James Cameron Talks Alien: Covenant

Started by Pvt. Himmel, Jan 27, 2017, 06:45:47 PM

Author
James Cameron Talks Alien: Covenant (Read 33,285 times)

fiveways

Every interview I read with James Cameron leaves me wonder if he has an uppers habit.

Quote from: OpenMaw on Jan 30, 2017, 10:23:33 AM
Avatar is okay. I watched it once with my brother, and once on my own. The plot really didn't do it for me, and the end battle is okay... Though Camereon's script really had me rooting for Quatrich and his PMC's over the lead(Jake?). Seriously, Our Hero flips sides in a heartbeat by comparison to say... Dances With Wolves, where it takes Dunbar quite awhile before he really flips.

As to Abyss, it was in competition with two... Maybe three other very very similar movies. One of which was Leviathan, and I forget the other one, Deep Water something or other? Basically a bunch of deep sea "horror" movies all at once, and that's why Abyss didn't do as good as it could have.

.

Deep Star Six.  The difference is the Abyss, in its full uncut form is a pretty decent movie.  The cut version is not so good.


Perfect-Organism

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jan 30, 2017, 09:10:44 AM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 30, 2017, 05:48:24 AM
If for anything else, the final battle is gangbusters Cameron style

I've gotta ask, where did gangbusters come from? First I'd heard of that was Cameron describing Alien 3.2 last year.

In regards to the topic at hand - I'd agree if it was just going to be a retread. But that doesn't seem to be what Scott is doing. He's world building and expanding the mythology. Prometheus was a misfire for me because it took away what Scott was initially doing - explaining the origins of Alien - because it stripped those actual Alien elements and kept the alikes in there. Covenant (and the prequels I'm assuming)seems to be steering back to that original intentional.

Whether we're going to like what Scott is serving is a different question, but it's not like he's rehashing the other films. That we know of, anyway.


Quote from: echobbase79 on Jan 30, 2017, 04:53:41 AM

Is Avatar a good movie? I've never seen it.

It was okay. Nothing special. If anything, I think it's success was likely down to the major turn towards 3D around that time. Narratively, it's quite boring. I fell asleep the second time I tried to watch it. I haven't watched it again since.

Gangbusters!  Ha!  I was thinking the exact same thing..

I saw Avatar twice in theatres.  Loved it.  But I also got physically ill twice from the epic special effects.  Its definitely an eye candy movie.  Go in to see beautiful Cameron camera work and let go of clinging onto hopes of a great story.  How he hopes to make another 3 films of this?  Not sure.  But I suspect the whole angle of interconnectivity is what it's going to be about.  The blue creatures are connected as if by an organic internet.  In a way, this gives them immortality.  It's been implied in the film that this is the real treasure of the planet, not unobtainium.  I think this is right.  By the end of the series, I think we will see this change humanity so that we are all interconnected with a bio-internet.

Robopadna

Quote from: Pvt. Himmel on Jan 30, 2017, 11:14:15 AM
Yeah i think you're right seeing as how there is not that much time left between Covvie, and Alien.

60+ years, isn't there?  He's making the trilogy and this is the second movie.

426Buddy

Quote from: Robopadna on Jan 30, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Quote from: Pvt. Himmel on Jan 30, 2017, 11:14:15 AM
Yeah i think you're right seeing as how there is not that much time left between Covvie, and Alien.

60+ years, isn't there?  He's making the trilogy and this is the second movie.

Covenant occurs in 2103 and Alien in 2122 I believe.

SM

SM

#139
Quote from: StrangeShape on Jan 29, 2017, 05:24:41 PM
Quote from: SM on Jan 29, 2017, 09:53:48 AM
How did Prometheus change the basic life cycle?

We will have to see how Covenant advances the new ideas, but with the black goo introduced that changes everyones dna into something close to xenos and facehuggers, it seems like anyone can become half xeno just by touching, drinking of inhaling the magic goo. Through that, we already had an octopus instead of a facehugger and not a larva bursting from the host but a fully developed specimen

Similarities in monsters doesn't change anything in the Alien life cycle though. 

BringbackJonesy!

To those that mentioned they haven't seen AVATAR yet, may I suggest you forget about watching the 'theatrical' version, and instead seek out the 'extended collector's edition' cut instead.

The additional 'Future Earth' scenes make for a far, far better beginning to the movie in my opinion, and give a satisfyingly grimy juxtaposition before we get to the lush 'Pandora' planet.  I really wish that intro. hadn't been cut for the theatrical release version.

SuicideDoors

https://twitter.com/sjnews/status/826199717696516096

Must say I share the sentiments of this report.

SiL

SiL

#142
What the everloving f**k is wrong with people, seriously.

"Cameron says sequels to one series aren't necessary while making sequels to another series! LOL WHAT A HYPOCRITE!!"

This is why I hate Internet commentary. People who can't string together a logical argument are given massive platforms to convince others that their inability to interpret information is insight.

SM

SM

#143
Word.

Anal Grunge

Anal Grunge

#144
I thought this was going to be about Avatar and Terminator?

echobbase79

Quote from: SM on Jan 30, 2017, 04:59:53 AM
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jan 30, 2017, 04:53:41 AM

Is Avatar a good movie? I've never seen it.

srsly?

It's fun but excrutiatingly predictable and lacking in subtlety.

I think Cameron was focusing on the new tech to deliver the movie instead of the story. It's his Phantom Menace some have said though I enjoy that film. I'm thinking of picking up a copy of it on Amazon for a $1.

Perfect-Organism

Perfect-Organism

#146
It's curious that Cameronwants to keep taking 3-d to the next level and advancing the technology, while the industry is largely moving away from producing 3-d TVs now.  There's not enough good content, and so the production of 3-d tvs is winding down..

Had Cameron picked up the pace on his films, maybe it would have made a difference?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4170040/Major-3D-TV-manufacturers-scrapping-sets.html

SM

SM

#147
I think he's more focused on cinema.  That aside though, George Lucas was pushing for better sound in cinemas since the 70s, but surround sound in the home didn't really get affordable till the late 90s.

Maybe Cameron is looking for what's next.

We have one 3D-TV and have only ever used it on its test channel.  It was nausea inducing.

SiL

SiL

#148
3D doesn't work. We keep trying, it keeps dying. 20s, 50s, 80s, ~2010s (Avatar was what, '09?). Every 30 years we drag its corpse out of the gutter, brush it off, dress it up, say it's new, and then within 10 years it's dead in a ditch again.

SM

SM

#149
I never got the point of the Cameron championed 'depth' look.  Where stuff doesn't really pop out, but the image had a 3 dimensional depth.  I've heard it works okay for stuff like IMAX where the picture is taking up your whole field of vision, but normal theatres the illusion was immediately wrecked by the edged of the screen.

Plus, I dunno if it's because I where glasses, but those floaty flowery things in Avatar that everyone oohed and aahed about just looked like blurry blobs.

I remember really looking forward to Phantom Menace in 3D, but apart from the opening titles, the 3D angle was just meh.  You need to have shit popping out of the screen every now and then.  No movie was ever made better by 3D.

Except Jaws 3D.  That was f**king ace in 3D.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News