Full Trailer (HD)

[JKS1]

i think he will have an more important role, than people admit it.

What exactly does that have to do with his performance being kinda shoddy? If he does have this kind of issue with acting, then less of him will be better. I mean, if you agreed with that initial part, wouldn't you agree? Having him be more important with a bad performance is a bad thing.

playing a douchebag & superior-being-mutation in the same movie requires two different strands; two-types of acting, when it's indeed script-driven.
and in the end: the director decides how a actor represent his role.

i just guess that holloway is an unlikeable character.

i have no issue at all with an unlikeable character if hes well played
Ian holm in Alien as a perfect example: brilliant acting of the highest order
Brion James in Blade Runner - played his part perfectly - but i certainly didnt like the character
Burke in Aliens......need I go on ?

I dont hate LMG ....why would I ?....dont know the guy......but judging by his acting from what I've seen (and I'm not just talking the trailers clips, I checked out some of his other movie and TV roles as well)...he's C list at best.

[Space Sweeper]

See, I think that's the point. Holloway isn't supposed to be a douchebag. from what it looks like he's supposed to be a bit of a tragic character. The way he sits on the bed with Shaw's unconscious form behind him indicates he does give a damn. It's just that the performance is not backing that up.

I'm not going to blame Ridley for a bad actor.

How about this; f**k what it looks like and read his character bio in the Empire Magazine article, come back here, and tell me that his excitement is out of character. The scene we're discussing here is before anything bad goes down, you'd think horrific events would change a g--



--oh yeah. Guess that makes Hudson a "tragic character", too.

How about you guys see the movie first or better yet actually look in to who the character is supposed to be before throwing shit around. It's all available out there.

Wait, his bit of excitement at the beginning of this (about to venture into what could be the greatest discovery by mankind) was hammy, but Bill Paxton's "Ultimate Badass" monologe (before facing an unknown alien enemy that has wiped out an entire colony) wasn't?

Spoiler

[close]

Nope. Bill Paxton was ace as Hudson. This guy, in this particular scene anyway, isn't. He's BAW. Big time, BAW.

I guess asking for an articulate response was a little too much. Don't get me wrong, I like Hudson and I think Paxton did a great job, but if you didn't have any bias attached to the classic Aliens and it was coming out in this day and age, you'd have the exact same problem with Hudson that you do with Halloway. And there's not a single doubt in my mind that Halloway will be a less giddy character than Hudson; he's a thrill seeking scientist with a thirsted determination to uncover our greatest mysteries. Hey, maybe you don't need to look at that Empire article now.

[OpenMaw]

How about this; f**k what it looks like and read his character bio in the Empire Magazine article, come back here, and tell me that his excitement is out of character. The scene we're discussing here is before anything bad goes down, you'd think horrific events would change a g--

Hey, Space Sweeper, I say this with as much respect as possible because I do in fact find your insight very interesting but uh, how about you chill out? You've got this agressiveness going on that's very unhealthy.

Yes, I read the article. I give it very little credance, as i've read dozens of those for countless other film and TV projects. Honestly, forget what a magazine says, or what interviews say. Often what the text says about a character turns out to be completely off the wall.

Of his final Bond outing, in response to fans questioning the realism of James Bond, Pierce Brosnan said that "Die Another Day" would be one of the most grounded and realistic Bond films. It turned out to be a nasty CGI mess.

In a magazine article on Star Trek Voyager, it was said that "Neelix" was going to be their breakout character. "Combining the charms of Odo and Quark from DS9." He turned out to be one of the most annoying characters to ever disgrace Star Trek. It was arguably The Doctor who turned out to be the shows break out character, and absolutely Seven of Nine who turned the show around several seasons in. There's a reason SFDebris has a "stupid Neelix moment" in all his Voyager reviews.

Just because a characters description is given in a magazine does not mean he will play out that way when he's exposed to an audience. Depending entirely on the way he's played, and what stays in the movie, you can get a completely different performance when compared to the concept.

So, once again, going by what we've seen of him in trailers and the clips. He comes off as hammy, and unbelievable. That is in contrast to the very talented cast he's got all around him.

So, yes, from what we've seen of him thus far. I can say his performance sucks. Why that bothers you, I don't honestly know. It's not even trashing Prometheus, it's trashing one shoddy actor's performance because he sucks when you compare him to the entire AMAZING ensemble we have for this movie. A sub-par actor sticks out far more when he's surrounded by really good actors.

Again, I shouldn't have to repeat this, but this is going by "What we have seen THUS FAR" maybe you're right and the rest of the movie will somehow explain his oddball performances, but I seriously doubt it.

Really, I want to know, why do some of you get so upset that some of us have detracting remarks? I belive some of us have even said we're still really friggin' excited for the movie.

How about you guys see the movie first or better yet actually look in to who the character is supposed to be before throwing shit around. It's all available out there.

This is a discussion thread in the twilight of speculation on a movie about to be released. Why don't you relax? What the Hell is wrong with people having opinions based on the media we've seen that you have to be so defensive over a character in a movie YOU have yet to see either? Okay, fine, you don't see the ham in the clips of him we've seen? That's fine. But follow your own advice. You haven't seen the movie, either. Why don't you reserve the judgement that this actors performance is even defensible?

Because if all of us reserved judgement, and kept our opinions and first impressions to ourselves there wouldn't be a need for a discussion forum on this site to begin with!

I guess asking for an articulate response was a little too much. Don't get me wrong, I like Hudson and I think Paxton did a great job, but if you didn't have any bias attached to the classic Aliens and it was coming out in this day and age, you'd have the exact same problem with Hudson that you do with Halloway. And there's not a single doubt in my mind that Halloway will be a less giddy character than Hudson; he's a thrill seeking scientist with a thirsted determination to uncover our greatest mysteries. Hey, maybe you don't need to look at that Empire article now.

You keep marrying written concept and final performance together. A short snippet about a character written for a magazine, or a blurb used repeatedly in interviews does not actually mean a damn. What matters is the nuances of the script, and the actor's ability to translate that into a solid performance.

The actor playing Holloway sounded completely HAMMY in his delivery. It has nothing to do with what he's supposed to be, it's the fact that he completely misses that sense of believability entirely. As some people have said "I don't believe him." It's not because we don't get what he's trying to play. It's that we can SEE that he's trying to play something to begin with. An actor's performance should be invisible. Do you disagree with that?

[Cvalda]

Have to agree with OpenMaw on this one. Marshall-Green has been the ugly sore thumb in this cast since the first images were released, and he just gets worse with each further reveal.

Hopefully his character dies off early and has a minimum of screentime.

[SpaceMarines]

I liked the cheer. Sounded like the kinda cheer someone might give whilst on the cusp of being immortalized forever in history.

[First Blood]

I'd like to see more of Ralph Spall. Haven't seen much of him at all actually. Besides being slumped over in a chair with a hoodie.

[Space Sweeper]

How about this; f**k what it looks like and read his character bio in the Empire Magazine article, come back here, and tell me that his excitement is out of character. The scene we're discussing here is before anything bad goes down, you'd think horrific events would change a g--

Hey, Space Sweeper, I say this with as much respect as possible because I do in fact find your insight very interesting but uh, how about you chill out? You've got this agressiveness going on that's very unhealthy.

Goodness, your ability to determine whether somebody is angry or provocative is almost as bad as your ability to determine whether somebody is "hammy" or excited. 

Yes, I read the article. I give it very little credance, as i've read dozens of those for countless other film and TV projects. Honestly, forget what a magazine says, or what interviews say. Often what the text says about a character turns out to be completely off the wall.

So I assume you miss the part when they directly describe footage/lines from the movie to support their claim on what the character is like...? 

So, yes, from what we've seen of him thus far. I can say his performance sucks. Why that bothers you, I don't honestly know. It's not even trashing Prometheus, it's trashing one shoddy actor's performance because he sucks when you compare him to the entire AMAZING ensemble we have for this movie. A sub-par actor sticks out far more when he's surrounded by really good actors.

Really, I want to know, why do some of you get so upset that some of us have detracting remarks? I belive some of us have even said we're still really friggin' excited for the movie.

Lemme just get this out here: I'm not questioning you because I interpreted that as you being against the movie, it's the fact that you're focusing on a character (well the actor's portrayal or them) that literally has done no wrong. But the part that I really bat an eye at? The fact that nobody can describe what's so "hammy" or "unrealistic" about LMG's acting. And before you ask, no I'm not some LMG fanatic, and I don't think I've seen him in anything before. It's like the people that hate Lindelof because they heard from a vocal minority that Lost's ending 'sucked', or maybe they just don't like his tweets... and almost take that to the point where you'd think it reflects his writing.

This is a discussion thread in the twilight of speculation on a movie about to be released. Why don't you relax? What the Hell is wrong with people having opinions based on the media we've seen that you have to be so defensive over a character in a movie YOU have yet to see either? Okay, fine, you don't see the ham in the clips of him we've seen? That's fine. But follow your own advice. You haven't seen the movie, either. Why don't you reserve the judgement that this actors performance is even defensible?

I'm reserving judgment by not lashing out against stuff like this as an inarticulate child would. As for reserving judgement that the actor's performance is defensible? Consider this; we've seen the same things here, but I'm not crying out against it. As I said, everybody is complaining about something in such a vague manner and then failing to explain what was so bad about it. When we eventually get responses, it's usually some crap like "people don't act like that in an Alien movie".

You keep marrying written concept and final performance together. A short snippet about a character written for a magazine, or a blurb used repeatedly in interviews does not actually mean a damn. What matters is the nuances of the script, and the actor's ability to translate that into a solid performance.

Many of these are based on what these people have seen from the characters, which is undoubtedly more than we have. If they're characters at all, they'll display what they're like as soon as they enter the spotlight. Consider also, that many of these are based on what the cast and crew [director, screenwriters] are saying in interviews. These are more than likely accurate. Unless you've got this "tragic figure" thing in your mind still, I think their word means a bit more than what you make out of one shot from the trailer.

The actor playing Holloway sounded completely HAMMY in his delivery. It has nothing to do with what he's supposed to be, it's the fact that he completely misses that sense of believability entirely. As some people have said "I don't believe him." It's not because we don't get what he's trying to play. It's that we can SEE that he's trying to play something to begin with. An actor's performance should be invisible. Do you disagree with that?

If you're willing to make the claim that he sounded hammy, you'd best be prepared to explain what sounded hammy about it. Consider the words we've heard him say, and then consider what was in the script; as you said, "What matters is the nuances of the script, and the actor's ability to translate that into a solid performance", so consider, where was the weakness in his delivery? I'm not asking of a step by step break down on the art of acting, I'm asking you to tell me what was so "hammy" in his words and why you think that it's been such a deviation from the character you imagine he's supposed to be.

I may sound like I've got some rough edges, OpenMaw, but really I'm just trying to get some answers out of this gentleman's quarrel.

[OpenMaw]

Goodness, your ability to determine whether somebody is angry or provocative is almost as bad as your ability to determine whether somebody is "hammy" or excited. 

Well, i'm glad you're feeling better anyway.

So I assume you miss the part when they directly describe footage/lines from the movie to support their claim on what the character is like...? 

No, I didn't miss that at all. I think I explained adequately why I don't take those kind of magazine articles, even ones expressing specifics, to be a clear indication of performance. The people doing the articles, the people involved with the production, are biased in the films favor.

Lemme just get this out here: I'm not questioning you because I interpreted that as you being against the movie, it's the fact that you're focusing on a character (well the actor's portrayal or them) that literally has done no wrong. But the part that I really bat an eye at? The fact that nobody can describe what's so "hammy" or "unrealistic" about LMG's acting. And before you ask, no I'm not some LMG fanatic, and I don't think I've seen him in anything before. It's like the people that hate Lindelof because they heard from a vocal minority that Lost's ending 'sucked', or maybe they just don't like his tweets... and almost take that to the point where you'd think it reflects his writing.

You'll have to forgive me on that one. I was referring more in general, than directly at you.

I'm reserving judgment by not lashing out against stuff like this as an inarticulate child would. As for reserving judgement that the actor's performance is defensible? Consider this; we've seen the same things here, but I'm not crying out against it. As I said, everybody is complaining about something in such a vague manner and then failing to explain what was so bad about it. When we eventually get responses, it's usually some crap like "people don't act like that in an Alien movie".

Except, you're not reserving judgement in one respect. You're being defensive against those that do raise an opinion against the film.

Many of these are based on what these people have seen from the characters, which is undoubtedly more than we have. If they're characters at all, they'll display what they're like as soon as they enter the spotlight. Consider also, that many of these are based on what the cast and crew [director, screenwriters] are saying in interviews. These are more than likely accurate. Unless you've got this "tragic figure" thing in your mind still, I think their word means a bit more than what you make out of one shot from the trailer.

As I said previously, I also factor in the bias of the people saying certain things. They're not going to tell you if something is bad, for obvious reasons. They may not even see it themselves. Speaking as someone who's been close to a few projects before, mostly my own, it becomes very hard to see when something isn't working because you've fallen in love with it, or you greatly enjoy it. It's easier to ignore, or be blinded towards flaws when you're close to something.

If you're willing to make the claim that he sounded hammy, you'd best be prepared to explain what sounded hammy about it.

As I and others have stated. I didn't believe his performance. He sounded off. He sticks out both visually and in his performance as a whole. This isn't the only clip we've seen of him, either. We've seen several bits of his performance, and with each of them, as Cvalda said, he's gotten worse.

For instance, the bits of him during the briefing felt... Like they were being read. Instead of a genuine sense of excitement(something Noomi is doing far better, she's got a child-like glee to her character) it just sounds like he's running an infomercial. He's a little too over pronounced in his mannerisms is part of the problem. A Shatnerian quality to it.

Consider the words we've heard him say, and then consider what was in the script; as you said, "What matters is the nuances of the script, and the actor's ability to translate that into a solid performance", so consider, where was the weakness in his delivery? I'm not asking of a step by step break down on the art of acting, I'm asking you to tell me what was so "hammy" in his words and why you think that it's been such a deviation from the character you imagine he's supposed to be.

I'll have to say, read what I just wrote above. I think that summarizes my problems pretty solidly. He lacks elements of subtlety, and the way he speaks the words does not really indicate to me a sincerity. David, Vickers, Shaw, Fifield, and Janek all convey a better sense of verisimilitude than he does.

I may sound like I've got some rough edges, OpenMaw, but really I'm just trying to get some answers out of this gentleman's quarrel.

It's okay, sweeps. I still love you.

[Space Sweeper]

Goodness, your ability to determine whether somebody is angry or provocative is almost as bad as your ability to determine whether somebody is "hammy" or excited. 

Well, i'm glad you're feeling better anyway.

Touche. 

So I assume you miss the part when they directly describe footage/lines from the movie to support their claim on what the character is like...? 

No, I didn't miss that at all. I think I explained adequately why I don't take those kind of magazine articles, even ones expressing specifics, to be a clear indication of performance. The people doing the articles, the people involved with the production, are biased in the films favor.

What else are they going to say? "Holloway looks like an utterly shithouse character and I hope he gets killed off ASAP"? That's not an observation, it's an opinion. It's difficult to be biased based on observation.

I'm reserving judgment by not lashing out against stuff like this as an inarticulate child would. As for reserving judgement that the actor's performance is defensible? Consider this; we've seen the same things here, but I'm not crying out against it. As I said, everybody is complaining about something in such a vague manner and then failing to explain what was so bad about it. When we eventually get responses, it's usually some crap like "people don't act like that in an Alien movie".

Except, you're not reserving judgement in one respect. You're being defensive against those that do raise an opinion against the film.

Really, the only thing I've been defensive of is LMG's acting job from what little we've seen (and yes, I'll assess that right after this), and Damon Lindelof. The attacks on these two I've found disappointingly unsupported so far. Anything else... I just watch fly by my eyes with disappointment as they get lost in horrific clouds of expectation and over-analysis. 

If you're willing to make the claim that he sounded hammy, you'd best be prepared to explain what sounded hammy about it.

As I and others have stated. I didn't believe his performance. He sounded off. He sticks out both visually and in his performance as a whole. This isn't the only clip we've seen of him, either. We've seen several bits of his performance, and with each of them, as Cvalda said, he's gotten worse.

For instance, the bits of him during the briefing felt... Like they were being read. Instead of a genuine sense of excitement(something Noomi is doing far better, she's got a child-like glee to her character) it just sounds like he's running an infomercial. He's a little too over pronounced in his mannerisms is part of the problem. A Shatnerian quality to it.

Luckily for me, this is exactly what I thought the complaint would be about.

You know in trailers where people start sounding disjointed, or as you so aptly called "Shatnerian"? Those are edit points, where people chop up entire dialogue fragments to grab the viewer/listener faster. Remember Janek's awkward sounding "Kill--EVERYTHING"? There's one right there. I'll bet my bottom dollar right here that there is more dialogue or even an expanded exchange in the actual film. Just about every action movie (to fit the fast pace) or raunchy comedy (to make "appropriate for all viewers") has these moments in their trailers. It sounds awkward, definitely, but it's a shame to see the actors catching so much flak for this.

To point out exactly where there's were in LMG's dialogue...:

[International trailer]
"These are--IMAGES", came off sounding particularly strange, but you can tell that there is more between this. It's usually when the actor/actress' mouth isn't shown too. There're probably more of these edits from the same part (considering he's doing a large presentation, and it's doubtful that he'd be rushing along at this pace), but they're much more elegantly done.

[Featurette]
"Woo! Come on! You ready to do this--I KNOW YOU ARE."
It not only sounds cut up (and again, there could be more than that), but it even sounds sped up, too. Also, LMG's mouth stops moving (when we finally see this) right at the edit point.

I really do hate getting all anal about this, but it's definitely part of my case.

Consider the words we've heard him say, and then consider what was in the script; as you said, "What matters is the nuances of the script, and the actor's ability to translate that into a solid performance", so consider, where was the weakness in his delivery? I'm not asking of a step by step break down on the art of acting, I'm asking you to tell me what was so "hammy" in his words and why you think that it's been such a deviation from the character you imagine he's supposed to be.

I'll have to say, read what I just wrote above. I think that summarizes my problems pretty solidly. He lacks elements of subtlety, and the way he speaks the words does not really indicate to me a sincerity. David, Vickers, Shaw, Fifield, and Janek all convey a better sense of verisimilitude than he does.

I see where you're coming from with those clarified points, but keeping the sound/voice edits in mind, it kind of removes that from the equation.

I may sound like I've got some rough edges, OpenMaw, but really I'm just trying to get some answers out of this gentleman's quarrel.

It's okay, sweeps. I still love you.

<3

[Cvalda]

It's okay, sweeps. I still love you.

<3

Spoiler

Are you two gonna start making out now?

Spoiler

...and can I watch?

Spoiler

Just kidding! ...

Spoiler

...?

[close]

[close]

[close]

[close]

[SpaceMarines]

It's okay, sweeps. I still love you.

<3

Spoiler

Are you two gonna start making out now?

Spoiler

...and can I watch?

Spoiler

Just kidding! ...

Spoiler

...?

[close]

[close]

[close]

[close]

Hey, hey, no! Hands off, OpenMaw!

He's mine.

[Space Sweeper]

It's okay, sweeps. I still love you.

<3

Spoiler

Are you two gonna start making out now?

Spoiler

...and can I watch?

Spoiler

Just kidding! ...

Spoiler

...?

[close]

[close]

[close]

[close]

Hey, hey, no! Hands off, OpenMaw!

He's mine.

Spoiler

[close]

[SpaceMarines]

Spoiler

[close]

Spoiler

[close]

[Cvalda]

It's not just for the griping that I come to these boards.

It's for the hours of quality entertainment.

<3

[Space Sweeper]

<[<3]3