Alien: Covenant (2017) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

My opinions are opinions. Facts are facts. I can't present my opinion as a fact.

I can't say in my opinion Ridley Scott directed Alien because it is a fact he directed Alien.

If I say "Prometheus stinks!"...that's an opinion...there is no way to present it as a fact.

You can and absolutely have presented your opinions as facts Reggie. That you cannot see that is amazing.

But let's not do this dance again friend. Many of us have pointed it out to you and you you refuse to acknowledge it. And that's ok. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The Alien films are all entirely separate deals.

I disagree strongly with that statement. I think it's factually incorrect.

If you want to say they were written and directed by different people, sure, but the movies were all produced by David Giler and Walter Hill. They were all financed by Fox. Presumably, the Alien franchise was under supervision of an executive, similar to the way then-Paramount executive Jeffrey Katzenberg oversaw the development of the Trek feature films in the late 70s/80s.

Plotwise, each Alien film in some way builds on what came before. Aliens follows Alien in a pretty clear way. Even though Alien 3 wouldn't have been my approach, it builds on Aliens. Alien Resurrection follows that. If these films were separate deals, you wouldn't have had them bending over backwards in the writing of each film to keep Ripley in the story so long.

I would agree that the films weren't plotted in advance the way Marvel Studios will plan five years of storylines in advance - but I think that's a very different kind of statement than saying the films are separate entities.

 

[Edwin-S]

The thing that strikes me about that review is how wrong Siskel was in his evaluation of Aliens.

 

[Edwin-S]

I cannot speak for the films after number 2 as I've never watched them. I do disagree with the assertion that 2 had no continuity with one.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Actually Roddenberry did not set up the entire Trek universe and how it functioned. There were many other people involved notably Gene L Coon.

So the argument doesn't stand. Sorry.

I would say the point still stands. This is because the point was not who gets the credit nor my lacking knowledge of who all the people were that got the original series through three seasons. The point was that there is a very well laid out map in Star Trek and Star Wars that provides a unity and what people like to call "canon" to these franchises. I know Lucas is not responsible for everything in the Star Wars franchise either. However, I think you guys likely understood my point that those franchises due to a very strong guiding hand hang together but because that "hand" does not exist (and I'll just call it hand now so we are not going back and forth over credits) in the Alien films, it is all people doing their own thing when they make them, we do not get that kind of consistency in the Alien series.

I do appreciate that there are many people that work on films and that they should all get mentioned. So, thank you for adding Mr. Coon to the conversation.

 

[Tino]

Of course it had continuity.

 

[Bryan^H]

The thing that strikes me about that review is how wrong Siskel was in his evaluation of Aliens.

side stepping away from topic-
LOL! Yeah I"At The Movies" was one of my favorite shows of all time. I really did love to watch it. However, Siskel was one reviewer I could never understand. He used to dislike some really great movies. I'll never forget his dislike for "Hoosiers", I was in the mindset of -how can you actually walk away from that film and not enjoy it...even a little?- I was almost always agreed with Roger Ebert.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I disagree strongly with that statement. I think it's factually incorrect.

If you want to say they were written and directed by different people, sure, but the movies were all produced by David Giler and Walter Hill. They were all financed by Fox. Presumably, the Alien franchise was under supervision of an executive, similar to the way then-Paramount executive Jeffrey Katzenberg oversaw the development of the Trek feature films in the late 70s/80s.

Plotwise, each Alien film in some way builds on what came before. Aliens follows Alien in a pretty clear way. Even though Alien 3 wouldn't have been my approach, it builds on Aliens. Alien Resurrection follows that. If these films were separate deals, you wouldn't have had them bending over backwards in the writing of each film to keep Ripley in the story so long.

I would agree that the films weren't plotted in advance the way Marvel Studios will plan five years of storylines in advance - but I think that's a very different kind of statement than saying the films are separate entities.

Well, I would not agree with you and would lean more toward what Ebert says at the start of his review that Aliens is basically a stand alone film. Yes, it shares the monster and Weaver but Cameron set out to make a totally different film not really concerned with Scott's film. The rest of the series of films go off completely in their own directions. Weaver was kept around because she was as identified with the films as the creature and that's what they thought would sell.

I was discussing the creative aspect of these films not who was financing them or producing. Although obviously on something like Alien 3 perhaps Fincher would tell you the people paying for the film had more to do with the end result than he.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think you're talking about two different things.

The films are absolutely related and interconnected. Ripley's character development in 1 informs her behavior in 2; the people she met in 2 that she loses before 3 inform her character's behavior and emotions in 3.

But it's not a continuing storyline where each film directly continues the adventures of the last, that's true. Aliens isn't a return to Nostromo to find out what happened. Alien 3 isn't a return to the same planet as Aliens. Ridley is on a new adventure in each, but she couldn't on that adventure had the previous film not existed.

Most of the James Bond films are true standalones. Live And Let Die has nothing to do with The Man With The Golden Gun. Watch the first 20 Bond films out of order and it makes no difference. Seeing them that way doesn't spoil anything. But if you watch the Alien movies out of order, they'll spoil each other. If you watch Aliens first having never seen Alien, it ruins the experience of seeing Alien. That alone means they're not standalone stories.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

You can and absolutely have presented your opinions as facts Reggie. That you cannot see that is amazing.

But let's not do this dance again friend. Many of us have pointed it out to you and you you refuse to acknowledge it. And that's ok. Ignorance is bliss.

I can't acknowledge it because it is not possible for me to do it. Obviously you were able to identify my opinions as opinions so I did not present them as facts.

I also expect you can identify anything in my posts that may be a fact...so we remain in a situation where I think we are in agreement that you can identify what is an opinion and what is a fact when I write things here...thus I can't possibly be presenting opinions as facts nor facts as opinions...

 

[Edwin-S]

I don't agree with Egbert that Aliens was a standalone film. It appears that way, but only because one is already familiar with a lot of the elements due to the first one.

If Aliens had played without the existence of the first film, people would have been scratching their heads and going WTF, because there were a lot of references to the first film. The whole premise of the mission, Ripley's attachment to the the crew and the colonists being on the planet to begin with would have made little sense to the audience without the set up of elements from Alien.

 

[questrider]

To be fair, it is just his opinion. No different than when these two critics argued about who was right, and why:

The thing that strikes me about that review is how wrong Siskel was in his evaluation of Aliens.

side stepping away from topic-
LOL! Yeah I"At The Movies" was one of my favorite shows of all time. I really did love to watch it. However, Siskel was one reviewer I could never understand. He used to dislike some really great movies. I'll never forget his dislike for "Hoosiers", I was in the mindset of -how can you actually walk away from that film and not enjoy it...even a little?

All I thought when I saw Siskel's review of Aliens is that he would have strongly disliked all of the Marvel films and that over-the-top action that is the norm nowadays with CGI. While watching that review with hindsight it's difficult not to respond with "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"

I almost always agreed with Roger Ebert.

Me too. Growing up in the Chicagoland area I remember watching Sneak Previews on WTTW, channel 11. Siskel and Ebert are probably partially responsible for my love of film by exposing me to the releases of the time while teaching me to think about film at a different level than is just what's on screen. With Ebert, though, his writing was where he lived and that was really his forte. He wrote essays, not reviews. He was more than the guy you saw on Sneak Previews and At the Movies. There's a reason he won a Pulitzer Prize (1975).

 

[DavidJ]

Man, I miss those guys.

On another note...

Even though I had some issues with Prometheus and was not overly thrilled with Covenant, I truly hope Scott is able to finish telling this story. I may not always like the choices, but I want to see where it goes and I've found they stimulate plenty of thought and discussion.

 

[TravisR]

If Aliens had played without the existence of the first film, people would have been scratching their heads and going WTF, because there were a lot of references to the first film. The whole premise of the mission, Ripley's attachment to the the crew and the colonists being on the planet to begin with would have made little sense to the audience without the set up of elements from Alien.

If the first movie never existed, the second one would be very odd in opening with Ripley having had some kind of off screen encounter with an alien but as long as a viewer knows they're watching Part 2, they could easily watch Aliens without having seen Alien and follow the movie perfectly fine. The background information that they need to know about Ripley and what happened in the first one is given and Sigourney Weaver's performance shows the emotion that she's dealing with. That being said, people should watch Alien before seeing Aliens.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think you're talking about two different things.

The films are absolutely related and interconnected. Ripley's character development in 1 informs her behavior in 2; the people she met in 2 that she loses before 3 inform her character's behavior and emotions in 3.

But it's not a continuing storyline where each film directly continues the adventures of the last, that's true. Aliens isn't a return to Nostromo to find out what happened. Alien 3 isn't a return to the same planet as Aliens. Ridley is on a new adventure in each, but she couldn't on that adventure had the previous film not existed.

Most of the James Bond films are true standalones. Live And Let Die has nothing to do with The Man With The Golden Gun. Watch the first 20 Bond films out of order and it makes no difference. Seeing them that way doesn't spoil anything. But if you watch the Alien movies out of order, they'll spoil each other. If you watch Aliens first having never seen Alien, it ruins the experience of seeing Alien. That alone means they're not standalone stories.

Well, I definitely agree with you about Aliens. That film does attempt to pick-up the story where Alien left off and the beginning of the film is entirely referencing Alien and what happened. I think, it has been a while since I have seen the film, they even attempt to blame the destruction of the Nostromo on Ripley and in "greedy company" mode hold her accountable for the cost of the loss. Also the entire fear factor of the picture and Ripley returning to the planet she barely escaped alive is all based upon the idea that you know what happened in Alien. I mean I think you begin Aliens already concerned for Ripley because YOU KNOW what happened to her in Alien and so you think it is totally insane for her to return to LV-426. Which, interestingly to me, has always been one of the film's great strengths and great weaknesses. I always have found it absurd that they send Ripley back and even more absurd after what she goes through in the first film that she agrees to go. It is a gigantic contrivance but one you are required to go with to enjoy the film. However, Aliens became the film that turned Weaver into the world's most badass female action star. Everybody ate that up with a giant spoon.

So, in that regard I certainly agree that Aliens should only be watched after Alien because they begin the film by playing off of Alien and because we know what Ripley knows this also builds a lot of tension when they arrive at the planet. So, the film does, smartly I think, use the first film as a way to get the audience into the second film. I think Aliens is a true sequel but the creators of the film are not setting out to remake Alien instead Cameron, or whoever came up with the idea, decided to make an action film instead of another atmospheric horror film. In this regard Ripley in the second film is not really like Ripley in the first film. She is a drastically different character. One that is less realistic and instead turns her into an over the top action star. Which is fine, it all works in Aliens and the film throws so much at the audience I think the idea is you can't catch your breath so you won't have time to think about it.

However, Alien and Aliens, I think, are the only two films in the "franchise" you would need to watch in order of release. The rest of the films only barely wave at anything that came before them. You only have two things that tie them together. Weaver because she was turned into a giant action star by Aliens. Remember the big deal about her was she became a kickass take charge female in what would normally be a "male dominated" genre film, and the monster. So, the only requirements going into the films that followed was Ripley had to be kicking ass and taking charge and the monster needed to be running around killing off everybody else. So, basically...Jaws in space.

I actually think your Bond film example works in a way to describe how the Alien franchise works. I agree that Bond films are less concerned with telling one long continuous tale than they are with being stand alone pictures. And with Bond usually also a product of their time. I feel Alien with the put upon workers complaining about wages and treatment by the company were very much a reflection of the late 1970s. It made, and since this is still an issue today still makes, the film feel more authentic or "realistic" because the characters seem like real people in a situation they are over their heads in.

As the franchise continues, sort of like with the Bond films as they seemed to feel they needed to become more comic or over the top with each entry, the characters in the Alien series become less "realistic" as they switch to space marines, prisoners, mad scientists etc. This changes the films in such a way that they just move more into a cartoonish direction and when you get to Prometheus and Covenant it seems the characters don't really matter at all it is just all about getting us from one set-piece to another.

The thing is, to me anyway, Alien is a much different film than any of the films that followed and so I think the thing that I have an issue with is none of the films that followed Alien really feels like Alien. They all seem more to be follow-ups to Aliens and push in that direction in that they do want to be more like a cartoon than what Alien was. They don't seem connected to me. They don't seem to care about what happened in the previous films. In Ridley Scott's words they all seem to become "shoot 'em up and shoot 'em out" or what I would just call bloody summer camp in space films. They are basically all slasher films with the monster just wiping out a different group of campers in each film...and as the films progress the "campers" become less and less important. Just like in a series of slasher films as you get deeper into the series all they really are doing is looking for ways to keep the stalk-slash-kills exciting. The characters just don't matter...they are literally just meat.

Now, perhaps this is all just my problem. I should not be looking for more than this in these films maybe. And the truth is in most of them I did not because I could see what was going on. When Ridley returned to the "franchise" though because I am such a fan of his and his film Alien...well...I guess I am totally guilty of expecting more.

I guess unlike Star Wars or Star Trek where a major part of how the "universe" functions concerns the characters, their relationships, and how they interact...well...in the Alien films (outside of the first one) the characters are really just there to get killed so not much is put into them. I mean they can have an "anchor" character like Ripley or in these newer films David but everybody else is apparently...to borrow from Trek...a red shirt. I remember this complaint coming from people after Alien 3 came out. People seemed to want Hicks to return and when he did not it pissed a lot of people off.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

As a point of reference...and he does not spoil anything about whatever the next film will be but there is a giant Covenant spoiler in this interview so do not watch it if you are concerned about spoiling Covenant.

 

[Nelson Au]

Hey guys, I saw Alien Covenant last night. So I finally had a chance to review this thread to catch up on your discussion. So, is this the official Alien Covenant discussion review thread? It's felt a little off track.

I avoided reading and seeing anything on the film, other then a trailer. I didn't see the last supper film. I did re-watch Prometheus, and I'll say that I left Prometheus at first not hating or loving it. But I've since rewatched it a few times and I like it. I like where Scott is going to not cover the same ground. He stuck to his guns and wanted to explore where the Alien originated from as well as where the Space Jockey came from and what he is. Plus I wanted to add, I've seen each Alien film theatrically, except the AvP offshoots. So I'm pretty invested. However, as a young teen, Alien scared the heck out me. Aliens was an exciting auctioner. Alien 3 and 4 were diminishing returns and both felt lacking. Though I do hope to find time to see the Fincher cut of Alien3 because the first time I saw it, I thought the ending felt pretty strong, and I wonder if it might be even stronger thematically.

I left Alien Covenant feeling the same after seeing Prometheus. I didn't hate it or love it. But I am ruminating on the film. I think I'll end up appreciating it more over time, however to me, it felt like two movies. One about David and his decent into insanity. I agree with the earlier posts that this is like the Frankenstein story. The other story was Daniel's. So the fracture to me felt like they didn't really have a chance to develop her or to make me feel more invested in her. It's interesting how Scott has made each film with a strong lead female character. Shaw was pretty well developed and has a strong back story and you know where she's coming from. All I get from Daniels is a weeping widow who wanted to build a house by the lake. That was a good line that comes back at the end. So for me the second half of the film and climax felt tacked on and not really earned. I get what Scott was after and I saw the ending coming.

As was mentioned earlier, I was sure Walter would die during the flute teaching sequence with David. Scott tricked us well there and it came later.

The action sequence in the last quarter of the film felt out of place, as was the scene where we see David dropping the black goo on the engineers. That was a very impressive looking sequence, at the same time, felt small and not expansive. It was like The Man of Steel and the fight at the end with Zod. There's all this destruction, but Metropolis felt like an empty wasteland so they could save some budget and not show a lot. If you get my meaning. So we see just a small limited area, the citadel or whatever that area was. By the way, I was surprised the people on the planet looked like regular Engineers and not at all like the muscular tall ones we see in Prometheus. Maybe we are seeing the regular citizens of the Engineers world and not the elite group.

So as I started to say, Daniels suddenly becomes a Ripley at the last quarter of the film and it didn't feel earned. Ripley had the incompetence of Gorman to make her act to save the marines. I suppose Daniels started to feel more and more herself as she is discovering what David is up to on the planet and that triggers her to fight. She never had a previous film though that showed her as a strong fighter.

Shaw sure was able to reattach David's head well! But obviously there was some damage from the Engineer when he tore him apart. And or it was simply that David was designed to be creative and to think on his own and he simply wanted to carry on with the theme of the film and that of creation, he was created by Weyland. And yet Weyland didn't know who created him. I liked that bit of theme to set the film going. So David wanted to be the creator of a new life form, but he didn't create in his own image. Whether the audience will like that David is the creator of the xenomorph will be seen. I do like the more mysterious idea. I imagine that they are simply a life form that evolved out on a planet somewhere and the Space Jockey simply was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I did like the idea of the xenomorph as an accidental creation from the black goo and the Engineers accidentally unleashed it on themselves as Prometheus showed.

I was disappointed we didn't see Shaw at all. I thought they filmed some scenes with her. Maybe she'll show up in the blu ray extras. Seeing her fate in the drawings that David had done to chronicle his life creation efforts did explain her fate. I had hoped we saw more of her journey and what she finds or what her reaction was to what happens. I wanted to know why the Engineers wanted to wipe out humanity.

One thing is consistent, throughout all the Alien films from Scott, you can't trust all the synthetics. They all must have something deep in their programming to help and to find the aliens. Perhaps it's a deep built-in bit of code that started with David and it stuck.

Oh yeah, I was surprised the same person who scored Prometheus didn't score Covenant. If I have it right, Jed Kurzell scored the film and as with most movies I see the first time, I don't hear all the score as I focus on the story. The one thing that kept popping up is his quoting the Jerry Goldsmith "waking from hypersleep" theme from Alien. Perhaps that was Scott wanting to remind us this is an Alien film. He used it a lot! I welcomed it a lot, but maybe it was a little over used. As well as quoting Marc Streitenfeld's theme. That was weird for David to play the theme on the flute. Sort of like a Star Trek character whistling the Star Trek fan fare.

Well, there's my brain dump on the film without having really thought it out more. I look forward to the blu ray.

 

[DavidJ]

As a point of reference...and he does not spoil anything about whatever the next film will be but there is a giant Covenant spoiler in this interview so do not watch it if you are concerned about spoiling Covenant.

"There could be many of him (the alien)"

It was almost a throwaway line as the next question was being asked, but I think there's a good chance that it was an important comment about where he sees the franchise going.

 

[Edwin-S]

The thing is, to me anyway, Alien is a much different film than any of the films that followed and so I think the thing that I have an issue with is none of the films that followed Alien really feels like Alien. They all seem more to be follow-ups to Aliens and push in that direction in that they do want to be more like a cartoon than what Alien was. They don't seem connected to me. They don't seem to care about what happened in the previous films. In Ridley Scott's words they all seem to become "shoot 'em up and shoot 'em out" or what I would just call bloody summer camp in space films. They are basically all slasher films with the monster just wiping out a different group of campers in each film...and as the films progress the "campers" become less and less important. Just like in a series of slasher films as you get deeper into the series all they really are doing is looking for ways to keep the stalk-slash-kills exciting. The characters just don't matter...they are literally just meat.

Your "summer camp slasher" film description could be applied as equally to the first film as to any of the ones that follows. In fact more so, because the victims in the first film have no idea as to what is about to occur to them, whereas in every film after there is a main character that knows exactly what is about to happen. The first film's premise is simply a horrifying killer stalking its victims and disposing them in nasty ways. It is Jason Vorhees in Space.

The only thing that raises it vastly above the average slasher film is the level of fear and tension that is created by the atmospheric and claustrophobic design of the Nostromo, good direction and good acting. In the first film, there were a lot of times where you got the impression that the actors were not really acting sometimes.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

"There could be many of him (the alien)"

It was almost a throwaway line as the next question was being asked, but I think there's a good chance that it was an important comment about where he sees the franchise going.

He seems to be saying that Star Wars and Lucas were a big influence on him and he wants to see Alien built up into a giant "war of the worlds" style universe. He thinks that it is franchise that should still be running and that the thing that he learned from Prometheus is that the Xeno needs to always be central to it as the threat. That's a total reversal to what he was saying prior to Prometheus and had at that point said he even felt science fiction was a dead issue. I guess we will see what happens.