IGN has just posted up a new image showing the USCSS Prometheus in great detail. It includes some specs on the vessel, including nuclear powered ion plasma engines, ejectable lifeboat modules and more. You can find the image in high resolution below:
Thanks to Wobblyboddle77 for the link.
I wasn't talking about your good self, just other people that I know (see above) - obviously you are different, no problemo. I can't see the 'fake' in the trailers like you say - the technology stuff looks great IMO - apart from maybe the Jockey in situ shot.
I agree. With the proliferation of behind the scenes stuff these it's very easy to find out in advance how an effect will be achieved, and no matter how good it is, they won't buy it. And even if they do, some will still be contrary and moan.
So can I generally. Some stuff is a giveaway because you know that the effect could not be achieved in any other way - Transformers for example. No matter how crappy the storyline, I totally bought the robots. Same with Avatar. I saw the trailers and thought "Oooh, that looks terribly fake". When I saw the film thought I did an about face. The visuals were very convincing - and it was the script that was kinda fake...
I've yet to see a shot in a trailer that stood out as fake.
Even though it - set, model or pixel - is ALL fake.
Dont make silly assumptions
I was hoping before I saw any trailers that for the Prometheus exterior shots theyd be using models
I had no idea what theyd be doing
Then I saw the trailers and it was only once I saw the trailers that it became obvious that theyd gone and done what I'd hoped they wouldnt and used CGI almost entirely
Am not an insider or obsessive geek following the ins and out of this production so how would I know in advance whether or not theyd be using CGI ??!
What I see onscreen is CGI and it just doesnt look real
Some people just cannot accept CGI effects as looking real when they know in advance that it is CGI they are looking at - my brother is one of them, so is my wife. Thankfully I don't have this problem and can suspend my disbelief regardless. The marketing render of the ship looks pretty in a video game kind of way (ie. horrible) but in the film sequences it looks bang on IMO.
This nails it for me
The problem I have with the Prometheus is not the aesthetic design of the ship itself but that the external shots, at least almost all the ones weve seen in the trailer so far, look like obvious CGI - it just doesnt look like it actually exists in 'real 3D solid space'
Whereas The Nostromo did look like it existed in 'real 3D solid space'
And thats it
Even today with the so called advances in CGI tech, model ships still look more real, believable, solid and 'there in reality' than any CGI rendering
Same with Avatar, the flying craft and those battle robot things all looked like what they were....CGI
I just wished Ridley and co went old school when portraying the external views of the Prometheus, with an actual model, and then enhance this model with a little CGI tweaking here and there where necessary
Prometheus
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.creativecrash.com%2Fsystem%2Fphotos%2F000%2F115%2F202%2F115202%2Fbig%2FCruise_ship_02.jpg%3F1327992039&hash=c520fc3b6f0d9fdc5005825d08058b1ff1c376a1
Nostromo
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.made-in-china.com%2F2f0j00EeSQTWazYmbN%2FCruise-Ship-Model-1.jpg&hash=650e8b6e3166e13ffaf07482600f26ec8aa47c9d
at the end, is the same question. did you feel real or do you feel like wanna play videogames. No matter how cool or clean or grunge, if its cgi human eyes can notice. There so few cgi out there who really blow mind and pass like a real thing.
Prometheus is not.
at this pace this kind of guys would be extinct
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.starshipmodeler.com%2Fother%2F18ryjay.jpg&hash=608b7b2d262e13760763763e00b2661c0ba19156
so this one
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hrgiger.com%2Fimages%2Fmaske.jpg&hash=c4cd0754d6507ef838795f2ba51fd3fa089da513
Currenty, the functional shape of vehicles designed for human re-entry is to use atmospheric drag to slow down the vehicle by translating it's enormous kinetic energy into heat. Crewed capsules use a blunt-body lifting shape. The Space Shuttle used a delta-wing body shape. These vehicles are subject to significant heat flux, which is created by intense atmospheric compression (not friction) ahead of the vehicle. Thermal protection is achieve by either using ablative material (e.g. Apollo capsules) or a thermal protection system (e.g. reinforced carbon-carbon and ceramic heat tiles on Shuttle). Technically, both types are classified as "lifting re-entry", as their re-entry trajectory is non-ballistic. The controlled angle of rentry allows for a slower re-entry and high lift to drag ratios, even for the blunt-body capsule shape. A completely "ballistic" re-entry assumes only drag forces (no lift). Direct, ballistic re-entry is not typically survivable by a human crew, especially at the speeds of the Apollo return capsule (25,000 mph), due to the high sustained g-loads.
However, advanced futuristic spacecraft in the science-fiction genre do not generally make either a ballistic or lifting entry..and are not subject to the same thermal and dynamic stresses. Most sci-fi entry and landings employ some method of powered flight, which can greatly reduce entry speed and minimize thermal and dynamic loads. Thus are those pretty greeblings saved!
On the other hand, if he does, f**k those advertising c***s.
This clunky bitch is gonna thrill our socks off when she lands. f**k the marketing render... she's a beauty.
Yep !!
I wouldn't have described it as "down to Earth." It enters an atmosphere yet it has no aerodynamic qualities. B5's Thunderbolts are atmoshere capable Star Furies, and you can see all the design changes made to make them work in an atmosphere. They've even got sweet little fins that rotate out. The little cult TV show put enough thought into this minor ship, to give it wings for atmospheric flight, but tuck the wings back in towards the center of mass when in space so it can roll better, and they found an elegant way to do it. They made it look cool and functional.
In Prometheus we have the star vehicle of a Hollywood A movie with a big budget, and you can see that they just didn't care. It's a few odd shapes and greebling. All that greebling doesn't create hot spots that burn holes in the ship and cause it to explode. It has a complicated engine rotation system that better not malfunction because they're sure not repairing it without a space dock.
I would have taken a good long look at everything the Russians did in the cold war. They had so much stuff that was striking in appearance and yet purely functional. There were much more interesting directions they could have gone in. How about delivering the APC's seperately, and leaving them when the mission was over? How about an inflateable base camp? Then the Prometheus itself could have been a more realistic aircraft type vehicle. It wouldn't be a grunge ship like Ridley hates but it would be plausible. Just one option . . .
i'm with you on that point.
BUT what you/we are complaining about the ship, are the same complains for real space shuttles manufactured by NASA.
in the real world no one would build a ship like the nostromo or the sulaco, cos functionality stands above any design schemes. unless this realm of development becomes that advanced (to mix these abilities).
for me the prometheus has a realistic, more down to earth design and that's why it looks so standard/lame.
but you know what? i can live with it.
For exemple the colision close up looks awesome because it's a model Prometheus.
Well the movie is titled 'Prometheus'
The ship itself judging by the title alone plays a pretty central role
Yet, this central 'character' looks like something youd see in a video game, especially during the landing sequence we've seen in the trailers
The interiors look pretty cool (with the exception of the Ikea inspired room with the chandeliers), but with most of the exterior shots I've seen it looks like a bog standard CGI video game design, no real sense of scale, no real solidity, no sense that its really 'there'.
And the size of the screen youre watching it on shouldnt make a difference.
Avatar still looks like a cartoon regardless of the size of screen you watch it on.
The Nostromo landing sequence was brilliantly done and the sense of solidity and scale was achieved beautifully and believably
Yeah its a much bigger craft, but thats way beside the point
Take the 'spinners' in Blade Runner for example
Regardless of the size of screen you watch Blade Runner on, those small flying police cars look real, solid and 'there' and have that sense of scale I'm talking about.
The one shot seen so far where the Prometheus does have some 'presence', solidity and scale is during the brief glimpse we see of it crashing into the jockey ship
this is a disappointment for me, but dont take it that I'm rubbishing the movie because of it
Its just something I'm going to have to look past during what I'm pretty certain will be an excellent movie with some truly visually draw dropping moments
I just dont think the Prometheus exterior shots itself will provide any of them, which is a shame
c'mon, jusdging from trailers and pics; it true scale you will see at the cinema.
i don't like the design either, it's just standard.
but that's a commercial science ship, so what did you expected?
it's nothing special in it's design but in functionality.
Agreed
Looks like a toy at best and just doesnt have any real sense of scale or solidity
well of course, that would work. Why didn't they just say that...
Just saw this in the Verizon thread. Now this looks "official". Note how the engine/propulsion description is kept completely ambiguous: "Hybrid drive capable of interstellar and atmospheric operation".
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.verizonsweeps2.com%2FAssets%2Fimages%2Fexclusive%2Fblueprint_ex_full.jpg&hash=37a66a72e29c884063048f027c221349e08e805a
IGN released it, and it's currently on the Project Prometheus website as well, as one of the images.
LOL
That just might be the golden ticket!
Even if they make use of a subspace field in tandum with a quantum flux inverter?
Couldn't see the fine details in the image, but the Sulaco drawing does not appear to be a cross-sectional drawing. It looks like a standard elevation / othographic view, showing the right, left, top, bottom, front and back exterior views. A cross-section (obviously) shows interior detail, by cutting through the object with a imaginary plane.
Can anyone confirm if the graphical model of the Prometheus ship is "official', including the identifying notes? Because, if it is official, they should have left the description of the engines completely vague. "Nucleur Ion Propulsion" is not going to get anyone anywhere fast (high specific impulse but very low thrust), and certainly would NEVER work in launch or landing of a massive vehicle on a planet / moon with an appreciable gravitational field.
The Nostromo is a product of a point in time where space is completely commercialized - cheap or old spaceships are thrown out solely to bring back profit.
They don't want to put in all the latest gadgets, especially on a ship where it's unnecessary. For example, the holograms look like they are on the cryotubes so that an external presence - David - can monitor the crew's progress and status. By the time ALIEN comes around, the ship is able to do this all by itself (note how the crew of the Nostromo don't seem to have as dramatic side effects as the crew of the Prometheus). At that point, Weyland-Yutani ships don't need an android wandering around the ship to check up on things, so the screens on the cryotubes become extraneous and are thus removed.
That is how I see it as well.
Prometheus
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fona.de%2Fmediathek%2Ffoto%2FB_5_4_1_Schiffe_teaser.jpg&hash=c31a78f879f9da0f697cd67503b0c64a11e1a86c
Nostromo
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.static.flickr.com%2F1234%2F1029847825_a5c83e0d66.jpg&hash=0f012cc4e31b1b5faddfc9d6688479b665f7e2a8
Sulaco
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.tinypic.com%2F33yj448.jpg&hash=ed304fa2f7f9c93a9dfe178ac5413e77f3b8af03
Love the designs I've seen sofar from Prometheus - all of them
In Alien the crew were greasy truckers in space, their equipment was grubby and run down. The Prometheus is a sciencetific exploration vessel which would have state of the art technology because it has the money behind it. Bish bash and bosh.
I think so too by the way...was just sayin' "what if"
Oh I know this one.
That's because Alien was made in 1979, and Prometheus is being made today.
Not even the front part of the Nostromo (the actual ship) looks more advanced than the Prometheus.
Seems silly to me, but I'm not an Aerospace Engineer.
But as for the rest, looks freaking awesome. I hope they talk about the details of the ship in the film.
I agree with you, NA.
I don't know, however, how this fares with the modern conventions.
They match up if you consider...
The Nostromo was a United States Commercial Star Ship
The Sulaco was a United States Colonial Star Ship
What utter bobbins.
Thats odd, Nostromo isn't even the same type of ship. Prometheus is looking to be a scientific research vessel whereas the Nostromo was a commcercial mining type ship. The naming convention doesn't match up to what the US navy uses today. For example US Navy warships get the USS designation while non-warships get the prefix of United States Naval Ship.
Nice find about the pods.
WTF they were thinking those who put the legends.
Not compeletly sold on the design.
Especially the "nose".
Too aerodynamic, scifi cliché.
Thanks for the cockpit under it, i like the idea.
But i'm more fan of weird unsusual front design.
The nostromo was cool in that department.
But the prometheus will do the job ^^
i don't find it cool or neat, just pretty standard as usual spacecrafts from NASA.
the nostromo and the sulaco, they we're beautiful ships!
click to enlarge
The heat shields on top don't make sense to me (neither to NASA), unless the ship re-enters upside down. Which can be awkward considering how gravity would effect objects inside the ship.
They also didn't mention the escape pods (not the lifeboats).
i'll meet you at the cafe area. order me a tapir steak.
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lhitnukEl11qabfn3o1_400.png&hash=c90d33883c2b96cba7b84bc23748c2507720b274
The fireproof windscreen would likely come into effect during the collision of the Prometheus and the Derelict but it's highly unlikely many (or any) of the crew still on board will survive that impact. But then again, we've only seen tiny bits of footage and anything is possible.
I'm actually really liking the ship's design. And that CGI when it's landing in the trailer is flawless. I just hope they don't mess too much with a good thing and decide to throw in more particles and fog and keep adding to something that doesn't need anything added to it. That's when good CGI can turn bad.