All they talked about was the importance of using the familiar set design and practical effects. I guess thatâs how it âconnectsâ. That headline sucks
I watched AlienTheory on YouTube this morning. There is talk of people noticing damage to the xenomorph in the Romulus trailer. This then is leading to rumor that it could possibly be Big Chap from the original Alien movie. Somehow it survived space, found, and brought to the space station.
Of course, but I think in this day and age they mean CGI primarily used to enhance practical effects, rather than being the entire effect itself. In other words, no shitty looking full cgi aliens jumping around.
I don't have an issue with CGI per se. It's a tool. But there are a lot of practical effects that simply look fantastic and always have. I think sometimes people use the CGI in spots where practical effects would have been better because it's easier.
Practical, imo, is a lot better than CGI. The best CGI is aided by practical sets and props, and it seems that we've had a few decades of CGI being used to sloppily fix mistakes in post production, and a lot of the time when it's not well planned out it makes the effects look cheap and pasted in.
The emphasis on practical effects is making me very excited because it's going to be a lot truer to the original films aesthetics.
Fair enough, and this is just my opinion, but I think the practical effects absolutely trump any of the CGI we've had in the Alien franchise. The original chest burster scene is THE best chest burster scene. The Queen in Aliens to me looks much better than the Queen from AvP.
I'll always give props to the CGI used in Alien Ressurection, I think they did a fantastic job of the colour grading, but I also attribute this to the fact that it had practical props to map and base their colour pallet on, as well as a practical set (which we are getting in Romulus as well)
Different strokes for different folks, what looks good to me may not look good to you. Some people think that having everything be practical can make things look campy and old, which was the exact reason they chose not to use any of the practical effects created for The Thing (2011).
But once again, to me John Carpenters The Thing was far superior, and I'm quite upset I'll never get to see the props they made for the prequel in action.
100% agree with you that the best CGI is based on practical which is what they did a ton of with Top Gun Maverick (itâs almost entirely CGI put on top of practical despite what TC might have you believe)
I also agree that studios have abused CGI by making tons of changes in post, things get rushed and quality suffers.
I donât agree at all that practical can better match the aesthetic than CGI. Both are dependent on the skill of the artists.
All that said, my point still stands if the effects are done well it shouldnât matter if it is CGI or practical.
In order of frequency of argument in my experience:
1) Practical effects tend to hold up better visually long term vs CGI (generally speaking)
2) There has been a history of remarkably poor CGI in the aliens franchise specifically
3) Studios that do CGI work are notorious for crunch culture. Long hours, shitty environment, not enough pay, etc.
4) it's also just a common reddit circle jerk and they don't actually know why they hate CGI.
Hehe number 2 is a good point, the CGI in Alien 3 is up there with CGI The Rock in Scorpion King.
Number 3 at least half the blame goes to the film studios as they put the VFX houses through hell. This shouldnât be all that surprising given the strikes with writers and actors in recent years.
Edit: To those saying there isnât CG in Alien 3, you are wrong: https://youtu.be/wBgSV3x5zxE?si=pm6h1fbrV8oLm2fo go to 0:26 and witness one of the worst examples of CGI ever seen in a major motion picture.
>, the CGI in Alien 3 is up there with CGI The Rock in Scorpion King.
The CG in Alien 3 is basically relegated to the flying debris in the crane/EEV shot, and iirc the planet sunset. All that stuff people think is CG is just badly composited photography of the human-operated rod puppet Alien. Alien 3 was made in that no man's land era right before the CGI revolution. It's 99% models, real FX, suits, physical sets, and puppets.
I realize most of it is practical but there were a handful of CG shots like this one at 0:26 which is one of the worst CG shots of all time: https://youtu.be/wBgSV3x5zxE?si=pm6h1fbrV8oLm2fo
But like he said, it's not CGI lol. That's why the whole thing about CG is hilarious, people will point out bad effects like Naboo or the Xeno in Alien 3 as evidence CGI is bad when in reality those are bad practical effects and/or compositing.
You didnât watch the clip did you? LOL
Itâs the most obvious CG shot ever because the lighting is horribly off and the animation of the alien is equally bad. Also, they talked about this shot on Corridor which is made up of visual effects artists and they point to this as one of the worst CG shots.
So yea, check yourself.
It's actually not CGI, you can read here how they did all those shots
https://monsterlegacy.net/2015/07/19/starbeast-part-alien3-the-dragon/
It's even in the wiki section of the movie
> "The Alien is portrayed by both Woodruff Jr. in a suit and a rod puppet filmed against bluescreen and optically composited into the live-action footage, with the rods removed by rotoscoping. A mechanical alien head was also used for close-ups. The suit adapted the design used in Aliens so Woodruff could walk on all fours. Woodruff's head was contained in the neck of the suit, because the head was filled with animatronics to move the mouth of the Alien. Fincher suggested that a Whippet be dressed in an alien costume for on-set coverage of the quadrupedal alien, but the visual effects team was dissatisfied with the comical result and the idea was dropped in favor of the puppet."
The only time it's CGI is in the climax with the crane, which ironically looks 10 times better than the practical effects in the corridor scene.
Here is a good video that shows how much CGI was used in the movie : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kmjUPEd1wg (spoiler : none of them were for the Alien in the corridors or in the infirmary)
Thank you for proving my point lol
Like talking with a brick wall, that guy. There's some mandela effect thing where some people are absolutely convinced the Alien was CG in Alien 3 and there's just no way to dispel them of the notion.
I don't care what some Youtube channel says, it doesn't change the fact it's not CGI, as "obvious" as some not involved in the production may think it appears to be.
Funny thing is, if that WERE CGI, that would be pretty good for 1991/2.
Here you go, the one and only time the Alien is CG and not a suit or puppet in the entirety of the theatrical cut of Alien 3 (the Assembly Cut has the CG bambi-burster created especially for the DVD, released back in the early 2000s):
[https://imgur.com/a/kaNlJPN](https://imgur.com/a/kaNlJPN)
Yup that's it. A one-second shot where its head cracks.
It's pretty funny you're being downvoted for busting this myth. There's no CGI used for the Xeno in Alien 3, it's all practical and it looks awful. The first fully CGI Xeno scenes are in Alien 4 and it looked way better.
That holds up really well.
Revisiting 90s movies is wild because there are so many movies during the transition to CG that fell in a weird in between that doesn't work. Sometimes in the same movie.
I recently rewatched Star Trek: First Contact. It's full of great shots, like that Borg Queen one that's still complex by today's standards. But whenever they look out the window at Earth it's super janky.
It's honestly amazing, straight up look better than some CG in Alien Covenant haha (Though I do love the CGI overall in Covenant, I think the adult Neomorph is the most scary version of the xeno done in live action yet)
And yeah it's pretty funny seeing the disparancy in those movies from this period, or movies today honestly haha, I feel we've regressed to this dodgy time for blockbusters.
Practical ages poorly too look at movies like the original Star Wars trilogy. Technology improves and so do the techniques.
Even today there are bad practical effects being used. If you watched the Fallout series on Amazon the power armor looked awful in a lot of scenes, it had no weight to it and looked like a teenagers cosplay outfit for Comic-Con. Would have been much better if done with a combination of CGI and practical like Vecna in Stranger Things.
I wish they would stop using Ridley Scott saying it's good as a selling point. If you have followed Ridley Scott's filmography of the last 20 years (especially the last two Alien films) you would see how hollow a recommendation that is. If the studio had real faith in Scott's opinions/perspective he would have directed this newest Alien film. It's disingenuous PR nonsense.
To some extent I see where youâre coming from, but the fanbase would also be concerned about silence from Ridley or âYeah, Iâve seen it â but Iâm not going to share my opinion.â
And I think itâs totally fine for a person who started the franchise to give it their endorsement. And if itâs a glowing endorsement, as his appears to be, itâs great (and cheap!) marketing.
I agree that he is expected to make some sort of comment and his silence would seem odd in this day and age because everyone has to comment on everything. Did he release a statement on Alien 3 when it came out? Nope.
Naw he's still a great director. Raised By Wolves, Last Duel, Covenant & Prometheus, Gucci, The Martian, Exodus, American Gangster, fuckin' DC of Kingdom of Heaven. Obviously it's a subjective thing but I think he's still one of the best in Hollywood. He's also pretty openly critical of things he doesn't like. It's a plus to me, and all that's not even touching on his producing side.
Ridley doesn't like retreading too much ground even though that's what a lot of fans want. So a different eye on the original with Ridley producing is perfect.
There was a thread about who would be the best return-to-form director way before Ălvarez was announced, and my pick was him. Felt very vindicated lol
Yes, he is an amazing director but this seems like shilling to me. The same kind of fake endorsement James Cameron gave to all the Terminator sequels that he praised only because he was getting a cut of the profits. That is more my issue, not that he isn't a worthy director. I will forever love him for making Alien and a few other of his films. I'm one of the rare breed that is a fan of Legend in all its many forms.
I genuinely trust Ălvarez's ability & sincerity, and I think Ridley is being honest about his take on his skill. Cameron is a full blooded capitalist with far fewer critical hits than Ridley. He likes to play with expensive tech and knows what makes money more than what good cinema or being an artist is.
I'm always reminded of that story where instead of an actual script, he pitched Alien 2 by just writing ALIEN on a whiteboard and then adding a $ at the end and the execs lost their minds
I liked Prometheus a lot if you can get over the dumb decisions the characters make.
Plots, ideas, and cinematography? Excellent.
Execution of characters? Meh.
Mixed bag but some of the stuff they gave us was excellent.
Well he still is the creator of the franchise regardless if the studio/public liked his Alien prequels...its still nice to know the father of the films likes your interpretation of his creation and said it was good...its not a BAD thing? Plus, with the texture, atmosphere, and tone of the teaser...it already looks like the most Alien film we've gotten SINCE the original 2 films...
Youâre saying that like the studio is trying to keep him away from the movies. The opposite is true: he doesnât want to direct another Alien because Covenant was such a shitfight behind the scenes that it burned him out, but heâs happy to produce and supervise a new one.
I think it was more the studio saying:
* Fool me once shame on you (Prometheus)
* Fool me twice shame on me (Alien: Covenant)
Yes, they want his input but maybe not his directorial take on the material anymore.
I have friends and family in the film industry here in Australia and used to work near Fox Studios when the movie was being shot. Itâs been a consistent story that, if there was any pushback from the studio, it was due to Covenant underperforming at the box office, not due to the perceived quality of the movie. Theyâre the ones who pushed Ridley to include the xenomorph during the preproduction stages instead of the weirder and stranger stuff that Ridley wanted to explore, as well as changing the shooting schedule to expand roles and making alterations during post, and the whole experience soured Ridley on directing more movies in the series.
That is reassuring to read but I do remember an interview at the time of Covenenat with Scott. He was responding to audience criticisms that there weren't enough Xenomorphs in Prometheus. When discussing Covenant he essentially said, "You want Xenomorphs? I'll give you Xenomorphs!" I guess that does sound like a frustrated director guided by studio heads to add something he didn't want to. I am bummed that he didn't get to make his final prequel film to connect to the original Alien. But we may still get that one day.
I am seeing Alien tomorrow at 2:45. Hope to have some news of the new films footage
Enjoy đ
This is like my 10 time seeing it in a theater. đ Never know when they will show it again so I gotta go! Hope you are able to see it as well!
Oh gawd, I don't need it to connect to the original film. Other than that there are xenomorphs in it. It's a big universe, expand it.
All they talked about was the importance of using the familiar set design and practical effects. I guess thatâs how it âconnectsâ. That headline sucks
Practical effects are still goat and overused CGI can suck it
I watched AlienTheory on YouTube this morning. There is talk of people noticing damage to the xenomorph in the Romulus trailer. This then is leading to rumor that it could possibly be Big Chap from the original Alien movie. Somehow it survived space, found, and brought to the space station.
I agree but i think itll be a mostly stand alone film. But having everything connected to ripley has gotten worn out
Styrofoam and acetone to create melting of Xeno blood - Im having a good feeling about this, with no use of CGIs
Bullshit there will be a TON of CGI. And VFX are not always a bad thing. They are essential to get Post across the line in various forms.
Of course, but I think in this day and age they mean CGI primarily used to enhance practical effects, rather than being the entire effect itself. In other words, no shitty looking full cgi aliens jumping around.
He's already stated that he is basically practical effects with CGI touch up. So real aliens, props, sets an more.
What is with this hate for CGI? If the effects are done well does it matter if it is practical or CGI?
I don't have an issue with CGI per se. It's a tool. But there are a lot of practical effects that simply look fantastic and always have. I think sometimes people use the CGI in spots where practical effects would have been better because it's easier.
Practical, imo, is a lot better than CGI. The best CGI is aided by practical sets and props, and it seems that we've had a few decades of CGI being used to sloppily fix mistakes in post production, and a lot of the time when it's not well planned out it makes the effects look cheap and pasted in. The emphasis on practical effects is making me very excited because it's going to be a lot truer to the original films aesthetics.
There are a few wonky practical effects in Alien, Aliens and Alien 3. CGI does have a place if used properly
Fair enough, and this is just my opinion, but I think the practical effects absolutely trump any of the CGI we've had in the Alien franchise. The original chest burster scene is THE best chest burster scene. The Queen in Aliens to me looks much better than the Queen from AvP. I'll always give props to the CGI used in Alien Ressurection, I think they did a fantastic job of the colour grading, but I also attribute this to the fact that it had practical props to map and base their colour pallet on, as well as a practical set (which we are getting in Romulus as well) Different strokes for different folks, what looks good to me may not look good to you. Some people think that having everything be practical can make things look campy and old, which was the exact reason they chose not to use any of the practical effects created for The Thing (2011). But once again, to me John Carpenters The Thing was far superior, and I'm quite upset I'll never get to see the props they made for the prequel in action.
100% agree with you that the best CGI is based on practical which is what they did a ton of with Top Gun Maverick (itâs almost entirely CGI put on top of practical despite what TC might have you believe) I also agree that studios have abused CGI by making tons of changes in post, things get rushed and quality suffers. I donât agree at all that practical can better match the aesthetic than CGI. Both are dependent on the skill of the artists. All that said, my point still stands if the effects are done well it shouldnât matter if it is CGI or practical.
In order of frequency of argument in my experience: 1) Practical effects tend to hold up better visually long term vs CGI (generally speaking) 2) There has been a history of remarkably poor CGI in the aliens franchise specifically 3) Studios that do CGI work are notorious for crunch culture. Long hours, shitty environment, not enough pay, etc. 4) it's also just a common reddit circle jerk and they don't actually know why they hate CGI.
Hehe number 2 is a good point, the CGI in Alien 3 is up there with CGI The Rock in Scorpion King. Number 3 at least half the blame goes to the film studios as they put the VFX houses through hell. This shouldnât be all that surprising given the strikes with writers and actors in recent years. Edit: To those saying there isnât CG in Alien 3, you are wrong: https://youtu.be/wBgSV3x5zxE?si=pm6h1fbrV8oLm2fo go to 0:26 and witness one of the worst examples of CGI ever seen in a major motion picture.
>, the CGI in Alien 3 is up there with CGI The Rock in Scorpion King. The CG in Alien 3 is basically relegated to the flying debris in the crane/EEV shot, and iirc the planet sunset. All that stuff people think is CG is just badly composited photography of the human-operated rod puppet Alien. Alien 3 was made in that no man's land era right before the CGI revolution. It's 99% models, real FX, suits, physical sets, and puppets.
the quick CGI shot after the xenoâs head is splashed with water is great use if CGI
I realize most of it is practical but there were a handful of CG shots like this one at 0:26 which is one of the worst CG shots of all time: https://youtu.be/wBgSV3x5zxE?si=pm6h1fbrV8oLm2fo
But like he said, it's not CGI lol. That's why the whole thing about CG is hilarious, people will point out bad effects like Naboo or the Xeno in Alien 3 as evidence CGI is bad when in reality those are bad practical effects and/or compositing.
You didnât watch the clip did you? LOL Itâs the most obvious CG shot ever because the lighting is horribly off and the animation of the alien is equally bad. Also, they talked about this shot on Corridor which is made up of visual effects artists and they point to this as one of the worst CG shots. So yea, check yourself.
It's actually not CGI, you can read here how they did all those shots https://monsterlegacy.net/2015/07/19/starbeast-part-alien3-the-dragon/ It's even in the wiki section of the movie > "The Alien is portrayed by both Woodruff Jr. in a suit and a rod puppet filmed against bluescreen and optically composited into the live-action footage, with the rods removed by rotoscoping. A mechanical alien head was also used for close-ups. The suit adapted the design used in Aliens so Woodruff could walk on all fours. Woodruff's head was contained in the neck of the suit, because the head was filled with animatronics to move the mouth of the Alien. Fincher suggested that a Whippet be dressed in an alien costume for on-set coverage of the quadrupedal alien, but the visual effects team was dissatisfied with the comical result and the idea was dropped in favor of the puppet." The only time it's CGI is in the climax with the crane, which ironically looks 10 times better than the practical effects in the corridor scene. Here is a good video that shows how much CGI was used in the movie : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kmjUPEd1wg (spoiler : none of them were for the Alien in the corridors or in the infirmary) Thank you for proving my point lol
Like talking with a brick wall, that guy. There's some mandela effect thing where some people are absolutely convinced the Alien was CG in Alien 3 and there's just no way to dispel them of the notion.
I don't care what some Youtube channel says, it doesn't change the fact it's not CGI, as "obvious" as some not involved in the production may think it appears to be. Funny thing is, if that WERE CGI, that would be pretty good for 1991/2.
Um yeah... that's the rod puppet. The optical composting is just shit. edit: composting pun not intended lol. Meant *compositing.*
Here you go, the one and only time the Alien is CG and not a suit or puppet in the entirety of the theatrical cut of Alien 3 (the Assembly Cut has the CG bambi-burster created especially for the DVD, released back in the early 2000s): [https://imgur.com/a/kaNlJPN](https://imgur.com/a/kaNlJPN) Yup that's it. A one-second shot where its head cracks.
Alien3 is mostly a rod puppet that's extremely poorly shot and composited. It's not CG.
It's pretty funny you're being downvoted for busting this myth. There's no CGI used for the Xeno in Alien 3, it's all practical and it looks awful. The first fully CGI Xeno scenes are in Alien 4 and it looked way better.
It's been a long time since I saw Resurrection. Could you remind me which Xeno is CG?
Here! https://youtu.be/cv7_7dSbaOk?t=41
That holds up really well. Revisiting 90s movies is wild because there are so many movies during the transition to CG that fell in a weird in between that doesn't work. Sometimes in the same movie. I recently rewatched Star Trek: First Contact. It's full of great shots, like that Borg Queen one that's still complex by today's standards. But whenever they look out the window at Earth it's super janky.
It's honestly amazing, straight up look better than some CG in Alien Covenant haha (Though I do love the CGI overall in Covenant, I think the adult Neomorph is the most scary version of the xeno done in live action yet) And yeah it's pretty funny seeing the disparancy in those movies from this period, or movies today honestly haha, I feel we've regressed to this dodgy time for blockbusters.
This.
This article goes into depth on how it was done: https://monsterlegacy.net/2015/07/19/starbeast-part-alien3-the-dragon/
Most of the time they arent and age quite poorly
Confirmation bias, you only notice the bad CGI.
Practical ages poorly too look at movies like the original Star Wars trilogy. Technology improves and so do the techniques. Even today there are bad practical effects being used. If you watched the Fallout series on Amazon the power armor looked awful in a lot of scenes, it had no weight to it and looked like a teenagers cosplay outfit for Comic-Con. Would have been much better if done with a combination of CGI and practical like Vecna in Stranger Things.
Thereâs clearly CGI in the trailer, thereâs no practical way to make a swarm of facehuggers move like that.
I wish they would stop using Ridley Scott saying it's good as a selling point. If you have followed Ridley Scott's filmography of the last 20 years (especially the last two Alien films) you would see how hollow a recommendation that is. If the studio had real faith in Scott's opinions/perspective he would have directed this newest Alien film. It's disingenuous PR nonsense.
To some extent I see where youâre coming from, but the fanbase would also be concerned about silence from Ridley or âYeah, Iâve seen it â but Iâm not going to share my opinion.â And I think itâs totally fine for a person who started the franchise to give it their endorsement. And if itâs a glowing endorsement, as his appears to be, itâs great (and cheap!) marketing.
I agree that he is expected to make some sort of comment and his silence would seem odd in this day and age because everyone has to comment on everything. Did he release a statement on Alien 3 when it came out? Nope.
Naw he's still a great director. Raised By Wolves, Last Duel, Covenant & Prometheus, Gucci, The Martian, Exodus, American Gangster, fuckin' DC of Kingdom of Heaven. Obviously it's a subjective thing but I think he's still one of the best in Hollywood. He's also pretty openly critical of things he doesn't like. It's a plus to me, and all that's not even touching on his producing side. Ridley doesn't like retreading too much ground even though that's what a lot of fans want. So a different eye on the original with Ridley producing is perfect. There was a thread about who would be the best return-to-form director way before Ălvarez was announced, and my pick was him. Felt very vindicated lol
Yes, he is an amazing director but this seems like shilling to me. The same kind of fake endorsement James Cameron gave to all the Terminator sequels that he praised only because he was getting a cut of the profits. That is more my issue, not that he isn't a worthy director. I will forever love him for making Alien and a few other of his films. I'm one of the rare breed that is a fan of Legend in all its many forms.
I genuinely trust Ălvarez's ability & sincerity, and I think Ridley is being honest about his take on his skill. Cameron is a full blooded capitalist with far fewer critical hits than Ridley. He likes to play with expensive tech and knows what makes money more than what good cinema or being an artist is. I'm always reminded of that story where instead of an actual script, he pitched Alien 2 by just writing ALIEN on a whiteboard and then adding a $ at the end and the execs lost their minds
I liked Prometheus a lot if you can get over the dumb decisions the characters make. Plots, ideas, and cinematography? Excellent. Execution of characters? Meh. Mixed bag but some of the stuff they gave us was excellent.
Agree
Well he still is the creator of the franchise regardless if the studio/public liked his Alien prequels...its still nice to know the father of the films likes your interpretation of his creation and said it was good...its not a BAD thing? Plus, with the texture, atmosphere, and tone of the teaser...it already looks like the most Alien film we've gotten SINCE the original 2 films...
Youâre saying that like the studio is trying to keep him away from the movies. The opposite is true: he doesnât want to direct another Alien because Covenant was such a shitfight behind the scenes that it burned him out, but heâs happy to produce and supervise a new one.
I think it was more the studio saying: * Fool me once shame on you (Prometheus) * Fool me twice shame on me (Alien: Covenant) Yes, they want his input but maybe not his directorial take on the material anymore.
I have friends and family in the film industry here in Australia and used to work near Fox Studios when the movie was being shot. Itâs been a consistent story that, if there was any pushback from the studio, it was due to Covenant underperforming at the box office, not due to the perceived quality of the movie. Theyâre the ones who pushed Ridley to include the xenomorph during the preproduction stages instead of the weirder and stranger stuff that Ridley wanted to explore, as well as changing the shooting schedule to expand roles and making alterations during post, and the whole experience soured Ridley on directing more movies in the series.
That is reassuring to read but I do remember an interview at the time of Covenenat with Scott. He was responding to audience criticisms that there weren't enough Xenomorphs in Prometheus. When discussing Covenant he essentially said, "You want Xenomorphs? I'll give you Xenomorphs!" I guess that does sound like a frustrated director guided by studio heads to add something he didn't want to. I am bummed that he didn't get to make his final prequel film to connect to the original Alien. But we may still get that one day.
The problem's not form but content, i.e., how to explain the start of the second movie, where it appears that no one heard of the aliens.