To much detail anyone?

agreed, considering the sub-par heavy-handed cgi and lack of "practical effects" that took the fear and horror out of the film. I remember bracing myself for the backburster scene but because it was soo over-the-top cgi it didn't look real and hence was not frightening.

I loved the film but my one gripe is the use of visual effects in the film   

'I remember bracing myself for the backburster scene but because it was soo over-the-top cgi it didn't look real and hence was not frightening.'

I think that the backburst scene is shocking, I like it very much. And the background music is awesome in it. I don't feel the CGI, but it is only my opinion. :)

Ridley Scott's films, including Alien, have always been detail oriented. People will find something to nitpick, but I thought the budget was well-utilized.

I embedded those videos for ya, miss Moon. Wonderful post, i'll feature it awhile. x

Haha it would probably be hard to stop Ridley from putting that much detail into everything! I think that is the reality of his films as well as most other films. Building a world, whether completely fictional, based somewhat in reality, or totally in reality, it takes a hell of a lot to put that together (even a world for a standalone film). Those ltitle details, how everything works and having a function for every little piece in a spacesuit, are part of what makes a film immersive. 

That's probably not new information to most here, but it was a super long winded way to sound smart and state that I don't think the details, such as the amount that went into Covenant spacesuits, will, or necessarily can, be left out of Ridley's next entry into the franchise. 

I mean, MAYBE some can be cheated/left out, but due to the level of detail Ridley will want to/end up put(ting) in, anything that could be left out would not make enough of an impact budget wise. Basically, it would be more worth it to go super hard on the ever-so-slight details. 

On this topic you can check the pulse monitor on Daniels pod when she realizes that Walter is in fact David, it goes from 81 to 161 or so. A detail that most viewers don't look for.

All details in the movie are carefully observed, nothing is overlooked, therefore if the Engineers look different on Paradise it is for a good reason.

If Ridley didn't put so much detail into the suits, it wouldn't be an alien suit lol Remember what the Nostromo crew wore? They had so much detail in those suits. I feel the same way about the sets, it wouldn't be Alien if Ridley didn't put so much into the sets. 

I wouldn't say the 'nobody' actors were to the films detriment. Remember, most of the actors from the original films were nobodies until Alien.

All very good points, and as IRaptus said, the Proto/Xeno itself, as well as the HORRID "chestburster" were just absolutely horribly rendered. There's no excuse to spend so much money on suits and blood and extra detail, and make the CGI look like a high school film project.

I didn't believe the CGI was bad. I thought it looked quite good tbh lol There were a couple scenes like the Xeno climbing down the ladder where the CGI faultered but it looked amazingly beautiful when it counted.

@Lawrence the one that got me was the chestburster scene. That was just not good, sorry. They filmed it with practical effects, but ended up having to convert to CGI because it didn't work. The DARK scenes with the xeno/proto were much better, but not at all as good as they should've/could've been.

@IRaptus & @Starlogger

I agree on that the backburster was bad CGI

Plus, the scene where Oram gets chestbursted could have been better too.

@Lilly (Svanya)

Thanks

@daliens

I think you're right that the Engineers look different on "Paradise" for a reason.

When the neomorph attacked Rosenthal, that scene could have had better CGI.  I remember when I saw that scene in a trailer, I thought that it was horrible CGI, but it was much better in the actual movie.

All of the facehuggers where great!

@Lawrence of Arabia

Maybe Ridley should put more responsibility on the actors and spend less on details?  

I'm don't watch all kinds of Ridley Scott movies, so I didn't know that he puts a lot of details in all of his movies until now.

The problem with the A:C spacesuit is I don't remember them wearing it to much.  There where two suits that I know of.  There is that giant yellow one which has bearings in it and the one featured in this thread.  I just don't remember the crew wearing either one very long at all.  Does anyone remember it any differently?  If not, then all this detail is created for maybe 5 min. of screen time.

When the Nostromo crew went to investigate the alien ship, they wore those suits for quite some screen time, so I could see more detail being important there.

@cuponator3000

All that detail would make a really good "Behind the Scenes" or "The Making of..." movie for the actual movie, but cutting these expenses out to spend more in other places or to spend less overall was another option I feel was ignored in A:C.

I Moon Girl The Nostromo crew wore for about as long as they do in Covenant. It's just the aesthetics of the Alien suits to be detailed lol If they weren't, it wouldn't feel a part of the same universe. I thought the acting in Covenant was fantastic even if they weren't all A-Listers. That's my opinion though, like how I thought the CGI was great. Idk how anyone could say the back burster scene was bad but eh.

cuponator3000 I totally agree with your assessment.

@Lawrence of Arabia

I don't even remember where the Covenant crew wore the suit featured in this thread.

I remember Tennessee wearing the bulky, yellow one to fix the solar sails.

When did the crew where the other suit?

They wore different gear once they landed on "Paradise".  I guess that gear is called their Expedition Uniform.

Oh yea, they wore it when they fought the Xeno on the Covenant ship.  

Some may not notice the level of detail, but I think it is great that it's there for those whom notice. I also suspect they would get hammered for leaving out some details. Just look at how badly past films get criticized because "no scientist would ever do that on a big expensive mission like this 'type of thing'".

The backburster scene doesn't look like inadequate CGI to me, but it was a little off-putting the first time because I expected (as well as the baby Neomorph) something more mostly practical, but I think it was still well done. 

I also didn't notice or have a problem with the Oram chestburster CGI. Sill, that's one of those things that may very well be objectively subpar, but it doesn't bother me at all. 

But the most basic point I was trying to make is that cutting the design portion a tiny wouldn't be enough to make the CGI any better. Really, this production needed more money. OR, they needed to re-write to compensate that. I was happy with how the effects turned out and do love all of the detail though. 

Let me make myself clear---IF the budget allows it, I LOVE "detail". It is fun to watch, rewatch, and continue rewatching a great movie to find all the extra features and "detail". BUT, it simply cannot be done at the risk of the whole story/movie. Whatever it takes, the story/movie has to be the primary focus/attention.

@Starlogger

That's exactly how I feel.

@daliens, I did notice Daniels' pulse monitor racing when I saw it at the cinema. I also made a mental note to check the digital download (which I don't have yet) because the accompanying sound effect did not seem to match the displayed rate. Yeah, I know, maybe I should find better things to worry about.

I love Ridley's attention to detail on the whole. There is a scene in Prometheus on the way to meet the Engineer, where they pass an awesome shiny bronze exoskeleton suit. It must have cost a ton of money to design and manufacture, yet was only on the screen for mere seconds.

I love the attention to detail Ridley has.  And by the way, he wasn't just handed no name actors and told to make do.  People that act in his movies have said being on his sets make them feel like they are in the actual movie.  They don't have to act with as much green screen.  I love that you can pick through the movies and find tiny little details that would have been overlooked or just ignored in other movies.  Sure they all go unnoticed, but that's part of what makes Ridley Scott great.  Stanley Kubrick was very particular about the way he placed things in movies as well, and a lot of that went unnoticed for a long time.

With that much attention to detail, he is surely not just goofing things like size of an alien race, or eye color, etc.  These were all deliberate, and I think it's sad that so many people are quick to throw out that "It's just another plot hole or inconsistency that Fox and RS have overlooked trying fix things they didn't fix in the last movie..."  That's probably the laziest answer I've seen on this forum for everything people dislike about the movies.  If it hasn't been explained in the movie or in a viral video, then there is probably a reason for it.  Scott has already put the argument about Walter or David at the end to rest.  He admitted he cheated about 20 minutes out of the movie where David would have made the swap, but people bitched so much that it would have been impossible, or that it's just what Scott decided to have happen to fill in a gap.

You can never have too much detail in a movie.  If you think you can, then you might just be watching movies to watch movies.

@drucea

I like that I have never heard of any of the main character actors in Alien: Covenant, expect Danny McBride.  Still, I know Danny McBride as a comedian, not a serious actor in a supposed-to-be horror flick.

Still, to me, they are nobodies since I never heard of them (of course, I don't watch much TV or movies).  Plus, I doubt they have ever been in a horror movie before.  This is probably all of their first times that they are supposed to act so scared that they'll apparently get cop and pawn shop Pulp Fiction abuse all over their rear ends for eternity if they don't (I watched a little of Pulp Fiction last night).

All I wanted out of A:C was a scary movie with a good story.  Plus, I wanted it to be a success at the box office so that we keep getting them and so that everybody gets to watch it because it is so good.

I just don't want money to be spent on things that are never going to be seen if it hurts the movies goals.  Apparently A:C is not quite meeting expectations in the box office, so maybe these details could be cut out (that's if they are high expenses).  This suit we see in this thread is just one piece out of thousands in the whole movie.  Image if this much detail was placed in all of those pieces.  That could really add up.

 "People that act in his movies have said being on his sets make them feel like they are in the actual movie. "

That's some of my concern with his detail.  These are actors.  They shouldn't have to feel like they are in the movie.  They should be acting like they are in the movie.  Ridley made the lander like an actual "roller coaster ride", as described by Danny McBride.  That's cool and all, but I just wonder if it is really necessary.  Can't the crew actually do some amazing acting and make us all believe that they are in the movie (with the help of some fans or whatever movie magic is necessary)? 

That's what I meant with Ridley possibly accepting the fact that he has nobody actors.  Of course, apparently that's not the case since he apparently does a lot of detail all of the time in his movies.

Look, I don't care how much detail is in the movie as long as it makes a good story, is a scary Alien franchise movie, and is a successful.  The more detail the better, until it hurts the movie itself.

@ hox

"There is a scene in Prometheus on the way to meet the Engineer, where they pass an awesome shiny bronze exoskeleton suit. It must have cost a ton of money to design and manufacture, yet was only on the screen for mere seconds."

He also used that for inspiration for the yellow space suits in A:C.  Those suits sound and look expensive too.  Plus, I think they are ugly.  I wish those ones in Prometheus wouldn't be there and replaced by something else.  The one in A:C looks alright, but still sounds like he spent more than he should have on it, but maybe I'm wrong.  Who knows?