MovieChat Forums > Alien: Covenant (2017) Discussion > Reasons why this movie was bad

Reasons why this movie was bad

posted 7 years ago by cyberbob (3488)
27 replies | jump to latest

The most important, to me, is that they spent a considerable amount of time in Prometheus hyping up the mystery of the Engineers, their motives, and what would happen when Shaw met them. Then we never get to witness this meeting.

And, was this the Engineer's home world? Cause it seems odd that an entire planet's population could be wiped out by one spaceship's cargo worth of bioweapon material.

Also, the deaths were fairly dull. The one that annoyed me the most was Rosenthal. When David rescues the crew and takes them to the city they ask him if it's "safe there" and they just take his word for it when he says yes. But you can clearly tell that there are several wide-open entrances into the city and the alien is still wandering around somewhere. But do they care? No, they just go wandering the city alone without a care. And sure enough the alien just waltzes in there easily and kills Rosenthal. How did they not foresee that as a possibility?

And most of the deaths were uninspired. I guess there's only so many ways that what is essentially a feral animal can kill a person, but by this point it just seems like we've seen this all before too many times. There's nothing scary at this point about watching a Xenomorph sneak up on a person and maul them to death. That is one thing I liked about Prometheus. There were all kinds of alien creatures so there was a lot of variety in the ways each character died.

Oh, and at what point did Lope become infected with a "protomorph"? Did David somehow bring a face hugger on board or was Lope infected while still on the planet? They never explain this

Finally, how fucking stupid can they be? Gee, these two robots look EXACTLY THE SAME but there is absolutely no way that the psychopathic one could possibly try to impersonate the good one. Accents are impossible to fake. Lets not even take ten seconds to explore this possibility.

There are probably more examples of what the writers got wrong in this movie but these are the ones that immediately come to mind

[–] Geff (453) 7 years ago

The word "Cause" is not a substitute for the word "because".

Language is important, certain words have certain meanings. If you use a word and the meaning in your mind is different from the meaning in the mind of the listener then there is miscommunication and you are not effectively communicating your ideas. The effective communication of ideas is the purpose of language. We have agreed upon certain meanings for certain words for the specific reason of communicating ideas.

Thanks.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 7 years ago

Get a fucking life

[–] Geff (453) 7 years ago

I anticipated a combative response. You can tell a lot about a person's character by the words they choose to use, or misuse.

I should mention: I would not have said anything is you used "Cus" instead of "Cause" because I would assume it to be a short-handed colloquialism. But, usage of the word "Cause" makes me believe that you have a deep misunderstanding of the word.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 7 years ago

Unfortunately your mom had a deep misunderstanding of birth control

[–] FordFairlane (299) 7 years ago

Seriously, get a fucking life.

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

"anticipated" a combative response. You actually provoked that response. Stop acting like a prophet.

[–] Geff (453) 7 years ago

Your perception of whether or not I provoked a combative response hinges on your perception of the goal of my comment.

If you perceive that the goal of the comment is to damage one's ego, then yes, your thesis is correct, I provoked a combative response.

If you perceive that the goal of the comment is to impart instruction and knowledge, then your thesis is incorrect.

I concede that one can instruct and simultaneously hurt another's ego, especially if the instruction clarifies a faulty belief in the listener and encourages the listener to abandon that belief. However, I do not concede that one should be combative and come to the defense of a faulty belief system just in order to defend his or her ego. This behavior is not conducive to learning.

[–] danny2135 (59) 7 years ago

OMG I love this pseudointellectuals on forums who think they have an IQ of 3953 when in fact is 39.53! LOL

[–] Geff (453) 7 years ago

You seem to know a lot about other people's IQ and what they think of their own IQ. Have you considered the possibility that people may use words for the singular purpose of communicating ideas rather than having the intention of putting forward into the world a numerical value that is supposed to measure a man-made concept called intelligence.

I know it's a bizarre notion that language can be used for something other than showing one's IQ. But, consider the possibility for a moment. Use your imagination, if you can.

[–] danny2135 (59) 7 years ago

Is a possibility, in fact is true the proposition "words communicates ideas", however in your case, specially in this type of forums, your "words" are used to sound arrogant and to express some "pseudointellectuallity".

In conclusion, you like your own use of words, you like to sound "smart", you crave praise and admiration and therefore put forward your point, whatever that point is.

My point is very simple: you and only you consider yourself "smart" when in fact you are POSSIBLY and idiot.

[–] Geff (453) 7 years ago

Again, you seem to know a lot about other people's intentionality and motivations in spite of little other evidence besides some form of text based psychoanalysis. This practice might itself be considered what you call "pseudointellectual", as your use of the word psedointellectual seems to be more broad that the broadest definition of the word ever put forth.

I crave praise and admiration "therefore I put forward my point, whatever my point is". I guess by this definition anyone moving their mouth (or in this case expressing themselves textually) in order to communicate a "point" is craving praise and admiration.

Since you seem to have difficulty garnering the "point"s of people's remarks, let me elucidate it for you (although, I fear it is pointless): My original "point" was to make a correction to someone's misuse of a word. In this case, conflating the word "Cause", which is a noun, with the word "because" which is conjunction (or occasionally a preposition). The word "Cause" should never be used as a conjunction. If words are used incorrectly in this manner, the reader/listener has to devote more brain processing power in order to interpret the communicator's motives. This process would be much simpler and less time consuming if the communicator uses words as they were intended to be used by the users of that specific language. Or, the users of a specific language are expected the follow the agreed upon rules of that language in order to facilitate fluidity of communication.

Now, ofcourse there are non-native speakers who often misuse words. Correcting their mistakes is vastly important because otherwise they will continue misusing the words and never learn the proper uses of words. This would make discourse with that individual incredibly tiresome because the recipent of the words would have to devote an inordinate amount of cognitive resources to interpretting the fundamental language rather than focusing on what's really important, the contents, or th

[–] Geff (453) 7 years ago

the ideas presented by the communicator.

So in correcting the misuse of the word, my goals are incredibly altruistic. I want the reader to avoid future errors of a similar vain so that other people are able to communicate with them easily and they themselves are able to communicate more effectively. This makes it all the more disconcerting that my remark which is meant to provide instruction, the most altruistic of motives, is regarded as some manner of affront to the reader's intelligence.

Now, there was an expectation of this manner of response. As I said, "I anticipated a combative response". But, why would I expect this if my goals are pure? The reason is as I mentioned, "You can tell a lot about a person's character by the words they choose to use, or misuse". The author did not seem to me to be a non-native speaker, and yet he misused a word that is really fundamental to the language and failed to follow the simple rules of the language in regard to this word. What would lead someone to such a demonstrably inept failing you ask. Simple. Being of a character that has an adverse reaction to instruction, or having a combative reaction to being given instruction rather than using the instruction as a learning opportunity can make a person STUPID. Having the notion that instructors are being self-serving or their instructions are being used as an affront to your intelligence can only serve to further your stupidity. So, the "combative response" to instruction is in keeping with the pattern of stupidity that the author had displayed prior, and is therefore completely expected. So, why would I give instruction if I know they fall on deaf (stupid) ears? I will not bypass the opportunity to give instruction and improve someone's mastery of the English language because of the simple suspicion that he is stupid. And, it was a suspicion by all means, I didn't know with certainty that the author was stupid. Maybe he could have used the instruction in order to learn fr

[–] Geff (453) 7 years ago

from it, as I or any reasonable non-stupid person would do. So why deprive a person of the opportunity to learn especially if you have the capacity to provide instruction via. correction.

I am a non-native English speaker. I am well aware of the disposition of not knowing the correct usages of words. I have never responded to language instruction in a combative manner. Ever. If I have the opportunity to pass on the information that I have acquired, I'm happy to take that opportunity. I will continue to do so at every opportunity.

[–] legnadibrom (6215) 7 years ago

*hi-5*

[–] blindfolded (1618) 7 years ago

Geff, step back, take a breath, and realize you just wrote a college thesis based on a commenter's grammar on a movie discussion website. Either take the time to write a response to the actual subject at hand or go get your autism diagnosed.

[–] LordBusiness (120) 7 years ago

Thank you.

[–] Silverman (270) 7 years ago

thats the douchiest comment I've read in a while

[–] CraigJamesReview (1715) 7 years ago

Yeah, the ending was fairly predictable, characters very dull and pretty stupid, I was expecting this to tie into Prometheus a little more but it just left more questions. They really should have brought Noomi Rapace back as the lead. Don't like this movie's treatment of her or the engineers very much at all.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. A review of the movie here-https://youtu.be/fyYgj2Fpur0

[–] maximmm (3335) 7 years ago

It tied into Prometheus via stupidity - so in that sense, it's a fair sequel.

[–] MassHypnosis (1) 7 years ago

Reasons why this movie was bad? I'll do the fingering... The script and the CGI...

[–] Renovatio (2990) 7 years ago

"I'll do the fingering"

Classic line! Burst out laughing in the theatre when I heard that...

[–] desepticon (166) 7 years ago

Why? Didn't seem very funny to me. Were you inferring some sort of sexual innuendo?

[–] Renovatio (2990) 7 years ago

I think the sensuality made some people uncomfortable...

[–] cyberbob (3488) 7 years ago

You could say that Fassbender fingered himself

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

Ridley Scott was not interested in showing the engineer's world because he is a bamboozler, he just wants your ticket money.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 7 years ago

Well, if he make a better movie he can have my ticket money.

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

I', so xenomorph starved I'll end up seeing the movies anyways.