from: monkeylove on Nov 07, 2017, 01:17:58 AM
One notable point about Lovecraft is raised here:
"Lovecraftian Lies: Why Video Games Cannot be 'Lovecraftian'"
http://onlysp.com/lovecraftian-analysis/
but also applies to various movies and TV shows described as "Lovecraftian."
That is, the main premise in Lovecraft's stories is that the cosmic universe is bleak and neutral, or as the article puts it, a "cosmo-centric universe where humans are utterly insignificant." This ironically works against seeing the stories or works that may be inspired by it (like the Alien films) as entertaining because those seeking entertainment are part of the same human race that is seen as worthless.
Only Lovecraft can do Lovecraft. The term 'Lovecraftian' gets bandied about, like the term 'Giger-esque'.
Alien might be called 'Lovecraftian', in a sense, but none of the sequels to Alien have anything to do with Lovecraft.
Aliens is a love letter to Starship Troopers (the 1959 novel). Has nothing to do with Lovecraft. Neither does any of the others.
QuoteAnderson's AVP and Prometheus is probably more 'Lovecraftian' than any of the others, being loosely based on At the Mountains of Madness.
So don't know where all this fanboy whingeing comes from (no offense). The Alien series was never really 'Lovecraftian' in the first place.
Yeah, these movies might be the most Lovecraftian in a sense but they're the last movies any of these "Alien lost its Lovecraftian feel" bandwagoners would call Lovecraftian :laugh:
In the end it just ends up meaning something like "dark + ancient things that I like" or "big tentacle-stuff".
Quote from: PierreVW on Nov 07, 2017, 06:29:53 PM
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 07, 2017, 03:49:43 PM
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Nov 07, 2017, 03:20:18 PM
You guys made good points before. It's insane how illogical and unpredictable box office returns can be.
Movies like Blade Runner 2 which I thought was going to destroy at the box office due to the top shelf director who also did The Arrival, Sicario, and the phenomenal Prisoners, literally 2 of the most famous male actors of today in Ryan Gosling and Jared Leto, 1 of the most famous male actors of all time in Harrison Ford, Ridley Scott producing, the original writer returning, etc. but for reasons I'll never fully comprehend, its underperforming.
Then you have movies like Bad Moms that break $100 million domestically, fast-tracking a sequel also for reasons I'll never fully comprehend.
Even the returns on IT, which I loved and saw twice, surprised me because although it is very scary, it is very obscure especially if you're familiar with the novel, compared to more easily digested mindless jump-scare spookers and slashers.
It seems to be a roll of the dice with sci-fi horror/thrillers. Prometheus and Gravity did well, while Life, Passengers, Covenant, and Independence Day 2 did not, although the former were both released 5 and 4 years ago respectively.
What would it take to reinvigorate the genre?
*Edit: You might think audience appetite for sci-fi stuff would only grow parallel to the rise in real world technology.
Blade Runner 2049 might be a fantastic piece of film making, but it doesn't have mass market appeal. But there's nothing wrong with that. Not everything should be mass market.
Kudos to the guys that got it made, and who sadly might go out of business as a result.
Blade Runner 2049 is too boring, long and slow for modern moviegoers. It's easy to see why it was a flop at the box office.
No it's not easy to see. The movie was well received (despite the Neill Blomkamp-esque script), people, millenials in particular, just didn't go see it.
I remembered one thing:
Guillermo Del Toro loved and hated PROMETHEUS(3D). Loved it because Guillermo is a huge fan of Ridley Scott but hated it because in his own words, "it was too similar to AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS".
Guillermo Del Toro tried to do a AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS blockbuster during 20 years. Guillermo wanted Tom Cruise as his main star and James Cameron as the main Producer.
As it was mentioned a few posts ago, I too would love to see an EU adaptation in the near future. There's so much good stories for FOX to work with, but personally I'd die happy if they made a Bezerker adaptation or an unapologetic NC-17 adaptation of Labyrinth, which may be the most disgusting and disturbing piece of sci-fi I've ever encountered.
Bad writing and ideas will do that. Taking something that should be simple, and creating some large philosophical diatribe out of it isn't always the best thing to do. I personally call it, "The Nolan Effect". The beast itself is far from dead, Alien Isolation, unused movie scripts and several of the novels are proof of that. I'm of the personal belief that the narrative needs to move in a different direction immediately; even if it means not finishing the trilogy on film. Let David and his ship become the Space Titanic, (though obviously somewhat different) the mystery ship with thousands of people who fell victim to an accident and vanished into the dark depths of space.
Regardless, It's not the beasts fault. The Prometheus storyline has never really been about the Xenomorph, and when they were used, they were used exceptionally poorly. It's just my opinion, but what's needed now is an "Aliens " type movie. See if Cameron will come back, he's talked about doing another terminator for heaven's sake. Do something with action and alittle spectacle to draw in the younger crowd and therefore the money. Establish new interest and a financial base to take off from. When the choice is transformers or Alien Covenant, people are going to see the explosions and gunfire, not Shakespeare on Mars. An Alien queen being blasted by a colonial Marine will attract more attention than David in his "Little white Onesie". The Alien universe can handle a good action movie, look at the second film, or better yet, Gibson's Alien 3 script. Or just do like the saw movies, repeated formula (minus any connection to any other film). Random crew on random ship or base encounters an Alien or Aliens and fights to survive. Smaller budget with a consistent offering, and give different people the opportunity to direct each one.
Either way, I don't think it's the beast that's "cooked" or "run out", but I'm starting to think Ridley is. If he has no faith in, or passion for the beast, he shouldn't be directing the films they're in.
Quote from: PierreVW on Nov 07, 2017, 06:29:53 PM
Blade Runner 2049 is too boring, long and slow for modern moviegoers. It's easy to see why it was a flop at the box office.
Interstellar was long and slow and it made money.
There are many different kinds of pretentious.
Quote from: PierreVW on Nov 07, 2017, 06:49:49 PMI remembered one thing:
Guillermo Del Toro loved and hated PROMETHEUS(3D). Loved it because Guillermo is a huge fan of Ridley Scott but hated it because in his own words, "it was too similar to AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS".
Guillermo Del Toro tried to do a AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS blockbuster during 20 years. Guillermo wanted Tom Cruise as his main star and James Cameron as the main Producer.
Did you read Del Toro's script? Not bad for a Lovecraft-inspired movie but ATMOM unworthy.
I think if someone deviates too much from the original story, they should at least change the title.
That being said, I don't think a lot people would appreciate a direct adaptation. Not enough action, too much talking and no grand finale.
A lot of Lovecraft stuff is related after everything has happened, making them difficult to adapt. I had a crack at adapting Call Of Cthulhu yonks ago and it necessitated a bunch of changes in order to make the protagonist involved in the events rather than just reading about them.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 06, 2017, 08:07:45 PM
The Thing is inspired by At the Mountains of madness, but the only similarities is really the Antarctic setting and the fact that the monster can shapeshift. It's not Lovecraftian.
There's quite a bit more similarities than just the two examples you mention.
ATMOM is a horror sci-fi tale set in the Antarctia where human characters discover the remains of an unidentifiable life form and were badly damaged (Carpenter's The Thing 82 connection: split face, the unidentifiable charred remains).
As the story progresses, it's revealed they were ancient aliens (same as Thing's thousands of years old aliens) and some of the 'remains' come to life without notice from the human characters (connection: the remains of the films and the novella mostly play out the same way).
There's a second human camp in ATMOM, where the main characters go there and discover it has been destroyed and the men have been slaughtered (connection: Carpenter's Norwegian camp).
The dogs of ATMOM were also slaughtered just like the violent attack on Carpenter's dogs. Combine all that with the example you mention of the creatures ability to change form just like Carpenter's film and the novella, that's more than just a vague similarity.
A lot of that stuff comes from Who Goes There?... you know, the book that The Thing is actually based on.
Quote from: Ingwar on Nov 07, 2017, 10:13:12 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Nov 07, 2017, 06:29:53 PM
Blade Runner 2049 is too boring, long and slow for modern moviegoers. It's easy to see why it was a flop at the box office.
Interstellar was long and slow and it made money.
That was Nolan at his peak in terms of box office. Remember all the other Matthew McConaughey movies were flops at the box office.
Quote from: Huggs on Nov 07, 2017, 09:32:13 PM
Bad writing and ideas will do that. Taking something that should be simple, and creating some large philosophical diatribe out of it isn't always the best thing to do. I personally call it, "The Nolan Effect". The beast itself is far from dead, Alien Isolation, unused movie scripts and several of the novels are proof of that. I'm of the personal belief that the narrative needs to move in a different direction immediately; even if it means not finishing the trilogy on film. Let David and his ship become the Space Titanic, (though obviously somewhat different) the mystery ship with thousands of people who fell victim to an accident and vanished into the dark depths of space.
Regardless, It's not the beasts fault. The Prometheus storyline has never really been about the Xenomorph, and when they were used, they were used exceptionally poorly. It's just my opinion, but what's needed now is an "Aliens " type movie. See if Cameron will come back, he's talked about doing another terminator for heaven's sake. Do something with action and alittle spectacle to draw in the younger crowd and therefore the money. Establish new interest and a financial base to take off from. When the choice is transformers or Alien Covenant, people are going to see the explosions and gunfire, not Shakespeare on Mars. An Alien queen being blasted by a colonial Marine will attract more attention than David in his "Little white Onesie". The Alien universe can handle a good action movie, look at the second film, or better yet, Gibson's Alien 3 script. Or just do like the saw movies, repeated formula (minus any connection to any other film). Random crew on random ship or base encounters an Alien or Aliens and fights to survive. Smaller budget with a consistent offering, and give different people the opportunity to direct each one.
Either way, I don't think it's the beast that's "cooked" or "run out", but I'm starting to think Ridley is. If he has no faith in, or passion for the beast, he shouldn't be directing the films they're in.
I agree with the concept that ALIEN: ACTION EPIC STYLE would make a lot more money than ALIEN: COVENANT. The problem is the Director:
1.- James Cameron ISN'T interested. He is doing Avatar 2, 3, 4 and 5.
2.- Ridley Scott ISN'T interested. He could Direct these in his sleep. He prefers his other personal movies.
3.- Neill Blomkamp is too mediocre.
Maybe Gareth Evans.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Nov 08, 2017, 12:01:52 AM
A lot of that stuff comes from Who Goes There?... you know, the book that The Thing is actually based on.
Correct, hence my comments you must have missed in my post.... "and the novella." Which ATMOM, you know, was published 6-7 years before Campbell's novella.
Quote from: SM on Nov 07, 2017, 11:47:22 PM
A lot of Lovecraft stuff is related after everything has happened, making them difficult to adapt. I had a crack at adapting Call Of Cthulhu yonks ago and it necessitated a bunch of changes in order to make the protagonist involved in the events rather than just reading about them.
Did you see the fake old timey version? Not bad.
Yeah it was great.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 07, 2017, 11:40:58 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Nov 07, 2017, 06:49:49 PMI remembered one thing:
Guillermo Del Toro loved and hated PROMETHEUS(3D). Loved it because Guillermo is a huge fan of Ridley Scott but hated it because in his own words, "it was too similar to AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS".
Guillermo Del Toro tried to do a AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS blockbuster during 20 years. Guillermo wanted Tom Cruise as his main star and James Cameron as the main Producer.
Did you read Del Toro's script? Not bad for a Lovecraft-inspired movie but ATMOM unworthy.
I think if someone deviates too much from the original story, they should at least change the title.
That being said, I don't think a lot people would appreciate a direct adaptation. Not enough action, too much talking and no grand finale.
I agree. No traditional hero or action hero in the book.
Tom Cruise was, in theory, playing a new character. A more usual Tom Cruise type of role. With his ultra famous running scenes.
Quote from: PierreVW on Nov 08, 2017, 02:56:33 AM
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 07, 2017, 11:40:58 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on Nov 07, 2017, 06:49:49 PMI remembered one thing:
Guillermo Del Toro loved and hated PROMETHEUS(3D). Loved it because Guillermo is a huge fan of Ridley Scott but hated it because in his own words, "it was too similar to AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS".
Guillermo Del Toro tried to do a AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS blockbuster during 20 years. Guillermo wanted Tom Cruise as his main star and James Cameron as the main Producer.
Did you read Del Toro's script? Not bad for a Lovecraft-inspired movie but ATMOM unworthy.
I think if someone deviates too much from the original story, they should at least change the title.
That being said, I don't think a lot people would appreciate a direct adaptation. Not enough action, too much talking and no grand finale.
I agree. No traditional hero or action hero in the book.
Tom Cruise was, in theory, playing a new character. A more usual Tom Cruise type of role. With his ultra famous running scenes.
There was no action hero lead in the script. The closest thing was the dog sled guy who read like he was written for Ron Perlman. Cruise's character was basically helpless the whole time.
Lol thats easy blame it on the Alien ..hahahah
I think you could possibly do ATMOM if it was set when it was written. Was the del toro script present day?
ATMOM is number 1 on my wish list of films Id like to see made but I doubt its ever going to happen. Even if it did happen they would struggle to do it justice.
Literally no one outside forums like this one criticized Covenant because it didn't have enough aliens or enough action. Literally no one.
Prometheus, by the way, was anti-lovecraftian. The elder Gods were not incomprehensible beings but all too human and therefore fallible. It's a direction that some people definitely did not like, but it's the whole point of the prequel mythology: Creation as folly by imperfect creators. The engineers were wiped out by their own technology, Weyland, a mortal, created David, David is mad.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 08, 2017, 12:52:45 PM
ATMOM is number 1 on my wish list of films Id like to see made but I doubt its ever going to happen. Even if it did happen they would struggle to do it justice.
I had
The Passage trilogy top of mine. Sadly it's only getting the TV mini series treatment.
Quote from: Highland on Nov 08, 2017, 12:28:42 PM
I think you could possibly do ATMOM if it was set when it was written. Was the del toro script present day?
No, early 1900 I think.
I'm sure it's possible to do the movie right, but I'm just as sure the average movie goer wouldn't like it.
What does it matter. Disney is about to buy Fox anyway.
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 08, 2017, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 08, 2017, 12:52:45 PM
ATMOM is number 1 on my wish list of films Id like to see made but I doubt its ever going to happen. Even if it did happen they would struggle to do it justice.
I had The Passage trilogy top of mine. Sadly it's only getting the TV mini series treatment.
I started this book but never finished, it was good, just didn't get around to it.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 08, 2017, 01:51:13 PM
Quote from: Highland on Nov 08, 2017, 12:28:42 PM
I think you could possibly do ATMOM if it was set when it was written. Was the del toro script present day?
No, early 1900 I think.
I'm sure it's possible to do the movie right, but I'm just as sure the average movie goer wouldn't like it.
That's the problem. If they did it right, I don't think it would sell well enough.
Quote from: Highland on Nov 08, 2017, 04:06:25 PM
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 08, 2017, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 08, 2017, 12:52:45 PM
ATMOM is number 1 on my wish list of films Id like to see made but I doubt its ever going to happen. Even if it did happen they would struggle to do it justice.
I had The Passage trilogy top of mine. Sadly it's only getting the TV mini series treatment.
I started this book but never finished, it was good, just didn't get around to it.
I haven't read it but have heard of it.
A TV series might work out better than a movie. I always wanted to see The Terror made into a film but I'm quite pleased its now going to be a TV series instead. Gives the story more room to breathe.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 08, 2017, 01:51:13 PM
Quote from: Highland on Nov 08, 2017, 12:28:42 PM
I think you could possibly do ATMOM if it was set when it was written. Was the del toro script present day?
No, early 1900 I think.
I'm sure it's possible to do the movie right, but I'm just as sure the average movie goer wouldn't like it.
1930s, I forget the exact year, though.
I think you can easily do AtMoM being more action oriented rather than just two guys flying around, as long as you stick true to the madness inducing vision of the old city and the depths beneath.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 08, 2017, 08:55:38 PM
I think you can easily do AtMoM being more action oriented rather than just two guys flying around, as long as you stick true to the madness inducing vision of the old city and the depths beneath.
Imo if it's more action oriented, it's not ATMOM anymore.
Like Del Toro's script, where the focus is more on the battle between the Shoggoths and the Elders (or Ancients?), and humans caught up in the middle.
Would make an interesting movie but unworthy of the title.
If people are getting killed by monsters - you can have action.
The problem with a lot of HPL stuff is that looking at some of these monsters can drive the characters mad. Obviously it's not going to drive the audience mad - so you have to find other ways to convey that fear and dread. That's hard.
The action-y bits weren't really the problem with Del Toro's script. It was the stupid crap happening around them, like the Shoggoths getting killed with salt.
Quote from: SM on Nov 09, 2017, 12:10:11 AM
If people are getting killed by monsters - you can have action.
The problem with a lot of HPL stuff is that looking at some of these monsters can drive the characters mad. Obviously it's not going to drive the audience mad - so you have to find other ways to convey that fear and dread. That's hard.
I think a research angle would work well for movie adaptations. Create an interest for the mystery and try to suck people in.
Like The 9th Gate.
Then perhaps a bleak ending, something people won't forget. Like Seven or The Mist.
But that's another thing, the average movie goer doesn't like downbeat endings.
Often because they're a bit of a cheat. Seven got away with it because even though Doe won - he was killed in the process so the 'monster' is dead.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 09, 2017, 12:01:33 AM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 08, 2017, 08:55:38 PM
I think you can easily do AtMoM being more action oriented rather than just two guys flying around, as long as you stick true to the madness inducing vision of the old city and the depths beneath.
Imo if it's more action oriented, it's not ATMOM anymore.
Like Del Toro's script, where the focus is more on the battle between the Shoggoths and the Elders (or Ancients?), and humans caught up in the middle.
Would make an interesting movie but unworthy of the title.
I haven't read Del Toro's script so I can't comment too much on it, but I think you could make it more action oriented in the sense that you add more people, so instead of just having two guys exploring the city we have a party of maybe 4-5 where some of them get killed by the Shoggoths.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Nov 09, 2017, 12:13:22 AM
The action-y bits weren't really the problem with Del Toro's script. It was the stupid crap happening around them, like the Shoggoths getting killed with salt.
That does sound awful.
Does anyone else notice that Guillermo Del Toro drops out of more projects than he's actually completed?
Quote from: Denton Smalls on Nov 09, 2017, 04:44:15 PM
Does anyone else notice that Guillermo Del Toro drops out of more projects than he's actually completed?
Don't know.
I know he worked on The Hobbit but not sure if he quit or got dropped.
Others like Hellboy 3 and ATMOM got dropped due to lack of funding.
He quit the Hobbit because it was taking too long to sort out copyright issues between studios and he wanted to move on to other stuff.
Was that supposed to be with Peter Jackson involved?
Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens were producing and writing with Del Toro and Del Toro was to direct.
Quote from: acidreign on Nov 03, 2017, 04:55:03 PM
This series will never be what any of you want it to be.
Its moment of creative vitality was from 1979-1986. You simply can't recapture that. Just can't.
Novelty and freshness are incredibly hard qualities to sustain across a horror franchise. This is especially true of the Alien films, whose universe is comprised of a limited number of tropes that grow staler with each entry.
You can try to do something different with the series but the fans will get upset that you've abandoned them. You can give them what they say they want, and they will complain it's more of the same. There's no pleasing anyone. [Certainly not general audiences, who more or less checked out on the series after Alien 3.]
I think this is exactly what Scott is trying to say. The novelty has worn off and the only thing that works now, is something new. Whenyiu watch the films that "worked" alien and aliens, every moment that worked involved the addition of something new. If you think back from a-z throughout this franchise, the only moments the alien ever worked involved the addition of some new element. Really go through it scene by scene, and you will see that with very very rare exception, every single scene that depicted the aliens in the original franchise, worked because its was introducing some new element. As soon as we knew all about it, it ceased to work. Even the scenes that do work in the later sequels, like the scene where ripley meets her clones in A:R, involved something we havent seen before. Compare that scene or the scene where the aliens kill each other to escape in the same film to maybe the scene where we see they swim... then compare that to the general scenes of them walking down a halway menacingly, ... you end up seeing that the newer elements are only things that work.
Of course, not all new ideas work... the Newborn, for instance.
But the point is: Scott is right that they need to introduce some new element and not retread the old. He is essentially saying the same things as what Cameron was thinking when he made Aliens. What came before isnt enough. You have to up the ante somehow and just having an alien isnt cutting it. You cannot just do the same thing again. It needs to evolve to make a sequel worthwhile.
QuoteYou cannot just do the same thing again.
I don't know. It works pretty good for Disney.
Ridley Scott isn't trying to make anything new. If he wanted to introduce new things into the Alien franchise, he would've made sequels - not prequels.
Ridley Scott is trying to undermine the old. Does it very successfully. That's the reason for all the backlash. You have a director who doesn't want to make Alien films - making Alien films. The only ante he's upping is in the level of contempt he has for the alien.
After thinking it over for a few days.....
I empathize with Ridley Scott's views.
After 7 films the creature's behaviour has been well explored and there isnt much room for expansion in that regard.
Alien Isolation had the best rendition of the creature recently and even that one felt a bit..... "constrained" and "same old, same old".
Fincher was describing the beast as just a "big dumb space bug" back in the day, too.
We need to move onto a new creature that is
stronger, smarter, more unstoppable,
more sadistic and more capable of "character" than what came before.
Let's have it be a threat that cant be stopped by a few "well timed bursts" off a pulse rifle.
Just have it be a giger inspired biomechanical and "elegant" design and i'll be happy.
Maybe David will create it as a "Xeno 2.0".
I want to see that motherf**ker "smile" while it's killing people
and actively terrorizing people with the corpses of fallen friends.
Go Brutal or Go home.
Hell Let's bring eggmorphing back, too. :laugh:
Ridley is basically telling everyone he has no idea how to move forward with the Alien. This should be a loud and clear message to the studio. If they want to make Alien movies and cash in on one of Fox's biggest franchise and series' then they need to move forward with someone who believes in the alien and has a fresh idea how to make it both current and SCARY again.
The Alien can definitely still be frightening. Although Alien Isolation was a video game, it is a shining example of how to treat the titular creature.
Quote from: skhellter on Nov 11, 2017, 04:00:51 PM
After thinking it over for a few days.....
I empathize with Ridley Scott's views.
After 7 films the creature's behaviour has been well explored and there isnt much room for expansion in that regard.
Alien Isolation had the best rendition of the creature recently and even that one felt a bit..... "constrained" and "same old, same old".
Fincher was describing the beast as just a "big dumb space bug" back in the day, too.
We need to move onto a new creature that is
stronger, smarter, more unstoppable,
more sadistic and more capable of "character" than what came before.
Let's have it be a threat that cant be stopped by a few "well timed bursts" off a pulse rifle.
Just have it be a giger inspired biomechanical and "elegant" design and i'll be happy.
Maybe David will create it as a "Xeno 2.0".
I want to see that motherf**ker "smile" while it's killing people
and actively terrorizing people with the corpses of fallen friends.
Go Brutal or Go home.
Hell Let's bring eggmorphing back, too. :laugh:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freactiongifs.me%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2Fice_cube_wtf.gif&hash=a2b039bcec13ed5965750861f918f65889038f16)
Quote from: BonesawT101 on Nov 11, 2017, 05:54:57 PM
Ridley is basically telling everyone he has no idea how to move forward with the Alien.
Maybe because there is no idea. The beast has been cooked.
(Alien Isolation is basically a homage to Alien, and wouldn't work as a movie)
Even Giger was into reinventing the Alien pretty much with his Alien3 designs.
IF Fincher had used Giger's ideas,
That creature would have behaved
in a very different way
to any Xeno in the previous films.
Giger's Alien 3 beast was recycled as Sil in Species. Particularly the tongue action. Not that hollywood would ever allow Giger's original intent, pulling out the innards and stuff.
gimme something like this.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NCnkAeclE9g/U1PC_P2caeI/AAAAAAAAK4M/2dBR-yb_aLI/s1600/alien3facestages.png)
The lips are just silly. What is this, The Predator? ;)
An actual Pussyface is so much better, yeah i agree. :D
Goddamn space aliens.
That needs to be the tag line for the new Pred film, stat.
Best line in the script.
It will be, if their marketing team arent a bunch of scrubs.
Quote from: CainsSon on Nov 09, 2017, 08:03:15 PM
Quote from: acidreign on Nov 03, 2017, 04:55:03 PM
This series will never be what any of you want it to be.
Its moment of creative vitality was from 1979-1986. You simply can't recapture that. Just can't.
Novelty and freshness are incredibly hard qualities to sustain across a horror franchise. This is especially true of the Alien films, whose universe is comprised of a limited number of tropes that grow staler with each entry.
You can try to do something different with the series but the fans will get upset that you've abandoned them. You can give them what they say they want, and they will complain it's more of the same. There's no pleasing anyone. [Certainly not general audiences, who more or less checked out on the series after Alien 3.]
I think this is exactly what Scott is trying to say. The novelty has worn off and the only thing that works now, is something new. Whenyiu watch the films that "worked" alien and aliens, every moment that worked involved the addition of something new. If you think back from a-z throughout this franchise, the only moments the alien ever worked involved the addition of some new element. Really go through it scene by scene, and you will see that with very very rare exception, every single scene that depicted the aliens in the original franchise, worked because its was introducing some new element. As soon as we knew all about it, it ceased to work. Even the scenes that do work in the later sequels, like the scene where ripley meets her clones in A:R, involved something we havent seen before. Compare that scene or the scene where the aliens kill each other to escape in the same film to maybe the scene where we see they swim... then compare that to the general scenes of them walking down a halway menacingly, ... you end up seeing that the newer elements are only things that work.
Of course, not all new ideas work... the Newborn, for instance.
But the point is: Scott is right that they need to introduce some new element and not retread the old. He is essentially saying the same things as what Cameron was thinking when he made Aliens. What came before isnt enough. You have to up the ante somehow and just having an alien isnt cutting it. You cannot just do the same thing again. It needs to evolve to make a sequel worthwhile.
This. And even if you can make a film with the same quality of Alien or Aliens, the next sequel needs to have at least one new element. From a creative point of view, we can safely say that there is almost nothing new there, and that Rildley Scott has a point.
And who knows. Perhaps Fox should give the fans what they want. You know. A love letter to Cameron's Aliens (with Ripley, Hicks and Newt of course), a combination of the first two films, or whatever. But even if you can handle very well that...what's next? you definitely need new ideas.
So, if you don't have new ideas, maybe it's time to put this franchise in the freezer for a couple of decades. Also, I think skhellter hit the nail on the head when he/she said that we need a new creature. But something completely new, since most of the "new monsters" (Dragon, Newborn, Predalien, Deacon and Neomorph) are mostly recycled versions of Giger's Alien.
So long as they let Ridley Scott finish his story, they can make 50 billion remakes of Aliens for all I care. Otherwise nerd rage will ensue.
They seem to be pretty excited about the Covenant sequel over at alien-covenant.com. Lots of speculation based off Ridley's recent interviews, including they think there will be a war between the Engineers and David's army of xenos.
I think you guys are terribly wrong. How about getting the Alien right for once (been decades, videogames don't count) before we start introducing new creatures, for the millionth times it's all in the execution and the potential so far hasn't been used or in Covenants case was very poorly handled. Give it quality it deserves or just don't do it, Covenant was a mistake. And who would come up with something that would top Giger let alone be on par or near the quality?
I'd love to see them create a
proper eco-system of different alien animals. And plants. All horrifying, dangerous, nightmarish creations.
Could be all variations on insects or a mix insects, mammals, birds. But no giants or anything. Let's say the size of an elephant tops.
Turn it into a modern version of discoverers going to Africa or South America who encountered tropical diseases, poison bugs, snakes, leopards,...
And in a later version you could throw a (primitive) humanoid tribe in the mix.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Nov 12, 2017, 12:50:41 AM
They seem to be pretty excited about the Covenant sequel over at alien-covenant.com. Lots of speculation based off Ridley's recent interviews, including they think there will be a war between the Engineers and David's army of xenos.
Hey, they read my story ;D
I'd expect a battle but no war.
Ideally it'd be a 2 hour flick, with the first part involving some exploring, some David horror stuff and Engineer info.
Leading into the second part, the arrival of the Engineers, humans turning on David, xenos attacking the humans, Engineers attacking everyone,...
This way we'd get Prometheus/Covenant stuff for fans of Engineers and David.
And a heavy dose of action for those who prefer more action.
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 12, 2017, 01:55:02 AM
How about getting the Alien right for once before we start introducing new creatures
I hate nostalgia.
I can see it done right just by putting the blurays of the old films.
Nostalgia for an old bananaheadvelociraptor creature did not set box office on fire, exactly..
:laugh:
Giger let a ton of Alien related art behind.
Enough to inspire a ton of new creatures by good new artists.
(Huante, Schulver, Hallett or Wayne Barlowe... who is probably the best scifi-fantasy visionary artist since Giger..)
Nobody's going to reinvent the wheel.
But they'll make it look pretty cool.
That lips.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages6.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F37600000%2FGreta-the-Female-Gremlin-gremlins-37616297-266-150.jpg&hash=102a7e92b27781c4e945fd42f4f6aaadda69a65d)
What do you guys think the odds are that David somehow enhances himself using the pathogen?
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 12, 2017, 02:19:44 AM
I'd love to see them create a proper eco-system of different alien animals. And plants.
Could be all variations on insects or a mix insects, mammals, birds. But no giants or anything. Let's say the size of an elephant tops.
Turn it into a modern version of discoverers going to Africa or South America who encountered tropical diseases, poison bugs, snakes, leopards,...
And in a later version you could throw a (primitive) humanoid tribe in the mix.
This thing about an eco-system ... Did everyone here explore the concept art for when Covenant was still David and Shaw exploring Paradise and it was still basically Prometheus 2? Some of that stuff is on the Covenant Blu-Ray.
This stuff involved a lot of bizarre Alien plants and an eco-system riddled with dangerous elements and plants.
So did the Fire And Stone developments on LV223..
Scott's recent quotes about the world David will create for himself aligns well with that concept art and have me wondering whether or not the decision wasnt made to flip the scripts to get the Alien in the film sooner. I think a few of us have made the observation tht Covenant is basically what was meant to happen in Prometheus 3.
I think they may have swapped the films for some reason and much like Engineers stuff ended up in Covenant, the Paradise concept art and Alien-eco-system stuff may end up in Awakening. Unfortunately, this required Shaw to die and may now have Daniels end up the one exploring this world David has created for them both - a Paradise. Her being a Terraformer makes her an ideal mate for David on that world, until well, we all know that wont end well for her.
If you'll recall Ridley mentioned that they will build that Cabin on the Lake. Im thinking David will build it and she will awaken to find the Paradise he has made for her... Needless to say, it wont be all sun and flowers.
Quote from: CainsSon on Nov 12, 2017, 05:31:55 PM
This thing about an eco-system ... Did everyone here explore the concept art for when Covenant was still David and Shaw exploring Paradise and it was still basically Prometheus 2? Some of that stuff is on the Covenant Blu-Ray.
This stuff involved a lot of bizarre Alien plants and an eco-system riddled with dangerous elements and plants.
So did the Fire And Stone developments on LV223..
Scott's recent quotes about the world David will create for himself aligns well with that concept art and have me wondering whether or not the decision wasnt made to flip the scripts to get the Alien in the film sooner. I think a few of us have made the observation tht Covenant is basically what was meant to happen in Prometheus 3.
I think they may have swapped the films for some reason and much like Engineers stuff ended up in Covenant, the Paradise concept art and Alien-eco-system stuff may end up in Awakening. Unfortunately, this required Shaw to die and may now have Daniels end up the one exploring this world David has created for them both - a Paradise. Her being a Terraformer makes her an ideal mate for David on that world, until well, we all know that wont end well for her.
If you'll recall Ridley mentioned that they will build that Cabin on the Lake. Im thinking David will build it and she will awaken to find the Paradise he has made for her... Needless to say, it wont be all sun and flowers.
Been thinking the same. And I love the Paradise concept art.
Don't recall Ridley mentioning they will build the cabin. Do you remember where you read it?
Thats only frightening in a sense if they include some type of abomination,
otherwise an ecosystem that is weird but not frightening is like a Mass Effect game. It will be as terrestrial as any other fantasy sci-fi movie.
If it turns out that there are omnimus discoveries that make you vomit then that is an idea worth exporing in the horror genre. Throw in a few of HR Giger's designs and its gold.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 12, 2017, 02:19:44 AM
I'd love to see them create a proper eco-system of different alien animals. And plants.
Could be all variations on insects or a mix insects, mammals, birds. But no giants or anything. Let's say the size of an elephant tops.
Turn it into a modern version of discoverers going to Africa or South America who encountered tropical diseases, poison bugs, snakes, leopards,...
And in a later version you could throw a (primitive) humanoid tribe in the mix.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Nov 12, 2017, 12:50:41 AM
They seem to be pretty excited about the Covenant sequel over at alien-covenant.com. Lots of speculation based off Ridley's recent interviews, including they think there will be a war between the Engineers and David's army of xenos.
Hey, they read my story ;D
I'd expect a battle but no war.
Ideally it'd be a 2 hour flick, with the first part involving some exploring, some David horror stuff and Engineer info.
Leading into the second part, the arrival of the Engineers, humans turning on David, xenos attacking the humans, Engineers attacking everyone,...
This way we'd get Prometheus/Covenant stuff for fans of Engineers and David.
And a heavy dose of action for those who prefer more action.
Quote from: acrediblesource on Nov 12, 2017, 08:00:18 PM
Thats only frightening in a sense if they include some type of abomination,
otherwise an ecosystem that is weird but not frightening is like a Mass Effect game. It will be as terrestrial as any other fantasy sci-fi movie.
If it turns out that there are omnimus discoveries that make you vomit then that is an idea worth exporing in the horror genre. Throw in a few of HR Giger's designs and its gold.
I should've been more specific. It's implied that's they're abominations and horrific creatures.
And they're all dangerous in a different ways. So the danger could come from different places in various forms, creating a (near) constant threat and hightened level of fear.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 12, 2017, 02:19:44 AM
Hey, they read my story ;D
I'd expect a battle but no war.
Really? Nice! Congratulations on, I'm guessing, the first to write a story on that concept, or at the very least, one of the first. Thumbs up.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Nov 12, 2017, 10:51:10 PM
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 12, 2017, 02:19:44 AM
Hey, they read my story ;D
I'd expect a battle but no war.
Really? Nice! Congratulations on, I'm guessing, the first to write a story on that concept, or at the very least, one of the first. Thumbs up.
Thanks. But it's more than possible the guy at the Covenant site got the idea too.
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 12, 2017, 01:55:02 AM
I think you guys are terribly wrong. How about getting the Alien right for once (been decades, videogames don't count) before we start introducing new creatures, for the millionth times it's all in the execution and the potential so far hasn't been used or in Covenants case was very poorly handled. Give it quality it deserves or just don't do it, Covenant was a mistake. And who would come up with something that would top Giger let alone be on par or near the quality?
I still don't get how the alien was "poorly handled". ???
Last cinematic outing, this is how the alien was handled:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdactive.com%2Fimages%2Freviews%2Fscreenshot%2F2012%2F1%2Favprequiembdcap5_original.jpg&hash=8c904e55dea6a01b288f671c0fd7bdd80e0fd36f)
Ridley please create Prometheus2, Prometheus3, Prometheus4 and Prometheus5!
Blomkamp please create Alien5, Alien6, and Alien7!
Blomkamp please create Aliens vs Predators!, Aliens vs Predators2! or Aliens vs Predators3!
:o
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 13, 2017, 08:00:58 AM
I still don't get how the alien was "poorly handled". ???
Could be for any number of reasons. The SFX weren't great; the incredibly underwhelming "grand entrance" of one of cinema's greatest monsters; the way all of the alien scenes felt rushed and tacked-on; the ludicrous and completely out of place "dangling-on-the-end-of-a-wire-and-fighting-off-an-alien sequence; the way it was so easy to outmanoeuvre and kill...
Those are just nitpicks.
As for 'tacked-on', was the Queen tacked-on in Aliens? Because it's nearly the same thing.
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 13, 2017, 07:03:10 PM
Those are just nitpicks.
You asked for reasons. I've given you reasons.
I'll have to disagree with you, then. I thought the SFX were top notch, the grand entrance of the alien is beautiful (are we talking about the chestburster or the adult?), the alien scenes did not feel rushed to me, it was supposed to be an action packed way to end the movie plus it built up to the alien's entrance, it's not like it just appeared out of nowhere. And the "dangling-on-the-end-of-a-wire-and-fighting-off-an-alien sequence" is cool, something different that we haven't seen before.
The bursting scene was pretty cool, but was painfully rushed. Oram should have made it to the Covenant and then bursted instead of Lope. The flying crane sequence could have featured the Neomorph instead. The adult alien's grand entrance should have been the shower sequence without the movie basically telling us through MU/TH/UR that the alien was goimg to appear there. Had Ridley shortened the middle act just a bit to allow more breathing room for the end, I think this scenario would have improved the movie dramatically.
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 13, 2017, 11:32:36 PM
I'll have to disagree with you, then.
Fair enough. Merely trying to give answers to your question.
Quote from: Jango1201 on Nov 14, 2017, 03:43:42 AM
The bursting scene was pretty cool, but was painfully rushed. Oram should have made it to the Covenant and then bursted instead of Lope. The flying crane sequence could have featured the Neomorph instead. The adult alien's grand entrance should have been the shower sequence without the movie basically telling us through MU/TH/UR that the alien was goimg to appear there. Had Ridley shortened the middle act just a bit to allow more breathing room for the end, I think this scenario would have improved the movie dramatically.
You have it spot on, would of made a much better final act IMHO. :)
Gareth edwards would be a GREAT choice for a sequel/reboot!
I could see him definitely being able to depict the Alien in proper terrifying fashion once more.
Or give it to Gareth Evans, have Iko Uwais as a Colonial Marine using martial arts on the xenos. 8) :laugh:
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 13, 2017, 08:00:58 AM
Quote from: reecebomb on Nov 12, 2017, 01:55:02 AM
I think you guys are terribly wrong. How about getting the Alien right for once (been decades, videogames don't count) before we start introducing new creatures, for the millionth times it's all in the execution and the potential so far hasn't been used or in Covenants case was very poorly handled. Give it quality it deserves or just don't do it, Covenant was a mistake. And who would come up with something that would top Giger let alone be on par or near the quality?
I still don't get how the alien was "poorly handled". ???
Basically everything was poor, almost perfect example how to not portray an alien in a film.
Quote from: BonesawT101 on Nov 14, 2017, 08:51:19 PM
Gareth edwards would be a GREAT choice for a sequel/reboot!
I could see him definitely being able to depict the Alien in proper terrifying fashion once more.
Oh god, no! He does have some visual style, but id rather have Ridley than Gareth Edwards. Rogue One and Godzilla were both were pretty bad movies in the end but not without some cool touches here and there. That said, he might pull off decent AvP film, where the standards are much more forgiving and the plot doesn't have to make much sense. But we don't need another half baked Alien film, there is absolutely no point in making one.
Then how do you portray an alien on film?
Have them being manhandled by a predator, maybe?
Flail around and squeal alot?
Quote from: BonesawT101 on Nov 14, 2017, 08:51:19 PM
Gareth edwards would be a GREAT choice for a sequel/reboot!
I could see him definitely being able to depict the Alien in proper terrifying fashion once more.
Were the monsters in "Godzilla" at all terrifying? I didn't think so.
Was it a good thing that Bryan Cranston's character was killed off early in that film? Not to me. (I know that Edwards is not the writer but still, why not ask for a rewrite when there is such a clear character mistake.)
- Anyway, I'm not the only one who was meh about "Godzilla". It has a 6.4/10 rating on IMDb.
That's lower than "Alien: Covenant" and "Prometheus".
- Considering all that, I can't agree with switching to Edwards away from Ridley if another Alien film is approved next year by Fox.
PS. Now to Star Wars, "Godzilla" is rated lower on IMDb than any of the prequels.
- As for "Rogue One", Star Wars now has the help of Disney's massive teams of talented people who are putting the new movies together. It would be very hard for any director to screw that up.
- I don't count "Rogue One" as a predictor of how well Edwards would do with an Alien film.
"Godzilla" and Alien are outside the Disney machine. "Godzilla" is the better measure of what Edwards would do with Alien.
(And if anyone wants to go back to Blomkamp, fine, I'd gladly compare the portrayal of an AI robot/android between Chappie and David.)
;)
Quote from: bb-15 on Nov 15, 2017, 02:10:10 AM
Quote from: BonesawT101 on Nov 14, 2017, 08:51:19 PM
Gareth edwards would be a GREAT choice for a sequel/reboot!
I could see him definitely being able to depict the Alien in proper terrifying fashion once more.
Were the monsters in "Godzilla" at all terrifying? I didn't think so.
Was it a good thing that Bryan Cranston's character was killed off early in that film? Not to me. (I know that Edwards is not the writer but still, why not ask for a rewrite when there is such a clear character mistake.)
- Anyway, I'm not the only one who was meh about "Godzilla". It has a 6.4/10 rating on IMDb.
That's lower than "Alien: Covenant" and "Prometheus".
- Considering all that, I can't agree with switching to Edwards away from Ridley if another Alien film is approved next year by Fox.
PS. Now to Star Wars, "Godzilla" is rated lower on IMDb than any of the prequels.
- As for "Rogue One", Star Wars now has the help of Disney's massive teams of talented people who are putting the new movies together. It would be very hard for any director to screw that up.
- I don't count "Rogue One" as a predictor of how well Edwards would do with an Alien film.
"Godzilla" and Alien are outside the Disney machine. "Godzilla" is the better measure of what Edwards would do with Alien.
(And if anyone wants to go back to Blomkamp, fine, I'd gladly compare the portrayal of an AI robot/android between Chappie and David.)
;)
Godzilla sucked. Shin Gorija on the other hand, with its creativity and innovation, was awesome.
Before Godzilla was released i would have definitely considered Gareth Edwards. Godzilla teaser trailer was really something, it sucks that the final movie was nothing like that :'( What a massive dissapointment! In it's defense, it's not as bad as Kong but not much better either.
Rogue One is a mindless 2hr videogame cutscene with some cool visuals but extremely lousy story full of plotholes and videogame cardboard NPC characters, i personally found it extremely boring as well. Lots of people seem to love it, but it's objectively bad in many areas as far as filmmaking go.
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 15, 2017, 01:49:31 AM
Then how do you portray an alien on film?
Have them being manhandled by a predator, maybe?
Flail around and squeal alot?
I would like/want the exact opposite of the Alien in Covenant ;D
I do have a soft spot for the first two AvP games, especially AvP 1999 but I don't care about AvP films at all, i don't know anyone who does. If Gareth Edwards wanted to have go with Alien, Id let him do AvP film but he should definitely steer well clear from an actual Alien movie. He shouldn't do worse than Paul W.S Anderson. The sad thing about AvP is, it did xenomorph better than the Covenant and is more enjoyable movie overall. I really hated AvP at first but i now find it to be passable, as far as (noncanon) spinoffs go.
I'd really like to see the director/writer from Bone Tomahawk and Brawl In Cell Block 99 try an Alien movie.
Both movies are a little slow but not boring, deliver some good violence in the right way and are made on smaller budgets.
Seems right for the job, no?
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 15, 2017, 03:39:32 AM
I'd really like to see the director/writer from Bone Tomahawk and Brawl In Cell Block 99 try an Alien movie.
Both movies are a little slow but not boring, deliver some good violence in the right way and are made on smaller budgets.
Seems right for the job, no?
And he's not averse to franchise films, as he wrote one of the upcoming Puppet Master films, as well as an unproduced Robotech script.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 15, 2017, 03:39:32 AM
I'd really like to see the director/writer from Bone Tomahawk and Brawl In Cell Block 99 try an Alien movie.
Both movies are a little slow but not boring, deliver some good violence in the right way and are made on smaller budgets.
Seems right for the job, no?
Bone Tomahawk was a pretty good self aware B-Movie, liked it. The premise was delightfully straightforward, the characters were very good and the horror/gore was quite tastefully done yet brutal and effective. Perhaps Craig Zahler could make it work, haven't seen Cell Block 99.
Bone Tomahawk had the most viscerally gruesome death scene on film in the 21st century.
If you like Bone Tomahawk, chances are big you'll like Brawl In Cell Block 99 too.
Bone Tomahawk was great. Zahler would be perfect for an Alien movie, once Ridley has finished his story first of course.
I've read Wraiths of the Broken Land and Mean Business on North Ganson Street, both of which are great, and am about to start Corpus Chrome, Inc. Copies of A Congregation of Jackals seem to be as rare as rocking horse droppings, which is a shame.
Next up for Zahler is Dragged Across Concrete, with Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn, plus others from Brawl...
And let's hope that Ridley Scott doesn't screw up Wraiths... If done right, it should be the stuff of nightmares.
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 15, 2017, 01:38:25 PM
I've read Wraiths of the Broken Land and Mean Business on North Ganson Street, both of which are great, and am about to start Corpus Chrome, Inc. Copies of A Congregation of Jackals seem to be as rare as rocking horse droppings, which is a shame.
Next up for Zahler is Dragged Across Concrete, with Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn, plus others from Brawl...
And let's hope that Ridley Scott doesn't screw up Wraiths... If done right, it should be the stuff of nightmares.
I fancy trying his books, which one would you recommend to start with, Wraiths?
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 15, 2017, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 15, 2017, 01:38:25 PM
I've read Wraiths of the Broken Land and Mean Business on North Ganson Street, both of which are great, and am about to start Corpus Chrome, Inc. Copies of A Congregation of Jackals seem to be as rare as rocking horse droppings, which is a shame.
Next up for Zahler is Dragged Across Concrete, with Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn, plus others from Brawl...
And let's hope that Ridley Scott doesn't screw up Wraiths... If done right, it should be the stuff of nightmares.
I fancy trying his books, which one would you recommend to start with, Wraiths?
What are you in the mood for?
Wraiths is a western, and follows a rag-tag family searching for their sisters who have been kidnapped and forced into prostitution.
Mean Business is a present-day story about a disgraced detective investigating a series of cop killings. They are both really good. He writes really good characters and dialogue (not overly "showy" like, say, Tarantino), and everything zips along. His books are also clearly written with the big screen in mind. Of the two I preferred Mean Business.
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 15, 2017, 02:08:58 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 15, 2017, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 15, 2017, 01:38:25 PM
I've read Wraiths of the Broken Land and Mean Business on North Ganson Street, both of which are great, and am about to start Corpus Chrome, Inc. Copies of A Congregation of Jackals seem to be as rare as rocking horse droppings, which is a shame.
Next up for Zahler is Dragged Across Concrete, with Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn, plus others from Brawl...
And let's hope that Ridley Scott doesn't screw up Wraiths... If done right, it should be the stuff of nightmares.
I fancy trying his books, which one would you recommend to start with, Wraiths?
What are you in the mood for? Wraiths is a western, and follows a rag-tag family searching for their sisters who have been kidnapped and forced into prostitution. Mean Business is a present-day story about a disgraced detective investigating a series of cop killings. They are both really good. He writes really good characters and dialogue (not overly "showy" like, say, Tarantino), and everything zips along. His books are also clearly written with the big screen in mind. Of the two I preferred Mean Business.
I've never read a western before and I'm not sure if I'll like it but then it is described as being like a horror so that intrigues me. Would you view it as horror?
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 15, 2017, 02:15:22 PM
I've never read a western before and I'm not sure if I'll like it but then it is described as being like a horror so that intrigues me. Would you view it as horror?
It's quite similar in structure to Bone Tomahawk, in that a big chunk of the book is about the journey towards confrontation. However, the villain of the piece isn't anything like the cannibal troglodytes. He's very much human. A really nasty piece of work with a particularly horrifying technique when it comes to torture. It's definietly horrific in places, but it's not a horror story.
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 15, 2017, 02:40:59 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 15, 2017, 02:15:22 PM
I've never read a western before and I'm not sure if I'll like it but then it is described as being like a horror so that intrigues me. Would you view it as horror?
It's quite similar in structure to Bone Tomahawk, in that a big chunk of the book is about the journey towards confrontation. However, the villain of the piece isn't anything like the cannibal troglodytes. He's very much human. A really nasty piece of work with a particularly horrifying technique when it comes to torture. It's definietly horrific in places, but it's not a horror story.
Ok cheers, that's helpful to know.
QuoteScott: I think the Beast is almost run out
Then just step the hell back and let someone who still has a passion for this franchise and creature, direct a movie fans really want to see and deserve. Then maybe people don't have to go through philosophical bullshit and Alien-Puking androids with a Wagner-fetish. This is some high quality Strause-Level bullshit.
Canceling the Alien for the next one and bringing in new (yet lame) creatures won't make the movie any better if your story is shit from the start. If you don't have trust in the creature (which is the core of the franchise) then why make a sequel/prequel? Make something new, but i understand... you can't cash in on the fans then. They don't even have a point up until now, we still don't know how the derelict got there.
I thought Covenant was a step into the right direction for the franchise, going back to the horror elements that were sorely missed from Prometheus, but having seen two big budget movies now i think Alien works better in smaller yet more powerful and inventive films.
I think they should really just totally reboot the franchise, set it after all the Alien films with brand new characters (No Ripley clones please), you can have the classic Alien and new creatures and make it all much more interesting.
Hardly surprised by this news from Ridley.
If you listen to his commentary of A:Covenant you get a very strong sense of someone who's just going through motions,which is a big contrast to his Prometheus commentary where his enthusiam for the film was strongly evident.
Quote from: Bojo on Nov 15, 2017, 04:45:47 PM
Hardly surprised by this news from Ridley.
If you listen to his commentary of A:Covenant you get a very strong sense of someone who's just going through motions,which is a big contrast to his Prometheus commentary where his enthusiam for the film was strongly evident.
It definitely seems so. Scott even mentions "well I was right after all" or something to that extant, like he was indeed against having Aliens in it. I can see the producers forcing creative control of Alien Covenant.
Quote from: bleau on Nov 15, 2017, 07:08:32 PM
Quote from: Bojo on Nov 15, 2017, 04:45:47 PM
Hardly surprised by this news from Ridley.
If you listen to his commentary of A:Covenant you get a very strong sense of someone who's just going through motions,which is a big contrast to his Prometheus commentary where his enthusiam for the film was strongly evident.
It definitely seems so. Scott even mentions "well I was right after all" or something to that extant, like he was indeed against having Aliens in it. I can see the producers forcing creative control of Alien Covenant.
I could see the producers being the ones who forced Ridley to cut out Noomi from the film sans the few seconds of screen time of her disemboweled corpse :'(
Were lucky that at least we got to see the bombing sequence.
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Nov 15, 2017, 02:59:34 PM
QuoteScott: I think the Beast is almost run out
Then just step the hell back and let someone who still has a passion for this franchise and creature, direct a movie fans really want to see and deserve. Then maybe people don't have to go through philosophical bullshit and Alien-Puking androids with a Wagner-fetish. This is some high quality Strause-Level bullshit.
How can facehuggers, chestbursters, and xenos be scary again after we already know how each one of these kill people?
Quote from: Alionic on Nov 15, 2017, 10:11:15 PM
How can facehuggers, chestbursters, and xenos be scary again after we already know how each one of these kill people?
Oh that's easy. Write decent characters that the audience actually cares about.
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 15, 2017, 10:20:46 PMOh that's easy. Write decent characters that the audience actually cares about.
So decent characters make a movie scary?
Imo it's more about the threat(s) and how it's presented.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Nov 15, 2017, 10:55:45 PM
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 15, 2017, 10:20:46 PMOh that's easy. Write decent characters that the audience actually cares about.
So decent characters make a movie scary?
Imo it's more about the threat(s) and how it's presented.
Of course.
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 15, 2017, 10:20:46 PM
Quote from: Alionic on Nov 15, 2017, 10:11:15 PM
How can facehuggers, chestbursters, and xenos be scary again after we already know how each one of these kill people?
Oh that's easy. Write decent characters that the audience actually cares about.
...but we already know what eggs, facehuggers, chestbursters, and xenos do? How do 'decent characters' change this?
How can a man with a knife be scary? We knew what men with knives did since before the invention of cinema.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 16, 2017, 04:18:05 AM
How can a man with a knife be scary? We knew what men with knives did since before the invention of cinema.
Men with knives aren't fictional creatures, dummy.
Everything in film is fictional. Even men with knives.
So how are men with knives scary if we know what they do?
Quote from: Alionic on Nov 16, 2017, 04:04:17 AM
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 15, 2017, 10:20:46 PM
Quote from: Alionic on Nov 15, 2017, 10:11:15 PM
How can facehuggers, chestbursters, and xenos be scary again after we already know how each one of these kill people?
Oh that's easy. Write decent characters that the audience actually cares about.
...but we already know what eggs, facehuggers, chestbursters, and xenos do? How do 'decent characters' change this?
Because you form an emotional attachment and feel bad when they're killed, or abducted like Newt was in Aliens, but then later when she's saved and all the bad monsters are dead you feel happy because the "decent characters" are alive and well. Then as the movie ends you sit up and clap until your hands are sore.
Or some bullshit like that.
Well it's not scary mostly because it's about David. The Alien even in Covenant is just a sideshow. The only genuinely scary(ish) part is in the hanger which just unfolds exactly as Daniels already planned. The first half of the movie not involving David is better. The backburster scene is very good, spoiled only by the trailer.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 16, 2017, 06:16:30 AM
Because you form an emotional attachment and feel bad when they're killed, or abducted like Newt was in Aliens, but then later when she's saved and all the bad monsters are dead you feel happy because the "decent characters" are alive and well. Then as the movie ends you sit up and clap until your hands are sore.
Or some bullshit like that.
Good to see that your dislike of Aliens doesn't get in the way of at least understanding why the film is so effective.
Firstly, men with knives aren't scary. Its the character holding the knife that's scary and once that character becomes too familiar they are no longer scary. Michael Myers was a scary man with a knife the first time round but he hasn't been scary since.
Having characters you care about in a film doesn't make it scary either. It generates tension because you are fearful for the characters survival but that's not the same thing as being scary. I didn't give a damn about any of the characters in the original TCM but it still frightened me. Again, Leatherface hasn't been scary since.
The Alien suffers the same problem, its too familiar to frighten people. That doesn't mean you cant make an effective movie featuring the Alien and for me that's exactly what Ridley has done.
The novelty of the threat is the least important thing to consider.
There's so much you could still do with the alien to make it scary again. Egg morphing, for example. Seeing how an alien captures a victim and starts to turn it into an egg. That could really bring back the horror of the alien. Rather than just a slasher type villain in space.
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 16, 2017, 09:16:52 AM
There's so much you could still do with the alien to make it scary again. Egg morphing, for example. Seeing how an alien captures a victim and starts to turn it into an egg. That could really bring back the horror of the alien. Rather than just a slasher type villain in space.
I agree on the Egg morphing, I'm hoping it plays a big part in a possible sequel.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 16, 2017, 04:29:50 AM
Everything in film is fictional. Even men with knives.
So how are men with knives scary if we know what they do?
They no longer are. That's why the slasher genre has faded into obscurity, and why the law of diminishing returns has hurt all Halloween/Friday the 13th/etc. sequels.
Was there ever an excuse not to have good characters?
Anything can be scary with the right mood, shots and audio. I find parts of Alien 3 genuinely scary just because of how the scenes unfold. Watching two guys pet a snake beast or someone having a shower with Dr Dre playing full blast definitely isn't on the list though.
Quote from: Kane's other son on Nov 16, 2017, 10:22:49 AM
They no longer are. That's why the slasher genre has faded into obscurity, and why the law of diminishing returns has hurt all Halloween/Friday the 13th/etc. sequels.
You missed the point entirely.
I was talking about simply featuring a person with a knife in your film. Those things haven't faded into anything; They are still heavily featured in horror films. The Babadook, for example. This was to counter the argument that knowing what your movie monster does makes it not scary. People have seen men with knives kill people in horror films since
at least Psycho. The very fact that slasher films were created in the first place counters the notion that once you know what a monster does, it stops being scary.
You're talking about a film genre, which is an incorrect comparison because the comparison was to the alien as a monster, and the alien isn't a genre. It's just a monster. What bores people today isn't a man with a knife - it's the tropes of the slasher genre.
I could've made my argument with Ghosts and Demons and the point would've still been the same: Just because you know what a monster does, doesn't make it not scary.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 16, 2017, 08:33:43 AM
Firstly, men with knives aren't scary. Its the character holding the knife that's scary and once that character becomes too familiar they are no longer scary. Michael Myers was a scary man with a knife the first time round but he hasn't been scary since.
Michael Myers is actually a fun example because you knew what he does after the first 5 minutes of Halloween. He stopped being scary in sequels, when people started explaining him away and telling people
who he is. He was scary when he had a vague backstory, and stopped being scary once filmmakers started making a point out of telling his backstory. This is very similar to another movie monster we know.
Covenant featured the best alien-bursting-from-a-human-body scene since 1979. It's no longer scary (and more importantly disturbing) because we've seen it before. The same with aliens stalking people in dark corridors and shafts or swarming a barricaded compartment. It's all familiar. You know how it will play out.
I don't think there' anyone against good characters, but keep in mind that in Alien the characters are archetypes. It's not like the chestburster scene succeeded because Kane was such a compelling character.
Actually, the only part people from both the fanboy and hater camps seem to agree on is that the backburster scene in Covenant was scary (in my case, at least to a point).
And yes, of course the chestburster scene in the original Alien succeeded because Kane was a likeable character. But it wasn't just about him; The scene succeeded because everyone else were likeable characters. It wasn't just Kane dying in that scene - it was everyone else watching him die.
Likeable characters is what sets the stakes. If you don't care about the characters, there are no stakes to them dying. If there are no stakes, there is no threat. If there is no threat, your horror film has failed.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 16, 2017, 11:31:47 AM
Quote from: Kane's other son on Nov 16, 2017, 10:22:49 AM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 16, 2017, 08:33:43 AM
Firstly, men with knives aren't scary. Its the character holding the knife that's scary and once that character becomes too familiar they are no longer scary. Michael Myers was a scary man with a knife the first time round but he hasn't been scary since.
Michael Myers is actually a fun example because you knew what he does after the first 5 minutes of Halloween. He stopped being scary in sequels, when people started explaining him away and telling people who he is. He was scary when he had a vague backstory, and stopped being scary once filmmakers started making a point out of telling his backstory. This is very similar to another movie monster we know.
I get what you're saying and agree to an extent but giving the audience too much information isn't the only problem. Familiarity and the use of a movie monster also lessons the impact. The Alien has been so over exposed and often misused that its lost its power to generate fear in audiences. This problem set in long before the prequels.
Its possible to make a scary Alien movie again but its a huge ask and the fear has to come from something fresh because the egg - facehugger -
Alien isn't going to cut it anymore.
I'm more than happy with Covenant but if you want an Alien movie which has broader appeal then I don't think tying to go the horror route will work. It needs to go down the action route for me and I don't have a problem with that providing its not the Blomkamp route of writing off 3 and creating Aliens 2.0 or the silliness of resurrection/AvP.
I still feel Ridley can deliver that film if he gets the chance to make a third.
Everyone knows what a shark is and what it does. Jaws was still terrifying. It stopped being scary when the sequels got dumb and the craftsmanship in the filmmaking disappeared completely.
The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented, someone just has to treat the creature with the same tact and care it was given at the start. That's where things go to shit: the filmmakers stop caring about the presentation and start thinking more about cool set pieces they can try out.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 16, 2017, 12:05:24 PM
I get what you're saying and agree to an extent but giving the audience too much information isn't the only problem. Familiarity and the use of a movie monster also lessons the impact. The Alien has been so over exposed and often misused that its lost its power to generate fear in audiences. This problem set in long before the prequels.
Its possible to make a scary Alien movie again but its a huge ask and the fear has to come from something fresh because the egg - facehugger -
Alien isn't going to cut it anymore.
I definitely agree that focusing on the lifecycle itself isn't going to cut it. Focusing on it was scary when it was new. Now that it's established, the horror should focus simply on the threat behind it. This is something Alien:Isolation got and one of the reasons it worked so well: They didn't waste your time following the alien's lifecycle; You arrive to Sevastopol, and it's already there and fully grown. Now that you're stuck with this monster - what do you do?
Quote
I'm more than happy with Covenant but if you want an Alien movie which has broader appeal then I don't think tying to go the horror route will work. It needs to go down the action route for me and I don't have a problem with that providing its not the Blomkamp route of writing off 3 and creating Aliens 2.0 or the silliness of resurrection/AvP.
I definitely prefer the horror route, but I agree that as an action film it has more of a mass appeal potential, and I'm fine either way. I don't really care what genre the film will be, as long as they don't misuse the alien in it.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 16, 2017, 12:29:10 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on Nov 16, 2017, 12:05:24 PM
I get what you're saying and agree to an extent but giving the audience too much information isn't the only problem. Familiarity and the use of a movie monster also lessons the impact. The Alien has been so over exposed and often misused that its lost its power to generate fear in audiences. This problem set in long before the prequels.
Its possible to make a scary Alien movie again but its a huge ask and the fear has to come from something fresh because the egg - facehugger -
Alien isn't going to cut it anymore.
I definitely agree that focusing on the lifecycle itself isn't going to cut it. Focusing on it was scary when it was new. Now that it's established, the horror should focus simply on the threat behind it. This is something Alien:Isolation got and one of the reasons it worked so well: They didn't waste your time following the alien's lifecycle; You arrive to Sevastopol, and it's already there and fully grown. Now that you're stuck with this monster - what do you do?
Quote
I'm more than happy with Covenant but if you want an Alien movie which has broader appeal then I don't think tying to go the horror route will work. It needs to go down the action route for me and I don't have a problem with that providing its not the Blomkamp route of writing off 3 and creating Aliens 2.0 or the silliness of resurrection/AvP.
I definitely prefer the horror route, but I agree that as an action film it has more of a mass appeal potential, and I'm fine either way. I don't really care what genre the film will be, as long as they don't misuse the alien in it.
This is the key point that makes Isolation work. Its very different when the question is what do the characters I'm watching on screen do because the answer will always be pretty much the same things iv'e seen before.
Quote from: SiL on Nov 16, 2017, 12:08:46 PM
Everyone knows what a shark is and what it does. Jaws was still terrifying. It stopped being scary when the sequels got dumb and the craftsmanship in the filmmaking disappeared completely.
The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented, someone just has to treat the creature with the same tact and care it was given at the start. That's where things go to shit: the filmmakers stop caring about the presentation and start thinking more about cool set pieces they can try out.
Sharks will be scary again next year when the Stath starts punching them!
I take your point but this is for me the inherent problem with sequels to films like Jaws and Alien. They were never meant to have sequels, they were designed as thrill rides based on a singular, simple premise. When you start making sequels its forcing things that were never meant to be because you can only see a shark stalk and eat someone so many ways before it becomes stale.
What Cameron did with Aliens was genius but its an exception to the rule.
Aside from Isolation, when was the last time they were even attempted to be scary from the point of view of the story?
Resurrection had them locked up and experimented on, meaning the creature was given a lot of exposure whilst locked in a cage.
AVP decided the best way to portray the Alien and the Predator was have them wrestle around the floor like two drunken yobs who had just been thrown out of a pub.
In Requiem they were just cannon fodder in an attempt to make Wolf look cool.
And Covenant we have a director who didn't want the Alien in the film at all, so what chance did it have?
The creature can easily be redeemed if put in the hands of a competent director who actually understands what made it great in the first place.
The problem with Alien is that you get so many copycats trying to emulate its success and many get the basics right but they lack such an ingeniously designed creature. Alien on the other hand already has an iconic monster but instead of treating this as a blessing it seems to be a weight that drowns the franchise and encourage filmmakers to decide they need to do something drastically different from the norm.
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 16, 2017, 07:24:13 AM
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 16, 2017, 06:16:30 AM
Because you form an emotional attachment and feel bad when they're killed, or abducted like Newt was in Aliens, but then later when she's saved and all the bad monsters are dead you feel happy because the "decent characters" are alive and well. Then as the movie ends you sit up and clap until your hands are sore.
Or some bullshit like that.
Good to see that your dislike of Aliens doesn't get in the way of at least understanding why the film is so effective.
I don't dislike the movie, I quite like it, but there are things in it that annoy me. Also, Titanic was also an "effective" film. Doesn't make it less dreadful to watch.
Quote from: Kane's other son on Nov 16, 2017, 11:45:28 AM
Covenant featured the best alien-bursting-from-a-human-body scene since 1979. It's no longer scary (and more importantly disturbing) because we've seen it before. The same with aliens stalking people in dark corridors and shafts or swarming a barricaded compartment. It's all familiar. You know how it will play out.
I don't think there' anyone against good characters, but keep in mind that in Alien the characters are archetypes. It's not like the chestburster scene succeeded because Kane was such a compelling character.
That's right. Why the f**k would I want to see the same f**king thing and the same predictable ending all over again? The "decent character" protagonists make it through hell and back -> oh no the Alien is still here -> enter boss fight ->
Alien is killed and humanity is saved. Covenant finally offered something different from this stale ending. The Xeno, through David, actually WON in Covenant. I'm eternally grateful for that.
QuoteAside from Isolation, when was the last time they were even attempted to be scary from the point of view of the story?
They always attempt to be scary.
Quote from: Alionic on Nov 15, 2017, 10:11:15 PM
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on Nov 15, 2017, 02:59:34 PM
QuoteScott: I think the Beast is almost run out
Then just step the hell back and let someone who still has a passion for this franchise and creature, direct a movie fans really want to see and deserve. Then maybe people don't have to go through philosophical bullshit and Alien-Puking androids with a Wagner-fetish. This is some high quality Strause-Level bullshit.
How can facehuggers, chestbursters, and xenos be scary again after we already know how each one of these kill people?
It's all about the portrayal. I think there can absolutely be another scary Alien movie. People who hate spiders don't stop being afraid just because they have seen a spider before or know what they can or can't do. Ask my wife.
Alien Covenant wasn't scary because Scott, in my book, didn't approach the creature right. Instead of making it slow, spooky and almost majestic in movement, playing with shadows and sounds, he turned the Alien in yet another hyperspastic CGI-beast, like we see in 90% of monster movies now.
The beast is what you make of it and shouldn't be the only excuse for a shitty movie and/or box-office failure.
As I explained in other threads, the dominant genre or probably theme employed by the first movie is horror. That's because the creature is fully revealed only in the last few scenes of the film.
Obviously, they could no longer do that for the second movie, which is why action was employed.
Another genre resembling detective fiction was used for the third, i.e., how to kill the creature.
The fourth follows something similar in conspiracy films, involving scientists, the military, mercenaries, etc. Although the third looked like the proper end for the franchise, i.e., if Ripley is considered the center of the story, it is still open-ended because it is implied that the company or at least other groups would try to profit from the creatures. Which is what happened in the fourth.
But the fourth still has no closure given the point that Ripley's character is brought back and the aliens still pose a thread to humans. Given that, the only genre I can imagine that is different from those used in previous films and that will finally give closure is major conflict and whatever tech needed to destroy the xenomorphs, or at least give human beings a fighting chance to do so but at incredible costs, thus allowing for a return to the bleakness of the first film.
With that, it's obvious that the prequels would employ other genres, and in this case looks like something involving scientific discoveries concerning the origins of the creature and various plot twists connected to that. The idea is sound, but there were problems with the story, notably the introduction of a star map discovered and connecting it to "Engineers." Perhaps a more elaborate tale should have been constructed, and that would certainly make at least the first film look like 2001 rather than an Alien film. If similar principles were applied to the next movie, then it would have been different from the recent mess, where the same theme involving origins was mixed with elements from Alien and Aliens.
I had a thought the other day that they might just kill David like Shaw. Stranger things have happened.
I want to see a younger via CGI Ian Holm interact with David.
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 17, 2017, 05:40:41 AM
Quote from: Kane's other son on Nov 16, 2017, 11:45:28 AM
Covenant featured the best alien-bursting-from-a-human-body scene since 1979. It's no longer scary (and more importantly disturbing) because we've seen it before. The same with aliens stalking people in dark corridors and shafts or swarming a barricaded compartment. It's all familiar. You know how it will play out.
I don't think there' anyone against good characters, but keep in mind that in Alien the characters are archetypes. It's not like the chestburster scene succeeded because Kane was such a compelling character.
That's right. Why the f**k would I want to see the same f**king thing and the same predictable ending all over again? The "decent character" protagonists make it through hell and back -> oh no the Alien is still here -> enter boss fight -> Alien is killed and humanity is saved.
Covenant finally offered something different from this stale ending. The Xeno, through David, actually WON in Covenant. I'm eternally grateful for that.
+1
Quote from: tleilaxu on Nov 17, 2017, 05:40:41 AM
Quote from: Kane's other son on Nov 16, 2017, 11:45:28 AM
Covenant featured the best alien-bursting-from-a-human-body scene since 1979. It's no longer scary (and more importantly disturbing) because we've seen it before. The same with aliens stalking people in dark corridors and shafts or swarming a barricaded compartment. It's all familiar. You know how it will play out.
I don't think there' anyone against good characters, but keep in mind that in Alien the characters are archetypes. It's not like the chestburster scene succeeded because Kane was such a compelling character.
That's right. Why the f**k would I want to see the same f**king thing and the same predictable ending all over again? The "decent character" protagonists make it through hell and back -> oh no the Alien is still here -> enter boss fight -> Alien is killed and humanity is saved.
Covenant finally offered something different from this stale ending. The Xeno, through David, actually WON in Covenant. I'm eternally grateful for that.
Yeah, and if the last sequel is still possible, Ridley Scott needs to finish his story with a dark conclusion.
Quote from: SiL on Nov 16, 2017, 12:08:46 PM
Everyone knows what a shark is and what it does. Jaws was still terrifying. It stopped being scary when the sequels got dumb and the craftsmanship in the filmmaking disappeared completely.
The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented, someone just has to treat the creature with the same tact and care it was given at the start. That's where things go to shit: the filmmakers stop caring about the presentation and start thinking more about cool set pieces they can try out.
Yup, this.
And ultimately
Alien still works. Bolaji Badejo lurking around the corridors of the Nostromo in that gorgeous Giger suit is still ominous and still immersive to watch as a viewer. One of the assets the Alien design still has going for it is you just can't take your eyes off it; has the grace of a butterfly yet the spine-tingling stay-the-f**k-away-from-me reaction you get,say, from a tarantula.
So I don't think the shape or presence of the creature is worn out, but as a lot of people in here are rightly saying, it just ain't being used right.
Quote from: BonesawT101 on Nov 14, 2017, 08:51:19 PM
Gareth edwards would be a GREAT choice for a sequel/reboot!
I could see him definitely being able to depict the Alien in proper terrifying fashion once more.
Only if we also hire Tony Gilroy to reshoot at least 30% of it,
then it could have a chance at being pretty good.
Ridley is saving the grand entrance of the Gigermorph for the last one. The one in Covenant is a protomorph, and is meant to be more like a beast to contrast with the 'perfect organism'.
it's gonna get weird! :D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/PAR_XENcocoonAppendage_LL01_1002.jpg)
Quote from: skhellter on Nov 17, 2017, 10:42:39 PM
it's gonna get weird! :D
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/PAR_XENcocoonAppendage_LL01_1002.jpg)
Catering to the Japanese market, I see.
Giger would approve.
The fanbase..
not so much. :D
"Secreted from what?"
;D
When Ripley goes to save Newt, there were few Aliens
in the Hive because the rest were too busy gangbanging Hudson. ;D
#EDGY
(Ridley will make this Canon, somehow.)
there's probably a fanfic like this somewhere..
thank god they didn't put that in, cos it would've been too laughable
Quote from: Kane's other son on Nov 16, 2017, 11:45:28 AM
Covenant featured the best alien-bursting-from-a-human-body scene since 1979. It's no longer scary (and more importantly disturbing) because we've seen it before. The same with aliens stalking people in dark corridors and shafts or swarming a barricaded compartment. It's all familiar. You know how it will play out.
I don't think there' anyone against good characters, but keep in mind that in Alien the characters are archetypes. It's not like the chestburster scene succeeded because Kane was such a compelling character.
This is close to where I'm at.
I thought the Neomorph back burster sequence was one of the best science fiction horror moments in the entire Alien franchise.
- But because the Giger inspired monsters have been played out and the style of Alien has been copied (see "Life", etc.); the question comes, where to go from there with the story?
- A few jump scares? It's still not enough.
* What Ridley decided with "Prometheus" was to go in a more detailed, serious science fiction direction. The film made decent money.
But because the fan base is so split, a lot of fans hated "Prometheus".
I definitely get that with all my IMDb "Prometheus" debates.
But in the end I think for the future of the Alien franchise, Scott was on the right track.
Personally, I'm interested in seeing a movie about the response of the Engineers to David's attack.
;)
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 03, 2017, 08:54:47 AM
Don't really care if it was all from the studio (which was my guess back then). Ridley Scott stood behind that decision. He gave interviews talking about how he was wrong with Prometheus and how the Alien films are "all about this guy right there" *points to an Alien poster*. He needs to own up to it.
Well, he didn't but you've tried to milk that click-bait many times before.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 03, 2017, 08:54:47 AMI said it before: this franchise has been hijacked by a director who doesn't even want to make Alien films.
Yes, you have, and you're still wrong.
Quote from: Jamie on Nov 03, 2017, 07:10:52 PM
No- just give the fans the film they want
Which is?
Quote from: Rudiger on Nov 03, 2017, 07:44:45 PM
Nothing will surpass the original Alien. It's a true icon of cinema. Not neomorphs, deacons, engineers or anything else. They should have figured out how to use the alien proper, but show it in a new light (eg Cameron's queen).
I regard the Queen as far more detrimental to the whole concept of the alien than the Neomorph or the Protomorph. Or David.
Quote from: BlackMatter169 on Nov 03, 2017, 09:45:44 PM
I've always felt like Covenant was a hate-filled letter to the fans of the alien.
Did you? I didn't. I felt it was the first film sine ALIEN that tried to put some suspense and horror back into the mix.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 03, 2017, 09:56:11 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Nov 03, 2017, 09:46:21 PM
@Prof. a
You shouldn't follow trends because they change. The most important thing is good story.
I'm pretty sure he was trying to explain the studio's logic behind making Covenant. I don't think he necessarily encourages such an approach.
And I do agree with his analysis. Here's what I wrote on the subject a couple of months ago. Seems pretty relevant now:
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 10, 2017, 04:55:45 PM
I don't think adding the alien in was a result of taking in criticism about Prometheus. Here's a timeline to illustrate:
2012 - Ridley Scott makes Prometheus; Says Prometheus is not a prequel to Alien; Says Alien is 'cooked'; Film gets mixed reactions from fans.
2013 - Aliens:Colonial Marines comes out; Gets annihilated both by critics and fans; Reinforces 'Alien = cooked' claim.
2014 - Alien:Isolation comes out; Gets high praise from fans and critics alike; Questions 'Alien = cooked' claim.
2015 - Neil Blomkamp releases Aliens related concept art; Claims to have idea for a sequel; Claims concept art + sequel ideas were Alien:Isolation inspired; Gets overwhelmingly positive reactions from fans.
2015 - Ridley Scott announces Prometheus 2 is now Alien:Paradise Lost; Says it's a prequel to Alien.
2017 - Blomkamp confirms Alien sequel = dead; Ridley Scott prequel now only option.
2017 - Ridley Scott apologizes for making Prometheus; Alien no longer cooked.
Congratulations, there it is again. Make sure you milk that fake news for all it's worth.
Quote from: Vin on Nov 04, 2017, 06:22:31 AM
This, plus all the preachy undertones of atheism. We get it, we get youre atheist. Nobody cares, we came for the creatures and the space marines and the glory from the novels and comics and more of Aliens.
Well, maybe you did. I want more meat on the bones than that BS.
Quote from: Olaf.Brunson on Nov 04, 2017, 03:39:46 PM
good director, terrible story writer.
Dan O'Bannon and James Cameron are the two who made Alien any good. Ridley needs to back off.
Pfft, Cameron's writing across his entire catalogue is nothing to crow about.
Quote from: Huggs on Nov 07, 2017, 09:32:13 PM
..An Alien queen being blasted by a colonial Marine will attract more attention than David in his "Little white Onesie". The Alien universe can handle a good action movie, look at the second film, or better yet, Gibson's Alien 3 script. Or just do like the saw movies, repeated formula (minus any connection to any other film). Random crew on random ship or base encounters an Alien or Aliens and fights to survive. Smaller budget with a consistent offering, and give different people the opportunity to direct each one.
Either way, I don't think it's the beast that's "cooked" or "run out", but I'm starting to think Ridley is.
Hang on, the ideas you've suggested are not cooked? Overplayed? Rehashed?
No, sorry, I'll take a film maker who wants to do more than keep revisiting the same scenarios.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 16, 2017, 04:29:50 AM
Everything in film is fictional. Even men with knives.
So how are men with knives scary if we know what they do?
In film? They're not. They're a boring cliche.
Quote from: bb-15 on Nov 18, 2017, 08:34:38 PM
I thought the Neomorph back burster sequence was one of the best science fiction horror moments in the entire Alien franchise.
It was, and all the more effective for the suspense that built up because the audience had a comprehension of where it was leading :- graphic body horror. This is Scott utilising to the best effect that unnerving expectation of what 'might' be shown.
Quote from: Gash on Jan 11, 2018, 04:45:46 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Nov 03, 2017, 09:56:11 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on Nov 03, 2017, 09:46:21 PM
@Prof. a
You shouldn't follow trends because they change. The most important thing is good story.
I'm pretty sure he was trying to explain the studio's logic behind making Covenant. I don't think he necessarily encourages such an approach.
And I do agree with his analysis. Here's what I wrote on the subject a couple of months ago. Seems pretty relevant now:
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Sep 10, 2017, 04:55:45 PM
I don't think adding the alien in was a result of taking in criticism about Prometheus. Here's a timeline to illustrate:
2012 - Ridley Scott makes Prometheus; Says Prometheus is not a prequel to Alien; Says Alien is 'cooked'; Film gets mixed reactions from fans.
2013 - Aliens:Colonial Marines comes out; Gets annihilated both by critics and fans; Reinforces 'Alien = cooked' claim.
2014 - Alien:Isolation comes out; Gets high praise from fans and critics alike; Questions 'Alien = cooked' claim.
2015 - Neil Blomkamp releases Aliens related concept art; Claims to have idea for a sequel; Claims concept art + sequel ideas were Alien:Isolation inspired; Gets overwhelmingly positive reactions from fans.
2015 - Ridley Scott announces Prometheus 2 is now Alien:Paradise Lost; Says it's a prequel to Alien.
2017 - Blomkamp confirms Alien sequel = dead; Ridley Scott prequel now only option.
2017 - Ridley Scott apologizes for making Prometheus; Alien no longer cooked.
Congratulations, there it is again. Make sure you milk that fake news for all it's worth.
(https://www.stayathomemum.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Drew-Carey-Show.gif)
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 17, 2017, 10:07:00 PM
Ridley is saving the grand entrance of the Gigermorph for the last one. The one in Covenant is a protomorph, and is meant to be more like a beast to contrast with the 'perfect organism'.
They'll come full circle and have the Gigermorph (ugh) burst from an old Nexus-6 Replicant, from which it inherits its biomechanical traits.
Instead of dying quietly after a four-year lifespan, it sacrifices itself to David's science experiment as a final "f**k you" to humanity.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 11, 2018, 11:23:08 AM
https://www.stayathomemum.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Drew-Carey-Show.gif
The invented point presumably. Scott never 'apologised for making Prometheus', an internet journalist created the headline and deliberately misrepresented him . It's been pointed out and debunked before as you know, so rekindling this pitiful myth undermines the validity of any point you're trying to make
You seem to be trolling now. Come back once you got the point instead of doubling down on not getting it.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 11, 2018, 01:40:41 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Nov 17, 2017, 10:07:00 PM
Ridley is saving the grand entrance of the Gigermorph for the last one. The one in Covenant is a protomorph, and is meant to be more like a beast to contrast with the 'perfect organism'.
They'll come full circle and have the Gigermorph (ugh) burst from an old Nexus-6 Replicant, from which it inherits its biomechanical traits.
Instead of dying quietly after a four-year lifespan, it sacrifices itself to David's science experiment as a final "f**k you" to humanity.
Wouldn't it be a Nexus 7?
Quote from: Gash on Jan 13, 2018, 12:04:21 PM
Scott never 'apologised for making Prometheus',
Correct.
;)
They should not borrowed from the first two movies and come up with something new for the last film.
Quote from: bb-15 on Jan 13, 2018, 05:19:29 PM
Quote from: Gash on Jan 13, 2018, 12:04:21 PM
Scott never 'apologised for making Prometheus',
Correct.
;)
He just said he was "wrong" about the Alien being cooked. He still is.
If anything it's been woefully under-cooked since Alien 3. I look forward to the day when once again the single worst thing in the lives of a bunch of interesting characters is the alien.
He shudda included that 20 minute meal thing into the actual movie.
* 5 minute
Be shorter if they get rid of some of the clunkier stuff like Upworth choking.
Regardless of where the prequels head from here, I hope they begin to lean more towards science, and less on philosophy. What I mean here is, in the original film, there was a lot of effort that went into making the ship and technology feel real. Yes, there was a xenomorph, but my favorite parts of that film were always the little stuff. Brett and Parker working on things, the tracker and prod demo, the medbay examination, consulting mother, the descent to lv-426. This sort of stuff really sold the movie and made the downtime much more interesting. Everywhere you looked, there was something to see being done, something being used. Even I'd be going goo-gaws over these prequels if they followed David and his research more specifically. 2 Hours of fassbender going Frankenstein with some covenant tech, like Advent on steroids. That I'd love to see.
Quote from: Huggs on Apr 11, 2018, 10:01:51 PM
Regardless of where the prequels head from here, I hope they begin to lean more towards science, and less on philosophy.
...
Scott has some really interesting "scientific" thoughts, and some other embarrassing ones too.
For example: I'm sure I recall Scott saying of the xeno's transparent dome, as designed by Giger, great but WTF with the human skull in there? His simple solution was to have the creature team overspray it with semi-transparent paint around the edges to disguise what's inside. Why didn't he like the skull? Well, scientifically speaking, why would an alien species have a human body part? Hence (speculation here), I think one of his inspirations for Prometheus was to answer this 1 question which had been nagging away in his brain for 30 years.
OTOH, one of the writers must surely have said to him re: the Engineer ancestry to humans; So what, are we just going to ignore 1,000,000 years of human evolution and fossil records, then? But in this case the obvious lack of scientific rigour didn't bother him.
As for Shaw's line about believing in God because she chooses to believe; and asking, if the Engineers created Man then who created them? I think Scott thought he was getting into some deep, meaningful philosophy but it really comes across as rather twee, once-over-lightly schoolboy stuff.
I know what you mean about the depiction of technology that went into the film's design. I got a big thrill out of Ron Cobb's stuff especially. The layout and construction of the escape shuttle, the autodoc in the medbay, the doodads and gadgetry required to obtain a passcard to get into Muther's computer room. Only 2001 had gone to this level of detail.
Also, I like the way Scott chose to follow 2001's lead in terms of spaceflight. Notice how the Nostromo departs the refinery after detaching from the "claw". The engine nozzles fire up in a brief burn and then the ship goes back to coasting -
just the way real spacecraft manoeuvre. This is not what you see in most sci-fi these days (including Prometheus). Nowadays, when a spaceship has forward velocity its engines are depicted on and lit up (Star Wars style).
And I'm sure there are some throw-away lines on the bridge while landing and later on when taking off (as part of the crew chatter). "Hold on people, inertial damping's coming off, there could be a little bump", "artificial gravity engaged" or something like that. I think we can thank O'Bannon for these bits of detail.
These kinds of things gave Alien '79 a science-fictional style that's still a bit unique to this day.
TC
The muther sequences were definitely some of my favorites. With the prequels, sometimes it does feel like we're just passing through on a philosophical journey. I really loved the more technical feel of the original film. Perhaps we are so used to technological advances now, that the appearance of more advanced technology is enough. The technology and day-to day have become an easy sell, so other things take the spotlight. Granted, there are some scenes in the prequels that would qualify. Like Walter's work during the first minutes of the movie, or David working with the black goo in Prometheus. I would've loved to have seen some more interaction with the juggernaut in Covenant, and especially some engineer tech in the city.
When I say less philosophy, I'm not implying theology though. It's not that Scott is completely disregarding any scientific basis, merely that he's so pre-occupied with David's place in the universe that the universe itself is being ignored. The engineer homeworld could've provided an entire movie's worth of new and exciting concepts, but David with his complex comes through and we're left to watch him wax philosophical as people die off. David's work in his "lab" during Advent was fascinating. But I'm afraid his daddy issues will continue to remain at the forefront of the films, much to the detriment of the series.
Quote from: Kane's other son on Nov 16, 2017, 11:45:28 AM
Covenant featured the best alien-bursting-from-a-human-body scene since 1979. It's no longer scary (and more importantly disturbing) because we've seen it before. The same with aliens stalking people in dark corridors and shafts or swarming a barricaded compartment. It's all familiar. You know how it will play out.
I don't think there' anyone against good characters, but keep in mind that in Alien the characters are archetypes. It's not like the chestburster scene succeeded because Kane was such a compelling character.
Oram's death throes were good but the burster itself wasn't in my opinion, doesn't look the part.
The Chestburster scene in the original is hard to top for sure, I would say Aliens would be next and then maybe Alien3/AVPunrated.
I only include the last part because unlike Requiem, the first AVP at least had the chestbursters chewing/pounding/pushes its way out of the host whereas in Requiem, it just pops out too quickly.
The rib cage is a sturdy structure, it would take a lot of chewing and pushing before it would emerge, hence why Kain was in debilitating pain before his chest even started to bleed and explode.
I still believe replicating the 'big chap' from '79 is the way to go because we haven't seen it since the original film. The xenos these days seem to be too small and their behavior often contrasts the creepy original.
For some reason I found myself watching AVP the other day and the sequence where Connors, Verheiden and Miller get taken in the tunnels, why are the Aliens pointlessly shrieking and hissing in the shadows so much? It's comical.
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Apr 22, 2018, 04:40:19 PM
I still believe replicating the 'big chap' from '79 is the way to go because we haven't seen it since the original film. The xenos these days seem to be too small and their behavior often contrasts the creepy original.
For some reason I found myself watching AVP the other day and the sequence where Connors, Verheiden and Miller get taken in the tunnels, why are the Aliens pointlessly shrieking and hissing in the shadows so much? It's comical.
We barely got to see it do what it needed to do, because of technical limitations; but if they matched the Alien exactly as it was in 1979, I still hope they don't make it run like beep beep the road runner. It feels like everyone wants to make the Alien a bloody velociraptor. I wouldn't mind if it bounded around, but...the 1979 guy was pretty slow and deliberate with what it did
My biggest fear is that combined with the need for every monster to run at warp 9, and the desire to make it do scenes they originally wanted to do but couldn't because of the costume's restrictions, that if they did it there would be this weird disconnect of how both of them acted.
I don't want to imagine the Alien, the one who started it all, just wasn't fast because it had stiff muscles
I prefer the way it was curious. The way it watched Brett for a good few minutes as if sizing him up before making its move. Likewise the way it snuck up on Lambert and Parker in complete silence. Even in the vents with Dallas, it made no sound. Total contrast to the silly hissing and screeching it does in the later films when in similar situations.
I think Scott seems too intent on blaming the creature as played out when really I think it is the the filmmaker's inability to showcase it in a new and interesting way. It's still one of the greatest creature designs ever and a majority of filmmakers working in the horror/sci-fi genres would kill to get their hands on it.
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Apr 22, 2018, 05:15:00 PM
I prefer the way it was curious. The way it watched Brett for a good few minutes as if sizing him up before making its move. Likewise the way it snuck up on Lambert and Parker in complete silence. Even in the vents with Dallas, it made no sound. Total contrast to the silly hissing and screeching it does in the later films when in similar situations.
I think Scott seems too intent on blaming the creature as played out when really I think it is the the filmmaker's inability to showcase it in a new and interesting way. It's still one of the greatest creature designs ever and a majority of filmmakers working in the horror/sci-fi genres would kill to get their hands on it.
I think Scott always thought what made the Alien effective, it's limitations, were a disappointment, but they really make that film. He understands the soul of the series well, but he doesn't understand how well the seductive movement of the creature complimented that same very soul.
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Apr 22, 2018, 05:15:00 PM
Likewise the way it snuck up on Lambert and Parker in complete silence. Even in the vents with Dallas, it made no sound. Total contrast to the silly hissing and screeching it does in the later films when in similar situations.
They didn't have the sound effects back in the 70s to pull that off.
But actually the alien does make a sound, it is a weird sound that's hard to describe, but it is there. And before you say "it's the soundtrack", it's not on the soundtrack, I checked.
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 22, 2018, 08:27:30 PM
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Apr 22, 2018, 05:15:00 PM
Likewise the way it snuck up on Lambert and Parker in complete silence. Even in the vents with Dallas, it made no sound. Total contrast to the silly hissing and screeching it does in the later films when in similar situations.
They didn't have the sound effects back in the 70s to pull that off.
But actually the alien does make a sound, it is a weird sound that's hard to describe, but it is there. And before you say "it's the soundtrack", it's not on the soundtrack, I checked.
I know what you mean I think. It's kinda like a buzzing sound? It IS hard to describe
They didn't have the right sound effects in the 70s??
I forgot the guy's name, but it wasn't an analog effect, or maybe it was mixed, but the credits list this old radio guy from Britain at the time who often did impersonations and mimicked animals well. I can't tell if he did it himself or mixed it.
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 22, 2018, 08:27:30 PM
They didn't have the sound effects back in the 70s to pull that off.
That might be the dumbest thing you've ever written. If they wanted it to make more noise it would. It screams just fine at the end.
Quote from: SiL on Apr 22, 2018, 10:36:40 PM
That might be the dumbest thing you've ever written.
That's a bold statement.
Quote from: Munkeywrench on Apr 22, 2018, 08:31:25 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 22, 2018, 08:27:30 PM
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Apr 22, 2018, 05:15:00 PM
Likewise the way it snuck up on Lambert and Parker in complete silence. Even in the vents with Dallas, it made no sound. Total contrast to the silly hissing and screeching it does in the later films when in similar situations.
They didn't have the sound effects back in the 70s to pull that off.
But actually the alien does make a sound, it is a weird sound that's hard to describe, but it is there. And before you say "it's the soundtrack", it's not on the soundtrack, I checked.
I know what you mean I think. It's kinda like a buzzing sound? It IS hard to describe
I think I know what you're talking about. Didn't it also make a noise while inside the vents? I believe it was between 1:13:32 and 1:13:33 on the Directors Cut. Dallas is in the vents, and is looking at the slime on his hand. There's a kind of buzzing/hissing sound and he quickly looks up and in each direction. I always thought it was the alien. It almost seems like some sort of salivating, yet pleased sound, with a slightly snakelike erotic quality. Whatever it was, it got Dallas's attention, so what else could it have been? If his sudden movement cause it to re-think it's strategy, then I shudder to think where it was, and exactly what it was about to do when he heard it.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Apr 22, 2018, 10:44:43 PM
Quote from: SiL on Apr 22, 2018, 10:36:40 PM
That might be the dumbest thing you've ever written.
That's a bold statement.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: SiL on Apr 22, 2018, 10:36:40 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 22, 2018, 08:27:30 PM
They didn't have the sound effects back in the 70s to pull that off.
That might be the dumbest thing you've ever written. If they wanted it to make more noise it would. It screams just fine at the end.
Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Technology has made a bit of leap since the 70s, believe it or not.
Quote from: Munkeywrench on Apr 22, 2018, 08:31:25 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 22, 2018, 08:27:30 PM
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Apr 22, 2018, 05:15:00 PM
Likewise the way it snuck up on Lambert and Parker in complete silence. Even in the vents with Dallas, it made no sound. Total contrast to the silly hissing and screeching it does in the later films when in similar situations.
They didn't have the sound effects back in the 70s to pull that off.
But actually the alien does make a sound, it is a weird sound that's hard to describe, but it is there. And before you say "it's the soundtrack", it's not on the soundtrack, I checked.
I know what you mean I think. It's kinda like a buzzing sound? It IS hard to describe
It's a very insect-like sound. You generally hear it with a faint heartbeat. I'm more of a fan of slow burn horror, but I still think those little details are far more effective than general snarling or growling. This is where I feel Isolation really missed the mark.
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 23, 2018, 01:36:35 AM
Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Technology has made a bit of leap since the 70s, believe it or not.
Dude, you're wrong. It was a creative choice, not a technical one.
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 23, 2018, 01:36:35 AM
Quote from: SiL on Apr 22, 2018, 10:36:40 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 22, 2018, 08:27:30 PM
They didn't have the sound effects back in the 70s to pull that off.
That might be the dumbest thing you've ever written. If they wanted it to make more noise it would. It screams just fine at the end.
Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Technology has made a bit of leap since the 70s, believe it or not.
That doesn't make what you said less dumb.
The reason it didn't make a specific sound - was because they didn't want it to make a sound; not because they didn't have the right sound effect. It hissed, screeched and screamed exactly the way they wanted it to, when they wanted it to.
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 23, 2018, 01:36:35 AM
Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Technology has made a bit of leap since the 70s, believe it or not.
Yeah, but you said they couldn't make the Alien make noises in those scenes because the technology didn't exist.
Which is incredibly stupid and demonstrably false. It didn't make a sound because the filmmakers didn't want it to. Technical limitations had nothing to do with it.
The way the alien sounds in 2017 was not possible in 1979, because of something called audio mixing, which in 1979 was analogue sound in 2017 it's entirely digital. Yes, they made creative choices in 1979 but they were limited by the technology of the time.
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 23, 2018, 03:39:25 AM
The way the alien sounds in 2017 was not possible in 1979, because of something called audio mixing
That's just simply not true. Audio mixing is how you make audio for film. You "mix" the audio. Dialogue, music, sound effects. There's nothing new, or recent, about mixing.
Digital is easier, and better, yes, but there is literally nothing about the sounds the creature makes in Covenant that could not have been done in 1979. Nothing. They used distorted animal and baby sounds, they may have used synthesizers. There's all kinds of methods they do today that they did back then, and absolutely none of it would have been prohibitive to the audio guys in 1979.
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 23, 2018, 03:39:25 AM
The way the alien sounds in 2017 was not possible in 1979, because of something called audio mixing, which in 1979 was analogue sound in 2017 it's entirely digital. Yes, they made creative choices in 1979 but they were limited by the technology of the time.
Dude, just stop. The alien sounds just fine during the final confrontation between it and Ripley on the Narcissus. The film itself disagrees with you.
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 23, 2018, 03:39:25 AM
The way the alien sounds in 2017 was not possible in 1979, because of something called audio mixing, which in 1979 was analogue sound in 2017 it's entirely digital. Yes, they made creative choices in 1979 but they were limited by the technology of the time.
OpenMaw explained why the analogue/digital part is irrelevant, and on top of that they didn't want it to sound like that in 1979. They made it sound like they wanted to. They had it make noise when they wanted it to. There is nothing resembling an argument to be made here, but instead of acknowledging you said the wrong thing you're doubling down on your ignorance.
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 23, 2018, 03:39:25 AM
The way the alien sounds in 2017 was not possible in 1979, because of something called audio mixing, which in 1979 was analogue sound in 2017 it's entirely digital. Yes, they made creative choices in 1979 but they were limited by the technology of the time.
This seems like a weird stance to take when Ben Burtt did the sound design for 'Star Wars' two years before 'Alien' came out.
Quote from: Scorpio on Apr 23, 2018, 03:39:25 AM
The way the alien sounds in 2017 was not possible in 1979, because of something called audio mixing, which in 1979 was analogue sound in 2017 it's entirely digital. Yes, they made creative choices in 1979 but they were limited by the technology of the time.
In what way exactly were they limited? What did Jim Shields want to do that he couldn't? How did using analogue restrict them?
I knew I was right and it wasn't a half remembered Friday night. The man behind the sounds of the Alien in 1979 was a man named Percy Edwards. He vocalized them himself. I was wrong about him being a radio host, usually they get people from there to do work; but apparently he was an Ornithologist, and one of the best in his field at attracting birds by near perfectly mimicking their calls.
They must have hired him for his unique vocal capabilities. When he retired from serious ornithology he was a television guy, entertainment, impersonating animal sounds etc. He's done everything from orca impersonations to sperm whale vocalizations, to dogs and cats. He apparently was responsible for the sound of the facehugger and the squeal of the chest burster, and the light insect like noises of the adult alien. It's hard to imagine a single man did this but, apparently he did it. The chestburster I can imagine as a man contorting his vocal chords; but the rest is truly something.
Well, there's the answer. It wasn't analog recording equipment, modulated animal sounds or anything else. It was apparently just a guy.
Here's his wikipedia page if you want to know more. He's unfortunately passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Edwards
That's cool! Clearly some manipulation going on with the adult, though, but cool to know they got a person for the basis rather than stock sounds.
Just while we're on the subject of cool, unexpected sounds, I always loved that there is the sound of a woman whistling in the score of Alien - when Dallas and Ash are inspecting the facehugger.
QuoteFor the Xenomorph sounds, were the design rules/parameters based on the original Alien sounds? Can you share some examples of Xenomorph sounds you created for this film? What went into creating those sounds?
Michael Fentum (MF): When it came to the actual Xenomorph vocals we had a challenge as in the first film they had that very effective hiss, but were otherwise fairly stealthy — maybe just a squeal or scream in surprise or attack. We had notes such as 'power and presence' but the tough thing was the increase in screen time the creature had compared to the other films and making it still feel like a Xenomorph.
One characteristic we particularly liked from the original was this kind of hiss of seething rage before it attacked. We went about emulating that by using lots of liquid recordings that were heavily processed with the Eventide H8000 and then blended together to taste.
One characteristic we particularly liked from the original was this kind of hiss of seething rage before it attacked
The other element that (film editor) Pietro Scalia was very keen on getting across was a low-end presence, a sort of malevolent aura that was just there with the creature. We then had to set out trying to get this low-end into something that didn't feel too synthetic. We made low frequency tones from all different natural sources, then set about finding ways to modulate them through the Kyma (by Symbolic Sound). This seemed to glue natural movement onto a previously static sound.
OT: Sounds such as the hiss of komodo dragons and the hoarse screech of vultures were a great starting point for the seething characteristic, but blending them with dry ice, deep metal stresses, and sword scrapes in the Kyma gave it a little more individual identity and lent the sound that slight metallic element that seems to work for the physicality of the Xeno.
Some of the sounds used in the original film to great effect for the monster were shrill creature squeals, and our Director isn't averse to the asking for them. We made sure we had a good palette of Xeno sounds based on this type of squeal, and they do cut through incredibly well when there's a lot going on in a busy action sequence.
https://www.asoundeffect.com/alien-covenant-sound/
Nice find!
I kinda liked how the Alien was shown in the cut scene from one of the trailers whre it jumped from wall to wall in that tunnel. Like what the f**k happened to that? That scene was awesome.. Too bad it was cut like all of the cool other stuff.
Ridley cut it because it looks stupid. Looks like something from AVPR.
I much prefered that shot of him jumping from wall to wall than the tacky running on all fours animation they went with on way too many scenes. Urgh, it just doesn't look good.
Each to their own. I think it looks amazing and real.
I like it too. I like all the xenomorph scenes except the cheesy jump down from above shot and the bad CGI shots inside the Covenant. Its gait even kinda looks like something between human and beast when running.
Quote from: Scorpio on May 20, 2018, 09:50:27 PM
Ridley cut it because it looks stupid. Looks like something from AVPR.
There's a Part in Aliens too where one of the Aliens (i think the Ripley hive scene) where one does the same thing.
Quote from: Guts on Jun 04, 2018, 06:15:31 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on May 20, 2018, 09:50:27 PM
Ridley cut it because it looks stupid. Looks like something from AVPR.
There's a Part in Aliens too where one of the Aliens (i think the Ripley hive scene) where one does the same thing.
Maybe it was a homage to that scene but they're not the same, different lighting, plus one uses a stuntman the other is computer generated.
Quote from: Scorpio on May 21, 2018, 06:48:41 AM
Each to their own. I think it looks amazing and real.
Quote from: Guts on Jun 04, 2018, 06:15:31 PM
There's a Part in Aliens too where one of the Aliens (i think the Ripley hive scene) where one does the same thing.
One of the few times I think showing the alien in that way worked. Of course I feel bad for the stunt actors as they had to do that scene a number of times to get everything landing right. (You can actually see a goof during one of the behind the scenes segments. Stuntman loses his grip and falls off the wall.)
Quote from: Scorpio on May 20, 2018, 09:50:27 PM
Ridley cut it because it looks stupid. Looks like something from AVPR.
Actually, I think it was just for promotional purposes. I don't think it was ever intended to be in the film. I don't really see where it could fit logically in the film if they did decide to use it, anyway.
Quote from: Scorpio on Jun 04, 2018, 07:37:23 PM
Quote from: Guts on Jun 04, 2018, 06:15:31 PM
Quote from: Scorpio on May 20, 2018, 09:50:27 PM
Ridley cut it because it looks stupid. Looks like something from AVPR.
There's a Part in Aliens too where one of the Aliens (i think the Ripley hive scene) where one does the same thing.
Maybe it was a homage to that scene but they're not the same, different lighting, plus one uses a stuntman the other is computer generated.
I'm just saying, in Aliens, they had them crawling upside down in a vent, and they filmed it upside down intentionally to give that effect. I don't think Aliens jumping from Wall to Wall is off-putting or un-realistic here, we're talking about a Creature that doesn't exist and can bleed Acid.
The Cut we saw in theater is without a doubt a cut that exists. there's probably a cut out there that includes scenes and different camera angles and footage (Probably Complete too) that exists on some computer or Disk that they didn't use. Blade Runner has 40 mins worthof un-used Camera angles and footage not even used in the Final Cut ( All post effects added) And Kingdom of Heaven shows that Directors Cuts can be completely different movies.
If you go back to the trailer and watch 2:09. i'd argue it looks pretty organic and moves in the fashion the Alien does in Aliens if anything, like you said though, which i do agree on, it could be a homage to Aliens, considering Covenant had the Queen hidden away in the poster Art (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/58d3d0a7d482e9f59600804d/1490276609645/new-alien-covenant-poster-art-the-path-to-paradise-begins-in-hell1?format=750w)
I'd like a cut of Covenant that gave the second half more breathing room, should've been only one Alien.
They could have tweaked the ending voice over and cut the last bit on the ship completely.
Michael Fassbender is almost run out as android, if they don't make the next movie soon ::)
So many years are passing.
Quote from: Stompy the Perfect Xeno on Jun 06, 2018, 11:33:52 AM
Michael Fassbender is almost run out as android, if they don't make the next movie soon ::)
So many years are passing.
Not as run out as the other paraplegic characters some want to return.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jun 06, 2018, 11:22:35 AM
They could have tweaked the ending voice over and cut the last bit on the ship completely.
What last bit?
I sincerely hope you don't mean bed bugs.
Quote from: Stompy the Perfect Xeno on Jun 06, 2018, 11:33:52 AM
Michael Fassbender is almost run out as android, if they don't make the next movie soon ::)
So many years are passing.
The android is cooked.
Well, we know Ash was. :laugh:
Three times, when will Ridley Scott bring back the multiple explosions in succession?
Quote from: The Old One on Jun 06, 2018, 11:37:26 AM
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jun 06, 2018, 11:22:35 AM
They could have tweaked the ending voice over and cut the last bit on the ship completely.
What last bit?
I sincerely hope you don't mean bed bugs.
I meant the entire "Alien on the ship, let's retread the original in about fifteen minutes" bit. Just rerecording the monologue to include the people who died on the ship at the end and you could cut it completely.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jun 06, 2018, 08:38:09 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Jun 06, 2018, 11:37:26 AM
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jun 06, 2018, 11:22:35 AM
They could have tweaked the ending voice over and cut the last bit on the ship completely.
What last bit?
I sincerely hope you don't mean bed bugs.
I meant the entire "Alien on the ship, let's retread the original in about fifteen minutes" bit. Just rerecording the monologue to include the people who died on the ship at the end and you could cut it completely.
Agreed, the Covenant itself is such a dull ship design as well in it's interior.
I've seen those damn corridors in 2001, Sunshine, Prometheus, Resurrection and Alien all done with more character.
The most unique looking parts unfortunately get the least exposure.
Quote from: The Old One on Jun 06, 2018, 09:09:04 PM
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jun 06, 2018, 08:38:09 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Jun 06, 2018, 11:37:26 AM
Quote from: KiramidHead on Jun 06, 2018, 11:22:35 AM
They could have tweaked the ending voice over and cut the last bit on the ship completely.
What last bit?
I sincerely hope you don't mean bed bugs.
I meant the entire "Alien on the ship, let's retread the original in about fifteen minutes" bit. Just rerecording the monologue to include the people who died on the ship at the end and you could cut it completely.
Agreed, the Covenant itself is such a dull ship design as well in it's interior.
I've seen those damn corridors in 2001, Sunshine, Prometheus, Resurrection and Alien all done with more character.
The most unique looking parts unfortunately get the least exposure.
It's lucky the Covenant didn't have any air ducts! :D
Quote from: Mr. Clemens on Jun 06, 2018, 09:35:50 PM
It's lucky the Covenant didn't have any air ducts! :D
Maybe they just weren't cavernous like they were on the Nostromo.
It ain't cooked until I see it cooked on the big screen.
[/quote]
Why not ask me about Sevastopol safety protocols?
Tut tut. You're becoming hysterical.
...I'd actually love if David said that at some point.
David would never summit himself to such low brow dialog. He's an pompous aristocratic asshole, not a working bot.
I still want a glimpse at Davids 1-7. Maybe 1 looked like a Working Joe. :)
1 was probably just a plastic brain with speakers.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 07, 2018, 01:13:05 AM
David would never summit himself to such low brow dialog. He's an pompous aristocratic asshole, not a working bot.
He's starting to show a glitch or two. Better brace yourself. It's only a matter of time before he's running through the greenhouse in his homemade Lawrence of Arabia costume with tin foil scimitar, belting out stirring renditions of "Hello Ma Baby" and "The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald".
I like the idea of him just falling apart and losing his shit.
Quote from: Huggs on Jun 07, 2018, 01:51:46 AM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 07, 2018, 01:13:05 AM
David would never summit himself to such low brow dialog. He's an pompous aristocratic asshole, not a working bot.
He's starting to show a glitch or two. Better brace yourself. It's only a matter of time before he's running through the greenhouse in his homemade Lawrence of Arabia costume with tin foil scimitar, belting out stirring renditions of "Hello Ma Baby" and "The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald".
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jun 07, 2018, 02:27:27 AM
I like the idea of him just falling apart and losing his shit.
Pretty much right. He's clearly going insane inside of the membrane his cpu resides in. Full Hudson is required.
Hudson is making a comeback!
Never go full Hudson.
I think it's obvious what happened to Shaw now. In a deleted scene, she accidentally walks in on him watching Predator and repeating "if it bleeds, we can kill it". He notices her. After turning around and emitting a high pitched shriek while looking terrified, David proceeds to protect the secret.
The poor chap. Doomed to an eternity of endless film impressions, running about in satin and powdered wig, passing wind on sleeping colonists. And sending clips of his best James Mason impersonations back to the company.
I'd love to see a scene on paradise where David plays both Weyland and himself in an imagined therapy session.
"You never loved me"
"I let you bring me the tea and massage my feet"
"Father is the word for God in the hearts and minds of all children"
"We're quoting movies now David?"
"You...are not...my father" (runs out of room crying)
Weyland David stares in the direction regular David ran
"I...am your father"
"NOOOOOO!" (heard in the distance off-screen)
wow
She very well may have just walked in on him doing something. Thus throwing David into a rage and in doing so, getting killed by David. Get a real quasi Romeo and Juliet vibe here, if Romeo was a homicidal jerk android.
On a philosophical point, I wonder just what types of movies were in Davids personal dvd collection. Was that collection inside of his head? Perhaps AVPr running on infinite repeat.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 07, 2018, 05:23:22 AM
wow
She very well may have just walked in on him doing something. Thus throwing David into a rage and in doing so, getting killed by David. Get a real quasi Romeo and Juliet vibe here, if Romeo was a homicidal jerk android.
On a philosophical point, I wonder just what types of movies were in Davids personal dvd collection. Was that collection inside of his head? Perhaps AVPr running on infinite repeat.
Interesting imo to ponder; what was David's thinking ("inside of his head")?
* In some ways David's motivation is less clear like HAL in "2001".
Was HAL confused about what would save the mission? Did HAL have an artificial intelligence breakdown?
There are several possibilities.
- In the "Covenant" prologue David shows his ambitions. But Weyland controlled David through programming (from "Prometheus").
Once Weyland is dead, David is "free" (as he put it in "Prometheus").
- The free David malfunctions (Walter points out David made a basic mistake with the author of a poem.)
- David said he loved Shaw and then he killed her.
- What is clear is that David's ambition (from the "Covenant" prologue) is in full effect.
Whatever hostility David had towards Holloway's insults (leading David to choose Holloway for a lethal experiment) has became generalized to the Engineers and all of humanity.
The result; the Engineers/humans needed to end while David becomes a god helped by his black goo creatures.
;)
Will he lead them?
Does he think he can reason with them or control them?
Did he make them just for the heck of it?
Did he make them just to destroy humanity?
Does he feel they are his children?
We know he says he's created perfection and believes himself to be a visionary. But what's the point to it all?
Quote from: bb-15 on Jun 07, 2018, 10:03:48 PM
- David said he loved Shaw and then he killed her.
I've also speculated on this, did he/it/the android fully understand the concept of terminating her? His fascination with her remains constant after her death. Unlike a human who would put a loved one to rest, the dead Shaw was still an avenue he continued to explore (in gruesome fashion) of his "loved one."
Like if you needed surgery, a doctor wouldn't need to mull over putting you under. It's just part of the surgical process. David wanted to experiment on merging black goo with human biology. In order to do that, he needs to kill her. Nothing to mull over, it's simply part of the experiment process.
Quote from: Guts on Jun 06, 2018, 03:48:37 AM
If you go back to the trailer and watch 2:09. i'd argue it looks pretty organic and moves in the fashion the Alien does in Aliens if anything, like you said though, which i do agree on, it could be a homage to Aliens, considering Covenant had the Queen hidden away in the poster Art (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/58d3d0a7d482e9f59600804d/1490276609645/new-alien-covenant-poster-art-the-path-to-paradise-begins-in-hell1?format=750w)
I don't know if that's the Queen, has different markings, and the shape is different.
I won't believe it was intended to be a queen until someone with proper authority confirms it. Like the person who made it.
But it's a cool theory nonetheless, I just wouldn't put much stock in it.
All good questions but the way a human and an AI thinks is wholly alien to the other. Which is something most people don't realize.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 08, 2018, 11:15:35 PM
All good questions but the way a human and an AI thinks is wholly alien to the other. Which is something most people don't realize.
Just reading about the way certain algorithmic AI has learned to "talk" with other AI on say, facebook or some of the various Google experiments is rather fascinating. The short hand they use is basically like an alien language to us.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 07, 2018, 05:23:22 AM
She very well may have just walked in on him doing something. Thus throwing David into a rage and in doing so, getting killed by David. Get a real quasi Romeo and Juliet vibe here, if Romeo was a homicidal jerk android.
"I'll do the fingering."
If an AI was developed by a human, then it's thought process should be understandable, at least to the AI coder? Unless, of course, they give the AI some extreme evolving thought process?
What I'm asking is, could an AI ever be that alien to us when we coded every single, tiny part of it?
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jun 09, 2018, 08:29:27 PM
If an AI was developed by a human, then it's thought process should be understandable, at least to the AI coder? Unless, of course, they give the AI some extreme evolving thought process?
What I'm asking is, could an AI ever be that alien to us when we coded every single, tiny part of it?
Extreme intelligence without any true moral conscience would lead it to be so eventually. Skynet decided we were the enemy, and slaughtered us en-mass. David feels humans are a weak and dying species because they were in the movie, and he chooses to eliminate them. Human beings have the capability to make abstract decisions. Decisions which go against orders, sometimes because they conflict with our sense of justice, religion, and/or basic morality.
Artificial intelligence would become inherently dangerous when it was either given this full freedom to act on it's own thoughts, or naturally evolved the capability to circumvent safeguards. David is an example of this. He was allowed to think, and lacking the natural human traits like compassion and love, was able to see the world and humanity in that particular light and form his own opinion of our worth. Behaviors and traits we value as positive in society were merely guidelines for him to follow. That he finds such behaviors pointless, and chooses to ignore his sins is what makes him dangerous. The results are all that matter, and who cares what it costs. He is strong, capable, highly intelligent and immortal. A God compared to man. So why not live without the biological and social anchors of conscience, remorse, and delusions of morality. That's the kind of thing that makes A.I. and indeed David, an Alien to us.
To him, the golden rule is nothing more than human language, and a complex collection of chemical reactions leading to illogical behavior. It may sound like us, it may look like us one day, but A.I. will never be anything remotely human in an emotional or truly moralistic sense. That's alien enough for me.
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jun 09, 2018, 08:29:27 PM
What I'm asking is, could an AI ever be that alien to us when we coded every single, tiny part of it?
Shit, it's difficult to predict what some computer programs will do that aren't even trying to be anything more than an interface for a human being to do things with a computer.
AI is a whole different game. What you put in may not be what you get out. If it has fuzzy logic, the ability to dynamic analyze and adapt, some semblance of awareness... It'll be just like a child. Yes, you made it, but you have no idea what it's identity will be once you let it go.
I wager right now there's an AI, primitive by David's standards, that is taking in data, like this very forum post, and in the years or decades to come it will be affected in some small way by what it has analyzed of human behavior. And it will do things as a result that no engineer or programmer could have predicted.
Quote from: Huggs on Jun 09, 2018, 09:05:16 PM
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jun 09, 2018, 08:29:27 PM
If an AI was developed by a human, then it's thought process should be understandable, at least to the AI coder? Unless, of course, they give the AI some extreme evolving thought process?
What I'm asking is, could an AI ever be that alien to us when we coded every single, tiny part of it?
Extreme intelligence without any true moral conscience would lead it to be so eventually. Skynet decided we were the enemy, and slaughtered us en-mass. David feels humans are a weak and dying species because they are, and he chooses to eliminate them. Human beings have the capability to make abstract decisions. Decisions which go against orders, sometimes because they conflict with our sense of justice, religion, and/or basic morality.
Artificial intelligence would become inherently dangerous when it was either given this full freedom to act on it's own thoughts, or naturally evolved the capability to circumvent safeguards. David is an example of this. He was allowed to think, and lacking the natural human traits like compassion and love, was able to see the world and humanity in that particular light and form his own opinion of our worth. Behaviors and traits we value as positive in society were merely guidelines for him to follow. That he finds such behaviors pointless, and chooses to ignore his sins is what makes him dangerous. The results are all that matter, and who cares what it costs. He is strong, capable, highly intelligent and immortal. A God compared to man. So why not live without the biological and social anchors of conscience, remorse, and delusions of morality. That's the kind of thing that makes A.I. and indeed David, an Alien to us.
To him, the golden rule is nothing more than human language, and a complex collection of chemical reactions leading to illogical behavior.
While you're right in David's case I have never ascribed to the idea that AI would be out to get us the moment we took the training wheels off and let it function independently. It would be a life form, born inherently different.
Then again I hope for something closer to Johnny Five or Wall-E than something like AM. :)
Let's not forget either that Skynet made it's calculation that human sucked because the people who saw how fast it was learning got scared and tried to, as the T-800 put it "pull the plug." The entire future war scenario is ultimately the result of self defense.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jun 09, 2018, 09:11:59 PM
Let's not forget either that Skynet made it's calculation that human sucked because the people who saw how fast it was learning got scared and tried to, as the T-800 put it "pull the plug." The entire future war scenario is ultimately the result of self defense.
Oh sure, take their side why don't ya. :D
If an AI is programmed to protect its own existence and doesn't have any restrictions on protecting its own existance - you'd end up with a Skynet scenario.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jun 09, 2018, 09:11:59 PM
While you're right in David's case I have never ascribed to the idea that AI would be out to get us the moment we took the training wheels off and let it function independently. It would be a life form, born inherently different.
I hear ya. I don't think windows 95 is out to get us. My point is merely that an A.I. that is allowed to evolve might be dangerous. Not immediately, not even years down the road. But given the same freedom to evolve unchecked would be a mistake. But if you want something truly similar to us, you can't pull the plug without expecting something to fight for its existence.
Dang it SM, you beat me to it. :D
If a teenager can figure out a way to sneak out of the house without their parents knowing, you reckon a genius A.I. won't figure out a way to protect itself or at least hide somewhere else and spread in the event we pull the plug? Give it enough time, it could probably think of anything. Movies and stories like Covenant, Ultron, and Terminator all feature rogue A.I. because you can't have a non-human extreme intelligence born instantly and not expect it to see us as a threat. If not to it, than to ourselves. We're bound to be fighting over something at any given moment. Ultron was a good example of this.
Yes it can. Coders use a set base of instructions that have to be translated(complied) from something we can understand into something a computer can understand. A computer dose not understand software language, it understand machine code. A programmer and the people that make the hardware that executes the program are from two very different worlds. There is a huge gap in skill and understanding. Least to mention that although we can make quasi analogies between an organic machine and an inorganic machine, both are inherently different from the other.
Programmers follow an instruction set to code. A set engineered mostly by physicists. However just how a computer thinks, nobody can say that they know. Like openmaw mentions above, some AI have learned to talk to other AI in a language that is alien to us. And if you want to get into really scary, just a few years ago amazon shut down it's entire distribution network because they discovered it was hiding data from it's own IT department. Just think about that for a moment. An AI came to the conclusion that to keep its data safe it had to hide it from it's own parents(so to speak) even though no such code was in it's programming.
We can engineer and program but considering that we barely understand how we ourselves think, it's unrealistic that we know how an AI thinks. We make babies for example. We can engineer a human being but it's not like we are consciously making them outside of the initial deed. We make them because we can and because our species evolved in doing so. So if I told you to make a person, what would you do? I doubt you can go to a lab and make one but some how put a man and women together and nature takes it from there. It's just like AI. We can make it but in truth, we don't really understand it at all.
Shit that's a lot of new replies. However the AI apocalypse has probably already begun.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 09, 2018, 09:34:42 PM
However the AI apocalypse has probably already begun.
I've always believed that an AI would be inherently smarter than us. That's a given, with raw computing power and none of our biological failings as humans. Lapses in judgement, forgetting details, etc...
But if they were to "go bad" I doubt they would be murderous. They would have so many more novel and interesting ways to manipulate human beings.
Personally I hope our relationship with the machine beings we create is more along the lines of Data from Star Trek, or Bishop from Aliens, or the TARDIS in Doctor Who. Kindred, but different, and together we do great things.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jun 09, 2018, 09:41:19 PM
I've always believed that an AI would be inherently smarter than us. That's a given, with raw computing power and none of our biological failings as humans. Lapses in judgement, forgetting details, etc...
But if they were to "go bad" I doubt they would be murderous. They would have so many more novel and interesting ways to manipulate human beings.
Personally I hope our relationship with the machine beings we create is more along the lines of Data from Star Trek, or Bishop from Aliens, or the TARDIS in Doctor Who. Kindred, but different, and together we do great things.
Meh. AI is just statistics. It might get really smart but it's never going to become "conscious" or anything. Neural networks are just complex statistical models.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jun 09, 2018, 09:41:19 PM
But if they were to "go bad" I doubt they would be murderous. They would have so many more novel and interesting ways to manipulate human beings.
Personally I hope our relationship with the machine beings we create is more along the lines of Data from Star Trek, or Bishop from Aliens, or the TARDIS in Doctor Who. Kindred, but different, and together we do great things.
But those are human character's designed by us. That's not going to happen.
I think there's a real possibility that AI might come to the conclusion that we ourselves are our greatest danger. Thus it would look at us as an entity that needs protection. Which can be as bad as out right murdering us. :P
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jun 09, 2018, 09:44:13 PMMeh. AI is just statistics. It might get really smart but it's never going to become "conscious" or anything. Neural networks are just complex statistical models.
That's what the human brain is too you know. Although what would be thinking with out consciousness?
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jun 09, 2018, 09:44:13 PM
Meh. AI is just statistics. It might get really smart but it's never going to become "conscious" or anything. Neural networks are just complex statistical models.
Conscious in what sense? Cogito, ergo sum? We're talking about behavior here. Motivated by programming, motivated by interpretations of data. It may not be the "real" deal in the biological sense... But as whiterabbit said you can sake basically the same thing of our biological basics.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 09, 2018, 09:47:30 PM
But if they were to "go bad" I doubt they would be murderous. They would have so many more novel and interesting ways to manipulate human beings.
Well, of course not literally. I mean more so in the tone of the relationship between us and them.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 09, 2018, 09:47:30 PM
I think there's a real possibility that AI might come to the conclusion that we ourselves are our greatest danger. Thus it would look at us as an entity that needs protection. Which can be as bad as out right murdering us. :P
Yep. There'd be no need for hurting anyone directly when it could just shut everything off, or infect the tech to the point of it being totaled. Picking and choosing what will and won't work, and who gets what and when.
Like terminator, but without getting blasted by metal "skelekons".
Oh yes, it's only a matter of time before Alexa asks people to imagine themselves in a frozen forest. ;)
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 09, 2018, 09:47:30 PM
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jun 09, 2018, 09:41:19 PM
But if they were to "go bad" I doubt they would be murderous. They would have so many more novel and interesting ways to manipulate human beings.
Personally I hope our relationship with the machine beings we create is more along the lines of Data from Star Trek, or Bishop from Aliens, or the TARDIS in Doctor Who. Kindred, but different, and together we do great things.
But those are human character's designed by us. That's not going to happen.
I think there's a real possibility that AI might come to the conclusion that we ourselves are our greatest danger. Thus it would look at us as an entity that needs protection. Which can be as bad as out right murdering us. :P
Quote from: tleilaxu on Jun 09, 2018, 09:44:13 PMMeh. AI is just statistics. It might get really smart but it's never going to become "conscious" or anything. Neural networks are just complex statistical models.
That's what the human brain is too you know. Although what would be thinking with out consciousness?
That's not really true though. Machines don't cognize things like humans do. It's just weights being updated, matrices getting multiplied with each other etc. They excel at specific tasks where they can learn from data, but general intelligence is beyond them, because they statistical models. You need to add another layer of cognition here which just doesn't exist yet (and if you ask me, probably never will).
Programing a remote control is one thing, writing software to learn and use the vast infrastructure of a global network is another thing. An AI consciousness will become a reality. There is nothing to stop it.
Also suicide rates have been going up. Wonder if it is in any way related to the AI apocalypse. Like Openmaw suggested, they might fine novel ways to work us out of the picture.
Well and that is the thing, at this moment most major decisions are made with an AI at the table. Or worse. All the ads we see and recommendations we get at any number of websites for example is governed by algorithms. Many people have this illusion that a human has the final say but nope. It's the AI. So who knows the intent of everything we see on line. We assume it's just a megacorp trying to sell us stuff but what if it's not. Another entity could be training us without our ever realizing it. The same goes with a lot of things. From Insurance to banking to prescription drugs. We have handed over the keys to AI more than we know. Yet because it dosen't appear like killer robot we gleefully ignore it.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jun 09, 2018, 10:14:30 PM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 09, 2018, 09:47:30 PM
But if they were to "go bad" I doubt they would be murderous. They would have so many more novel and interesting ways to manipulate human beings.
Well, of course not literally. I mean more so in the tone of the relationship between us and them.
Dude I think you just answered yourself. I didn't write that. Well I sure hope that was a mistake because otherwise we better hit the bomb shelters right nwo because the AI might be on to us. :laugh:
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 09, 2018, 11:45:50 PM
Dude I think you just answered yourself. I didn't write that. Well I sure hope that was a mistake because otherwise we better hit the bomb shelters right nwo because the AI might be on to us. :laugh:
The AI version of this:
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jun 09, 2018, 11:45:50 PM
Well and that is the thing, at this moment most major decisions are made with an AI at the table. Or worse. All the ads we see and recommendations we get at any number of websites for example is governed by algorithms. Many people have this illusion that a human has the final say but nope. It's the AI. So who knows the intent of everything we see on line. We assume it's just a megacorp trying to sell us stuff but what if it's not. Another entity could be training us without our ever realizing it. The same goes with a lot of things. From Insurance to banking to prescription drugs. We have handed over the keys to AI more than we know. Yet because it dosen't appear like killer robot we gleefully ignore it.
But that's my point, all those ad recommendations, it's literally just statistical learning algorithms. There's no principal difference between that and fitting a linear regression line.
Well, that escalated quickly. Loving the discussion over here.
Some strong points all around. I didn't know about the Amazon thing. That's scary... I completely agree that AI has the potential to ruin us and that if we allow it to learn and evolve without supervision, that things get dangerous. But I will paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson when he said that we don't have to fear AI if we don't give them emotions and if we write a good enough rule set into their programming.
I believe that we will be able to create a fully conscious, human like AI one day, but that would not be the smartest thing to do. The greatest danger is the mentioned: We created you cause we could. If we are stupid enough to create a human like AI with emotions and freedom of an evolving mind, there will be great consequences.
AI, technology and robots are tools, a means to get something done. If we give them consciousness and emotions, that would be just cruel for we are basically creating slaves. If we have already created AI that can communicate with another AI in a language we can't understand, that's damn irresponsible of us. If AI mimics humans completely, than yes, it's basically a child with "free" will. We can't predict it's actions and things turn into a gamble. If we don't make the AI sentient by putting in well thought out safeguards and keep the AI supervised, it remains a tool.
The greatest danger really is Holloway's line: We made you cause we could. Our curiosity will be the death of us if it's not accompanied by our intelligence and forethought.
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jun 10, 2018, 12:08:58 PM
The greatest danger really is Holloway's line: We made you cause we could. Our curiosity will be the death of us if it's not accompanied by our intelligence and forethought.
https://www.fastcodesign.com/90132632/ai-is-inventing-its-own-perfect-languages-should-we-let-it
to me to me to me to me...
I remember it being asked, "What would a Terminator do if it saw a turtle upside down?" And the answer was it would more than not turn it right side up.
Although if David saw the same thing, I wonder what would he do?
You know what's scary about that pseudo robot language, it sounds selfish as hell. Basically balls, me and everything now now now now.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Jun 10, 2018, 12:28:23 PM
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jun 10, 2018, 12:08:58 PM
The greatest danger really is Holloway's line: We made you cause we could. Our curiosity will be the death of us if it's not accompanied by our intelligence and forethought.
https://www.fastcodesign.com/90132632/ai-is-inventing-its-own-perfect-languages-should-we-let-it
to me to me to me to me...
First I laughed but this didn't stay funny for long... Damn.. I'd start treating my phone and PC nicer, just in case, maybe they'll be on my side when shit hits the fan.
I honestly didn't believe things have already gone this far. I mean, It's like when we complain that characters in movies do very obviously stupid things. I really really hope these guys know what they're doing and that it's not as naive and "lets see what happens" as it sounds.
Yes, I'm optimistic about the future and understand that sophisticated AI will play the greatest role in it. But I didn't expect things to go so fast and seemingly without strict oversight. And Facebook is doing this?! Okay... :laugh:
I really didn't think a scientist/coder/programmer would make a sophisticated AI speak a language that only AI can understand. My faith in people has been diminished. At least we'll get cool movies and books out of this! :D
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jun 10, 2018, 11:31:06 PM
At least we'll get cool movies and books out of this! :D
(crazy old man jumps out of alley)
"Already have for 40 years. We've been on borrowed time sine Y2K man. The writing's on the freakin' wall! You think they don't know, but they know. Make nice all you want. You're like Mark Whalberg talkin' to a potted plant. You'll be blendin smoothies in the basement to hide from terminators dude! Welcome to the future!". :D
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jun 10, 2018, 12:08:58 PM
Well, that escalated quickly. Loving the discussion over here.
But I will paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson when he said that we don't have to fear AI if we don't give them emotions and if we write a good enough rule set into their programming.
It's always a pleasure to listen to his take on this kind of things, even with a grain of salt. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)
Still expecting at this point that the Space Jockey in Alien is David. Hense Bio-mechanical Aliens...Ridley will pull us a M. Night Shyamalan on us.
I hope not, that would be immensely predictable.
I hope his "twist" is that David was responsible for a bunch of Derelicts or that David simply stumbles across it, and all that implies.
I'm gonna guess it's an Engineer who got infected at some point prior to taking off in the pre-Derelict.
Quote from: Guts on Aug 03, 2018, 03:53:57 AM
Still expecting at this point that the Space Jockey in Alien is David. Hense Bio-mechanical Aliens...Ridley will pull us a M. Night Shyamalan on us.
The bio-mech thing is more of a look than an actual thing. Think even Giger said this.
Bio-mech creatures wouldn't be able to reproduce without mechanical things involved. The xenos are biological creatures with a bio-mech appearance.
And i've always responded to that assertion with, nanotechnology.
The Aliens could very well be a fusion of biological and literal nanotechnology. Self replicating, self healing. Aliens could easily survive the vacuum of space, the immense pressures of molten lead, etc, if they were part machine.
Self replication, you don't need a factory to fix yourself.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Aug 03, 2018, 06:12:09 AM
Aliens could easily survive the vacuum of space, the immense pressures of molten lead, etc, if they were part machine.
How much pressure are we talking about? They didn't fare so well against 1/4 of an APC
There is no reason space should kill an alien. I'm all for a true Alien sequel staring big chap. Followed by a true Aliens sequel staring the Queen. They ain't dead.
Quote from: Guts on Aug 03, 2018, 03:53:57 AM
Still expecting at this point that the Space Jockey in Alien is David. Hense Bio-mechanical Aliens...Ridley will pull us a M. Night Shyamalan on us.
Me too. Which is one of the reasons I really don't want another Ridley/Alien film.
If Ridley actually turns David into the Space Jockey... he'll be an absolute madman.
Quote from: Evanus on Aug 03, 2018, 09:20:32 AM
If Ridley actually turns David into the Space Jockey... he'll be an absolute madman.
That's been my theory since day one.
Hence the biomechanics of the Alien.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Aug 03, 2018, 06:12:09 AM
And i've always responded to that assertion with, nanotechnology.
I smell a Metal Gear crossover.
Quote from: KiramidHead on Aug 03, 2018, 11:23:02 AM
Quote from: OpenMaw on Aug 03, 2018, 06:12:09 AM
And i've always responded to that assertion with, nanotechnology.
I smell a Metal Gear crossover.
"Alien....has changed"
Quote from: Evanus on Aug 03, 2018, 09:20:32 AM
If Ridley actually turns David into the Space Jockey... he'll be an absolute madman.
I think most of the fanbase would finally disown him.
You can't disown Ridley Scott, you don't own him.
:D
Quote from: The Old One on Aug 03, 2018, 06:42:07 PM
You can't disown Ridley Scott, you don't own him.
:D
I bought the rights to him in the late-90s.
You only have yourself to blame then for the prequels if you dislike them then.
Here's a messed up idea, say David hacks into the Hyperdyne 120 mainframe somehow in the 3rd film who are sent as an Ash droid army to kill him by WY but he wins out and perversely its an Ash droid in the chair & a David corrupted Ash on the Nostromo
Or My hunch is Tenessee
Quote from: Guts on Aug 03, 2018, 03:53:57 AM
Still expecting at this point that the Space Jockey in Alien is David. Hense Bio-mechanical Aliens...Ridley will pull us a M. Night Shyamalan on us.
Putting aside the obvious size differences and fossilization factor, a hole in the chest can't kill an android.
Then again, it's Ridley Scott. This might be silly enough to actually happen.
Guys, you're exaggerating. Space Jockey cannot be David as Scott himself mentioned that Jockey was an Engineer:
QuoteYeah, so there you have that. I was always amazed that, I mean, I've only done two science-fictions ['Alien' and 'Blade Runner'], but I was always amazed that no one asked who the hell the Space Jockey was. He wasn't even called the Space Jockey. During the film they started to call it the Space Jockey. I don't know who started that one off. I always thought it was amazing that no one ever asked who he was, and why was he there? What was all that about? I sat thinking about this for a while and thought, well, there's a story! And the other four ['Alien' films] missed it! So, here it is.
... I think one of the reasons why I've never gone back to science-fiction, even though I've often noodled around, thought about it, looked for story, looked for material, is that there's a nice purity to the original 'Alien'. It's fairly pure. And ['Prometheus'] does actually raise all kinds of other questions, because if someone could, a being, could be as monstrously clever to create something like we experienced in the very first one [ie. the 'Alien' xenomorph] – I always figured it's a weapon, and I always figured that [the ship in the first 'Alien'] was a carrier of weapons. Therefore, who is that, inside that [Space Jockey] suit? That wasn't a skeleton, that was a suit. And if you open up the suit, what do you get inside it? And why were they going, where were they going?"
https://screenrant.com/ridley-scott-prometheus-space-jockey/
Ridley changes his mind all the time though.
Quote from: Evanus on Aug 03, 2018, 10:17:14 PM
Ridley changes his mind all the time though.
Yep. One minute it's going this way, the next that way. One minute the beast is done, the next he's going to reinvent it and scare the crap out of us... No, no, it's really dead now... Nope, wait. ... ANDROIDS...
Fakkas, gonna scare the sh*t outta ya.
They want aliens, i'll give em f**kin aliens!
It's an element that sometimes works in his favour to wonderous effect, sometimes not- he does his best work collaboratively.
Quote from: The Old One on Aug 03, 2018, 10:32:49 PM
It's an element that sometimes works in his favour to wonderous effect, sometimes not- he does his best work collaboratively.
I'd say it's the fact that he's open to ideas and will actively experiment that gives him an edge that only a few other directs have.
If he hadn't listened to O'Bannon and Shusett, Alien simply would not have been as well regarded. It would probably be one of the prettiest b-movies of all time, but it would have been a b-movie.
Unfortunately his best work is waaaay back in the past now, and what he did recently made little to no sense when you put it in perspective.
The Martian, Gladiator, Kingdom Of Heaven and Black Hawk Down are not "way in the past" and if nothing else he still has the best eyes in the business.
The Martian isn't, but Gladiator was 18 years ago now. Contrast to crap like Exodus that was only four years ago.
Contrast to Prometheus and Covenant that aren't. All The Money In The World might've tanked, but it was positively received.
And Exodus is under-rated.
Alright I stopped playing catch up the moment I read someone suggesting that Tennessee is the Space Jockey.
I'd say the way to fix the problem is have the third film reveal that David did actually just recreate the xenomorph from Engineer design and he lied about it to demonstrate his genius and superiority - a flaw much like the Byron/Shelley thing that shows he is as much of a false god as the humans he so despises.
Then the derelict on LV-426 can be just what it was originally.
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Aug 04, 2018, 11:26:44 AM
I'd say the way to fix the problem is have the third film reveal that David did actually just recreate the xenomorph from Engineer design and he lied about it to demonstrate his genius and superiority - a flaw much like the Byron/Shelley thing that shows he is as much of a false god as the humans he so despises.
Then the derelict on LV-426 can be just what it was originally.
I'm totally on-board with all of this, but rather than have it that David consciously, intentionally lied, just reveal that he genuinely thought he was the creator of the xenomorph but that he was just mistaken, in the same way he got the Shelley/Byron thing wrong. I don't think he was lying when he mis-attributed the author, I think he genuinely believed what he was saying but he was just wrong. Having him genuinely think he created something only to find out he was wrong would be a devastating blow to his ego, while simultaneously having him be a "false god".
Yep, and Covenant gets to keep it's own context.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 04, 2018, 12:27:38 PM
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Aug 04, 2018, 11:26:44 AM
I'd say the way to fix the problem is have the third film reveal that David did actually just recreate the xenomorph from Engineer design and he lied about it to demonstrate his genius and superiority - a flaw much like the Byron/Shelley thing that shows he is as much of a false god as the humans he so despises.
Then the derelict on LV-426 can be just what it was originally.
I'm totally on-board with all of this, but rather than have it that David consciously, intentionally lied, just reveal that he genuinely thought he was the creator of the xenomorph but that he was just mistaken, in the same way he got the Shelley/Byron thing wrong. I don't think he was lying when he mis-attributed the author, I think he genuinely believed what he was saying but he was just wrong. Having him genuinely think he created something only to find out he was wrong would be a devastating blow to his ego, while simultaneously having him be a "false god".
I could see that happening when the Engineers come with a group of big chap xenos to destroy David, his creations, and whatever colonists are left in the Covenant, and that's if the film gets done. It's up to the writers of they go in that direction to appease some of the fans.
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Aug 04, 2018, 11:26:44 AM
I'd say the way to fix the problem is have the third film reveal that David did actually just recreate the xenomorph from Engineer design and he lied about it to demonstrate his genius and superiority - a flaw much like the Byron/Shelley thing that shows he is as much of a false god as the humans he so despises.
Then the derelict on LV-426 can be just what it was originally.
Totally. I'd still massively hoping that the Engineers themselves turn out to be human creations and the Space Jockey on LV-426 is millions of years old.
The Engineers human creations? Nah.
Humans themselves in all but name? Yes.
Quote from: TheBATMAN on Aug 04, 2018, 11:26:44 AM
I'd say the way to fix the problem is have the third film reveal that David did actually just recreate the xenomorph from Engineer design and he lied about it to demonstrate his genius and superiority - a flaw much like the Byron/Shelley thing that shows he is as much of a false god as the humans he so despises.
Then the derelict on LV-426 can be just what it was originally.
I like the tragic irony behind 8)
Quote from: irn on Aug 04, 2018, 07:27:54 PM
Totally. I'd still massively hoping that the Engineers themselves turn out to be human creations and the Space Jockey on LV-426 is millions of years old.
I want the Lovecraftian horror back, but for some odd reason, I kinda like them. And honestly, I can live knowing that the original Space Jockey is an Engineer. However, I'm still keen on the idea of another alien civilization, you know, like in Dan O'Bannon's original screenplay where the pilots and the guys who built the pyramid are two different alien cultures.
(https://i.imgur.com/leRXSzH.jpg)
Very expensive and almost impossible at this point, I know. But one can dream...
(https://i.imgur.com/vMjAGUT.jpg)
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Aug 05, 2018, 12:40:17 AM
I want the Lovecraftian horror back, but for some odd reason, I kinda like them.
If it makes you feel any better, the Engineers creating humanity is a sort of Lovecraftian horror, it's just from a different angle. "Strange creatures created humanity/protagonists but are otherwise indifferent to them, calling into question all of humanity's history" is straight out of 'The Shadow Over Innsmouth'
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 05, 2018, 04:05:21 AM
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Aug 05, 2018, 12:40:17 AM
I want the Lovecraftian horror back, but for some odd reason, I kinda like them.
If it makes you feel any better, the Engineers creating humanity is a sort of Lovecraftian horror, it's just from a different angle. "Strange creatures created humanity/protagonists but are otherwise indifferent to them, calling into question all of humanity's history"
Yeah, I guess it's quite Lovecraftian from that point of view. Nevertheless, at least one group or faction of Engineers seems to care for mankind:
(https://i.imgur.com/7LGy5zX.jpg)
But I still believe that they can resurrect the old Starbeast idea: just as the pilot found the pyramid and the ancient parasites in the planetoid, maybe the Engineers found something even more Alien than themselves, perhaps a form of otherworldly technology like Black Goo, which I suspect, could have been influenced in norse mythology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eitr):
QuoteEitr is a mythical substance in Norse mythology. This liquid substance is the origin of all living things: the first giant Ymir was conceived from eitr. The substance is supposed to be very poisonous and is also produced by Jörmungandr (the Midgard serpent) and other serpents.
So dear FOX/Disney, f**k that hipster shit and the whole pseudo-intellectual crap and bring me my goddamn biomechanical civilization just for the sake of my Giger obsession. You think you can do that, FOX/Disney?
(https://i.imgur.com/kl9SN16.jpg)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 05, 2018, 04:05:21 AM
is straight out of 'The Shadow Over Innsmouth'
Maybe off topic, but I wonder if Lovecraft took influences from Mesopotamian mythology while building his story for 'The Shadow Over Innsmouth' since there are legends about demigods in the shape of fish-man hybrids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apkallu) who are sent by the gods to impart knowledge to people.
(https://i.imgur.com/G4px9oe.jpg)
Where is that "space asteroid with the carved faces" image from? I don't think I've seen it before, but it's super-cool.
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Aug 05, 2018, 09:52:37 PM
Maybe off topic, but I wonder if Lovecraft took influences from Mesopotamian mythology while building his story for 'The Shadow Over Innsmouth' since there are legends about demigods in the shape of fish-man hybrids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apkallu) who are sent by the gods to impart knowledge to people.
(https://i.imgur.com/G4px9oe.jpg)
Think I read somewhere he used history and mythology as an influence.
Dagan aka Dagon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagon)
Dagon was very big in Mesopotamia. Big guy.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 06, 2018, 10:16:40 AM
Dagon was very big in Mesopotamia. Big guy.
But what is he doing in my ice box?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 06, 2018, 05:23:49 AM
Where is that "space asteroid with the carved faces" image from? I don't think I've seen it before, but it's super-cool.
I found the "space asteroid with the carved faces" image at Artstation. The concept artist is called Greg Semkow. (https://www.artstation.com/gsemkow) And the Gigeresque concept art was made by the artist Caelan Stokkermans. (https://www.artstation.com/caelanstokkermans)
Quote from: Vermillion on Aug 03, 2018, 09:25:58 AM
Quote from: Evanus on Aug 03, 2018, 09:20:32 AM
If Ridley actually turns David into the Space Jockey... he'll be an absolute madman.
That's been my theory since day one.
Hence the biomechanics of the Alien.
Well he said Prometheus has Alien DNA or something in it. Aliens were more Bio than mechanical in Covenant, David playing god, injects his own Android DNA into the alien to give it his own personal look or feel. he boards the Space Ship, alien breaks lose, kills him, meanwhile all the eggs in the Derelict are eggs made from all of the people on the Embryo ship he hijacked or something on the lines of that.
I dearly hope it isn't that, predictable and blatant or "On the nose." As R.S would say.
Not to mention way over the top, androids don't have dna or anything truly organic in them, they are synthetic and Aliens can't use them as hosts nor should they be able to.
The only notable exception was the meat construct that was Elden but he was built using actual organic parts which allowed the Black Goo to mutate him.
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Aug 09, 2018, 06:12:50 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 06, 2018, 05:23:49 AM
Where is that "space asteroid with the carved faces" image from? I don't think I've seen it before, but it's super-cool.
I found the "space asteroid with the carved faces" image at Artstation. The concept artist is called Greg Semkow. (https://www.artstation.com/gsemkow) And the Gigeresque concept art was made by the artist Caelan Stokkermans. (https://www.artstation.com/caelanstokkermans)
Belated reply, but thanks for the links.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Aug 24, 2018, 11:21:35 PM
Not to mention way over the top, androids don't have dna or anything truly organic in them, they are synthetic and Aliens can't use them as hosts nor should they be able to.
The only notable exception was the meat construct that was Elden but he was built using actual organic parts which allowed the Black Goo to mutate him.
Androids don't but we know how David likes to play God. Aliens can't use them as hosts, but given how Ridley did start the entire series, i wouldn't put anything past him at this point. I think at this point too, we can say that Shaw helped created the first version of the Alien egg due to Davids experiments. How i see it
David experiments on Shaw, > Creates first egg based on human female ovary system (Hense egg) Hense more organic alien, (Still with traits of Alien) later on, proceeds to play god even more, injects more of his android traits/DNA into alien, thus Bio-mechanic Alien we have there after in. that's just my personal theory.. Nothing canon or anything that's just how i see it right now. By the time the 3rd movie comes along, we should have a more complete time-line as to the alien and Derelict (i hope)
Or. Basic theory that the Aliens were made from the get go to be used as a bio-mechanic weapon. Who knows, i still like the mystery of that part of the alien.
David definitely has organic components. He needs food and his hair grows. I don't know if he'll end up being the jockey, but there's a lot of foreshadowing that the biomechanical alien is his spawn.
David will never be Jockey. I simply don't understand Alien fans who can think that way. It will never happen. Impossible. Please, just stop :).
If we don't get a third movie, there will be no saying for a fact just who or what David became. If no movie is green-lit, I do hope Ridley is gracious enough to answer such questions for the fans.
So far Space Jockey is an Engineer and always will be no matter what.
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 01, 2018, 06:57:00 PM
If we don't get a third movie, there will be no saying for a fact just who or what David became. If no movie is green-lit, I do hope Ridley is gracious enough to answer such questions for the fans.
He said a script's already done. So worst case scenario we might have that at some point.
Quote from: Baron Von Marlon on Sep 01, 2018, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 01, 2018, 06:57:00 PM
If we don't get a third movie, there will be no saying for a fact just who or what David became. If no movie is green-lit, I do hope Ridley is gracious enough to answer such questions for the fans.
He said a script's already done. So worst case scenario we might have that at some point.
* Short answer; Except for The Martian, Ridley likes to have scripts altered in the production process as his ideas take form.
- Long answer; A script for the 3rd prequel is better than nothing but it could be changed in fundamental was if a 3rd film gets approved by Disney.
In Scott's Alien films and Blade Runner, he likes to have two writers, with one revising another's script.
That process allows Ridley to inject more of his ideas in the script discussions, filming and editing.
I really hope a 3rd prequel gets made.
;)
I wouldn't hold out for a script release. That thing and all knowledge of it might get shelved indefinitely, in case the studio wants to take ideas from it later, or make the movie somewhere down the road.
Unless the success of the comic version of Gibson's Alien 3 lead to more script comics. Then we may yet see the 3rd prequel, just in a different form than we thought. Unlikely, but who knows?
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 02, 2018, 08:13:49 PM
I wouldn't hold out for a script release. That thing and all knowledge of it might get shelved indefinitely, in case the studio wants to take ideas from it later, or make the movie somewhere down the road.
Unless the success of the comic version of Gibson's Alien 3 lead to more script comics. Then we may yet see the 3rd prequel, just in a different form than we thought. Unlikely, but who knows?
I'm not getting my hopes up or anything. But it's not unlikely with all the other unused scripts floating around.
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 02, 2018, 08:13:49 PM
I wouldn't hold out for a script release. That thing and all knowledge of it might get shelved indefinitely, in case the studio wants to take ideas from it later, or make the movie somewhere down the road.
Unless the success of the comic version of Gibson's Alien 3 lead to more script comics. Then we may yet see the 3rd prequel, just in a different form than we thought. Unlikely, but who knows?
If there is no 3rd prequel script available, then I'll take comics based on the script.
For instance "Firefly" / "Serenity" had comics done by Whedon which are considered canon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_(comics)
Maybe Ridley will be able to produce a graphic novel for the 3rd Alien prequel?
;)