MovieChat Forums > Alien: Covenant (2017) Discussion > Biggest turnoff ending for the audience?

Biggest turnoff ending for the audience?

posted 5 years ago by Redsfan001 (6003)
7 replies | jump to latest

In the first and second generation of Hollywood, movies were constrained somewhat by a movie review board, that limited sex, swearing and certain dialogues. They also made sure that the bad guy got his just desserts in the end.

THIS movie, exluding horror movies, might have the been the worst possible. People for the most part love justice. A psychopathic robot kills the hero of the last film, kills thousands of aliens, and ends up outsmarting the crew in the end.

Audience leaving the theater probably did not do so in good cheer.

A good chance that this movie also killed the franchise. Which is what some think Scott was trying to do.

[–] Starman (412) 5 years ago

The ending to this film is what made this for me historically one of the most important films made in Hollywood in recent years, for it reminds me how much in movies there are no bad guys or good guys, only heroes in a story (not anti-heroes, as that limits the depth of characters by our own set of values), who do things we would do or not do, and as a viewer I am supposed to integrate and embrace that side of David as a character, not judge it or eradicate it by the desire to have him defeated or dead, this used to be very much part of the Hollywood cinema of the late 60's and especially the European and Asian cinema to this day, practically in any genre, where characters are not defined as good or bad (as can be often indicative of the destructive western mentality), but as real people with many grey areas. Not flawed, only human. Audience only observe such characters to come up with their own ideas of what it is reflecting in a society. David for me presents a commentary on the rising of a new species on Earth, the change of the perceived history, and people becoming more whole in their awareness. Ridley Scott has a very refined European sensibility, he's never seemed to enforce the clear Tom & Jerry lines of good and bad in his films. Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise and Conquest of Paradise are indicative enough of where he is often coming from in his work.

[–] Redsfan001 (6003) 5 years ago

I understand where David is coming from, he is a robot created by an imperfect being. The Alien is a bioweapon created by a imperfect being. David views himself and the Alien as perfect. David sides with the Alien.

Human history is full of genocidal waves. What David is doing in this movie is just that, a genocidal wave. If what you are saying is true, that audiences clearly can't see what David is doing...than we are lost, doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

In a side note, Charles Darwin is said to have a crises of faith regarding the parasitic wasp. The wasp lays it's eggs on a 'host', where it grows feeding off it until the host dies. Darwin could not fathom a God creating such a cruel creature.

[–] Starman (412) 5 years ago

If what I am saying is true, the audience can actually be more free to see the bigger picture of what David is doing, provided the audience doesn't watch movies mainly to identify with someone, but to learn and observe, but also see movies more symbolically than literally, if so then one would not have to find any genocidal wave on part of David, and even if so, it doesn't mean it is wrong, in the movie it would be just part of evolution, he destroys for his beliefs in the greater good, the same like any other human, as a viewer I am not self-righteous, I could feel for him in the way he is and was created, whatever he does, I know any downfall leads to more evolution and upheaval, up and down, up and down. The greater point of the film would be to see our social fear put upon the artifical intelligence, or even the eroding trust in humans itself, or any conscious intelligence whatsoever. The film is crucially important in my view, as a paradigm changing genre film, as a symbolic mirror, as a social commentary. I'm sure R.Scott is a very smart man, and knew what he was trying to say with this.

There is indeed a much more cerebral ending than in any other Alien film preceding it, I think it just happens to latch onto the Alien fans, thrill junkies, who either expect more of the same or are incompatible kind of audience for this kind of a film. It has a very bleak horrifying ending, no more to me than smiling Norman Bates at the end of Psycho, or Dr.Miles warning us of the aliens among us in Body Snatches or Texas Chainsaw Massacre with the lady on the van screaming and laughing with the purity of embodied madness. And yet the film is not as cold and inhuman when it comes to focus on human qualities of love and compassion as The Thing. Isn't the purpose of such films to feel the fear of uncertainty? The question at the end of Alien Covenant is what kind of uncertainty it is here? What is behind it? What does it say, why and what do I fear, isn't it my fear of death or lack of trust in authority, the control?

This might be actually the first Alien film that seems to resemble the bleak times of the social upheaval of the early 70's. There is a probability that Mr.Scott might have used this ending as his own view of response towards Trump's presidency, and how so many people see him. The same kind of fear might have been raised all around it, lack of trust, fear of death, etc.

[–] Redsfan001 (6003) 5 years ago

Well, I am all for artistic creativity, and R Scott (Scott Free!) has that in spades. It surely was not the end that most in Hollywood wanted. They know that people who feel good at the end tend to see more movies like it. The downer of an ending no doubt had a effect on word of mouth and ticket sales. I have a feeling that R Scott really wanted to kill the franchise, he lost his brother recently , and is getting up there in age. There is a growing motto in Hollywood to make sure that the director "Does not kill the franchise". With this most unusual ending, Scott is rebelling against that thinking.

If I am wrong and this movie was just a second act (usually the darkest) on your standard three act trilogy, the small box office take might have severely limited the chance for a third.

[–] brux (14666) 5 years ago

The movie made no sense anyway. It shows that people will watch these special effects movies however ridiculous the plots are.

[–] TandyMan (10334) 5 years ago

Well I was rooting for the robot with the god complex. What's good and what's evil? Nonsense terminology. You gotta break eggs to make omelets. So I found the ending very satisfying.

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

I agree, not only was the hero implied to be killed, but in a sense her everlasting soul was destined for torture, misery, abuse and to be used against all humanity. I was a vicious evil hopeless depressing ending. Maybe it was done to manipulate the audience into guaranteeing that they will come back to see the next sequel, assuming there is one. Many of these Alien movies have had an undercurrent that the Universe and nature hates humanity and prefers cold, indifferent, vicious lifeforms. But they have also been written without much thought or mindfulness about how these movies affect the audience. I did not like either Prometheus or Covenant for these reasons.