Latest News

New Prometheus Footage Screened For Press

This morning, 20th Century Fox held a press event in London’s Leicester Square and showed off around 15 minutes of footage from Prometheus and held a Q&A session with director Ridley Scott and stars Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron. There are a few reports online so far:

The footage opens in the year 2089 where Shaw finds some markings inside a cave (filmed on the island of Sky). Then the footage cuts to 2093 showing David and Vickers on the Prometheus ship. We’re introduced to the characters before a holographic Peter Weyland explains their mission. Read the full reports for more information. Beware of major spoilers. One thing they make clear is that the planet the story takes place on is not LV-426 but another planet called LV-223. Thanks to Darkoo for the news.



Post Comment
Comments: 145
« Newer Comments 123 Older Comments »
  1. Samus007
    Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 12, 2012, 06:57:48 PM
    Quote from: Samus007 on Apr 12, 2012, 06:56:31 PM
    I think, and lets just say it's going to be PG 13, there is no reason why the IMAX 3D versions can't be rated R, and the other versions be rated PG-13.

    If they're all PG-13, they make that much more money. That's why.
    I do agree to some extent, but lets be honest, those IMAX 3D versions are going to be sell-outs even at an R rating. And the film only gets about a 2 week run in IMAX before being replaced by the next big release anyway.
  2. Samus007
    2 hours is more than enough time to have my mind blown. I do have a feeling now though that the movie will be PG-13 and those extra 17 mins will be the NR (R) version we will get on Blu-Ray. But, even if it is PG-13, i'm sure it will still be an amazing film.
  3. x-M-x
    Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 12, 2012, 04:56:24 PM
    119 minutes would be awesome! :-*

    lol just round it up... 1 Min off by 2 hours? wow if it's true..  still tho...

    A.L.I.E.N  Runtime: 117 Min  | 116 min (director's cut)

    Aliens Runtime: 137 Min  and the USA: 154 min (special edition)

    AlienĀ³ Runtime: 114 min  | 145 min (2003 Special 'Assembly Cut' Edition)

    Alien Resurrection Runtime: 109 min  | 116 min (2003 Special Edition)

    Prometheus Runtime: 119 Min (hope we get around 140 min on the blu-ray)

    Damn, still better than nothing.
  4. ikarop
    Quote from: Darkoo on Apr 12, 2012, 03:38:37 PM
    Quote from: ikarop on Apr 12, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
    Is the runtime confirmed on that Youtube video? The French voice over is giving me a headache...

    Source
    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=hu&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.silence-action.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fapercu-prometheus-science-fiction-prestige%2F

    I know :). Fox France posted the recording but I'm trying to get the actual quote from Ridley for the news. The question about the director's cut is asked at minute 30 but the voice over is way to loud to make out the words.
  5. Glaive
    I'm actually MORE curious how you could translate that ANY other way...believe me, I'm as baffled by YOU, as you are by ME.


    ...also, if you NEED to post an emoticon to show a point...it REALLY undermines things.

    (...ahhh, you're American...that explains...)
  6. Prime113
    Hmmm, I'm not seeing how you could do that. I've seen plenty of post like that on this thread. Maybe they were all being sarcastic and not actually getting fed up with people bitching about rating and runtime.  :-\
  7. Glaive
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:45:47 PM
    Quote from: Glaive on Apr 12, 2012, 03:42:15 PM
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:31:52 PM
    Try reading more before you post shit like that. Seriously, leave that to other people, not you, Bethesda.

    And you can't say you a truly satisfied or not satisfied until you've see the movie.

    Try understanding sarcasm/ irony before you post, Prime113.

    We all know sarcasm does not go well over on the interwebs. That's why there are such things as emoticons, specifically this one -  :P -  And how do you know for sure he was being sarcastic or ironic?

    Reading his entire post.
  8. Prime113
    Quote from: Glaive on Apr 12, 2012, 03:42:15 PM
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:31:52 PM
    Try reading more before you post shit like that. Seriously, leave that to other people, not you, Bethesda.

    And you can't say you a truly satisfied or not satisfied until you've see the movie.

    Try understanding sarcasm/ irony before you post, Prime113.

    We all know sarcasm does not go well over on the interwebs. That's why there are such things as emoticons, specifically this one -  :P -  And how do you know for sure he was being sarcastic or ironic?
  9. RoaryUK
    Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 12, 2012, 03:29:08 PM
    My god.....you people...nothing satisfies you...

    "It's only 2 hours? I'm already disappointed"

    "It's not rate R? It'll suck. You sellout Ridley Scott."

    "Too much CGI...You sold out Ridley Scott. but use CG with to make the Jockey seem 13 foot tall, that's fine"

    No one actually said any of that, they just expressed an opinion about it... isn't that what these forums are for!!  Stop being such a killjoy...pleeeaaassssee.    ;D
  10. Prime113
    Try reading more before you post shit like that. Seriously, leave that to other people, not you, Bethesda.

    And you can't say you a truly satisfied or not satisfied until you've see the movie.
  11. ThisBethesdaSea
    My god.....you people...nothing satisfies you...

    "It's only 2 hours? I'm already disappointed"

    "It's not rate R? It'll suck. You sellout Ridley Scott."

    "Too much CGI...You sold out Ridley Scott. but use CG with to make the Jockey seem 13 foot tall, that's fine"

    :P :P :P :D :o ??? ??? :laugh:
  12. Prime113
    Quote from: NGR01 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:07:27 PM
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:27:33 PM
    Hmmm  :-\ I wish it was about two and half hours, but I wish that upon every movie I am excited for. 1:59 isn't bad, but you'll have to take away at least 7 minutes of credits, so we're down to 1:52, atleast. Nitpicking, I know.

    Also, we have to remember that we are dealing with one of the greediest companies out there. I wouldn't put it past FOX to make Ridley cut it down 45 minutes or so to fit another showing in per day.

    Scott said it was 1H59 without the credits.
    Again its all about execution.
    Its the same with the rating.
    Have a little faith fellows.

    Oh, I have faith, man. Even with the less than ideal running time, and the PG-13 rating, I will be there Friday at noon with the biggest smile in the world on my face.
  13. RoaryUK
    Quote from: CanisMajoris on Apr 12, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
    So, Ridley said that the runtime of the movie is 1:59 and its very tight an its what it should be...... he also said that there was a longer version of it (extra 17 minutes)
    But I still can't believe how the EPIC movie with some huge thematic elements can be so "short"   :-\

    Yes, that's really disappointing, expected it to be 2 hrs 30 mins at least, especially for such a huge summer 3D blockbuster release. Then again, what with Rothman pushing for a PG-13 and all the hype FOX is putting behind this movie to put bums on seats, I'm probably not the only one here thinking maybe they've shown too much already. I wouldn't be suprised if this film was butchered for its theatrical release, but with home cinema systems so great these days as long as we get old Riddles' version at some point, I couldn't care less.  :D
  14. NGR01
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:27:33 PM
    Hmmm  :-\ I wish it was about two and half hours, but I wish that upon every movie I am excited for. 1:59 isn't bad, but you'll have to take away at least 7 minutes of credits, so we're down to 1:52, atleast. Nitpicking, I know.

    Also, we have to remember that we are dealing with one of the greediest companies out there. I wouldn't put it past FOX to make Ridley cut it down 45 minutes or so to fit another showing in per day.

    Scott said it was 1H59 without the credits.
    Again its all about execution.
    Its the same with the rating.
    Have a little faith fellows.
  15. Prime113
    Quote from: Glaive on Apr 12, 2012, 03:03:49 PM
    Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 12, 2012, 02:52:52 PM
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:44:11 PM
    Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.

    ...surely you're not serious!!!  ::)

    Yes, he IS serious.


    ...and DON'T call him Shirley.

    ...(someone had to...) ;D

    Damnit!  :laugh: Wish I would'a thought of that. Nice one, Glaive.
  16. Glaive
    Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 12, 2012, 02:52:52 PM
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:44:11 PM
    Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.

    ...surely you're not serious!!!  ::)

    Yes, he IS serious.






    ...and DON'T call him Shirley.


    ...(someone had to...) ;D



  17. Prime113
    Well...Yeah, I understand that, and that's the way I want to be too, but he just came out and said "what's the point if no one would see it"  or something along those lines. People were going to see it no matter the rating. He could have stuck to his guns and made it R.
  18. Valaquen
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:54:38 PM
    Ahh. Yes, Fu$ed up. Makes perfect sense.   :P :laugh:

    The PG-13 rating was pretty shitty, but hearing Ridley Scott, one of my inspirations, sell out was the hardest part. Damnit, Scott!  :'(

    Well, even waaay back when he was promoting The Duellists, Scot in interviews claimed to make films for a wide audience. This continued throughout his career. There's just more people paying attention to what he says now.
  19. Prime113
    Ahh. Yes, Fu$ed up. Makes perfect sense.   :P :laugh:

    The PG-13 rating was pretty shitty, but hearing Ridley Scott, one of my inspirations, sell out was the hardest part. Damnit, Scott!  :'(


    Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 12, 2012, 02:52:52 PM
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:44:11 PM
    Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.

    ...surely you're not serious!!!  ::)





    Surely you aren't. Look at Cameron's last two movies $$$$ wise, now look at Scott's.
  20. CanisMajoris
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:44:11 PM
    I see. 2 hours isn't THAT short, dude. They could pull an AVP and make it 90 minutes.

    Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.

    yeah... I could live with that....... if it was R..
    I see they want to make as much money as possible, but making it shorter and + compromising the rating and watering it down is what I call a Fu$ed Up Movie..  :P

    BTW Ridley is sure that the runtime is perfect for this and it gives me some hope... but still  :-[
  21. Prime113
    I see. 2 hours isn't THAT short, dude. They could pull an AVP and make it 90 minutes.

    Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.
  22. CanisMajoris
    Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:27:33 PM
    Hmmm  :-\ I wish it was about two and half hours, but I wish that upon every movie I am excited for. 1:59 isn't bad, but you'll have to take away at least 7 minutes of credits, so we're down to 1:52, atleast. Nitpicking, I know.

    Also, we have to remember that we are dealing with one of the greediest companies out there. I wouldn't put it past FOX to make Ridley cut it down 45 minutes or so to fit another showing in per day.

    1:59 without credits..... but its still short....
    avatar was 40 minute longer and it f$#ed up every single movie in BO....
    just curious how they squeezed everything in 2 hours, but i feel i'll be disappointed....  :(
  23. CanisMajoris
    Well, the ALIEN was even shorter..... But even Ridley said that it was just a C story done in an A way......just a killing of bench of people in the claustrophobic environment .... "alien felt EPIC, but this IS EPIC" c RS.

    But how then??  ???
  24. ThisBethesdaSea
    4 hours is NOT a viable running time for something that could potentially make loads of cash. If a film is 3 hours, that means less showings...of course, this may mean nothing as Titanic and Avatar have 3 hour run times.....but Scott doesn't have that kind of credibility. If Prometheus does gangbusters then he can make the sequel as long as he wants it. I hope it does 100+ million the first weekend...then Ridley will be able to do whatever he wants for the foreseeable future.
  25. Prime113
    Hmmm  :-\ I wish it was about two and half hours, but I wish that upon every movie I am excited for. 1:59 isn't bad, but you'll have to take away at least 7 minutes of credits, so we're down to 1:52, atleast. Nitpicking, I know.

    Also, we have to remember that we are dealing with one of the greediest companies out there. I wouldn't put it past FOX to make Ridley cut it down 45 minutes or so to fit another showing in per day.
  26. Kol
    Quote from: CanisMajoris on Apr 12, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
    So, Ridley said that the runtime of the movie is 1:59 and its very tight an its what it should be...... he also said that there was a longer version of it (extra 17 minutes)
    But I still can't believe how the EPIC movie with some huge thematic elements can be so "short"   :-\

    yup, very disappointing. they did compare it, from the start to the nearly 4 hour blockbuster "lawrence of arabia" and now it turns to be half of it's size. what a shit load of f**k...  :-[
  27. CanisMajoris
    So, Ridley said that the runtime of the movie is 1:59 and its very tight an its what it should be...... he also said that there was a longer version of it (extra 17 minutes)
    But I still can't believe how the EPIC movie with some huge thematic elements can be so "short"   :-\
« Newer Comments 123 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