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

[GerateWohl 4,326]

23 minutes ago, Thor said:

That’s fine. I obviously disagree with you completely. Both films are ripe with audiovisual and philosophical firepower.

This discussion goes a little bit like this.

 

I hoped for a little bit more explanation around that philosophical firework. And not just some "it's about"-statements. What does it really deliver to its topic. Otherwise I could also state, The Rise of Skywalker" is about life and death and even about the overcoming of death and the breakdown of immortality. Pilosophical firepower! But it's actually just crap. But nevermind. 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It’s not like anyone’s gonna change their mind if Thor reiterates a thesis on the film. If you hate Prometheus you hate it, that’s fine. 

[Positivatee 327]

 

Prometheus starts with an interesting concept. It's a space adventure, tied to earth history, on a distant planet with a dead ancient civilization. It could be like any number of jungle exploration movies set on Earth. 

 

They gather the smartest people on Earth and expect them to act intelligently. But then like so many monster movies, the formula requires them to abandon logic, procedure, and zigzag running. 

 

A gorgeous psychopathic robot who clearly has access to the script doesn't help. 

[bruce marshall 1,314]

" ...abandon zigzag running...."

 

😝

[bruce marshall 1,314]

" Okay everybody , here is how we are going to combat the Alien:

- split up into groups of one or two people

- if you are chased, make sure.you run in a straight line"

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

5 hours ago, bruce marshall said:

" Okay everybody , here is how we are going to combat the Alien:

[A24 4,326]

10 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Any film he's ever made. You didn't notice it? That's because he's a master at wrapping it in.

 

You know, I love a good wrapper, because I happen to believe that it is a very important part of moviemaking. It is 'wrapping' that draws the viewer in and it is wrapping that can even suggest there is more to something than meets the eye. Ridley Scott is a prime example of a good wrapper (Alien is all about wrapping) but he is also the first one to admit that it doesn't mean anything, it's just entertainment. Zack Snyder is another example of someone who often pays great attention to presentation. His favorite movies are the ones that left a visual imprint with him (like a shot, a composition, a tableau). Let's not forget Wes Anderson, who is loved for his distinctive style. 'Wrapping' is the descriptive langue of a storyteller, they create images like a novelist creates sentences. And they all tell more or less the same story ... but with a different wrapping. And, of course, we can't exclude Stanley Kubrick. He is a photographer, an aesthete, but when I watch his movies or listen to the man speak, I never have the impression he was "full of shit" (like you say he is) or that he was just a window dresser with nothing to say. To me there is deliberate and thoughtful meaning or purpose behind his work. If he was full of shit, if he had nothing to say or didn't know why he would do things in a certain way, there is literally a gazillion of essays, theses, papers and analyses of his movies that would have exposed him ages ago. Hence my question, why do you think it's all outward appearance but empty on the inside? Maybe you have seen or heard something? 

[Jurassic Shark 12,024]

People tend to put more meaning into his films than there is, because he's an overrated auteur figure.

[GerateWohl 4,326]

9 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

It’s not like anyone’s gonna change their mind if Thor reiterates a thesis on the film. If you hate Prometheus you hate it, that’s fine. 

Interesting. Every word in these sentences is wrong. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,024]

9 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

I hoped for a little bit more explanation around that philosophical firework. And not just some "it's about"-statements.

 

Yeah, those are the themes of the film. But what's its message to us as viewers?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,493]

12 hours ago, Nick Parker said:

Shortly after the movie came out, Wayne Shorter said that he felt Scott hit a bunt with Prometheus so he could hit a home run with the sequel.

Wayne Shorter? The saxophone player with Weather Report? Interesting.

[A24 4,326]

30 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

People tend to put more meaning into his films than there is, because he's an overrated auteur figure.

 

Or it's because of the nature of his movies. I know there are many people who hate it when a movie doesn't explain itself. If it's not spelled out by the characters, it means it's about nothing and they have wasted their time. Surely we are not supposed to think for ourselves?! 

 

As for Prometheus, I suppose that everything is about something, but it's how you tell it that makes the viewer either intrigued (to delve deeper) or disinterested. With me, it was obviously the latter. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,024]

I don't mind movies where not everything is spelled out.

[GerateWohl 4,326]

32 minutes ago, AC1 said:

I suppose that everything is about something

Probably, that is something that we all can agree on.

[Jurassic Shark 12,024]

Finally!

[GerateWohl 4,326]

35 minutes ago, AC1 said:

but it's how you tell it that makes the viewer either intrigued (to delve deeper) 

That's what I mean all the time. People state that they delved deeper and found something interesting. And when I ask them what that was, I just get either nothing or statements like it's about this or that or meeting your maker or killing god. Yeah, but what is it about it? What's the point?

 

And the rest is silence.

[Jurassic Shark 12,024]

It's about earning money.

[A24 4,326]

36 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

That's what I mean all the time. People state that they delved deeper and found something interesting. And when I ask them what that was, I just get either nothing or statements like it's about this or that or meeting your maker or killing god. Yeah, but what is it about it? What's the point?

 

And the rest is silence.

 

 

Sometimes you're left with a feeling, a notion that there's more going on than what is obvious or literal, but where it comes from exactly can be rather elusive, especially when it's all very subtle or when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,024]

Just like in this thread!

[GerateWohl 4,326]

27 minutes ago, AC1 said:

 

 

Sometimes you're left with a feeling, a notion that there's more going on than what is obvious or literal, but where it comes from exactly can be rather elusive, especially when it's all very subtle or when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 

That's completely fine. Then we are back at l like it or don't like it. But then don't talk about dellving deeper or philosophical firepower because philosophy is not about feeling something or liking something but about making up your mind, thinking and coming to conclusions.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

2 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

That's what I mean all the time. People state that they delved deeper and found something interesting. And when I ask them what that was, I just get either nothing or statements like it's about this or that or meeting your maker or killing god. Yeah, but what is it about it? What's the point?

 

And the rest is silence.

 

I guess my ultimate question in response to your question is "Does there need to be a point?" One of the greatest appeals of science/speculative fiction has always been how it takes the intangible and often presents it in a literal, present reality. I don't think it's necessary to come up with a "conclusion", as long as the idea(s) are explored in an interesting or compelling way. Speaking as neutrally as possible given the subject matter of Prometheus, the likelihood of us as humans meeting and directly interacting with our hypothetical creator is next to none, but here in this film we have the opportunity to daydream and imagine how might that encounter play out. In Prometheus' case, things don't go so hot for us--much different than the typical compassionate creator found in Shaw's Christianity, and of course, in keeping with the film's title, David ultimately usurps the mantle of creator for himself.

 

For myself, just watching all that play out, again, in a literal way is fun, and if it's a subject that compels you, I think there are a number of interesting questions you could take away from the film: if we were created from an entity, does that creator regard as its children? Is it obligated to care for us? We have constructed countless creation myths, where we have communicated with our creators...is that something we'd actually want? Did our creator have a creator of its own? Furthermore, does that imply that we, too, could act as creators further down the chain? What's to stop that chain? (As seen through the creation of David, who in turn creates what becomes the xenomorph.) What does all that say about our place in the universe?

 

 

These are all just questions off the top of my head, based on my one viewing of the film nine years ago at the cinema. Again, I'm not giving the movie a free pass for its problems, and I don't think all of its questions _were_ explored in an interesting way. This is _not_ one of my favorite movies by any means, and really, I wouldn't think about it if I didn't see it discussed here on JWFan. But I also think it's only fair to give the film credit for genuinely posing these questions at all in such a bold way--tragically rare in modern Hollywood, even by 2012 standards--and for inviting people to ponder and discuss them. If you don't think it's a compelling line of thought, that's cool, but I don't think it's right to then say that there's nothing really there.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

3 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

That's what I mean all the time. People state that they delved deeper and found something interesting. And when I ask them what that was, I just get either nothing or statements like it's about this or that or meeting your maker or killing god. Yeah, but what is it about it? What's the point?

 

And the rest is silence.

 

You've made some great comments, both in this thread on across JWFan. I shall follow your career here with great interest. Just try not to become, well, arrogant.

[crumbs 14,299]

3 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

That's what I mean all the time. People state that they delved deeper and found something interesting. And when I ask them what that was, I just get either nothing or statements like it's about this or that or meeting your maker or killing god. Yeah, but what is it about it? What's the point?

 

And the rest is silence.

 

With all respect, people don't have to "justify" their opinions to you, or clarify why certain films or media resonate with them.

 

I don't question the things you're interested in or ask you to justify why you like it.

 

Frankly your posts in this thread are borderline rude, and it seems to stem from a frustration that most people (rightfully) can't be bothered justifying their opinions with some long-winded thesis about what the film means to them (which seems to be what you're expecting, in order to consider their opinions valid).

[Holko 9,499]

3 minutes ago, crumbs said:

With all respect, people don't have to "justify" their opinions to you, or why they feel attracted towards certain films or media.

Even when they're the ones lamenting that it doesn't get enough "proper" discussion?

[crumbs 14,299]

6 minutes ago, Holko said:

Even when they're the ones lamenting that it doesn't get enough "proper" discussion?

 

Who's lamenting that?

 

All I see is someone demanding people justify why they like a piece of media. I'm countering that by saying that nobody has to justify their interpretations of a film or why it might/might not resonate with them.

 

Art is subjective, after all.

[GerateWohl 4,326]

Thanks @Nick Parker.

At last someone is putting some thoughts into words. I really appreciate that.

To your question about the point.

If you see a movie as a work of art, it not necessarily needs to have a point. And of course not a clear message. That was not what I was asking for. It does not even need to ask questions. But it should trigger questions or thoughts in you. And these thoughts, questions or assiciations, that it triggers can be described and can be verified by interpretations and references from the film that support your interpretations. And the more supporting references and less contradicitons you find in the movie the better is your interpretation. And if all that is interesting that it is a good movie in that regard.

 

Reading your description I remebered that my main problem with that approach with Prometheus (apart from that I did not really find that interestingly made) was that this religious exaggeration of the Alien franchise did not work at all wiht the previous movies, which was basically about people getting in the way by a big companys aim to create biological weapons from space creatures . In that regard Alien vs. Predator even worked better as a spinoff.

 

But in the past hour I spend tiime thinking about the movie again. And actually came up with an interpretation that works for me. What if the whole film is an alegory of the directors process to tell all the alien hardcore fans something meaningfull

the alien that drinks the acid at the biginning is the writer trying to find an interesting and meaningful story by drinking from the well of cognition. The old man, played by Guy Pierce is the hardoce fan going on the trip to see what wisdom the originator of the franchise, Ridley Scott, will bring to him. So he travels to cimena and at meeting the maker Ridley the god alien says "Ha, I give you my wisdom. I crush your head. HAHAHAA!" 

That currently makes the most sense to me.  

[Holko 9,499]

4 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Who's lamenting that?

 

All I see is someone demanding people justify why they like a piece of media

Uhh how about the post GerateWohl originally replied to to start this particular thread?

 

23 hours ago, Thor said:

I’m all for a constructive discussion, although - again - my defense stamina has run out on this issue. What I would love, and what would be great, is an analysis and discussion thread on these films that comes from a place of appreciation.

 

[GerateWohl 4,326]

8 minutes ago, crumbs said:

 

With all due respect, people don't have to "justify" their opinions to you, or why they feel certain things.

 

And they're certainly not invalid just because they choose not to explain things to you. I don't question whatever you're interested or whatever you like, there's really no need to be rude to others who can't be bothered writing some long-winded thesis justifying their opinions.

 

Sorry for asking people, who claim they found something meaningful in that picture, what that actually is.

 

[crumbs 14,299]

 

2 minutes ago, Holko said:

Uhh how about the post GerateWohl originally replied to to start this particular thread?

 

Well that's fine, @Thor is perfectly capable of putting forth his views if he desires.

 

But that doesn't mean people have to justify their opinions on things in order for them to be valid.

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,024]

Well, it's a discussion board...

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

I don't think anyone is being asked to "justify" an opinion, merely to articulate one.

 

If someone says "this is meaningful", don't be surprised if they're asked "how so"? If they don't want to expand on that, fine. But if you (and that's a rhetorical "you") can't explain what you mean, people are going to take that into account when they decide how much weight and frankly, respect, they're going to give what you have to say. This is a discussion forum after all.

[Holko 9,499]

3 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

my main problem with that approach with Prometheus (apart from that I did not really find that interestingly made) was that this religious exaggeration of the Alien franchise did not work at all wiht the previous movies, which was basically about people getting in the way by a big companys aim to create biological weapons from space creatures .

Yes!

[crumbs 14,299]

2 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I don't think anyone is being asked to "justify" an opinion, merely to articulate one.

 

What's the difference?

 

By your own words, the insinuation is that stating an opinion is meaningless unless you're prepared to justify it:

 

2 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

But if you (and that's a rhetorical "you") can't explain what you mean, people are going to take that into account when they decide how much weight and frankly, respect, they're going to give what you have to say.

 

[crocodile 7,982]

I think the ultimate problem with both films is that they are really unexciting and forgettable. At no point did I feel any jolt of dread which for a s-f horror is a cardinal sin. Covenant was actually much worse as I can't even remember any of it. Prometheus at least had a germ of an idea. 

 

Karol

[crumbs 14,299]

3 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Reading your description I remebered that my main problem with that approach with Prometheus (apart from that I did not really find that interestingly made) was that this religious exaggeration of the Alien franchise did not work at all wiht the previous movies, which was basically about people getting in the way by a big companys aim to create biological weapons from space creatures . In that regard Alien vs. Predator even worked better as a spinoff.

 

Technically the film is only tangentially related to Alien, but it's not really a literal prequel to Alien. Covenant comparatively dovetails towards established lore. It's certainly in the same universe but it's a totally different type of movie telling a very different story. I guess the inclusion of Weyland sets up events to come in centuries later, but Weyland's story in this film is totally separate to what his company would covet in the Alien series.

 

Scott was clearly hitting the reset button and trying to tell a different story. My suspicion is the Alien elements were the least interesting aspect to him (hence his reluctance to reintroduce the tried and true Xenomorph). He seemed far more interested in exploring the religious allegory of it all, but clearly realised no studio would give him the funding required to make that film (without some tenuous relationship to an established franchise).

[GerateWohl 4,326]

I didn't mean to insult anyone. I was just trying to take their statements serious and to go into discussion. I think, I never insinuated anything, just took them by their own words and was asking questions about it.

On the other hand others insinuated to me, that I might have an issue with movies that are not explaining themselves or don't have clear messages.

And now I am blamed to act like thinking that people should justify their opinions to me.

 

To be honest, I am really at the end of my discussion skills here. But at least I tried.

 

Again, thanks to @Nick Parker, who did a great effort joining the discussion from the opposite side. I really appreciate that.

 

[crumbs 14,299]

8 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

And now I am blamed to act like thinking that people should justify their opinions to me.

 

That was only my interpretation of what you were asking.

 

I'm happy to post my thoughts on why the film works for me. I just wanted to make the point that I don't think people should have to articulate or extrapolate their opinions when it comes to film, in order for their opinions to be considered valid.

 

Especially for a film that has been roundly dismissed and ridiculed as some offensive cinematic abomination for 9 odd years.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

On 5/24/2021 at 12:47 PM, crumbs said:

 

What's the difference?

 

By your own words, the insinuation is that stating an opinion is meaningless unless you're prepared to justify it

 

Well articulating just means you're able to explain coherently why you think what you think, or say what you're saying. Justify suggests you have to prove that your opinion is right, or at least reasonable. One is describing the act of explaining, and one is more of defence of what you're saying.

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,024]

If only @crocodile had known what he did when starting this thread...

[crocodile 7,982]

2 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

If only @crocodile had known what he did when starting this thread...

I didn't. I posted it in the Prometheus thread originally.

 

Karol

[Jay 37,281]

If you're suggesting a mod moved posts, that isn't true and no posts have been moved

[A24 4,326]

4 hours ago, Nick Parker said:

For myself, just watching all that play out, again, in a literal way is fun, and if it's a subject that compels you, I think there are a number of interesting questions you could take away from the film: if we were created from an entity, does that creator regard as its children? Is it obligated to care for us? We have constructed countless creation myths, where we have communicated with our creators...is that something we'd actually want? Did our creator have a creator of its own? Furthermore, does that imply that we, too, could act as creators further down the chain? What's to stop that chain? (As seen through the creation of David, who in turn creates what becomes the xenomorph.) What does all that say about our place in the universe?

 

 

These are all just questions off the top of my head, based on my one viewing of the film nine years ago at the cinema. 

 

Impressive! Imagine how much more layers and themes you would have brought to the surface if you loved the movie! 

[crocodile 7,982]

15 minutes ago, Jay said:

If you're suggesting a mod moved posts, that isn't true and no posts have been moved

Ah, I must be misremembering then. 

 

Karol

[Jurassic Shark 12,024]

So you did know what you did!

[crocodile 7,982]

28 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

So you did know what you did!

No, it must have been that other guy in my head. 

 

Karol

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,429]

[Nick Parker 3,040]

13 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Wayne Shorter? The saxophone player with Weather Report? Interesting.

 

I meant to reply to this with my earlier post, but it got erased in my draft.

 

That's like just calling John Williams the conductor of the Boston Pops, but yes, the one and the same. 

8 hours ago, crumbs said:

Scott was clearly hitting the reset button and trying to tell a different story. My suspicion is the Alien elements were the least interesting aspect to him (hence his reluctance to reintroduce the tried and true Xenomorph). He seemed far more interested in exploring the religious allegory of it all, but clearly realised no studio would give him the funding required to make that film (without some tenuous relationship to an established franchise).

 

That's one thing I kinda love about another set of space prequels made in the 21st century. As a strict prequel to the original trilogy, they suck pretty hard, and if you think about the details too hard they could actually lessen your appreciation of certain preexisting events and characters (what, so Yoda nearly kicked the Emperor's ass, lost to a very particular circumstance, said "This maclunkey, fuck" and just hid away on a desolate swamp for twenty years?)

 

But Lucas also wanted to use them as an opportunity to explore something far more ambitious than laser ships and connecting the dots: he used the foundation he had set decades ago to tell the story of how a democracy descends into fascism. Does it gel with the previous movies? Hell no. But I enjoy them in a way similar to how I enjoy Rosencratz and Guildenstern as an existential riff on Hamlet. 

 

That said, in Scott's defense, the original Alien was packed with symbolism of its own (some of which makes the movie way more disturbing to watch as an adult ), and I've always rejected the obnoxious reduction of it as a "slasher in space". Hell, even Aliens pulls off a Vietnam allegory.

 

So I _do_ think that the series is more explicitly ripe for the philosophical musings that Prometheus sets out...the major difference is that with Alien, it works on multiple layers, and can be enjoyed on each one. Prometheus?...not so much.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,493]

Thanks for that @Nick Parker.

Just a minute. Nick Parker? The JWfan poster?

 

Ps, ALIENS is also an AIDS allegory.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

1 minute ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

, ALIENS is also an AIDS allegory.

 

Oh snap! How?

[Naïve Old Fart 9,493]

I'll let you watch the film, and let you draw your own conclusions.

I'm not trying to cop out; I just want people to make up their own minds.