• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Thoughts about the Alien prequels (potential spoilers)

Aku

Joined
Apr 3, 2014
I have been thinking about the two Alien prequels over the past few days. A:C has been out for a few months now, and all signs point to Ridley Scott wanting to make another, even though A:C seems to have largely flopped.

Unfortunately as an Aliens fan, hese two movies have committed the two most cardinal sins that one could commit for this franchise: Explaining the Alien and explaining the Space Jockey. And most unfortunately, it seems that because it's Ridley Scott and that he had used M. Fassbender for David, fans on several Aliens forums practically lick the man's butt even though it really destroys the alienness of the Alien and makes the universe seem far too small by making the Engineers be the creators of mankind.

What had made the Aliens universe work at it's core was that outer space was cold and unfeeling, that it could kill you in a second if you did something stupid. It could spawn organisms like the Alien that evolved to survive and thrive in this lethal environment, an opportunistic creature that had escaped it's home planet eons ago that had spread by hitch-hiking on space ships and infesting colonies, and that had evolved deterrents severe enough to prevent any determined space-farer from hurting or killing it before it completed it's life-cycle (like acidic blood.)

The elephantine Space Jockeys were similar. What made them intriguing was that they were not human or related to humans, they were simply another Alien creature that existed in the cold black heart of space, a race of space-faring beings that could easily be as mysterious and Other as the Aliens. They seemed to be an H. R Giger creation heavily reminiscent of Ganesh, and their language (from the Derelict's recording) didn't even seem to consist of phenomes that any normal human throat could easily replicate. The one sitting in the ship seemed so old that it had started to petrify, the skull and the body possibly fusing to the chair, with even the 'trunk,' skin and other things slowly turning to hard mineralized flesh. As what could be seen, it clearly had been unlucky. It might have picked up a 'passenger' from some woebegone colony of it's race and implanted, or had been careless with containment and a specimen it was studying escaping. Whatever happened, it had apparently lived long enough to crash land on a dead moon and set off a warning beacon, warning others of it's kind away before dying painfully and alone from a chestburster.

However, Ridley Scott changed all of this. Instead of leaving both these creatures alien, he made them related to us. The 'Engineers' as they were now called, were mankind's creators, pale (very human-like) bald white beings seeding Earth with their DNA to make humans. David using the Engineers' black mutagenic goo on humans, gradually breeding a creature to eventually use against humans, eventually creating the familiar Alien, rather then it being a naturally occurring creature.

It seems that to me, Ridley Scott is not helping his own franchise that he helped create. Rather then trying to step back into the Aliens universe by trying to tie Prometheus and it's David character into it, he should have had Prometheus be a wholly different franchise and that way he wouldn't have Fox (or Aliens fans) dictating to him and he could do what he wanted. He had stated himself that he considered the Alien creature 'over-cooked,' and it is known that he really wanted to do stuff with his character David, why would he attempt a bad merge that only served to potentially undermine both franchises simultaneously? He tried to 'make deep' what is simply a haunted house movie in space, and inadvertently made his David character into a creator's pet.

So, what do you think? Am I wrong, and Ridley Scoot is a genius that improved this franchise, or do you feel that he has overstepped himself, and should have left well enough alone?

Note: He is considering making one to two more sequels to Aliens: Covenant, in attempt to eventually 'tie' these movies to the original Alien.
 
Last edited:

Castle

Ch!ld0fV!si0n
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Location
Crisis? What Crisis?
Gender
Pan-decepticon-transdeliberate-selfidentifying-sodiumbased-extraexistential-temporal anomaly
lol those movies are discount quality STOOPID. :lemmy::reggie::confused::confused::wynaut:

I'll take the dozen or so vapid action movie extravaganza sequel flicks over the banal insipid drek that are the mindbogglingly idiotic prequels. Not only are these films incompetently written and directed, but yeah - they wreck everything effective that the alien monster had going for it.

Something I haven't really heard people talking about is that these prequels don't know what they want to be. At least the sequels were determined to be action flicks. But these prequels are a dysfunctional haphazard mess of hard science fiction, horror and action. PICK ONE!!

I think they mostly want to be hard scifi, but of course the marketing department can't resist the alien horror callbacks and the usual cinematic action set pieces hollywood blockbusters just can't do without.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aku

Aku

Joined
Apr 3, 2014
I'll take the dozen or so vapid action movie extravaganza sequel flicks over the banal insipid drek that are the mindbogglingly idiotic prequels. Not only are these films incompetently written and directed, but yeah - they wreck everything effective that the alien monster had going for it.
Which is what I have been thinking myself too. I'll gladly take AvP, AvP:R, and Aliens: Resurrection over a movie that undermines the whole premise at it's core. One important thing that many an artist must learn in due time, is when to stop and step away from a piece. Sometimes there are times when stepping away reveals what could be room for improvement, but other times it will stop you from overdoing it and ruining what had been slowly getting close to perfection. George Lucas failed to do this with his many re-edits of the Original Trilogy. Ridley Scott is failing to do this by trying to insert David and 'meaning of existence' philosophy into the Aliens universe. He's ironically doing what his David character so states: 'To create, you must destroy.'

Something I haven't really heard people talking about is that these prequels don't know what they want to be. At least the sequels were determined to be action flicks. But these prequels are a dysfunctional haphazard mess of hard science fiction, horror and action. PICK ONE!!

I think they mostly want to be hard scifi, but of course the marketing department can't resist the alien horror callbacks and the usual cinematic action set pieces hollywood blockbusters just can't do without.
I don't think Ridley himself knows that he might be slipping in the directing department. Even if his Prequels went into being hard sci-fi or horror, the supporting characters (besides David of course) behave atrociously. They make so many bad mistakes that they behave almost like they were in a bad slasher movie parody, saying or doing things that don't make sense and that are so outrageously stupid that it's a wonder they were even trusted to be on a ship at all. A good director should at least attempt to do or say something to salvage the script, having your 'serious' characters behave like idiots greatly undermines the atmosphere and whatever tale you are trying to tell.
 
Last edited:

Aku

Joined
Apr 3, 2014
It's been about 3-4 days, hopefully is has been enough time to add another post, since I haven't seen anything since my last one.

I had taken out the small story from the previous post, it had been quite cathartic to write, not to toot one's own writing skills, but for me to establish for myself that I was not going to swallow some poorly made and written movies simply because they were 'canon.'

Which is another thing. Why are Aliens fans so eager to accept these movies? Is it because of the 'pretty pictures?' Is it because of Fassbender? When there are a bunch of people so eager to reject Alien 3 because 'Oh my gawd, Newt and Ripley died in that movie, I consider it non-canon!' and Aliens: Resurrection because the Newborn and clone Ripley, but yet will still consider canon two movies that have people in both movies acting like complete morons and have an android easily genocide a supposedly far more advanced race, then I wonder if standards just didn't drop big time. Even the supposedly superior Engineers just stand around gawking up as some malfunctioning android with daddy issues drops a big payload of lethal goo onto them (that they created, no less) without scrambling some sort of air defense nor even trying to run away, then I just have to conclude that maybe people are eager to let their favorite franchise be dragged under the bus as long as it features pretty faces and pictures, is written by the 'right' director, and features at least a brief shot of the titular beast.

Now don't get me wrong. There is some criticism by some people, these movies are not a universal favorite among fans. However, there is no vitriol nowhere near as bad as towards A: 3 and A:R. That is what I don't understand, honestly. Two movies that undercut the whole premise are tolerated better then a movie or so where a couple of fav characters die, even though that is the whole point, that these creatures are extremely dangerous, not even Ripley or a cute little girl are immune to this. Even the Space Jockey warned his people to stay away, rather then attempt a rescue.

And you know what's sad, even Ridley Scott considers Prometheus a mistake. But the man is still determined to keep making these movies, thinking he can still 'make good' somehow. He seems unable (or too pridefull) to admitting that he doesn't have that spark anymore, that he risks ruining a franchise he helped create just because he's enthralled by his pet character David, who you can tell he desperately wants to make front and center.

What is even worse, is that contrary to his beliefs that the Alien is 'overcooked,' is that the game Alien: Isolation proves that in the right hands, the beast still works beautifully. It doesn't need Fassbender or abino human Engineers, it needs someone that knows what the hell they are doing.

I can only hope, that after the novelty of pretty pictures and Fassbender wear off, that people don't decide to settle for mediocrity in their movies just because Scott made them. Because he's going keep making them, to connect all of the way up to Alien, and if there is no stone left unturned he will be sure to turn over any and all of these stones he can find. And you know why he is doing it? It's probably not because he can 'improve' the Alien movies. It's so he can give his character David as much screentime as Fox will let him, because these prequel movies are not so much about the Alien, as they are really about David. David is the star here. David created this terrifying beast. David is so smart, clever and capable that he could wipe out a planetful of advanced beings that have been advanced for far longer then even life on Earth has been around. Ridley Scott is not broadening the horizons of the Aliens universe, he's actively rewiring it to revolve around his Marty Stu character, even making other characters act like idiots around him, or killing off any that might at least remotely stand a chance against him (Elizabeth.) David reminds me of those bad 'awesome' characters that you sometimes see on fanfic.net, only it's Ridley Scott writing this character and he's played by Michael Fassbender.

I'm wondering if I'm not just witnessing a death of a franchise here, that nothing is sacred, and anything is acceptable as long as the 'right' person writes it. Some fans are ripping on the idea of Blomkamp's Alien 5, but at least his ideas would continued the premise of the older movies, even if they would have been slightly strange at points.
 

Vanessa28

Angel of Darkness
Staff member
ZD Legend
Administrator
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Location
Yahtzee, Supernatural
Gender
Angel of Darkness
Sometimes it is better to leave things alone. The Aliens Franchise is already kinda dead with Aliens: Resurrection. I do see what Scott is trying to do. He is trying to explain the presence of the Space Jockey on that planet and trying to explain why the aliens are there. But he fails to execute it properly. Instead of just taking his time to make a great story, he quickly writes a story for the sake of the fans. In Covenant you can see clearly what he is aiming at. Not only the things you explained but since this is a prequel, I think he is trying to explain what happened to the colony as seen in Aliens (with the little girl). But he is going way off the road with David and leaves gaps open. He tries to ties all loose ends but he is doing it in a way which is creating more loose ends. And I think for the sake of saving the franchise from an unavoidable death he is going to make more movies to undo some of his mistakes. But we can only wait and see. I don't expect anything from it at all.
 

Castle

Ch!ld0fV!si0n
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Location
Crisis? What Crisis?
Gender
Pan-decepticon-transdeliberate-selfidentifying-sodiumbased-extraexistential-temporal anomaly
Like just about everyone else in hollyweird Scott is fresh out of ideas so he's resorted to milking old successes and relying on nostalgia to bait audiences. He has no idea what he's doing, so he just pinches out the first incoherent mess he dumps on paper to explain stuff to dumb members of his audience that for the sake of rampant overwhelming ocd I guess need every last detail of this work of fiction spelled out for them. So long as this continues to hold their attention, he can continue to milk this franchise of his for whatever it's still worth.

He's doing Lucas' Star Wars thing, where the franchise's value comes primarily from world building (on the artistic side of things. Merchandising is of course where the real $$$ lies). Harry Potter, Cameron's Avatard, Transformers, Matrix, the MCU and even John Wick are running with the world building. Tolkien was the first to do this in literature - create a realized coherent fictional universe - but Star Wars made it popular in cinema. The problem is the haphazard way in which these worlds are constructed. Tolkien dedicated most of his time to fleshing out a believable internally consistent universe from the ground up. These hollywood writers are going backwards and trying to put square plugs in round gaps and explaining stuff that was better off without any explanation in the first place.

These directors just want to extend the life of their product by piling heaps of inconsistent details on top of an already perfectly functional and realized setting and neglecting to tell good stories with interesting characters. This is what happens when you drag a creative idea through the dirt, beating it long after it's already been ridden to death.
 

Castle

Ch!ld0fV!si0n
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Location
Crisis? What Crisis?
Gender
Pan-decepticon-transdeliberate-selfidentifying-sodiumbased-extraexistential-temporal anomaly

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom