Scott: I think the Beast is almost run out, personally.

[SuicideDoors]

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.

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) 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.

[SM]

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.

[reecebomb]

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.

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) 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

[SuicideDoors]

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.

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.

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) 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!

[tleilaxu]

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

"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.

[Alionic]

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.

[PierreVW]

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.

[Prof. a]

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 . . .

[Baron Von Marlon]

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.

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.

[monkeylove]

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.

[0321recon]

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.

[Scorpio]

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.

[Ingwar]

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.

[dave1978]

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.

[Rudiger]

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.