The first trailer for Alien: Covenant has dropped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0VW6sg50Pk

Seems reaction online is mixed: some very excited while others sensing a misfire. Those who enjoyed the trailer see in it signs that Scott is returning to the gore and horror of Alien, which for them is I guess what it's all about, and apparently why they found Prometheus lacking. For myself, I'm just going to wait and see. I've cooled a great deal on the Alien franchise over the years, partly due to very lackluster sequels and partly due to pretty much having lost my tolerance for body horror, and gore in general. So, I don't feel a strong desire to see new forms of aliens erupting from other parts of the body, or even the familiar kind erupting from chests. But it's Alien, so I probably won't be able to keep myself away.

Here's a non-sequitur, but I saw a link that stated that Scott feels that the Blade Runner and Alien universes are one and the same. Personally I think that's a dumb idea. People often seem to try to tie together different things they've created, apparently because they think it somehow makes both grander, but in doing so they usually seem to diminish both original properties. At Scott's age, I don't know how many more movies he has left in him, and I hope he doesn't waste opportunities by making this mistake.

Back to the topic at hand, Covenant. Scott has also stated that it is the first of a trilogy of movies that will together be the true prequel to Alien that Prometheus was not. I hate to say it, but it appears the only reason why this is being drawn out into a trilogy instead of being done in a single movie is to grab more of your money. Scott has been inspired by the towering success of The Force Awakens and now has franchise fever. Personally, I think it would have been better to have made Prometheus as the true prequel to Alien than to do it as a non-prequel precursor story and then follow it with three direct prequels. I mean, you got to see an Alien derelict-style ship crash: why use a setting so close to what preceded Alien, but yet have it be something different? Well, moviemakers never come to me for advice, seemingly, so we get what we get.

I saw the trailer and was pretty horrified. Interesting movie trivia if anyone is interested: Carmen Ejogo and Katherine Waterstone from Fantastic Beasts both star in Alien: Covenant.

So has Prometheus been retconned? I'd rather that that weren't the case and I'd also like Blade Runner and Alien universes to be serparate, the last thing we need is another huge potential movie franchise with a new instalment every year

Lindir wrote:So has Prometheus been retconned?

Not that I know of.

The thrill of returning to the Alien universe is fading fast for me.

Prometheus was supposed to be the movie that answered the few lingering questions posed by the original movie. Instead, it wasted the opportunity and raised ten more questions for every one it attempted to answer. Now we are getting a trilogy of movies that is going to dilute things even further. Really? Prometheus couldn't have been the first installment of that trilogy? We need a prequel to the prequels? Hollywood really needs to check itself into mental health facility.

Whatever the case, we are stuck with what's coming. What bothers me most is how it changes my perception and experience of the originals. Watching all the events that supposedly took place before the Nostromo set down on LV-426 will force my mind to shoehorn and retcon what I am seeing when I re-watch the originals. Instead of that eerie and tense feeling that I get when I think the Nostromo crew are the first humans to interact with the alien species, I am now forced to accept that multiple other crews have gone through the same ordeal and what Ripley and co. suffer through is nothing original. It all becomes very tired. The perfect scenario would have been Prometheus (properly done) as a definitive prequel, and then, if Scott must really continue the Alien saga, then do some sequels post Alien Resurrection and break some new ground. Going back always introduces problems, headaches, and a myriad of inconsistencies with material that has already been shown taking place afterward. Even the now-defunct Neil Blomkamp Alien movie (which would ostensibly bypass Alien 3 and Resurrection) showed more promise than this because it brought back characters we actually care about and it would do something none of these tired prequels will do: move the story forward!

As for Blade Runner and Alien taking place in the same timeline, I would really like to know what people are slipping into Scott's whiskey these days. The two concepts really don't mesh well at all. Even the implication that the replicants from BR are the same as the androids in Alien is fraught with problems. How do we go from models that are internally identical to humans and bleed real blood in 2019, to models in 2124 that gush a milk-like substance and have obvious mechanical and electronic components inside them? If Weyland was really following up on Tyrell's work, he really did a poor backwards job. I really hope they stay away from making any more contrived connections beyond the easily-ignored one in Prometheus already, or next thing we know, we'll find out that Ripley is really descended from Balian of Ibelin (Kingdom of Heaven,) and the Lord of Darkness (Legend) created the xenomorphs because... why not, right?

This is what happens when the creativity muse abandons the artist.
More crudely, this is what happens when the studio demands to be fed... (reminds me of the Sandkings' bloated maw).

Valkrist wrote:What bothers me most is how it changes my perception and experience of the originals.

Thus far I don't think Prometheus has done that for me. But in all honesty, I rarely watch the Alien movies any more (not a good viewing choice for a guy who lives alone, with just a cat). I have probably only watched them once since the most recent Bluray set with the egg and alien sculpture came out. So whether Prometheus really impacted my enjoyment of Alien, I can't really say. I'm inclined to think not, because so much of the experience of watching Alien is remembering when I saw it in the theater in 1979 and how blown away I was, and how terrifying it was. Beyond that, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection did far more damage to my enjoyment of the first two than did Prometheus. It becomes a lot more difficult to muster enthusiasm for Ripley (and Newt and Hicks) when you know they're going to bite it in the next movie. On the other hand, I do understand what you're saying. The Star Wars prequels ruined Darth Vader for me, such that I just don't get the enjoyment out of watching the OT that I used to. Even Vader's very well executed part in Rogue One didn't move me that much, because I know that underneath that mask is a broken-hearted boy band reject.

Even the now-defunct Neil Blomkamp Alien movie (which would ostensibly bypass Alien 3 and Resurrection) showed more promise than this because it brought back characters we actually care about and it would do something none of these tired prequels will do: move the story forward!

As far as I know, it's not defunct. The studio and/or Ridley Scott asked Blomkamp to hold off until after Covenant for fear that Alien 5's storyline would somehow clash with that of Covenant. Sigourney Weaver has read the script for 5 and has said it's very good, and a satisfying conclusion for Ripley's story. (Trying to ignore the fact that she once suggested that Alien 3 was a satisfying conclusion for Ripley's story....) Hopefully Scott does not want Blomkamp to hold off for Covenant's two sequels. Not only would that be a very unreasonable thing to ask, but also nobody's getting any younger. Given the absolute bloodbath that 2016 was for beloved celebrities, especially ones who went before their time, it's not out of the question to think that Sigourney Weaver or Michael Biehn might not be around in a few years. So here's hoping that 5 goes into production this year some time after Covenant debuts. Disney is going to intersperse Star Wars origin stories with Episode movies, so there's no reason the Alien franchise can't do the same thing.

As a sidebar, Michael Biehn's reaction to the concept art for Alien 5 suggests he thinks Blomkamp has Jennifer Lawrence in mind for the adult Newt. I'm not sure about that. While that art looks vaguely like Lawrence, it looks a lot more like the adult Carrie Henn. I sincerely doubt they'd bring her back for the part, however. I think Newt was her one and only performance, and she's been a school teacher since then. Moreover, the idea for 5 is that it's Ripley and Hicks' ride-into-the-sunset moment, and Newt becomes the main character of future Alien movies. I really think they'd want a big name for that, so maybe they are hoping for Lawrence.

As for Blade Runner and Alien taking place in the same timeline, I would really like to know what people are slipping into Scott's whiskey these days. The two concepts really don't mesh well at all. Even the implication that the replicants from BR are the same as the androids in Alien is fraught with problems. How do we go from models that are internally identical to humans and bleed real blood in 2019, to models that gush a milk-like substance and have obvious mechanical and electronic components inside them? If Weyland was really following up on Tyrell's work, he really did a poor backwards job. I really hope they stay away from making any more contrived connections beyond the easily-ignored one in Prometheus already, or next thing we know, we'll find out that Ripley is really descended from Balian of Ibelin (Kingdom of Heaven,) and the Lord of Darkness (Legend) created the xenomorphs because... why not, right?

My guess is that Scott is picturing them in the same universe because both franchises contain a dystopian Earth. He may not even be thinking of replicants and androids being the same thing. Or maybe he his. If they are, then obviously the flesh-and-blood Replicants were abandoned and replaced with the (more reliable?) (less murderous?) androids.

Deimos wrote:More crudely, this is what happens when the studio demands to be fed... (reminds me of the Sandkings' bloated maw).

I'm guessing you're not talking about the Sarlacc pit from Return of the Jedi, but since I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm thinking the Sarlacc pit is a good metaphor.

Many people seem to think Scott will keep finding new ways to block Blomkamp's movie. I think he fears it might actually be better than his half-baked attempts. It's ironic because he was once the leading force behind an Alien 5, then he just woke up one morning and decided to relive his youth and go backwards instead.

If it does come to pass, please keep J Law out of this. She is way too recognizable and suffering from an overload of overexposure. She's become Hollywood's darling and it seems her face has to be in every second movie that gets made these days. I'm sure she's looking for another franchise to latch on to now that the Hunger Games is over, but I don't want her as the new Ripley. She's just not right for that universe.

On BR and Alien: if the concept of a dystopian Earth is all that Scott is going on, then he really needs to take a good look around at the movies being made today. Dystopian Earths are a dime-a-dozen and the bandwagon is very full these days. Does that mean they all have to be connected somehow? I think not. Also, I don't think there was any indication ever given in the Alien franchise pre-Resurrection that Earth was dystopian. The one in the first three Alien movies seems to be getting along just fine; all that seems to have happened is that national governments are a thing of the past and mega-corporations are running the show. That is not necessarily dystopian to me, but an evolution of capitalism on a global scale. It is not until Resurrection, which happens nearly three centuries later, that we are given some indication that something terrible has occurred on Earth. With Blade Runner, it is immediately obvious that things went horribly wrong in the 21st century. Certainly BR benefits from being set on Earth to showcase all this, but again I don't really get the sense that the Earth from Alien fits in with that picture. Scott deliberately went with a gritty and dirty realism for the look of the original Alien, but again, none of that translates to dystopia for me, only that starships and people are not as clean and sanitized as what we see on Star Trek, for example.

Olorin wrote:

Deimos wrote:More crudely, this is what happens when the studio demands to be fed... (reminds me of the Sandkings' bloated maw).

I'm guessing you're not talking about the Sarlacc pit from Return of the Jedi, but since I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm thinking the Sarlacc pit is a good metaphor.

I saw a clip of that on youtube...as you say, close enough.

I will say I was a bit surprised that you are not familiar with Sandkings.
I first read the story back in the late 70s in Omni magazine. It really creeped me out...SF horror.
I never quite forgot it, but it receded into the back of my mind.
A [made-for-TV?] movie came out (mid 90s maybe?) with Beau Bridges but I never saw it.
Only recently I saw that it was written by ....George RR Martin. I didn't pay much attention to authors back then, and the name would have had no significance for me anyway.
I re-read it...still creeps me out, even worse, if that is possible.

PS...sorry for the hijack

Deimos wrote:I will say I was a bit surprised that you are not familiar with Sandkings.
I first read the story back in the late 70s in Omni magazine. It really creeped me out...SF horror.
I never quite forgot it, but it receded into the back of my mind.
A [made-for-TV?] movie came out (mid 90s maybe?) with Beau Bridges but I never saw it.
Only recently I saw that it was written by ....George RR Martin. I didn't pay much attention to authors back then, and the name would have had no significance for me anyway.
I re-read it...still creeps me out, even worse, if that is possible.

PS...sorry for the hijack

Sometimes I'm less well read in sci-fi than I'd like to be...but no, never heard of the Sandkings till today. Given that it still creeps you out, maybe I'd better avoid it.

Valkrist wrote:Many people seem to think Scott will keep finding new ways to block Blomkamp's movie. I think he fears it might actually be better than his half-baked attempts. It's ironic because he was once the leading force behind an Alien 5, then he just woke up one morning and decided to relive his youth and go backwards instead.

If it does come to pass, please keep J Law out of this. She is way too recognizable and suffering from an overload of overexposure. She's become Hollywood's darling and it seems her face has to be in every second movie that gets made these days. I'm sure she's looking for another franchise to latch on to now that the Hunger Games is over, but I don't want her as the new Ripley. She's just not right for that universe.

On BR and Alien: if the concept of a dystopian Earth is all that Scott is going on, then he really needs to take a good look around at the movies being made today. Dystopian Earths are a dime-a-dozen and the bandwagon is very full these days. Does that mean they all have to be connected somehow? I think not. Also, I don't think there was any indication ever given in the Alien franchise pre-Resurrection that Earth was dystopian. The one in the first three Alien movies seems to be getting along just fine; all that seems to have happened is that national governments are a thing of the past and mega-corporations are running the show. That is not necessarily dystopian to me, but an evolution of capitalism on a global scale. It is not until Resurrection, which happens nearly three centuries later, that we are given some indication that something terrible has occurred on Earth. With Blade Runner, it is immediately obvious that things went horribly wrong in the 21st century. Certainly BR benefits from being set on Earth to showcase all this, but again I don't really get the sense that the Earth from Alien fits in with that picture. Scott deliberately went with a gritty and dirty realism for the look of the original Alien, but again, none of that translates to dystopia for me, only that starships and people are not as clean and sanitized as what we see on Star Trek, for example.

The dystopia angle was just my pet theory, based on next to nothing. I haven't read anything about it. But I couldn't imagine what else he could be basing his comment on, unless he was just spitballing and trying to gin up more interest.

I adore Jennifer Lawrence but agree that she may be getting overexposed. As far as too recognizable, I agree that makes it hard for an actor to vanish into a role, but Hollywood usually seems to want familiar names to draw viewers in....except for Rogue One, where the only big name necessary was "Star Wars." Anyway, Michael Biehn was implying she might be the new Newt, not Ripley (unless you meant "new Ripley" in the context of "new female lead?").

I love J Law too but I just don't feel this is the right genre or role for her, and yes, I didn't mean her taking over the character of Ripley, but her as Newt stepping into Ripley's shoes.

I enjoy being right about things. This is not one of those times:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/blomkamps-a ... -get-made/

Blade Runner 2 is Scott's last chance to redeem himself in my eyes and, spoiler alert, I'm not holding my breath.

Scott is not actually directing blade runner 2, so does that still count for an any degree of redemption?

Only a wee tiny bit.

That's actually good news IMO. As much as I liked District 9, I did not care for his last 2 films, and I don't want to see him screw up the Alien universe. He can direct and get the visuals to look great, but sustaining a good story to the end is not one of his strong points.

Nasnandos wrote:That's actually good news IMO. As much as I liked District 9, I did not care for his last 2 films, and I don't want to see him screw up the Alien universe. He can direct and get the visuals to look great, but sustaining a good story to the end is not one of his strong points.

Oh, like EVERYTHING after Aliens didn't screw it up already?

I will agree that Blomkamp is looking more and more like a one-hit wonder. Elysium was just a bit too ponderous and Chappie, well I'm not sure how to take it except as a fairy tale.

The huge excitement generated by his concept art showed how much desire there is in Alien fandom for the series to go back and avoid the disastrous left turn of Alien 3. The idea that Alien 3 was just a bad hyperspace dream (which we know Ripley has had) or even was just something we could ignore with no given reason is so appealing to fans of Alien and Aliens, which just want another adventure with the characters we were so invested in by the end of Aliens. But there's no guarantee that his Alien 5 would be any good, Sigourney Weaver's praise of the script nonwithstanding.

A few years ago, I would have said I trusted one person to rescue this franchise, and that would be James Cameron. But after the make-WALL-E-seem-subtle story that was Avatar, Cameron fell off my list. (Incidentally Cameron also so Blomkamp's script and had great praise for it.) So now, I'm not sure who I would want to resurrect Alien. I would like it to have one final hurrah to fix Ripley's story and give the series a happy ending. I am not sure whether we'll get that or not. And as I opined in the Terminator thread, as long as these movies make money, they're going to keep bursting new ones out occasionally, whether we want them or not.

So, maybe we'll get Blomkamp's movie and maybe we won't. Actually I don't recall anything in that DH piece that implied he had solid reasons for thinking it was never going to happen. I think he's just despairing that he's got an open-ended wait as Scott dawdles around. At some point Fox may just shove him out of the way and let Blomkamp or someone else do a sequel. Or Scott may retire or die (he's in his late 70s). We'll see!

Olorin wrote: Oh, like EVERYTHING after Aliens didn't screw it up already?

Just Resurrection. I happen to love the assembly cut of Alien 3. I don't count those awful AVP things.

It would be nice to see a proper continuation of Aliens, but I don't trust him to do it right. It would probably look great, have great designs and hardware, but have an underdeveloped story and characters with no heart or soul.

I 100% agree with Kit. The reworked cut of Alien 3 actually makes for a very good movie, IMHO. I think we have an instinctive dislike for that movie because not only does it dump Hicks, Newt, and Bishop very unceremoniously, it also plays very loosely with logic at the beginning with the face hugger on the Sulaco. Outside of those two things, I really enjoy Alien 3. Yes, Ripley dying at the end is a downer but this was meant to be the final entry series.

There's almost nothing worth saving about Resurrection, but every time I watch it I'm always trying to glean clues from the dialogue as to how or why things have deteriorated in the intervening years. I've always been curious what happened to Earth and why going back there was such an awful thing. What happened to Ripley afterward?

Alien 3 had a lot going for it in some respects: great actors giving great performances (Charles Dance, anyone?), great visuals (if not always great visual effects), and tons of atmosphere. But the early deaths of 3/4 of the surviving Aliens cast was an immediate rude slap in the face, and to have Ripley not only die, but die in the way you absolutely never wanted her to die, cannot IMHO be redeemed by the film's technical merits or alternate cuts. It takes us to a place we did not want to go, no matter how elegantly it may take us there. And it fails to be scary while doing this. The word was out long before the movie opened that Ripley was going to die at the end, and with the rest of the Aliens cast dying during the opening credits, and most of the new cast being characters that needed killin', as they say in the South, there was no emotional investment in the characters and therefore no build-up of dread for them. Alien had wise-ass but likeable truck drivers and Aliens had wise-ass but likeable Marines. The writers for the next two movies misunderstood this lovable misfits factor and instead gave us despicable violent criminals and despicable mercenaries. When you can't root for the characters, it's hard to feel anything for their demise.

Alien 3 was a notorious case study of what can come out of development hell, and Alien Resurrection is always the first thing out of my mouth when friends extoll the infallibility of Joss Whedon. While Alien 3 stands head, shoulders, and burst chest above Alien Resurrection, I'd be ecstatic for them both to be retconned away. I'd even settle for them just to be ignored. Ripley is one of cinema's all-time great heroes (#8 on AFI's list!) and her story deserves have a happy, or at least amenable, ending, one that does not involve her being killed by aliens or being a human-alien hybrid.

Confession time... I have actually only seen the Alien vs Predator movies. I have literally never watched any of the other Alien movies

I also feel like I am the only one on this planet that did not like District 9.

Valkrist wrote: There's almost nothing worth saving about Resurrection, but every time I watch it I'm always trying to glean clues from the dialogue as to how or why things have deteriorated in the intervening years. I've always been curious what happened to Earth and why going back there was such an awful thing. What happened to Ripley afterward?

I think Joss Whedon's underlying story for Resurrection, other than the hokey mercenary storyline, was great. It was just executed terribly. Weaver's character was very interesting, and it was some of her best acting. Nearly all of the other characters seemed to be campy caricatures that did not belong in the Alien universe at all. Bad casting decisions and bad direction. Jean-Pierre Jeunet just made a mess of it all by attempting to make an Alien film in the same funny-wierd style of his other films.

BladeCollector wrote: I also feel like I am the only one on this planet that did not like District 9.

I saw it after all the buzz and hype had died down. I thought it was a cool, goofy little sci-fi flick, but that was all. I still don't get all the over-the-top praise that movie got, or all the Academy Award nominations.

Nasnandos wrote:

BladeCollector wrote: I also feel like I am the only one on this planet that did not like District 9.

I saw it after all the buzz and hype had died down. I thought it was a cool, goofy little sci-fi flick, but that was all. I still don't get all the over-the-top praise that movie got, or all the Academy Award nominations.

It wasn't really that I didn't like the plot, it was just the main characters voice got on my nerves... it was like nails to the chalkboard for me.

BladeCollector wrote:Confession time... I have actually only seen the Alien vs Predator movies. I have literally never watched any of the other Alien movies.

Blade Collector, this is to inform you that you are officially on probation. To resolve this situation, you must watch Alien and Aliens. Watch the original theatrical cut of Alien and the extended edition of Aliens. Then give us your review of the movies. You have 30 days to complete this task and resolve your probation.

Failure to comply will result in fifty lashes with a wet noodle.

Punishment to be carried out by Deimos.

Valkrist wrote:Failure to comply will result in fifty lashes with a wet noodle.

Punishment to be carried out by Deimos.

Cool smiley...is that new? I don't remember seeing it in the list.

And why am I the enforcer??!!!
Jeez... you'll give people the idea that I'm a sadist.
Anyway, beatings will continue until morale improves

This set has Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 and Resurrection but its only 14.99, is this the set to get. https://smile.amazon.com/Alien-Quadrilo ... 8&qid=&sr=

it says it has both theatrical and extended editions.

I wouldn't get that one. That's the Blu-ray upgrade version of the previous DVD set. There were some audio problems with the restored portions of Alien 3's longer and alternate cut which made the dialogue difficult to understand.

Fox subsequently released the Alien Anthology version, which fixed these problems. I also think the transfers were improved, and it has a slightly longer version of Alien Resurrection, although that really adds nothing of note.

Depending on how cheaply you can find the Anthology, that would be my pick.

Done... I got the anthology and was able to score it with the amazon gift card I had gotten for Christmas This better be worth not using that giftcard for more Pop! Vinyl figures!!!

Nice work! Step one is complete, now don't forget step two: watch the movies!

You'll have to report your thoughts here or we will unleash our enforcer on you.

(Deimos, that smiley's been there all along, it's just hard to find a good context in which to use it.)

The Alien Anthology set is definitely the one to have on Blu.

Valkrist wrote:Nice work! Step one is complete, now don't forget step two: watch the movies!

You'll have to report your thoughts here or we will unleash our enforcer on you.

(Deimos, that smiley's been there all along, it's just hard to find a good context in which to use it.)

I mean I know the gist of the storyline just from being alive and my general knowledge of pop culture, but it will be interesting to watch it

Knowing your tastes, I think you will be in for a treat.

James Cameron has some words for the post-Aliens movies:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/cameron-not ... ien-films/

It was good to read nice words from Cameron about Scott, indeed about anybody else. Cameron has always seemed so into himself and his own thing that everyone else is beneath notice. You know, sort of like if Trump were a movie director...but I digress. The article pretty neatly summed up everything a person needs to know about the Alien franchise, especially the suggestion to ignore the AVP movies.

I wonder why Cameron is suddenly waxing so nostalgic about his past glories with this bit about Aliens and his renewed interest in Terminator. Could it be that he's just too overwhelmed in Avatar-land?

Those who complained about lack of Aliens in Prometheus may now be happy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svnAD0TApb8

And and by the way, BC, your report on Alien and Aliens is overdue!

Olorin wrote:Those who complained about lack of Aliens in Prometheus may now be happy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svnAD0TApb8

I'm complaining more about the lack of originality. It just seems Scott is stuck making the same movie over and over again. What do you want to bet a single female member of the crew survives, possibly along with one of the David androids? The Alien franchise is skipping like a broken record at this point.

I'll still see it, of course, and I grant there is hopefully more to the plot than that, but nothing I've seen so far looks promising:

- likeable crew lands on remote planet
- some corporate power or individual finances the mission
- mysterious alien ship is discovered
- ship is filled with nasty eggs
- crew disturbs said eggs and crew gets infected
- xenomorph chaos ensues leading to multiple gruesome deaths
- android with hidden agenda makes things worse
- lone female survives after tense, death-defying scenario, conveniently setting up the next identical movie

Rinse. Repeat.

Feel as if you've seen this movie before?

Prometheus deviated from the formula by trying to ask Big Questions. Prometheus received a mixed response. Back to the standard formula we go!

Or as Scott and others are describing it, returning the franchise to its roots.

If he can actually make it scary, then I can overlook it being derivative. But even if not, the average fan just wants to see carnage. How many franchises are still original this late in their lives? I mean, they've made the same Bond movie, what, 26 times now?

Prometheus really only added one extra line to that formula I posted, the one you mentioned about big questions. It was the single biggest draw for me and then it got completely botched up, a missed opportunity to explore some things that will never come back. Because the writers so completely failed to understand what Alien fans actually wanted to see, we are now back to what they presume we want to see: fast-paced carnage, high body count of faceless characters, and a plot that is a mere inconvenience at best.

Alien was lightning in a bottle. Covenant is a product of the times we live in and the ADD generation.

I regret to report that Alien: Covenant was pretty close to a hot mess. If you think about the kind of script that a fanboy might right, thinking it was great but was really no more than a series of set pieces with some Big Pretenses thrown in, then you have the current movie.

Ugh. I've been holding off seeing this...glad I didn't waste a theater trip to catch it. I'll wait for it to show up for cheap on iTunes or something.

How hard is it to get an Alien movie right? At this point we have more that have gotten it wrong than right, though...Recently made a trip to our storage unit and snagged Alien and Aliens from my film collection. Ah, what could've been.

Saddest part is Neill Blomkamp's Aliens sequel is officially canceled by Fox in favor of Scott's unending stream of prequels.

Olorin wrote: Mon May 22, 2017 9:30 am Saddest part is Neill Blomkamp's Aliens sequel is officially canceled by Fox in favor of Scott's unending stream of prequels.

I called this a while back. While not exactly official at the time, the writing was on the wall as Scott was doing pretty much everything possible to block that movie from ever happening by steamrolling through with Covenant while simultaneously announcing two more movies after that, effectively killing Neil's movie. Now, if Covenant ends up bombing (and it looks like it might) Fox won't want anything to do with the franchise for a long time. Thanks to Ridley Scott and his addled attempts to completely screw over and retcon the Alien mythos, we all lose.

Something perplexing to me is why Scott has apparently decided to do nothing except Alien prequels for the rest of his life. He's planning at least two after Covenant, and said he could easily do more. I guess when all you're doing is grunting out excrement, it doesn't take any creativity. And that's another thing that was disappointing about Covenant. Scott used to have a signature visual style back in the old days, established in movies like Alien and Blade Runner, but still evident even a decade later in Thelma and Louise. Now his movies look as though anyone could have made them, or at least Covenant did.

How Covenant will fare at the box office remains to be seen. It did $36M opening weekend, a little less than projections, but considering it cost only $97M to make (a paltry sum by today's standards), it could still fare reasonably well if it doesn't drop off too sharply. And the foreign market gets bigger every year.

While I was very intrigued by the idea of Blomkamp's Alien 5, it was mostly due to the thought of it being a long-overdue deletion of Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection from the continuity. That was its allure to me. However, I think Blomkamp's cachet has faded seriously in the last few years. Blomkamp has had exactly one unqualified hit since he impinged upon the consciousness of the movie-going public, District 9. Elysium was interesting, especially visually, but was only slightly more subtle than Wall-E or Avatar in its plot. And Chappie, well, what to say about Chappie? I actually kind of liked it, though it got some pretty scathing reviews. I think I viewed it essentially as a fairy tale, taking none of it seriously. As for the aborted Alien movie, Sigourney Weaver said the script was great and provided a satisfying end to Ripley's story. Perhaps it would have been good, and a turnaround for Blomkamp. Perhaps it it doesn't get filmed, it could at least be adapted as a graphic novel.

In any event, if the sun does finally set on the Alien franchise, maybe it's for the best. At this stage in our lives, we perhaps ought to ask ourselves why we still want to see movies about horrible monsters that gestate inside a person's body, killing them in a brutal convulsion of blood when they are "born." And the same could be said about movies about killer cyborgs for a post-nuclear future, trying to tip the scales of history in their favor. God knows our future looks bleak enough without parasitic aliens or genocidal robots.