AndyDursin wrote:The problem is screenplays have never been the strong suit of Ridley Scott's films -- even in GLADIATOR, the story as laid out has some fundamental issues. Visuals are what he cares about, but details are often lacking.
I think many people get that sense.
Back in 1992, there was a documentary about Scott shown on British television, and one of the people interviewed was David Puttnam, who mused, based on Scott's work up to that point, "What does he care about? And what is he going to leave behind, beyond a set of absolutely gorgeous images?"
There is no question, Ridley Scott is one of the greatest directors who ever lived, but unlike most other "high concept" filmmakers of the past 40-45 years -- Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas, DePalma, Scorsese, Zemeckis, etc., Scott is not a
writer-director. All of those other guys have written screenplays, and often have an active hand in the writing of their films, on some level. Scott's strength is in the realm of
telling stories, but not necessarily
creating stories.
Even one of his greatest films, Blade Runner, is more of an abstract narrative (though it certainly works). I love Legend, but more for its arresting visuals (and Goldsmith's score) than for its plot, or characters. And tellingly, one of Scott's most acclaimed pictures -- Thelma & Louise -- was a spec script he directed as it had been written.
AndyDursin wrote:Fans always wanted to see the planet the Aliens came from, yes -- but in Scott's mind, all we got was a group of bald people who were wiped out in 60 seconds and an empty group of sets that looked like leftovers from Star Trek.
I was VERY frustrated with the destruction of the Engineers' civilization. Considering David was wiping out an entire race race, it was treated in a very throwaway manner. And it wasn't very plausible either -- are you telling me that if one of the Engineers' ancient ships suddenly showed up above their world, they wouldn't send another ship to investigate who might be flying it,
before it entered their atmosphere? If an aircraft carrier which had been presumed lost during WW II was spotted sailing toward San Francisco harbor, you can bet the US Navy would dispatch several ships and fighter jets to intercept it, contact it -- and blow it to smithereens if no one responded. I guess the Engineers aren't as smart as we are.
The Engineers have no defense against their own biological weapons? Are there Engineers living on other worlds (likely, if they can travel to other planets)? Is David concerned other Engineers will arrive on the planet and punish him? Is this the Engineer's
home planet?
So, David is the creator of the "face hugger"? Ok, then how does one of the Engineers' ships (with a hold full of eggs) wind-up on the planet where the Nostromo lands? Also, in Alien, the derelict ship looks as if it's been there for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. What is the time frame of the original Alien vs. that of Covenant? Because the technology in Covenant doesn't look less-developed than that in Alien (if anything it looks
more modern)!
And like all of you, I despised the ending. I also spotted the twist ending fairly early on. I even suspected it around halfway through the film.
AndyDursin wrote:The "big questions" from PROMETHEUS are basically forgotten about or glossed over (like you said Michael, what even happened to Shaw is never specifically explained), and the movie is really just a rehash of the first ALIEN, in the guise of a "sequel" like THE FORCE AWAKENS.
And what added insult to injury was that we had to sit through a trailer for War of the Planets of the Apes -- which is ALSO a pointless remake which cops-out with "more of the same" rather than taking the story in a new direction.
I think I'll just stay home and watch television from now on!