• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Ridley Scott returns to direct Alien: Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not gonna trash these writers. Writing studio movies is a weird and thankless gig.

Meanwhile, I already have Scott to trash who directed Prometheus, a bad movie with just as many non-sxript issues as script issues
 
Well now Ridley has renamed Prometheus 2 and it's officially an Alien movie, it seems safe to say this is why Blomkamp's Alien movie was put on hold (although I still hope he gets to make his sequel to Aliens one day)

Looking forward to seeing the Alien on screen again and finding out what happens to Elizabeth Shaw (apparently Noomi Rapace might not have a big role) so if they are going to kill her, hopefully she meets a facehugger or the Engineers do some horrible experiment on her.

Also looking forward to seeing Fassbender's David 8 on screen again and his apparent 2nd role in the movie, maybe the Covenant has a David model on board too ?
 
Razorback PT said:
I agree that certain inaccuracies do hurt movies. In Gravity when Clooney lets go of Bullock and is thrown in the other direction. That's not how that works. That bothered me because there was another way of doing that scene that respected the laws of physics and would have worked even better. Instead of letting go, he could have pushed her. There! Problem solved.

But I think you are going too far. When you aren't given all the information you should give the benefit of the doubt to the writers. Like mining distant planets. Maybe it has a perfectly reasonable explanation. Perhaps they found a very rich source of a very rare mineral. Perhaps there are laws preventing mining solar system worlds. Who knows.

Finding scientifically accurate Sci-Fi is hard as it is, if I applied the same amount of scrutiny as you do I wouldn't be able to enjoy any of it.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I don't disagree with going a tad bit too far on it, but then there is Avatar and a quote from the South Park creators ( source: nytimes)

Q.

Have you seen “Avatar” since you did your “Dances With Smurfs” episode, and what did you think of it?
A.

STONE: I thought “Dances With Smurfs” was better, actually. Obviously, we hadn’t seen it when we did that. We just had to guess what the movie was about, based on the trailer. But I am surprised how close we got, actually. I thought the movie was going to be a better version of itself.
PARKER: We’re like, “We know that they’re trying to get something off this planet, some resource. We should find out what they call it.” And then someone said, “Oh, they call it Unobtanium.” And we were just like, “Yeah, whatever, shut up. O.K., let’s find out what it’s really called.” We were like, “No way. No. It can’t be that dumb.”
STONE: But it was that dumb.
PARKER: I actually took forever to go see it, but I finally went and saw it like a month ago. After an hour, I was like, I am so done with this movie. Because I know exactly what’s going to happen.
STONE: I have to admit, I had a fun time watching it. But I can’t defend a single thing in it.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly what we've been talking about here. So it's not like people don't notice it. And Cameron knows it too, since he just called it by the trope name, instead of pretending he would know what that special resource would be (because physically that's not really possible, with the specific exception of life-based resources that can only be gotten from Earth. It's kind of why alien invasion movies don't trigger this effect right off the bat, but humans going out for minerals does).

MickeyPhree said:
Aliens happened in 2179. Alien happened around 2122.
Click to expand...

oh. Was that actually said in the movie? Because I don't remember being brought up. Maybe in Aliens, but Alien has no date on it as far as I know.

*looks up script*
Huh. O'Bannon's script puts it at 2087. You know, considering we're talking light-years here, time is fubar in this franchise anyway. The Nostromo could have been launched in 2010 for all we know, if we used realistic expectations of space travel.
I love that little diagram of 'known space' though. That's what I personally appreciate about the script, it does actually start with trying to get the science right to a sufficient degree, even if we now would expect even more.

But mostly this is just suspension of disbelief and realism effect, it's not as if movies absolutely need to get everything right, they just need to right enough to be convincing and expel fridge logic to well after the movie is finished.
Example of a movie that doesn't: Interstellar. "oh, that's gravity, hun" And that was just in the first minute of it. :|
By contrast, 2001 is perfectly believable, regardless of the near-future trope. Besides, looking forward from 1968, a continuous space program, particularly with such a discovery to push it, could have - with some overly optimistic adjustments - yielded that result. It's just that future views are always far too optimistic about what will happen and how long that will take (and underestimate risks, dangers, and setbacks). Also, 2001 is obsessed with getting everything right, which is why I would never question its use of science, but it's also not a very entertaining movie. I'm not convinced you can have it both ways either. At some point, convenience for plot reasons must be acceptable to make it work.
 
I hate that Scott seems to be backing out on his vision, changing name of film, studio putting Blomkamps film on hold etc. Just make Prometheus 2 and leave xenomorphs behind.

Actually leave xenomorphs for Blomkamp.
 
Freeza Under The Shower said:
Hmm. I don't disagree with going a tad bit too far on it, but then there is Avatar and a quote from the South Park creators

And that is exactly what we've been talking about here. So it's not like people don't notice it. And Cameron knows it too, since he just called it by the trope name, instead of pretending he would know what that special resource would be (because physically that's not really possible, with the specific exception of life-based resources that can only be gotten from Earth. It's kind of why alien invasion movies don't trigger this effect right off the bat, but humans going out for minerals does.
Click to expand...

I think Avatar is actually one the most scientifically accurate movies out there. And I never really got the issue about it being called Unobtanium. The story required a ship that can travel at about 70% the speed of light and in order to do that you need a material that is superconducting at room temperature.

Since we are yet to discover such a material we might as well call it unobtanium because of its fantastic properties. In the future if we do find such a thing the name might stick. I don't see how that is such a dumb idea.

But mostly this is just suspension of disbelief and realism effect, it's not as if movies absolutely need to get everything right, they just need to right enough to be convincing and expel fridge logic to well after the movie is finished.
Example of a movie that doesn't: Interstellar. "oh, that's gravity, hun" And that was just in the first minute of it. :|
By contrast, 2001 is perfectly believable, regardless of the near-future trope. Besides, looking forward from 1968, a continuous space program, particularly with such a discovery to push it, could have - with some overly optimistic adjustments - yielded that result. It's just that future views are always far too optimistic about what will happen and how long that will take (and underestimate risks, dangers, and setbacks). Also, 2001 is obsessed with getting everything right, which is why I would never question its use of science, but it's also not a very entertaining movie. I'm not convinced you can have it both ways either. At some point, convenience for plot reasons must be acceptable to make it work.
Click to expand...

2001 isn't without flaw. Velcro shoes or magnetic boots is a dumb idea for several reasons. Floating in Zero-G is a much better way to get around. But it would have made the production of the movie much harder.
 
plagiarize said:
The Martian is pretty solid evidence that he still has it. I get the arguments after prometheus even though I personally loved it, but The Martian was fantastic.
Click to expand...

Well, I never felt any tension while watching The Martian, or feared for Matt Damon's character's life. So regardless of whether Scott "still has it", I hope The Martian is not representative in any shape or form of what Covenant will be.

I realize The Martian is not a horror film but I guess my point is that it didn't work all that well as a drama. It was entertaining and somewhat funny but it lacked... weight, for lack of a better word.

I may sound harsh but I actually liked the movie.
 
I honestly hope the first teaser is not unlike Prometheus'. It was soooo good.

Everything I'm hearing about this sounds great so far.
 
Please don't be babby Aliens. That's like one of those novels where, and someone actually DID write this down in a serious manner, the impregnators (xenos) get impregnated and something bursts out of their chests. That's jumping the xeno, right there.
 
It hadn't even occurred to me that having an alien itself get facehugged could be a thing that happens, but now that you've suggested it, I'm kinda expecting to see it.

(Why that would/could happen still doesn't make sense, but making sense isn't a priority for Scott when it comes to this universe, at least not anymore, I don't think)
 
Freeza Under The Shower said:
Please don't be babby Aliens. That's like one of those novels where, and someone actually DID write this down in a serious manner, the impregnators (xenos) get impregnated and something bursts out of their chests. That's jumping the xeno, right there.
Click to expand...

They could just have a lot of tiny xenos chilling out in a locked up the nursery ward. That eventually get out. The implications would be enough.
 
Freeza Under The Shower said:
Please don't be babby Aliens. That's like one of those novels where, and someone actually DID write this down in a serious manner, the impregnators (xenos) get impregnated and something bursts out of their chests. That's jumping the xeno, right there.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking there is always the chance that this planet has indigenous aliens, that have nothing to do with Xenos. Which could be played by people in suits and/or mocap.

From there, they of course could give birth to a slight variation of the xeno, like the runner. That at least seems more digestible than xeno born xenos.
 
jayu26 said:
Whoa, this is the first I'm hearing of this. I'm game Ridley Scott.

Is Neil completely out?
Click to expand...

Sean*O said:
Same
Click to expand...
Neill Blomkamp was going to do something along the lines of Alien 5, except it was actually a sequel to Aliens and ignored the following two.

Alien: Covenant is actually a Prometheus sequel, the first in a proposed trilogy where Ridley Scott continues to undermine Alien with a silly backstory. Scott kinda pushed this to the forefront and got Blomkamp's film put on the back burner indefinitely.

Demoncarnotaur said:
I'm thinking there is always the chance that this planet has indigenous aliens, that have nothing to do with Xenos. Which could be played by people in suits and/or mocap.

From there, they of course could give birth to a slight variation of the xeno, like the runner. That at least seems more digestible than xeno born xenos.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting the colonizers to arrive and find David playing god with both indigenous species and whatever he had access to on the ship.
 
Maybe the movie will show the Alien evolving from a chestburster to full size? I remember there was a sequence in the original Prometheus script about it happening.
 
Demoncarnotaur said:
I'm thinking there is always the chance that this planet has indigenous aliens, that have nothing to do with Xenos. Which could be played by people in suits and/or mocap.

From there, they of course could give birth to a slight variation of the xeno, like the runner. That at least seems more digestible than xeno born xenos.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that occurred to me as being more likely since the alternative is '90s schlock , like the mentioned novel. I think it's the "Earth Hive" series, where it goes crazier and crazier because they don't give a shit and it's the 90s.

Kind of makes you appreciate what Whedon was trying to avoid with Resurrection, now that I think of it. These things (novels) came out while he would have been writing the script (1992 to 1998), so he could have easily gone completely overboard on that one. Based Whedon, keeping us safe from even bigger trash.

Wikipedia mentions that there is a 2014 'canon' trilogy of novels too though (Isolation related I guess? ).

BumRush said:
I'm setting myself up for disaster with this being my most anticipated film, aren't I?
Click to expand...

absolutely.
 
teiresias said:
I find the whole argument about dates in sci-fi kind of silly, it's fiction, get over it. I mean, is 2001: A Space Odyssey suddenly a shitty movie because it's 2015 and we're nowhere near doing anything in that film?

I hadn't seen the Prometheus trailer in so long, I'd forgotten how the opening voice-over was just like the infamous snotty camcorder scene from Blair Witch.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the only science in 2001 that wasn't available in the real 2001, is the cryosleep pods. Everything else in that was completely feasible except for the economics.
 
Arkos said:
Ridley Scott is such a fucking hack
Click to expand...

Normally, people confuse "hack" with "untalented," when what Hack actually means is that they don't really give a shit about the work they're doing, only that they're going to be paid for that work when they deliver it.

Now, I think that Scott actually does still give a shit about the work he's doing, but I do think the gulf between his artistic endeavoring and his need to get paid is a lot smaller than maybe it once was.

I think calling him a hack is hyperbolic, but not as hyperbolic as it might have been like, 15-20 years ago.
 
Bobby Roberts said:
Normally, people confuse "hack" with "untalented," when what Hack actually means is that they don't really give a shit about the work they're doing, only that they're going to be paid for that work when they deliver it.

Now, I think that Scott actually does still give a shit about the work he's doing, but I do think the gulf between his artistic endeavoring and his need to get paid is a lot smaller than maybe it once was.

I think calling him a hack is hyperbolic, but not as hyperbolic as it might have been like, 15-20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Fair, but when you carpet bomb a thread with the way he said it, and give no reasoning or explanation, then it's easy to assume it's more derogatory than anything else.
 
wesleyshark said:
Fair, but when you carpet bomb a thread with the way he said it, and give no reasoning or explanation, then it's easy to assume it's more derogatory than anything else.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're wrong at all. Dude was probably just misusing the term as buckshot for the drive-by, but if I can redirect the projectile like Jason Statham with a dinner-plate, I'll try.

(Yeah, I just compared myself to Statham. I have his hairline. I can do that)
 
Bobby Roberts said:
Normally, people confuse "hack" with "untalented," when what Hack actually means is that they don't really give a shit about the work they're doing, only that they're going to be paid for that work when they deliver it.

Now, I think that Scott actually does still give a shit about the work he's doing, but I do think the gulf between his artistic endeavoring and his need to get paid is a lot smaller than maybe it once was.

I think calling him a hack is hyperbolic, but not as hyperbolic as it might have been like, 15-20 years ago.
Click to expand...

Ah, my bad. I meant to say arrogant self-indulgent out-of-touch has-been.
 
It has been hit or miss with Ridley Scott. He certainly is capable of making a great movie.

I just saw a doc of the making of Blade Runner and he's a perfectionist that can be extremely hard to work with. There needs to be a understanding with everybody involved or there will be conflict. The guy has a way of pissing off the financial backers, writers, actors, and even set designers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ridley Scott says Hollywood is “drowning in mediocrity”
2 3
112
1K
Men_in_Boxes replied
U.S. President to direct Secretary of War to idendtify and release government files relating to Alien and ET life, UAP and UFOs
2 3 4
181
2K
DreamcastSkies replied
RIP Scott Adams
2
61
1K
negator2vc replied
Alien III - any good?
37
953
m14 replied
Tarantino to write and direct 6 part miniseries set in the 1930s in black and white. Stallone to co-direct.
38
515
bitbydeath replied
Top Bottom