Latest News

Exclusive: New Prometheus Trailer Footage

Yesterday, we reported on the existence of a brand new trailer for Prometheus. As mentioned before, this new trailer lasts for around one minute and features a handful of scenes from the footage that was shown at Comic-con this year, scenes from the recently leaked 18 seconds teaser trailer and much more. You can watch it below now. The quality isn’t ideal but the video is definitely worth a look.

Special thanks to James Smith for sending us the recording.

[Video removed by request of Fox]

According to the source, the trailer is being shown to the public via an entertainment survey at an online surveys website.



Post Comment
Comments: 631
« Newer Comments 12345678910111213 Older Comments »
  1. Corporal Hicks
    I've heard rumblings of next Monday, actually, but I'm unsure if that's cinematic or online. I'm not 100%, I'm just throwing it out there. I'm checking back on where the release is. I'm gonna check with some of my cinema projectionist buddies too, see if they've got any reels in yet.
  2. St_Eddie
    Sometimes, it seems to me, that these leaks are being leaked on purpose.
    hit the nail on the head there,who thinks that these leaks are bad for buisness for fox?they have got more people talking and speculating than any trailer proper could have, i think fox have their very own Ash working for the publicity department.

    Hmmmm...

    Maybe Rothman is the world's first synthetic!  It's all starting to make some kind of sick sense now. :o

    ... We're through the looking glass, people.
  3. St_Eddie
    St. Eddie, that's not confirmed whatsoever, and we never had a date of release in the first place.

    Actually mate, there was a second part to my post (via an edit) that got wiped because my piece of s**t PS3 just crashed on me.  So I'll retype it...

    I agree with the possibility of the news being fake.  To the fellow who posted the news...

    You really can't come forth with such news, not cite your sources and then become aggravated when people doubt you.  ThisBethesdaSea is correct; that's journalism 101.  I'm not necessarily doubting the authenticity of the news but I am wary of such things due to the sheer volume of braggers and fakers who've emerged from the woodwork, claiming to possess "insider knowledge".  I'd say that approximately 5% of those people are on the level.

    If you're unable to cite your sources, then you should expect a healthy amount of skepticism.  Don't blame the doubters amongst us; blame the fraudulent idiots who've led us to become so wary.  ;)
  4. St_Eddie
    It seems like a bizarre move on Fox's part.  I mean why have they chosen to delay the trailer just because the leaked one was so popular?  I'm not doubting that they have but it just seems like such a nonsensical thing to do.

    I just can't shake the image in my head; of Rothman crying like a fat baby, throwing all of his toys out of the pram.  "WAH WAHHHH... the trailer got leaked mommy!  WAHHHHHHHH... me no like.  Me delay official trailer and make the fanboys cry... WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

    What a dick move.
  5. ThisBethesdaSea
    Reporting/Journalism 101.....here goes.....

    Cite your sources, confirm your information. Because anyone can write anything on the internet and say it's true, accuracy and legitimacy is a must. If not, you'll start reading news items based off hearsay "I was told" "I heard" "my good friend."

    I'm not trying to bust anyone's balls here, truly, I'm just sick of reading posts and entries from people who say they have pseudo-official knowledge but are unwilling and unable to produce any kind of corroborating evidence or contact info. Obviously, part of this comes down to deep throat contact who wish not to be named (which strangely is always the case lol).

    When I was about 23, I had a dumb little online newsgroup called The Viper Pit, which I started as the build up for Alien Resurrection began. I was contacted by Kerry Shea, a visual effects coordinator on the show. She gave me some awesome information that I was able to share with everyone involved with the zine.

    I've read several postings in relation to Prometheus so far, posted by earnest and excited individuals citing a secret unknown source and to be taken as gospel, all of it based on their word. You'll have to forgive the gratuitous amount of skepticism on my part. I don't think it's particularly ethical or fair to excite or disappoint a rather rabid fan base with knowledge that cannot be confirmed except on the word of the unknown, faceless poster.

    But maybe that's just me.
  6. weylandchronicles
    Time for a quick clarification/correction...

    Bullshit. Anyone actually read that?

    Not you, obviously...

    The only thing that saw in those words is "I heard"

    What I actually wrote was 'I have been told'. Which I was, first hand, by someone with direct knowledge of the situation. Obviously I'm not going to name the person who told me, just as sources of news on AvPG, Alien Prequel News and other sites remain un-named.

    If I had any doubts about what I'd been told I wouldn't have reported it, and I stand by it, as I have always and will always do if I see or directly receive information that I am happy is genuine. Of course, you can feel free to believe or dis-believe it. I really don't care.
  7. Wobblyboddle77
    Oh deary deary me if true, let's hope they don't tinker around with this trailer too much, personally i think they will re edit and change the trailer score to remove it from alien more so it shows the film represents itself fox are very cagey about this trailer leak, and remember Rothman said we have yet to see the trailer in 3D, i'm thinking early january for this trailer. But hey we have all seen it regardless and it got us all stoked for the film.
  8. Highland
    Apparently Fox has delayed the official trailer release due to the leak:
    Quote
    This probably isn’t the most surprising news, but it seems that the recent leak of the Prometheus trailer threw Fox’s plans a little off course, to the extent, I’ve been told, that the official release has been pushed back.

    The precise reason for the delay is not clear, but, if the leak hadn’t occured, there’s even a chance we could have seen in glorious HD already.

    Given the overwelmingley positive reaction that the trailer received, let’s hope they just want to spend a bit more time fine-tuning things. As rough as the trailer looked, and despite being a work in progress, it did make a great job of setting the tone and scale of the film, and certainly got fans’ juices flowing. Fingers crossed they won’t tamper too much!

    I’m trying to confirm what the new date will be, but I am confident we’ll see it before Christmas.
    http://www.prometheusmovienews.com/2011/12/confirmed-fox-postpone-official-prometheus-trailer-release-following-recent-leak/

    Sounds like complete hyperbole at the highest level.

    They have nothing to gain and nothing to loose by showing the trailer as planned. Shit happens. They seriously could not expect to show an online screener and not have it get it out.

    Put it this way, what do they loose in any aspect? Nothing, if anything it's building hype.
  9. JaaayDee
    Apparently Fox has delayed the official trailer release due to the leak:
    Quote
    This probably isn’t the most surprising news, but it seems that the recent leak of the Prometheus trailer threw Fox’s plans a little off course, to the extent, I’ve been told, that the official release has been pushed back.

    The precise reason for the delay is not clear, but, if the leak hadn’t occured, there’s even a chance we could have seen in glorious HD already.

    Given the overwelmingley positive reaction that the trailer received, let’s hope they just want to spend a bit more time fine-tuning things. As rough as the trailer looked, and despite being a work in progress, it did make a great job of setting the tone and scale of the film, and certainly got fans’ juices flowing. Fingers crossed they won’t tamper too much!

    I’m trying to confirm what the new date will be, but I am confident we’ll see it before Christmas.
    http://www.prometheusmovienews.com/2011/12/confirmed-fox-postpone-official-prometheus-trailer-release-following-recent-leak/
  10. Wobblyboddle77
    Blade 2 uses horrible cgi at the start when he's sword fighting those two vampires under the lamps, but it's still a good film. Cgi
    can be useful depending how it's done. Alot of prometheus is practical sets but having cg used for the creatures and the ship effects dosen't bother me too much. 3D i'm unsure of at present, but it's gonna take a few more films to convince me, clash of the titans 3D was terrible and rushed during post production just to satisfy a quick box office cash grab. However the 3d in Avatar shows what can be achieved when done correctly by using the right equipment.
  11. JKS1
    Things don't have to look real to serve a purpose. The mere fact of CGI isn't enough- if it's artless and pointless, it's worthless. In my example, Hugo, it was an artistic choice to give the film a certain dreamlike look.

    Ok I got it. Let me say it diferently: Doesn´t  need to look REAL, like from our world, but needs to look INTEGRATED in the world is descriving.

    Gollum is not integrated in the world of the LOTR movie, because its not a world of 3D talking cartoons.

    Avatar planet and chreatures are not integrated because its not Cartoon Planet.

    Landscapes and hordes of people are integrated on 300.

    The comic style is integrated on sin city because its a COMIC style movie.

    Hugo I don´t know because I havn´t seen it. and Im really afraid to do so: Scorsese+3d CGI sounds bad, really bad.

    CGI has ruined a lot of directors: Tim Burton, James Cameron (even he started mastering it), George Lucas, Spielberg has used it quite well but he is slipping to the dark side, or one of the saddest examples : Terry Gilliam.



    By the way, maybe we should create a forum topic for discussing CGI as we are stealling the thread here...

    Do you think the same when watching the 1933 version of King Kong or Jason and the Argonauts? I don't believe CGI has "ruined directors". It's a tool/mechanism that's easier to employ and we're spoilt in that most movies (specifically Hollywood event movies) contain effects employed to get bums on seats (most of the effects are good even if the movie isn't). However, when assessing the validity of CGI in modern movies, one should look at the best examples and not the worst. I don't particularly like Avatar, but it would have been impossible to make a few years ago. I happen to think it's a worthy experiment at pushing the boundaries of virtual environments in cinema.

    CGI presents filmmakers with further opportunity to realise their ideas/concepts. Of course not all of them are good or worthy of exploration, but I'd sooner have a Jurassic Park, The Lord of the Rings , Star Wars, Star Trek movies made possible by CGI than not have them at all. But that's just me...

    Remove Star Wars 1,2,3 from that list and I'd agree with you as I'd be quite happy if those movies were never made

    Anyway I'm just glad that it seems as though Prometheus wont feature CGI Space Jockeys and theyve built huge sets, so I'm happy on those fronts at least, and thank God there wont be any CGI androids either
  12. boabwalker
    Cheers man but missed it again,got to see the stills though thats defo a space jockey next to the chair,kinda adds up to the story that man pisses off the jockeys enougth for them to activate the urns into some kind of bio weapon. lovein the website mate keep up the great work,Boab
  13. Darth Vile
    Things don't have to look real to serve a purpose. The mere fact of CGI isn't enough- if it's artless and pointless, it's worthless. In my example, Hugo, it was an artistic choice to give the film a certain dreamlike look.

    Ok I got it. Let me say it diferently: Doesn´t  need to look REAL, like from our world, but needs to look INTEGRATED in the world is descriving.

    Gollum is not integrated in the world of the LOTR movie, because its not a world of 3D talking cartoons.

    Avatar planet and chreatures are not integrated because its not Cartoon Planet.

    Landscapes and hordes of people are integrated on 300.

    The comic style is integrated on sin city because its a COMIC style movie.

    Hugo I don´t know because I havn´t seen it. and Im really afraid to do so: Scorsese+3d CGI sounds bad, really bad.

    CGI has ruined a lot of directors: Tim Burton, James Cameron (even he started mastering it), George Lucas, Spielberg has used it quite well but he is slipping to the dark side, or one of the saddest examples : Terry Gilliam.



    By the way, maybe we should create a forum topic for discussing CGI as we are stealling the thread here...

    Do you think the same when watching the 1933 version of King Kong or Jason and the Argonauts? I don't believe CGI has "ruined directors". It's a tool/mechanism that's easier to employ and we're spoilt in that most movies (specifically Hollywood event movies) contain effects employed to get bums on seats (most of the effects are good even if the movie isn't). However, when assessing the validity of CGI in modern movies, one should look at the best examples and not the worst. I don't particularly like Avatar, but it would have been impossible to make a few years ago. I happen to think it's a worthy experiment at pushing the boundaries of virtual environments in cinema.

    CGI presents filmmakers with further opportunity to realise their ideas/concepts. Of course not all of them are good or worthy of exploration, but I'd sooner have a Jurassic Park, The Lord of the Rings , Star Wars, Star Trek movies made possible by CGI than not have them at all. But that's just me...
  14. Tough little S.O.B.
    New Gilliam movies have the ugliest and most anoying CGI effects I´ve ever seen. Its just unwatchable. Can´t stand it.

    maybe you should go bury or head in the sand and wait for this cgi thing to blow over.

    nah, there is plenty of movies to enjoy that don't use bad CGI.

    Anyway I insist we should continue this topic somewhere else, or stop it already.
  15. Pn2501
    Things don't have to look real to serve a purpose. The mere fact of CGI isn't enough- if it's artless and pointless, it's worthless. In my example, Hugo, it was an artistic choice to give the film a certain dreamlike look.

    Ok I got it. Let me say it diferently: Doesn´t  need to look REAL, like from our world, but needs to look INTEGRATED in the world is descriving.

    Gollum is not integrated in the world of the LOTR movie, because its not a world of 3D talking cartoons.

    Avatar planet and chreatures are not integrated because its not Cartoon Planet.

    Landscapes and hordes of people are integrated on 300.

    The comic style is integrated on sin city because its a COMIC style movie.

    Hugo I don´t know because I havn´t seen it. and Im really afraid to do so: Scorsese+3d CGI sounds bad, really bad.

    CGI has ruined a lot of directors: Tim Burton, James Cameron (even he started mastering it), George Lucas, Spielberg has used it quite well but he is slipping to the dark side, or one of the saddest examples : Terry Gilliam.



    By the way, maybe we should create a forum topic for discussing CGI as we are stealling the thread here...

    on drugs.... you are on drugs ..... bad ones ......... like meth ......... maybe crack.

    from an very recent interview with Mr Gilliam
    Quote
    On digital effects: “They are a Damocles sword. Any of this stuff you use is just a tool but there’s this rush now for photorealism and it bothers me. There’s so much overt fantasy now that I don’t watch a lot of the films because everything is possible now. There’s no tension there. Where’s the tension? Is it possible? Will you succeed? Will gravity take over? None of those things are part of the equation anymore. The denial of reality and consequence was fun when these movies began but now it’s been 20 years of this stuff. I keep waiting for the public to get fed up with it but then I worry that now it’s been here so long the audience is trained that this is what movies are meant to be.

    That said digital effects are only a tool.
  16. Tough little S.O.B.
    Things don't have to look real to serve a purpose. The mere fact of CGI isn't enough- if it's artless and pointless, it's worthless. In my example, Hugo, it was an artistic choice to give the film a certain dreamlike look.

    Ok I got it. Let me say it diferently: Doesn´t  need to look REAL, like from our world, but needs to look INTEGRATED in the world is descriving.

    Gollum is not integrated in the world of the LOTR movie, because its not a world of 3D talking cartoons.

    Avatar planet and chreatures are not integrated because its not Cartoon Planet.

    Landscapes and hordes of people are integrated on 300.

    The comic style is integrated on sin city because its a COMIC style movie.

    Hugo I don´t know because I havn´t seen it. and Im really afraid to do so: Scorsese+3d CGI sounds bad, really bad.

    CGI has ruined a lot of directors: Tim Burton, James Cameron (even he started mastering it), George Lucas, Spielberg has used it quite well but he is slipping to the dark side, or one of the saddest examples : Terry Gilliam.



    By the way, maybe we should create a forum topic for discussing CGI as we are stealling the thread here...
  17. Alienseseses
    Things don't have to look real to serve a purpose. The mere fact of CGI isn't enough- if it's artless and pointless, it's worthless. In my example, Hugo, it was an artistic choice to give the film a certain dreamlike look.
  18. Tough little S.O.B.
    I honestly don't even know what the big deal is in terms of a physical matte painting or a digital one. I've been BLOWN AWAY by digital backdrops that were/are so stunningly beautiful in their perfection. If I'm wowed, I'm wowed, it doesn't matter what the medium is.

    Gollum is another WOW for me and absolutely proves how amazing CG can be if used perfectly.

    For me watching at gollum is like watching Roger Rabit. Is a cartoon in  a human´s world.

    That´s the problem, if people can believe gollum, if this sets the level of acceptancy for people,  why are you going to try to make it more credible? "make it like gollum its enough".  And gollums sums it all up: Non beliable movements, no sense of being phisically real, and the worst part: A COMIC DESIGN and COMICAL body and facial expresion.

    Horrible.

    Thats why 'Avatar' is so unmemorable for me - the whole thing looks like a cartoon and theres almost nothing 'believable' about any of whats depicted on screen (as much as I love many of the ideas in the movie). It never feels like a real, solid, flesh and bone place, nor did the CGI characters seem real or 'there' in a purely physical sense.

    I'm the complete opposite. Although I know the world and characters are not real in Avatar, the CGI was so outstanding that it was enough to suspend my disbelief making them feel real and solid creating the sense that they were 'there.'

    Hate avatar. The history is just horrible but the CGI is (even perfectly done) hateable.  The concept of it: LETS MIX real human with cartoons. That´s what it is to me. real human interacting with cartoons. So, they are in Cartoon planet. A planet with 3D cartoon creatures, drawed by some cartoon god or something. That is what I see, and what is worse, that is what James Cameron want´s us to see. A cartoon world! And people just watches at it, and they believe it.

    Also, Avatar is the start for that 3D madness that is destroying sci fi and action movies.Now everything is done in the sake of 3D. Well...at least 3d somewhere because the characters are uni dimensional in all those 3d movies.

    JC is dead to me.

    I just got back from seeing Hugo, and that's an example of CGI used for a wow factor. Granted, it didn't look realistic, but then, that wasn't the point. It's just another kind of paint to create art with. You can throw it around haphazardly and call it pretty, or you can put effort into it and use it when it works for the piece.

    If you can not make it look real, then I dont understand where is the point of it...

    Just because is there Im not going to believe it. But it seems that people do as far as in on the screen...lucky them...

  19. Alienseseses
    I just got back from seeing Hugo, and that's an example of CGI used for a wow factor. Granted, it didn't look realistic, but then, that wasn't the point. It's just another kind of paint to create art with. You can throw it around haphazardly and call it pretty, or you can put effort into it and use it when it works for the piece.
  20. Tough little S.O.B.
    So, please, some examples of scenes and movies where the CGI depicted landscapes and spaceships arent obviously CGI

    'Underworld' was made on a relatively cheap budget, but the entirety of the working mechanical crypt scene was completely generated by computers. Nobody realises it, because it looks so real.

    Also, I believe that a lot of the rotor blades and associated effects during Ridley's own 'Black Hawk Down' were done in CGI, for reasons of safety. Something else few people realise, because it's done well.

    Another example would be 'Independence Day'! The military withdrew support when mentions of Area 51 were refused to be removed from the script. It meant they had to switch completely over to CGI for all the air combat. A few shots were miniatures (possibly the explosions), but all the rest were done by computers. Everyone assumes they were models, but they're digital.

    Then there's the stuff done for the new version of the 'Battlestar Galactica' television show. Completely CGI.

    ^
    This.

    I'm a huge supporter of practical effects and matte paintings and hate badly executed CGI with a vengeance but I've watched a fair few films on DVD, only to learn afterwards that a lot of CGI was used for landscapes.  I would never have known had I not been told.

    It's worth pointing out that in these cases there always tends to be a certain amount of practical location in combination with the CGI.  Still, the fact is that bad CGI is very noticeable but well executed CGI is seemless, which is why some people claim CGI can't ever live up to practical methods; they've simply failed to recognise when it's done well.

    Hello,

    Before Vue & Terragen became over-popular by CG artists,
    The landscapes (CG) you're referring were usually very real.
    The only difference is the place they are put and matte painting
    always looks "good" as CGI because it is usually "believable".
    As I said in another thread of this forum:
    There is a difference between what tells your eyes and what
    tells your brain.

    Your brain here at 1:38 will obviously tell you there is CG:

    Because it can't believe there were so many soldiers, or the
    set itself seems to not exist in real life.
    Yet if you ask your eyes "what is CG for sure" I'm pretty sure
    they have no idea at all.
    Spoiler (click to show/hide)

    Brain & Eyes, working together, yet, different things.

    yeah but I actually cited LOTR and Jurassic Park as movies that for the most part, in my opinion, employed good usage of good CGI

    the CGI in those movies were for the most part a very positive contribution to the finished product, whereas Star Wars 1,2 and 3, probably the ultimate examples, were ruined by an endless barrage of empty CGI effects and creatures that rendered those films as nothing more than glorified cartoons with actors as mere props.

    Along with the [still amazing] opening sequence to Balde Runner, 'Alien' could be used as another example that highlights my point:

    I have not seen a single modern movie (utilising CGI effects) that has the same 'wow' factor that the whole 'derelict' sequence does in Alien. From the moment they clamber in through the openings of the ship, to the moment they encounter the Space Jockey, to the moment they come across the egg chamber and its seemingly massive scale......its 'wow' factor after 'wow' factor after 'wow' factor, and a perfect example of the powerful impact that the unique and ingenious conception and design of Giger, coupled with expert set building, model building and matte painting, can have. 

    All of this is really just to counter the argument of a previous poster who posted something along the lines of 'i cant believe anyone would build models and utilise matte paintings when CGI can do the same thing quicker, easier and in more detail'.

    I have nothing against good usage of well executed and appropriate CGI but again I have to repeat that I have yet to experience this same 'wow' factor on watching any modern day movie utilising advanced CGI effects.

    .....and this is why that for the most part, with Prometheus, I truly hope Ridley built models and sets and resorted to a [hopefully minimal] reliance on CGI only when he absolutely had to, or when the CGI actually did enhance what was being depicted on screen yet remained seemingly 'invisible' as CGI.

    When I'm finally sitting in the theatre in June 2012 and that iconic 20th Century Fox logo fades out, I for one want to experience that same dazzling 'wow' factor that I experienced, each time, during Ridley's earlier two iconic masterpieces,.

    It not going to happen. You are goint to hate CGI in that movie as much as me. :(
  21. St_Eddie
    Yes, that's the shot I was talking about. Also though it should be pointed out that the overhead view of the Colosseum that's been mentioned is actually still the built sets in Malta, augmented by CGI rather than a pure CGI shot.

    I knew that was the shot because as has been said it's iconic.

    I suspected it was augmented CGI for the overhead shot but I do maintain that it's the only shot in Gladiator that looks fake.  I think it might have to do with the lighting and the CG birds.
« Newer Comments 12345678910111213 Older Comments »
Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed