Latest News

Prometheus Set & Location Pictures

Thanks to another anonymous reader I’ve now got three new Prometheus set pictures for you feast your eyes on:

This airlock looks a lot like the exterior of the Nostromo airlock and at the top of the piece you can see a logo that looks like a cross between the W-Y logo from Aliens and the bird wings logo of Alien. The other two pictures show the cavern entrance but fully closed, you can see the hieroglyphs on the door and the landing leg from the promotional image. You can see the rest here!

These second set comes from a not-so anonymous reader, C.Reux, who found these location pictures on an Icelandic forum. These pictures show the location that was previously photoed and erroneously reported as shots from the movie. You can view them here.



Post Comment
Comments: 226
« Newer Comments 12345 Older Comments »
  1. Ash 937
    You'd never see a crew member of the Nostromo clean the grime from the walls like you do on Fury 161.  Still, Brett always seemed more disheveled to me than any of the prisoners on Fury 161. 
  2. SM
    Alien3 has rose coloured glasses in it's favour.

    B and C Deck on the Nostromo are the grubby run down dirty sets.  A Deck - not so much.  Bits look messy because of the way it's dressed with banks of circuitry and stuff but it's not actually dirty per se.
  3. ThisBethesdaSea
    I don't know about others but the Nostromo never seemed dingy to me. There were certain set pieces that were darker then others but some of the main areas, mess hall, cryo chamber, mother control room were white and sanitized or an off white and sanitized.

    And as far as ALIEN RESURRECTION is concerned. Yes, it was beautiful to look at, but in comparison to the shitty story that's not saying much. A L I E N succeeded because the sets were so perfect they nearly didn't seem like sets to begin with. What I remember more about the first 3 films is atmosphere and character, the last was all window dressing and no substance. So, in my opinion, that's not really a win.
  4. Valaquen
    Quote from: SM on Oct 17, 2011, 01:52:09 AM
    QuoteToo Clean Sets and a Alien Resurrection Feel in some of them.

    The A Deck sets for Alien were pretty clean.
    I don't even know why people expect another dingy Nostromo. It's not like the Sulaco was in tatters either. Nostromo was a glorified truck, it was gonna be dirty in most places, except for, understandably, the medical bay and eating area. The ships in Prometheus are apparently top-of-the-line (if there's any connection to the Shadow 19 script, anyway) and on a exploratory mission (according to the synopsis). It's gonna be clean!  :(
  5. Glaive
    Quote from: RoaryUK on Oct 16, 2011, 03:17:12 PM
    Quote from: JaaayDee on Oct 15, 2011, 01:37:47 PM
    Thanks for sharing your opinion, with which I humbly disagree with.

    Yeah me too, I also wish people would STOP using A:R as a lame excuse for dissing everything.  No it wasn't great from a story perspective, but that movie had some of the finest set pieces and art direction of ALL the Alien/Predator films, and is still a fine example of how films should be made... end of rant!!   ;D

    Thanks for sharing...
    I now know where to place you, much as you've placed A:R...
  6. RoaryUK
    Quote from: JaaayDee on Oct 15, 2011, 01:37:47 PM
    Thanks for sharing your opinion, with which I humbly disagree with.

    Yeah me too, I also wish people would STOP using A:R as a lame excuse for dissing everything.  No it wasn't great from a story perspective, but that movie had some of the finest set pieces and art direction of ALL the Alien/Predator films, and is still a fine example of how films should be made... end of rant!!   ;D   
  7. ikarop
    There's no conspiracy, seriously. If Fox or any other company wanted to start a viral marketing campaign they would have used much better quality and less spoilery material. The screen-capture they sent out around SDCC is a perfect example of viral and official marketing.
  8. Corporal Hicks
    Anyone else remember a time when people actually trusted me? You wanna be fools about it be my guests but I am well aware of where and who these images came from. If that isn't enough for you guys to believe me, obviously nothing I can do about it.
  9. Corporal Hicks
    Quote from: Glaive on Oct 15, 2011, 10:01:02 AM
    Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 15, 2011, 09:44:23 AM
    A grainy photo is never representative of the finished project and can sometimes (not that these have) insight some anger and disappointment towards the films.



    Can you give some examples of where that HAS been the case?

    As for people getting irritated about things in leaked pics? Not any specific examples off the top of my head but if you go to general movie sites I'm sure you'll see some comments. As for the pictures not looking the same as the movie, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that will obviously be the case.

    And like I said, I know for a fact these weren't deliberate leaks.
  10. Corporal Hicks
    Not necessarily. These photos are never lit the way the movie will be, they wont show the sets or location in the same way and sometimes this can make them look worse than they will be. A grainy photo is never representative of the finished project and can sometimes (not that these have) insight some anger and disappointment towards the films.

    This isn't viral marketing. They can do better than that. Plus, I know where these came from and it wasn't Fox employees so take my word when I say these aren't Fox distributed or some conspiracy to promote the film. Not that you guys will believe me but for those out there that might.
  11. ThisBethesdaSea
    I agree with Glaive....the leaked images only further surround the film with mystery. "what is it? What are these images? I want more" that fuels a viral campaign. A damaging photo would have to be something different.
  12. Glaive
    Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Oct 14, 2011, 07:34:58 PM
    Am afraid not guys. These kind if leaks never look representitive of the finished movie and can make stuff worse. It's not in their interests.

    Oh, really? It certainly pricked-up many sites ears (INCLUDING THIS ONE.).
    How is this NOT in their interest?
    How does it make STUFF worse? (what STUFF?...worse than WHAT?)

    I don't understand what you mean.
    ...and I don't think YOU understand what's being said.
  13. Gash
    In regards to practical sets Ridley has stated that it is better to build it, light it and shoot it by preference. I think he quotes Trumbull as guiding him in that and his views don't appear to have changed over more than thirty years. He likes to operate the camera on occasion so I reckon sets are as important to him as they are to actors. On  A  L  I  E  N  he made the point that switches and dials on the Nostromo bridge actually did things and that all helped the actors feel the reality of the situation.

    I've never really got the impression Ridley would be a director to rely too heavily on green screen, thankfully he's a film maker that regards CGI as one of the tools of the trade and will use it to augment reality. Obviously Prometheus will probably be his most digitally enhanced film but he's a very artistic director and he doesn't want effects to jar with the gritty reality of what he has shot practically. I can't, off hand, think of any Scott film in which CGI has looked as obvious as in most recent blockbuster films. As to the issue of cost, again Ridley has mentioned that it is no cheaper to use quality CGI than it is to do things practically.

    To me it one of the big selling points of Prometheus, that it is an epic film, made in the tradition of classics, but with the advantage of digital enhancements under the guidance of a director who is a genuine artist. I agree with Cameron's point that it's about time Scott got back to Sci-Fi where he can really spread his wings creatively. That Scott is doing it from a 'practical' starting point is wonderful IMHO.
  14. Corporal Hicks
    I do believe you were all asked by a Global Mod to go start another thread if you wanna continue this debate. See to it you do guys. Don't want anymore posts dealing with this issue here, this is for talking about the set and location pictures. Thanxkaybai.
  15. ThisBethesdaSea
    This started when ASH posted about CGI being used as opposed to practical sets. Then, the conversation devolved into 'good actors don't need sets or people to act around or with."

    Anyway....

    PROMETHEUS TRAILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hurry the F*ck Up!!!!!
  16. Alien³
    I've lost sight as to why everyone is talking about what the actors do when faced with green screen.
    Has this all been brought up because people are worried that Prometheus will use green screen?
  17. RoaryUK
    Quote from: SM on Oct 14, 2011, 02:26:01 AM
    Loads of actors pull it off with no problem.  Lots of Star Wars sets were 100% green screen.  While the acting wasn't anything special it was more than adequate for the type of film they were making.

    Andy Serkis didn't even have a green screen when he was doing mocap for LOTR and King Kong.  I suspect the same was true for a lot of Avatar.

    Totally agree with this!  Wether or not an actor buys into what they are paid to do is not the point, if they can't sell what the audience is meant to see they shouldn't be in the game at all, some things should just come naturally.  By the same token, any good actor would make light work of a bad script, something all the Star Wars prequels were guilty of in my opinion. A fine example of this would be the excellent Scottish stage and screen actor Ian McDiarmid, who practically lifted Lucas's lame writing skills single handed, as opposed to the likes of Hayden Christensen, the 'star' of those films, who isn't neccesarily a bad actor, but who was clearly out of his depth when it came to making the audience believe in something just because he couldn't see it.
  18. Valaquen
    Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Oct 14, 2011, 12:58:57 PM
    What sold Yoda was Frank Oz. Period. And the actors on Avatar were there in person, recording mo cap. Obviously their surroundings were green screen but they acted against each other, not a wooden poll. In LOTR, there also were actors and partial sets present, the rest enhanced with CGI. Andy Serkis was also on set, on location with the actors portraying the hobbit. For his more intimate scenes, it was just Andy Serkis by himself, playing off himself.
    I think it's as simple as 'Lucas can't direct actors.' Even Portman, a great actress, was flat in those movies. He isn't a good writer either; both things he has admitted to personally. (sets were also built for Avatar)
« Newer Comments 12345 Older Comments »
AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News