Hey everyone! So, I gave Covenant a rewatch for the first time since the theater, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. In fact, I think i like it more than Alien 3 or Resurrection. Was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on Covenant and why does it get so much hate?
It has problems but I'd probably put it third behind Alien and Aliens.
It gets hate mainly because people don't like David being the creator of the Aliens.
It's pretty good until they get down to the planet and the characters become largely uninteresting or stupid and then it gets shut off. It doesn't even come close to aging as well as A3.
I can only speak for myself, I don't like it very much since most of the characters were without personality. Reason two is because it was too much about the androids even though Fassbender did a good job. My reason for watching these movies is not the androids but the human journey.
David as the creator of the Xeno sucks balls and is probably my biggest complaint about it because to me it takes a big crap on the alien-lore. Another but smaller reason is that I was hoping to see more about the Engineers, but they got wiped out and also they didn't look that impressive. Living in stone-huts, seriously?
AC is better than the AVP's and AR so I got to give it that. Not sure about Prometheus because AC had better characters because they were not as annoying and felt more like real people but at the same time it didn't have David as the creator of the Xeno. Both prequels are mixed bags to me, with good parts and those that are crappy.
To me Alien 3 is the best one in the franchise but I can understand why people have problems with it. AC doesn't come close to it as far as quality is concerned. You'll probably find people that disagree with me but that's fine. We have many movies in this franchise and the more movies the less likely it is that people have the same preferences.
Covenant to me comes after the original three as far as the quality is concerned and maybe after Prometheus. During the time of Prometheus they didn't have David as the creator but the characters are better in Covenant. The characters are not as annoying, which is important to me but there are other things that I don't like. Quit this android-thing and keep Scott far away from the story.
I love Covenant. My quadrilogy (by chronology):
Prometheus has the better worldbuilding than Covenant. Covenant is a more solid story than Prometheus.
Some parts of these films are masterpieces. Artistically I believe we all enjoy certain aspects about each of these films. What I find interesting about AC are the updated special effects for specifics scenes. The back-buster scene I think would have been terrifying years ago; however, contemporary audiences in general have so much more exposure to similar gore and violence. As powerful as the seen was visually I think current audience members were unimpressed. This was not lost on me at all and in fact I enjoyed the evolution of seeing how far RS had come in terms of translating his vision onto the big screen.
There are other treatments in AC worthy of notable mentions, where the work artistically is unique demanding further discussion. I think over all the films ending did not work for me. I enjoyed the AC selectively overall.
Alien gets a little harder to watch just because it is getting dated. My thoughts on Alien are thus. When Ash demands the crew go to the surface, lets it in the ship, watches it as it slowly kills Kane, tells the crew nothing scientifically about it, tells Kane nothing of what is inside of him when wakes up, and so this is when I realized Ash was a bad guy. I do not believe this sentiment has ever come before when discussing Alien. I thought it was implied everyone got this on so many subsequent viewings of the film.
In retrospect if I were Dallas I would have shoved Ashe's ass right into that airlock with the flame thrower and made him go after what he obviously was so responsible for in terms of breaking quarantine.
Alien has a high level of sophisticated deceit attributable to Ashes character and so the real introspective movie goers establish that his character is working entirely against the crew in some way. I enjoy this aspect about Alien so much because it raises the bar for the average movie goers to really discern what is really going on.
As far as the other films, I enjoy Aliens just as a great popcorn film. Prometheus has so many problems structurally and for me is only enjoyable in purely abstract ways. I have to ignore so many things in Prometheus to call it a complete film. Prometheus has powerful visual elements; but, that is all diminished very quickly by it's other sins.
One thing that bothers me about the prequels and prequels in general is that the technology is better when it should be as good or even less advanced. We heard excuses that the Prometheus and Covenant ship were more advanced since they were more highly funded than the lowly Nostromo crew ship. I think that is sort of a cop out. If there is another prequel, I would like to see the technology be on par with Alien- small screens with DOS looking text, equipment that malfunctions and has to be mannually fixed etc. That is part of why I still think A3 holds up against AC. They were pretty primitive tech wise. It could still be done in a great visual way, but I don't want to see holograms and such in a prequel when the original was comparably low tech.
Yeah aesthetically carrying over 40 year old film props would be a difficult stretch of the imagination for many audiences to sink with what they see in so many other contemporary films with similar special effects and treatments.
The aesthetic dissonance you are seeing in the newer films is just something you are supposed to overlook as a film goer or at least that is what the producers of this franchise expect.
I certainly can understand your expectations. I like the look of Alien and I also like the look of the newer special effects.
There are no excuses here.
It was strange if multibillionaires like Wayland were traveling on muddy and oily barges. Prometheus is not a cargo barge, it is an elite yacht. You can see both: yachts and barges today; so, why should things be different in the future?
Of course, I love the retro-futurism style of Alien/s, but we must understand that the idea should work for the story, not vice versa.
If the next story will be about an ordinary workers on a cheap ship or about colonial marines on a minimalistic warship, then there must be an Alien art-style. In all other cases, no. Not necessary.
Chronologically it is impossible to carry over the original props conveyed in Alien to future productions. In 1979 Alien was "state of the art," as you can get!
In terms of pure technological aesthetics it is difficult at best for audiences seeing old cathode ray tube monitors, "PAL TV'S" boob tubes, then making the leap to fully independent interactive holographical computer interfaces that were seen in Prometheus.
As movie watchers we are all under the assumption of suspension of disbelief such that what we saw in Alien is the same aesthetically as what we have watched in the prequal films.
I am not sure subjectively why anyone takes issue with creative narrative license when it comes to sci-fi films. I believe the main difference is that the earliest film, Alien, was so iconic that deviations from the overall props of the film cause some dissonance in some viewers when technically it should not.
If I may be so bold, I would like to artistically put this another way. Alien is no doubt a masterpiece as good as any other artform. Comparatively to masterworks in renaissance painting Alien is another separate art form equally as good in terms of contemporary art. Having stated this I believe the logical test then is never to judge any film or painting comparatively against anything earlier or later.
Their simply is no comparison constructively or any argument to compare these films to each other. They are all separate works of art each independent on their own.
We can all of us always state preference for styles in art; however, I think we all do ourselves a disservice to say that any future works must rigidly be defined in exact terms relatively from previous works down to exact details.
Great art is great art, no matter when it is made chronologically, and so there is no subjective comparative qualitative requirements that the two should measure up exactly.
This is just as good as this...in some ways each is better than each other; but, I dare not fall into those types of subjective traps.
I appreciate the artistic look of almost any sci fi movie. As a geezer, I understand modern movies need to look a certain way. I also understand and agree with the suspension of belief that is required with scifi.
For prequels, I have noticed the apparent technological advancements with prequels such as the Alien franchise as well as Star Wars and the POTA franchises. I will toss in The Thing prequel in there too- even though it occurred within a day from the original 1982 movie. The Star Trek reboot did a fairly decent job regarding weaponry though.
I get it. I just think it would be refreshing to see a prequel take in the look and technological capabilities of the original movie.
Sign in to add a reply to this topic!