Exclusive: New Prometheus Trailer Footage

Started by ikarop, Nov 26, 2011, 08:39:19 PM

Author
Exclusive: New Prometheus Trailer Footage (Read 157,865 times)

Choirboy

Choirboy

#540
I just read an article in Swedens largest newspaper where the editor is declearing that this movie will answer all the questions about the SJ and is pitching it ass an all out prequel to Alien. He also writes a rather amusing description of when he snuck in at the movies to see Aliens at age 11 by tucking a coat hanger in his jacket to look bigger  ;D
He also mentiones wathing the leaked trailer 20 times and sadly comes to the realization that the movie will never be as awesome as what he (or all of us Alien fans really) imagines in his mind while watching a crap quality off screen trailer.
There is of course no new real info but i just thought it was cool that the leaked trailer made it's way to such a unlikely place.

The title is: "Here comes the answers that all Alien fans have waited for since 1979"

http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/kronikor/fredrik-strage-nu-kommer-svaren-som-alla-alien-fans-har-vantat-pa-sedan-1979

Valaquen

Valaquen

#541
Quote from: SiL on Dec 02, 2011, 07:52:39 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 01, 2011, 12:23:55 PM
There was some stop-motion in there.
What parts? I've never been able to spot any.
I could be wrong, but I'm sure it was the one shot of the two raptors once they've stepped inside the kitchens, and one snaps at the other. Just that one shot. If anyone knows to the contrary, chip in  :)

Xenomorphine

Quote from: JKS1 on Nov 30, 2011, 02:27:36 PMSo, 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.

St_Eddie

St_Eddie

#543
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 02, 2011, 04:07:47 PM
Quote from: JKS1 on Nov 30, 2011, 02:27:36 PMSo, 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.

Bad Replicant

Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 02, 2011, 03:50:44 PM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 02, 2011, 07:52:39 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 01, 2011, 12:23:55 PM
There was some stop-motion in there.
What parts? I've never been able to spot any.
I could be wrong, but I'm sure it was the one shot of the two raptors once they've stepped inside the kitchens, and one snaps at the other. Just that one shot. If anyone knows to the contrary, chip in  :)

That'd be cg. The movements in that shot are almost identical to what you see in Tippet's animatic, though.

St_Eddie

St_Eddie

#545
Quote from: Bad Replicant on Dec 02, 2011, 04:25:10 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 02, 2011, 03:50:44 PM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 02, 2011, 07:52:39 AM
Quote from: Valaquen on Dec 01, 2011, 12:23:55 PM
There was some stop-motion in there.
What parts? I've never been able to spot any.
I could be wrong, but I'm sure it was the one shot of the two raptors once they've stepped inside the kitchens, and one snaps at the other. Just that one shot. If anyone knows to the contrary, chip in  :)

That'd be cg. The movements in that shot are almost identical to what you see in Tippet's animatic, though.

Aye because the CGI was animated by using that animatic as a reference point.

newbeing

newbeing

#546
Actually its a little bit of stop motion mixed with CG. Sort of wish they would have kept this tech as I thought it gave the animated characters more weight, which seems to be missing in today's recent CGI effects.

QuoteAs it turned out, Tippett was to play a large role in Jurassic Park as well and would ultimately share an Academy Award for that movie. Fortunately, Craig Hayes, art director and visual effects supervisor at Tippett Studio, had been working on an armature device to feed stop-motion animation data into Softimage`s 3D animation software. And Dennis Muren was interested in keeping Tippett involved in the project. The Dinosaur Input Device, or DID, as the armature came to be called, was used for 15 of the 52 computer animation shots in Jurassic Park, including the road sequence in which the T-Rex attacks the tourists` jeep and the kitchen sequence in which the two velociraptors hunt the children.

http://www.angelfire.com/film/philtippett/articles/realtroopers.html


Valaquen

Valaquen

#547
So I was ... right?

Le Celticant

Quote from: St_Eddie on Dec 02, 2011, 04:19:46 PM
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 02, 2011, 04:07:47 PM
Quote from: JKS1 on Nov 30, 2011, 02:27:36 PMSo, 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9gVWG5IQ7w#
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

Here you go for your answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSPeRaePkk#ws
MOUHAHAHAHA!!
[close]

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

Gash

Gash

#549
I'm not sure it's a great example really for the very reasons you're saying -  it's hard to say what's real and what's not but it's one of those shots that screams CGI because it's there to impress with scale, therefore the fact it's a composite is quite glaring. There's no issue over the quality of the CGI or composition, but the way the scene has been chosen to be shot adds to a sense of unreality. It's a problem of sci fi and fantasy, the temptation is to go for the wow factor.

However, If CGI was used in the battles in Kingdom of Heaven, which I assume it was, it's been shot in a much more old school 'David Lean' epic sort of way: not adding extra disassociation with lots of flying camera moves.

I'm not too worried about Ridley Scott employing CGI, he isn't going to carefully craft and light a film only for the FX to scupper a sense of reality. He decided not to have a CGI rhino fight in Gladiator, and has preferred to use sets and practical FX augmented by CGI in the last decade.

Look at the trouble they went to with the final cut of Blade Runner, bringing back Joanna Cassidy and Harrison Ford's son to fix shots rather than just rely on CGI. Ridley knows how to use the tools of the filmmaking trade to the best advantage.

newbeing


ThisBethesdaSea

I just rewatched the leaked trailer and at 36 seconds in, you see some guy and there's hands, with claws, around his neck....at first I thought...no, they're not claws, but, I forwarded it just a few frames, and indeed, something is holding this guy.....creepy.

Valaquen

Valaquen

#552
A HD trailer soon, I hope.

The Xenoborg

Yeah hopefully very soon. Since, people actually saw a leaked trailer.

Glaive


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