Ayup: http://www.alienprequelnews.com/2011/08/exclusive-some-vehicles-from-prometheus.html (http://www.alienprequelnews.com/2011/08/exclusive-some-vehicles-from-prometheus.html)
Nice find like the lifter and the crawler design.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3tCumSDHP50/TlnR3g3I4uI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/S8GxthePVPI/s1600/prometheus_vehicle_truck.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3tCumSDHP50/TlnR3g3I4uI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/S8GxthePVPI/s1600/prometheus_vehicle_truck.jpg)
Red markings on the vehicle looks to me like some kind of logo with letters in it. One of the letters I'm thinking is a W
Any photoshop heros want to do this justice?
Nice find, interesting
I don't know about lifter??? Maybe another landing leg. Just like he had made in ALIEN.
Quote
Red markings on the vehicle looks to me like some kind of logo with letters in it. One of the letters I'm thinking is a W
Well, looks a bit like the 3 triangles from the WeylanD-Yutani (ALIENS) logo with some wings.
ALIEN:
http://kurtsshirts.com/shirts/images/mags/aspenbeermag.jpg (http://kurtsshirts.com/shirts/images/mags/aspenbeermag.jpg)
ALIENS:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmy.curse.com%2Fcfs-file.ashx%2F__key%2FCommunityServer.Components.UserFiles%2F00.00.00.22.30%2FWeyland_2D00_Yutani_2D00_logo_2D00_9263CBD4E9_2D00_seeklogo_5F00_com.gif&hash=fcaf1227a84e34e1da46cdb2f4ab4cc2e3b5c8a9)
Gimme a minute in Photoshop:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ff.666kb.com%2Fi%2Fbwgmpabyjdv2syb7j.gif&hash=117e61c04a2304ee5743006fe48b6c73682e3a54)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ff.666kb.com%2Fi%2Fbwhm7bi2k2u3zq0vg.png&hash=30e3d679ce3bc5cdb00596848010f44517b84e75)
greetings
Quote from: Never say no to Panda! on Aug 28, 2011, 09:37:42 AM
Quote
Red markings on the vehicle looks to me like some kind of logo with letters in it. One of the letters I'm thinking is a W
Well, looks a bit like the 3 triangles from the original Weyland-Yutani logo with some wings.
http://f.666kb.com/i/bwgkuiy7uveocckzj.jpg
greetings
Fantastic! I was trying to use Google Images and look for the Alien W-Y logo... but just ended up getting the Aliens version.
Pretty conclusive stuff.
Here is the logo from the beer can in the ALIEN movie:
http://kurtsshirts.com/shirts/images/mags/aspenbeermag.jpg (http://kurtsshirts.com/shirts/images/mags/aspenbeermag.jpg)
Got some wings below it as well, they look different but seems like a mixup with the Cameron logo..my version in the last posting was just a quick PS shot ;)
Quote from: Never say no to Panda! on Aug 28, 2011, 09:37:42 AM
Quote
Red markings on the vehicle looks to me like some kind of logo with letters in it. One of the letters I'm thinking is a W
Well, looks a bit like the 3 triangles from the original Weyland-Yutani logo with some wings.
http://f.666kb.com/i/bwgkuiy7uveocckzj.jpg
greetings
Could be an old Weylan(d) logo, Scott said the Company wasn't WY yet [before Prommy was Prommy].
LOL OK, got too excited for my own good.
I'm not too knowledgable about A L I E N as I am with Aliens.
But damn, what a let down. I was hoping to find a conclusive link
Also the way you made the red logo a little blurred fooled me into thinking it was some old scan
Dude i wrote above: I did this one in Photoshop, i guess the logo on the vehicle looks like that ;)
The original Weylan-Yutani logo from ALIEN is in my other posting, i edited so it's clear.
Well at least we pretty much know this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb13%2FAndyUK_1962%2Fprometheus_vehicle_lifter.jpg&hash=799599fd7bb82314b499624490a1d5521c1cd761)
was indeed all part of this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb13%2FAndyUK_1962%2Fprometheustwo.jpg&hash=41ac92d0ced9fbaa75931c6ab70aba8c17a182dc)
Rough landing? Maybe high winds caused the landing (lifter) to detach from the ship's main body. Two ship theory still holds
The vehicle looks nice, and as spotted look like the weyland yutani symbol! And the tunnel looks very gigeresque!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3tCumSDHP50%2FTlnR3g3I4uI%2FAAAAAAAAAJ0%2FS8GxthePVPI%2Fs320%2Fprometheus_vehicle_truck.jpg&hash=477e3e9ac1fd1865c17599f0e12c199bda52775d)
Quote from: Never say no to Panda! on Aug 28, 2011, 09:37:42 AM
Gimme a minute in Photoshop:
http://f.666kb.com/i/bwgmpabyjdv2syb7j.gif
Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Quote from: Never say no to Panda! on Aug 28, 2011, 09:37:42 AM
http://f.666kb.com/i/bwgmpabyjdv2syb7j.gif
Cobb's design for ALIEN
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1101.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg425%2Fmrmagoo6%2F0008WeylandYutaniDecalsforALIENFX19.jpg&hash=b2f0b4135d3efb425aeb77dedc6caa2b8747a16d)
Cobb's design for ALIENS
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1101.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg425%2Fmrmagoo6%2F99542BC9.jpg&hash=4d462629a8fc1d0b45f1c464bbb902ae09b0afcf)
8) Looks like fusion!
Jeah that's why i posted the winged logo from ALIEN as well...looks likes that is the case.
Quote from: Never say no to Panda! on Aug 28, 2011, 11:45:46 AM
Jeah that's why i posted the winged logo from ALIEN as well...looks likes that is the case.
I blogged it, using your image, if that's cool: http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2011/08/weyland-yutani-logo-in-prometheus.html (http://alienseries.blogspot.com/2011/08/weyland-yutani-logo-in-prometheus.html)
?
Quote from: Bad Replicant on Aug 28, 2011, 11:10:45 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3tCumSDHP50/TlnR3g3I4uI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/S8GxthePVPI/s320/prometheus_vehicle_truck.jpg
Looks like a precursor to the APC in
Aliens.
reminds me of the Shado 2 mobile from UFO
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moviecars.it%2Fimages%2Fauto%2Fshado_ufo_mobile_big1.jpg&hash=8c9f33f09dbedcccb76009131679da220586c3b2)
Jeah sure, use it.
Since it seems to be the "Y" from the back of the WY-Logo we're missing a "W". Maybe we see one ship from each company and they merge after this event.
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 28, 2011, 01:41:15 PM
reminds me of the Shado 2 mobile from UFO
http://www.moviecars.it/images/auto/shado_ufo_mobile_big1.jpg
Nice. Looks somehow German ;)
Even though not directly mentioned in ALIEN, was the actually known as Weyland Yutani , during the first film, or was it something Caeron came up with for ALIENS ?
Quote from: Wobblyboddle77 on Aug 28, 2011, 02:54:29 PM
Even though not directly mentioned in ALIEN, was the actually known as Weyland Yutani , during the first film, or was it something Caeron came up with for ALIENS ?
It was called Weylan-Yutani in the first film. I wonder if Cameron had a word with Cobb about its origins and altered it as if to correct it.
Cheers geezer old boy
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 28, 2011, 02:58:42 PM
Quote from: Wobblyboddle77 on Aug 28, 2011, 02:54:29 PM
Even though not directly mentioned in ALIEN, was the actually known as Weyland Yutani , during the first film, or was it something Caeron came up with for ALIENS ?
It was called Weylan-Yutani in the first film. I wonder if Cameron had a word with Cobb about its origins and altered it as if to correct it.
I wanted to ask Cobb himself. Cobb took off the 'd' in Alien to remove it somewhat from its inspiration, 'Leyland'; as he designed the logos and such for both films, he must have added it back later. The words Weyland-Yutani don't appear in the Aliens script, last time I checked.
That black vehicle looks so old school. This is awesome. I feel like in a teenager again waiting for this film.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Aug 28, 2011, 03:11:33 PM
That black vehicle looks so old school. This is awesome. I feel like in a teenager again waiting for this film.
yeah i can't remember the last time i had this thrill of anticipation for an upcoming movie.
those vehicles look old-school 8)
wonder if there is a progesion of stiles of vehicles through the movies and if this fits in ?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3tCumSDHP50%2FTlnR3g3I4uI%2FAAAAAAAAAJ0%2FS8GxthePVPI%2Fs320%2Fprometheus_vehicle_truck.jpg&hash=477e3e9ac1fd1865c17599f0e12c199bda52775d)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giantbomb.com%2Fuploads%2F2%2F26518%2F922165-me_m35_mako_super.jpg&hash=cb4d45def0ba3d4b8e93c91998766ae7c913cd61)
Likin' those designs. :)
Weyland-Yutani logo with the old Weylan-Yutani wings.
need emergency medical services
Quote from: Valaquen on Aug 28, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
I wanted to ask Cobb himself. Cobb took off the 'd' in Alien to remove it somewhat from its inspiration, 'Leyland'; as he designed the logos and such for both films, he must have added it back later. The words Weyland-Yutani don't appear in the Aliens script, last time I checked.
Well one thing, as far as I know he never talked about removing the D from Leyland to change it, only changing the L to a W, and that could almost be like a Japanese mispronunciation. I'd like to ask Cobb that question too along with a few others
I suppose at the end of the day, this vehicle is just a futuristic version of one of these Personel Carriers used in the army
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armyrecognition.com%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Feast_europe%2Fukraine%2Fwheeled_vehicle%2Fbtr-4%2Fbtr-4_wheeled_armoured_personnel_carrier_Morozov_Ukrainian_Ukraine_640.jpg&hash=e3c4e76cd2f2d920ec6c30bc3c293372632bf6b7)
Quote from: Bad Replicant on Aug 28, 2011, 11:10:45 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3tCumSDHP50/TlnR3g3I4uI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/S8GxthePVPI/s320/prometheus_vehicle_truck.jpg
Looks like a combination of the mako from Mass Effect and an vehicle from Aliens. I love it.
Quote
Gimme a minute in Photoshop:
http://f.666kb.com/i/bwgmpabyjdv2syb7j.gif
3D version
(https://293909664815559813-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/villahermosakml/kml-files/WY.gif?attachauth=ANoY7cptrnVBiyW_7pWnUM19oaBrc1ZbPFse0w702Gg7GWSvkOWSX3x4A4sg_y_fB8EJIdLbup9MPjo-UM5r3iZ_68K_zK8wktjpddoh-K5khyfe4-f08FT15aHikLwp7tyTkQglqS0rnSXs70Je4rMvzMze56FcEL6JScK3V_9a1N6CWzQ_CD2f6NigI55h8Y3L05ukHGqYYo1bOR9JeHMqxOO5Ud5A6Q%3D%3D&attredirects=0)
Quote from: prometheUSA on Aug 28, 2011, 09:09:47 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3tCumSDHP50/TlnR3g3I4uI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/S8GxthePVPI/s1600/prometheus_vehicle_truck.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3tCumSDHP50/TlnR3g3I4uI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/S8GxthePVPI/s1600/prometheus_vehicle_truck.jpg)
Red markings on the vehicle looks to me like some kind of logo with letters in it. One of the letters I'm thinking is a W
Any photoshop heros want to do this justice?
It actually says "EVS" not "W" :( As much as i would love to see the "W" ofcourse :P
Since the triangles from the W/Y logo is meant to be the Y, i'm willing to bet those triangles MAY represent the Yutani corp, if Ridleys going there.
Can't say I dig the vehicle, but the landing leg is awesome.
Quote from: Snowdog on Aug 28, 2011, 09:49:05 PM
It actually says "EVS" not "W" :( As much as i would love to see the "W" ofcourse :P
I thought so first of all myself, but....
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Aug 28, 2011, 09:55:06 PM
Since the triangles from the W/Y logo is meant to be the Y, i'm willing to bet those triangles MAY represent the Yutani corp, if Ridleys going there.
Im pretty sure that it is a Yutani vehicle, logo would make no sense other way i guess.
these set designs and vehicle designs are not doing it for me this doesnt jump out and say alien prequel i wont be satisfied until i see the cinematography the colors of the vehicles and the hive slash jockey ship set design feel different of course i cant really bitch until the trailer or screening but ill do it anyway
Quote from: Snowdog on Aug 28, 2011, 09:49:05 PMch as i would love to see the "W" ofcourse :P
The undoctored photo is too blurry to show anything conclusive. That's what I asked if there was anyone who would do this justice on Photoshop
Here's my attempt. Magnified x4, played around with hues, luminosity
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWBvU3.jpg&hash=8c613224978def35beb16314ddb3ed5947641639)
Nothing conclusive. Maybe my PS technique is wrong.
I don't want to take this too far. Based on the circumstance, I'd go with Never say no to Panda's design
Quote from: beb on Aug 28, 2011, 10:39:07 PM
these set designs and vehicle designs are not doing it for me this doesnt jump out and say alien prequel i wont be satisfied until i see the cinematography the colors of the vehicles and the hive slash jockey ship set design feel different of course i cant really bitch until the trailer or screening but ill do it anyway
I just need some explanation on this remark. So, let me get this straight, despite everything we've seen, all of the decidedly Gigeresque leaked images, and the design of the ship, the Nostromo-like entryways, ALL of it....this isn't saying A L I E N prequel? No offense pal, but your comment/s come off as pretty daft and decidedly pissy. If anything the images we've seen disprove everything you wrote. Not only does Prometheus resemble A L I E N in tone and design, it appears to be more of a prequel then Ridley and crew were letting on.
Quote from: prometheUSA on Aug 28, 2011, 10:39:52 PM
Quote from: Snowdog on Aug 28, 2011, 09:49:05 PM...
...
Contributing to the "confirmation".
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi175.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw124%2Fjosh_axey%2Fvehicledecal.png&hash=7c126de0a5131587aa57671d02fecc975d578fd4)
Enlarged the image.
Note the lighter shade of pixels... these are the actual lines of the decal on the vehicle. The deeper colour is just the blur of the poor quality image melding into the rest of the vehicle.
Note my very crude outlining.
Basically it looks exactly like Panda's logo deconstruct.
Personally convinced that it is a Y shape made from the three triangle like blocks. Does this mean Yutani? I'm thinking it might :)
Speculation aside, I'm damn sure it is a Y surrounded by logotype "wings".
[edit]On seconds thoughts... considering VIckers is supposed to be the one in charge of "the company" and she "nickel and dimed it together"... perhaps Vickers is the family name, not her first name - and it is in fact a "V" for Vickers... as in "Vickers Industries", "Vickers Engineering", "Vickers Potato Chips", etc.
This is of course assuming the "connection" to the ALIEN universe, without the direct sequel like implication of it being directly tied to the company we know. It could also be a vehicle from the apposing faction, from whoever owns the Magellan, etc.
You get the idea........
[/edit]
ThisBethesdaSea i agree with you completely, that geezers comments come across as negative, come on beb old boy, this movie screams Alien prequel, all the signs are there. Be enthusiastic like the rest of us are, we can see Scott and his crew are working so damn hard at this film, so let's sit back and marvel at these pictures. The big question for me is what do these damn space jockeys look like? it's driving me insane arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, anyway less than a year to go lol. There should be a countdown timer to the release of prometheus on this site lol.
that can easily be a w or even a w/y combo.
The excitement level I have for this movie is so high. I love the whole syd mead thing going on with the transport reminds me of the gi joe rhino and is that second picture a landing gear that was in the first still where you see the guy drifting? The sets are just so massive and I dont think the surface has really been scratched! I have said it before and I will say it again please let there be a line of action figures!
Got to say, I agree with some of the vehicle comments. A few folk getting a bit frothy over what looks like a tarted up army vehicle.
It doesn't even look practical for a roamer , if that's what it is.
I'd say that's Jim Cameron 1 , Ridley Scott 0 , in the battle of ground vehicles.
I think the vehicle is a good fit design-wise with the LV vehicles in Aliens, and the ramps look very consistent with the Nostromo ramps from Alien
You gotta remember what we saw in ALIEN etc was the best they could do at the time. Scott has said it before how he would of liked to have things done differently but they just couldn't. Like the hanging screens in the bridge area he wanted to have that just weren't feasible, but nowadays you could pull off piece of piss.
I think in this movie we are going to see the ALIEN movie he always wanted to make originally ;)
Imo the best thing about Prometheus are the following 4 things, in the this order
1. Ridley Scott and Giger at helm
2. Use of practical sets as much as possible, CGI limited considerably
3. An apparent consistency with the designs from Alien, the alien bone corridors, the Ron Cobbesque designs of the vehicles
4. 3D - to experience Scott's hypersensitive Gothic, moody horror in 3D must be really something
I suppose this was the inspiration behind the Mass Effect vehicle
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgeekcentricity.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2F800px-Big_trak_white_background.jpg&hash=445a1b3dfb7a7b1a768f28dfffe258c4c3aae529)
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 29, 2011, 11:24:48 AM
I suppose this was the inspiration behind the Mass Effect vehicle
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgeekcentricity.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2F800px-Big_trak_white_background.jpg&hash=445a1b3dfb7a7b1a768f28dfffe258c4c3aae529)
Idk, for me it looks very consistent with the vehicles in Hadleys Hope
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alienexperience.com%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2Fuploads%2Ffilms%2Faliens%2Fscreenshots%2FAliens_13.JPG&hash=bd61490bc349dc44931c2e04bb8cc5c7301245ef)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20100828214648%2Fkingdomheartsfanfiction%2Fimages%2F6%2F60%2FColony.jpg&hash=2ee25069f91dd9da839d77f85be9a33009ff2722)
Quote from: StrangeShape on Aug 29, 2011, 12:24:45 PM
Idk, for me it looks very consistent with the vehicles in Hadleys Hope
Are you referring to the Mass Effect vehicle which is the Mako someone posted a concept drawing of which I thought looked inspired by the old Big Track toy or are you referring to the personel carrier from the Prometheus movie?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi56.tinypic.com%2Fn6ro6p.jpg&hash=e1fb5cea72a25083855f2e83c1ed0ada44d4cd7d)
Quote from: wmmvrrvrrmm on Aug 29, 2011, 01:10:24 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Aug 29, 2011, 12:24:45 PM
Idk, for me it looks very consistent with the vehicles in Hadleys Hope
Are you referring to the Mass Effect vehicle which is the Mako someone posted a concept drawing of which I thought looked inspired by the old Big Track toy or are you referring to the personel carrier from the Prometheus movie?
The one from Prometheus
Weird...the APC pictured reminded me of a futuristic A-Team van...
I LOVE it when a plan comes together...
The only thing that looks consistent with Hadleys Hope are the wheels of the vehicle. If anything the vehicle in question is more consistent with general human technology then any sort of direct link to ALIENS.
This vehicle is like the mashup of Ron Cobb and Syd Mead. I don't know about you guys but I just love it.
Quote from: Infected on Aug 29, 2011, 01:10:26 PM
http://i56.tinypic.com/n6ro6p.jpg
It's nice to see the 'face' of the vehicle there on the left, it looks more impressive in it's environment and has the appropriate 1970's view of the future. The gold wheels and the other vehicles are reminiscent of the gold painted vehicles in the garage on Nostromo's C deck, although the fact they were gold was not obvious, more to do with lighting.
Quote from: JaaayDee on Aug 29, 2011, 07:53:58 PM
This vehicle is like the mashup of Ron Cobb and Syd Mead. I don't know about you guys but I just love it.
Nah , don't like it. Ron Cobb's work was different but believable. This is ..... meh.
Could have done that myself in 6 minutes. Hopefully it looks better in the movie.
Complaining for the sake of complaining.
How could anyone have a problem with any of these designs? What did people expect?
Quote from: Highland on Aug 29, 2011, 11:22:37 PM
Quote from: JaaayDee on Aug 29, 2011, 07:53:58 PM
This vehicle is like the mashup of Ron Cobb and Syd Mead. I don't know about you guys but I just love it.
Nah , don't like it. Ron Cobb's work was different but believable. This is ..... meh.
Could have done that myself in 6 minutes. Hopefully it looks better in the movie.
Tough critic.
I agree with SiL, I have to say. I'm not sure what people expected them to look like given the context.
I thought it looked like a pretty good amalgamation of modern vehicles these days, the 70's retro "future vehicle" and something similar to how a lot of movies/games portray futuristic vehicles as of now.
It looks like an adequate transport vehicle considering what we know about the context of the movie (to me).
On a different note: Also noticed that the red logo is on the back door/back face as well. *shrug*
They look like generic sci-fi vehicles. What more could you need?
I think people are expecting "more" because it's 'Alien'. 'Alien' was chock full of iconic visuals that have stayed with audiences for 30 years, but those visuals are largely the Giger-esque things like the derelict, space jockey, and the Alien. No one really remembers the weird vehicle in the bay where Brett gets killed, and while casual audiences might be able to visually ID the Nostromo, it's nowhere near as visually iconic as the Sulaco, dropship, or APC (or something like the Enterprise or Milennium Falcon).
I dunno, I think what we've seen for Prometheus is pretty neat. That 6-wheeled thing ain't no APC but it's still pretty neat and I'm looking forward to seeing it in action. the big piston-thing gives me definite "Nostromo landing gear" vibes which is cool too.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 29, 2011, 11:48:28 PM
it's nowhere near as visually iconic as the Sulaco, dropship, or APC
Which, let's be honest, has a
lot to do with every sci-fi action video game in the last twenty years just redressing those designs :P
The Nostromo might not be recognisable, but her refinery is.
Quote from: SiL on Aug 29, 2011, 11:50:50 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 29, 2011, 11:48:28 PM
it's nowhere near as visually iconic as the Sulaco, dropship, or APC
Which, let's be honest, has a lot to do with every sci-fi action video game in the last twenty years just redressing those designs :P
The Nostromo might not be recognisable, but her refinery is.
Recognizable enough that casual audiences don't realize the Nostromo is just the little ship at the front, not the big honking thing it's towing. :P
Also I'd say the 'Aliens' designs were pretty iconic right out of the gate, which is why a lot of sci-fi stuff has cribbed from them liberally over the years. People aren't aping them because they're bland and boring, that's for sure. :P
Quote from: SiL on Aug 29, 2011, 11:42:16 PM
They look like generic sci-fi vehicles. What more could you need?
Lasers!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fa0%2FMilitary_laser_experiment.jpg%2F300px-Military_laser_experiment.jpg&hash=852ec738592cc59588b1b0946b4c8d27eb85b306)
But really... yeah, nothing. They look just fine to me.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 29, 2011, 11:48:28 PM
...Nostromo, it's nowhere near as visually iconic as the Sulaco...
I dunno, I think what we've seen for Prometheus is pretty neat. That 6-wheeled thing ain't no APC but it's still pretty neat and I'm looking forward to seeing it in action. the big piston-thing gives me definite "Nostromo landing gear" vibes which is cool too.
Personally I disagree on the Nostromo part... I think of it when I think of a ship in the Alien universe... it and the Derelict.
Moot point though really... it's personal.
I agree... it's all contextually fitting to me.
Quote from: JaaayDee on Aug 29, 2011, 11:31:25 PM
Complaining for the sake of complaining.
Not really, I like the interior designs. Sil summed it up with generic. If I'm being a tad harsh, then you'd have to say some people are overreacting.
It's nothing more than your standard 8 wheeler with a canopy slapped on the front, I don't see what's exciting about it.
:P
Quote from: Highland on Aug 29, 2011, 11:55:58 PM
...
I guess
I misinterpreted "Meh" as "Don't like or care" versus "It's ok".
Which I agree with. Contextually fitting, interesting to glance it, but it's nowhere near as exciting as the leaked footage shots for instance.
These vehicles look so much like the ones from Alien and particularly Aliens that I can hardly contain myself over this. The vehicle lifter, the bigger one, is like a jumbo version of the power loader from Aliens, and the W shows that they're Weyland tech. I'm loving it and thinking Ridley definitely went for that powerloader look to connect this film to Aliens in a way. I'm still not expecting direct connections in this stand-alone alien prequel but this is just more evidence that the film will connect to Alien in many ways, and possibly Aliens because I can definitely see traces of the Aliens apc and powerloader designs influencing these vehicles.
This "landing strut" definitely doesn't look like a powerlifter from Aliens.
Aside from some stripes and hydraulics I don't really see any sort of resemblance.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-jY7nXxIr3iI%2FTlnR6VdDTlI%2FAAAAAAAAAJ4%2FhHw5d27lgGw%2Fs1600%2Fprometheus_vehicle_lifter.jpg&hash=9b295eea9067b41368fad854e82318fc46bbf945)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xl-shop.com%2Fxlshop%2Fproduct_images%2FHOTTOYS%2FHT_ALIENS_POWER_LOADER.jpg&hash=7be453460bd30a577d05813a4a8db6fe9933c6cd)
Yeah, I think people are focusing on the stripes a bit too much.
This is not a Power loader.
Seems to be a Spaceship Landing Gear.
Loving the designs. Not too complicated, and they give that Alien feeling :)
Quote from: Ivymike on Aug 30, 2011, 06:51:18 PM
This is not a Power loader.
Seems to be a Spaceship Landing Gear.
from the source of the pics they say its a giant lifter. Im guessing that this is only part of the lifter and the rest will be added later with cgi
The source is wrong. Clearly that's landing gear.
I agree that it looks like landing gear, but was the source saying "we think it's a lifter" or "Ridley Scott told us it's a lifter"? Because that's an important distinction. :P I mean, it could be one leg of a seriously colossal lifter.
It could be something else entirely.
It doesn't make sense to me to build such a massive prop for something that could be quite easily CGI'd for half the cost.
It could work out cheaper to just build that part in the long run -- once it's there, it's there, and you don't have to worry about match-moving, compositing, rendering, etc. later for every shot that it needs to be in.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 30, 2011, 10:05:28 PM
It could be something else entirely.
It doesn't make sense to me to build such a massive prop for something that could be quite easily CGI'd for half the cost.
The same can be said for what appears to be the derelict ship and the Prometheus ship. But they built those too. By the way, actual prop construction is cheaper then CGI these days. Times are changing.
Thank god for that.
WAIT till you see those in motion... it was the one of the more "James Cameron" moments in the ComicCon clip. I think Ridley has had plenty of experience with action films recently to make this film's action on par with ALIENS.
Quote from: biosynth on Aug 31, 2011, 01:18:48 AM
WAIT till you see those in motion... it was the one of the more "James Cameron" moments in the ComicCon clip. I think Ridley has had plenty of experience with action films recently to make this film's action on par with ALIENS.
er... I'm not worried about that at all. I'm slightly alarmed by the suggestion that Ridley's lowered his standards in fact.
To be fair everything Ridley makes isn't automatically unimpeachable perfection. He's had his share of "misses" in his career.
GI Jane and Robin Hood ... LOL
I thought Hannibal was very mediocre to the point that if held up against Silence, I've learned to detest Hannibal.
One of my favorite Ridley movies is Blackhawk Down. Very action packed. Actually I dont know anyone who dislikes that movie.
Okay okay......"I think Ridley has had plenty of experience with action films recently to make this film's action on par with ALIENS."
REALLY? Really? Seriously, you just hoped that Ridley Scott matched Cambos directing instincts?
Who wants that? I don't want the action to look akin to ALIENS. I want, if anything, the film to have the tonal qualities and pacing of A L I E N. Ridley started this mythology, all others come after him. I don't want Prometheus to have ANYTHING in common with ALIENS. Not that I don't LOVE and enjoy ALIENS, I do, I just want that film left alone.
We're in new territory. Ridley Scott is a competent enough director, despite his missteps. Cameron has them to. The Abyss, True Lies anyone?
Hey, True Lies is a classic! In a very cheesy, overthetop, fun way. And I actually liked The Abyss a fair bit. Wasn't great, but I felt it was pretty good.
But yeah, I agree with you. Riddles certainly can handle action scenes (and judging from some of the shots of guys with guns, this may have one or two), but I don't want him to do anything like Aliens in this movie. Should be closest in tone with the original, if anything.
I'll wait for The Forever War to see Scott combine his talent for war and sci-fi.
Titanic, True Lies, The Abyss, Avatar, Aliens....
I haven't seen all of Scott's work, but he has five out and out classics and another five high quality films so I reckon I'll take any Scott film over Cameron's perceived "Masterpieces".
Scott is a visionary, particularly in Sci-fi or historicals, his choices and style have had a deeper cultural significance within film and tv, and beyond than can be easily measured. That's why Prometheus holds such promise, the man that brought all these things together (things that have been ripped off mercilessly ever since) is going back, and you can be sure that he won't feel the need to be honouring any pretenders.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 04:49:26 AM
Titanic, True Lies, The Abyss, Avatar, Aliens....
I haven't seen all of Scott's work, but he has five out and out classics and another five high quality films so I reckon I'll take any Scott film over Cameron's perceived "Masterpieces".
Scott is a visionary, particularly in Sci-fi or historicals, his choices and style have had a deeper cultural significance within film and tv, and beyond than can be easily measured. That's why Prometheus holds such promise, the man that brought all these things together (things that have been ripped off mercilessly ever since) is going back, and you can be sure that he won't feel the need to be honouring any pretenders.
Those are great movies you mentioned above by Cameron. But if you will measure a director's greatness by the amount of "classics" he has... then IMDb would probably be a good tool to average up the ratings for each of artists' total directorial works. I'm not going to do this, but I'm willing to bet Cameron has a higher average rating than Scott.
Aside from George Hack Lucas, what other director has revisited a franchise the way Scott is?
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 04:49:26 AM
Titanic, True Lies, The Abyss, Avatar, Aliens....
All five of those movies are objectively pretty great, one of them was revolutionary in the CGI technology it pioneered, and two of them are the highest-grossing movies of all time. The only one on that list that could even be remotely considered a "miss" is 'The Abyss', and even then it's 67% fresh (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/abyss/) if you go by only the top critics (88% if you don't) and was still a huge success. Literally every single movie James Cameron has done has been a huge success both financially and critically, except for his very first movie back in 1981.
Compare that with GI Jane (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gi_jane/), Robin Hood (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/robin_hood_2010/), Body of Lies (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009225-body_of_lies/), A Good Year (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/good_year/), Kingdom of Heaven (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kingdom_of_heaven/), Hannibal (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1104385-hannibal/), and Black Rain (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1002512-black_rain/).
Ridley Scott hasn't done a sci-fi movie since 'Blade Runner', and that was nearly 30 years ago. In the past 10 years alone he's had 5 movies that critics and audiences largely considered "crappy", including his last two movies.
People have plenty of reason to be concerned about Ridley Scott's ability.
Also 'Aliens' has been "ripped off" more than 'Alien'.
The Abyss is also the birth place of photoshop. ILM guy John Knoll worked on the film, and was given a program by his brother Thomas to help with effects shots. That program became Photoshop. The extended cut of The Abyss is fantastic by the way. The film's also a source of a lot of legend - by that, I mean crap. Ed Harris punching Cameron and Cameron making the crew piss themselves in their wetsuits. All bullshit and denied by the cast and crew, but nobody cares - you can't stop a good story!
I'd say True Lies is the only truly weak film in his filmography, and even Stanley Kubrick was wowed by that film - so much that he invited Cameron over and they watched it together, with Stan asking Jimbo how he pulled off the effects shots. That sure sounds like a dream come true. No arguiing that the Terminator movies and Aliens are bona-fide classics. Titanic you can sneer at, but it defied all odds and annihilated the BO, and pushed effects work at the same time. Cameron even out his own director's fee into the movie [he gave up his pay in Aliens to secure the shot of Ripley being found in hypersleep - last shot to be filmed.]
For a guy who taught himself the trade, Cameron's done great. It's easy [and incredibly snobby, IMO] to exclaim that Ridley's an artiste and Cameron's a hack. Probably won't phase those two at all. They seem to get on very well.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Aug 30, 2011, 10:50:13 PM
Quote from: Highland on Aug 30, 2011, 10:05:28 PM
It could be something else entirely.
It doesn't make sense to me to build such a massive prop for something that could be quite easily CGI'd for half the cost.
The same can be said for what appears to be the derelict ship and the Prometheus ship. But they built those too. By the way, actual prop construction is cheaper then CGI these days. Times are changing.
Debatable. It's a landing leg (supposedly), not a Velociraptor. The derelict ship and the Prometheus ship are understandable, they would bring a more believable performance from the cast.
If it's a greater part of a machine that the crew interact with, then I guess it makes sense......maybe. :P
QuoteIt could work out cheaper to just build that part in the long run -- once it's there, it's there, and you don't have to worry about match-moving, compositing, rendering, etc. later for every shot that it needs to be in.
Possibly, how many times would you need a giant landing leg though...
Quote from: prometheUSA on Aug 31, 2011, 05:12:41 AM
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 04:49:26 AM
Titanic, True Lies, The Abyss, Avatar, Aliens....
I haven't seen all of Scott's work, but he has five out and out classics and another five high quality films so I reckon I'll take any Scott film over Cameron's perceived "Masterpieces".
Those are great movies you mentioned above by Cameron. But if you will measure a director's greatness by the amount of "classics" he has... then IMDb would probably be a good tool to average up the ratings for each of artists' total directorial works. I'm not going to do this, but I'm willing to bet Cameron has a higher average rating than Scott.
Not for me. I reviewed Cameron on IMDB and wasn't impressed. Didn't even mention Piranha 2, although I think if he'd stuck to that level I might not regard his output as overhyped badly written, massively expensive drivel.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 04:41:38 PM
Quote from: prometheUSA on Aug 31, 2011, 05:12:41 AM
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 04:49:26 AM
Titanic, True Lies, The Abyss, Avatar, Aliens....
I haven't seen all of Scott's work, but he has five out and out classics and another five high quality films so I reckon I'll take any Scott film over Cameron's perceived "Masterpieces".
Those are great movies you mentioned above by Cameron. But if you will measure a director's greatness by the amount of "classics" he has... then IMDb would probably be a good tool to average up the ratings for each of artists' total directorial works. I'm not going to do this, but I'm willing to bet Cameron has a higher average rating than Scott.
Not for me. I reviewed Cameron on IMDB and wasn't impressed. Didn't even mention Piranha 2, although I think if he'd stuck to that level I might not regard his output as overhyped badly written, massively expensive drivel.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi267.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii283%2FEvilqtl_2007%2FMisc%2Fwtf-cat.jpg&hash=6bed900a9d4fc92f681c5d67efbf53e8164a3a6f)
Seriously dude?
I take it your not into character driven spectacles that push the boundries of film making?
Piranha 2 was his first directing gig, everybody starts somewhere.
You think his movies are badly written?Sir, you have an extremely strange idea of what poor writing is.Please give an example of what you think is good writing so we can compare to his writing.
Go check out the Star Wars prequels to see what badly written actually means, George Lucas could learn a thing or two from Cameron.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 04:41:38 PM
Not for me. I reviewed Cameron on IMDB and wasn't impressed. Didn't even mention Piranha 2, although I think if he'd stuck to that level I might not regard his output as overhyped badly written, massively expensive drivel.
Cameron practically directed Piranha 2 in name only - he was hired for 7-12 days [number varies] and was fired. Didn't get a cut on the film or nothing. It's not a Cameron film. Other directors worked on the film for longer than he did - they just didn't become high profile directors worthy of mention.
Aside from a few clunker lines in Titanic and Avatar, I consider his writing to be generally solid [he's probably the most quoted sci-fi film-maker, from "I'll be back" all the way through Aliens and T2]. Avatar is a weak link, but he never pretended it was for harder sci-fi fans, saying from the start it was meant to be a fairtytale-esque story for the 8's and uppers. He hit it on the nail, considering the receipts. I find that a lot of the anti-Cameron folk are as rabid as the overly pro-Cameron folk, it's funny. A lot of them love to run on the myths that have enveloped the guy for the past few years, [making actors piss themselves, his crew hate him, etc]. The only time I though his writing fell to pieces was with Strange Days; that fell to ribbons by the end. He also helped write Point Break but was uncredited [his Bigelow stage, from their marriage]
He also co-wrote Rambo 2, if I'm remembering right. :P
Really Cameron's track record as a director is objectively pretty unimpeachable. You might not like his style or all of his movies or whatever, but on a filmmaking level they're all very highly regarded (except for 'The Abyss', sorta) and have been groundbreaking technical achievements that also happen to be some of the best-remembered, most-quoted, most-copied, and highest-grossing movies of all time.
You can't really say the same thing about Ridley Scott.
No one is saying Ridley Scott is a hack, just that it might be a little short-sighted to assume Prometheus is going to be cinematic bliss just because he's directing it. No matter what you think of James Cameron, it doesn't change the fact that Ridley Scott hasn't done sci-fi in 30 years, has actually gone on record saying he doesn't particularly like doing sci-fi (which is why he hasn't done it in 30 years), and his last couple movies were not well-received.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 31, 2011, 07:11:35 PM
He also co-wrote Rambo 2, if I'm remembering right. :P
Kind of. Here's a scene from Cameron's sript:
QuoteCO
You try get across Laos? Get to
Thailand?
RAMBO
(nodding)
Yeah. Got some business there.
What are you gonna do?
CO
(shrugs)
Go United States. See Nguyen.
Maybe teach economics. Buy
Cadillac. Watch "Dynasty."
RAMBO
How you going to get there? You
can't trust the spooks to pull you
out. They'll use you up and throw
you away.
CO
I know. I go with you.
RAMBO
I couldn't get you in.
Co stops her work and replies very quietly.
CO
Yes you can.
RAMBO
How?
Co's gaze holds his and her Cheshire grin flickers.
CO
As wife.
Rambo realizes she is serious. The silence drags when he
realizes how good that sounds to him at this moment. And
how small a price that is to repay her.
RAMBO
(with finality)
Okay. Done. You got it.
She seems a bit shocked, then smiles impishly.
CO
You too easy.
Co's hands have been all over him but only now does he
become aware of them on his shoulders.
She draws her face up to his but Rambo pulls back from the
kiss. Co looks puzzled as he slowly disengages from her
contact.
CO
You don't feel love, Rambo?
He leans back against the wall.
RAMBO
Look, Co...
CO
Why you don't feel love? Not
allowed?
(her tone becomes
aggressive)
Dead inside, maybe? You make
yourself dead already so they can't
kill you? In-vulnerabo? Bullshit!
She advances on him until her face is close to his, her
words finding their mark.
CO
(continuing)
Bucu bullshit!
(pause)
I have enough death already.
Husband. Mother. Father.
Brothers. Death everywhere.
She points into the undergrowth nearby, to a ghostly
blossom growing there among the tangled vines.
CO
You see? A flower like that need
good soil to grow. Many time under
earth is bones of animal... or
person. Killed in jungle. Make
soil rich. Grows most beautiful
flower. You call orchid. Many
deaths in jungle. Vietnamese, V.C.,
American. Many beautiful flowers.
CO
(terrified)
What was that?
RAMBO
Minigun. Come on. Let's move.
He's coming in on our open side.
And here's how Stallone rewrote it [and how it appears in the film:
QuoteCO
what you do now, trying to get across to Thailand?
RAMBO
Yeah
CO
Then go America?
RAMBO
Yeah
CO
You take me with you?
*Kiss
CO
You take me?
RAMBO
Yeah
CO
I think you made good choice
RAMBO
Yeah
CO
We go?
RAMBO
Let's go
:laugh:
Bad writing= things dont make sense, plotholes, story contradicts itself, things and motivations arent properly explained, pacing is off. Everything else is subjective and depends on what the movie's aiming for, what type of a story it is etc, its never good or bad, its subjective.
That's the reason I didn't originally mention Piranha 2, because I've no idea how involved he was in that or Galaxy of Terror, but obviously the fact that he's successful has made the owners of those films attempt to benefit from association. However, films like Titanic and True Lies are terribly written. Titanic is a horribly shallow (if pretty) remake of A Night to Remember, True Lies is substandard Bond with uncomfortable jingoism thrown in. Aliens is Cameron's best film, although I personally find it unengaging and inadequate as a sequel (if it were a standalone film it would be ok - if it were unrelated to A L I E N I might even like it). I find Cameron interesting in terms of the way he has pushed technology but his films always seem to stem from other directors/writers ideas. The dialogue is universally awful, but always features some fanboy pleasing (or is that cringe inducing?) one liners. But those are the sort of films he makes, they have a big fanbase in a certain demographic. That demographic doesn't include me.
What can I say? On the positive side I'll point out his investment in technical film making issues which have advanced certain aspects of film making (I won't blame Cameron for other film makers over reliance on CGI), but he'll never be a favourite director. I find his films overlong (even before the director's cut), overhyped, excessively wasteful - which surprises me as he came from the Roger Corman school where making the best of what you've got was a necessity - and I just can't see why he his held in such esteem. He doesn't make daft sci-fi, there are solid ideas behind them.. sort of, yet the way he does it irritates me. It may just be that it's big and crowd-pleasing and ultimately predictable. I understand why that's appealing, but I want something more 'left field' in cinema.
In other words I can ignore most of his output and it makes no odds to me, but unfortunately Aliens is considered canon to a film I consider an all time classic. Still, there are now a bunch of awful 'official' offspring to A L I E N , so it's just part of bigger picture. I'd rather just leave it with Ripley and Jones floating through space on the Narcissus and forget the direction it took after.
Ridley has certainly made a batch of lacklustre films, but none of them (those that I've seen) irritate me. He has an eclectic mix of stories in his oeuvre. Some of those appeal to me and others don't. But where Ridley is given full reign with his artistic skills the whole experience is far more immersive and potent. His films are more thought provoking, things are suggested without being overstated. He can do quiet intimacy, brooding atmosphere, action and violence with a a sense of maturity. That may be a more English approach, and my preference might simply come down to that.
i guess it's dangerous to suggest that Prometheus is going to be the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner, and maybe give some maturity back to Sci Fi after it's years of being hi-jacked as a juvenile genre, yet the fact that it is Ridley Scott does create a great hope that it will be. It won't be pompous, but we can be pretty sure it will be suspenseful and horrific, and against Ridley's visual sense that should make it something worth waiting for.
Honestly I wouldn't have felt any enthusiasm for Alien 5 in Cameron's hands. But it's all relative. if Cameron had made another sequel it would obviously be better than AVP:R (how could it not be) but I still doubt I would have seen it until it cropped up on TV.
And on relativity, yep, Lucas's prequels were awful. Cameron's films are more focused around one idea and not bogged down in tying up continuity, but still I don't think I'll go out of my way to check out Cameron's offerings again. Just not my bag.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 08:20:37 PM
Titanic is a horribly shallow (if pretty) remake of A Night to Remember
How can something based on true events be a remake? You know that this was actually story based on real events and it wasnt invented or written in 1958? And shallow? The action starts halfway through the movie and doesnt let go until the end. Hour and a half of constant Cameronesque tense action with giant special effects, and the first half of a movie is pretty much an old school love fairy tale. It nails that
But anyway, can we all go back to the subject at hand and discuss the vehicles of Prometheus? For example, what do you think they are for? Where re the characters gonna travel? Etc
QuoteThe dialogue is universally awful
I guess that's why it's so universally quotable and a part of the pop-culture zeitgeist, right?
There's a reason why people can quote 'Aliens' left and right, it's because it's well-written dialogue.
Quoteexcessively wasteful - which surprises me as he came from the Roger Corman school where making the best of what you've got was a necessity
I'm not sure how you can say this. 'Aliens' had a really small budget, and he made a massive swarm of Aliens by using 6 people in suits and creative editing. 'The Terminator' was barely completed because he ran out of money. The shot of the Terminator getting its head crushed in the press is literally spraypainted foam, tinfoil, a christmas light, and Stan Winston blowing cigarette smoke.
Quotei guess it's dangerous to suggest that Prometheus is going to be the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner
There have been plenty of great sci-fi movies since Blade Runner, most recently 'District 9'. Hell, 3 of the great sci-fi movies since Blade Runner were directed by James Cameron. :P (Aliens, Terminator, T2)
I'm not even sure why we're discussing Cameron here - the point is that saying "It's Ridley Scott, of COURSE it's going to be good!" is a statement that should give people pause.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 08:20:37 PM
True Lies is substandard Bond with uncomfortable jingoism thrown in.
It was meant to be Bond-ish [it's a remake of a french movie] don't know about jingoism, the guy's Canadian. It's more of a piss-take comedy. Every other Cameron film has been deeply anti-authoritarian; the cops or military are normally useless or nasty [the cops are useless in Terminator, the Company is bad in Aliens -obviously ported from Alien- the military are the bad guys in The Abyss, there's an ex-cop bad guy in Titanic, Avatar wears its anti-militarism on its sleeve, and even his non-directorial films like Strange Days and Point Break are anti-authority.] True Lies really is an anomaly in his canon - it was his first movie until Avatar where the hero kills other humans, until Avatar.
It's not your bag, that's cool man 8)
Quote from: StrangeShape on Aug 31, 2011, 08:28:38 PM
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 08:20:37 PM
Titanic is a horribly shallow (if pretty) remake of A Night to Remember
How can something based on true events be a remake? You know that this was actually story based on real events and it wasnt invented or written in 1958? And shallow? The action starts halfway through the movie and doesnt let go until the end. Hour and a half of constant Cameronesque tense action with giant special effects, and the first half of a movie is pretty much an old school love fairy tale. It nails that
Yes, I do know that.
Shallow, because a ship of 3000 people was reduced to a love story where everything else was merely spectacle. No sense of of the tragedy that Roy Ward Baker managed to convey, but lots of attempts to emulate similar set pieces clearly based on the visual set ups of A Night to Remember rather than the written records of Walter Lord.
It wasnt a documentary or a miniseries to follow historical characters. It would completely erase any room for new and fictional story and characters, not to mention all the action scenes and situations which were related to it. Most tense moments are the shootout chase and Rose trying to find and free Jack from the arrest during sinking. Plus those characters stayed for entire tragedy, so through dying freezing and abandoned people in the water after the sinking too. If going with original characters, who would the movie follow. The chinese man? Or should it end with real characters just going into boat and being safe for entire sinking? Cmon. A good writer thinks about stuff like that and makes decision that benefit his story most
But again, this is a thread about vehicles in Prometheus, not another Gash bashing Cameron fest
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 31, 2011, 08:32:09 PM
I guess that's why it's so universally quotable and a part of the pop-culture zeitgeist, right?
I guess. I'm not a teenager; little interest in pop culture zeitgeist. Sounds like shite to me.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 31, 2011, 08:32:09 PMThere's a reason why people can quote 'Aliens' left and right, it's because it's well-written dialogue.
Er, it might be quotable for some.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 31, 2011, 08:32:09 PMnot sure how you can say this. 'Aliens' had a really small budget, and he made a massive swarm of Aliens by using 6 people in suits and creative editing. 'The Terminator' was barely completed because he ran out of money. The shot of the Terminator getting its head crushed in the press is literally spraypainted foam, tinfoil, a christmas light, and Stan Winston blowing cigarette smoke.
I'm talking about after Cameron became a much heralded director - the Abyss onwards. If he'd stuck to making the best of a limited budget I'd rate him higher as a director.
Quotei guess it's dangerous to suggest that Prometheus is going to be the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 31, 2011, 08:32:09 PMhave been plenty of great sci-fi movies since Blade Runner, most recently 'District 9'. Hell, 3 of the great sci-fi movies since Blade Runner were directed by James Cameron. :'( (Aliens, Terminator, T2)
District 9 was ok, but I'd steer clear of labelling it a classic. Moon perhaps. Can't currently think of anything else.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Aug 31, 2011, 08:56:37 PM
But again, this is a thread about vehicles in Prometheus, not another Gash bashing Cameron fest
I've actually attempted to point out where I consider his strengths to be to give some balance. Just as I have pointed out Ridley's lower points. There was a suggestion that Cameron was going to write and Scott to direct, I'm glad that didn't happen - I don't think that works to his strengths - although some would obviously disagree. If Cameron was working with Scott on new technological advances I think that would be great.
But then I'm pleased to see that Ridley is not relaying on green screen, he's a more traditional 'in camera' director, thus Sci fi in his hands has the opportunity to look realistic in a genre where reality has been swamped in digital animation. It's great to see built props (including vehicles, even if they might only be background detail like in A L I E N ).
Actually where's that Bishop thread, I'll go bash the Bishop instead. ;)
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 09:09:15 PM
But then I'm pleased to see that Ridley is not relaying on green screen, he's a more traditional 'in camera' director, thus Sci fi in his hands has the opportunity to look realistic in a genre where reality has been swamped in digital animation.
Im pleased with it myself. Next to Scott being attached to the project this is Prometheus' biggest appeal to me right now. Only time CGI ever really worked throughout entire movie was T2, Jurassic Park and Avatar
QuoteI guess. I'm not a teenager; little interest in pop culture zeitgeist. Sounds like shite to me.
You don't have to be a teenager. Even for people who were teenagers when the movies came out, they came out decades ago so they're not teenagers anymore and yet the movies are still quotable.
QuoteEr, it might be quotable for some.
AFI top 100 movie quotes of all time (http://www.afi.com/100years/quotes.aspx). There's 3 quotes from Cameron movies on that list, 0 from Ridley Scott movies.
QuoteIf he'd stuck to making the best of a limited budget I'd rate him higher as a director.
But that shouldn't matter - a good movie is still a good movie, whether you're making it for $10mil or $100mil. ???
QuoteOnly time CGI ever really worked throughout entire movie was T2, Jurassic Park and Avatar
I disagree on that, I can name plenty of other movies where the CGI worked consistently. Independence Day, District 9, all three Transformers movies (say what you will about the writing, the CGI was fantastic). Jurassic Park and T2 really are high marks, but to say they're the only movies where the CGI "worked" seems silly to me.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 31, 2011, 10:03:51 PM
AFI top 100 movie quotes of all time (http://www.afi.com/100years/quotes.aspx). There's 3 quotes from Cameron movies on that list, 0 from Ridley Scott movies.
And this is a negative point?
Writing isn't purely about dialogue or quotable text. Writing in a script can be about what's left unsaid and implied. I think you're taking the term 'writing' too literally. Quotable text doesn't convince me that a film is necessarily brilliantly written. That's just bizarre.
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 09:09:15 PM
But then I'm pleased to see that Ridley is not relaying on green screen, he's a more traditional 'in camera' director, thus Sci fi in his hands has the opportunity to look realistic in a genre where reality has been swamped in digital animation. It's great to see built props (including vehicles, even if they might only be background detail like in A L I E N ).
This is the most reassuring thing about Prometheus; Ridley isn't going ape [can I namedrop Lucas in here, considering today's events?] with CGI, he's doing it all in-camera, on location. Awesome, I can't wait to see these sets. And in a way, Cameron and Scott are collaborating on Prom - Cameron told him to try the Fusion cams that JC midwifed, and Scott loves 'em. Can't wait to see it on screen myself 8)
Quote from: Gash on Aug 31, 2011, 10:23:28 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 31, 2011, 10:03:51 PM
AFI top 100 movie quotes of all time (http://www.afi.com/100years/quotes.aspx). There's 3 quotes from Cameron movies on that list, 0 from Ridley Scott movies.
And this is a negative point?
Writing isn't purely about dialogue or quotable text. Writing in a script can be about what's left unsaid and implied. I think you're taking the term 'writing' too literally. Quotable text doesn't convince me that a film is necessarily brilliantly written. That's just bizarre.
No, you said it "might be quotable for some", I'm pointing out that that "some" is the American Film Institute. It's not just teenagers or whatever who find the dialogue in his films memorable, it's
everybody. :P
COOL VEHICLES. I THINK THEY'LL LOOK GOOD IN THE MOVIE. HOW 'BOUT THAT LOGO ON THE SIDE OF IT, HUH?
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Aug 31, 2011, 11:24:05 PM
COOL VEHICLES. I THINK THEY'LL LOOK GOOD IN THE MOVIE. HOW 'BOUT THAT LOGO ON THE SIDE OF IT, HUH?
Uh, what? How about you stay on topic for a change? This thread is about quot ... .... ... ohh.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Aug 31, 2011, 11:19:58 PM
No, you said it "might be quotable for some", I'm pointing out that that "some" is the American Film Institute. It's not just teenagers or whatever who find the dialogue in his films memorable, it's everybody. :P
What? Everybody belongs to the American Film institute? 'Some' is a more accurate summation of who could quote lines from any film. The BFI list would be significantly different for starters.
All those lists are subjective: I'd say 'Tears in the rain' is more quotable than 'Show me the money' or 'Life was like a box of chocolates' or 'Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth' or 'my precious'.
But who reviews the quality of scripts by the number of quotable lines anyway?
Using whether or not a film is quotable as a thermometer for what's good and what isn't is sorta lame. Ridley doesn't make the kinds of films Cambo makes. They're two different directors entirely. One makes thoughtful serious films, the other, summer block busters that are fun to remember, and make a mark, but largely dont enter the psyche on any sort of grand level the way Ridley does. They're both great at what they do without the need for comparison.
Say what you want, man. The Terminator got in my psyche more than Gladiator did :P [and I lurve Glad!]
So, can anyone with 3D skills recreate that vehicle via the two available views of it?
Quote[Cameron's films] largely dont enter the psyche on any sort of grand level the way Ridley does.
I don't know how anyone can say this with a straight face.
Also "Cambo" is about the most retarded nickname this side of "Riddles". :P
So how 'bout them vehicles.... :laugh:
Ridley is a prolific filmmaker. He can make films that can enter your psyche. But there are a lot of movies of his that are intended to be simple popcorn movies and really are just that. Keyword here is prolific.
Cameron -- not as prolific. He invest his time more on creating the perfect blockbuster. Of course they don't come out perfect, but Cameron has a better success rate than Ridley in terms of general audience acceptance.
Personally, I prefer Ridley's visual style more than Cameron. But if I was a betting man, I would choose Cameron to make better movies in the long run.
Quote from: josh_axey on Sep 01, 2011, 02:33:44 AM
So how 'bout them vehicles.... :laugh:
YES. THE VEHICLES. CAN'T WAIT TO SEE MORE.
I was thrown off by the title of this thread. I though it was about those new pictures, not Cameron vs Scott
I'll take a film that's not as widely loved by larger audiences then then the popular blockbuster fare we see every year.
^ this. Enough of Ridley's films have had a proven longevity, and an original created look that belies the time in which they were made. People seem to forget that before A L I E N and Blade Runner sci fi didn't really look like that.
Culturally the impact of his design decisions has had an enormous impact on the world over the last 30 years. Everything from the obvious influence of 'C' deck design being the default for sci-fi, right down to minutiae like the fashion for combat jeans, stems from A L I E N in 79. He's far more influential than any 'quotable' film maker. Not every film he's ever made is a classic sure enough but I think he's probably the most important director around for lots of reasons that are more significant than his hit and miss rate.
QuoteHe's far more influential than any 'quotable' film maker.
That's another statement I can't believe people would actually say with a straight face. If you honestly think Ridley Scott is more influential to filmmaking and society/pop-culture as a whole than James Cameron, whose movies invented photoshop, revolutionized CGI, revolutionized underwater filmmaking, revolutionized 3D filmmaking, and are largely regarded as the most popular action movies of all time, I don't know what to say.
Ridley Scott is known for four films - Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and Black Hawk Down. As for the clothing and design thing, I suspect a lot of that "lived in" design could be traced back to Star Wars 2 years prior, not 'Alien'.
QuoteI think he's probably the most important director around
I don't see how anyone could honestly think this, especially since his last several movies weren't very good and there's plenty of other directors who are consistently better, and I'm not even talking "turn your brain off" popcorn movies. Hell, I suspect Ridley Scott would be the first one to admit it. He'd be flattered to think someone thought that of him, but I'm confident he wouldn't agree.
Danny Boyle, Chris Nolan, David Fincher, Guillermo del Toro, Neil Blomkamp, Clint Eastwood, Terry Gilliam, I'd put any of those higher than Ridley Scott if only because Scott's last several movies weren't very good and the last visually iconic, groundbreaking movie he did was Blade Runner, 30 years ago.
I mean, don't get me wrong. I like Ridley Scott when he does things well. Gladiator is one of my favorite movies. I just re-watched 'Alien' on bluray not 2 days ago and I still like it quite a bit. I'm borrowing 'Blade Runner' from a friend so I can re-watch it because I don't have my DVD handy. But some of these claims I'm seeing in this thread are some hardcore cognitive dissonance and hero-worship.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 01, 2011, 07:34:54 AM
As for the clothing and design thing, I suspect a lot of that "lived in" design could be traced back to Dark Star 7 years prior, not 'Alien'.
Theeere we go.
That's being rather generous. Star Wars was the first major sci-fi to have rusty conduit-filled corridors on its interstellar spaceships.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 01, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
That's being rather generous. Star Wars was the first major sci-fi to have rusty conduit-filled corridors on its interstellar spaceships.
Probably, but Dark Star was never major. Cobb worked on DS and Alien, so I see the progression going from there. Lucas saw DS too, as did Roger Christian, who saw it and called it 'amazing.' Though he was also influenced on Star Wars by Alphaville and Solaris.
Xenomorph....I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're missing the larger point. First of all, I don't like this 'better than' business. Both gentleman have created some pretty astounding work respectively. For me, as a science fiction lover, and some one who will even watch a couple of the Species films just to see what's going, and as a person who loves the original Star Wars trilogy, David Lynch's Dune and a few others....NOT ONE of the films by Lucas, Cameron, Lynch, Kubrick resonate in my consciousness the way A L I E N and BladeRunner have. There's a quality about Scotts films that transcends costume design and technological feats. His sole science fiction films created this isolated distance, this tangible spacial dissonance between the film and the viewer. The way Deckard looked out on to the city in BladeRunner capturing the essence of full yet lonely big city living, the way Brett embodied blue collar qualities....I can't shake how it's effected the way I see everything when it comes to science fiction. I can't say that for Cameron, Lucas, Lynch, Soderbergh, (possibly Spielberg).
More soon.
Bethesda described the most important features of Scott's scifi movies in a pill. The visual look or the way sene looks, a shot can convey more than 15 pages of dialogue about the subject and feelings like in Nolan movies and can do it without a single line. Just a shot or a scene, like the above mentioned Deckard scene
At the same time I find it rather shocking that you diminish others as being about special effects and costume designs. Both Cameron and Spielbegr are very heart oriented directors, thats why their movies have so much appeal. Theyre not Michael bay who only has explosions and big CG, they also convey feelings and likeable characters as well. I noticed you do have a preference for a very dark and dirty scifi (I dont have any kind of preference in scifi, as long as its a serious story), so Im a little suprised you dont even like and give credit to The Terminator and AI
In the long run Im amazed theres this ultimatum and semicompetition made by fans between those two great, mutually respecting directors and friends. Instead of being absolutely thrilled such 2 giants and legends had made movies in the same series, people are trying to discredit one another in order to bring up their personal favorite. What is it, Hghlander? There can be only one? ::)
Just want to add on the subject of Cameron influencing Prometheus. It goes further than Fusion cameras and 3d. When Ill get a chance Ill post the quote, but according to Cameron he was the one who talked him into coming back to scifi when both were meeting regularly on the set of Avatar
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Sep 01, 2011, 12:07:48 PM
Xenomorph....I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're missing the larger point. First of all, I don't like this 'better than' business. Both gentleman have created some pretty astounding work respectively. For me, as a science fiction lover, and some one who will even watch a couple of the Species films just to see what's going, and as a person who loves the original Star Wars trilogy, David Lynch's Dune and a few others....NOT ONE of the films by Lucas, Cameron, Lynch, Kubrick resonate in my consciousness the way A L I E N and BladeRunner have. There's a quality about Scotts films that transcends costume design and technological feats. His sole science fiction films created this isolated distance, this tangible spacial dissonance between the film and the viewer. The way Deckard looked out on to the city in BladeRunner capturing the essence of full yet lonely big city living, the way Brett embodied blue collar qualities....I can't shake how it's effected the way I see everything when it comes to science fiction. I can't say that for Cameron, Lucas, Lynch, Soderbergh, (possibly Spielberg).
More soon.
I doubt Xeno, amonst others and myself included, would disagree with a word of this post.
However, Xeno,myself and others were defending Cameron when an earlier post had described his movies as overhyped and
badly written.
I love Scott's work for many of the reasons you mention, but I'm sorry, nobody is gonna tell me James Cameron does not know how to write a movie.
Okay...back for a minute as I await yet another flight.....
I should preface this by saying none of the last aformentioned directors I think make 'less than' films, for whatever that's worth. It's really about singular connection from screen to viewer. I actually LOVE Avatar more then most because Cameron captures a purity and beauty of a natural world that I connected to spiritually, if that makes sense. It was amazing.
Spielbergs ET and Close Encounters also tapped into grit that I could identify with, a single mother, a father leaving his family for reasons beyond his knowledge, etc... Basically he created a world of dysfunction that's laudibly authentic while conjuring a spell of space and wonder around it, entrancing the lives of his somewhat downtrodden characters in the midst.These are amazing things and abilities I'm not so sure Spielberg posseses anymore (War of the Worlds anyone).
In terms of Cameron, I agree that he directs from the heart, or he attempts to create a heart center in his films. The difference for
me in regards to Scotts Science Fiction work is that everything I see in A L I E N and BladeRunner, all of the technology, the
acting, the sets, the beautiful minutiae only serves to round out the characters, drawing me, and giving me an opportunity to say "yes, I've been there, I know that feeling, I've seen those skies too." I just haven't experienced this in any other sci-fi films, but that doesn't mean the others, very capable and amazing directors, don't affect me in different awesome ways. Scotts film just resonate deeper. I can't explain it.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Sep 01, 2011, 03:02:55 PM
Okay...back for a minute as I await yet another flight.....
I should preface this by saying none of the last aformentioned directors I think make 'less than' films, for whatever that's worth. It's really about singular connection from screen to viewer. I actually LOVE Avatar more then most because Cameron captures a purity and beauty of a natural world that I connected to spiritually, if that makes sense. It was amazing.
Spielbergs ET and Close Encounters also tapped into grit that I could identify with, a single mother, a father leaving his family for reasons beyond his knowledge, etc... Basically he created a world of dysfunction that's laudibly authentic while conjuring a spell of space and wonder around it, entrancing the lives of his somewhat downtrodden characters in the midst.These are amazing things and abilities I'm not so sure Spielberg posseses anymore (War of the Worlds anyone).
In terms of Cameron, I agree that he directs from the heart, or he attempts to create a heart center in his films. The difference for me in regards to Scotts Science Fiction work is that everything I see in A L I E N and BladeRunner, all of the technology, the acting, the sets, the beautiful minutea only serves the round out the characters, drawing me, and giving me an opportunity to say "yes, I've been there, I know that feeling, I've seen those skies too." I just haven't experienced this in any other sci-fi films, but that doesn't mean the others, by capable and amazing directors don't affect me in different ways. Scotts film just resonate deeper. I can't explain it.
Like I said previously, it has nothing whatsoever to do with who is the best director, who has the biggest beard or who can piss the highest
It has nothing to do if Cameron can direct a movie well, or the differences between him and Scott.
It has all
absolutey everything (and only) to do with Cameron being a bad writer or not, that's all.Don't read things into this discussion that aren't there.This isn't a Scott v Cameron discussion at all.
Quote from: Look into my eye on Sep 01, 2011, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Sep 01, 2011, 03:02:55 PM
Okay...back for a minute as I await yet another flight.....
I should preface this by saying none of the last aformentioned directors I think make 'less than' films, for whatever that's worth. It's really about singular connection from screen to viewer. I actually LOVE Avatar more then most because Cameron captures a purity and beauty of a natural world that I connected to spiritually, if that makes sense. It was amazing.
Spielbergs ET and Close Encounters also tapped into grit that I could identify with, a single mother, a father leaving his family for reasons beyond his knowledge, etc... Basically he created a world of dysfunction that's laudibly authentic while conjuring a spell of space and wonder around it, entrancing the lives of his somewhat downtrodden characters in the midst.These are amazing things and abilities I'm not so sure Spielberg posseses anymore (War of the Worlds anyone).
In terms of Cameron, I agree that he directs from the heart, or he attempts to create a heart center in his films. The difference for me in regards to Scotts Science Fiction work is that everything I see in A L I E N and BladeRunner, all of the technology, the acting, the sets, the beautiful minutea only serves the round out the characters, drawing me, and giving me an opportunity to say "yes, I've been there, I know that feeling, I've seen those skies too." I just haven't experienced this in any other sci-fi films, but that doesn't mean the others, by capable and amazing directors don't affect me in different ways. Scotts film just resonate deeper. I can't explain it.
Like I said previously, it has nothing whatsoever to do with who is the best director, who has the biggest beard or who can piss the highest
It has nothing to do if Cameron can direct a movie well, or the differences between him and Scott.
It has all absolutey everything (and only) to do with Cameron being a bad writer or not, that's all.Don't read things into this discussion that aren't there.This isn't a Scott v Cameron discussion at all.
... i think he explained himself excellently ...
LookIntoMyEye...you lost me. What are you taking about?
*addendum*
For my money, and in terms of films that capture what old Spielberg films were able to....Super 8 was the best science fiction film I've seen since.....return of the Jedi....in the order of Close Encounters kinds of films. I remember being all of those kids, trying to make movies, making models, etc...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3tCumSDHP50%2FTlnR3g3I4uI%2FAAAAAAAAAJ0%2FS8GxthePVPI%2Fs320%2Fprometheus_vehicle_truck.jpg&hash=477e3e9ac1fd1865c17599f0e12c199bda52775d)!!!!
Quote from: SpaceMarines on Sep 01, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3tCumSDHP50%2FTlnR3g3I4uI%2FAAAAAAAAAJ0%2FS8GxthePVPI%2Fs320%2Fprometheus_vehicle_truck.jpg&hash=477e3e9ac1fd1865c17599f0e12c199bda52775d)!!!!
IS THIS NEW!?
looks crap. /thread
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Sep 01, 2011, 03:17:44 PM
LookIntoMyEye...you lost me. What are you taking about?
*addendum*
For my money, and in terms of films that capture what old Spielberg films were able to....Super 8 was the best science fiction film I've seen since.....return of the Jedi....in the order of Close Encounters kinds of films. I remember being all of those kids, trying to make movies, making models, etc...
Now I know you smoke the happy baccy.What exactly are you posting and why?
This thread started out talking about the vehicles in Prometheus, then it got hijacked about Cameron being a bad writer and now your rabbiting on about god knows what dude.
Here have a wallpaper I thought was cool.
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii283/Evilqtl_2007/Misc/HR-Giger-Alien.jpg (http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii283/Evilqtl_2007/Misc/HR-Giger-Alien.jpg)
Peace!
PS
Thread is totally screwed now
Yeah, heaven forfend that conversations should evolve!
Anyway, for my money Cameron lost his ear for dialogue after The Abyss. It's good in T2, but getting shaky. True Lies is a sexist mess, all the worse for coming from the pen of the inventor of Sarah Connor and 1986 model Ripley. Ridley Scott is a master at creating a world, although as my years pass I suspect there's slightly more style than substance to a lot of his output. Alien remains an utter classic, though. Cameron is possibly better at fashioning a narrative character, Scott a character character - if that makes sense. However, Scott is not a writer, so really the only place they can be truly compared is on direction.
The vehicles look interesting, although the car thing is a tad uninspiring in the flat daylight of the set photo. I'm sure it'll look better in situe. It's certainly a different design ethic to Alien, but why shouldn't it be? I'm all for evolution.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 01, 2011, 07:34:54 AM
{of Ridley Scott} ...his last several movies weren't very good and there's plenty of other directors who are consistently better, and I'm not even talking "turn your brain off" popcorn movies. Hell, I suspect Ridley Scott would be the first one to admit it. He'd be flattered to think someone thought that of him, but I'm confident he wouldn't agree.
I wouldn't be so confidant.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 01, 2011, 07:34:54 AMDanny Boyle, Chris Nolan, David Fincher, Guillermo del Toro, Neil Blomkamp, Clint Eastwood, Terry Gilliam, I'd put any of those higher than Ridley Scott if only because Scott's last several movies weren't very good and the last visually iconic, groundbreaking movie he did was Blade Runner, 30 years ago.
And you talk about saying things with a straight face. :laugh:
Quote from: Valaquen on Sep 01, 2011, 11:13:10 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 01, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
That's being rather generous. Star Wars was the first major sci-fi to have rusty conduit-filled corridors on its interstellar spaceships.
Probably, but Dark Star was never major. Cobb worked on DS and Alien, so I see the progression going from there. Lucas saw DS too, as did Roger Christian, who saw it and called it 'amazing.' Though he was also influenced on Star Wars by Alphaville and Solaris.
Point is that it wasn't 'Alien'. :P
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Sep 01, 2011, 12:07:48 PM
Xenomorph....I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're missing the larger point. First of all, I don't like this 'better than' business. Both gentleman have created some pretty astounding work respectively. For me, as a science fiction lover, and some one who will even watch a couple of the Species films just to see what's going, and as a person who loves the original Star Wars trilogy, David Lynch's Dune and a few others....NOT ONE of the films by Lucas, Cameron, Lynch, Kubrick resonate in my consciousness the way A L I E N and BladeRunner have. There's a quality about Scotts films that transcends costume design and technological feats. His sole science fiction films created this isolated distance, this tangible spacial dissonance between the film and the viewer. The way Deckard looked out on to the city in BladeRunner capturing the essence of full yet lonely big city living, the way Brett embodied blue collar qualities....I can't shake how it's effected the way I see everything when it comes to science fiction. I can't say that for Cameron, Lucas, Lynch, Soderbergh, (possibly Spielberg).
More soon.
I can understand that, and at least you're putting your opinion out there with the caveat that it's
your opinion, and it's how the movies have resonated
for you. I guess I was more of taking issue with Gash's hero-worship of Ridley Scott at the expense of all other directors. Making claims that Ridley Scott is more important and more influential than any other director today strikes me as incredibly bizarre and disconnected from reality.
It's one thing to like 'Alien', but to say he's that important
today (let alone the
most important), when he hasn't made a sci-fi or horror movie in 30 years, and his last few movies have been mediocre at best, doesn't make sense.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 01, 2011, 04:09:05 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Sep 01, 2011, 11:13:10 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 01, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
That's being rather generous. Star Wars was the first major sci-fi to have rusty conduit-filled corridors on its interstellar spaceships.
Probably, but Dark Star was never major. Cobb worked on DS and Alien, so I see the progression going from there. Lucas saw DS too, as did Roger Christian, who saw it and called it 'amazing.' Though he was also influenced on Star Wars by Alphaville and Solaris.
Point is that it wasn't 'Alien'. :P
Correct :laugh: Alien is one step in a series of progressions. Probably the second most famous step after Star Wars, but not the second step in itself :)
I'm surprised that no one seems to have mentioned it, but that loader thing is in the first official shot. Not sure that helps discern what it is, though.
Quote from: jevjnd2000 on Sep 01, 2011, 04:58:38 PM
I'm surprised that no one seems to have mentioned it, but that loader thing is in the first official shot. Not sure that helps discern what it is, though.
We noticed 8)
Nothin' gets the motha' flippin' Valaquen.
Quote from: Highland on Aug 30, 2011, 10:05:28 PM
It could be something else entirely.
It doesn't make sense to me to build such a massive prop for something that could be quite easily CGI'd for half the cost.
Not true. Cost of on set props and adding it in cgi later on a large movie like this works out to be the same.
You say its half the price or cheaper but what's your source? because if your just jumping onto the old bang waggon of oh cgi is half the cost then yes you may be right. But only if you want a half arsed job that doesn't look real
To get it to look perfect in cgi takes alot of resources. Could (on this High resolution) take longer to finaly render the shot than it would be to build it
If you want high end graphics which scott will want then its going to be easier, better to build part of the piece that in close ups, like the official pic, will be seen then add extentions onto it when needed. that cuts down the amount of work a model maker, animator, texture artist, lighting specialist would need to spend on that shot. Saving money and production time
hopefully this is going to be good series and last for some time not just a couple then to be continued.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 01, 2011, 04:09:05 PM
Making claims that Ridley Scott is more important and more influential than any other director today strikes me as incredibly bizarre and disconnected from reality.
Given some of the examples you've cited I really don't care what it strikes you as.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 01, 2011, 04:09:05 PMIt's one thing to like 'Alien', but to say he's that important today (let alone the most important), when he hasn't made a sci-fi or horror movie in 30 years, and his last few movies have been mediocre at best, doesn't make sense.
Who cares about sci-fi or horror? You seem to think Ridley's known for four films. Enough said.
Cos he is? Of all his recent movies people still really only remember him from Hannibal, Black Hawk Down and Gladiator.
Duellists, A L I E N, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster.
Not all the above films are to my taste but all have been successful, critically or financially and all have more merit than most summer blockbusters. There are others worthy of note but he has been more prolific in the last fifteen years in directing and producing and there have been periods of lacklustre films throughout. So this is not 'hero' worship, it's pointing out that Ridley's skills are there in spades when he pulls out all the stops. And that is not something that is long distant, it is something that has occurred regularly throughout his career. I think this whole ludicrous debate started because someone suggested Ridley might be able to match Cameron, something which to me goes without saying. I'm afraid I probably over reacted and took the implication that Cameron might be a more worthy torch bearer for anything related to ALIEN as a snub to the orignators, chiefly Dan O'B, HR Giger, and Scott, who did the difficult work of creating everything. I don't hate Cameron, I think he has strengths, but I think he's built them on the shoulders of giants and flourished in his own way. However I will never find a lot to like in the 1986 sequel, it simply disappoints me - not because of what it is - but because of what it isn't.
And yes, blow me, I do think Ridley Scott is probably one of the most significant directors of our era. But heaven forfend that I should state as much, and fail to rate as highly the obvious talents of some of the other directors trotting out their wares. Pardon me for finding depth where there is none. Yes I really must go and watch The Dark Knight, or Hellboy, or The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, or other films I have little interest in.
QuoteSo this is not 'hero' worship, it's pointing out that Ridley's skills are there in spades when he pulls out all the stops.
I guess he forgot to do that for about half his movies.
QuoteYes I really must go and watch The Dark Knight, or Hellboy, or The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, or other films I have little interest in.
All of those movies (and Pan's Labyrinth, and The Prestige, and Inception, and Brazil) have been widely regarded as visual spectacles.
Hell, even SiL, who is a huge 'Alien' fan and doesn't particularly like 'Aliens' as much as others (as far as I know) seems to think you're blowing Ridley Scott's reputation a bit out of proportion. Again, no one thinks he's a bad director, they're just pointing out that:
1. he hasn't done sci-fi for 30 years
2. his percentage of good to bad, especially in the last few years, is spotty at best
What he's done in the past doesn't really have any bearing on how he's going to perform
now, decades later. Given his recent track record I'd say there's fair reason for people to be cautiously optimistic. Lightning could strike twice and we could get 'Alien', or we could end up with 'Body of Lies', or 'Robin Hood'. It's too early to tell, and saying "it's going to be good because it's Ridley Scott" is a little short-sighted.
There were plenty of people disappointed by 'Avatar' because they were expecting something like 'Terminator 2' or 'Aliens', and instead they got something much tamer. There were people who eagerly anticipated the Star Wars prequels, because holy shit it's Star Wars, how could George Lucas possibly f**k it up?
Welp. :(
Quote from: Gash on Sep 02, 2011, 12:40:21 AM
Duellists,
Oh, come off it. Who the hell
ever actually mentions that movie? How many people even
know about it in the first place outside of fans of his work?
QuoteNot all the above films are to my taste but all have been successful, critically or financially and all have more merit than most summer blockbusters.
Fantastic. How about Legend, GI Jane, or 1492? They were all trashed.
QuoteThere are others worthy of note
Not really, no.
QuoteAnd yes, blow me, I do think Ridley Scott is probably one of the most significant directors of our era.
How is he
significant? How are any of them? Dude makes some entertaining films. That's it.
QuoteHow is he significant? How are any of them? Dude makes some entertaining films. That's it.
I can understand significance on certain levels - 'Alien' introduced the "female protagonist" idea, even though 'Aliens' turned it into the "female action-hero" idea. 'Alien' bucked a lot of "haunted house" horror movie cliches in interesting and memorable ways. The Alien design was unforgettable. Blade Runner has an iconic neo-noir visual style, and the soundtrack by Vangelis is fantastic and really memorable.
But beyond 'Alien' and 'Blade Runner', I wouldn't say any of his movies were revolutionary or iconic. They didn't push the boundaries of technology or visuals, they didn't re-shape the way we view certain character archetypes, they're all largely "safe" movies and frankly some of them sucked.
That isn't to say he can't make good movies anymore or that Prometheus doesn't have the potential to be fantastic, it's that heralding Ridley Scott as the finest director of our time because of two movies he did 30 years ago is a massive disservice to all the other directors who have contributed to cinema since 1982.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2011, 02:01:43 AM
That isn't to say he can't make good movies anymore or that Prometheus doesn't have the potential to be fantastic, it's that heralding Ridley Scott as the finest director of our time because of two movies he did 30 years ago is a massive disservice to all the other directors who have contributed to cinema since 1982.
How many times does Guts need to mention more recent movies for you to acknowledge he isn't just talking
Alien and
Blade Runner? :-\
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2011, 02:20:43 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2011, 02:01:43 AM
That isn't to say he can't make good movies anymore or that Prometheus doesn't have the potential to be fantastic, it's that heralding Ridley Scott as the finest director of our time because of two movies he did 30 years ago is a massive disservice to all the other directors who have contributed to cinema since 1982.
How many times does Guts need to mention more recent movies for you to acknowledge he isn't just talking Alien and Blade Runner? :-\
Because I think he's fixating on those two, and if he is I can understand why because they *are* significant. :P
What's interesting to me is that instead of people responding with balance, Ridley is being seemingly bashed because some of his films aren't critically acclaimed and some are? Thelma and Louise is a great example of Ridleys non science fiction work that fared well in the eyes of critics many years later.
I would prefer that Scott hasn't been king blockbuster film, and that he's had missteps and fumblings, it keeps him grounded and his art visceral. I AM NOT saying that because the others are generally lauded that their work makes loads of money that they are worse. I am merely stating that using an artists less successful work against him is a low blow. I expect more from people then that.
It isn't a low-blow when we're talking about something the director is working on now, so we use his contemporary history as a filmmaker as a benchmark for whether or not he might mess up. It at least makes more logical sense than "Well he made these great moves decades ago that are still hallmark films of the genre, so there's no possible way he could mess up today".
Steven Spielberg is the name everyone knows, even a random person from the streets so thats all I have to add here. Not Ridley Scott. So I think Spielberg's the most influential in the genre and most known
Anyway, one great thing that came out of this thread is that it made me watch Blade Runner again
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2011, 01:47:08 AM
Quote from: Gash on Sep 02, 2011, 12:40:21 AM
Duellists,
Oh, come off it. Who the hell ever actually mentions that movie? How many people even know about it in the first place outside of fans of his work?
I think The Duellists was a fantastic film, really fantastic, but you're right - had I never investigated Scott's work, then I'd have never, ever, have come across it.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2011, 02:01:43 AM
I can understand significance on certain levels - 'Alien' introduced the "female protagonist" idea
In a sci-fi context, yes. In movies? Hell naw! There was Laurie Strode the year before, and countless other female survivor characters. Blaxploitation films had female Dirty Harry-esque characters, long before Alien. But Ripley is very popular, yes. It's funny that according to David Giler, a lot of the initial feedback came saying that audiences wouldn've preferred that Ripley was a man! :laugh:
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2011, 01:47:08 AM
Quote from: Gash on Sep 02, 2011, 12:40:21 AM
Duellists,
Oh, come off it. Who the hell ever actually mentions that movie? How many people even know about it in the first place outside of fans of his work?
Hmph, I happen to adore The Duellists and I regularly talk about it with people whenever Ridley Scott comes up in conversation. Having said that, I'm aware that it's hardly a well known film. It is a critically respected film though. Anyway, I just wanted to say that; I have zero interest in joining this Scott Vs Cameron debate, as it's ridiculous and ultimately a fruitless conversation to pursue.
That is all.
So...anyway...
The vehicles look interesting and the car/rover thing will probably appear much more subdued in the film. Stage lighting makes a world of difference...just think of the original ALIEN...most people think the creature is black/green and silver.
Quick note on the director tangent...Scott has done some decent work (more recently) and has been influential for sure. In terms of this movie, I can't imagine a better director to try and bring back the same atmosphere that the original film created. I'm pretty confident this film will turn out well. I think his approach is good and his legacy, to some extent, is at stake. All those things should lead to something better than average (one would think).
Looks like that it wil cost them some money! :D
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2011, 02:45:57 AM
It isn't a low-blow when we're talking about something the director is working on now, so we use his contemporary history as a filmmaker as a benchmark for whether or not he might mess up. It at least makes more logical sense than "Well he made these great moves decades ago that are still hallmark films of the genre, so there's no possible way he could mess up today".
Whoosh!!
Who are you quoting there btw?
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2011, 01:47:08 AM
Quote from: Gash on Sep 02, 2011, 12:40:21 AM
Duellists,
Oh, come off it. Who the hell ever actually mentions that movie? How many people even know about it in the first place outside of fans of his work?
Dunno, I'm talking about good films, not measuring them by box office receipt. I saw The Duellists around the same time I saw A L I E N. Perhaps I'm only discussing this with Sci Fi fans?
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2011, 01:47:08 AM
How about Legend, GI Jane, or 1492? They were all trashed.
Indeed, but of all fantasy/sword and sorcery fare made up to that point I'd take Legend over other efforts. Not seen GI Jane, doesn't interest me, 1492 was certainly the best of the Columbus films, but then I wasn't asked to list every Scott film, just those that proved his credentials as worthy of tackling Prometheus.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2011, 01:47:08 AMquote] There are others worthy of note
Not really, no. [/quote]
The above mentioned Legend is worthy of note no matter what you think of Cruise. It is admittedly a visual feast rather than a great film but it's still noteworthy. Someone to Watch Over Me and Black Rain are decent thrillers that I would not find a chore to watch.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2011, 01:47:08 AMQuoteAnd yes, blow me, I do think Ridley Scott is probably one of the most significant directors of our era.
How is he significant? How are any of them? Dude makes some entertaining films. That's it.
It a question of reference point I suppose. I work in the illustration and graphic design industry with involvement with TV and film in the UK, and I have done for some years, Ridley Scott's influence is more prevalent than any other visualist IMHO. It's sometimes a question of deliberately trying to find a design route that doesn't look like it is pilferred off of Scott (or trying to convince a director/producer not to attempt to copy some aspect of his output - in a poorer way).
Duncan Jones 'Moon' is the best I've seen in terms of low sic-fi tech used to dynamic and believable effect, and the movie was brilliant too. ;)
Low scifi tech? That's because Moon was only set in 2026. Prometheus is 2085.
Quote from: JaaayDee on Sep 02, 2011, 06:57:20 PM
Low scifi tech? That's because Moon was only set in 2026. Prometheus is 2085.
I suspect talking about the films production techniques, rather than it's setting. Lot's of aspects of Moon were deliberate old school, using models and real sets, including forced perspective sets etc, only augmented by cgi. And all the more convincing for it.
Quote from: JaaayDee on Sep 02, 2011, 06:57:20 PM
Low scifi tech? That's because Moon was only set in 2026. Prometheus is 2085.
I didn't realize it had been confirmed that Prometheus takes place in a specific year.
QuoteIt's set in 2085, about 30 years before Sigourney [Weaver's character Ellen Ripley].
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1637638/exclusive-ridley-scott-reveals-alien-prequel-details.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1637638/exclusive-ridley-scott-reveals-alien-prequel-details.jhtml)
Cool, thanks for the info. :)
I think he wants to rip the AVP movies so bad but holds back for some reason :D
Quote from: chrisr232007 on Sep 03, 2011, 01:23:21 AM
I think he wants to rip the AVP movies so bad but holds back for some reason :D
That reason being that he is affiliated to 20th Century Fox via Prometheus; It's simply politics. Sir Scott has made enough vague comments regarding the AVP movies as to be able to read between the lines and see what he really thinks about them (i.e. they're shit).
Anyway, as for the vehicle; I'm not overly keen on the aesthetics of it but I also don't hate it, so I guess I'm indifferent. As others have said, those gold wheels probably won't look quite so lurid on film.
I can't believe fanbois are bending over backwards to argue that Scott isn't a big name. Self hatered maybe? Blade Runner I think is one of the most revered films among people working in the industry now. It's basiscally Christopher Nolan's Bible. I don't know why people act like you have to have 20 movies of equal influence or something to be significant.
Well said Ghidrax....
the only reason why Scott gets so much flack is because He hasn't made it to the stratosphere of box office billions form the films he's made. Some how, people relate box office numbers to career success. It's a simpletons equation.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Sep 06, 2011, 09:09:00 PM
Some how, people relate box office numbers to career success. It's a simpletons equation.
BO success does equal career success, just like position and $ in any career equal success. But its impact that people are talking about, and I agree with those who say its ridiculous to claim Scott is the most influential and biggest director ever. Imo Spielberg is because hes the most recognizable name and changed cinema so many times with Jaws, Close Encounters, ET and JP. Anyway what I find ridiculous is that civil war and silly amaturish venom spewing towards either Cameron or Scott to prove something. Both are terrific visionairies and made legendary pictures that got selected for preservation, both are geniuses and none of them is even close to Michael Bay's dumb popcorn entertainment so people who bash one or another, stop embarassing yourself
financial success does not equate to artistic success. Some of the worst films have made the most money. Star Wars Prequels anyone?
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Sep 06, 2011, 10:22:20 PM
financial success does not equate to artistic success. Some of the worst films have made the most money. Star Wars Prequels anyone?
Of course, but you didnt say financial success. You said career success
Quote from: StrangeShape on Sep 06, 2011, 10:28:40 PM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Sep 06, 2011, 10:22:20 PM
financial success does not equate to artistic success. Some of the worst films have made the most money. Star Wars Prequels anyone?
Of course, but you didnt say financial success. You said career success
Financial success matters more in context of when it occurred. Similarly, Citizen Kane I think lost money. But I'm sure there's a lot of movies that came out that year that made more money that are no longer as influential. This is also the reason that sequels to "sleeper hits" that flopped or almost flopped decades later can be big financial successes.
Naturally. But the vast majority of game changers were indeed big bo successes (Jaws, Star Wars, Alien, Batman, T2, JP etc), which goes against this current weird way of thinking that something must be either a masterpiece or a hit, never together
It goes both ways of course and I sure dont mean to say a masterpice must be a hit
I'm starting to think now that this vehicle in the garage in the Nostromo has front windows as odd as the vehicle in Prometheus and I wonder if it was part of the inspiration. (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-z7dwueh9eK8%2FTmdi4_PlAaI%2FAAAAAAAAAso%2FMeNXGm0Jj-M%2Fs1600%2Fbuggy.png&hash=a15fd6b799da8d983495dd70e02ece64dfb188d6)
Quote from: GhidraX on Sep 06, 2011, 08:35:07 PM
I can't believe fanbois are bending over backwards to argue that Scott isn't a big name. Self hatered maybe? Blade Runner I think is one of the most revered films among people working in the industry now. It's basiscally Christopher Nolan's Bible. I don't know why people act like you have to have 20 movies of equal influence or something to be significant.
No one said he isn't a big name, just that he isn't the most influential or most important director of all time like Gash was claiming.
He's one of them, but not the most.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 08, 2011, 09:52:24 AM
No one said he isn't a big name, just that he isn't the most influential or most important director of all time like Gash was claiming.
It wasn't a claim, just a statement based on personal experience. And Hitchcock is the
most influential director IMO. I have heard more directors claim Scott to be an influence than I have heard the same of Cameron. I'm not saying Cameron hasn't inspired people or developed groundbreaking technology but in terms of overall influence I'd regard Scott as more of a director's director and therefore held in higher standing. Partly because of his eclectic mix of films, whether they have been financially successful or not. All these things have made him a more interesting film maker. Personal taste. I'd accept what the film critic Barry Norman says: Cameron is a master craftsmen, Scott is an artist.
You're dead on Gash. Every director of a sci-fi film I've ever read an interview with usually cites Scott, not Cameron.
Interesting to claim Cameron is not an artist considering that Cameron solely designed all the vehicles and the endoskeleton from his terminator movies and the alien queen and thanator. Hes also the guy who likes to convey usually subtle symbolism through visuals a lot in his movies. For example, note the subliminal lighting on T-800 during Hasta La Vista moment. To quote the text commentary on the DVD: "Since it was a very human moment for T-800, his damaged, mechanical side is in the shadow. Also, the mechanical part is lightly lit with cold blue, and the human side with warm orange. That symbolized the humanity that was prevailing in him at the time, and the moment when he truly became as close to the human character as possible. It was a so called fire and ice motif, expanding on the theme of human and machine interfacing."
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdvision.fr%2Fjco%2F40.jpg&hash=fe80e1303ab8ed040d8d3d2f190d1261e3daf7f8)
Thats something Ive never caught myself, only found out from DVD extras. And there are million examples like that, even with the designs conveying symbolism as well. And people like Verhoeven and Blomkamp both studied and were tremendously affected and inspired by the first terminator. Just to name the two
Not to mention Cameron's use of backlight which creates surreal images and his creative use of light in general. For example, in T2 the streets at night were sprinkled with water to "provide interesting reflecting lights"
Cameron cited Ridley for his influence over the use of back lighting, and lighting in general. I've read this in two interviews with Cameron.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Sep 10, 2011, 02:38:25 AM
Cameron cited Ridley for his influence over the use of back lighting, and lighting in general. I've read this in two interviews with Cameron.
I know. Doesnt change anything I said tho, he IS an artist not some model builder/technician as you two claim. And I said, I just gave examples of his creative lightning techniques, didnt list them all. And what he took from Scott is the backlight and blue night, but it doesnt matter who originated what, who first came up with 'less is more' etc etc, doesnt matter who invented the wheel. The point is that someone cares to use that wheel and sees where it can be used. The wetting of the streets was Cameron's idea for
example, it was his idea to do it, his eye to see it, his will to spent time sprinkling the street. Same with building grated floors specifically to light from under them to create interesting light, theres ton of such stuff. ts an eye and a mind of an artist
Edited to clear up a misguiding sentence
I didn't claim anything like that. I have a lot of respect for Cameron and his worthy abilities. I've been nearly alone in my opinion of not wanting to pit director against director. They are both worthy. I think one has a bit more of an effect in the world of filmed science fiction, and the other known for his technical prowess. They are equals.
Case closed?
Yeah, I guess thats a very fair statement
Quote from: StrangeShape on Sep 10, 2011, 02:39:57 AM
Doesnt change anything I said tho, he IS an artist not some model builder/technician as you two claim.
I was quoting film critic Barry Norman, and said as much, I hardly think it was an insult to Cameron to call him a master craftsmen. I think you're taking the term artist too literally, I'm not saying Cameron doesn't have art and design ability.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Sep 10, 2011, 02:39:57 AMAnd I said, I just gave examples of his creative lightning techniques, didnt list them all. And what he took from Scott is the backlight and blue night. The wetting of the streets comes from Cameron for example.
I read of that technique in the making of Blade Runner, and I'd be surprised if it hadn't been used years before that by the likes of Carol Reed.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Sep 10, 2011, 02:39:57 AM
Same with building grated floors specifically to light from under them to create interesting light, theres ton of it
A technique I don't think could be attributed to Cameron, lighting through gratings and latticework can be traced back through the history of cinema - whether it's floors, ceiling or walls.
Im not saying he originated them, I was saying that he does have artistic eye and cares and thinks about that stuff
Edit: I see now how my sentence couldve been read like that, I cleared it up