SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Alien: Covenant

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Alien: Covenant (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=226183)

See what happens when you ignore the no sex in the shower sign. :haha:

Thank You Dowly. :)

I'm really skeptical about this one. Like a lot of things, like Prometheus, there's probably going to be good aspects and then that stuff that drives you crazy, like the zombie or the dumb cobra scene from Prometheus. The shower scene totally reeks of slasher flick stupid.

it also feels already like we've seen this movie before. I'm getting tired of these great directors just doing the same George Lucas thing, you know "its like poetry, it rhymes."

Meanwhile I'm actually pretty interested in seeing what happens with Bladerunner 2, though the question of Deckard being or not being a... you know should remain unknown but we already know that Ridley Scott was WRONG about it back then too even at his height.

The man is such a mixed bag. Also, apparently ACOGs and EOTechs will be used in the distant future when we're colonizing the galaxy.

I though the debate about Deckard was put to rest already?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly (Post 2454328)

I though the debate about Deckard was put to rest already?

Not exactly.

Quote:

“The whole concept [of Deckard being a Replicant] evolved really through Gaff’s origami – Gaff wasn’t in the book, he’s an invention to thread through the story so, at the end of the film, he can leave his calling card which fundamentally says, ‘I know something about your inernal thinking that only you know – and there’s only one way I could possibly know that – and that is because I am part of the office that created you.'”

At this point, co-screenwriter Hampton Fancher, who has always staunchly denied that Deckard was anything other than human, shook his head and blurted out, “Ridley’s off, he’s totally wrong!” The audience burst out laughing, after which Fancher continued. “His idea is too complex. I think there is a metaphor in the film that works – for me anyway – and it’s about how we aspire to be something and we fall short of it; we always do. And we’re not sure if we’re being authentic. I don’t feel authentic – maybe Ridley does [Scott enthusiastically nods].

“So that question [is Deckard a Replicant] has to be an eternal question,” the writer concluded. “It doesn’t have an answer, and what I alway say about that is what Pound says: ‘Art that remains news is art in which the question ‘what does it mean’ has no correct answer.” I like asking the question [about Deckard] and I like it to be asked but I think it’s nonsense to answer it… that’s not interesting to me.”

https://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2008...-blade-runner/

You can take it both ways of course, say that one way or another Scott got his way given what he put into the film, or you can reject it and say its only suggestive not factual whats in the film, and also we should remember that the Unicorn dream wasn't in any of the original cuts but only showed up in the final cut. Without that superimposition of a new scene you can argue that Gaff's calling card was merely to say he was there and let him go.

I agree ultimately with the screenwriter. The question is interesting, but the answer isn't and for some reason Ridley Scott is one of those idiots that wants to answer the question, but we already know he's a very flawed artist. I think Deckard being a replicant guts the story. Roy sparing him loses all meaning because rather than just killing him his sparing a human in an act of mercy that the human doesn't express is him aspiring to be that greater thing, which stands in the face of his apparent thus far role as a lesser life, beneath that of humans, damned to early retirement. However if Deckard is a replicant sparing Deckard then becomes what? Doing a favour for a fellow replicant? Giving a meaningful speech to what he thought was a human but wasn't? It muddies the meaning and value of Roy's final gesture. He also clearly identifies himself as not of Deckard's tribe, ie. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. To me the the most poignant moment in the film gets confused and loses its effect with Scott's version of things.

I think Scott is a great visual director, but a **** story teller and its on the men writing for him to make it great.

Recut version of the Alien: Covenant trailer -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYVQlvEdL6s

This one is better but it all comes down will the unanswered questions get a answer and will it be better than Prometheus? :hmmm:

The debate on Deckard being a replicant or not, is done since long. He is. Scott confirmed that years ago, and what is more important: the story telling of the directo's cuts also show it quite clearly, both of them. Even the first commecial cinema release. The first movie release was not what Scott wanted, it was softened, Hollywood-ended happy-end movie with explanations from the off that both Scott and Ford found very disgusting, but were forced upon by the studio that thought the audience was too stupid to understand the film without these explanations from the off. The happy ending, taken from unused material from Shining that Kubrick shot, also was such a "coup".

The unicorn scene already was in the first of the two directos cuts. The glowing eyes of Deckard - after he got rescued by Rachel and the speak in the kitchen of his appartment - are in all movie versions.

If Scott now says Deckard's status is unclear, then he is zigzagging and stupid babbling like he did in the campaign for Prometheus not having anything to do with the Alien universe. In fact, Prometheus looks for the most parts like an almost exact remake of the first alien movie, even the sequences in wich 80% of the scenes gets called up seems to be the same. To say this has nothing to do with Alien, like he initially did, obviously was total nonsense. Not to mention the similiarities in creature design. I remember that I seriously questioned his mental health when hearing him talking about Prometheus back then. To me, its nothing more and nothign less than a remake, plain and simple.

If they tell a story in Blade Runner 2 that only works by now painting Deckard as a non-replicant again, that would be a violation of the first movie, and a reason good enough to scrap the new movie from the list and forget about it. And something tells me that in this way or in a similiar fashion they indeed ruin the Blade Runner legacy now.

Foolish old men. All too often do not know when it is time to stop, or wanting to revive their youth by repeating the old stuff from back those times.

What has happened to The Forever War...? For twenty years he has chased the copyrights for the novel to make it a movie, and he was full of words of how important it was a project for him, a love of his youth. And now? The moment he bought it finally, he fell silent about it. Have not hearded of it since a felt decade . And Scott does not become younger. And he has made some lousy movies since then. Anyone recalling Robin Hood? Brrrrrr...

The crew of the Covenant. (Click to see larger photo)
http://i.imgur.com/pBB8Prql.jpg

The Weylan(d)-Yutani 'Aspen Beer' can is a nice touch. :yep:

^How many out of that lot get bumped off? :hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED (Post 2468067)

^How many out of that lot get bumped off? :hmmm:

Considering the trailer already confirmed.. err.. 5 deaths? I'd say only Daniels and Walter survive to the end. :hmmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly (Post 2468134)

Considering the trailer already confirmed.. err.. 5 deaths? I'd say only Daniels and Walter survive to the end. :hmmm:

Useless Aliens just can not wipe the lot out. :shifty: :arrgh!:

well you need to keep someone for the eventual sequel...

too bad Charlize Theron got bumped off in the first one.