User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Anyone else hates the xenomorph design on Covenant...  (Read 4203 times)

rafaelgg
Mar 03, 2019, 09:23:07 PM
Topic on: Mar 03, 2019, 09:23:07 PM
Q
 Since "Alien 3" there is a tendency to makes the xenomorph looks more and more "fleshy" and less biomecanoid.
  But the mechanoid looks it´s what makes the xenomorph original and unique.
  But at least the redesignings made by James Cameron(And Stan Winston), David Fincher an Jean Pierre Jeunet still had a powerfull `phisical presence.Even being too "fleshy" for my taste the drone on "Ressurrection" looked cool.
   Ridley Scott gave us a xenomorph who looked too much scrawny to be physically intimidating, With that looks and with that spamodic way of moving it does not have any trace of the weird elegance that H.R. Giger brought to the creature.
   For God´s sake Ridley!.. All you had to do is what the creators of Alien Islationn did: Bringing back the original design with the minor twist of incorporing the two jointed legs:


« Last Edit: Mar 03, 2019, 10:51:04 PM by rafaelgg »

Kradan
Mar 03, 2019, 09:37:41 PM
Reply #1 on: Mar 03, 2019, 09:37:41 PM
Q
I think that from design point of view fleshy xenos in Covenant were more true to original than ones in Ressurection. I would prefer movie have more practical effects and more Alien-in-shadows scenes but i still love what they did. And i love that contrast between thin appearance and lethal nature.

But i really don't understand what's the point with fleshy appearance in the first place. Give me biomechanical Alien again please!


windebieste
Mar 03, 2019, 09:42:40 PM
Reply #2 on: Mar 03, 2019, 09:42:40 PM
Q
Appreciate the greater scope of Ridley's vision for these movies and you'll understand the Covenant design is the first in an iterative process.  It's David's first 'creation' and lacks the biomechanical features of later creatures we see in 'ALIEN' and 'ALIENS'. 

There's a piece of dialogue David delivers at some point (It's not in the movie - I'm not sure of it's origin) that gives it all away "The future is neither organic or synthetic - it's biomechanical".  This statement alone tells us he's not finished with the design of the creature.  That what we see in 'ALIEN' is yet to be made. 

So, it's not a bad design, but part of a much larger plan on the part of the film maker.  This story isn't supposed to end with 'ALIEN Covenant'.  The movie's closing scene was a clear indicator of more to come.   

The Covenant Alien was just the start.  ...and yes. Like Stompy, it too has digitigrade legs.   (NECA makes good stuff, huh.)



-Windebieste.


Kradan
Mar 03, 2019, 09:48:52 PM
Reply #3 on: Mar 03, 2019, 09:48:52 PM
Q
Appreciate the greater scope of Ridley's vision for these movies and you'll understand the Covenant design is the first in an iterative process.  It's David's first 'creation' and lacks the biomechanical features of later creatures we see in 'ALIEN' and 'ALIENS'. 

There's a piece of dialogue David delivers at some point (It's not in the movie - I'm not sure of it's origin) that gives it all away "The future is neither organic or synthetic - it's biomechanical".  This statement alone tells us he's not finished with the design of the creature.  That what we see in 'ALIEN' is yet to be made. 

So, it's not a bad design, but part of a much larger plan on the part of the film maker.  This story isn't supposed to end with 'ALIEN Covenant'.  The movie's closing scene was a clear indicator of more to come.   

The Covenant Alien was just the start.  ...and yes. Like Stompy, it too has digitigrade legs.   (NECA makes good stuff, huh.)



-Windebieste.

I understand what you said on logical level but cannot accept on emotional. Even if it part of bigger story it still feels as they tease me and eager to do anything but not what i really want. And i want biomechanical look of creature. If it looks so great in movie made in 79 just imagine how great it would look now with all stuff that we have!


rafaelgg
Mar 03, 2019, 09:56:10 PM
Reply #4 on: Mar 03, 2019, 09:56:10 PM
Q
Appreciate the greater scope of Ridley's vision for these movies and you'll understand the Covenant design is the first in an iterative process.  It's David's first 'creation' and lacks the biomechanical features of later creatures we see in 'ALIEN' and 'ALIENS'. 

There's a piece of dialogue David delivers at some point (It's not in the movie - I'm not sure of it's origin) that gives it all away "The future is neither organic or synthetic - it's biomechanical".  This statement alone tells us he's not finished with the design of the creature.  That what we see in 'ALIEN' is yet to be made. 

So, it's not a bad design, but part of a much larger plan on the part of the film maker.  This story isn't supposed to end with 'ALIEN Covenant'.  The movie's closing scene was a clear indicator of more to come.   

The Covenant Alien was just the start.  ...and yes. Like Stompy, it too has digitigrade legs.   (NECA makes good stuff, huh.)



-Windebieste.

  Honestly I think the idea this xenomorph being a "prototype" it´s just mere fan illution and dellirium and the real thing is that Ridley Scott, taking advantage of modern CGI  just wanted to create a xenomorph with a body shape that it would look less "human on suit". After all that was one of his obssesions on the 1979 film-
  For that same reason he made on Covenant what he wanted on 1979 but that time technology could not afford: A traslucent skin xenomorph.
  Even fans insistingthat the Covenant creature is a new one called "protomorph" if you check movie merchadising like the funko pop is named "xenomorph".

« Last Edit: Mar 04, 2019, 03:20:52 PM by rafaelgg »

Kradan
Mar 03, 2019, 09:58:42 PM
Reply #5 on: Mar 03, 2019, 09:58:42 PM
Q
Well, we gave them really great explanation to what they had done  ;D


rafaelgg
Mar 03, 2019, 10:11:23 PM
Reply #6 on: Mar 03, 2019, 10:11:23 PM
Q
Well, we gave them really great explanation to what they had done  ;D

  Cameron and Fincher were the only one they worried to create an excuse for the xenomorph design changes.
  It´s said that the physicial difference on the "Ressurrection" donre is but the fact they are not "pure" xenomormph but a derivative one created by genetic ingeniering and "contaminated" by  Ripleys´DNA, but again something created by fans not by Jeunet himself.

« Last Edit: Mar 03, 2019, 10:47:13 PM by rafaelgg »

SuperiorIronman
Mar 03, 2019, 10:34:44 PM
Reply #7 on: Mar 03, 2019, 10:34:44 PM
Q
The problem that I have with the Alien in Alien:Covenant stems more from it's usage rather than its design but its design is off as well.

My issue with the design is that it's just kind of bland. While one could argue its due to this being an early iteration, no cinematic Alien has been identical film to film meaning that at the end of the day, it's just kind of bland. The design is basically an exaggerated skinned human with a phallic head. It means nothing when you consider that there is no baseline.

What makes Alien designs good is the bio-mechanical look which also lends itself nicely to the insect nature of the creature. The Aliens of past films largely use this to help make the Alien stand out. The little bits of tubing or the carapace in places are all here to serve the design in catching the viewers eye. To the audience member who re-watches the film, you get a bit more out of the Alien the longer you look at it because of a richness of detail. But if I was to take off the head, back tubes, and tail, turn it red while placing it in something like the camp in Predators, you'd never know that was the Alien would you?

As I also said in the Skull thread, the Alien's skull is pretty much only here to be intimidating. It's presence is that of a screaming monster. However the Skull works on a number of levels and one of those being the "point of origin". For Ripley, "Kaine's son" is this nightmarish beast, it came out of one of her friends and is almost mockingly human despite being incapable of being reasoned with. It only looks human and further plays up the rape allegory that got her friends and the monster's paternal half killed. That and when the rape allegory occurs, it's further made uncomfortable by its human appearance which is warped by its otherworldly parentage. In Requiem while a nod to the Big Chap, the skull performs the same function. It's presence is almost mocking to Wolf as he's not only surprised this happened it's also using his people's strength against him and defiled a young warrior's honor to do it.
In Alien:Covenant its merely here to make the Alien look intimidating. While ALIENS dropped this for shooting reasons, it worked in its favor because it allowed it to play up the action while not forgetting its parasitic insect origins.


rafaelgg
Mar 03, 2019, 10:49:25 PM
Reply #8 on: Mar 03, 2019, 10:49:25 PM
Q
The problem that I have with the Alien in Alien:Covenant stems more from it's usage rather than its design but its design is off as well.

My issue with the design is that it's just kind of bland. While one could argue its due to this being an early iteration, no cinematic Alien has been identical film to film meaning that at the end of the day, it's just kind of bland. The design is basically an exaggerated skinned human with a phallic head. It means nothing when you consider that there is no baseline.

What makes Alien designs good is the bio-mechanical look which also lends itself nicely to the insect nature of the creature. The Aliens of past films largely use this to help make the Alien stand out. The little bits of tubing or the carapace in places are all here to serve the design in catching the viewers eye. To the audience member who re-watches the film, you get a bit more out of the Alien the longer you look at it because of a richness of detail. But if I was to take off the head, back tubes, and tail, turn it red while placing it in something like the camp in Predators, you'd never know that was the Alien would you?

As I also said in the Skull thread, the Alien's skull is pretty much only here to be intimidating. It's presence is that of a screaming monster. However the Skull works on a number of levels and one of those being the "point of origin". For Ripley, "Kaine's son" is this nightmarish beast, it came out of one of her friends and is almost mockingly human despite being incapable of being reasoned with. It only looks human and further plays up the rape allegory that got her friends and the monster's paternal half killed. That and when the rape allegory occurs, it's further made uncomfortable by its human appearance which is warped by its otherworldly parentage. In Requiem while a nod to the Big Chap, the skull performs the same function. It's presence is almost mocking to Wolf as he's not only surprised this happened it's also using his people's strength against him and defiled a young warrior's honor to do it.
In Alien:Covenant its merely here to make the Alien look intimidating. While ALIENS dropped this for shooting reasons, it worked in its favor because it allowed it to play up the action while not forgetting its parasitic insect origins.

 I could not agree more.


The Old One
Mar 03, 2019, 11:02:58 PM
Reply #9 on: Mar 03, 2019, 11:02:58 PM
Q
No.

It's beautiful, a prototype returns the Alien's basic sophistication and elegance.
(Absent cinema since everything after 1992.) Thank you Odd Studios and MPC.
Although the Isolation Alien's a superior version, (the superlative Alien design)
H.R Giger's biomechanical vision and sexualisation enhance the Alien, of course.






All GORGEOUS, personal favourite's
the airbrushed Alien³ Xenomorph.
& The Alien monarch's beautiful, of course.


« Last Edit: Mar 04, 2019, 12:36:18 AM by The Old One »

rafaelgg
Mar 03, 2019, 11:08:55 PM
Reply #10 on: Mar 03, 2019, 11:08:55 PM
Q
No.

It's beautiful, a prototype returns the Alien's basic sophistication and elegance.
(Absent cinema since everything after 1992.) Thank you Odd Studios and MFX.
Although the Isolation Alien's a superior version, (the superlative Alien design)
H.R Giger's biomechanical vision and sexualisation enhance the Alien, of course.






All GORGEOUS, personal favourite's
the airbrushed Alien³ Xenomorph.
& The Alien monarch's beautiful, of course.

   I miss the "ressurrection" design.


The Old One
Mar 03, 2019, 11:14:22 PM
Reply #11 on: Mar 03, 2019, 11:14:22 PM
Q
The Resurrection design's mediocre and autonomous Resurrection; incongruous Pumpkinhead pastiche garbage.

« Last Edit: Mar 03, 2019, 11:18:10 PM by The Old One »

Samhain13
Mar 03, 2019, 11:57:24 PM
Reply #12 on: Mar 03, 2019, 11:57:24 PM
Q
1 - The two jointed legs are heresy.

2 - Non-biomechanial aliens are heresy.

3 - Still liked it more than any of the ADI ones, not that it means much.


rafaelgg
Mar 04, 2019, 12:05:26 AM
Reply #13 on: Mar 04, 2019, 12:05:26 AM
Q
1 - The two jointed legs are heresy.

2 - Non-biomechanial aliens are heresy.

3 - Still liked it more than any of the ADI ones, not that it means much.

What ADI means?

  And sorry but I think the "Alien Ressurrection" drone looks scool, specially on swimming possition:

« Last Edit: Mar 04, 2019, 12:08:27 AM by rafaelgg »

Samhain13
Mar 04, 2019, 12:07:31 AM
Reply #14 on: Mar 04, 2019, 12:07:31 AM
Q
Its the company that made the aliens from Alien 3, Alien R., AVP and AVPR.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed