Alien: Covenant
Reply to Topic
Would Alien: Covenant be better Than Prometheus?
X
User Lists
I'm thinking it's probably a good time to merge the Alien: Covenant threads together under this new title.
X
User Lists
Guys, at the end of the movie we see two embryos , does that mean david want to make a queen from daniels, and tennesee is to be used as a male, give me your thoughts.. and why was shaw killed and not explained how and why she was dead, she was a fantastic character very bad decision to kill her character like that..
I don't think they have any clue what they are doing. All the world building and setup from Prometheus and they take this movie and say, "Nope!"
All that work with Shaw and the Engineers and they have David set it all on fire. After they explain the stuff with Shaw I lost all hope for this movie.
All that work with Shaw and the Engineers and they have David set it all on fire. After they explain the stuff with Shaw I lost all hope for this movie.
X
User Lists
I didn't get the opportunity to view Alien Covenant upon release here in South Africa and only made the effort to tick it off my list yesterday. Admittedly, a partial reason for this is because of the blatantly negative reviews that the film raked in.
I started watching it and was immediately confused as to why this film received such overtly negative reviews. After having finished it, I did understand why. It still frustrated me a lot though and this is what I'm about to address in this piece.
Not only did I like it, I loved aspects of this tremendously. Other parts of it were admittedly dull and shallow. My understanding of this is because our both brilliant and terrible director Ridley Scott probably attempted to cater for single dimensional fanboys who just care to see Giger's perfect organism rip a space crew up one by one, as well as the more self-proclaimed philosophers who know of Ozymandias and what it would mean if we found out that there's no meaning to be found through the search of a celestial creator, or that ruin is the only result of building at the cost of the other.
I'm a big fan of the guys at Screen Junkies' Honest Trailers. They often help me to create a more developed opinion of a film. They openly destroyed the integrity of the film based on – as they put it themselves – multiple forgettable single dimensional characters, a really shallow plot, flat acting as well as fairly undeveloped problem solving solutions. They used the fact that two people slip in the same puddle of blood twice as a means of disarming them within a very short time and the thirty minutes of flute playing classes as examples of how badly the story is written. It bothered me too. A director with this reputation should come up with more creative ways to complicate the characters' developments. I just found it laughable that a large part of what they complained about is the action action action that they wanted – and as they complain, they use scenes from the film in which they praise the kind of action they long for in such a genre.
I also have criticisms. Oh my goodness, there are so many plot holes, it's crazy. Is it unforgivable? Not even close! Context is vital when watching film. 1970's Alien was a friggin amazing hit and people lapped it up immediately. Honestly, how remarkable was the acting from the crew of the Nostromo really? How lame are the lines in the first Star Wars Trilogy? If we're honest, the acting was sometimes beyond dull and the characters barely stayed within character. We simply don't care, because the purposes of the movies were met. Holes? Sure. Do we love them? Absolutely!
Then why is Covenant a critical flop? In recent years, both Lucas and Spielberg predicted the implosion of the film industry, because films are required and forced to grow bigger and louder, Think Death Star Vs Starkiller Base. Oooh – bigger and better; this one sucks suns dry! Ultimately people will realize that the movies just don't pack the same punch anymore, and the treason is with the sacrifice of narrative and character development in order to fulfill the masses' drugged-like lust for the epic-kick. Truthfully, Covenant had the elements of trying to feed this lust, with enough risk taking girth to actually still be something more than a safe bet franchise sequel. The reason why Scott is a brilliant director is because he didn't forget the fundamentals of great filmmaking, while most modern'-day filmmakers play it safe and push out another predictable sequel, telling the same story with a bigger boom. The cost of this is also visible in the array of flops he's directed. It's the cost he pays to be able to pull original stories off and make successes of them.
The plot holes? What about what's done right? What is the theme of Promethius one and two? It's the quest of finding our origin and through that determine our purpose as humans. Covenant opens with a creation that happened – very much like a Beckett or a Frankl existence piece. We have forgotten to ask these questions that was triggered by the horrors of the World Wars, but these horrors still happen every day. In an otherwise blank room, we view the world through a letterbox ratio window with nature on the outside and human creation on the inside; Art, music, engineering and poetry. This theme carries though the film, despite the shallow majority of characters, which in my opinion serve their purpose well. Scott didn't waste time on them and focused on the theme.
He gave us the thought provoking analogies of babel – destruction completed though our creations – equipped with our own paranoid-developed death machines as a reminder of the current destruction we cause on each other daily. He gave us amazing landscapes, an epic score the likes of few modern pieces, the original xenomorph and new weird plantbased white killers.
Remember what film is meant to be. Maybe we can save the industry from itself.
I started watching it and was immediately confused as to why this film received such overtly negative reviews. After having finished it, I did understand why. It still frustrated me a lot though and this is what I'm about to address in this piece.
Not only did I like it, I loved aspects of this tremendously. Other parts of it were admittedly dull and shallow. My understanding of this is because our both brilliant and terrible director Ridley Scott probably attempted to cater for single dimensional fanboys who just care to see Giger's perfect organism rip a space crew up one by one, as well as the more self-proclaimed philosophers who know of Ozymandias and what it would mean if we found out that there's no meaning to be found through the search of a celestial creator, or that ruin is the only result of building at the cost of the other.
I'm a big fan of the guys at Screen Junkies' Honest Trailers. They often help me to create a more developed opinion of a film. They openly destroyed the integrity of the film based on – as they put it themselves – multiple forgettable single dimensional characters, a really shallow plot, flat acting as well as fairly undeveloped problem solving solutions. They used the fact that two people slip in the same puddle of blood twice as a means of disarming them within a very short time and the thirty minutes of flute playing classes as examples of how badly the story is written. It bothered me too. A director with this reputation should come up with more creative ways to complicate the characters' developments. I just found it laughable that a large part of what they complained about is the action action action that they wanted – and as they complain, they use scenes from the film in which they praise the kind of action they long for in such a genre.
I also have criticisms. Oh my goodness, there are so many plot holes, it's crazy. Is it unforgivable? Not even close! Context is vital when watching film. 1970's Alien was a friggin amazing hit and people lapped it up immediately. Honestly, how remarkable was the acting from the crew of the Nostromo really? How lame are the lines in the first Star Wars Trilogy? If we're honest, the acting was sometimes beyond dull and the characters barely stayed within character. We simply don't care, because the purposes of the movies were met. Holes? Sure. Do we love them? Absolutely!
Then why is Covenant a critical flop? In recent years, both Lucas and Spielberg predicted the implosion of the film industry, because films are required and forced to grow bigger and louder, Think Death Star Vs Starkiller Base. Oooh – bigger and better; this one sucks suns dry! Ultimately people will realize that the movies just don't pack the same punch anymore, and the treason is with the sacrifice of narrative and character development in order to fulfill the masses' drugged-like lust for the epic-kick. Truthfully, Covenant had the elements of trying to feed this lust, with enough risk taking girth to actually still be something more than a safe bet franchise sequel. The reason why Scott is a brilliant director is because he didn't forget the fundamentals of great filmmaking, while most modern'-day filmmakers play it safe and push out another predictable sequel, telling the same story with a bigger boom. The cost of this is also visible in the array of flops he's directed. It's the cost he pays to be able to pull original stories off and make successes of them.
The plot holes? What about what's done right? What is the theme of Promethius one and two? It's the quest of finding our origin and through that determine our purpose as humans. Covenant opens with a creation that happened – very much like a Beckett or a Frankl existence piece. We have forgotten to ask these questions that was triggered by the horrors of the World Wars, but these horrors still happen every day. In an otherwise blank room, we view the world through a letterbox ratio window with nature on the outside and human creation on the inside; Art, music, engineering and poetry. This theme carries though the film, despite the shallow majority of characters, which in my opinion serve their purpose well. Scott didn't waste time on them and focused on the theme.
He gave us the thought provoking analogies of babel – destruction completed though our creations – equipped with our own paranoid-developed death machines as a reminder of the current destruction we cause on each other daily. He gave us amazing landscapes, an epic score the likes of few modern pieces, the original xenomorph and new weird plantbased white killers.
Remember what film is meant to be. Maybe we can save the industry from itself.
Having watched Alien: Covenant, and I won't go into a full-fledged review on it right now, but I can say I didn't really like the film at all. I enjoyed Alien, I enjoyed Aliens, even more so, I think, but Covenant certainly goes into the "bad heap" in my opinion. I think I feel comfortable saying I liked Prometheus more than it. Prometheus was a dull affair, but something about Covenant came across as really messy and disproportionate for me, I'd even rank it behind Alien 3 and Resurrection, I think. I enjoy the director's ambitions and what he wants to accomplish, but I think the film simply wasn't that entertaining of a film. The characters were shallow and although it is brimming with ideas, I believe their execution left something to be desired.
X
User Lists
Alien Covenant basically pisses over the premise of a new trilogy set up by Prometheus. Instead of the doctor + robot in tow going off to discover new worlds (the new 'Ripley' saga), Covenant basically resets the whole lot. Great film imho, but can't be having that every time.
I think you can still get a good trilogy out of David being a mad scientist who keeps making xenomorphs and letting them loose on whatever teams of unsuspecting humans cross his path - meanwhile, I'm not sure how you can really get two whole films out of Shaw and David travelling around space.
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
X
Favorite Movies
I don't know why, but Alien Covenant borrowed greatly from one of my favorite paintings and it made me super happy
The scene in reference was when David is talking to Walter on the "balcony" (I couldn't find a frame of it online, sorry).
-
Flawed as they may be, I really liked Prometheus outside of it being an Alien movie, and both movies have some interesting things going on with them. Weirder still is that I dog Marvel/Disney movies pretty regularly, but I give these a pass for some reason?
The scene in reference was when David is talking to Walter on the "balcony" (I couldn't find a frame of it online, sorry).
-
Flawed as they may be, I really liked Prometheus outside of it being an Alien movie, and both movies have some interesting things going on with them. Weirder still is that I dog Marvel/Disney movies pretty regularly, but I give these a pass for some reason?
It's not that weird, if nothing else they're doing something a bit more thematically ambitious than the expected monster-movie shenanigans or your average Disney/Marvel work.
X
Favorite Movies
guys what do u think about the theory that there is a species above the engineers, called the "alphas" and that the original ship from alien is more organic than the one in prometheus, how about the theory that the alphas found a black box that contained the liquid goo. and they went on to test it on a moon they named: lv223, when they found that the goo is very dangerous .
this is all before the engineers came through?
this is all before the engineers came through?