Werthead |
hope there will something about the engineers, cause this seems boring
As far as I can tell, Ridley Scott's original plan had been for either two or three sequels to PROMETHEUS. The first would pick up immediately after PROMETHEUS with David and Shaw as the main characters and follow them to the Engineer homeworld and what happened there. Then the next film (or films) would tie more directly the events of PROMETHEUS to ALIEN. This prequel cycle would end with us finding out why that Engineer ship was on LV-426 at the start of ALIEN.
From the look of it, 20th Century Fox decided that they didn't really want to make PROMETHEUS II, nuked it, and asked for a film much more closely tied to the existing ALIEN mythos. So it looks like they're now doing the second of those films instead.
If COVENANT is a success, presumably they can make one more movie which acts as an immediate prequel to ALIEN, or they'll drop that idea and roll into the Neil Blomkamp ALIEN 5 project instead.
Bjørn Røyrvik |
This looks like it will be "The Force Awakens" equivalent for the Alien franchise.
Producers: "Here's a prequel to the stories you love. enjoy."
Public: "It's bad and a waste of potential and stupid and you're stupid."
Producers: "Oh, uh, well, here's another movie which is exactly the same as the original with nothing new or original or anything so please don't hate us any more."
Cole Deschain |
Well, I was already aboard, but I'm going to be HIGHLY amused when we have the inevitable "Weyland-Utani finds out about the Xenomorphs but gets nothing they can use AND no credible witnesses so the Nostromo's crew is blindsided."
Again.
ShinHakkaider |
Eh, not doing it for me. And they reveal too damn much.
Yeah I gotta side with Hama on this one.
Showing the Xenomorph full body and in daylight at the end of the trailer as some sort of visual stinger took all of the wind out of the sails of that trailer for me.
The Red Band trailer is so much better at inducing dread and even when they show the xenomorph in shadow in that trailer and the ensuing "punchline"? Fantastic.
I think this is the trailer that they hope caters to 15-16 year olds...
Rosgakori Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere |
Todd Stewart Contributor |
ShinHakkaider |
Shin,
I saw both. I didn't see much of a difference between the two trailers. Unlike say, Deadpool's and Evil Dead (the remake).
The original red band has less actual dialogue and that haunting version of NATURE BOY playing over most of it. It has one shot of the facehugger leaping at someone. You get some sort of alien transformation near the beginning ("Ferris! Let me Out!!!) The first red band trailer shows you just enough to let you know that it's an ALIEN film without showing the Xenomorph.
The second red band (which was attached to the print of LOGAN that I saw today) shows you full bodied xenomorphs (including one leaping through a corridor) several times during the trailer. It shows you a facehugger not only leaping at victims but already on victims with people trying to get them off. There's also a bit too much of an actiony vibe from it.
The first trailer sold me on wanting to see it.
That second trailer feels like their selling it too hard?
Still going to see it on the big screen though.
ShinHakkaider |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have ner really liked seeing xenomorphs in bright daylike. And at the end of the trailer it looked very tacked-on. But hey, this is jsut the trailer. Post-production is still in progress and finished product might look better.
Agreed. The reason the first movie is so effective is you never really see the full xenomorph until close to the end. People like to cite the airlock scene but you actually see it full body earlier than that (the Parker and Lambert scene).
The reason that movie gave me nightmares as a child was because for the longest time I could only imagine what the full creature looked like even though I'd actually already seen it. I was only about 7 or 8 at the time but yeah, SCARRED FOR LIFE.
John Kretzer |
Rosgakori wrote:I have ner really liked seeing xenomorphs in bright daylike. And at the end of the trailer it looked very tacked-on. But hey, this is jsut the trailer. Post-production is still in progress and finished product might look better.Agreed. The reason the first movie is so effective is you never really see the full xenomorph until close to the end. People like to cite the airlock scene but you actually see it full body earlier than that (the Parker and Lambert scene).
The reason that movie gave me nightmares as a child was because for the longest time I could only imagine what the full creature looked like even though I'd actually already seen it. I was only about 7 or 8 at the time but yeah, SCARRED FOR LIFE.
That is true of all good horror movie. It is a mistake in these types of Horror movies to show the monster too early. Because no matter how scary you can make the monster with special effects the mind can make it scarier.
Bjørn Røyrvik |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ShinHakkaider wrote:That is true of all good horror movie. It is a mistake in these types of Horror movies to show the monster too early. Because no matter how scary you can make the monster with special effects the mind can make it scarier.Rosgakori wrote:I have ner really liked seeing xenomorphs in bright daylike. And at the end of the trailer it looked very tacked-on. But hey, this is jsut the trailer. Post-production is still in progress and finished product might look better.Agreed. The reason the first movie is so effective is you never really see the full xenomorph until close to the end. People like to cite the airlock scene but you actually see it full body earlier than that (the Parker and Lambert scene).
The reason that movie gave me nightmares as a child was because for the longest time I could only imagine what the full creature looked like even though I'd actually already seen it. I was only about 7 or 8 at the time but yeah, SCARRED FOR LIFE.
In the case of the Alien franchise, we all know what the monster looks like already. We've had lots of movies where they kind of crawl around half-seen in the dark. There's no reason to hide it. Why not have one that's out in the open?
thejeff |
John Kretzer wrote:In the case of the Alien franchise, we all know what the monster looks like already. We've had lots of movies where they kind of crawl around half-seen in the dark. There's no reason to hide it. Why not have one that's out in the open?ShinHakkaider wrote:That is true of all good horror movie. It is a mistake in these types of Horror movies to show the monster too early. Because no matter how scary you can make the monster with special effects the mind can make it scarier.Rosgakori wrote:I have ner really liked seeing xenomorphs in bright daylike. And at the end of the trailer it looked very tacked-on. But hey, this is jsut the trailer. Post-production is still in progress and finished product might look better.Agreed. The reason the first movie is so effective is you never really see the full xenomorph until close to the end. People like to cite the airlock scene but you actually see it full body earlier than that (the Parker and Lambert scene).
The reason that movie gave me nightmares as a child was because for the longest time I could only imagine what the full creature looked like even though I'd actually already seen it. I was only about 7 or 8 at the time but yeah, SCARRED FOR LIFE.
It also depends on where they're going with it. Alien was a great movie, but so was Aliens, in a very different way.
MMCJawa |
Most of my compatriots are super excited about this movie, but I currently struggle to be all that interested. There really isn't a whole lot of places to take the Alien movies that are not retreading over the same ground as past movies. Part of me wishes that instead of continuing with the xenomorphs, the Alien franchise switched gears to come up with new unrelated threats for each volume. Prometheus kind of went in that direction, but screwed up so many other things that it kind of fizzled.
Freehold DM |
John Kretzer wrote:In the case of the Alien franchise, we all know what the monster looks like already. We've had lots of movies where they kind of crawl around half-seen in the dark. There's no reason to hide it. Why not have one that's out in the open?ShinHakkaider wrote:That is true of all good horror movie. It is a mistake in these types of Horror movies to show the monster too early. Because no matter how scary you can make the monster with special effects the mind can make it scarier.Rosgakori wrote:I have ner really liked seeing xenomorphs in bright daylike. And at the end of the trailer it looked very tacked-on. But hey, this is jsut the trailer. Post-production is still in progress and finished product might look better.Agreed. The reason the first movie is so effective is you never really see the full xenomorph until close to the end. People like to cite the airlock scene but you actually see it full body earlier than that (the Parker and Lambert scene).
The reason that movie gave me nightmares as a child was because for the longest time I could only imagine what the full creature looked like even though I'd actually already seen it. I was only about 7 or 8 at the time but yeah, SCARRED FOR LIFE.
Well said. The film school wankery surrounding the full reveal of a creature that has been ending our games for almost 40 years has to stop.
MMCJawa |
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:Well said. The film school wankery surrounding the full reveal of a creature that has been ending our games for almost 40 years has to stop.John Kretzer wrote:In the case of the Alien franchise, we all know what the monster looks like already. We've had lots of movies where they kind of crawl around half-seen in the dark. There's no reason to hide it. Why not have one that's out in the open?ShinHakkaider wrote:That is true of all good horror movie. It is a mistake in these types of Horror movies to show the monster too early. Because no matter how scary you can make the monster with special effects the mind can make it scarier.Rosgakori wrote:I have ner really liked seeing xenomorphs in bright daylike. And at the end of the trailer it looked very tacked-on. But hey, this is jsut the trailer. Post-production is still in progress and finished product might look better.Agreed. The reason the first movie is so effective is you never really see the full xenomorph until close to the end. People like to cite the airlock scene but you actually see it full body earlier than that (the Parker and Lambert scene).
The reason that movie gave me nightmares as a child was because for the longest time I could only imagine what the full creature looked like even though I'd actually already seen it. I was only about 7 or 8 at the time but yeah, SCARRED FOR LIFE.
Nah...unless you are doing a whole monster menagerie ala Skull Island, generally keeping things offscreen for a lot of the movie is a good way of raising tension and minimizing special effect failure. It's just with something like the Alien franchise...I would hazard just about everyone from elementary on up knows what the hell that the alien looks like at this point in time. It's also why there has been diminishing return for the last few movie.
ShinHakkaider |
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:It also depends on where they're going with it. Alien was a great movie, but so was Aliens, in a very different way.John Kretzer wrote:In the case of the Alien franchise, we all know what the monster looks like already. We've had lots of movies where they kind of crawl around half-seen in the dark. There's no reason to hide it. Why not have one that's out in the open?ShinHakkaider wrote:That is true of all good horror movie. It is a mistake in these types of Horror movies to show the monster too early. Because no matter how scary you can make the monster with special effects the mind can make it scarier.Rosgakori wrote:I have ner really liked seeing xenomorphs in bright daylike. And at the end of the trailer it looked very tacked-on. But hey, this is jsut the trailer. Post-production is still in progress and finished product might look better.Agreed. The reason the first movie is so effective is you never really see the full xenomorph until close to the end. People like to cite the airlock scene but you actually see it full body earlier than that (the Parker and Lambert scene).
The reason that movie gave me nightmares as a child was because for the longest time I could only imagine what the full creature looked like even though I'd actually already seen it. I was only about 7 or 8 at the time but yeah, SCARRED FOR LIFE.
Exactly. Alien is a straight up horror movie in space. Aliens is an action/siege movie in space. If Covenant is going for horror and dread which from both of those trailers it is, then full reveal of the creature in broad daylight neuters that whether we (the audience) has seen the creature or not. The whole idea of building a sense of dread being derided as film school wankery is kind of reactionary? It's as if because we've seen a thing there's no new way to present it or to elicit fear from it so any sense of crafting a movie to attempt to do so is...stupid?
Yeah, NO. I've seen probably hundreds of movies since I was 6 and even I'M not THAT jaded yet.
Freehold DM |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Freehold DM wrote:Nah...unless you are doing a whole monster menagerie ala Skull Island, generally keeping things offscreen for a lot of the movie is a good way of raising tension and minimizing special effect failure. It's just with something like the Alien franchise...I would hazard just about everyone from elementary on up knows what the hell that the alien looks like at this point in time. It's also why there has been diminishing return for the last few movie.Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:Well said. The film school wankery surrounding the full reveal of a creature that has been ending our games for almost 40 years has to stop.John Kretzer wrote:In the case of the Alien franchise, we all know what the monster looks like already. We've had lots of movies where they kind of crawl around half-seen in the dark. There's no reason to hide it. Why not have one that's out in the open?ShinHakkaider wrote:That is true of all good horror movie. It is a mistake in these types of Horror movies to show the monster too early. Because no matter how scary you can make the monster with special effects the mind can make it scarier.Rosgakori wrote:I have ner really liked seeing xenomorphs in bright daylike. And at the end of the trailer it looked very tacked-on. But hey, this is jsut the trailer. Post-production is still in progress and finished product might look better.Agreed. The reason the first movie is so effective is you never really see the full xenomorph until close to the end. People like to cite the airlock scene but you actually see it full body earlier than that (the Parker and Lambert scene).
The reason that movie gave me nightmares as a child was because for the longest time I could only imagine what the full creature looked like even though I'd actually already seen it. I was only about 7 or 8 at the time but yeah, SCARRED FOR LIFE.
no, the diminishing returns are because of Joss Whedon.
Orville Redenbacher |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MMCJawa wrote:no, the diminishing returns are because of Joss Whedon.Freehold DM wrote:Nah...unless you are doing a whole monster menagerie ala Skull Island, generally keeping things offscreen for a lot of the movie is a good way of raising tension and minimizing special effect failure. It's just with something like the Alien franchise...I would hazard just about everyone from elementary on up knows what the hell that the alien looks like at this point in time. It's also why there has been diminishing return for the last few movie.Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:Well said. The film school wankery surrounding the full reveal of a creature that has been ending our games for almost 40 years has to stop.John Kretzer wrote:In the case of the Alien franchise, we all know what the monster looks like already. We've had lots of movies where they kind of crawl around half-seen in the dark. There's no reason to hide it. Why not have one that's out in the open?ShinHakkaider wrote:That is true of all good horror movie. It is a mistake in these types of Horror movies to show the monster too early. Because no matter how scary you can make the monster with special effects the mind can make it scarier.Rosgakori wrote:I have ner really liked seeing xenomorphs in bright daylike. And at the end of the trailer it looked very tacked-on. But hey, this is jsut the trailer. Post-production is still in progress and finished product might look better.Agreed. The reason the first movie is so effective is you never really see the full xenomorph until close to the end. People like to cite the airlock scene but you actually see it full body earlier than that (the Parker and Lambert scene).
The reason that movie gave me nightmares as a child was because for the longest time I could only imagine what the full creature looked like even though I'd actually already seen it. I was only about 7 or 8 at the time but yeah, SCARRED FOR LIFE.
Oh, cmon? Clearly the actors didn't act right for Whedon's masterpiece!
Cole Deschain |
So, today I saw and enjoyed Alien: Covenant...
But that in no way means it's a good movie. As a sequel to Prometheus (which I like way more than it deserves), it's hasty, mean-spirited, and nonsensical. As a prequel to Alien, it makes literally no sense. There's a major plot twist that you could see and hear coming if you were in a sensory deprivation chamber in the heart of a black hole. And those who found the humans of Prometheus idiotic and reckless might well have terminal coronaries if they watch this flick.
The good: Fassbender never phones it in. I liked and rooted for our flawed primary human protagonist. The pacing worked for me. The exterior visuals were beautiful (although not as gorgeous as Prometheus), and the sense of fear was pretty well-conveyed in a couple of key scenes.
MMCJawa |
MMCJawa wrote:no, the diminishing returns are because of Joss Whedon.Freehold DM wrote:Nah...unless you are doing a whole monster menagerie ala Skull Island, generally keeping things offscreen for a lot of the movie is a good way of raising tension and minimizing special effect failure. It's just with something like the Alien franchise...I would hazard just about everyone from elementary on up knows what the hell that the alien looks like at this point in time. It's also why there has been diminishing return for the last few movie.Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:Well said. The film school wankery surrounding the full reveal of a creature that has been ending our games for almost 40 years has to stop.John Kretzer wrote:In the case of the Alien franchise, we all know what the monster looks like already. We've had lots of movies where they kind of crawl around half-seen in the dark. There's no reason to hide it. Why not have one that's out in the open?ShinHakkaider wrote:That is true of all good horror movie. It is a mistake in these types of Horror movies to show the monster too early. Because no matter how scary you can make the monster with special effects the mind can make it scarier.Rosgakori wrote:I have ner really liked seeing xenomorphs in bright daylike. And at the end of the trailer it looked very tacked-on. But hey, this is jsut the trailer. Post-production is still in progress and finished product might look better.Agreed. The reason the first movie is so effective is you never really see the full xenomorph until close to the end. People like to cite the airlock scene but you actually see it full body earlier than that (the Parker and Lambert scene).
The reason that movie gave me nightmares as a child was because for the longest time I could only imagine what the full creature looked like even though I'd actually already seen it. I was only about 7 or 8 at the time but yeah, SCARRED FOR LIFE.
David Fincher directed the third movie (Hey...remember all those cool characters from Alien you liked? TOO BAD THEY ARE NOW DEAD).
I haven't seen the one currently out (or for that matter the second A vs Predator), but I would say really only the first two movies are actually great/pretty good. I'd consider Prometheus to be (pretty) garbage while A vs P to be garbage, and the Alien 3 and 4 as being bleh.
Werthead |
It's also why there has been diminishing return for the last few movie.
What's interesting is that Ridley Scott said exactly this in the run-up to PROMETHEUS: "The alien, as a shape, is quite worn out and not that interesting or scary any more."
The face he's gone back to the alien suggests that the studio told him to so they could make more money and people would be more interested in seeing the film if the classic monster was in it, and if he didn't they'd let someone else do ALIEN 5, and he just gave in. Artistic credibility FTW.
no, the diminishing returns are because of Joss Whedon.
Because of an early draft of a script that was wrecked by Jean-Pierre Jeunet? There's actually a lot of good ingredients in A:R which were wrecked by studio interference (like shoehorning Ripley back in against Whedon's wishes and reducing the characterisation of the starship crew) or by J-P J just being weird and French for the sake of it. That's his thing and he's made some wonderful other movies, but nothing (before or since) that suggested he'd be a good fit for ALIEN.
Still, if Whedon hadn't been so annoyed by A:R he might have not have revisited his ideas and come up with FIREFLY, so A:R did do something right :)
Freehold DM |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quote:It's also why there has been diminishing return for the last few movie.What's interesting is that Ridley Scott said exactly this in the run-up to PROMETHEUS: "The alien, as a shape, is quite worn out and not that interesting or scary any more."
The face he's gone back to the alien suggests that the studio told him to so they could make more money and people would be more interested in seeing the film if the classic monster was in it, and if he didn't they'd let someone else do ALIEN 5, and he just gave in. Artistic credibility FTW.
Freehold DM wrote:no, the diminishing returns are because of Joss Whedon.Because of an early draft of a script that was wrecked by Jean-Pierre Jeunet? There's actually a lot of good ingredients in A:R which were wrecked by studio interference (like shoehorning Ripley back in against Whedon's wishes and reducing the characterisation of the starship crew) or by J-P J just being weird and French for the sake of it. That's his thing and he's made some wonderful other movies, but nothing (before or since) that suggested he'd be a good fit for ALIEN.
Still, if Whedon hadn't been so annoyed by A:R he might have not have revisited his ideas and come up with FIREFLY, so A:R did do something right :)
as usual, whedon fans swear he can do no wrong...
Cole Deschain |
I liked aliens vs predator, at least the first one.
I couldn't get past the fact that you couldn't see people's breath.... in friggin' Antarctica. And the shifting walls that stopped shifting. And one lone xenomorph downing two Predators before any Preds tagged even a single Xeno.... only for the remaining Pred to go on a friggin' killing spree.
Had some good bits, though.
Freehold DM |
In my opinion/headcanon, few things fight back actively against predators with intellect and a lack of fear. This is what makes xenos dangerous to them. I also am of the opinion that xenos get more dangerous the fewer of them they are- it's why 1 and 3 are so different from 2. But people seem to think that xenos are easy to beat with a pulse rifle and lots of ammo individually....
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion/headcanon, few things fight back actively against predators with intellect and a lack of fear. This is what makes xenos dangerous to them. I also am of the opinion that xenos get more dangerous the fewer of them they are- it's why 1 and 3 are so different from 2. But people seem to think that xenos are easy to beat with a pulse rifle and lots of ammo individually....
The Law of Conservation of Xenomorphs?
Werthead |
as usual, whedon fans swear he can do no wrong...
I think Whedon is quite overrated and he's done quite a lot wrong (like DOLLHOUSE and some of his writing decisions in the last few seasons of BUFFY were questionable and ANGEL was actually the best Whedon-spawned series precisely because he had the least to do with it). But I think pinning the failures of ALIEN: RESURRECTION at his gate makes as much sense as the people who say TOY STORY was a success because of him (when very little of his material made it into the movie). The primary reason A:R failed was because the director was completely unsuited to the material. He'd have wrecked the ALIENS script if it had been given to him.