Alien Covenant...why it sucked.

I agree that A:C wasn't great, but the original Alien gets too much credit around these forums too. It really wasn't great either, it would was an ok horror B-movie at best with cool sets and a cool idea. The acting in the original Alien wasn't that great, and the Xeno (guy in a stiff plastic suit) wasn't really that scary. Most people just blather on about how amazing, how much of a classic it was just because of nostalgia, and because it was first. If you love Alien so much, just watch that one and don't worry about the sequels. Comparing a movie from the 70's to a modern movie just doesn't work. 

In general, today's cinema-goer expects action and entertainment that doesn't tax their brain too much and are pretty much totally desensitised to blood and gore. They have seen it all. 

The success of A L I E N can not and will not ever be repeated. It's elements of surprise, suspense, tension and unknown horror can never be replicated.

That's why Ridley went in a new direction with Prometheus. He should have carried on with those themes in Covenant, but, as he said himself, social media comments appear to have changed his mind and he decided he "got it wrong". 

Of course, that film would have been criticised by many too. Right now I should think he is probably scratching his head!

I'd still rather watch a Ridley Scott directed Alien film than a Blomkamp-Cameronesque/Ripley/Hicks/Newt reboot. 

@Bisshop - Excellent post but I do blame Ridley for allowing this edit to be released to the theaters.  Like Prometheus; it seems like he does not question the writers on the path they are taking the movie from A to Z.  And I am with you with the Jerry Goldsmith score; none of the composers that followed him with the subsequent Alien movies were able to create the tone and horror like he did.  When Goldsmith spooked me with his score with The Omen; it is no surprise that his score gave Alien and Outland extra notches in the end.  The same he did with the Rambo series.

@Tom - You can call it for what its worth in regards to the original Alien but I saw Ridley speak about his intent when Alien was shown on the Sci-Fi channel back in the 90s.  He said, "it was a slow burn that is intended to give you information for the first 45 minutes in the movie.  Also, only Aliens were able to match the last 15 minutes of the movie.  Alien3 comes close.  Covenant tries but falls much more than short.

I think what a lot of people may find odd and even annoying, is the pacing.

From the time they land on the planet the tension, action and tempo are racked up, then everything reduces to a snails pace after David's rescue. 

I witnessed a lot of people shifting in their seats and losing interest during the David-Walter interaction. The pace picked up again once T came to the rescue, by that time it was too late as many had disengaged by that point.

Personally, I found that whole David-Walter, Shaw discovery section intriguing and fascinating. The lab, which I wanted to see the crew investigate more and the bombing sequence were some of the most interesting aspects, the urn deployment and the Engy-beings massacre was spectacular!

I'm with you on that one, Lone. I enjoyed the slowdown in the middle of the film. It allowed the viewer to sit back and take a breather from the constant action, and added a lot of darkness/melancholy to the overall tone of the film.

Raido - Thanks for the word 'melancholy', it describes the scene well. I like it. However, I haven't felt that part slow. :) I enjoyed it very much. It is full of questions, answers and lies. An important part of the movie: Walter reveals that David is a liar. We discover that David is dangerous.

I will disagree on the not so good acting in the first movie.  In my opinion Ian Holm, Harry Dean Stanton and Veronica Cartwright brought great performances

How many did notice the dramatic effect of the back buster and the head of a girl floating while two other characters were still discussing rights and wrongs about creation?

And how to understand that "Guardians of the Galaxy 2" is about 8,1 at IMDb?

Is the movie or our powers of appreciation the problem here?

GOTG 2 is 8,1: LOL! GOTG 1 is under 2 in my op. :)

@ScorpioStar I think the answer to your last question is obvious (and of course the question itself was rhetorical, I understand).

@Lone & @Ati thanks for Championing this movie. I have agreed with the both of you since I saw it. It had fantastic elements of terror, mixed with big ideas, and a very engaging, if not totally overwhelmingly surprising, story. I think it will be appreciated more and more as time goes on and as people chill out. ALL movies are viewed through the EXPECTATIONS of those going in to see that movie for the very first time. Once the story is understood and seen, those EXPECTATIONS are gone, then the film can truly be appreciated for what it really is---another fine piece of cinema.

We are dealing with fanboys over the last few weeks since May 4 that wanted another film. Well, they didn't get what "they" wanted, so they whine and complain like petulant children/babies, hoping someone will hear them. Well, guess what?

THEN, they finally understand that they NEEDED the bottle of milk that mummy and daddy gave them all those years, instead of the sugary soda that they THOUGHT they wanted.

And that's the whole thing DAMMIT!

Starlogger, did I say to you that I love you? Oh, yes I did. :)

@Ati muah...right back atcha, kid!

If you're hoping for a movie in this franchise that can recapture the scary feeling of the original...you're being unreasonable.  The original was literally that.  It had never been done, nothing like it had been in a mainstream movie.  Perceptions and expectations change over 30 years you know?  

@ScorpioStar Easy answer regarding Guardians doing well.  You have a kid friendly movie and comic franchise that is incredibly trendy these days.  

Starlogger / ati one person two accounts :D .

But on the subject... if these new movies made sense and felt like a solid universe like in Alien they would be doing so much better! Alien is on a completely different level to these new films. What's missing? Obannon and gieger and a few others for a start... the ideas team people that lived the universe and story not the creative's that turned up to write a script and story in a few months on these film's. When i went to watch Prometheus i had this idea Ridley was theorizing working out writing and putting together in his mind this new set of films since alien...maybe had some old unused ideas from gieger and obannon... Nope! Ridley himself said he basically started the creative process with making Prometheus and at the end he said he has to work out what the hells next?! Erm... you don't know? Anyway it shows in the films... muddled but yes with streaks of the old brilliance.

Ridley is also not firing on all cylinders and rightly so at his age... he's doing amazingly but everyone loses their edge later in life. I'm not counting it out yet though it is still possible to match alien. Arrival was one such recent film that was really good... maybe not a match for alien and different...but still very clever.  Moon was also very good...

Marvel movies are a license to print money. Same with the pirates movies, Star Wars, fast and the furious, etc...

it seems like the alien fan base just wants to complain about everything. 

The bro kiss probably didn't help things.

Hello there again,

Nice to see so many replies. For those who support my opinion, thank you. For those I could not convince, please go check this website  and download the next video. Greatest Screen Villains: 'ASH'. I must warm you, it's not free. Just 2 or 3 dollars. This is an in depth analysis of the character ASH in the original Alien. I think this video is about almost 60 minutes long and it will show you how well the very first alien film was thought out. 

The video was made by Robert Ager. In my eyes, a genius. He also has a few youtube channels, check them out. 

For Tom, Indiana Jones was also intended as a B movie. It's spawned two successful sequels, and one lesser.

To be honest, when I first heard and saw that James Franco was in it, I had my doubt. Apart from 127 hours, not a great actor. I was actually relieved his part wasn't that great. But further in the story, some other things really bothered me. Why David made it sound so simple to create everything. How the engineers were wiped out so easily. How the alien didn't destroy David, while Bisshop gets torn apart by the alien queen in Aliens. 

Someone else here replied that they had to show us that David is truly evil, a psychopath. While this was already shown in Prometheus. Believe me, the next topic I post is how the storyline of Alien Covenant could have been better.

I read many replies implying that the suspense, horror and story elements could not be repeated for sequels. I loved Alien 3. It got all those elements from the first movie. Can someone explain to me why Alien 3 was such a big failure. And, do come with good arguments. Did anyone saw both versions of Alien 3. I honestly admit, Alien 3 was great. Good story, lot's of scary moments, good acting from Charles Dance, and a few others. Great setting in that jailhouse among religious nuts, good effects and also a very macabre soundtrack. It had the action and for me the definitive ending for an alien trilogy. 

For me alien 3 is almost identically to the first alien film. Different story, but a beautiful continuation. 

@Bisshop, I liked "Alien 3" as well, and for the same reason: the atmosphere we had in "Alien", and definitely lost in "Aliens" - "just another bug hunt", not my words...

It’s been harder and harder to know what Alien fans want these days. One might think that most of them want to be mesmerized as they were in 1979 with the unbeatable “Alien”, unware that the times were different then, the element of surprise is now lost and that its narrative formula might be seen as too slow nowadays. On the other hand, there is a public that is still mourning for Ripley e her surviving companions from “Aliens”, dreaming of an nonsensical  “Alien 5” to have their revenge against “Alien 3”. And, of course, “Prometheus” fans, who wish to see Shaw and David meet their creators.

The point is that “Alien: Covenant” is a good, thrilling film, beautifully filmed, whose characters are captivating and are solemnly missed no matter the screen time they end up having. The “bugs”, either the traditional xeno or the new introduced neo – and the way they come to life – show how much Sir Ridley is still able to give birth to his creations.

And, then, the androids, the horrifying absence of what makes us human, and the possibility that this same absence might lead them to what “real people” have as the worst in their human natures.

“Covenant” could be better? Of course. It’s still a must see though, and aside popcorn and soft drinks, the public should keep fresh eyes to enjoy it as it was meant to be. My opinion :)

I think Scorpio most alien fans are just shocked with the absence of logic in these last two films. The first half of AC was actually not too bad it seemed to be heading the right way... and then they all decided to jump out the ship and just see how stupid they could all be :D . Definitely more sound than Prometheus but still way off in the wacky land of WTF. :D

@djamelameziane, I see your point, but let's have an overview of "Alien" so far.

1) "Alien": what's the logic of Dallas, as the Captain, to lose his senses as a senior officer and demand Ripley to give a man with an alien organism attached to his face access to the ship? Yes, Ripley noticed there was something wrong, but Dallas was the senior officer, so it was up to him to know that (and he didn't, Dash, the android, used his lack of sense).

2) "Aliens": "Marines", really?

I'll stick to the two, for I think the prisoners in "Alien 3" had a better sense, but the film itself did poorly according to the fans, so they (prisoners in "Alien 3") are dumb. As the crew in "Prometheus" and "Covenant".

So...