Prometheus vehicles exposed

Started by Valaquen, Aug 28, 2011, 08:22:11 AM

Author
Prometheus vehicles exposed (Read 61,081 times)

ThisBethesdaSea

ThisBethesdaSea

#180
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.

StrangeShape

StrangeShape

#181
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

ThisBethesdaSea

financial success does not equate to artistic success. Some of the worst films have made the most money. Star Wars Prequels anyone?

StrangeShape

StrangeShape

#183
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

GhidraX

GhidraX

#184
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.

StrangeShape

StrangeShape

#185
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

wmmvrrvrrmm

wmmvrrvrrmm

#186
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.

Xenomrph

Xenomrph

#187
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.

ThisBethesdaSea

He's one of them, but not the most.

Gash

Gash

#189
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.

ThisBethesdaSea

You're dead on Gash. Every director of a sci-fi film I've ever read an interview with usually cites Scott, not Cameron.

StrangeShape

StrangeShape

#191
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."


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"

ThisBethesdaSea

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.

StrangeShape

StrangeShape

#193
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

ThisBethesdaSea

 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?

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