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

[tleilaxu]

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".

[Alionic]

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.

[Jonesy1974]

The void, came out last year and the most lovecraftian thing I've seen in a very long time.

[Baron Von Marlon]

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".

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.

[BigDaddyJohn]

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".

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.

[tleilaxu]

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".

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.

[Mr name]

Pretty much... That's how it works.

[Prof. a]

Alien: Isolation wasn't a top selling hit professor.

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/


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.

[SM]

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.

[Prof. a]

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.

[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.

[0321recon]

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?

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.

[Prof. a]

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.

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

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.

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/


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:

"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

[PierreVW]

I'm seeing a lot of Cameron love. Well, Wait 8 years for him. Cameron is free in 2025.