|
I saw it too. I still hate it.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:30 |
|
CelticPredator posted:I saw it too. Pulling out is not an effective form of contraception.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Flappy Bert posted:There's also a very quick shot where the cut-off facehugger retracts its.. proboscis, such that you'd presume it was used, but it passes too quickly in an action scene for most people to notice in the theatre, I suspect. I honestly feel it was a bit hard to miss.  Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:Pulling out is not an effective form of contraception. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I saw it too. gently caress, this is going to turn into your new 'Man of Steel made me sad' thing, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Man of Steel sucks poo poo. Where's this is just annoying to me as a fan. It's like, the only thing in the film that bugs me at that level. It bugged me in AvP and AvP-R as well. And it will bug me in the next Alien movie when they do it. I just like monster rules. I don't want Gremlins 3 to have them eat at like, 10:30 pm and still become Gremlins. Rules, as dumb as they are, are quite fun and add to the film. You don't have to agree. And that's cool. But you can't really talk me outta this. So here's some toy pictures to make half the posters angry      
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
"Whoops! You dropped your pulse rifle when you tripped. Let me help!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
The Neomorph is simply misunderstood
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
When do you think Fox will release the AVP films in 4k?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:When do you think Fox will release the AVP films in 4k? I'd imagine soon. I don't see why they wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Minor toy chat derail: I got that it was a thinking and learning creature in the first Alien with the way it looks around the room after birth and sizes everyone up. Making it a mini Alien was unnessecary and dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:I got that it was a thinking and learning creature in the first Alien with the way it looks around the room after birth and sizes everyone up. Making it a mini Alien was unnessecary and dumb. Well yeah, I'm not saying I particularly liked it or felt it was necessary, just that I understand the reasoning behind it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Counter-point: the baby armature alien greeting its father is simultaneously gross, cute, and funny, and worrying about 'necessity' sounds like a fast way to make a really boring movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Baby xeno is one of the high points of a great movie. It is absolutely necessary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Baby xeno is one of the high points of a great movie. It is absolutely necessary. It's always about canon in these situations, some people just won't say that. They think that because Ridley Scott could have accomplished the same thing without changing the chestburster design, that's what he should do. That's what they mean by "unnecessary". Nevermind what actually works for the movie you're currently watching, canon is king.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
It was unnecessary, unearned, uninspired, generic,
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:In the audio commentary, Ridley Scott says the whole reason Lope's Alien even shows up is to have a "4th act" conflict, like the one in the first movie with the Alien on the Narcissus. The problem I have with it is that it doesn't feel earned, it feels like it's twisting its own internal logic for the sake of another scare or action setpiece. It doesn't come across as thrilling or scary, it feels confusing, as if I've caught the man behind the curtain trying to do some sleight of hand. There's no twisted logic. We see the guy get an ovipositor shoved down his throat, onscreen. Then an egg hatches inside him, offscreen. Where did the egg come from? Maybe from the ovipositor? Your confusion comes from the attempt to fill in the deliberate gaps in the narrative with only assumptions based on the plots of other films - and your expectations. The film changes the canon and "it feels like it's supposed to be either scary or action" yet it is neither. So you conclude that it's the film that's wrong, not your feelings. This of course ignores narrative. Reading the film as a film, you should have noted that we never see an egg hatch. There is no evidence of an egg at all: we cut from Lope asleep, to Lope's destroyed body. Then Mother detects a lifeform in the ship. We do not ever see where this lifeform came from. What you should've concluded is that Ridley Scott is right when he paraphrases Zizek: the Alien is indestructible, and has merely reformed itself. "A lamella is indivisible, indestructible, and immortal .... the obscene immortality of the “living dead” which, after every annihilation, re-composes themselves and clumsily goes on." -Zizek The alien is now wandering aimlessly, having already fulfilled its purpose by chasing Daniels off the planet. All that is left is for David/Walter to dispose of it. Of course there is a plot explanation (the ovipositor), but the narrative absolutely de-emphasizes it. In all the Alien films, there are often vast amounts of plot-time excised in simple cuts. (The space-marines' initial exploration of the colony in Aliens, before they even see an alien, takes hours according to onscreen text.) The filmmakers deliberately eliminated the part of the plot where the second alien 'grows up' - they never filmed it in the first place, because it is narratively unnecessary. This is also why you don't see the characters pooping.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I'd imagine soon. I don't see why they wouldn't. I wonder if the 4k version of Requiem will have the brightness unfucked on it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It's always about canon in these situations, some people just won't say that. They think that because Ridley Scott could have accomplished the same thing without changing the chestburster design, that's what he should do. That's what they mean by "unnecessary". Nevermind what actually works for the movie you're currently watching, canon is king. Alternately, I (and others) thought the baby xeno looked goofy on my first viewing, and it took me out of the scene because I instantly thought of Spaceballs and I'm not sure that's the effect Ridley was going for. Having said that, I liked the baby xeno more on rewatching the movie. If people were so hung up on "canon", they'd object to the dog-burster in Alien3 being a mini-xeno as well, but they don't. The problem isn't what it looks like, it's how it's presented. It's the reason why the original Alien3 idea of literally dressing a whippett up in an Alien costume got scrapped, it looked silly and undermined the tone of the scene. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Aug 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
yeah, the problem with the baby xeno isn't that it's not a chestburster; it's that a tiny, yet fully-formed xenomorph looks hilarious and adorable rather than scary, and that this is kind of jarring with the tone the rest of the movie is going for honestly, I liked Covenant a lot, but it was tonally confused as gently caress; it juxtaposes completely horrifying poo poo with literal Looney Tunes gags. it kind of reminded me of Korean genre films in that way, like The Host. (also: Ridley Scott has denied in interviews that he had anything to do with canning Blomkamp's film, and has said that it was a decision entirely made by Fox, and that he actually wants to produce Blomkamp's film. where y'alls god at now?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Ridley Scott straight up said he didn't think there should be two different Alien films going at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:yeah, the problem with the baby xeno isn't that it's not a chestburster; it's that a tiny, yet fully-formed xenomorph looks hilarious and adorable rather than scary, and that this is kind of jarring with the tone the rest of the movie is going for I don't think hilarious and adorable is at all out of line with a movie where adorable Michael Fassbender plays a hilarious robot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Yeah the scene wasn't meant to be horrifying. It was meant to be triumphant, and beautiful. A moment for our hero. The one true
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
How did the movie do money wise? They still must make a pretty penny right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Invalid Validation posted:How did the movie do money wise? They still must make a pretty penny right? http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=alienparadiselost.htm and the comparison to prometheus if you are interested: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=covprom.htm MacheteZombie fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Aug 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Yea that's still pretty good for an old sci-fi horror franchise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It's always about canon in these situations, some people just won't say that. They think that because Ridley Scott could have accomplished the same thing without changing the chestburster design, that's what he should do. That's what they mean by "unnecessary". Nevermind what actually works for the movie you're currently watching, canon is king. There's nothing I like to hear more about a movie than that nothing unnecessary happens in it and it follows rules. But of course there are rules. Don't you remember in 1979, how long it took an alien to gestate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:There's nothing I like to hear more about a movie than that nothing unnecessary happens in it and it follows rules. I get that you're being sarcastic, but I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to convey, or who it's meant for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I don't think hilarious and adorable is at all out of line with a movie where adorable Michael Fassbender plays a hilarious robot. that's why I mentioned it as a microcosm of the film's overall tonal weirdness, rather than being the one out-of-place bit the film constantly leaps between goofy comedy and extreme horror, and while this is not at all bad (again, I really like Covenant!) it's strange as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I get that you're being sarcastic, but I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to convey, or who it's meant for. No one can stop my fan quibbles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:that's why I mentioned it as a microcosm of the film's overall tonal weirdness, rather than being the one out-of-place bit That's not a leap, it's attraction, like the facehugger and the face, like David and a new baby - the extreme horror is funny, the goofy comedy is disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:That's not a leap, it's attraction, like the facehugger and the face, like David and a new baby - the extreme horror is funny, the goofy comedy is disturbing. I agree with you regarding many other movies (Evil Dead 2 and Re-Animator, for instance) but I don't think Covenant really nailed this. the trick to comedy-horror is to actually blend the two elements. Re-Animator has a brutal sexual assault scene in which the aggressor is a severed head making awful puns, for example, and the scene ends up being a strange blend of horrifying and hilarious, such that you come out completely unsure how the gently caress to actually feel about it. Covenant, meanwhile, shows you something that's horrifying but not funny (the backburster), then something that's funny but not horrifying (the near-Benny Hill chase scene with the backburster), then something that's horrifying but not funny again (the faceburster), and so on/so forth. but at the same time, I don't actually think this is bad. it sure as gently caress makes Covenant unique among Hollywood studio horror; like I said, the closest comparison I can think of to its tone is The Host.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Okay but immediately slipping on the blood when trying to shoot the back-burster and then further failing to shoot it so hard that you blow up the ship you're in and improbably stumble out of it burning to death? That's definitely some dark slapstick. "Oh poo poo, I wonder how the back-burster is going to kill her! oh... she took care of that herself." And yet the whole sequence is really intense and great. I would say it's definitly a solid blend of serious, played-straight tension and grim slapstick. Not unlike some of the scenes in SAW films (CP's gonna hate me for this comparison  sorry CP).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
The Neomorphs literally did nothing wrong.CelticPredator posted:Ridley Scott straight up said he didn't think there should be two different Alien films going at the same time. He's right, it would have been dumb if both movies got made and then got released in the same year, that's a huge difference from wanting a movie cancelled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Predators hasn't been released in 4k, either. Jfc Fox, get with the program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I get that you're being sarcastic, but I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to convey, or who it's meant for. The poster who said that the change in design was "unnecessary", which is different than what you are saying. You have an opinion about the aesthetic of the design, I can just agree or disagree, that's easy. "Unnecessary" takes a bit more interpretation because on it's face it is basically meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Predators should have never been released at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:Predators hasn't been released in 4k, either. Jfc Fox, get with the program. On that note, the current bluray for 'Predator' is still the garbage overly-DNR version where everyone looks like a wax person, Fox needs to get off their rear end and fix that poo poo. And speaking of Predator, Sonny Landham (Billy) passed away last week. Neo Rasa posted:Predators should have never been released at all. Fight me, Predators was a great subversion of the original movie and I had a blast with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Predators should have never been released at all. Nah, Predators was dope
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Predators should have never been released at all. Blasphemy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzqYqoVoU74 How is your dick not hard after watching that? It was a well shot and crafted film. The amount of violence, humor, and action blended together very nicely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The poster who said that the change in design was "unnecessary", which is different than what you are saying. You have an opinion about the aesthetic of the design, I can just agree or disagree, that's easy. "Unnecessary" takes a bit more interpretation because on it's face it is basically meaningless. I agree that calling it a "unnecessary change" does lean on previous films. However, the real reason that it's very jarring to me is how different it is from the Neomorph bursters. They are large and look fetal/baby-like in proportion. So within the same movie, we have an early example of what baby monsters look like, and then later, the baby version of the "improved monster" that looks really silly in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 20:01
|
|