So Ridley Scott is directing a Prometheus sequel... (The official Alien: Covenant Thread)

[Matt C 452]

If you were hoping for Ridley to recapture the tension of Alien, don't bother. If you're looking for some action and bloody, gory deaths, you could do worse than Covenant.

 

I'm hoping that Alien Covenant is the final film in the series. Scott and Fox have milked the franchise for all its worth.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

There's one more coming, right?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Alien: Awakening it's supposedly called.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Alien: Resurgence!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Directed by Rick Bota!

[Arpy 4,145]

Seeing it tonight. Prometheus was disappointing so I'm hoping the gore/action will pick up this walking corpse of a franchise...

[publicist 4,643]

1 hour ago, Matt C said:

I'm hoping that Alien Covenant is the final film in the series. Scott and Fox have milked the franchise for all its worth.

 

Yes. The thrill of watching yet another movie about Aliens(^R) eludes me. 'Prometheus' - dumb as it occasionally was - at least offered a bigger philosophical angle and would have doubtlessly much better if it wouldn't have had the baggage of the Alien stuff.

[A24 4,331]

4 minutes ago, publicist said:

at least offered a bigger philosophical angle and would have doubtlessly much better if it wouldn't have had the baggage of the Alien stuff.

 

 

And what is the bigger philosophical angle of Prometheus?

 

 

7 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

I didn't see the Moses movie.  I don't generally like much that Scott has made post-Legend.  In my opinion he's largely a failure based on his early brilliance.

 

 I would go even as far as to say post-Blade Runner. People often accused Ridley for making cold movies (The Duellists/Alien/Blade Runner) and so with Legend Scott wanted to prove he can make 'warm' movies, just like Disney (which was an inspiration source), and that is exactly where the shoe pinches.

[publicist 4,643]

20 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

And what is the bigger philosophical angle of Prometheus?

 

The Prometheus angle, i suppose? Angering the gods? Playing with life? 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's a right wing Republican cautionary tale! It even has an abortion!

[publicist 4,643]

Not a pretty one.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

#Scott/Fassbender2021!

[publicist 4,643]

#Black Goo will make America great again

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Oil! The foundation of Capitalism!

An inexhaustible resource.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

9 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

Ridley's best:

 

1. Alien

2. Blade Runner

3. Gladiator

4. Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut only)

5. The Martian

 

Nick, let me throw some de-scaler in your think-tank:

 

1/ BLADE RUNNER

2. ALIEN

3. THE DUELISTS

4. THELMA AND LOUISE

5. WHITE SQUALL

 

Honorable mentions:

LEGEND

HANNIBAL

BOY AND BICYCLE (what can I say; I like it )

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

1. GI Jane

2. Matchstick Men

3. Exodus

4. Hannibal

5. A Good Year

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

Jerry, that's EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS.

EXODUS is a film by Otto Preminger, about the setting-up of Israel. It starred Paul Newman, and St. Eva Marie.

[A24 4,331]

14 minutes ago, Richard said:

 

Nick, let me throw some de-scaler in your think-tank:

 

1/ BLADE RUNNER

2. ALIEN

3. THE DUELISTS

 

 

I more or less agree with this, Richard. 

 

In fact, those three Scott movies are in my top 10 favorite movies of all time. In a way, you could say Scott is one of my favorite directors, and yet, I don't particularly care for most of his output. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

2 minutes ago, Richard said:

Jerry, that's EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS.

EXODUS is a film by Otto Preminger, about the setting-up of Israel. It starred Paul Newman, and St. Eva Marie.

 

Who?

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

Not sure what you mean?

Newman (surely not)?

Preminger?

Eva Marie Saint?

 

3 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

I more or less agree with this, Richard. 

 

In fact, those three Scott movies are in my top 10 favorite movies of all time. In a way, you could say Scott is one of my favorite directors, and yet, I don't particularly care for most of his output. 

 

Agreed, Alex, but when he flies (which is all too rare, these days) he soars!

BLADE RUNNER is my second favourite film, ever.

[Thor 7,493]

9 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

That top 10! I'm afraid we have very different tastes, Thor.

 

Yes, I think that's quite apparent by now. Also unlike you, I think that Ridley Scott has never made a weak film in his entire career, although there are some films that haven't played to his strengths (A GOOD YEAR, MATCHSTICK MEN, THE COUNSELOR, partially THE MARTIAN). But they aren't weak either.

[publicist 4,643]

5 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

In fact, those three Scott movies are in my top 10 favorite movies of all time. In a way, you could say Scott is one of my favorite directors, and yet, I don't particularly care for most of his output. 

 

Because without brilliant scripts he is just a great visualist with nothing more to offer. That's the great tragedy: with a second Scott being a great writer, what could have been?

[A24 4,331]

16 minutes ago, Richard said:

 

Agreed, Alex, but when he flies (which is all too rare, these days) he soars!

BLADE RUNNER is my second favourite film, ever

14 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

Because without brilliant scripts he is just a great visualist with nothing more to offer. That's the great tragedy: with a second Scott being a great writer, what could have been?

 

He said that after Blade Runner he began to put cushions in the seats of the audience. The way I understand it is that he stopped treating the audience as being intelligent. In fact, he said those very words to an interviewer who strongly disagreed with him about that. 

 

You can clearly see in his first movies that he thought movies were about art. "Get the art right and people will follow". That is what has changed in him. He no longer believes that.

 

 

Alex

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

1 hour ago, Richard said:

 

Nick, let me throw some de-scaler in your think-tank:

 

1/ BLADE RUNNER

2. ALIEN

3. THE DUELISTS

4. THELMA AND LOUISE

5. WHITE SQUALL

 

Honorable mentions:

LEGEND

HANNIBAL

BOY AND BICYCLE (what can I say; I like it )

 

 

Thelma & Louise is a good film, but not better than any of those I mentioned.

I watched Duelists late, in the past few years, and had trouble getting into it.

Legend is a pretty little film, but again, not better than anything I mentioned. And is automatically disqualified from any Top 5 list because of Tom Cruise as...well, whatever it was that Tom Cruise was.

Never got around to seeing White Squall

Hannibal has its moments, but is a deeply flawed film.

 

And while Scott at one time considered his film to be art, and no doubt considers himself to be an artistic director (and he is, to varying degrees), I don't regard most of his work and being particularly intellectual or intellectually challenging, except in the case of perhaps certain elements of Blade Runner (due to the source material).  So if he really said that people stopped being intelligent, and that this later films are dumbed down because of the audience and not the person who made them, or if his most hard core fans have somehow convinced themselves (and I'm not referring to you or anyone in particular) that they're smart because Scott is a challenging, intellectual film maker,  and they "get him", then there's a lot of self delusion going on.

 

 

[Thor 7,493]

38 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

And while Scott at one time considered his film to be art, and no doubt considers himself to be an artistic director (and he is, to varying degrees), I don't regard most of his work and being particularly intellectual or intellectually challenging, except in the case of perhaps certain elements of Blade Runner (due to the source material).  So if he really said that people stopped being intelligent, and that this later films are dumbed down because of the audience and not the person who made them, or if his most hard core fans have somehow convinced themselves (and I'm referring to your or anyone in particular) that they're smart because Scott is a challenging, intellectual film maker,  and they "get him", then there's a lot of self delusion going on.

 

So because some of us are hardcore fans, enjoy most of his work and find it both intellectually and artistically/audiovisually rewarding, it means we're delusional? That's hardly something that invites to constructive debate.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

2 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

So because some of us are fans, enjoy most of his work and find it both intellectually and artistically rewarding, it means we're delusional? That's hardly something that invites to constructive debate.

 

No, that's not what I said.

 

Here's what I said:

 

41 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

or if his most hard core fans have somehow convinced themselves (and I'm not referring to you or anyone in particular) that they're smart because Scott is a challenging, intellectual film maker,  and they "get him", then there's a lot of self delusion going on.

 

I didn't say simply enjoying Scotts films or finding them to be intellectually stimulating made one delusional. That's absurd. I think Scott is a great director, one of the best, and just listed his five films I enjoyed the most. 

 

What doesn't invite "constructive debate", Thor, is mischaracterising what someone said.

[Thor 7,493]

OK, gotcha. It was a rather cumbersome sentence, so I may have missed a beat in what you said.

 

Still, it's a bit of an odd argument to make, if I understand it correctly. I do consider myself smart when it comes to film, and also able to use that "smartness" to catch the various facets of Scott's films -- both on surface and deeper levels. So in general, I don't find it particularly fruitful to base an argument on personal properties of those who hold opposing views. In any shape or form. Unless done "jokingly". Better to discuss the work itself.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

OK, gotcha. It was a rather cumbersome sentence, so I may have missed a beat in what you said.

 

Still, it's a bit of an odd argument to make, if I understand it correctly. I do consider myself smart when it comes to film, and also able to use that "smartness" to catch the various facets of Scott's films -- both on surface and deeper levels. So in general, I don't find it particularly fruitful to base an argument on personal properties of those who hold opposing views. In any shape or form. Unless done "jokingly". Better to discuss the work itself.

 

I'll admit there was a lot in that sentence, as I include both what Scott supposedly said (he stopped treating the audience as intelligent) and the attitude of some of his fans. If Scott stopped treating his audience as intelligent, then what does that say about his approach to his more recent work?

 

I'm sure you're smart Thor (in fact I think you, like most people here, are)...that's not what this is about. But if you think you're somehow smarter because you're recognizing some kind of intellectualism in Scott's films that others aren't, then yeah, I believe that's a self-delusional thing for anyone to think. Especially if Scott isn't treating you as if you're intelligent. I mean, if anyone is questioning your intelligence, it's Ridley Scott, right? (based on the quote Alex referenced).

 

But yes, let's talk about the work. As much as I appreciate Scott, I don't find any of the concepts introduced in most of his films to be particularly intellectually challenging. So if you have a specific example from his recent work, I'd love to hear it.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

Nick, sadly, your last sentence sums up the whole discussion; the state of modern cinema.

Today, cinema is: MCU, DCU, SWU, KK/GU, X-MEN U, any other fucking U you care to mention, live-action remakes, and the fag-end of all these "gross-out", Amy Schumer vehicles.

What's left, when all the money has gone on that crap?

Once upon a time, our Ridley could choose his projects, and make them, with confidence, and originality. Nowadays, like most, if not all, directors, he is, simply, working for the man. If the man says "we want to see Matt Damon on Mars, thank you very much", then Scott puts Matt Damon on Mars, and art gets well and truly buggered. It's not Scott's fault; he's simply adapting to modern cinematic tastes. That he's lasted this long, is a miracle in itself.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

Yeah. And it will probably get worse before it gets better.

 

TV is where storytelling and character building occurs these days.

 

But maybe that's the inevitable evolution...that big theatre screen is spectacle, so film will be more spectacle than story.

57 minutes ago, Richard said:

Once upon a time, our Ridley could choose his projects, and make them, with confidence, and originality. Nowadays, like most, if not all, directors, he is, simply, working for the man. If the man says "we want to see Matt Damon on Mars, thank you very much", then Scott puts Matt Damon on Mars, and art gets well and truly buggered. It's not Scott's fault; he's simply adapting to modern cinematic tastes. That he's lasted this long, is a miracle in itself.

 

Glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

Long form stories seem to be where the...I hate to say intelligence... is, these days. Cinema is responding today, as it did in the 1950s, by offering sheer spectacle, in an attempt to keep audiences from staying at home to watch this new-fangled contraption in the corner if the living room, called a television.

To its credit, cinema has never not strived to  give the public what the public wants. The technical advances over the years (Todd AO, 70mm, Cinemascope, Cinerama, Sennsuround, CGI, Dolby, DTS, IMAX, 3D,

 D-Box, VR, etc.) have all contrived to attract, and keep audiences. It's just a shame that more effort isn't put into the artistic side of film-making. Have writers truly lost their imagination, or have they sold out to the almighty $ ?

"We bow down to the Big Wedge".

 

 

49 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity.

 

The words of the prophets were written on the studio wall.

Concert hall echoes with the sounds...of salesmen.

[Thor 7,493]

1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

I'm sure you're smart Thor (in fact I think you, like most people here, are)...that's not what this is about. But if you think you're somehow smarter because you're recognizing some kind of intellectualism in Scott's films that others aren't, then yeah, I believe that's a self-delusional thing for anyone to think.

 

I don't think I'm necessarily 'smarter' for doing so, but I'm definitely choosing to put weight on things that many critics do not, or choose not to. I also might find myself in a situation quite often, where I feel certain values are being overlooked. This is especially true for Scott, who works within mainstream cinema, but always injects more lofty ideas into his films; ideas that move beyond mere 'surface value'. Many of these ideas are injected indirectly, through mise-en-scene or other audiovisual means. Sometimes they're also expressed directly (through dialogue). Very often, it's a combination of both.

 

There's a LOT going on in ALIEN: COVENANT that moves beyond mere spectacle (or "slasher in space"), but it WOULD require a frame of reference or at least some research to get. I'm getting into some of that in my Norwegian review (posted earlier). It's one of the things that makes him so great -- exploring complex and mythological ideas through visuals, and within a seemingly mainstream format.

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

The was a lot going on in PROMETHEUS, but people chose to ignore it. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

13 minutes ago, Thor said:

There's a LOT going on in ALIEN: COVENANT that moves beyond mere spectacle (or "slasher in space"), but it WOULD require a frame of reference or at least some research to get. I'm getting into some of that in my Norwegian review (posted earlier). It's one of the things that makes him so great -- exploring complex and mythological ideas through visuals, and within a seemingly mainstream format.

 

It's called a lazily applied, obvious, eye-rolling thematic combination of Frankenstein (playing God) and Ozymandias (destruction of human/Engineer empires) with David "playing God and destroying these Empires."  It could've been great if the screenwriters weren't talentless hacks!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

6 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

who cares if there's "a lot going on", if it's not presented in a compelling way?

 

Précisément!

[Thor 7,493]

23 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

It's called a lazily applied, obvious, eye-rolling thematic combination of Frankenstein (playing God) and Ozymandias (destruction of human/Engineer empires) with David "playing God and destroying these Empires."  It could've been great if the screenwriters weren't talentless hacks!

 

That's only one -- the most obvious -- out of several thematic undercurrents in the movie.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

Who cares if there's "a lot going on", if it's not presented in a compelling way?

 

At least Scott tried. Sometimes, films that are failures can be some of the most compelling films around.

Anyway, I'd rather have Scott's flawed AU, than all this regurgitated-every-six-months, MCU death-rattle shit.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Ambition is overrated.  Basic stuff like telling a story compellingly with richly drawn characters is preferred.

 

Grand intellectual themes should flow naturally as subtext from these story basics.

 

My Spielberg worship is shining through  

[Thor 7,493]

6 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Grand intellectual themes should flow naturally as subtext from these story basics.

 

In ALIEN: COVENANT, some of the most interesting ideas do. Not only 'story basics', but visual details.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

34 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 Basic stuff like telling a story compellingly with richly drawn characters is preferred.

 

My Spielberg worship is shining through  

 

So...you've never seen INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, then?

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

In ALIEN: COVENANT, some of the most interesting ideas do. Not only 'story basics', but visual details.

 

...which is what this conversation comes back to. Scott, is, above all, a visualist, and there's nothing wrong with that. Telling a story with images is what cinema is all about, but it helps if there's also some literary meat to chew on. Scott likes to add that meat, and not just give us mindless shot, upon mindless shot. Isn't cinema a process of the presentation of ideas?

[crumbs 14,306]

1 hour ago, Richard said:

 

At least Scott tried. Sometimes, films that are failures can be some of the most compelling films around.

Anyway, I'd rather have Scott's flawed AU, than all this regurgitated-every-six-months, MCU death-rattle shit.

 

Amen. Seriously, with the excess of sausage factory, cardboard cutout garbage released by Hollywood these days, it's so damn refreshing seeing an (admittedly flawed) ambitious sci-fi film that poses more questions than it answers and explores more themes than like, say, none at all.

[A24 4,331]

25 minutes ago, crumbs said:

 

Amen. Seriously, with the excess of sausage factory, cardboard cutout garbage released by Hollywood these days, it's so damn refreshing seeing an (admittedly flawed) ambitious sci-fi film that poses more questions than it answers and explores more themes than like, say, none at all.

 

But Scott is the definition of 'factory'. Every film is made by the same workers on the same conveyor belt.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I'm somehow agreeing with Alex.  There's nothing very special or ambitious about Alien: Covenant in my opinion.  It's an uninspired retread of every cliche in the sci fi horror genre with unoriginal themes slathered on.  It's the definition of cutout garbage!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I'm pleased to know you enjoyed it, Mr Stu.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

I'm loathe to criticise a film I haven't seen yet.  But as a general rule, I don't think shoehorned references to art, music, literature or antiquity (e.g. Ozymandius) makes a film any more intellectual. In fact it's an easy way to make something pseudo intellectual, because you're not doing the work yourself. Intellectual pretensions don't make a film intellectual. 

 

I also don't think merely raising religious questions makes a film "deep". In the case of Prometheus, for example, nothing in that film makes a reasonable person question the nature of humanity's origins, and it certainly would not cause any person of faith to question their own beliefs....or even think about them. It's just a sci-fi concept (a well worn one at that), and little more.

 

And as BB pointed out, without a strong, compelling story from which the concepts flow naturally and believably, none of it means anything. The Matrix raised a lot of interesting, though provoking questions without beating you over the head w/them, while still managing to be entertaining. That's one reason it's a classic (like Blade Runner) that works, while its muddled, messy sequels, which contain a LOT more philosophy, don't.  Another example is how the first two seasons of BSG worked so well...because they raised a lot of questions about humanity while still being incredibly compelling TV. The latter two seasons, not so much. The religious, and philosophising was all still there, but the story lost its way.

 

So maybe Covenant works...I don't know. But if it works, it's because it has a good script, strong characters and compelling story & visuals. Not because of any religious or philosophical undercurrent it might have. If you have to go on about how "thought provoking" and "intelligent" a film which otherwise isn't very good is, then its already failed.

[KK 3,307]

There was a lot of sense in that post. ^

[publicist 4,643]

Such allusions are interesting when the author/filmmaker etc. expands on it, brings it to a current, further state, especially with topics like religion or evolution. Everything else is just wanking. I haven't seen this movie but the few film journalists i know pretty much all agreed that it stank. And not because they didn't get its pretensions.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

3 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

I'm loathe to criticise a film I haven't seen yet.  But as a general rule, I don't think shoehorned references to art, music, literature or antiquity (e.g. Ozymandius) makes a film any more intellectual. In fact it's an easy way to make something pseudo intellectual, because you're not doing the work yourself. 

 

I also don't think merely raising religious questions makes a film "deep". In the case of Prometheus, for example, nothing in that film makes a reasonable person question the nature of humanity's origins, and it certainly would not cause any person of faith to question their own beliefs....or even think about them. It's just a sci-fi concept (a well worn one at that), and little more. Intellectual pretensions don't make a film intellectual. 

 

And as BB pointed out, without a strong, compelling story from which the concepts flow naturally and believably, none of it means anything. The Matrix raised a lot of interesting, though provoking questions without beating you over the head w/them, while still managing to be entertaining. That's one reason it's a classic (like Blade Runner) that works, while its muddled, messy sequels, which contain a LOT more philosophy, don't.  Another example is how the first two seasons of BSG worked so well...because they raised a lot of questions about humanity while still being incredibly compelling TV. The latter two seasons, not so much. The religious, and philosophising was all still there, but the story lost its way.

 

So maybe Covenant works...I don't know. But if it works, it's because it has a good script, strong characters and compelling story & visuals. Not because of any religious or philosophical undercurrent it might have. If you have to go on about how "thought provoking" and "intelligent" a film which otherwise isn't very good is, then its already failed.

 

I was going to make this exact post days ago, but didn't because trying to reason with Thor is folly.  Cheers for your good sense.