It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The Aliens are the villains I guess but they purely act on instinct, the humans in the story are the real monsters.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/09/alien-covenant-sequel-will-begin-shooting-within-14-months-says-ridley-scott
You've certainly made your mind! Little more I can say than to reinforce Shardlake's point about Lance Henriksen appearing as yet another evil Company man. Clearly some thought went into how the eggs were placed aboard the Sulaco. Not clearly and indisputably filling every blank for the audience doesn't equate to treating the audience with contempt.
Well no, not while either Alien or Aliens were being made. I highly doubt a sequel was in mind while Alien was being made either. They were originally going to kill Ripley off!
But my earlier point was that at the time they were making Alien 3, they were definitely thinking about concluding it as a trilogy. I don't think that point is disputable. The ending is very closed-ended and they even tie things back to the original Alien with Ripley's "signing off" recording.
The aliens in Aliens differ quite a lot from the one in Alien. There is no stringency that a queen has to have laid all the eggs in Alien, especially since they clearly are arranged in an order on board the alien spaceship. They are not even real eggs in the terrestrial sense, the only thing they have in common with terrestrial eggs is the shape, all the rest is totally different.
No, someone wanted them to be an open franchise. Ridley Scott pitched an ending where the alien kills Ripley and heads for earth. The powers in control didn´t like it at all.
Agreed. The facehugger is never revealed as a 'Bishop plant'.
Literally the exact same statement I made several days ago; it's why I don't remotely buy into that reasoning for the cancelation of Blomkamp's Alien film. Not one bit.
@DaltonCraig007, lucky you! I've got 10 long days to wait. Can't wait to read how it went.
Ah, that makes more sense. Thought it was some stylistic film technique. I never noticed a surplus of acid burns throughout the early part of the film, but now that it's mentioned a few scenes do come to mind. With Alien 3 they introduced the idea of the Alien being able to spit acid—an idea that was carried over into Resurrection. I personally don't have a problem with the Alien sometimes using acid saliva. True, we don't see this deployed in Alien or Aliens, but that doesn't mean they can't still have the capacity. As for the purposefulness of the burns in Alien 3, you may be right, that they're just there for style. It's never pulled my attention though.
And still not a patch on the first 2 films in the franchise.
I'd much rather see him do more original content.
I've had similar thoughts lately, and it is a bit ironic, as you say, that he's spending his twilight hours "chipping away at" the dark and mysterious brilliance of his original Alien. He may well be doing the same thing to Blade Runner in producing that film's upcoming sequel. But even though I didn't care for Prometheus and have low hopes for Covenant, I'm inclined to say, hey, at the age of 80, more power to ya for making the movies you want to make.
I think this video does something for setting the record straight, which I've posted below. It shows how much Scott is involved in the visual look of his films, plus it confirms that Alien Covenant uses both practical effects alongside CGI. There's men in rubberized monster suits plus the use of animatronics, which certainly squashes the rumour that Scott just used CGI in this latest movie. Take a look, it's impressive just how much Scott is dedicated to realizing his vision.
For those that haven't seen the film and don't wish to see things that they feel might spoil the movie experience for them, maybe watch it after you've seen the movie. Otherwise, enjoy...
avpgalaxy.net/files/movie_alien_covenant/hbopreview.mp4?_=3
I really enjoyed it. I'm not buying the criticisms about chipping away at the mysticism and I'm not massively worried about the fact that it doesn't tie directly in to Alien in any way.
Xenomorphs, to me, are absolutely the perfect organism that the films are describing and their origin is not set in stone to me. Scott's approach is just one way of many that they could come into existence and Covenant is a pretty tense and bloody way of bringing them about.
I didn't like the OTT final confrontation but I did really like the final scenes, even though the twist was signposted far too early.
Indeed. A shame, really. It would have been a real knockout if it had been handled with a bit more subtlety. I also wanted to point that that the film is actually surprisingly humorous at times, and unlike many reviews suggest, I think this was intentional. The interactions between Walter and David were very darkly comic and Fassbender absolutely knocks it out of the park.
I'm not sure if this actually works (and explains my real loss of interest in this new movie). Dont we need to love the good guys who keep appearing to save the World ? (Bond, MI, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc etc).
PS I know the exception is Aliens where Cameron was clever in spotting that Ripley ;lacked "character arc" so added it by the bucket load to create a hero that the audience cared about in a way that was totally lacking in Alien (plus created some very lovable supporting characters), IMHO, this makes Aliens something that stands above the other movies in the series.
Since her departure it has lacked something, I'll admit. I believe Noomi Rapace's character was supposed to fill that void in Prometheus, but she fell quite flat for me. Presumably Katherine Waterston's Daniels is the new Ripley (not sure because I've yet to see the film).
They do enough to differentiate the two characters, to their credit. She wasn't a Ripley clone. She's actually much more of a natural soldier than Ripley, who basically grew into one from when we first met her.
So you don´t love Darth Vader?
It wasn´t much there in Alien, but it certainly was not lacking. I acknowledge Cameron´s right to put Ripley more in the focus, but it kind of confused everything thereafter. Alien wasn´t a film about Ripley. After Aliens, everybody thought it was. Hence the confusion about how to go about further sequels. Sigourney Weaver was a star of Alien films by then, so it would have taken great balls to make another one without her. But creatively, it was a dead end already then.
Anyhow, I´m happy to read positive feedback about Alien Covenant, it makes me want to see the film after all :-).