Exclusive: New Prometheus Trailer Footage

[cockroach]

does anyone have a download link for the original 15sec leaked footAGE? i was at work so didn't get to see heard there were more creature shots in it?

[Glaive]

...there AREN'T more creature shots in it...and is much worse than the most recent 'leak'...

[JKS1]

Anybody post this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvR_FlHDEfc#

Mr Scott making a whole lot of sense

[cockroach]

but someone said a shiny/slimey black snake like creature features in a quick shot?

[JKS1]

So, 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.

yeah but I actually cited LOTR and Jurassic Park as movies that for the most part, in my opinion, employed good usage of good CGI

the CGI in those movies were for the most part a very positive contribution to the finished product, whereas Star Wars 1,2 and 3, probably the ultimate examples, were ruined by an endless barrage of empty CGI effects and creatures that rendered those films as nothing more than glorified cartoons with actors as mere props.

Along with the [still amazing] opening sequence to Balde Runner, 'Alien' could be used as another example that highlights my point:

I have not seen a single modern movie (utilising CGI effects) that has the same 'wow' factor that the whole 'derelict' sequence does in Alien. From the moment they clamber in through the openings of the ship, to the moment they encounter the Space Jockey, to the moment they come across the egg chamber and its seemingly massive scale......its 'wow' factor after 'wow' factor after 'wow' factor, and a perfect example of the powerful impact that the unique and ingenious conception and design of Giger, coupled with expert set building, model building and matte painting, can have. 

All of this is really just to counter the argument of a previous poster who posted something along the lines of 'i cant believe anyone would build models and utilise matte paintings when CGI can do the same thing quicker, easier and in more detail'.

I have nothing against good usage of well executed and appropriate CGI but again I have to repeat that I have yet to experience this same 'wow' factor on watching any modern day movie utilising advanced CGI effects.

.....and this is why that for the most part, with Prometheus, I truly hope Ridley built models and sets and resorted to a [hopefully minimal] reliance on CGI only when he absolutely had to, or when the CGI actually did enhance what was being depicted on screen yet remained seemingly 'invisible' as CGI.

When I'm finally sitting in the theatre in June 2012 and that iconic 20th Century Fox logo fades out, I for one want to experience that same dazzling 'wow' factor that I experienced, each time, during Ridley's earlier two iconic masterpieces,.

[Gash]

I don't think you need worry: it's always been Ridley's approach.

Personally I think there was also a wow factor to the scene of the protagonists entering the arena in Gladiator, which was a tasteful CG extension of a real set. The set construction of Prometheus suggests the same approach to me.

Also remember Ridley's comments on the first   A   L   I   E   N  DVD commentary about the facehugger moving in the egg, that you could spend thousands on such an effect but it's just not needed. Ridley was a consummate experienced director long before his first film and knew about lenses and lighting. He's not going to suddenly change his spots and turn into some fool enthralled by CGI.

[JKS1]

I don't think you need worry: it's always been Ridley's approach.

Personally I think there was also a wow factor to the scene of the protagonists entering the arena in Gladiator, which was a tasteful CG extension of a real set. The set construction of Prometheus suggests the same approach to me.

Also remember Ridley's comments on the first   A   L   I   E   N  DVD commentary about the facehugger moving in the egg, that you could spend thousands on such an effect but it's just not needed. Ridley was a consummate experienced director long before his first film and knew about lenses and lighting. He's not going to suddenly change his spots and turn into some fool enthralled by CGI.

Well, I dont sadly.

While I really enjoyed Gladiator and thought it was overall a cool movie, I can barely remember the scene you mention. I can only very vaguely visualise it in my mind, even though I've seen the film numerous times, whereas those stunning sequences in Blade Runner and Alien are almost permanently etched into my brain.

Now for me THAT is what a 'wow' factor is all about. Something that has a huge impact on you when you first witness it............and then when you see it again DECADES later.......... its STILL amazing !!!

Its almost as though you cant quite believe what youre looking at, but its there on screen, and it looks real....afterwards youre left wondering 'how the hell did they do that ?!' (and with a complete absence of CGI)

I'm doubtful that Prometheus can live up to the sort of precedent that Ridley set with Blade Runer and Alien though. Hopeful............ but doubtful. (and Id absolutely love to be proved wrong)
In the context of movies and effects in the late 70s and early 80s it must have been absolutely mindblowing to sit in a theatre and witness those movies for the first time on the silver screen.

Ridley has a hell of a lot to live up to and I sincerely hope he delivers.

[Alien³]

Now for me THAT is what a 'wow' factor is all about. Something that has a huge impact on you when you first witness it............and then when you see it again DECADES later.......... its STILL amazing !!!

Its almost as though you cant quite believe what youre looking at, but its there on screen, and it looks real....afterwards youre left wondering 'how the hell did they do that ?!' (and with a complete absence of CGI)

I'm doubtful that Prometheus can live up to the sort of precedent that Ridley set with Blade Runer and Alien though. Hopeful............ but doubtful. (and Id absolutely love to be proved wrong)

I doubt that Prometheus is going to change cinema forever like Alien however it might just prove to be an instant classic even if its CGI isn't the best.

[ThisBethesdaSea]

All the doubters.....boo


I'd like to think that Prometheus will do what ALIEN and BLADERUNNER did, in its own way.

[Alien³]

I'd like to think that Prometheus will do what ALIEN and BLADERUNNER did, I'm its own way.

Well it does have the potential to be up there with the greats.

[Gash]

Well, I agree to some extent. I did see both  A  L  I  E  N  and Blade Runner on original cinema release and it was the tail end of the big screen epic era of film makers like David Lean, so huge scale/scope and great cinematography were far from unprecedented and, although it might seem odd now the first release of Blade Runner did not get the sort of great reaction one might've assumed. Various critics felt that the music was too reminiscent of Chariots of Fire and that the visuals swamped the film (incredible in retrospect when you see where things have gone) and whilst I was personally stunned by the visual FX of Blade Runner in 1982, it was an extension and refinement of Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

So, yeah I agree that visually both A L I E N and Blade Runner upped the ante in terms of visual FX, they almost took them to a level that can't be easily surpassed even today, you can't get any more convincing than completely convincing anyway. The trick this time around will be recreate the epic scale without undermining the reality. Sometimes the limitations of practical FX worked to its advantage because you couldn't just do anything that could possibly be imagined.

But as to the wow factor, I think its incredibly difficult to do that now, people are too used to CGI making any visual effect possible. It's only if a sense of reality can be maintained that you might still create that impression. So in some ways, the fact that you can't recall the CGI enhancement to the colosseum is a compliment to it's integration into the scene.

I did some work a few years ago for an model FX unit based at Ealing film studios and the prevailing view was that there are two types of visual FX: the obvious (impossible shot) for the wow factor) and the invisible, integrated shot... and the preference amongst those working in the field seemed to be for the integrated.

I have no doubt Prometheus will have stunning visuals - ten years ago Gary Oldman's prosthetic make-up on Hannibal was horrifyingly otherworldly so I completely trust RS to deliver using all the FX tools of the trade. Can people be stunned by a vista anymore? I don't know, but if the story is strong and has a maturity, and if it's got the measured pace of a plot that is immersive, that is the most important thing.

I do think though that as this is Ridley Scott, doing 3D for the first time, it might be a game changer again in a new way.

[Alien³]

I have no doubt Prometheus will have stunning visuals - ten years ago Gary Oldman's prosthetic make-up on Hannibal was horrifyingly otherworldly so I completely trust RS to deliver using all the FX tools of the trade. Can people be stunned by a vista anymore? I don't know, but if the story is strong and has a maturity, and if it's got the measured pace of a plot that is immersive, that is the most important thing.

This pretty much sums it all up.

[JKS1]

But as to the wow factor, I think its incredibly difficult to do that now, people are too used to CGI making any visual effect possible. It's only if a sense of reality can be maintained that you might still create that impression. So in some ways, the fact that you can't recall the CGI enhancement to the colosseum is a compliment to it's integration into the scene.

I disagree
Even with todays preponderance of CGI effects in movies (largely underwhelming), and taking into account that I'm so used to seeing them and 'impossible' things on screen.......I'm STILL blown away by the visual effects in Blade Runner and the whole 'derelict' scene in Alien

I do remember an obvious 'CGI looking' wide scale (overhead i think) shot of The Colosseum in Gladiator and being unimpressed because it looked just like what it was.....CGI
I just couldnt recall the scene you mentioned, and I'm pretty sure it wasnt this one.

I have no doubt Prometheus will have stunning visuals - ten years ago Gary Oldman's prosthetic make-up on Hannibal was horrifyingly otherworldly so I completely trust RS to deliver using all the FX tools of the trade. Can people be stunned by a vista anymore?

I hope that as well as being stunning, the visuals are believable too, regardless of the strangeness or scale of whats being depicted. He did fail to do this in certain scenes in Gladiator I seem to remember, one of which I mentioned above.

Can people still be stunned by a vista ?
yes !!
absolutely
(at least I can anyway)

I don't know, but if the story is strong and has a maturity, and if it's got the measured pace of a plot that is immersive, that is the most important thing.

...that....and an environment that is believable and you really feel is 'there', or better, could actually exist

Thats why 'Avatar' is so unmemorable for me - the whole thing looks like a cartoon and theres almost nothing 'believable' about any of whats depicted on screen (as much as I love many of the ideas in the movie). It never feels like a real, solid, flesh and bone place, nor did the CGI characters seem real or 'there' in a purely physical sense.

Conversely, I thought an 'otherworldly environment' was brilliantly portrayed in Alien on LV426, considering the limited tools of the day. Much of the planet and its inhospitable nature were conveyed simply and highly effectively by the very fact that you hardly saw anything much other than the odd shapes and outlines of a landscape mostly obscured by awful weather and a lack of sunlight

I do think though that as this is Ridley Scott, doing 3D for the first time, it might be a game changer again in a new way.

I sincerely hope youre right !

[ThisBethesdaSea]

I honestly don't even know what the big deal is in terms of a physical matte painting or a digital one. I've been BLOWN AWAY by digital backdrops that were/are so stunningly beautiful in their perfection. If I'm wowed, I'm wowed, it doesn't matter what the medium is.

Gollum is another WOW for me and absolutely proves how amazing CG can be if used perfectly.

[Alien³]

Thats why 'Avatar' is so unmemorable for me - the whole thing looks like a cartoon and theres almost nothing 'believable' about any of whats depicted on screen (as much as I love many of the ideas in the movie). It never feels like a real, solid, flesh and bone place, nor did the CGI characters seem real or 'there' in a purely physical sense.

I'm the complete opposite. Although I know the world and characters are not real in Avatar, the CGI was so outstanding that it was enough to suspend my disbelief making them feel real and solid creating the sense that they were 'there.'