Michael Fassbender Talks David's Character Development

Started by Corporal Hicks, Jan 19, 2017, 04:10:56 PM

Author
Michael Fassbender Talks David's Character Development (Read 21,804 times)

echobbase79

Quote from: skhellter on Jan 21, 2017, 10:06:26 PM
Quote from: oduodu on Jan 21, 2017, 07:12:42 PM
Not holding my breath that Scott has any designs on preserving any Lovecraftian Eldritch ancient vibe mystery elements.

I dont think Ridley is the type of guy who's aware of Lovecraft.

I'm sure he's at least heard of Lovecraft. Especially if he talked to O'Bannon in personal conversations who was a Lovecraft nut. The original monster in O'Bannon's script was very Lovecraft inspired.

XenoHunter99

Doesn't matter. It's all von Daniken now. That's what the Engineer thing is about. And black goo is the fire in Prometheus. Very on the nose, not very mysterious. People are so excited to have Ridley making these movies, and it's not that great. Ridley today is simply not the Ridley who made the original Alien. Plus Giger and O'Bannon are long gone. And the world is different, not least because of the original Alien's influence. It's highly unlikely this movie is more than just another tired entry in a series that ran completely out of breath in the 90's. But maybe we'll be surprised.

prometheusfire08

prometheusfire08

#62
Both of our torches were turned on the prostrate objects, so that we soon realized the dominant factor in their incompleteness. Mauled, compressed, twisted, and ruptured as they were, their chief common injury was total decapitation.

just like Milburn and Fifield when they are stood with their flashlights observing the gigantic pile of dead bodies 😉

echobbase79

echobbase79

#63
Quote from: XenoHunter99 on Jan 22, 2017, 02:36:12 AM
Doesn't matter. It's all von Daniken now. That's what the Engineer thing is about. And black goo is the fire in Prometheus. Very on the nose, not very mysterious. People are so excited to have Ridley making these movies, and it's not that great. Ridley today is simply not the Ridley who made the original Alien. Plus Giger and O'Bannon are long gone. And the world is different, not least because of the original Alien's influence. It's highly unlikely this movie is more than just another tired entry in a series that ran completely out of breath in the 90's. But maybe we'll be surprised.

I didn't say it mattered. :) I was just saying that Ridley has probably heard of Lovecraft. That's all I was referring too.

Prometheus had some nice Lovecraft touches in it. Parts reminded me of At the Mountains of Madness.

Necronomicon II

I don't think it matters if Scott recognises the Lovecraft elements or not, it's the writers' level of Lovecraftian erudition that's the principle concern for me. It all remains to be seen.

NickisSmart

Or unseen, preferably. Keep it in the dark. ;)

CainsSon

Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jan 20, 2017, 09:00:58 AM
Quote from: The Bonus Situation on Jan 19, 2017, 11:38:00 PM
Quote from: echobbase79 on Jan 19, 2017, 10:51:02 PM

Really this aspect of the Covenant is what I'm really looking forward. It will be interesting to see how far he's come from the last film. I think he'll be a lot of more creepier. For me David was the best thing about Prometheus.

Same here. I just sincerely hope that they don't go the 'David created the Xenomorph, as we know it' route.

Me too. I'm quite happy to have David re-create them or something like that. But for David to be the actual origins of the Alien as we know them in the main series...I just hate that concept.

I dont think this is possible given what we already know. I know this is something people hate, but to me, since we know the creature already exists, and that the goo somehow mutates/takes apart DNA, and restructures it, into something like the Alien... This is why I actually promote the idea that the Black Goo is a nanotech biomechanical agent. Seen this way, the Engineers just created all these different strains of nanotechnology that serve to restructure genetic material, and if it can fuse technology with mechanical parts, that leave room for some intense biomechanical horror in future episodes, but it also allows for the idea that David isn't RESPONSIBLE for CREATING the Xeno, but just that he messed around with it and fused mechanics with biology. Instead this would suggest that he simply did what the Engineers must have already been able to do.

HOWEVER - I think Ridley Scott will be taking this a step further, and what we will be getting is DAVID doing things like this^^ in order to create 'The Perfect Organism.' Meaning, that David will be trying to build on what the Engineers have done before to PERFECT the ALIEN, and that is why I believe we will see that David WILL try and introduce his own-self and formulas to it. David creating life. The way we created him. That seems to be the overarching theme here. For better or worse.

newagescamartist

How do we know the creature already exists? The mural depicts a deacon imo, not a xenomorph. All we know from watching Prometheus is that a deacon is born from an engineer. A deacon has no bio-mechanical parts to it. It looks completely organic, as did the hammerpede and the trilobyte. I'm going to guess that the neomorphs are completely organic looking in appearance as well. It's going to take some type of manipulation to get the bio-mechanical aspect into the creature. That's why it makes sense that David is the creator of the xenomorph. A mix of synthetic and organic. I know it pisses people off, but from a storyline progression standpoint it makes sense. The only thing I can think of that ties the xenomorph directly back to the engineers is the appearance of the exoskeleton we see the engineers on the ship wearing. Perhaps the engineers had a method in place to make the goo adapt a bio-mechanical aspect that we didn't see in Prometheus. It's all assumption until we see how the story plays out. It'll be interesting to see what really happens in Covenant regardless of who is right or wrong.

Corporal Hicks

Quote from: echobbase79 on Jan 21, 2017, 12:02:05 AM
Didn't Ridley say it was always a suit? I know it wasn't written that way by O'Bannon, but over the years before Prometheus I thought he commented on it being a suit?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's a concept he's had in the back of his mind for decades now. Val may have some quotes over at Strange Shapes.

cliffhanger

Quote from: newagescamartist on Jan 23, 2017, 05:29:05 AM
How do we know the creature already exists? The mural depicts a deacon imo, not a xenomorph. All we know from watching Prometheus is that a deacon is born from an engineer. A deacon has no bio-mechanical parts to it. It looks completely organic, as did the hammerpede and the trilobyte. I'm going to guess that the neomorphs are completely organic looking in appearance as well. It's going to take some type of manipulation to get the bio-mechanical aspect into the creature. That's why it makes sense that David is the creator of the xenomorph. A mix of synthetic and organic. I know it pisses people off, but from a storyline progression standpoint it makes sense. The only thing I can think of that ties the xenomorph directly back to the engineers is the appearance of the exoskeleton we see the engineers on the ship wearing. Perhaps the engineers had a method in place to make the goo adapt a bio-mechanical aspect that we didn't see in Prometheus. It's all assumption until we see how the story plays out. It'll be interesting to see what really happens in Covenant regardless of who is right or wrong.

the facehugger looks 100% biological too. so the biomech aspect would then originate somehow from the embryo taking human traits? doesnt sound right. it looks biomechanical, true. never means it's actually biomechanical. its got an exoskeleton fcol. its shaped differently, it's alien.

also, where in what alien movie has there actually been mentioned 'biomechanical' ? i know it looks like that, and the giger art is definately biomechanical, but should we actually see the creature as such?

BonesawT101

Realistically, the creature only looked biomechanical in 'Alien' because that was H.R Giger's motif. The creatures gradually got decidedly less biomechanical with each subsequent sequel due to his lack of involvement in the creatures' creative design process. I don't think there was ever any intention to have the biomechanical design an element of the creatures' back story unfortunately. I fully expect Covenant to continue the 'not quite biomechanical' aesthetic for the creatures. To be honest I'm fine with that. It used to really aggravate me how the designs got further away from that, particularly while I was studying Giger's work for my degree a number of years ago. However I have come to terms with the fact that that design aesthetic is his really, and it's what makes the original creature so unique. Of course I think part of the design was forced due to technology constraints at the time in the 70s. Had they had the ability to create the creature back then the way they could now, it likely would have looked a lot less 'biomechanoid' back then too.

BringbackJonesy!

BringbackJonesy!

#71
Personally, I'd argue that the 'Big Chap' in A L I E N has been understood to be a 'bio-mechanical' creature by many fans over the years.  Of course that's due to the look of Giger's art style...but it's not as if Ridley asked him to tone that aspect down during for the final designs.

Sure, the 'egg' and subsequent 'facehugger' stages look purely 'biological'...but we definately end up with METALLIC teeth by the time the 'chestburster' arrives, and it's not unreasonable to assume that all the 'tubing' design details on it and the eventual fully-grown 'Big Chap' are somewhat BIO-MECH in nature. 

I always looked on it's 'bio-mechanical' traits as just coming to the fore at that mid-way 'chestburster' stage, and along with it's 'acidic blood', it all added up to the 'Xenomorph' being a VERY 'alien' creature indeed.

And I certainly don't recall Ridley ever going on record to contradict this same general assumption by many others, concerning this creature's overall 'biology'.

As far as I know, the creatures in ALIENS, ALIEN3, and ALIEN RES all kept the metallic teeth too...cementing that particular feature into their look.  But, on the other hand...Cameron chose to give the 'Queen' itself some 'translucent', non-metallic teeth...so that's a bit of a conundrum I give you - however I choose to just 'ignore' that particular anomaly as not being important in the overall 'bio-mechanical' scheme of things - at least they looked dangerously sharp...unlike a certain young 'Deacon's 'enamel' dentures, which looked disappointingly un-threatening.

The fact is, between Ridley's original onscreen 'Big Chap' and his otherworldly 'space jockey', things DID look decidedly 'bio-mechanical' in nature overall...and if EVERYTHING continues to point to a purely BIOLOGICAL make-up where his creatures are concerned in these PROMETHEUS follow-ups...then that leaves me with a big 'discontinuity' issue to overcome with my way of looking at his original movie's creature.

...which will just increase my contentment of choosing to look on these 'prequels' as merely being an 'alternative', expanded universe type of storyline, unconnected to the original movie's 'actual' backstory whatsover.  :P

XenoHunter99

Probably the only reason the facehugger is not more biomechanical in appearance is, Giger didn't sculpt it. The reason the biomechanical aspect matters is, that's what separates the Alien from all the other movie monsters. I think, if you could ask him and get an honest answer, Giger would tell you the Deacon looks like a dinosaur (a die-no-sow-er  ;D). IIRC, he certainly had no difficulty expressing his unfavorable opinions on the creatures and design work in Resurrection. The increasingly ropy, more biological-looking creatures in films after Aliens mostly don't look very good. But the other thing to remember is that Scott filmed the creature very carefully for the original. Despite great effort, its movement was not very convincing. It mostly moved in slow motion. And seeing the whole thing on screen in full lighting quickly reduced it to man-in-a-suit. The illusion of a graceful, powerful creature pretty much fell apart in the final scene as the creature dangled stiffly and helplessly from the end of its rope. Cameron, for his part, got the creatures to move in a way that was quite amazing. The scene where the marines disturb the nest and the creatures, hidden in plain sight,  unfold from the walls was great. The scene where the creatures are bounding across the medlab also looks impressive. Even the scene where Vasquez and Gorman die in the air duct works well. You don't think "man in a suit." With current technology, it should be a relatively simple thing to have a creature that looks as good as the original and moves the way Ridley originally envisioned; but he seems to be deliberately avoiding the fine points of Giger's original design.

Le Celticant

It was likely a design difference.
I really doubt david creates the Alien in the end.
It seemed very rooted into Prometheus that black goo would lead to Alien-like creature anyway.
Plus the SJ had mural with it, so it's likely it already existed.
David must have much darker/sinister purpose.

Spoiler
"There was a toy... a very strange enchanted toy... They say it wandered very far" -not me.
[close]

CainsSon

Quote from: BringbackJonesy! on Jan 24, 2017, 12:36:26 AM
Personally, I'd argue that the 'Big Chap' in A L I E N has been understood to be a 'bio-mechanical' creature by many fans over the years.  Of course that's due to the look of Giger's art style...but it's not as if Ridley asked him to tone that aspect down during for the final designs.

Sure, the 'egg' and subsequent 'facehugger' stages look purely 'biological'...but we definately end up with METALLIC teeth by the time the 'chestburster' arrives, and it's not unreasonable to assume that all the 'tubing' design details on it and the eventual fully-grown 'Big Chap' are somewhat BIO-MECH in nature. 

I always looked on it's 'bio-mechanical' traits as just coming to the fore at that mid-way 'chestburster' stage, and along with it's 'acidic blood', it all added up to the 'Xenomorph' being a VERY 'alien' creature indeed.

And I certainly don't recall Ridley ever going on record to contradict this same general assumption by many others, concerning this creature's overall 'biology'.

As far as I know, the creatures in ALIENS, ALIEN3, and ALIEN RES all kept the metallic teeth too...cementing that particular feature into their look.  But, on the other hand...Cameron chose to give the 'Queen' itself some 'translucent', non-metallic teeth...so that's a bit of a conundrum I give you - however I choose to just 'ignore' that particular anomaly as not being important in the overall 'bio-mechanical' scheme of things - at least they looked dangerously sharp...unlike a certain young 'Deacon's 'enamel' dentures, which looked disappointingly un-threatening.

The fact is, between Ridley's original onscreen 'Big Chap' and his otherworldly 'space jockey', things DID look decidedly 'bio-mechanical' in nature overall...and if EVERYTHING continues to point to a purely BIOLOGICAL make-up where his creatures are concerned in these PROMETHEUS follow-ups...then that leaves me with a big 'discontinuity' issue to overcome with my way of looking at his original movie's creature.

...which will just increase my contentment of choosing to look on these 'prequels' as merely being an 'alternative', expanded universe type of storyline, unconnected to the original movie's 'actual' backstory whatsover.  :P

This^^^
I have to disagree with anyone who tries to claim the alien wasn't intentionally biomechanical in Alien.

I think that the Alien being BIOMECHANICAL was something very deliberate during the making of of that film. Even if it wasnt in the original script, great pains are taken in the film to relate the monster to the ship, in subtext, but also in design. You simply cannot deny that the Alien is meant to blend in with the ship/camouflage with it. In addition, giving it acid for blood, having the robot relate to it/become fixated on it, the ship's MOTHER seemingly nurturing it - there are even hints that the Aliens are able to communicate with the ship and that thread continues into Aliens. 
Spoiler
Which, is something we are now hearing will be even MORE present in this film
[close]
Ive personally always felt the Alien was supposed to be tapping the BRAINS/COMPUTER of its victims as well, and even Ridley Scott had at some point intended the Alien to rip off Ripley's head, tap into her brain(?) and then send a transmission inher voice.
That's all in addition to the Biomechanical nature of the Derelict and the Space Jockey "growing out of the chair."

It may even make MORE sense if the android introduces this aspect to it and the reason for the Biomechanical aspects disappearing in later films is because it works its way out of the monsters replication from human to human through each film?

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