Alien: Covenant (2017) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

The thing in Covenant's favor is that this movie (even with marketing) was 'inexpensive' enough that it probably doesn't need to make half a billion to turn a profit.

I estimate about $250 million worldwide to break even. That's attainable.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

This was the first time I had gone to the theater in a long time. Half way through the previews the lights were still on full blast. I got up to the front employee about it. Nobody else in the theater did anything about it.

Just made me appreciate my HT even more.

 

[Tim Glover]

I would have to say that if I go to see this at the theater this post will likely have played a sizable part in motivating me to do so.

Me as well....

 

[Johnny Angell]

Last night I started watching Prometheus again and I almost cried. The cinematography is so great and the 3D is pure EYE-CANDY, that thinking of Covenant not being is 3D was breaking my heart.

Last Friday when I saw the movie at the first matinee, I think the theater (holds 200) has maybe 40 people in it. I thought that was pretty decent for Little Rock during the day.

Scheduled start time was 10:30am. After all the ads and previews, the first producer promos for the movie came on at 10:57. Almost a half hour of crap before the movie started.

I'm very tired of hearing Mark Hamil say "Breath...Just Breath." I may be sick of this movie before xmas comes.

 

[Carlo_M]

I saw a 10am showing Sunday and was pleasantly surprised that it was about half-full (it was a big theater, IMAX 2D, expensive even for matinee prices, and Los Angelenos are notoriously late wakers on a Sunday). Thus I was a little surprised at how underwhelming the B.O. take was, given how I did a similar thing for Guardians 2 and that movie made a butt-ton more money on its opening weekend and the audience size was about the same for a similar-timed showing on its release weekend.

I won't go into a spoiler-filled, plot analysis heavy review. I honestly think I need some time to let what I just watched sink in, maybe even another repeat viewing to fully digest it. What I will say is this:

Covenant was, to my mind, a mixture of a little of Prometheus's origin-story themes (Ridley likely reacted to some of the negative reactions to that movie by dialing it down a little and providing "more answers, less questions" in this movie), the rag-tag and psychologically mismatched group dynamic from the original Alien film, with a dose of Cameron's action-heavy Aliens thrown in there. So in my opinion he's taken his two Alien movies (and I liked but did not love Prometheus) and the best Alien film he did not direct, and out came Covenant.

I read a review online that said "Ridley finally makes his version of Aliens" and that's not entirely an unfair comment, though Cameron rarely dallies into deeper psychological issues like Ridley does. As of now, if I were rating in IMDb just based on my initial reaction, I'd give this movie a 7.5 our of 10. A lot of questions answered. A lot of great action pieces. Good-to-great acting, cinematography, directing, editing. It felt like it moved at the right pace.

My main criticism is that in order for some of the more dire scenes to take place, some characters were made to make some stupid choices/decisions. I think films like Alien work best when a horror befalls the protagonists even when they try to make the best decisions they can. It amps up the "oh crap what's going to happen next, how's the alien going to get at them" which a film like this wants its audience to feel. When they do blatantly dumb things (like when a character starts convulsing and bleeding, another character just gets right up close enough to smell their breath, as opposed to backing the f@#k up like I...and I would hazard a guess most of you...would) then the scene unfolds more like "well you're going to get what's coming to you dummy".

 

[Malcolm R]

My main criticism is that in order for some of the more dire scenes to take place, some characters were made to make some stupid choices/decisions. I think films like Alien work best when a horror befalls the protagonists even when they try to make the best decisions they can. It amps up the "oh crap what's going to happen next, how's the alien going to get at them" which a film like this wants its audience to feel. When they do blatantly dumb things (like when a character starts convulsing and bleeding, another character just gets right up close enough to smell their breath, as opposed to backing the f@#k up like I...and I would hazard a guess most of you...would) then the scene unfolds more like "well you're going to get what's coming to you dummy".

This worries me, as one of my issues with Prometheus was that the cast of characters was either so unlikable or stupid that there was not one single human character that I cared if they survived or not (except maybe the pilots that sacrificed themselves, they seemed OK). It sounds like Covenant may be the same sort of thing.

 

[Johnny Angell]

This worries me, as one of my issues with Prometheus was that the cast of characters was either so unlikable or stupid that there was not one single human character that I cared if they survived or not. It sounds like Covenant may be the same sort of thing.

That wasn't an issue for me.

Spoiler

I do believe the movie would have been better served to have Last Meal (I think it's been referred to that way) prologue.

It would have been better, IMHO, that the one in the movie.

 

[Carlo_M]

The team was mismatched psychology but not entirely unlikeable. There are definitely members of the crew you're rooting for (at least there was for me). And like you, I didn't care much for any of the crew of the Prometheus.

 

[Robert Crawford]

For those interested, Amazon is currently selling the UHD/4K release for $22.54. I don't know how long that pre-order pricing will last as I think it's a mistake.

https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Covena.../ref=tmm_frk_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Thanks for the heads up! I'm not UHD yet (or likely anytime soon), but if it includes all the bonus features and movie on BD, I don't mind future proofing for an extra couple bucks over the BD, so I've pre-ordered and will wait for specs to decide whether or not to keep it.

 

[Johnny Angell]

For those interested, Amazon is currently selling the UHD/4K release for $22.54. I don't know how long that pre-order pricing will last as I think it's a mistake.

https://www.amazon.com/Alien-Covena.../ref=tmm_frk_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I had already preordered so I presume I'll get this new price. BTW, I just checked and the price of $22.54 is still there.

 

[SamT]

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/K9av9

 

[mattCR]

I saw this in D-Box. First film I've ever seen using that in a theater. Frankly, preferred the experience to 3D, a bit disorienting, but pretty cool.

The film itself was good, not great. But had some really great moments.

 

[WillG]

I saw this in D-Box. First film I've ever seen using that in a theater. Frankly, preferred the experience to 3D, a bit disorienting, but pretty cool.

The film itself was good, not great. But had some really great moments.

I saw The Force Awakens in D-Box. I found it got a little annoying after awhile.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I've seen two films in 4DX, which is similar to D-Box - I believe 4DX may have greater range of motion, and 4DX has wind and water effects that I don't think D-Box has - but the idea is similar.

The first film I saw in that format, X-Men Apocalypse, was a horrible experience. The movie runs about 2 hour and 20 minutes, and the chairs rocked and shook for every moment of that running time. The movement didn't seem to match the mood or content of what was onscreen half the time, and it was just too much.

I gave it a second try for Star Trek Beyond (this time waiting until I had seen the film in another format before trying it out), and it was a much better experience. Whoever programmed the movement for Star Trek Beyond understood that less can be more, and the chairs only moved when it actually was appropriate for them to do so onscreen. So, when the Enterprise is in a space battle or plummeting from the heavens, the chairs moved and it was awesome. But when two characters were having a quiet conversation in a quiet room, nothing happened. Much better experience.

Nonetheless, I think I'm likely done with that format. The light from the lightning and strobing effects compromise the projection quality of the image, the noise from wind and water effects compromise the ability to hear all of the audio clearly. It was also $30 a ticket. That's a lot of money to get very poor audio and video and a rocking chair.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The new American Cinematographer issue was in today's mail, and Alien Covenant is one of the featured films. Here's the portion of the interview with Ridley Scott where they talk about the decision to do the film in 2D instead of 3D.

Q: Another difference between Covenant and Prometheus is that you didn't shoot in 3D on this one.
Scott: I wanted to shoot Covenant in 3D, but somebody supposedly wiser than us up there decided that the days of 3D might be over, and therefore we didn't do that. Now, of course, it's finished and somebody mumbled, 'Can we do this in 3D?' I said, 'Well, it's a bit late, dude.'
...
Scott: I don't think 3D is going to go away. I love it, because we actually see in 3D. In your head, you've basically got two cameras side by side separated by the width of your nose. When you film and project 3D properly, it's not a barrier; it's taking you back to something you've been used to since birth. There's still a lot to be explored there. One thing that would have been nice to do on The Martian would have been to shoot all of the interiors in 2D, then when he goes outside flip to 3D. But we can't do that yet.

So, reading between the lines of that quote, it sounds like the studio was not willing to pay for the expense of shooting in native 3D, perhaps believing that the format somehow wouldn't exist between the time the film was greenlighted and then scheduled for release. And it would seem that once they saw the finished film in 2D, they realized they had made a mistake but it was too late.

I think Scott's quote about The Martian and wishing he could have switched formats is really interesting. I've been wanting to see a movie that did something like that. I love 3D, but I'd like to see different filmmakers exploring different ways of using it, and one way might be to not use it through the entire film. I like how, for example, with certain IMAX movies the size of the frame changes at different points - I think it would be interesting to see something similar with 3D. (Tron Legacy did something like this by setting the "real world" sequences that open and close the film in 2D, and having all of the "inside the computer" footage that comprised the bulk of the film in 3D.) But it's not practical to ask the audience to take the glasses on and off constantly, and you don't necessarily want to telegraph that shift ahead of time by putting a signal onscreen that the viewer should put on glasses now. And because theaters insist on charging anywhere from $3-10 extra to view a film in 3D, no audience would be willing to pay that kind of premium to see a movie that is only partially in 3D. But I think those kinds of transitions could be very effective. I remember the first time that I saw The Dark Knight, the first studio film to integrate IMAX photography with 35mm photography, and when the movie would jump from 35mm to IMAX, the experience felt different. If glasses free technology could be perfected, or if the 3D enhancement could be included in the ticket price so that people could see it as an artistic choice and not a money grab, I think filmmakers could do some really cool stuff playing around with 2D to 3D transitions and back again.

 

[WillG]

Unfortunately it looks like Covenant is DOA. Apparently dropped 70% this (holiday weekend, with not great weather in lots of the northeast) for 4th place and measly 10m haul.

Got to wonder now if the rest of this story is told in fan fiction and if Fox execs are now kicking themselves for shitcanning Blomkamp's project.

 

[WillG]

The new American Cinematographer issue was in today's mail, and Alien Covenant is one of the featured films. Here's the portion of the interview with Ridley Scott where they talk about the decision to do the film in 2D instead of 3D.



So, reading between the lines of that quote, it sounds like the studio was not willing to pay for the expense of shooting in native 3D, perhaps believing that the format somehow wouldn't exist between the time the film was greenlighted and then scheduled for release. And it would seem that once they saw the finished film in 2D, they realized they had made a mistake but it was too late.

I think Scott's quote about The Martian and wishing he could have switched formats is really interesting. I've been wanting to see a movie that did something like that. I love 3D, but I'd like to see different filmmakers exploring different ways of using it, and one way might be to not use it through the entire film. I like how, for example, with certain IMAX movies the size of the frame changes at different points - I think it would be interesting to see something similar with 3D. (Tron Legacy did something like this by setting the "real world" sequences that open and close the film in 2D, and having all of the "inside the computer" footage that comprised the bulk of the film in 3D.) But it's not practical to ask the audience to take the glasses on and off constantly, and you don't necessarily want to telegraph that shift ahead of time by putting a signal onscreen that the viewer should put on glasses now. And because theaters insist on charging anywhere from $3-10 extra to view a film in 3D, no audience would be willing to pay that kind of premium to see a movie that is only partially in 3D. But I think those kinds of transitions could be very effective. I remember the first time that I saw The Dark Knight, the first studio film to integrate IMAX photography with 35mm photography, and when the movie would jump from 35mm to IMAX, the experience felt different. If glasses free technology could be perfected, or if the 3D enhancement could be included in the ticket price so that people could see it as an artistic choice and not a money grab, I think filmmakers could do some really cool stuff playing around with 2D to 3D transitions and back again.

I know next to nothing about filming in 3D technology. But how hard could it actually be to do what Ridley was describing. Just have the early scenes, technically in 3D but with 0% separation and then kick it up from there,

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The shooting isn't the problem, it's the exhibition. I think he's talking about glasses-free 3D not being ready. He'd like to have the movie switch formats without you having to put on glasses when it does.

 

[DavidJ]

The new American Cinematographer issue was in today's mail, and Alien Covenant is one of the featured films. Here's the portion of the interview with Ridley Scott where they talk about the decision to do the film in 2D instead of 3D.



So, reading between the lines of that quote, it sounds like the studio was not willing to pay for the expense of shooting in native 3D, perhaps believing that the format somehow wouldn't exist between the time the film was greenlighted and then scheduled for release. And it would seem that once they saw the finished film in 2D, they realized they had made a mistake but it was too late.

I think Scott's quote about The Martian and wishing he could have switched formats is really interesting. I've been wanting to see a movie that did something like that. I love 3D, but I'd like to see different filmmakers exploring different ways of using it, and one way might be to not use it through the entire film. I like how, for example, with certain IMAX movies the size of the frame changes at different points - I think it would be interesting to see something similar with 3D. (Tron Legacy did something like this by setting the "real world" sequences that open and close the film in 2D, and having all of the "inside the computer" footage that comprised the bulk of the film in 3D.) But it's not practical to ask the audience to take the glasses on and off constantly, and you don't necessarily want to telegraph that shift ahead of time by putting a signal onscreen that the viewer should put on glasses now. And because theaters insist on charging anywhere from $3-10 extra to view a film in 3D, no audience would be willing to pay that kind of premium to see a movie that is only partially in 3D. But I think those kinds of transitions could be very effective. I remember the first time that I saw The Dark Knight, the first studio film to integrate IMAX photography with 35mm photography, and when the movie would jump from 35mm to IMAX, the experience felt different. If glasses free technology could be perfected, or if the 3D enhancement could be included in the ticket price so that people could see it as an artistic choice and not a money grab, I think filmmakers could do some really cool stuff playing around with 2D to 3D transitions and back again.

It obvious he's still a fan of 3D. It's a shame he wasn't able to shoot Covenant in the format. I thought Prometheus was a wonderful 3D experience.

I really liked how Tron: Legacy used 2D for the real world and 3D for the computer world.