The Art of Prometheus: The Planet

Started by ikarop, Apr 18, 2012, 02:56:26 PM

Author
The Art of Prometheus: The Planet (Read 25,553 times)

ryanjayhawk

Quote from: Gekko1 on Apr 19, 2012, 11:52:27 AM
"We've got a 250ft network of tunnelling in there, 150ft of chambers and 25ft high doors." 

25 foot high doors! :o

Why would 7" high humanoids need 25" high doors?

I'm still totally convinced that we have NOT seen a Space Jockey yet. The engineer is NOT a Space Jockey. I believe in that last 8 minutes we'll see Scott's big surprise and link to Alien. It will be the return to that planet of the Space Jockeys to rescue Shaw! :o

What a way to end the film! ;D

I think the height of the doors is significant and that we haven't seen the true surprise... however I won't speculate beyond that...

ThisBethesdaSea

I do think it looks as cool...just different. I don't understand this hardline stance against the creative alterations Ridley has made. Giger is present....we see him everywhere...cleaner, less biological, but he's there.

Deuterium

Deuterium

#32







*based on a theme by ChrisP

ThisBethesdaSea

Jesus. H. Christ. ;) It's called SCIENCE-FICTION....NOT Science 'For Reals.' Give the man a break, or go and make your own perfectly realized scientifically accurate film. Please? :) :) ::) :P

Deuterium

Deuterium

#34
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 19, 2012, 04:13:43 PM
Jesus. H. Christ. ;) It's called SCIENCE-FICTION....NOT Science 'For Reals.' Give the man a break, or go and make your own perfectly realized scientifically accurate film. Please? :) :) ::) :P

Easy, TBS...just having a bit of fun.

OmegaZilla

OmegaZilla

#35
Quote from: Gekko1 on Apr 19, 2012, 11:52:27 AM
Why would 7" high humanoids need 25" high doors?
For Shoggoths.

Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 19, 2012, 03:53:39 PM



I love you (platonically).

Though Ridley should've said 'I really hate that term'. :D :P

JonesTheCat

Quote from: Kol on Apr 19, 2012, 11:24:17 AM


if it will turn out, that the derelict from alien is indeed veeeery old, than it makes sense, making the jockey's more mechanical. but the main reasons, i think why it looks now how it looks is not making a repeat in style.


But it shouldn't BE about 'style', Scott should concentrate on internal logic and continuity.

Still, let's see how it pans out.

OpenMaw

OpenMaw

#37
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 19, 2012, 04:13:43 PM
Jesus. H. Christ. ;) It's called SCIENCE-FICTION....NOT Science 'For Reals.' Give the man a break, or go and make your own perfectly realized scientifically accurate film. Please? :) :) ::) :P

I swear, i'm going to become violent in a expanding circle pattern if people keep making this excuse, because frankly the argument needs to go the other way.

Everyone always says to those who critique or joke about the science "JAYSUS D00D ITS TEH FANTASTY ENTERTAINMAINT DURP DURP! GAVE ATE A BRAKE, KAY? LOL"

No, I think it's fair to say that most science fiction films in the last decade or so have been given plenty of breaks and respite with regards to shoddy science. Yes, it's Science Fiction and as such there is an element of the fantastic. The point is those elements that are familiar to us already should be well grounded in truth. That is, they should be well researched and maturely realized. If only for the sake of being believable. It isn't the Fiction part of Science Fiction that is often ignored, it's the Science part. The part that separates Science Fiction from Fantasy in the library.

Also, the Alien series, save for the major league contrivances in Alien Resurrection, has always been generally fairly good at depicting it's science elements without getting bogged down in them. It's always tried to keep things viceral and grounded.

Let's hope Prometheus can do the same, even with it's outrageous bits here and there.


Gash

Gash

#38
I don't know why people get so uptight about this 'ancient astronaut theory, bizarrely attributing creationism to it. One of the best Sci-Fi films ever - Quatermass and the Pit - has a plot involving aliens guiding human evolution, it certainly doesn't suffer for it or feel like a dumb script. All depends on how epic it feels; how good it looks and how suspenseful it is.  Just enjoy the ride.

Do you sit and curse that you can hear the engines of the Nostromo ignite?

Valaquen

Valaquen

#39
Quote from: JonesTheCat on Apr 19, 2012, 04:38:39 PM
But it shouldn't BE about 'style', Scott should concentrate on internal logic and continuity.

Still, let's see how it pans out.
Scott's all about style. Blade Runner barely has two scenes that don't contradict the last in terms of scene placement etc. (If you read Future Noir, you get all sorts of insight into how the film was cut and edited and how footage from all over was placed here and there - same effect by putting Brett's legs in as Lambert's -- but nobody notices, really.)

Quote from: Gash on Apr 19, 2012, 06:19:29 PM
I don't know why people get so uptight about this 'ancient astronaut theory, bizarrely attributing creationism to it. One of the best Sci-Fi films ever - Quatermass and the Pit - has a plot involving aliens guiding human evolution, it certainly doesn't suffer for it or feel like a dumb script. All depends on how epic it feels; how good it looks and how suspenseful it is.  Just enjoy the ride.

Do you sit and curse that you can hear the engines of the Nostromo ignite?
Same with Kubrick's 2001. I think overexposure and the History channel show has pissed somewhat in the soup. but we have to face the fact that movie fans nowadays are simply spoiled.

Mustangjeff

Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 19, 2012, 05:27:53 PM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 19, 2012, 04:13:43 PM
Jesus. H. Christ. ;) It's called SCIENCE-FICTION....NOT Science 'For Reals.' Give the man a break, or go and make your own perfectly realized scientifically accurate film. Please? :) :) ::) :P

I swear, i'm going to become violent in a expanding circle pattern if people keep making this excuse, because frankly the argument needs to go the other way.

Everyone always says to those who critique or joke about the science "JAYSUS D00D ITS TEH FANTASTY ENTERTAINMAINT DURP DURP! GAVE ATE A BRAKE, KAY? LOL"

No, I think it's fair to say that most science fiction films in the last decade or so have been given plenty of breaks and respite with regards to shoddy science. Yes, it's Science Fiction and as such there is an element of the fantastic. The point is those elements that are familiar to us already should be well grounded in truth. That is, they should be well researched and maturely realized. If only for the sake of being believable. It isn't the Fiction part of Science Fiction that is often ignored, it's the Science part. The part that separates Science Fiction from Fantasy in the library.

Also, the Alien series, save for the major league contrivances in Alien Resurrection, has always been generally fairly good at depicting it's science elements without getting bogged down in them. It's always tried to keep things viceral and grounded.

Let's hope Prometheus can do the same, even with it's outrageous bits here and there.

What made ALIEN better than any other SCI FI at depicting it's science elements?  Did the depiction of green screen monitors and mechanical click keypads in the year 2122 make the movie science truly believable?  Lets face it, the ALIEN series pretty much has made no attempt to explain any of the "science" in any of the movies.  Is it magic at that point when something fantastic isn't explained at all?

How much of a science fiction movie needs to be science, and how much needs to be fiction?


Valaquen

Valaquen

#41
There's nothing credible (ie 'real-life') about Alien asides from the leaky pipes and irate cast members. Still captures the imagination, though.

OmegaZilla

OmegaZilla

#42
Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 19, 2012, 05:27:53 PM
Also, the Alien series, save for the major league contrivances in Alien Resurrection, has always been generally fairly good at depicting it's science elements without getting bogged down in them.
Minor scientific goofs weren't absent in the other films -- the seemingly nonsensical reaction of the Sulaco to a fire and multiple implications from Alien3's opening titles are an example, but I could make others. Point is, I don't think Resurrection is any less science-fiction-y than its predecessors.

Quote from: Mustangjeff on Apr 19, 2012, 06:29:48 PM
Did the depiction of green screen monitors and mechanical click keypads in the year 2122 make the movie science truly believable?
I guess the fact the film was made in 1979 has nothing to do with that, right? :P

Mustangjeff

Quote from: OmegaZilla on Apr 19, 2012, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: Mustangjeff on Apr 19, 2012, 06:29:48 PM
Did the depiction of green screen monitors and mechanical click keypads in the year 2122 make the movie science truly believable?
I guess the fact the film was made in 1979 has nothing to do with that, right? :P

Well that's like saying that kirk and spock should have been running around with rotary dial telephones instead of their communicators which look a lot a modern cell phone.

OmegaZilla

OmegaZilla

#44
I'm not saying it has to be like that -- but you cannot blame a 1979 film because it does not portray modern-like tech.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News