Alien Covenant Fan Reviews

[SM]

Cosmetics aside, what about the life-cycle that was a major deviation?

I don't think I made such a claim.

SM: "Oh, the chestburster should always look the same and you need to make sure people understand it's a major deviation if you give it arms. And the queen should look different." Right...

Not sure why you're deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying.

[Gash]

I think my issue with the queen is that it bears no relation to the human born aliens. I'm not knocking the quality of the Stan Winston build which is a remarkable achievement, but the queen is just so at odds with the stalking killer of ALIEN.

I don't really understand why it looks the way it does. It's a big baddie at the end of the film - ok I get that. It's got elements of some of Giger's other designs witinh it - ok I get that, but it's born of a human  -  (confirmed by Ripley's scan in Alien3) so why does it look like a giant spider / dinosaur hybrid? And why do the aliens suddenly feel like filler until her reveal?

Whilst some here talk about messing with beloved lore, I see no difference (less in fact) with the situation as it is now over as it was in 1986. It just comes down to personal preference and expectation. But fans 'demanding we should get what we want means nothing.

[SM]

I don't really understand why it looks they way it does.

Being based on insects, Queens are generally larger as far as I know.  As for the crown and all that - looks cool.  In other circumstance perhaps the egg sac would extend out the back of the Queen (rather than the side like in the film) and the head may provide some protection - either real or imagined.

[D88M]

Here's my review of the film:

http://nicksmovieinsights.blogspot.com/2017/06/alien-covenant-review.html

Loved the movie. Hates gonna hate.

you gotta love the people that call hater to anyone that doesnt like the same things as them 

[SM]

The first paragraph didn't exactly set a promising tone...

[Gash]

I don't really understand why it looks they way it does.

Being based on insects, Queens are generally larger as far as I know.  As for the crown and all that - looks cool.  In other circumstance perhaps the egg sac would extend out the back of the Queen (rather than the side like in the film) and the head may provide some protection - either real or imagined.

Ok, I get that. But that's part of the issue. The alien has a life cycle inspired by insects but Kane's Son does not look much like an insect. Covenant retroactively tries to placate the hive aspect with David's experiments involving alien insects as part of the DNA and that's fine, but the Alien queen just feels like it's so shoehorned in as the big bad insect mother - it's right back to the most predictable cliches of the B movies that ALIEN was a classy reinvention of. IMHO.

[SM]

I think the Queen can also fit into the 'classy reinvention' category personally.

[426Buddy]

Yeah i have no issue with the queen either, love the design and her role in the lifecycle fits nicely.

[Gash]

The first paragraph didn't exactly set a promising tone...

It takes a while to cool down to fandom after watching YouTubes ranters expressing their desire to see Scott die. Fandom can be pretty pitiful and it's easy enough to get too wound up by it. All things considered it's a moderate approach to the very vocal haters.

I was fully hating on fandom myself until a couple of days ago when I decided that watching YouTube reviews was a depressing waste of time that was winding me up. I then came here and, off the back of my YouTube experiences, indulged in pointless tit for tat. And still do a bit, but I'm trying to relax around a more knowledgable atmosphere here 

I think the Queen can also fit into the 'classy reinvention' category personally.

Fair enough. I just don't think it's any less at odds with ALIEN that Covenant is with Aliens. It's just that nobody else has really tried to expand the lore much since. I know many fans saw Aliens first, maybe that makes a difference?

[NickisSmart]

The first paragraph didn't exactly set a promising tone...

Call it like I see it. It's not like you're one who doesn't speak his mind.

you gotta love the people that call hater to anyone that doesnt like the same things as them 

It's called taking a stance. Don't get your knickers in a twist. Beisdes, it's in peoples' rhetoric; their prose and their titles. Read the reviews online. Hate for Covenant isn't exactly subtle.

I could dress it up with political language if that'd float your boat, though. Call it amiable prejudice, instead, to shield your delicate sensibilities?

[SM]

That kind of dismissiveness is why I didn't venture much further into reading it.

That and the faux victim thing.

And I like the movie, same as you.

[D88M]

The first paragraph didn't exactly set a promising tone...

Call it like I see it. It's not like you're one who doesn't speak his mind.

you gotta love the people that call hater to anyone that doesnt like the same things as them 

It's called taking a stance. Don't get your knickers in a twist. Beisdes, it's in peoples' rhetoric; their prose and their titles. Read the reviews online. Hate for Covenant isn't exactly subtle.

I could dress it up with political language if that'd float your boat, though. Call it amiable prejudice, instead, to shield your delicate sensibilities?

I like ALL Alien movies, even Resurrection, even Prometheus, even Alien 3 theatrical cut, even Covenant which is not bad but not too good either

That kind of dismissiveness is why I didn't venture much further into reading it.

That and the faux victim thing.

And I like the movie, same as you.

Yeah, i dont get his tone of speaking, but whatever float his boat i suppose, good for him if he loved the movie

The first paragraph didn't exactly set a promising tone...

I glossed over the first 8, 9 or 10 paragraphs and is more of the same, is more like a rant against the fans that did not liked Covenant than a review

[Salt The Fries]

Actually Nick's review is interesting and it is a blog after all, so it has a personal spin by definition. Sure, the opening paragraphs refer to the film's detractors quite a few times, but the vast majority of the text is actually quite comprehensive with lots of interesting observations that go beyond the horizon of an average YouTube reviewer who mostly picks films apart without much thought on a conceptual level.

[SM]

I watched the first 5 minutes of his Youtube version, struggled past the 'everyone doesn't like this movie and they're all dumb', but ultimately gave up, so I'm no position to judge.

[Salt The Fries]

I watched the first 5 minutes of his Youtube version, struggled past the 'everyone doesn't like this movie and they're all dumb', but ultimately gave up, so I'm no position to judge.

I didn't see the YouTube version. And actually I was reading his review backwards, from the bottom paragraphs to the bottom ones.