Here it is, folks--a thread of your own to vent your dislikes, reservations and apprehensions about Prometheus: its story, the trailers, everything.
I'll start:
--Logan Marshall-Green in the trailers, and I don't like how silly some of the costumes for the crew are (Rafe Spall, wtf).
--The massive doses of glaringly obvious CGI.
--The magical hologram vidscreen technology. Ugh. Not present in ANY of the original installments in the series.
--The overall shiny clean-ness of everything. Once again, CGI. >:(
--The 3D. Having witnessed it myself, it is very distracting and takes away from the otherwise excellent visuals.
--Marc Streitenfeld. Why Ridley, why? I know scores aren't your strong point, but Elliot Goldenthal ain't dead yet.
--The TRON-ish yellow/blue color scheme.
--Dodgy accents from Guy Pearce in the TED Talk and Idris Elba in the trailers.
--The von Daniken "We found these star maps in a cave, tee hee" stuff. I'm fine with the Jockeys creating mankind, but couldn't it have been discovered in a way that wasn't so...tired?
Everything else gets a hesitant thumbs up from me ;)
Now it's your turn!
- Possible Mission to Mars leftovers.
- Jockey = suit.
Can we stop saying "Jockey's created mankind" already? That was a gross misinterpretation of what Ridley is doing here. They "helped" us in some fashion along the way. They didn't literally drop by 300 bajillion years ago and piss in the primordial soup, and out walked man. No. Nobody was really claiming that. More than likely they found primitive man, and in some way related to the Prometheus myth gave us the beginnings of our technology that eventually lead to civilizations. The spark, not all of it. Just the spark.
Can we please cool down.
And leave people have their opinions?
That is my major gripe with the movie.
Some of its fans.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 19, 2012, 09:20:30 PM
Can we stop saying "Jockey's created mankind" already? That was a gross misinterpretation of what Ridley is doing here. They "helped" us in some fashion along the way. They didn't literally drop by 300 bajillion years ago and piss in the primordial soup, and out walked man. No. Nobody was really claiming that. More than likely they found primitive man, and in some way related to the Prometheus myth gave us the beginnings of our technology that eventually lead to civilizations. The spark, not all of it. Just the spark.
Sure. I suppose that makes sense, if you disregard the fact that they look
just like us, only bigger and balder and bluer. It stands to reason we were created in their image.
At least we now know that Vin Diesel is a demigod.
If true, Engineer = Weyland / David / Shaw / Vickers / The 7 Dwarfes / Roy Batty / Mr. Blonde / Doc Brown / ......
Oh, and the fact that the film is still +70 days from release :'(
-Idris Elba's dodgy Southern (?) American accent.
-Lack of Giger-esque sexual imagery.
-Too much action, not enough of the foreboding sense of doom and terror.
-Possibility of the Jockey being Peter Weyland or any crew member for that matter.
Also should add that I find the hints that this might connect with Blade Runner to be pretty worrying.
People thinking that the jockey is Peter Weyland.
When you say PETER WEYLAND being the jockey you mean THE JOCKEY from ALIEN or a jockey?
What's griping me the most ? The shot of the Jockey in his chair. I know It's just a one second shot from a sequence but the head is really ridiculous.
Quote from: EEV-2501 on Mar 19, 2012, 09:34:19 PM
What's griping me the most ? The shot of the Jockey in his chair. I know It's just a one second shot from a sequence but the head is really ridiculous.
Yyyyep, that shot looks unfinished.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 19, 2012, 09:22:38 PM
Sure. I suppose that makes sense, if you disregard the fact that they look just like us, only bigger and balder and bluer. It stands to reason we were created in their image.
It depends on whether or not you support the idea of parallel development. I happen to think it's quite possible.
Quote from: EEV-2501 on Mar 19, 2012, 09:34:19 PM
What's griping me the most ? The shot of the Jockey in his chair. I know It's just a one second shot from a sequence but the head is really ridiculous.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi891.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac115%2Fminarhodes%2Fvlcsnap-2012-03-18-19h11m47s166.png&hash=c3361ddc283f612065c958ebc58e9f0ecbdfc9f7)
It's the black googly-eyes that do it :D And also the fact that the hose isn't connected. I'm sure he'll look a lot better fully strapped in ;)
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 19, 2012, 09:36:09 PM
It depends on whether or not you support the idea of parallel development. I happen to think it's quite possible.
There's parallel development, and then there's "GTFO this isn't Star Wars" :P
I like the eyes. They remind me of a Shark.
Wish they kept it an otherwordly mysterious thing... ah well.
Quote from: EEV-2501 on Mar 19, 2012, 09:34:19 PM
What's griping me the most ? The shot of the Jockey in his chair. I know It's just a one second shot from a sequence but the head is really ridiculous.
I agree.
The tapir nose make him look silly lol.
But the helmet looks also too big.
Wich is normal since it's the human/synth wannabee god.
The helmet will probably reduce its size and fit better the proportions.
And the nose will make its connection with the reste of the body like the original SPACE JOCKEY.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 19, 2012, 09:36:47 PM
Quote from: EEV-2501 on Mar 19, 2012, 09:34:19 PM
What's griping me the most ? The shot of the Jockey in his chair. I know It's just a one second shot from a sequence but the head is really ridiculous.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi891.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac115%2Fminarhodes%2Fvlcsnap-2012-03-18-19h11m47s166.png&hash=c3361ddc283f612065c958ebc58e9f0ecbdfc9f7)
It's the black googly-eyes that do it :D And also the fact that the hose isn't connected. I'm sure he'll look a lot better fully strapped in ;)
I really hope. ;)
The full light cinematography doesnt help either.
It does feel and look like a rubber suit.
The tapir nose and the open mouth makes him look silly.
Giving the Jockeys any sort of relationship to humans. So basically the entire God-damn plot. The cool thing about the Jockey in the original was them finding this weird, dead alien thing in the middle of nowhere in space. It gave a great sense of awe and mystery, but as something long gone that they happened to stumble upon. Saying "Wait up! Turns out they're every alien conspiracy theorist's wet dream!" is cheap, lazy, and disingenuous to what made the thing effective in the first place. Adding "And they were out to get us!" turns the whole idea into the worst kind of schlock sci-fi.
Alien took a simple, cliché idea, did it as straightforward and unpretentious as they could, and put its effort into coming up with a handful of really neat ideas to make it better than the competition. From what the trailers are showing, Prometheus is taking a simple, cliché idea and just making it look pretty. There doesn't seem to be any innovation, just a lot of cool-looking set pieces.
This all, mercifully, hinges on what little we know. Hopefully more information means less griping.
the likely mutation. i hope doesnt end like species. in fact theres some similarity in the obscure blood/veins
The movie, to me, looks so great in both visuals and atmosphere, that I feel happy it got made and Ridley Scott finally returned to the franchise that propelled his career. Everything about what we have seen so far screams his style, and I love that.
However, I am getting a bad vibe from the idea of explaining away all the mysteries in the Alien universe. Would I have liked to know something more about the Space Jockeys and the origin of the Aliens? Sure, but not nearly to the degree we are getting. There won't be any ambiguity left, and the original "Alien" is a film propelled by what we DON'T know. And this goes double if we find out Peter Weyland, or David, is the Space Jockey. I get the poetic irony of that - I do. It's clever, but clever isn't always the way to tell a story. Maybe we can thank Lindeloff for that, since we all know his schtick on "Lost" was to ask questions and answer them in ways that most of the audience wasn't satisfied with. I don't want them to M. Night Shyamalan the Alien universe. I don't want to walk out of the theater going, "OH SNAP! WE were the SPACE JOCKEYS!"
Quote from: AmazSpiderMan1 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:01:41 PM
I don't want to walk out of the theater going, "OH SNAP! WE were the SPACE JOCKEYS!"
Yeah, I feel ya on that one. But it could be worst. Humans could have secretly knelt at the feet of Predators for hundreds of years.
Oh wait...
"Prometheus has landed" that sounded so wrong.
David's accent "small thingzzz"
too much cgi
the snake thing.
the obvious of David becoming evil.
the same shaped derelict i mean do they come off an assembly line? ive seen amazing artwork that could do better then the same shape spaceship
This movie will probably gonna take 150 minutes. starting with Shaw and Holloway and there love crap. i think Prometheus will be in space after 45 minutes of film.
Well the part about saying "Well the originals didn't have fancy screens and had pc monitors." Well actually they didn't have the ability to use flat screens. I'm sure if that was available back then, then films would of used it.
Quote from: Plokoon111 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:13:01 PM
Well the part about saying "Well the originals didn't have fancy screens and had pc monitors." Well actually they didn't have the ability to use flat screens. I'm sure if that was available back then, then films would of used it.
I know, but Ridley has already gone and made all the monitors onboard Prometheus have a somewhat low-res, throwback look. That's great! Now why spoil the continuity with these silly hologram monitors? :-\
"QUIT GRIPING!!" - Kane "I LIKE GRIPING." - Lambert
Quote from: tonyt2000 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:15:05 PM
"QUIT GRIPING!!" - Kane "I LIKE GRIPING." - Lambert
You see what I did there ;)
Quote from: Plokoon111 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:13:01 PM
Well the part about saying "Well the originals didn't have fancy screens and had pc monitors." Well actually they didn't have the ability to use flat screens. I'm sure if that was available back then, then films would of used it.
I don't take a real issue with that. I think the ugly screens and PC monitors goes well with the 'truckers in space' allegory in
Alien. Since it's
highly likely and pretty much confirmed that Weyland is indeed riding along with the Prometheus crew, perhaps he's funding the trip. Ahhhh, this is starting to sound like
AVP. *gag*
To each their own, absolutely, but griping about seconds of footage...really? Seriously? This is what can kill a film....ala JoHn Carter.
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 19, 2012, 10:17:08 PM
Ahhhh, this is starting to sound like AVP. *gag*
Except this will be
good. ;)
I hope...
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 19, 2012, 10:19:09 PM
To each their own, absolutely, but griping about seconds of footage...really? Seriously? This is what can kill a film....ala JoHn Carter.
Oh, puh-leez. John Carter was dead the moment it was greenlit. Horrible premise for a movie in this day and age, and completely without any appeal to a wider audience to justify its hideously inflated budget.
Also, most of us aren't saying we think the film is going to be bad in any way--there's just some things we don't like or are nervous about. If you think everything to do with Prometheus looks OMG AMAZING that's fine, but this isn't the thread for you.
Well, every time I have something to say about this movie, it never seems to be good. But I do like Noomi Rapace though. I just don't really think this film is one I'm looking for a sequel to and the way it puts the Betty Hill starmap stars on those ancient images looks ridiculous. The less I say about the way they butchered the sarcophagus lid of Pakal Votan the better to put those stars in a completely Non-Mayan way, it's virtually sacriligious, probably the same is to be said with the other images, they're trying to make the Ancient Aliens series look like intelligent stuff by giving us a dumber version of the material.
I appreciate that people think about the Ancient Astronaut theory and ask questions about it, but I think Dan O'Bannon dealt with it in a subtler way in the original Alien script. I don't think that turning subtext into text here works very well. I hope that the film has something in it that makes all that I've seen in the trailer so far and want to criticise, not much of an issue. I think the film is telling me that it's hard to make a film in Hollywood these days.
I wish that Ridley Scott worked with a better writer for this Prometheus movie. . I don't want to start ranting off about Damon Lindelof.
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 19, 2012, 10:09:09 PM
Quote from: AmazSpiderMan1 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:01:41 PM
I don't want to walk out of the theater going, "OH SNAP! WE were the SPACE JOCKEYS!"
Yeah, I feel ya on that one. But it could be worst. Humans could have secretly knelt at the feet of Predators for hundreds of years.
Oh wait...
And I hated it in that movie too, but at least I can rationalize it by saying that the Predator's influence over humanity was very limited to building pyramids and such. It wasn't like they influenced all of mankind, just isolated spots. Still a pretty dumb idea. That's coming from a hack like Paul W.S. Anderson too. Ridley Scott is better than that. How is it that every Alien species, including Transformers, have visited Earth and helped us evolve in some way? CHRIST.
Sorry I've been avoiding all Prometheus plagues like the thread, but I wanted to say two things. One of them is actually a gripe.
Gripe - Will there be any threads for the people who don't know everything about the film months before it's release? :laugh: I'd really like to talk to some normal folks.
Praise - Good job with spoiler tags and all that shit, I haven't really had anything, well... spoiled. Just wanted to praise since lots of people bitch about using spoiler tags but no one says thanks.
I'd like to think that there's a larger context for what's happening with that Jockey that appears small. If that suit is biological, I can imagine what were seeing is it IN PROCESS? I just deplore anything being criticized 1. Without having seen the film and 2. Without ANY kind of contextualization.
But...gripe on, it's amusing. ;) :)
The only thing I want to Lambert about, is the Space Tapir.
I am so nervous about how that is going to look finished on the big screen, and how it will age when I watch it again some years from now on my not-so-big screen.
Nothing against the content as I'm sure there will be sensible reasoning for whatever that short guy is, but the effect from what we have seen is underwhelming :-\.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 19, 2012, 10:19:09 PM
To each their own, absolutely, but griping about seconds of footage...really? Seriously? This is what can kill a film....ala JoHn Carter.
Well, there's a sense of familiarity with this franchise. It doesn't take rocket science, to see that the trailers are alluding to the
Alien franchise even to the casual moviegoer who isn't a fan of this franchise.
John Carter, perhaps was marketed and came off as an
Avatar knockoff – military man on an alien planet going native. When in fact, the real tragedy was that Carter has been around for at least 100 years or more and inspired
Avatar – not the other way around.
Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 19, 2012, 10:25:45 PM
Sorry I've been avoiding all Prometheus plagues like the thread, but I wanted to say two things.
Tee hee. :P
Quote from: josh_axey on Mar 19, 2012, 10:26:35 PM
The only thing I want to Lambert about, is the Space Tapir.
I loooove that Space Tapir has caught on. :D Who coined that--wmmvrrvrrmm, was it you?
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 19, 2012, 10:17:08 PM
Quote from: Plokoon111 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:13:01 PM
Well the part about saying "Well the originals didn't have fancy screens and had pc monitors." Well actually they didn't have the ability to use flat screens. I'm sure if that was available back then, then films would of used it.
I don't take a real issue with that. I think the ugly screens and PC monitors goes well with the 'truckers in space' allegory in Alien. Since it's highly likely and pretty much confirmed that Weyland is indeed riding along with the Prometheus crew, perhaps he's funding the trip. Ahhhh, this is starting to sound like AVP. *gag*
LOL! That's what I find kind of funny about the whole thing. They want to erase the AvP universe cannon (which is fine by me) but there are elements that are VERY SIMILAR in both stories. I guess they've never watched the first one. :D
Quote from: Eva on Mar 19, 2012, 09:28:28 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 19, 2012, 09:26:12 PM
Quote from: Eva on Mar 19, 2012, 09:24:54 PM
/ Doc Brown / ......
Great Ridley Scott!
1.21 gigawatts of lol :D
I'm afraid you're stuck in 1955! ;D
My greatest concern about this film is caused by a sneaking feeling, that it would turn out to be very pretencious with a very little of new ideas to add to what we already know. Also I think I would be disappointed if started as a sci fi film, Prometheus would end up preaching some religious stuff in the end. And overshadowing original Alien, in terms of cheapening the latter from making SJ a stupid crewmember, ensnared by the suit.
Am I too fussy?
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 19, 2012, 10:19:27 PM
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 19, 2012, 10:17:08 PM
Ahhhh, this is starting to sound like AVP. *gag*
Except this will be good. ;)
I hope...
Same here. :'(
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 19, 2012, 10:25:56 PM
I'd like to think that there's a larger context for what's happening with that Jockey that appears small. If that suit is biological, I can imagine what were seeing is it IN PROCESS? I just deplore anything being criticized 1. Without having seen the film and 2. Without ANY kind of contextualization.
But...gripe on, it's amusing. ;) :)
It's a natural thing to not trust Hollywood. Even when Ridley Scott is attached, we've been burned before. Bad. It's scary to see someone doing a prequel to one of your favorite films of all time, that influenced your life in some way and your taste. There is so many things that can go wrong, either purposely or accidentally. Unlike sequels that, for the most part, leave the original film alone and just progress the story, prequels are going back and giving us a different perception on something that already exists. I feel the griping is justified. We just don't want to be screwed over.
Maybe Ridley Scott pulled a George Lucas and made the Jockey helmet look like a tapir head as a stupid, misguided "homage" to 2001! Maybe there no longer is a hose! :laugh: :laugh:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg190.imageshack.us%2Fimg190%2F787%2Fwtftapir.jpg&hash=1664afe2578fb4d5be85dcde0ccecfbf53f3af80)
Quote from: AmazSpiderMan1 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:31:37 PM
It's a natural thing to not trust Hollywood. Even when Ridley Scott is attached, we've been burned before. Bad. It's scary to see someone doing a prequel to one of your favorite films of all time, that influenced your life in some way and your taste. There is so many things that can go wrong, either purposely or accidentally. Unlike sequels that, for the most part, leave the original film alone and just progress the story, prequels are going back and giving us a different perception on something that already exists. I feel the griping is justified. We just don't want to be screwed over.
^ VERY well said!
It's healthy to be weary of something of this magnitude. It's going to be answering a question that's been around for over 30 years.
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 19, 2012, 10:38:34 PM
It's healthy to be weary of something of this magnitude. It's going to be answering a question that's been around for over 30 years.
*FLASHBACK to EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES*
"No! Boba Fett is not a clone! No! Can't be! It's impossible!! He's a mandalorian warrior!! NOOOO!!!!!" :'(
...ummm, I don't know even where to start.
However, I still think (hope) I can "repeat to myself, it is just a show...and I should really just relax".
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi763.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx274%2FDeuterium2h%2Fmst3kshadow.jpg&hash=b67318f008eafc19e93edd553f7eb8b2da77cd32)
Quote from: AmazSpiderMan1 on Mar 19, 2012, 10:42:05 PM
*FLASHBACK to EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES*
"No! Boba Fett is not a clone! No! Can't be! It's impossible!! He's a mandalorian warrior!! NOOOO!!!!!" :'(
I don't even like Star Wars and I feel your pain :P
Those prequel movies, just...
the horror.
I really hope Prometheus won't suffer of the "Star Wars syndrome".
My hesitancy comes from the place that ultimately, the SJ race never mattered. Yeah it was cool, but it wasn't integral to any of the ALIEN mythos. The creature as seen in A L I E N was a big 'what if.' Sure we saw the derelict again if the minority of us have seen James Cameron's directors cut of ALIENS, but it was void of any mention or sight of the Jockey. So what most of these gripes are about is an unknown creature/race, only seen once in the four canon alien films, that never mentioned them again.
The Space Jockeys are not beholden or integral to anything or any kind of previously setup history. What Ridley is doing is saying 'these are what I think these creatures are.' The only thing that's being messed with is our own imagination. I'm a rabid, RABID fan of ALIEN, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest that the SJ are humanoid and wear a suit. There's still a helluva lot of mystery surrounding everything about them even with that revelation.
Effusive over-the-top praise and bitching all at the same time a couple of months before the film even comes out.
I think the Prometheus forum has officially gone full retard...
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 19, 2012, 10:45:22 PM
...
True, true :)
Quote from: SM on Mar 19, 2012, 10:47:34 PM
I think the Prometheus forum has officially gone full retard...
You never go full retard :P.
I wouldn't group us all in the same pile. :-\
Quote from: SM on Mar 19, 2012, 10:47:34 PM
I think the Prometheus forum has officially gone full retard...
Classy. ::)
Quote from: SM on Mar 19, 2012, 10:47:34 PM
Effusive over-the-top praise and bitching all at the same time a couple of months before the film even comes out.
I think the Prometheus forum has officially gone full retard...
The Space Jockey is a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude.
Literally. Peter Weyland, playing Prometheus, disguised as a Space Jockey.
i agree with not being happy about the Ancient Astronauts/Jockeys creating life. Not because it isn't a cool concept, but it makes the universe smaller. It was cooler in Alien when the Space Jockey ship was completely COMPLETELY unknown and never before seen or heard of by humans. Couldn't the Prometheus discover the planet with the silo by some deep space probe or by actually going out looking for it instead of a map found on Earth.
ALSO: the biomechanical look of the derelict in Alien looks more real and timeless and otherworldly than what is shown in Prometheus's trailer. My biggest fear was Giger's work be not utilized to its full extent. The Prometheus derelict looks good though from the outside though (this gives me hope, and I will hope and wait till June to see how good the film is. Even my all time favorite films have visual flaws that I choose to live with because the overall movie is amazing)
People complaining about a film they've seen less than three minutes of.
Quote from: Gash on Mar 19, 2012, 10:58:27 PM
People complaining about a film they've seen less than three minutes of.
By that logic, I guess we shouldn't be praising it either. Why bother discussing it at all then? ::)
AVP and AVPR are exceptions to not judging 3 minutes of trailer footage and knowing whether or not it will suck. Who didn't think those films were gunna suck?
Quote from: Gash on Mar 19, 2012, 10:58:27 PM
People complaining about a film they've seen less than three minutes of.
Keep in mind that 99% of us have said the movie will be great. As a film, it will be outstanding. This is no where near the fanboy complaining that goes on for other Summer blockbusters. We are showing an enormous amount of respect for the film and the film maker.
But I remember seeing the trailers for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and thinking, "Boy, that sure does look like alot of bad CGI." And of course people on IMDb were saying, "Don't be a whiny fanboy, and don't judge the movie until you see it. Spielberg hasn't let us down before!" Ok. Went to go see it: "Wow, that's ALOT of bad CGI!" Everyone on internet: "Wow, that's ALOT of bad CGI!" Sometimes the trailers show you just enough to gauge an accurate opinion. Just sayin'.
Amen Gash!!!
Visual gripes?
- Holographic controls and cryotubes' holographic things (the cryotubes themselves I like) on the ship, and the red glowing spectragraphs are a bit dodgy.
- I miss the old boney-rganic Giger designs; I am skeptical over the new glossed metal look of the ship's walls.
Story wise I have nothing to say. Ridley Scott wants to push this film in a visual direction he himself hasn't done before, and I don't mind that too much.
2 words....
Damon Lindelof >:(
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 20, 2012, 01:15:03 AM
2 words....
Damon Lindelof >:(
Luckily, it's not solely his material, and he largely did polishes and rewrites of Spaihts' work. And who knows, maybe he'll surprise us? :P
CGI
Hipster clothes
Unimaginative planet surface just looks like Earth
The mutant mohawk guy is underwhelming
...
None of which ruins the movie, it's just stuff I would have done a different way.
I'll also be disappointed if it turns out the Jockeys created us or whatever, since that's retarded. Hopefully they just stopped in for a visit once and then took off. It's much more believable and less pretentious.
Quote from: EarthAngel on Mar 20, 2012, 01:34:56 AM
I'll also be disappointed if it turns out the Jockeys created us or whatever.
Prepare to be disappointed.
My gripe is we still have to wait until June. I really don't think that the film is going to give us every detail and spoil every mystery and neatly tie up plotlines or even shine much more light on what we know so far. There could be a lot left to interpretation and plenty to debate here for years to come. I do note that the information being released seems very specifically designed to lead to specific conclusions on what may be happening and may be intentionally misleading.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 20, 2012, 01:37:28 AM
Quote from: EarthAngel on Mar 20, 2012, 01:34:56 AM
I'll also be disappointed if it turns out the Jockeys created us or whatever.
Prepare to be disappointed.
Not necessarily!
"They went looking for our beginning...
But what they found...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1104.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh329%2F8bitAngel%2FJockeyTrollface.jpg&hash=1d3e5364c451915145fc2054626d35b46ec8948e)"
The stupidass nicknames we're giving everything.
Blue Guy? Really?
Quote from: EarthAngel on Mar 20, 2012, 01:56:48 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 20, 2012, 01:37:28 AM
Quote from: EarthAngel on Mar 20, 2012, 01:34:56 AM
I'll also be disappointed if it turns out the Jockeys created us or whatever.
Prepare to be disappointed.
Not necessarily!
"They went looking for our beginning...
But what they found...
http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h329/8bitAngel/JockeyTrollface.jpg"
Bahahahahahaha.
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Mar 20, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
The stupidass nicknames we're giving everything.
Blue Guy? Really?
The real question is, what are your thoughts on Space Tapir? ;D
Don't even get me STARTED on Space Tapir.
Though, admittedly, I'd change my screen name to that in a heartbeat. Space Sweeper is cool, but OLD.
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Mar 20, 2012, 03:06:54 AM
The stupidass nicknames we're giving everything.
Blue Guy? Really?
I know eh? He's not a f**king smurf for christ sake. He is a SPACE JOCKEY!
Why is he called a jockey of the space variety? Last I checked jockies were people who rode race horses... oh I get it.
"I gonna beat you back to earth and f**k it up! I'm gonna make it! I'm gonna make it! I'm gonna OHH SHIT F**K! D:"
*BOOOM SWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH CRASH AND BURN*
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Mar 20, 2012, 03:13:31 AM
Don't even get me STARTED on Space Tapir.
Though, admittedly, I'd change my screen name to that in a heartbeat. Space Sweeper is cool, but OLD.
You know you love Space Tapir. Dooooooooooooo it. :P
SPACE TAPIR RECENTLY BEAT OUT SPACE CAT FOR COOLEST PROMETHEUS ANIMAL
THE FLOORS. in the original derelict the floors didn't look like they were meant for humans to move around through it.
Now the floors are all flat especially the jockey control room, but maybe thats a alteration with a purpose since theres a chance Space Jockeys are actually humanoid. >_<
Quote from: AsapJockey on Mar 20, 2012, 06:06:49 AM
SPACE TAPIR RECENTLY BEAT OUT SPACE CAT FOR COOLEST PROMETHEUS ANIMAL
Everyone loves Space Tapir!!!!
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 20, 2012, 06:09:41 AM
Quote from: AsapJockey on Mar 20, 2012, 06:06:49 AM
SPACE TAPIR RECENTLY BEAT OUT SPACE CAT FOR COOLEST PROMETHEUS ANIMAL
Everyone loves Space Tapir!!!!
Oh my go-
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi175.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw124%2Fjosh_axey%2FPrometheusInternationalTrailer-UKmp4_snapshot_0012_20120320_180250.jpg&hash=829e13276fe3123a5a972e5c022c6a9c3a32ccfc)
Quote from: josh_axey on Mar 20, 2012, 07:07:14 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 20, 2012, 06:09:41 AM
Quote from: AsapJockey on Mar 20, 2012, 06:06:49 AM
SPACE TAPIR RECENTLY BEAT OUT SPACE CAT FOR COOLEST PROMETHEUS ANIMAL
Everyone loves Space Tapir!!!!
Oh my go-
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi175.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw124%2Fjosh_axey%2FPrometheusInternationalTrailer-UKmp4_snapshot_0012_20120320_180250.jpg&hash=829e13276fe3123a5a972e5c022c6a9c3a32ccfc)
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
It's official:
SPACE TAPIR IS CANON!
Quote from: Infected on Mar 19, 2012, 10:10:16 PM
do they come off an assembly line
I dont see why not.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 20, 2012, 01:18:19 AM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 20, 2012, 01:15:03 AM
2 words....
Damon Lindelof >:(
Luckily, it's not solely his material, and he largely did polishes and rewrites of Spaihts' work. And who knows, maybe he'll surprise us? :P
Well, the way that people are trying to piece the information from the trailers, it already smack of too much Lost style talk
Quote from: Gash on Mar 19, 2012, 10:58:27 PM
People complaining about a film they've seen less than three minutes of.
I think I'm complaining about what they're showing us to get our attention
i have a few slight gripes but im sure i can ignore most as long as the story etc is good but may as well list them for the sake of conversation..
but before any overbearing fanboys/girls flame me, im still 100% looking forward to prometheus, and dont dislike the designs etc but i just dont think they fit with what we already had.
1) ridley has gone all george lucas on us and put tech and designs that just dont fit in the established alien universe and especially timeline as prometheus is set long before, even alien resurrection doesn't have all this flat floaty screen nonsense and its set hundreds of years in the future... and no amount of excuses will explain it, even ridley just said at wondercon that it was a design choice. in other words hes trying to appeal and pander to the modern gaming crowd, i can sort of understand it as it needs to make big money but i think it could have been done a better way.
2) size of jockey and suit just doesn't fit with aliens established jockey, although the size may possibly be explained in the movie im not impressed with it being a suit.
3) fifield, im so sick of seeing mercenaries (if indeed thats what he is) and soldiers portrayed with mohawks etc to make them stand out and make them look 'tough', this is done to death in video games such as killzone etc etc etc and real world soldiers just dont look like that...
4) jockey without hose attatched reminds me of....
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2F402565_346999765329395_218947031468003_1263164_311260457_n.jpg&hash=5632ffc3c61ebf62178c06929d78703a9b765a1a)
Quote from: RICH-ENGLAND on Mar 20, 2012, 03:00:37 PM
3) fifield, im so sick of seeing mercenaries (if indeed thats what he is) and soldiers portrayed with mohawks etc to make them stand out and make them look 'tough', this is done to death in video games such as killzone etc etc etc and real world soldiers just dont look like that...
No, but 95% of the Infantry Soldiers i know WISH they could look like that. But that is Canadian Military. Don't know how that changes world wide.
I know its been said before but - "Damon Lindeloff". What they should've done is get James Cameron who was already writing a screenplay for Alien 5 (before they decided to go the other direction) on board as the writer with Ridley Scott directing. I'd give that movie a 95% chance of blowing everybody's mind permanently. The two working collaboratively would create a monster the likes of which this world has never seen...they just need to be willing to leave those egos at the door (the hardest part of making something like that happen I'm sure).
i mentioned this before. but i hate how this room appears to be so tiny - including the entryways, and yet the SJs are supposed to be giants
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSyfOG.jpg&hash=45aaa28d9c8d4984e9f0a61bc9d4802958029549)
apart from that, everything is perfect to me
What exactly should these people be wearing? Honestly? I have friends that have mohawks, faux hawks, braids, curls, dress emo, metro, etc...it's called CHARACTERS and everyone is different. I'm sure their aesthetic was based in some future guess work in terms of fads and trends.
Is Priss stupid because she dressed punk in Blade Runner? Was Roy ridiculous for wearing that huge trench coat and wearing futuristic looking spandex and had white hair? COME. ON.
My only grip is the pushed ahead the release date. We should have already seen it dammit!
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 20, 2012, 04:27:58 PM
What exactly should these people be wearing? Honestly? I have friends that have mohawks, faux hawks, braids, curls, dress emo, metro, etc...it's called CHARACTERS and everyone is different. I'm sure their aesthetic was based in some future guess work in terms of fads and trends.
Is Priss stupid because she dressed punk in Blade Runner? Was Roy ridiculous for wearing that huge trench coat and wearing futuristic looking spandex and had white hair? COME. ON.
i never once mentioned priss or blade runner where something like that is fitting. im talking about the tired and overused stereotypical computer game soldier/mercenary.
and did you read the rest of my post where i said i can ignore these things as long as it has good story?. did you read the part where i said im just posting them for the sake of conversation ?.
did you read the thread title where it says for griping?.
everyone is allowed an opinion, no offence but your rufusal to take on board any criticism of anything is getting tiresome, its as if you made and own these movies and are taking it personally.
thanks
rich
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 20, 2012, 04:27:58 PMI'm sure their aesthetic was based in some future guess work in terms of fads and trends.
good point, my friend.
and holloway in fact, is a fashion victim. the gay ring, his shawl. but i like that he's wearing shorts & slippers. makes him almost lazy.
Don't play computer games so wouldn't know about any of this stuff. The look of the characters is fine with me.
Also this mention of obvious CGI, nah, you've got a second of Space Jockey altering shape which is difficult to judge out of context, the rest of the CGI is a sight more controlled and subtle than any clips I've seen of The Avengers, or Iron Man or Transformers - all of which look wearisome in their over indulgence.
And 'it's not grimy enough'. Everyone who's ripped off A L I E N or Blade Runner in the last 30 years has gone for the grime and steam, and the B and C deck Nostromo. Why would Ridley want to pastiche a style that's been used and abused by lesser directors? Prometheus (the ship) doesn't look at odds with A deck Nostromo; med lab, corridors hypersleep etc. And the Nostromo might have been chugging back and forth for decades.
If there's one legitimate gripe it's that maybe the trailer is revealing too much of the plot, although given the apparent Fox gagging order and Ridley saying the best stuff is locked up I'm hopeful that a lot of the speculation is off the mark.
Ancient astronaut stuff, I'm not bothered about either. Only one other quality Sci-Fi film used that plot device and that was made in 1967. If Ridley takes an idea like that and turns it into a visceral terror it will give it a new spin.
I like the fact that in A L I E N you had an SOS that turned out to be a warning and in Prometheus you get an invitation that turns out to be a trap.
@Gash.
i think youre forgetting that avp used the ancient aliens plot device and in a pretty similar way, shaw and holloways speech is pretty much a carbon copy of charles weylands boat speech.
thanks
rich
Quote from: LSD-426 on Mar 20, 2012, 04:14:06 PM
I know its been said before but - "Damon Lindeloff". What they should've done is get James Cameron who was already writing a screenplay for Alien 5 (before they decided to go the other direction) on board as the writer with Ridley Scott directing. I'd give that movie a 95% chance of blowing everybody's mind permanently. The two working collaboratively would create a monster the likes of which this world has never seen...they just need to be willing to leave those egos at the door (the hardest part of making something like that happen I'm sure).
"That's a strange move for him. I mean, Ridley and I talked over lunch maybe 10 years ago and I said, "Look, I'll write it and produce it, you direct it, it'll ****ing kick ass!" And he was like, "Yeah, let's do it!" And nothing happened. And then they did Alien vs. Predator, and that kind of pissed in the soup. I think Ridley really should do science fiction. He made the two most iconic science-fiction films of the 20th century. When he came to visit me [on the set of Avatar] I said to him, "Quit ****ing around with these wine movies in the south of France, make another science fiction film." And he saw the technique we were using and got all fired up about it. He turned to his producer and said, "Why am I doing this Robin Hood? I should be doing science fiction!" - James Cameron 2009
If
you can make Cameron make a similar statement in the near future, complaing why Ridley and himself aren't doing Prometheus 2, The Forever War project or In The Mountains Of Madness together, who knows what you can set in motion. ;)
Quote from: Gash on Mar 20, 2012, 05:18:32 PM
Ancient astronaut stuff, I'm not bothered about either. Only one other quality Sci-Fi film used that plot device and that was made in 1967. If Ridley takes an idea like that and turns it into a visceral terror it will give it a new spin.
I have resigned myself to the fact that, there is now, no question that "ancient astronaut" concepts are going to play a huge plot device in PROMETHEUS.
But at least Kubrick (and Clarke) made it subtle. You didn't have "ancient aliens" running around with our ancestors and actively participating and influencing their culture. In fact, whatever intelligence sent the Monolith, it left no mark on our historical record...until the discovery on the Moon.
Scott doesn't like AvP so then goes on to make a movie about a bunch of Scientist that go to a remote location and find some weird alien stuff and end up getting into trouble.......
From now until i see this move i would be calling it Alien vs Prometheus.
My only gripe so far is the overall premise of the movie which promotes junk pseudoscience(ancient astronauts). Like seriously, we as a society already have a large amount of nutjobs who somehow believe in this crock of sh*t . We don't need any more decent minds being contaminated by such b/s if there is any hope of winning the war against irrationality.
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Mar 20, 2012, 05:59:55 PM
We don't need any more decent minds being contaminated by such b/s if there is any hope of winning the war against irrationality.
I'd give better odds on winning the war on terror or drugs then that war.
My only gripe with Prometheus is all the griping about Prometheus! :laugh:
Seriously, though, yeah, the film looks a lot cleaner (from what we can see so far, anyway) and perhaps more futuristic than the original, but the original was made over 30 years ago and any design and aesthetic choices were made, in large part, to work within the constraints and limitations of their budget and technology of the time. Also, as we know, the "Prometheus" is not the "Nostromo". The former is obviously a very well-funded scientific and research vessel, and the latter is a bunch of "truckers in space". I love the look of the first film, and I think that the look of the new film is turning out just as cool, but in a 2012 way, not a 1979 way. Also, keep in mind that it has to appeal to a much wider audience, not just the hardcore fans, and maybe this film will blow away some kid who's never seen the originals and inspire them to go back and watch at least the first two. Never a bad thing, in my opinion.
I in no way am refusing criticism. I've already stated my concerns, namely Shaw's delivery of 'it's an invitation' line, which felt phoney. My beef is about criticizing an aesthetic, specifically the way the cast is dressed. Of course, criticize away, absolutely, but yes, I think it's absolutely absurd. I would imagine these people live in a similar city as the Los Angeles of Blade Runner, so why wouldn't their civilian clothes have a bit of character to them? they look like a crew of all types, races and genders, and if they're explorers or contractors for Weyland Corp, the sky's the limit....right?
By the way, has anyone noticed Fords Lambert-esque haircut? They even have similar facial features.
Quote from: fiveways on Mar 20, 2012, 06:04:22 PM
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Mar 20, 2012, 05:59:55 PM
We don't need any more decent minds being contaminated by such b/s if there is any hope of winning the war against irrationality.
I'd give better odds on winning the war on terror or drugs then that war.
terror is the ultimate worst possible outcome of irrationality and/or delusion. there is a VERY strong connection between these two issues.
especially considering the relation between anti-scientific religious fundamentalist movements and creationism.
the problem is not necessarily what these ideas promote, but what they try to denounce as false in the first place (for example scientific facts).
now of course, what we are talking about here is just a movie, and no matter what kinds of possible stupid ideas are going to be involved in the storyline of this, i am very confident this will be a great entertaining ride in the end and i will enjoy the hell out of it.
i just found Ridley Scott's thoughts about this stuff that he stated in interviews, and where he was drawing his inspirations from, and what he personaly thinks about it, a bit confusing.
i can imagine people coming out of the cinema being all like "wow that movie had some very interesting scientific ideas about this and that, i think i will look into the books of this Von Däniken guy to see if there is actually scientific validity to those ideas".
if that is the case, the movie did a really good job in promoting bad ideas.
but i hope most people will just take Prometheus for what it is, a movie, and won't really give a f**k about the background.
Quote from: Zeta Reticuli on Mar 20, 2012, 06:36:26 PM
i can imagine people coming out of the cinema being all like "wow that movie had some very interesting scientific ideas about this and that, i think i will look into the books of this Von Däniken guy to see if there is actually scientific validity to those ideas".
Here's a frightening scenario: what if they actually
name drop von Daniken in the movie... :-X
Irrationality will be around forever for without irrationality there can't be rationality.
Quote from: Crazy Rich on Mar 20, 2012, 07:58:32 PM
Irrationality will be around forever for without irrationality there can't be rationality.
"That's very profound, Golic. Thank you."
Quote from: Zeta Reticuli on Mar 20, 2012, 06:36:26 PM
Quote from: fiveways on Mar 20, 2012, 06:04:22 PM
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Mar 20, 2012, 05:59:55 PM
We don't need any more decent minds being contaminated by such b/s if there is any hope of winning the war against irrationality.
I'd give better odds on winning the war on terror or drugs then that war.
terror is the ultimate worst possible outcome of irrationality and/or delusion. there is a VERY strong connection between these two issues.
especially considering the relation between anti-scientific religious fundamentalist movements and creationism.
the problem is not necessarily what these ideas promote, but what they try to denounce as false in the first place (for example scientific facts).
now of course, what we are talking about here is just a movie, and no matter what kinds of possible stupid ideas are going to be involved in the storyline of this, i am very confident this will be a great entertaining ride in the end and i will enjoy the hell out of it.
i just found Ridley Scott's thoughts about this stuff that he stated in interviews, and where he was drawing his inspirations from, and what he personaly thinks about it, a bit confusing.
i can imagine people coming out of the cinema being all like "wow that movie had some very interesting scientific ideas about this and that, i think i will look into the books of this Von Däniken guy to see if there is actually scientific validity to those ideas".
if that is the case, the movie did a really good job in promoting bad ideas.
but i hope most people will just take Prometheus for what it is, a movie, and won't really give a f**k about the background.
I agree with you completly. I do believe logic and reason will ultimatly prevail and we can live in a world where such non-sense ceases to exist We have lost many great minds to the ill ways of junk science,turning many into un-questioning and gullible sheeple who do not think or value a rational thought process. I can remember way back when this Disney movie called "Atlantis" came out and I remarked in shame when one of my closest friends pondered out loud if Atlantis was actually real. At this point I had to tell him that saying something like that bypasses so much logic that I could no longer continue associating with someone who reaches such conclusions without applying logic.
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Mar 20, 2012, 05:59:55 PM
My only gripe so far is the overall premise of the movie which promotes junk pseudoscience(ancient astronauts). Like seriously, we as a society already have a large amount of nutjobs who somehow believe in this crock of sh*t . We don't need any more decent minds being contaminated by such b/s if there is any hope of winning the war against irrationality.
Yeah, like
science fiction is going to do that.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 20, 2012, 06:35:13 PM
I in no way am refusing criticism. I've already stated my concerns, namely Shaw's delivery of 'it's an invitation' line, which felt phoney. My beef is about criticizing an aesthetic, specifically the way the cast is dressed. Of course, criticize away, absolutely, but yes, I think it's absolutely absurd. I would imagine these people live in a similar city as the Los Angeles of Blade Runner, so why wouldn't their civilian clothes have a bit of character to them? they look like a crew of all types, races and genders, and if they're explorers or contractors for Weyland Corp, the sky's the limit....right?
By the way, has anyone noticed Fords Lambert-esque haircut? They even have similar facial features.
i think once again you are totally missing my point, in my opinion ridley scott is pandering to the computer game generation with the whole look of the movie that isn't inline with what we already have, included in that is a stereotypical computer game soldier/mercenary look with a mohawk, its done to death, its stereotypical crap, its lazy design and is boring and real world soldier/mercenary just dont look like that, again nothing to do with what people may or may not look like in the future.
it has nothing to do with blade runner or whatever you want to throw in as a defence.
thanks
rich
Quote from: RICH-ENGLAND on Mar 20, 2012, 08:30:29 PM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 20, 2012, 06:35:13 PM
I in no way am refusing criticism. I've already stated my concerns, namely Shaw's delivery of 'it's an invitation' line, which felt phoney. My beef is about criticizing an aesthetic, specifically the way the cast is dressed. Of course, criticize away, absolutely, but yes, I think it's absolutely absurd. I would imagine these people live in a similar city as the Los Angeles of Blade Runner, so why wouldn't their civilian clothes have a bit of character to them? they look like a crew of all types, races and genders, and if they're explorers or contractors for Weyland Corp, the sky's the limit....right?
By the way, has anyone noticed Fords Lambert-esque haircut? They even have similar facial features.
i think once again you are totally missing my point, in my opinion ridley scott is pandering to the computer game generation with the whole look of the movie that isn't inline with what we already have, included in that is a stereotypical computer game soldier/mercenary look with a mohawk, its done to death, its stereotypical crap, its lazy design and is boring and real world soldier/mercenary just dont look like that, again nothing to do with what people may or may not look like in the future.
Because realism is what they are going for in a movie where something wears a bio-mechanical Jumbo suit and a woman has an octopus c-sectioned out of her.
Quote from: RICH-ENGLAND on Mar 20, 2012, 08:30:29 PM
i think once again you are totally missing my point, in my opinion ridley scott is pandering to the computer game generation with the whole look of the movie that isn't inline with what we already have, included in that is a stereotypical computer game soldier/mercenary look with a mohawk, its done to death, its stereotypical crap, its lazy design and is boring and real world soldier/mercenary just dont look like that, again nothing to do with what people may or may not look like in the future.
it has nothing to do with blade runner or whatever you want to throw in as a defence.
thanks
rich
See, but you're missing his point. That it could be nothing more than designs done that are speculating on future fads and trends. This is sixty, seventy years from now, right? Who knows if what we know as a "merc" today is what it will be like then. Or what kind of Merc he is, or even if he is one. It's not even confirmed. So it's just as silly to sit there and say "Oh God, they're making mercs look like something out of a video game here."
"If we don't stop it, there won't be any home left to go back to!"
If this is indeed a prequel, they stop it. Because Earth is still around in Alien.
Then the trailer shows them stopping it. >:(
However, if that takes place in the first half of the movie it certainly makes the second half seem more terrifying, because now they are stuck there.
In the docs and photos floating around of "Private Military" you see from Iraq, there are definitely a few with Short Mohawks. There are also quite a few Canadian service men with the "Chuck Lidell" style mohawk.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mmabay.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2Fchuck-liddell-2-300x184.jpg&hash=0061576618e88362664c7e6c3777435f2cff67ce)
Quote from: RICH-ENGLAND on Mar 20, 2012, 08:30:29 PM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 20, 2012, 06:35:13 PM
I in no way am refusing criticism. I've already stated my concerns, namely Shaw's delivery of 'it's an invitation' line, which felt phoney. My beef is about criticizing an aesthetic, specifically the way the cast is dressed. Of course, criticize away, absolutely, but yes, I think it's absolutely absurd. I would imagine these people live in a similar city as the Los Angeles of Blade Runner, so why wouldn't their civilian clothes have a bit of character to them? they look like a crew of all types, races and genders, and if they're explorers or contractors for Weyland Corp, the sky's the limit....right?
By the way, has anyone noticed Fords Lambert-esque haircut? They even have similar facial features.
i think once again you are totally missing my point, in my opinion ridley scott is pandering to the computer game generation with the whole look of the movie that isn't inline with what we already have, included in that is a stereotypical computer game soldier/mercenary look with a mohawk, its done to death, its stereotypical crap, its lazy design and is boring and real world soldier/mercenary just dont look like that, again nothing to do with what people may or may not look like in the future.
it has nothing to do with blade runner or whatever you want to throw in as a defence.
thanks
rich
Personally I doubt Ridley Scott could give two hoots about pandering to the computer game generation. That's a very narrow demographic and one that I can't see him being influenced by. Also this film is, you know, set in the future, so the look of a mercenary/archeologist/soldier - whatever he is, is entirely open to interpretation.
You're basing this 'lazy design' accusation on video games, but the vast majority of people don't play shoot 'em up video games and are not coming to the visuals on display with your apparently jaded eye. A few people on youtube have made reference to Halo and the like when discussing the trailer, but I just can't take comments about games very seriously. Especially when most of the games in question owe a huge debt aesthetically to Ridley's stuff anyway.
So this time Ridley is presenting a factory new ship, with a similar design aesthetic to the A deck on the Nostromo, and he's populating it with visibly different and recognisable characters - well that's a good thing because ALIEN3 suffered from visibly indistinguishable characters.
And on someone elses point - comparing AvP to Prometheus? Because AvP adapted some ideas from early drafts of ALIEN, and created a lame history between the alien species and the predators (gah!). Nothing could be more inane and predictable than that plot, except for the - plot? - of AvP:R. So what if Prometheus hints at an ancient star map, it's a sudden leap to assume that the Jockey's created man, maybe they just set an ancient trap for man in the form of an invitation. That would juxtapose nicely with the SOS that turned out to be a warning in A L I E N.
Quote from: Gash on Mar 20, 2012, 09:17:26 PM
You're basing this 'lazy design' accusation on video games, but the vast majority of people don't play shoot 'em up video games and are not coming to the visuals on display with your apparently jaded eye. A few people on youtube have made reference to Halo and the like when discussing the trailer, but I just can't take comments about games very seriously. Especially when most of the games in question owe a huge debt aesthetically to Ridley's stuff anyway.
I am not a gamer, and do not play video games. Many shots in PROMETHEUS do indeed look like a video game. That's all down to the CGI. CGI just makes everything look fake and shiny and far too clean and neat to be anything present in reality. It can take you out of the film if not done right. I'm sure the effects shots will look better in the movie proper, but the spaceship shots in the trailer look regrettably bland and boast a pronounced video game aesthetic.
I fully expect this to be a good film, but it is not going to come anywhere near ALIEN in terms of quality. But then I never expected it to.
everyone's entitled to their opinion but mine is they're just copying whats fashionable in video games just like they have with the mass effect style space suits.
Quote from: Gash on Mar 20, 2012, 09:17:26 PM
Quote from: RICH-ENGLAND on Mar 20, 2012, 08:30:29 PM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 20, 2012, 06:35:13 PM
I in no way am refusing criticism. I've already stated my concerns, namely Shaw's delivery of 'it's an invitation' line, which felt phoney. My beef is about criticizing an aesthetic, specifically the way the cast is dressed. Of course, criticize away, absolutely, but yes, I think it's absolutely absurd. I would imagine these people live in a similar city as the Los Angeles of Blade Runner, so why wouldn't their civilian clothes have a bit of character to them? they look like a crew of all types, races and genders, and if they're explorers or contractors for Weyland Corp, the sky's the limit....right?
By the way, has anyone noticed Fords Lambert-esque haircut? They even have similar facial features.
i think once again you are totally missing my point, in my opinion ridley scott is pandering to the computer game generation with the whole look of the movie that isn't inline with what we already have, included in that is a stereotypical computer game soldier/mercenary look with a mohawk, its done to death, its stereotypical crap, its lazy design and is boring and real world soldier/mercenary just dont look like that, again nothing to do with what people may or may not look like in the future.
it has nothing to do with blade runner or whatever you want to throw in as a defence.
thanks
rich
Personally I doubt Ridley Scott could give two hoots about pandering to the computer game generation. That's a very narrow demographic and one that I can't see him being influenced by. Also this film is, you know, set in the future, so the look of a mercenary/archeologist/soldier - whatever he is, is entirely open to interpretation.
You're basing this 'lazy design' accusation on video games, but the vast majority of people don't play shoot 'em up video games and are not coming to the visuals on display with your apparently jaded eye. A few people on youtube have made reference to Halo and the like when discussing the trailer, but I just can't take comments about games very seriously. Especially when most of the games in question owe a huge debt aesthetically to Ridley's stuff anyway.
So this time Ridley is presenting a factory new ship, with a similar design aesthetic to the A deck on the Nostromo, and he's populating it with visibly different and recognisable characters - well that's a good thing because ALIEN3 suffered from visibly indistinguishable characters.
And on someone elses point - comparing AvP to Prometheus? Because AvP adapted some ideas from early drafts of ALIEN, and created a lame history between the alien species and the predators (gah!). Nothing could be more inane and predictable than that plot, except for the - plot? - of AvP:R. So what if Prometheus hints at an ancient star map, it's a sudden leap to assume that the Jockey's created man, maybe they just set an ancient trap for man in the form of an invitation. That would juxtapose nicely with the SOS that turned out to be a warning in A L I E N.
eh? video games are absolutely massive these days, and fps shooters are the biggest selling and most used form of entertainment, call of duty for example breaks all entertainment sales records every year and most of prometheus audience will likely be made up of gamers. so im not sure where you get the narrow demographic from.
http://allthingsd.com/20111212/activisions-call-of-duty-hits-1-billion-in-sales-in-16-days/ (http://allthingsd.com/20111212/activisions-call-of-duty-hits-1-billion-in-sales-in-16-days/)
also, what about all the high tech touch screens, floating screens etc on the ship, during the archaeology speech and on the cryo tubes etc?, if thats not pandering to todays generation then i dont know what is as we dont see any such things even in resurrection set hundreds of years in the future...
thanks
rich
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 20, 2012, 09:22:15 PM
Quote from: Gash on Mar 20, 2012, 09:17:26 PM
You're basing this 'lazy design' accusation on video games, but the vast majority of people don't play shoot 'em up video games and are not coming to the visuals on display with your apparently jaded eye. A few people on youtube have made reference to Halo and the like when discussing the trailer, but I just can't take comments about games very seriously. Especially when most of the games in question owe a huge debt aesthetically to Ridley's stuff anyway.
I am not a gamer, and do not play video games. Many shots in PROMETHEUS do indeed look like a video game. That's all down to the CGI. CGI just makes everything look fake and shiny and far too clean and neat to be anything present in reality. It can take you out of the film if not done right. I'm sure the effects shots will look better in the movie proper, but the spaceship shots in the trailer look regrettably bland and boast a pronounced video game aesthetic.
I fully expect this to be a good film, but it is not going to come anywhere near ALIEN in terms of quality. But then I never expected it to.
special effects have never been perfect.
do you consider ALIEN to be have perfect visuals? :laugh:
(please don't get me wrong, i love ALIEN and still think it's the best movie ever made)
yeah i know, CGI lacks the aesthetics and charme of good old hand made miniature space ship models hanging in front of blue screens and all that stuff.
;)
Quote from: Zeta Reticuli on Mar 20, 2012, 09:48:44 PM
special effects have never been perfect.
do you consider ALIEN to be have perfect visuals? :laugh:
(please don't get me wrong, i love ALIEN and still think it's the best movie ever made)
I do, actually, in terms of cinematography anyway. ALIEN is one of the best looking films ever made. It is brilliantly shot.
But honestly, which do you think looks more realistic?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg854.imageshack.us%2Fimg854%2F2899%2Fvlcsnap2012032014h57m01.png&hash=0b4d59d20951de247f9a89cabd6a75e9e6291458)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg96.imageshack.us%2Fimg96%2F163%2Fvlcsnap2012032015h03m54.png&hash=9e7a9cd60c8e2bef47b0ea1708f54acc8dc2395e)
I throw my lot in with the practical effects. No, they aren't always "perfect", but they definitely look more realistic and relatable than something that is obviously a glorified cartoon :-\
Quote from: Zeta Reticuli on Mar 20, 2012, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 20, 2012, 09:22:15 PM
Quote from: Gash on Mar 20, 2012, 09:17:26 PM
You're basing this 'lazy design' accusation on video games, but the vast majority of people don't play shoot 'em up video games and are not coming to the visuals on display with your apparently jaded eye. A few people on youtube have made reference to Halo and the like when discussing the trailer, but I just can't take comments about games very seriously. Especially when most of the games in question owe a huge debt aesthetically to Ridley's stuff anyway.
I am not a gamer, and do not play video games. Many shots in PROMETHEUS do indeed look like a video game. That's all down to the CGI. CGI just makes everything look fake and shiny and far too clean and neat to be anything present in reality. It can take you out of the film if not done right. I'm sure the effects shots will look better in the movie proper, but the spaceship shots in the trailer look regrettably bland and boast a pronounced video game aesthetic.
I fully expect this to be a good film, but it is not going to come anywhere near ALIEN in terms of quality. But then I never expected it to.
special effects have never been perfect.
do you consider ALIEN to be have perfect visuals? :laugh:
(please don't get me wrong, i love ALIEN and still think it's the best movie ever made)
yeah i know, CGI lacks the aesthetics and charme of good old hand made miniature space ship models hanging in front of blue screens and all that stuff.
;)
personally, its not the cgi or cleanliness that i have a gripe with, its just the design aesthetic looking far more futuristic than the rest of the movies, just as george lucas did with the fancy screens in ships, and r2d2 with flying abilities in the star wars prequels.
now im sure im gonna love prometheus no matter what small gripes there are, but watching prometheus then the other alien movies in sequence will look strange.
thanks
rich
And if Prometheus resembles a video game, then NASA's ships resemble a video game. These are the weakest arguments I've read yet. The question should be, why is it a ba thing? There's some f**king amazing designs in video games, so even if that accusation has some merit, which it doesn't, it's not an inherently bad thing. If anything video games have been influenced by ALIEN and 2001 : A Space Odyessy. It's like seeing a car in a movie and saying "that looks like a car in the real world." so what? This is a film featuring a space ship so it may resemble some other media that features space ship. Further, leveling the charge at Ridley to pandering to the video game crowd is the essence of ludicrous. Ridley wants to make this an R rated picture which would disqualify that theory right there. When scripts are written there's a lot of attention that's paid to characters when it comes to costuming, etc... Mini histories are developed to come to a place where what the characters wear makes sense to them. Imagine Ridley and Co sitting In a room watching video games and YouTube clips saying, "right, that's so cool, let's do that because video gamers love it."
I'm sorry Rich, but that assertion just doesn't sit right with me and almost seems a bit insulting to the years of time and effort that Ridley Scott and everyone else has put into the film. Prometheus could be a colossal failure, and there are a couple of things I've seen that give me pause, but claiming that Ridley has been lazy is just insulting to him as an artist.
I'm not digging the color palette, the combination of super-saturated colors and greyscale.
The human vehicles and tech are too generic. They're definitely at a video game level of design. I was surprised at how un-special it all is. Except for the laser probe droids. Those are pretty cool.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 19, 2012, 10:19:27 PM
Oh, puh-leez. John Carter was dead the moment it was greenlit. Horrible premise for a movie in this day and age, and completely without any appeal to a wider audience to justify its hideously inflated budget.
We could be seeing the same mistake with Prometheus though - buncha corporate suits trying to dumb down and smooth out an essentially adult property and make it kid safe. It scares me to see things like "PG-13 is o.k., cause we could go back and recut Alien, cut away from a few shots a couple seconds sooner, and get a pg-13 with it." The alien franchise has already been damaged by the money people trying to make more money with it. The Alien should never have drunk Pepsi. Kids shouldn't be getting Alien toys. You can't make it mainstream without destroying everything that was great about it in the first place.
I'm skeptical when I hear the Prometheus people say things like "we're going to have huge xenos at the end and they're going to do things that are really perverse." Yeah, and then you're going to put toys of those Xenos on the shelf at Wal-Mart. I don't think you can have both of those, and I know the toys are gonna happen.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 20, 2012, 10:12:58 PM
And if Prometheus resembles a video game, then NASA's ships resemble a video game.
No they don't, because they're real and not computer generated.
Sure CGI doesn't compare to practical effects, but come on, people, the aesthetic is fairly stunning.
The one thing that I'm liking less and less the plot as we know it...
apparently ...in space, no one can write an original script
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 20, 2012, 10:07:23 PM
But honestly, which do you think looks more realistic?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg854.imageshack.us%2Fimg854%2F2899%2Fvlcsnap2012032014h57m01.png&hash=0b4d59d20951de247f9a89cabd6a75e9e6291458)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg96.imageshack.us%2Fimg96%2F163%2Fvlcsnap2012032015h03m54.png&hash=9e7a9cd60c8e2bef47b0ea1708f54acc8dc2395e)
I throw my lot in with the practical effects. No, they aren't always "perfect", but they definitely look more realistic and relatable than something that is obviously a glorified cartoon :-\
The
Alien one for sure. The fact that the ship is tangible just seems to make it much more realistic and stand out more. There's something about the Prometheus ship which gives it a rather glazed and smooth look. Sometimes I really do miss models and maquettes.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 20, 2012, 10:12:58 PM
And if Prometheus resembles a video game, then NASA's ships resemble a video game. These are the weakest arguments I've read yet. The question should be, why is it a ba thing? There's some f**king amazing designs in video games, so even if that accusation has some merit, which it doesn't, it's not an inherently bad thing. If anything video games have been influenced by ALIEN and 2001 : A Space Odyessy. It's like seeing a car in a movie and saying "that looks like a car in the real world." so what? This is a film featuring a space ship so it may resemble some other media that features space ship. Further, leveling the charge at Ridley to pandering to the video game crowd is the essence of ludicrous. Ridley wants to make this an R rated picture which would disqualify that theory right there. When scripts are written there's a lot of attention that's paid to characters when it comes to costuming, etc... Mini histories are developed to come to a place where what the characters wear makes sense to them. Imagine Ridley and Co sitting In a room watching video games and YouTube clips saying, "right, that's so cool, let's do that because video gamers love it."
I'm sorry Rich, but that assertion just doesn't sit right with me and almost seems a bit insulting to the years of time and effort that Ridley Scott and everyone else has put into the film. Prometheus could be a colossal failure, and there are a couple of things I've seen that give me pause, but claiming that Ridley has been lazy is just insulting to him as an artist.
i really dont care if you find it insulting or not, you arent ridley scott, you dont own or make these movies and i can have whatever opinion i like, and the way you go on is like ridley is some sort of god that can do no wrong and absolutely everything he does is perfect and you just cant accept any criticism at all, and again you just miss my points but whatever.
my main point is theres no need for all this futuristic looking stuff that doesnt match the rest of the movies, theres no floating touch screens etc in resurrection set at least 200 years in the future, so why have them now? i will tell you why, because the modern generation of people are used to seeing all this stuff in video games and other movies, and to appeal to that crowd which is a very very large demographic you have to match whats in, and seriously.... how the hell does an r rating disqualify this theory? im 37 and i game and almost everyone i know plays games that are my age and many older, most gamers are aged 18-30 which is what the main target audience for prometheus will be, also i think youre kidding yourself on an r rating, i dont think ridleys expecting one either judging by his wondercon comments.
also ridley doesnt make the designs does he? the concept artists do, ridley just oks them, in again in my opinion the concepts artists have just done whats in fashion, mass effect style space suits, flashy video screens, touch screens etc etc, now again i didnt say any designs were actually bad, i like them. they just dont fit in the timeline or established aesthetic of the alien movies we already have, its going to be very jarring on the eyes watching prometheus then the alien saga in chronological order.
and once again, you take this all to personally like youre ridley himself, sorry but you need to just accept that ridley can and does wrong at times just like every other human being, gi jane is proof of that.....
thanks
rich
I think the film looks great, but dislike that it looks so clean compared to the grunge of Alien and Aliens.
Ridley said in that interview if he sees another grunge sci-fi he will shoot himself, but I haven't seen that much. And I prefer it to the squeaky clean hd future seen in the trailer.
Also, think there are too many British accents.
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 20, 2012, 10:38:02 PM
Sometimes I really do miss models and maquettes.
Me too. Gone forever. :'(
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 20, 2012, 10:46:46 PM
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 20, 2012, 10:38:02 PM
Sometimes I really do miss models and maquettes.
Me too. Gone forever. :'(
Maybe one day a solar flare will fry every computer on the planet and they'll be forced into making stuff by hand again. :P
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Mar 20, 2012, 05:59:55 PM
My only gripe so far is the overall premise of the movie which promotes junk pseudoscience(ancient astronauts). Like seriously, we as a society already have a large amount of nutjobs who somehow believe in this crock of sh*t . We don't need any more decent minds being contaminated by such b/s if there is any hope of winning the war against irrationality.
god it's just a movie
Quote from: VickersAsh on Mar 20, 2012, 10:57:04 PM
Quote from: KirklandSignature on Mar 20, 2012, 05:59:55 PM
My only gripe so far is the overall premise of the movie which promotes junk pseudoscience(ancient astronauts). Like seriously, we as a society already have a large amount of nutjobs who somehow believe in this crock of sh*t . We don't need any more decent minds being contaminated by such b/s if there is any hope of winning the war against irrationality.
god it's just a movie
I really wish people would stop saying this. When a stand up Comedian makes a political joke, even though it's just a "joke" he is, in fact, making a statement about politics, and if it is flawed, but sensationalizing enough it leaves an impact on the culture. If it is wrong, or misguided, it CAN convert idiots into believing things that are not true. The same can be said of movies, books, music etc. They have an impact on the culture in particular when they try to deal with intelligent issues. How they deal with those issues is very important.
However, I do believe many people latch onto to that theory being in this movie a little too tightly. Once again I think people have mistaken Ridley Scotts intentions as being a literal "The aliens created man." When in reality it is more than likely they stopped by hundreds of thousands of years ago and gave us a bit of a push. Nothing more. That would technically tie into the theme of "Big things have small beginnings" also.
Quote from: MR EL1M1NATOR on Mar 20, 2012, 10:42:08 PM
Ridley said in that interview if he sees another grunge sci-fi he will shoot himself, but I haven't seen that much. And I prefer it to the squeaky clean hd future seen in the trailer.
Also, think there are too many British accents.
Ridley's right tho...here's an interesting list of B movie grunge scifi that goes as far as Event Horizon;
http://alienseries.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/alien-influences-event-horizon.html (http://alienseries.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/alien-influences-event-horizon.html)
I'd further include Bladerunner & Alien sequels (of course), Pandorum, Judge Dredd, Fifth Element, Resident Evil, AVP, Sunshine, In Time, Contact, Jumpers, er..oh god, there's freaking loads lol
As for the accents, well, Weyland is a Mumbai born Brit and obviously has a designs on making the world-map PINK again (historians among you will know what I'm on about ;D)
@ ThisBethesdaSea...
you think ridley and other directors take no notice of gaming and its influences?.
well check this out.. ridley creating content for the worlds biggest video game, funnily enough a shooter!...
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.ifc.com/fix/2011/08/ridley-scott-to-create-video-c&sa=U&ei=ggxpT9iLM4aZ8QPVw5CjCQ&ved=0CB0QFjAC&sig2=k7-9gmSj_ZNfpCbpo7oi3g&usg=AFQjCNGbQGdqzC-5QAlbowRsuZIfOx0bEQ (http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.ifc.com/fix/2011/08/ridley-scott-to-create-video-c&sa=U&ei=ggxpT9iLM4aZ8QPVw5CjCQ&ved=0CB0QFjAC&sig2=k7-9gmSj_ZNfpCbpo7oi3g&usg=AFQjCNGbQGdqzC-5QAlbowRsuZIfOx0bEQ)
thanks
rich
Quote from: Game_Over_Man on Mar 20, 2012, 11:04:13 PM
Quote from: MR EL1M1NATOR on Mar 20, 2012, 10:42:08 PM
Ridley said in that interview if he sees another grunge sci-fi he will shoot himself, but I haven't seen that much. And I prefer it to the squeaky clean hd future seen in the trailer.
Also, think there are too many British accents.
Ridley's right tho...here's an interesting list of B movie grunge scifi that goes as far as Event Horizon;
http://alienseries.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/alien-influences-event-horizon.html (http://alienseries.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/alien-influences-event-horizon.html)
I'd further include Bladerunner & Alien sequels (of course), Pandorum, Judge Dredd, Fifth Element, Resident Evil, AVP, Sunshine, In Time, Contact, Jumpers, er..oh god, there's freaking loads lol
As for the accents, well, Weyland is a Mumbai born Brit and obviously has a designs on making the world-map PINK again (historians among you will know what I'm on about ;D)
Granted, but I am sure there are an equal amount of films set in a future where everything is holograms etc, and now with the way everything is HD now, it doesn't look that mind blowing as it will probably be real very soon.
One film I am really looking forward to this year as well is Dredd the new Judge Dredd film which they have gone for that grunge vibe, almost as if it were a film set in the future, but made in the 70s/80s, where the future is bleak and it looks very Mad Max/Blade Runner. Really excited for it.
Minor gripe: Jon Spaihts is a "They killed Hicks n' Newt!!!1!"-er.
Taking notice and or creating content and pandering to them with Prometheus as you've asserted are way different things. As I've said, video games owe more to Ridley Scott for their aesthetic the anyone cares to admit. This is simply a dead argument. By the way, I think Ridley can and has done way wrong....A Good Year, Robin Hood to name a couple off hand. It's not that I think he's infallible, it's that I think criticizing, passing judgement and accusing Ridley of being lazy or pandering to gamers is unequivocally unfair and jumping the gun...which of course you're free to do. Carry on. Also, by the way, I've always respected what you have to say Rich, I just passionately disagree with you here.
Jaime
As far as the difference between the original and new space jockey set designs goes, you have to understand that in a world where every Film is seen in High Def and every minute detail can be investigated (by us) they have to approach the design of sets and whatnot more meticulously. In truth effects got away with a lot in the 80's due to the already lacking clarity of the medium through which it is transfered (magnetic taoe and the tvs of the time). I think Aliens serves as a good example, a lot of the FX look pretty cheap now because we can more easily see the plasticity of the props being used (the drop ship and Newt's parent's exploration vehicle in the extended cut stand out as examples) by comparison to the high-res stuff that we're now being fed on a daily basis. That being said the sets built for Prometheus have to be constructed with increased scrutiny to detail which will undoubtedly results in certain minor modifications being made (though very subtly) to the original design.
Quote from: LSD-426 on Mar 21, 2012, 12:57:51 AM
As far as the difference between the original and new space jockey set designs goes, you have to understand that in a world where every Film is seen in High Def and every minute detail can be investigated (by us) they have to approach the design of sets and whatnot more meticulously. In truth effects got away with a lot in the 80's due to the already lacking clarity of the medium through which it is transfered (magnetic taoe and the tvs of the time).
Uh, no. Films in the 70's and 80's were shot on what films have always been shot with:
film. ALIEN and ALIENS were both shot on film, not tape, and film actually has a higher "resolution" than 4K digital video, which is what PROMETHEUS was shot on. So technically, the original 35mm negatives of both ALIEN and ALIENS have higher definition than the 4K master of PROMETHEUS.
QuoteI think Aliens serves as a good example, a lot of the FX look pretty cheap now because we can more easily see the plasticity of the props being used (the drop ship and Newt's parent's exploration vehicle in the extended cut stand out as examples) by comparison to the high-res stuff that we're now being fed on a daily basis.
What? The Drop ship and exploration vehicles look fantastic, and still hold up fine.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg442.imageshack.us%2Fimg442%2F6137%2Fvlcsnap2012032018h06m40.png&hash=a910cc1b7e3bac72d2fc8f55318fe51dae7a4dd8)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg403.imageshack.us%2Fimg403%2F3543%2Fvlcsnap2012032018h09m26.png&hash=55eefadba87abc15da38445fabec67451910930e)
Both are MUCH preferable to this, which just looks like expensive concept art in motion:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg685.imageshack.us%2Fimg685%2F2811%2Fvlcsnap2012031922h48m50.png&hash=e99789cd539a235c3af602f79d614a514eb49c24)
Just out of interest, where is it shown the Prometheus ship is all CGI, even if it is I still think it's a damn good design, but they still use models in films today anyhow?
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 21, 2012, 01:20:38 AM
Just out of interest, where is it shown the Prometheus ship is all CGI, even if it is I still think it's a damn good design, but they still use models in films today anyhow?
Where is it shown? Every shot featuring the thing. No way in hell is this blatant video game-level graphic a model:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg685.imageshack.us%2Fimg685%2F2811%2Fvlcsnap2012031922h48m50.png&hash=e99789cd539a235c3af602f79d614a514eb49c24)
And no, for the most part, they do not use models in film anymore, especially genre film. It's pretty sad.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 01:12:39 AM
Uh, no. Films in the 70's and 80's were shot on what films have always been shot with: film. ALIEN and ALIENS were both shot on film, not tape, and film actually has a higher "resolution" than 4K digital video, which is what PROMETHEUS was shot on. So technically, the original 35mm negatives of both ALIEN and ALIENS have higher definition than the 4K master of PROMETHEUS.
Oh Douglas Trumbull, where art thou ?? Is it only Terrence Malick that remembers your genius??
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 01:12:39 AM
ALIEN and ALIENS were both shot on film, not tape, and film actually has a higher "resolution" than 4K digital video, which is what PROMETHEUS was shot on. So technically, the original 35mm negatives of both ALIEN and ALIENS have higher definition than the 4K master of PROMETHEUS.
Allow me to mention that Cameron shot Aliens on a film stock that didn't exactly save it for the best presentation that the film media can offer, so it will always have a somewhat underwhelming picture quality by direct comparison. Alien on the other hand looks gorgous and always will. :)
Ohhh... space tapir RIP :'( :D
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 21, 2012, 01:29:08 AM
Oh Douglas Trumbull, where art thou ?? Is it only Terrence Malick that remembers your genius??
"Doug Trumbull once said to me, if you can do it live, do it live...it is not less expensive to do digital." - Ridley Scott, 2011
Too bad Ridley didn't take those words to heart this time around.
And apparently neither did Malick and Trumbull himself, because the CGI in Tree of Life was
terrible. :P
Cvalda, your actually wrong. The F65 can shoot in either Rec.709 or F65 Gamut, which actually exceeds the SMPTE specification for color negative film in every direction.
What we're seeing is CRYSTAL clarity in terms of digital cinematography, it's unprecedented. Our eyes don't really know what to do with information and if often times looks a bit unreal in its perception.
Quote from: Eva on Mar 21, 2012, 01:30:16 AM
Allow me to mention that Cameron shot Aliens on a film stock that didn't exactly save it for the best presentation that the film media can offer, so it will always have a somewhat underwhelming picture quality by direct comparison. Alien on the other hand looks gorgous and always will. :)
ALIENS looks damn gorgeous itself on Blu-ray. Cameron did a fantastic job remastering it.
Quote
Ohhh... space tapir RIP :'( :D
Spoiler
Space Tapir will rise again someday soon!!!
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 21, 2012, 01:37:38 AM
Cvalda, your actually wrong. The F65 can shoot in either Rec.709 or F65 Gamut, which actually exceeds the SMPTE specification for color negative film in every direction.
That is relevant how? PROMETHEUS wasn't shot with that camera, it was shot using the Red Epic at 4K. 35mm negatives can be scanned at up to
8K. Blow PROMETHEUS up to that size and you can watch the image quality start dropping like a stone.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 01:34:49 AM
"Doug Trumbull once said to me, if you can do it live, do it live...it is not less expensive to do digital." - Ridley Scott, 2011
Too bad Ridley didn't take those words to heart this time around.
And apparently neither did Malick and Trumbull himself, because the CGI in Tree of Life was terrible. :P
Cvalda, I am pretty sure that the only "CGI" was the dinosaur scene. Everything else was accomplished with practical camera effects, and liberal use of creative photogaphic techiniques capturing the mesmerizing behavior of fluid dynamics.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 21, 2012, 01:47:52 AM
Cvalda, I am pretty sure that the only "CGI" was the dinosaur scene. Everything else was accomplished with practical camera effects, and liberal use of creative photogaphic techiniques capturing the mesmerizing behavior of fluid dynamics.
The shots of DNA chains replicating certainly weren't photographic effects--100% crappy CGI, like those dinosaurs that weren't even up to the level of
Walking with Dinosaurs from 1999.
And for all the much-touted "return of Douglas Trumbull" stuff, it all just looked like half-baked leftovers from
2001's Star Gate sequence that Kubrick decided to toss in the rubbish bin.
MELANCHOLIA, on the other hand, used CGI to genius effect, crafting stunning new images that are strikingly original, and it had less than half the budget of TREE OF LIFE.
"With EPIC, the possibilities for what the future holds are limitless. Offering 5K resolution, or an image over five thousand pixels across, the processed image is still measured at over 4K, significantly more than 35mm motion picture film. RED's recent developments in extending dynamic range with HDRx™, a remarkable tool as significant as REDCODE itself, have allowed exposure latitude as great as 18 stops, again, bettering film."
And for the record, Cvalda, you're nuts, the CG work in The Tree of Life is flawless. But, go on, you can think its crappy, it's okay. ;)
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 21, 2012, 01:54:34 AM
"With EPIC, the possibilities for what the future holds are limitless. Offering 5K resolution, or an image over five thousand pixels across, the processed image is still measured at over 4K, significantly more than 35mm motion picture film. RED's recent developments in extending dynamic range with HDRx™, a remarkable tool as significant as REDCODE itself, have allowed exposure latitude as great as 18 stops, again, bettering film."
You're quoting a sales pitch? You really are on a mission to prove PROMETHEUS is the ultimate in everything and that to criticize any aspect of it is
madness! :laugh: Fine, let us say that the people trying to sell a digital camera against their film competitors are right. It does technically "best" film in a
few technical areas. Doesn't change the fact that film still wipes the floor with digital from an aesthetic perspective, providing comparable -- if not usually
superior -- image resolution depending on the stock used, coupled with the actual rich, pleasing look of film itself.
Quote
And for the record, Cvalda, you're nuts, the CG work in The Tree of Life is flawless. But, go on, you can think its crappy, it's okay. ;)
Yeah, because this looks
spectacular:
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ionlywatch18s.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2Ftol04_dinosaurs1.jpg&hash=4ebb93ec8750149e84aedf0bdd2a6aeb1e1e6b46)
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 01:38:06 AM
Spoiler
Space Tapir will rise again someday soon!!!
Well, in that case I will prepare something for its glorious return... ;)
Regarding practical effects in newer films - have any of you seen The Fountain? That looked pretty spectacular and they did the visual effects with chemicals and other old tricks I believe.
Yeah, I also have to respectfully disagree, Cvalda. First of all, IMHO the dinosaur scene in "The Tree of Life" is fantastic, and no way on the same level as "Walking with Dinosaurs". And the rest of the imagery (either practical or CGI) is of a similarly high standard. It never once took me "out of the movie" like so many other current films have.
Prometheus could end up being dog shit.....but I'll judge it WHEN I SEE IT.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 21, 2012, 02:15:52 AM
Yeah, I also have to respectfully disagree, Cvalda. First of all, IMHO the dinosaur scene in "The Tree of Life" is fantastic, and no way on the same level as "Walking with Dinosaurs".
And I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree with your point of respectful disagreement ;D
The dinosaur scene made me laugh, not because of the bad CGI, but because of the ludicrous premise that a pea-brained animal would pass up perfectly good eatin' because it somehow "thought better of it." OMG, it's the way of "Grace" versus the way of "Nature!"
Rubbish. :P
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 21, 2012, 02:17:09 AM
Prometheus could end up being dog shit.....but I'll judge it WHEN I SEE IT.
We aren't judging it. We're judging
aspects of it. Which is the point of this thread you seem to be missing.
A minor concern of mine, which is something alot of Alien fans complained about in the "AVP" films, is downplaying the Alien as a minor threat. This movie is over glorifying the Space Jockeys and their technology and I hope the uncontrollable superiority of the Alien is preserved in some way. Having them be weapons gives off that "bug" vibe that "Aliens" portrayed them as. I always assumed the reason that Jockey in "Alien" was dead, and the ship sending out a warning signal, was because they couldn't control what they created/found. It's the ultimate organism, and possibly the biggest threat in the galaxy. I don't want them to come in second place to the threat of the Space Jockeys, the "Gods" of the Universe. Does that make sense?
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 21, 2012, 02:17:09 AM
Prometheus could end up being dog shit.....but I'll judge it WHEN I SEE IT.
"Re: The Official PROMETHEUS Griping Thread!"Just thought i'd point out where you were in case you missed it, sir. :) The whole point of this thread is to, tear things to piecse. ;D
Quote from: AmazSpiderMan1 on Mar 21, 2012, 02:25:11 AM
It's the ultimate organism, and possibly the biggest threat in the galaxy. I don't want them to come in second place to the threat of the Space Jockeys, the "Gods" of the Universe. Does that make sense?
I can understand that. :)
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 21, 2012, 02:26:39 AM
Just thought i'd point out where you were in case you missed it, sir. :) The whole point of this thread is to, tear things to piecse. ;D
No, it's not.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 02:27:24 AM
No, it's not.
Oh come on, It absolutely is! :) Griping is not a constructive form of criticism.
By definition. A gripe is by definition considered a nagging form of criticism.
"The Jockey is too small."
"Surface details are wrong."
"How is this an identical ringed world?"
"Things look too shiny/clean/CGI."
"I hate mutants."
Those are gripes/nags, and they're hardly constructive. Not like much can be done constructively about any of the reservations that people have at this stage, anyway.
Please, tell me what's constructive here? (And for the record it is a two options affair. Either we're being constructive, or we're just griping, here.)
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 02:21:24 AM
The dinosaur scene made me laugh, not because of the bad CGI, but because of the ludicrous premise that a pea-brained animal would pass up perfectly good eatin' because it somehow "thought better of it." OMG, it's the way of "Grace" versus the way of "Nature!"
Rubbish. :P
I guess that is not the way I interpreted that scene. The way I viewed it, was that "Nature" is seemingly capricious and incomprehensible to us. Even though we finite beings may not understand it, "Nature" is still part of God's plan. There are many documented cases of Lions, Tigers, or other predatory carnivores passing up on an "easy kill", especially if they have recently fed, and/or do not need to satisfy the immediate needs of their young.
Although Malick sets up a dichotomy between "the Way of Nature" and "the Way of Grace", I am not certain that he necessarily feels that there is an obvious resolution or "choice" between the two..., or, at least a resolution that is apprehensible to us. Note that I do NOT think Malick was in any way implying that "the Way of Nature" was necessarily Evil, and that "the Way of Grace" was necessarily Good...but rather there is a complex duality between the two that we may try to reconcile, and perhaps glimpse...but never fully understand.
In any event, that is the way I interpreted these complex themes, which are explored in the film
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 21, 2012, 02:48:00 AM
Oh come on, It absolutely is! :) Griping is not a constructive form of criticism. By definition. A gripe is by definition considered a nagging form of criticism.
You missed the fact that "griping" is an ALIEN reference :P
The point of this thread is merely to contain the doubts and points of disagreement some members have as a result of what we've seen of the film, not to "tear it apart." We haven't even seen it yet.
Comparing the CG in Prometheus to cheap video game CG is essentially tearing it to pieces.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 21, 2012, 02:50:47 AM
Although Malick sets up a dichotomy between "the Way of Nature" and "the Way of Grace", I am not certain that he necessarily feels that there is an obvious resolution or "choice" between the two..., or, at least a resolution that is apprehensible to us. Note that I do NOT think Malick was in any way implying that "the Way of Nature" was necessarily Evil, and that "the Way of Grace" was necessarily Good...but rather there is a complex duality between the two that we may try to reconcile, and perhaps glimpse...but never fully understand.
In any event, that is the way I interpreted these complex themes, which are explored in the film
In any case, we're off-topic, but oh well :P
Spoiler
When Tree of Life premiered at Cannes, it started two "warring" factions between critics: the Malickians for Tree of Life and the von Trier-ians for Melancholia. I am definitely in the latter. Both films tackle much the same subject matter (humanity's place in the literally cosmic scheme of things). Whereas Malick apparently thinks Nature and the universe are an endlessly beautiful manifestation of some sort of eternal higher power that we are all apart of and will all be subsumed into in when we pass on, therefore giving our lives some sort of meaning in the cosmic scheme of things, Von Trier takes direct opposite approach, declaring Nature to be "Satan's church," and stating that if the world was created by a higher being, that higher being had to be Satan, because Nature is an endless panorama of death, killing, competition, expendable offspring and evil. We are alone in this galaxy, if not the universe itself, and our lives are completely devoid of meaning or worth. Were we to all be wiped out tomorrow, it would not matter, and "no one would miss us." It's a pretty horrifying message for a film to calmly espouse, but I think it's far closer to the truth than the comforting sap of Malick.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 21, 2012, 02:56:26 AM
Comparing the CG in Prometheus to cheap video game CG is essentially tearing it to pieces.
::) Right, because the film is its CGI. Moreover, I'm slighting visual effects work in the
trailer, not the film itself. Seriously, what are you doing in this thread?
Start a thread like this expect criticism. Deal.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 21, 2012, 03:11:04 AM
Start a thread like this expect criticism. Deal.
Why don't you go start a thread for the things that you're really excited for or think look amazing in PROMETHEUS to counterbalance, if it makes you so upset that this thread exists? Hell, I was thinking of making one myself. You'd save me the trouble.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 03:13:04 AM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 21, 2012, 03:11:04 AM
Start a thread like this expect criticism. Deal.
Why don't you go start a thread for the things that you're really excited for or think look amazing in PROMETHEUS to counterbalance, if it makes you so upset that this thread exists? Hell, I was thinking of making one myself. You'd save me the trouble.
This.
The point of this thread isn't to present things that you don't like only to have somebody tell you why you
should like it.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 01:26:07 AM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 21, 2012, 01:20:38 AM
Just out of interest, where is it shown the Prometheus ship is all CGI, even if it is I still think it's a damn good design, but they still use models in films today anyhow?
Where is it shown? Every shot featuring the thing. No way in hell is this blatant video game-level graphic a model:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg685.imageshack.us%2Fimg685%2F2811%2Fvlcsnap2012031922h48m50.png&hash=e99789cd539a235c3af602f79d614a514eb49c24)
And no, for the most part, they do not use models in film anymore, especially genre film. It's pretty sad.
I didn't say they used models in most films, I was saying they still use models sometimes, and I still think Prometheus maybe a model in some shots while CGI in others, my opinion so what! As far as the look of CGI in this film goes I doubt it's even finished yet, so seeing it in such high resolution is bound to bring out flaws, we really need to see the final film to judge properly.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 03:05:12 AM
In any case, we're off-topic, but oh well :P
Spoiler
When Tree of Life premiered at Cannes, it started two "warring" factions between critics: the Malickians for Tree of Life and the von Trier-ians for Melancholia. I am definitely in the latter. Both films tackle much the same subject matter (humanity's place in the literally cosmic scheme of things). Whereas Malick apparently thinks Nature and the universe are an endlessly beautiful manifestation of some sort of eternal higher power that we are all apart of and will all be subsumed into in when we pass on, therefore giving our lives some sort of meaning in the cosmic scheme of things, Von Trier takes direct opposite approach, declaring Nature to be "Satan's church," and stating that if the world was created by a higher being, that higher being had to be Satan, because Nature is an endless panorama of death, killing, competition, expendable offspring and evil. We are alone in this galaxy, if not the universe itself, and our lives are completely devoid of meaning or worth. Were we to all be wiped out tomorrow, it would not matter, and "no one would miss us." It's a pretty horrifying message for a film to calmly espouse, but I think it's far closer to the truth than the comforting sap of Malick.
Dear Cvalda...really? I never figured you for a nihilist. And I enjoyed Von Trier's "Melancholia", by the way. However, I might argue against categorizing Malick's films as "comforting sap". I assume you have seen most, if not all of them. As I recall, the main "heroes" die at the end of "The Thin Red Line" and "The New World". And the "anti-heroes" die in "Days of Heaven" and "Badlands" (in Badlands, this certainly is the implied fate of Martin Sheen's character...i.e execution). Furthermore, there is an impressive body count in "The Thin Red Line", "The New World" as well as "Badlands".
Certainly, "The Thin Red Line", "The New World", and "The Tree of Life" carry an underlying theme of hope, redemption, and the intimations (but no promise) of an after-life...they are also complex studies in man's cruelty and inhumanity. In no case would I characterize his work as "comforting sap". But, that is just me.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 21, 2012, 05:11:46 AM
Dear Cvalda...really? I never figured you for a nihilist. And I enjoyed Von Trier's "Melancholia", by the way. However, I might argue against categorizing Malick's films as "comforting sap". I assume you have seen most, if not all of them. As I recall, the main "heroes" die at the end of "The Thin Red Line" and "The New World". And the "anti-heroes" die in "Days of Heaven" and "Badlands" (in Badlands, this certainly is the implied fate of Martin Sheen's character...i.e execution). Furthermore, there is an impressive body count in "The Thin Red Line", "The New World" as well as "Badlands".
Certainly, "The Thin Red Line", "The New World", and "The Tree of Life" carry an underlying theme of hope, redemption, and the intimations (but no promise) of an after-life...they are also complex studies in man's cruelty and inhumanity. In no case would I characterize his work as "comforting sap". But, that is just me.
I'm not a nihilist--not principally.
Spoiler
But I can admire true nihilism that isn't mere fashionable posing. I think it's important to acknowledge the very likely and scary possibility that none of it means anything--and then figure out why you should be a good person anyway.
I was referring to Tree of Life as comforting sap--the rest of Malick's films (bar Badlands...mostly) I dislike for being outrageously, eye-rollingly pretentious (Days of Heaven to a lesser extent as well--my antipathy for Malick is largely born of his last three films). What's worse is that he doesn't mean to be pretentious, and somehow his steadfast earnestness just makes his work all the more unbearable. He has little of value to actually say, spends an inordinately long amount of time saying it, and hammering home the same trite visual metaphors and horrendous dialogue. And then people show up to sold out screenings of his films carrying signs saying "I would DIE to see the new Terrence Malick!" Ugh.
Here's a quick mock-up of how our very controversial new Jockey friend will probably look with hose attached to his infamous new mask:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg7.imageshack.us%2Fimg7%2F2169%2Fjockeyhose.jpg&hash=4571ba86b7ac61bd61bfa6f7a78ca5507bffe245)
See, he looks a bit better now, doesn't he?
:-\
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 07:32:43 AM
Here's a quick mock-up of how our very controversial new Jockey friend will probably look with hose attached to his infamous new mask:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg7.imageshack.us%2Fimg7%2F2169%2Fjockeyhose.jpg&hash=4571ba86b7ac61bd61bfa6f7a78ca5507bffe245)
See, he looks a bit better now, doesn't he?
:-\
The hose will likely attach after the suit has completely 'formed', for lack of a better word. The original always looked like an elephant man (not a John Hurt joke!).
Well said Valaquen.
Is that why it's contentious, because the hose isn't attached yet? Jeez.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 21, 2012, 02:06:08 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 07:32:43 AM
Here's a quick mock-up of how our very controversial new Jockey friend will probably look with hose attached to his infamous new mask:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg7.imageshack.us%2Fimg7%2F2169%2Fjockeyhose.jpg&hash=4571ba86b7ac61bd61bfa6f7a78ca5507bffe245)
See, he looks a bit better now, doesn't he?
:-\
The hose will likely attach after the suit has completely 'formed', for lack of a better word. The original always looked like an elephant man (not a John Hurt joke!).
can't say that so.
the '79 jockey scared the shit out of us and only after watching the movie several times and becoming "familiar" with it, it became this earth related being (elephant man). but the space jockey in prometheus... (when wearing it's suit) just looks like watto from episode I, a tapir or an elephant seal:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Burl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Q6Ka8kJCjh8%2FS-GuIcVwe7I%2FAAAAAAAAAQc%2FrVv08nETKgA%2Fs1600%2F99696-004-058EB9C8.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_Q6Ka8kJCjh8%2FS-GuIcVwe7I%2FAAAAAAAAAQc%2FrVv08nETKgA%2Fs1600%2F99696-004-058EB9C8.jpg%255B%2Furl%255D&hash=68d26bb394efcbe50eb5778eb54a3a0a8b55e7da)
what was terrifying in alien has become something obvious & earth related in prometheus.
but i'm not complaining about the look from the new jockey.
just about your statement ;)
Quote from: Kol on Mar 21, 2012, 02:24:45 PM
the '79 jockey scared the shit out of us and only after watching the movie several times and becoming "familiar" with it, it became this earth related being (elephant man). but the space jockey in prometheus... (when wearing it's suit) just looks like watto from episode I, a tapir or an elephant seal....
Imo, the helmet they find and take back looks great and nothing like the above. I think it's just the angle, lighting and the 'not grunge/dirty look' in that short second that warrants the whole tapir thing...
Quote from: RICH-ENGLAND on Mar 20, 2012, 10:09:44 PM
personally, its not the cgi or cleanliness that i have a gripe with, its just the design aesthetic looking far more futuristic than the rest of the movies, just as george lucas did with the fancy screens in ships, and r2d2 with flying abilities in the star wars prequels.
rich
I dunno, ALIEN made in 79 looks a lot more futuristic than ALIENS, set 57 years later, made in 86 and with a design aesthetic that looks 1986, complete with a frizzy haired yuppie, shiny metal air ducts, 'Platoon' marines and dodgy back projection. There's no attempt at making the computer visuals look ahead of their time as there was when Bernard Lodge created the opening 3D revolve screen for Mother in ALIEN.
I always thought that Aliens failed to recreate the design aesthetic despite Ron Cobb's involvement, and the cinematography is nowhere near as good as ALIEN, so it always looked a mismatched piece to me. Say what you like about Alien3, but at least the cinematography was a better match to the original.
Of Prometheus - the flat screens and displays are pretty much close to a lot of the early concept art for ship interiors in ALIEN, until it was decided it was too luxurious for a space tug, and the lighting of the Prometheus corridors is a lot more Nostromo A Deck than people are giving credence to.
The shot of Prometheus having landed in the dust is also quite reminiscent of ALIEN concept art, all you need is two poeple in the foreground with torches and it's a good match, so I think far from Ridley Scott doing a George Lucas, so far I just think he's looking back to - what was it? The Snark or the Leviathan?
Quote from: Kol on Mar 21, 2012, 02:24:45 PM
can't say that so.
the '79 jockey scared the shit out of us and only after watching the movie several times and becoming "familiar" with it, it became this earth related being (elephant man). but the space jockey in prometheus... (when wearing it's suit) just looks like watto from episode I, a tapir or an elephant seal:
what was terrifying in alien has become something obvious & earth related in prometheus.
but i'm not complaining about the look from the new jockey.
just about your statement ;)
It was scary. It was also elephantine. ;)
Quote from: Eva on Mar 21, 2012, 02:37:18 PM
Quote from: Kol on Mar 21, 2012, 02:24:45 PM
the '79 jockey scared the shit out of us and only after watching the movie several times and becoming "familiar" with it, it became this earth related being (elephant man). but the space jockey in prometheus... (when wearing it's suit) just looks like watto from episode I, a tapir or an elephant seal....
Imo, the helmet they find and take back looks great and nothing like the above. I think it's just the angle, lighting and the 'not grunge/dirty look' in that short second that warrants the whole tapir thing...
i think because it's just from some statue or a "dead" helmet. but as you said it looked great.
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 21, 2012, 02:43:21 PM
Quote from: Kol on Mar 21, 2012, 02:24:45 PM
can't say that so.
the '79 jockey scared the shit out of us and only after watching the movie several times and becoming "familiar" with it, it became this earth related being (elephant man). but the space jockey in prometheus... (when wearing it's suit) just looks like watto from episode I, a tapir or an elephant seal:
what was terrifying in alien has become something obvious & earth related in prometheus.
but i'm not complaining about the look from the new jockey.
just about your statement ;)
It was scary. It was also elephantine. ;)
it was somehow. but less elephantine, than the prometheus one.
till now i have/had no problem with this thing being a suit and the wearer being humanoid and our ancestor.
I guess I would be in the (small?) category of those who never viewed the original Space Jockey mummy (corpse) as "elephantine". Admittedly, this view was based on never once considering the possibility that the jockey figure might turn out to be some kind of bizarre exo-suit. I guess it was the appearance (to me, anyway) that the central "trunk" was rigid, fused and connected to the "ribs", and seemed to be made out of the same "bony" material as the skeleton...which prevented me from associating it with a elephant-like, flexible "snout" or hose.
All of this criticism heaped towards the Jockey in Prometheus is based off what like 2-3 seconds or less of footage that shows it either being strapped IN or coming OUT of the chair. Either way it's In-Motion so there's no clear view of it, or, final view of what it will look like It's the most baseless and premature criticism I've seen yet towards Prometheus.
My gripe is people griping about a movie they've seen only through trailers...trailers I hasten to add that look more impressive than any movie in recent years. It's like we're have a real epic film given to us, similar to 2001 in scale, yet it's not enough.
Avatar was console game standard - Prometheus promises to have much more depth visually.
My other gripe is trying to comprehend why anyone would prefer a new AVP film :s
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 21, 2012, 03:13:36 PM
I guess I would be in the (small?) category of those who never viewed the original Space Jockey mummy (corpse) as "elephantine". Admittedly, this view was based on never once considering the possibility that the jockey figure might turn out to be some kind of bizarre exo-suit. I guess it was the appearance (to me, anyway) that the central "trunk" was rigid, fused and connected to the "ribs", and seemed to be made out of the same "bony" material as the skeleton...which prevented me from associating it with a elephant-like, flexible "snout" or hose.
THiS!
ps: thank you for finding the right fitting words, i were unable to. :)
Quote from: Game_Over_Man on Mar 21, 2012, 04:01:01 PM
My gripe is people griping about a movie they've seen only through trailers...trailers I hasten to add that look more impressive than any movie in recent years. It's like we're have a real epic film given to us, similar to 2001 in scale, yet it's not enough.
Game_Over_Man, you got to understand that speculation about the upcoming film is what this entire forum is about. Cvalda was kind enough to start a thread in which people can list their fears/concerns as to certain elements which may be troubling (for some). Granted,
we are all operating on limited information...but just as creative speculation is fun...reasonable "griping" on potential "negative" elements can be quite cathartic. I know I feel better. ;D
Besides, it let's me get it out of my system, so I can go see it in the theater with expectations firmly in check.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 21, 2012, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: Game_Over_Man on Mar 21, 2012, 04:01:01 PM
My gripe is people griping about a movie they've seen only through trailers...trailers I hasten to add that look more impressive than any movie in recent years. It's like we're have a real epic film given to us, similar to 2001 in scale, yet it's not enough.
Game_Over_Man, you got to understand that speculation about the upcoming film is what this entire forum is about. Cvalda was kind enough to start a thread in which people can list their fears/concerns as to certain elements which may be troubling (for some). Granted, we are all operating on limited information...but just as creative speculation is fun...reasonable "griping" on potential "negative" elements can be quite cathartic. I know I feel better. ;D
Besides, it let's me get it out of my system, so I can go see it in the theater with expectations firmly in check.
Nooo you misunderstand - the thread is perfectly valid, but it's peoples gripes that are often ridiculous and unreasonable ie. the shape of the jockey when we don't know if it's the same jockey, or a suit that will adapt to its user. OR, comments about Noomi not being as good of Sigourney, OR why DOS system isn't used etc. Most of the griping is geek bitching in my opinion, when really, until the film is released THEN is the time to comment about script, characters etc.
Gripes about the press campaign or technical details of the trailers or interviews with Ridley and cast - that's all we can really gripe about...if indeed there are any gripes to be truly made even in these departments!
Quote from: Game_Over_Man on Mar 21, 2012, 07:07:52 PM
Nooo you misunderstand - the thread is perfectly valid, but it's peoples gripes that are often ridiculous and unreasonable ie. the shape of the jockey when we don't know if it's the same jockey, or a suit that will adapt to its user. OR, comments about Noomi not being as good of Sigourney, OR why DOS system isn't used etc.
What. I don't think I've seen that anywhere on these forums. I think we're all pretty much in agreement that Noomi looks great.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 07:37:19 PM
Quote from: Game_Over_Man on Mar 21, 2012, 07:07:52 PM
Nooo you misunderstand - the thread is perfectly valid, but it's peoples gripes that are often ridiculous and unreasonable ie. the shape of the jockey when we don't know if it's the same jockey, or a suit that will adapt to its user. OR, comments about Noomi not being as good of Sigourney, OR why DOS system isn't used etc.
What. I don't think I've seen that anywhere on these forums. I think we're all pretty much in agreement that Noomi looks great.
Game_Over
could be hinting at someones complaint in another thread, that Noomi Rapace doesn't exactly feature an impressive bust, less so than Sigourney in Alien.
I guess there's a select few here that likes to imagine Christina Hendricks filling out the white bandages instead of Noomi. Very few... :laugh:
Noomi looks awesome! The original The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was my favorite film of that year largely because of her performance.
Oh no... I
praised something about the film in the griping thread... I broke Cvaldas thread... :'(
Noomi is perfect. she's my fav hollywood actress atm and i'm glad they didn't choose anyone alse for the main character.
and yes, her acting in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was awesome.
Quote from: Zeta Reticuli on Mar 21, 2012, 08:39:02 PM
Noomi is perfect. she's my fav hollywood actress atm and i'm glad they didn't choose anyone alse for the main character.
and yes, her acting in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was awesome.
I agree with everyone on this topic as well.
Whenever a movie comes out with a reasonable, normal woman who has what I can only describe as "womanly beauty" - I feel happy. No one (OK some people, not me) want to see anorexic-big-boob-mc-whats-her-face in every damn role.
And when these women are brilliant actoresses as well, it just tops it off. The same can obviously be applied to men and is not gender specific.
Now, thats not griping and this thread seems derailed, so bear with me:
CGI is fine, as long as it is executed realistically and ages well within it's subject material. As long as they pull that off, there is no issue with CGI. I am a huge fan of practical props, but we've seen many instances where animation
via a prop works and ages well.
My other gripe will be if this is not executed per the above. That will suck :-\
Quote from: MR EL1M1NATOR on Mar 20, 2012, 10:42:08 PM
Also, think there are too many British accents.
Ironically perhaps, the only problem is Idris Elba's American accent.
Quote from: Gash on Mar 22, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
Ironically perhaps, the only problem is Idris Elba's American accent.
I was actually excited to hear him use his English accent in this film. Then the trailer came out and that wonky cornpone drawl came out... Oh well. :-\
It does come off rather cringe-worthy.
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 22, 2012, 06:56:16 PM
It does come off rather cringe-worthy.
I quite liked it. I guess I just enjoy unexpected things.
Wait ... this is the griping thread.
I feel I may be a tad remorseful leaving the theater without having seen ...
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg853.imageshack.us%2Fimg853%2F729%2Ftapirnoomi.png&hash=0a60006eacb914b643d57f395a92e8c8a52f2e98)
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 22, 2012, 06:55:03 PM
I was actually excited to hear him use his English accent in this film. Then the trailer came out and that wonky cornpone drawl came out... Oh well. :-\
Hard to tell, yet, with such limited audio. I agree that he does seem to be affecting a "Southern" American drawl. Not sure why they decided to do that. Elba's "inner-city" American (in this case, Baltimore) accent in "The Wire" was excellent.
:D
Nah, it's fine Bat. It's just I don't really enjoy the part when he's like "Duur...kill everything."
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 22, 2012, 07:13:32 PM
:D
Nah, it's fine Bat. It's just I don't really enjoy the part when he's like "Duur...kill everything."
It's a fine potryal of an American if I ever saw one. Especially one from the South! ;D
I enjoy the contrasts of how acting leaders deal with the stress of extraterrestrial threats over stream audio/video feeds in these films.
Dammit! More praise in the gripe thread! :-X
Issues with trailer:
Potential major plot point spoiled involving Idris Elba.
Tall guy looks a bit too CGI in.
Inexcusable for a humanoid to be made of cgi. Why not stilts work and prosthetics?
I also belong to the group of people who doesn't think motion capture stuff such as Gollum looks particularly good. It doesn't "feel" in the scene. It'll always just be a cartoon.
The look is too clean and digital. I'm not refrering to the design work but to the actually quality of the image.
I can tell when stuff has been shot on film. It looks and feels nice. Crystal clear digital stuff just ends up looking weird and off.
I think that's what people are getting at when they make the computer game comments.
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Mar 22, 2012, 07:18:12 PM
Dammit! More praise in the gripe thread! :-X
Gripe damn you!
If the international trailer changes are any indication the CG isn't completely done and they are still doing touch ups.
I suspect things will look better when it hits the theater.
My grip? The amount of cutting they are gonna have to do, from the tone of the trailers, to get a PG-13 rating. Looking at the international trailer vs the US one, I hope they don't release harder versions in some countries. Nothing would promote bootlegging more.
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Mar 22, 2012, 07:11:23 PM
I feel I may be a tad remorseful leaving the theater without having seen ...
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg853.imageshack.us%2Fimg853%2F729%2Ftapirnoomi.png&hash=0a60006eacb914b643d57f395a92e8c8a52f2e98)
Perhaps you will. Space Tapir is confirmed canon, after all...
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi175.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw124%2Fjosh_axey%2FPrometheusInternationalTrailer-UKmp4_snapshot_0012_20120320_180250.jpg&hash=829e13276fe3123a5a972e5c022c6a9c3a32ccfc)
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Mar 22, 2012, 07:11:23 PM
I feel I may be a tad remorseful leaving the theater without having seen ...
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg853.imageshack.us%2Fimg853%2F729%2Ftapirnoomi.png&hash=0a60006eacb914b643d57f395a92e8c8a52f2e98)
Ahhh, it's just looking for a kiss. Poor Space Tapir...looking for love in all the wrong places.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 01:12:39 AM
Quote from: LSD-426 on Mar 21, 2012, 12:57:51 AM
As far as the difference between the original and new space jockey set designs goes, you have to understand that in a world where every Film is seen in High Def and every minute detail can be investigated (by us) they have to approach the design of sets and whatnot more meticulously. In truth effects got away with a lot in the 80's due to the already lacking clarity of the medium through which it is transfered (magnetic taoe and the tvs of the time).
Uh, no. Films in the 70's and 80's were shot on what films have always been shot with: film. ALIEN and ALIENS were both shot on film, not tape, and film actually has a higher "resolution" than 4K digital video, which is what PROMETHEUS was shot on. So technically, the original 35mm negatives of both ALIEN and ALIENS have higher definition than the 4K master of PROMETHEUS.
QuoteI think Aliens serves as a good example, a lot of the FX look pretty cheap now because we can more easily see the plasticity of the props being used (the drop ship and Newt's parent's exploration vehicle in the extended cut stand out as examples) by comparison to the high-res stuff that we're now being fed on a daily basis.
What? The Drop ship and exploration vehicles look fantastic, and still hold up fine.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg442.imageshack.us%2Fimg442%2F6137%2Fvlcsnap2012032018h06m40.png&hash=a910cc1b7e3bac72d2fc8f55318fe51dae7a4dd8)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg403.imageshack.us%2Fimg403%2F3543%2Fvlcsnap2012032018h09m26.png&hash=55eefadba87abc15da38445fabec67451910930e)
Both are MUCH preferable to this, which just looks like expensive concept art in motion:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg685.imageshack.us%2Fimg685%2F2811%2Fvlcsnap2012031922h48m50.png&hash=e99789cd539a235c3af602f79d614a514eb49c24)
Ok first off, my bad, I'm an audio engineer and thinking in terms of technological history I mixed it up. Obviously movies are shot on film not tape, I smoke weed, wires cross, my bad. But the point I was trying to make has nothing to do with what their shot on but what they're viewed through- "where every Film is seen in High Def" -"Seen"-, by us in high def at home in the theatre, everywhere. And yes I own the first two Alien movies and watch them regularly and the model work done in aliens looks fake, just like the editing in the scene of Ash's talking decapitated head gives away the obvious f/x trick. Their attention to detail is not there because it didn't have to be and would have been seen as extraneous. People were willing to suspend more disbelief when going to the movies back then because they had to be in order to enjoy the story (also something now lacking in modern film). Nowadays we expect more attention to detail visually. Just sayin.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 22, 2012, 08:03:09 PM
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Mar 22, 2012, 07:11:23 PM
I feel I may be a tad remorseful leaving the theater without having seen ...
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg853.imageshack.us%2Fimg853%2F729%2Ftapirnoomi.png&hash=0a60006eacb914b643d57f395a92e8c8a52f2e98)
Perhaps you will. Space Tapir is confirmed canon, after all...
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi175.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw124%2Fjosh_axey%2FPrometheusInternationalTrailer-UKmp4_snapshot_0012_20120320_180250.jpg&hash=829e13276fe3123a5a972e5c022c6a9c3a32ccfc)
;D
Quote from: LSD-426 on Mar 22, 2012, 09:49:42 PM
Ok first off, my bad, I'm an audio engineer and thinking in terms of technological history I mixed it up. Obviously movies are shot on film not tape, I smoke weed, wires cross, my bad. But the point I was trying to make has nothing to do with what their shot on but what they're viewed through- "where every Film is seen in High Def" -"Seen"-, by us in high def at home in the theatre, everywhere.
You do realize high-def is beside the point, right? Film is already "Hi-def", that's why the Alien films are on Blu-ray and look just as good as many modern films shot in "hi-def" in terms of picture quality.
I don't understand the complaints about the layout of the ship. The Nostromo was a commercial towing vehicle with a small percentage of the ship requiring a high - tech environment. Why would it therefore have holographic displays etc? It wouldn't make it economically viable.
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 22, 2012, 10:05:49 PM
Quote from: LSD-426 on Mar 22, 2012, 09:49:42 PM
Ok first off, my bad, I'm an audio engineer and thinking in terms of technological history I mixed it up. Obviously movies are shot on film not tape, I smoke weed, wires cross, my bad. But the point I was trying to make has nothing to do with what their shot on but what they're viewed through- "where every Film is seen in High Def" -"Seen"-, by us in high def at home in the theatre, everywhere.
You do realize high-def is beside the point, right? Film is already "Hi-def", that's why the Alien films are on Blu-ray and look just as good as many modern films shot in "hi-def" in terms of picture quality.
You're taking this way too technically. You do realize that in the last 10 years significant improvements and an increase in public interst regarding the picture quality of product (supply) has affected the demand for higher quality digital content within the film industry. I don't care about what was used to make them intially which I've already apologized forbeing unclear about. The point I was trying to make was the medium through which they are enjoyed has changed and my reference to magnetic tape was in regards to VCR videocassettes which do greatly affect the blending of color and other qualities of art as seen on screen.
Either way this conversation is stupid. Lets end it.
Quote from: Henry Ellis on Mar 22, 2012, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 22, 2012, 10:05:49 PM
Quote from: LSD-426 on Mar 22, 2012, 09:49:42 PM
Ok first off, my bad, I'm an audio engineer and thinking in terms of technological history I mixed it up. Obviously movies are shot on film not tape, I smoke weed, wires cross, my bad. But the point I was trying to make has nothing to do with what their shot on but what they're viewed through- "where every Film is seen in High Def" -"Seen"-, by us in high def at home in the theatre, everywhere.
You do realize high-def is beside the point, right? Film is already "Hi-def", that's why the Alien films are on Blu-ray and look just as good as many modern films shot in "hi-def" in terms of picture quality.
You're taking this way too technically. You do realize that in the last 10 years significant improvements and an increase in public interst regarding the picture quality of product (supply) has affected the demand for higher quality digital content within the film industry. I don't care about what was used to make them intially which I've already apologized forbeing unclear about. The point I was trying to make was the medium through which they are enjoyed has changed and my reference to magnetic tape was in regards to VCR videocassettes which do greatly affect the blending of color and other qualities of art as seen on screen.
Either way this conversation is stupid. Lets end it.
That's true. ALIEN was always an amazing looking film but lots of people who had never seen it at the cinema will have come to it first via insipid, sparkling VHS. Progressively the video releases did no service to lighting, design and cinematography. It's only really restoration for 2003 and the BluRay that has highlighted the true level of brilliance in the original film again. And for many that was a bit of a revelation. I saw the film in the cinema in 79 but even so it was wonderful to see just how beautiful the film looked (and sounded - still notice new sound nuances in the soundtrack even now).
Yeah, and that's not to say Aliens isn't also a great looking film on DVD Blu Ray etc. It also looks good, it looks great actually I love it as much now as I did then. But in home video situations people have the ability to pick out every detail (just like we do on this site) and nowadays all our screens are supers high-res, setting a much higher standard overall for the film makers.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 22, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
Ahhh, it's just looking for a kiss. Poor Space Tapir...looking for love in all the wrong places.
It's not the orange glow of Noomi's head lamp reflecting in Space Tapir's eye--those are the
flames of passion.
Spoiler
Now we know how Shaw gets impregnated! :o
Quote from: Henry Ellis on Mar 22, 2012, 09:49:42 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Mar 21, 2012, 01:12:39 AM
Quote from: LSD-426 on Mar 21, 2012, 12:57:51 AM
As far as the difference between the original and new space jockey set designs goes, you have to understand that in a world where every Film is seen in High Def and every minute detail can be investigated (by us) they have to approach the design of sets and whatnot more meticulously. In truth effects got away with a lot in the 80's due to the already lacking clarity of the medium through which it is transfered (magnetic taoe and the tvs of the time).
Uh, no. Films in the 70's and 80's were shot on what films have always been shot with: film. ALIEN and ALIENS were both shot on film, not tape, and film actually has a higher "resolution" than 4K digital video, which is what PROMETHEUS was shot on. So technically, the original 35mm negatives of both ALIEN and ALIENS have higher definition than the 4K master of PROMETHEUS.
QuoteI think Aliens serves as a good example, a lot of the FX look pretty cheap now because we can more easily see the plasticity of the props being used (the drop ship and Newt's parent's exploration vehicle in the extended cut stand out as examples) by comparison to the high-res stuff that we're now being fed on a daily basis.
What? The Drop ship and exploration vehicles look fantastic, and still hold up fine.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg442.imageshack.us%2Fimg442%2F6137%2Fvlcsnap2012032018h06m40.png&hash=a910cc1b7e3bac72d2fc8f55318fe51dae7a4dd8)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg403.imageshack.us%2Fimg403%2F3543%2Fvlcsnap2012032018h09m26.png&hash=55eefadba87abc15da38445fabec67451910930e)
Both are MUCH preferable to this, which just looks like expensive concept art in motion:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg685.imageshack.us%2Fimg685%2F2811%2Fvlcsnap2012031922h48m50.png&hash=e99789cd539a235c3af602f79d614a514eb49c24)
Ok first off, my bad, I'm an audio engineer and thinking in terms of technological history I mixed it up.
Not really a point to this other then to say I do that all the time. Analog vs Digital in the way we have been taught to think of them.
At the end of the day Prometheus will be loved or hated 50/50 by the hardcore Alien fans because everyone has got their own options on the space jockey, well before Prometheus was ever greenlit. Lucky for me i like the ancient astronauts theory so im ok with this if thats the root Prometheus wants to take. But human changes in to jockey i am a little worried about.
The shot of the jockey suit i do like alot.. its eyes reminds me of the giger picture, of that Alien painting were the alien has black eyes, Necronomicon IV. I know that Kanes Son is infact based on Giger Necronomicon IV picture... BUT i am hoping that the proto Alien (if they is one) will infact be Giger Necronomicon IV as it looks in that picture. Kanes son ended up looking similar but a little differnt from gigers Necronomicon IV. Obviously peoples taste will differ on what he/she wants to see as a proto alien if their is one.
About the monitor screens on the Prometheus looking all new why Prometheus takes place years before the first Alien movie does. Maybe the Nostromo is still an older space ship then the ship in Prometheus and thats why the TV screens on the Nostromo look old. Just like cars today, people still ride around in bangers and have had many many owners over the years. Maybe by the time the events in Alien happen maybe the Nostromo is very very old but still fully usable.
Quote from: Kimo on Mar 23, 2012, 05:47:46 AM
About the monitor screens on the Prometheus looking all new why Prometheus takes place years before the first Alien movie does. Maybe the Nostromo is still an older space ship then the ship in Prometheus and thats why the TV screens on the Nostromo look old. Just like cars today, people still ride around in bangers and have had many many owners over the years. Maybe by the time the events in Alien happen maybe the Nostromo is very very old but still fully usable.
Indeed, by my calculations the Nostromo takes about four years to do a round trip to Earth, it's implied to be not in the best working order with Brett and Parker coaxing it to perform. It's probably pretty knackered. During the design process it was decided to aim for the look of a tramp steamer/B17 bomber combo rather than a luxurious starship so it was always intended to be a seen as a workhorse that had been chugging about for a few decades.
By the way, those comparison photos, specifically the last one of blown up Prometheus is highly unfair. I understand however that a point was trying to be made, but blowing it up larger is in essence skewing the playing field.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Mar 23, 2012, 03:21:40 PM
By the way, those comparison photos, specifically the last one of blown up Prometheus is highly unfair. I understand however that a point was trying to be made, but blowing it up larger is in essence skewing the playing field.
Uh, no. I didn't "blow up" anything. Those are direct screengrabs from VLC.
Ok, I do have a gripe. I thought the push-ups were supposed to be topless. I mean, hanging breasts, that's a special effect always worth seeing.
Quote from: Gash on Mar 23, 2012, 10:32:40 PM
Ok, I do have a gripe. I thought the push-ups were supposed to be topless. I mean, hanging breasts, that's a special effect always worth seeing.
Stay classy, Gash. :P
Quote from: Gash on Mar 23, 2012, 10:32:40 PM
Ok, I do have a gripe. I thought the push-ups were supposed to be topless. I mean, hanging breasts, that's a special effect always worth seeing.
I distinctly recall the promise of "naked pushups" (shot in native 3D no less). So far all the pushups shown in the trailer are hardly naked.
They are naked, but not nekkid naked. She's wearing the bandages around the chest and bottom from waking up from hypersleep. It would make sense for her to start exercising them joints immediately after a 2 year nap.
Quote from: RICH-ENGLAND on Mar 20, 2012, 05:32:00 PM
@Gash.
i think youre forgetting that avp used the ancient aliens plot device and in a pretty similar way, shaw and holloways speech is pretty much a carbon copy of charles weylands boat speech.
thanks
rich
Not so much forgetting as just ignorant of it. Saw it once on TV, not much of it stayed with me.
gripe: that people might compare the 3 or 4 humanoid space jockeys/engineers to this:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.applause-tickets.com%2Fimages%2Fblue-man-group.jpg&hash=4df59c55dfe27e620e999bf13211d24739f7f137)
It's an odd coincidence that Ridley is back with giant blue aliens at the same time Cameron is back with giant blue aliens.
I fully understand what the purpose of this thread is. I guess I would consider myself an optimist. So, I guess the gripe I have is the posters who seem to be ridiculing some of the CGI and the overall aesthetics of the trailers. The strength of their argument seems to be either the timeline (Prometheus is 37 years prior to Alien) which should make the aesthetic look older or that the trailer images don't look as dirty as the beloved '79 original. While I get this notion, I would like to point out that the temples look pretty 'dirty' to me. The new derelict (inside and out), for those complaining about continuity to the original, is an operational space craft, not one that has been rotting on LV-426 for a long time. It would make sense that it has a newer look, yes? Also, a well-funded scientific exploration craft would probably be equipped with shiny things and such, not to mention that it would have a very clean and sterile environment (like a science lab or hospital); it would not look like an oil rig. I saw complaints about the hologram looking monitors. Um, we have touch screen displays right now. Sorry if their inclusion in this movie upsets your delicate sensibilities but if the Prometheus was outfitted with 13" RCA tube tv's, the general audience (not you) would have a hard time suspending their disbelief - 'FTL travel, cryogenic sleeping chambers, synthetic humans, and...the same effing tv's I see at my grandpa's barbershop?' Uh, no. I saw the term 'lazy' somewhere in this thread. For those who are on board with this notion, I would offer that the fella running this show has been around the block once or twice. This whole operation is his. Period. If you don't think that every scenario, every single part of this film hasn't been studied, researched, picked apart, and analyzed, and that only the best ingredients have been allowed into the recipe, I think that you are setting yourself up to be disappointed, and you will only have yourself to blame. When the day comes that film makers pass the hat around to us message board folk to fund the exact movie that we want to see, meeting our every expectation, and we pony up $100 million then we can make our demands. We, as fans have waited 30+ years or more for what we love which is to say Sir Ripley's imagination to hit the big screen once again. Its almost here, so enjoy the ride. And don't take things so seriously. Who knows, this film maybe the one we're talking about in another 30 years.
Here, here.
Good post :)
In regards to aesthetics, something like 'Event Horizon' was probably the last film set in outer space which really captured the 'old magic', as it were, design-wise. It's something which is difficult to figure out, psychologically, because a lot of today's stuff is, quite literally, more superior on a visual level, yet somehow can often look less realistic than models shot at a close range!
I suspect that a lot of it, even though they can now put in things like realistic-acting vapours and so on, is to do with the CGI animators doing the entire things from a perspective and background of these ships, vehicles, weapons and so forth, being art projects. In the seventies, eighties even a lot of the nineties, because they had to fiddle around and make actual models of these things - and increasingly, models which worked on an animatronic level - they had to think at least partially from perspective of engineering.
And artists tend to stylise things... This is precisely what tends to negate the down-and-dirty, clunky, industrialised look. Some of the very best science-fiction designers I've seen who work in the field of computer-aided design have done so because they have a background in understanding how machines function, not just what can end up looking cool on screen. They always put in things like greasy hydraulics, hinges which need to be in the right place and all the things which we, instinctively, regard on a psychological level of something which looks beaten up and used, because that's what feels right to them. Because that's what they've always been working around. In the real world. You might see a hatch and it may never feature in the actual plot, but they bothered to put it there and make space for it in the right location, because that's where they knew, say, an escape pod would be best situated or where the reactor would need coolant being piped in. Just getting a blank engine room and putting pipes and hoses in for no other reason than to clutter up the place is where a lot of CGI artists can go wrong.
It ends up looking great, sure. But once you convert it into an actual set piece for a film? You realise it's far better suited to some crazy contraption depicted in a Japanese animation than a movie about, say, oil rig workers.
Artists like that also have a subconscious desire to make things look polished and clean, because they, understandably, want to show off their work in the best way they can. And when they do that, they also decide to put in lots of delicate things for the sake of detail. Which, fine, if it's just something like an observatory... But if it's an environment where lots of people are likely to be moving around the place, spilling things or knocking things over and what have you... You need someone who has an understanding of what somewhere will look like once people are living in it for a while. Someone who'd understand what a real engineer or architect would build into their ships/weapons/vehicles/whatever, not simply to look good, but to make them ergonomically comfortable to use, strong and efficient.
Go look at Russian/Chinese military hardware - which is almost always full of rivets, thick pieces of metal and even gets to look rather corroded in places. That's the sort of impression you get with the kind of movie spaceships you fondly remember as feeling lived in. As opposed to, say, the Normandy from the computer game, 'Mass Effect' - pretty enough, but also looks in severe danger of crumpling if it ever accidentally hit anything!
Doesn't mean someone should aim for redesigning a flying brick, but... When something looks too delicate to the average viewer and it's placed deliberately in a hostile environment, something doesn't quite look right. You can tell it's more like something which has been designed from the point of view of looking nice, rather than being able to withstand what its job would demand.
With that said, when it comes to this film, it's worth keeping in mind the main ship and its personnel are meant to be for scientific research. A completely different set of design priorities than something like the Nostromo would be geared towards.
Even so, I'm of the firm belief that spaceships look like spaceships when they're designed to look like they could be futuristic submarines roaming ocean depths.
That, my friend, was particularly well said. Excellent point regarding the perspectives of the design artist sitting behind the keyboard, and the model maker implementing design principles that would be functional. I am a graphic designer, but I've also been around awhile (I'm 40). I have been out in the real world for a while, and my occupation is a new one. While going back to school, many of my classmates were half my age, and appropriately were a bit naive to what the real world, the working and functioning world was really like - a little wet behind the ears through no fault of their own. Some were very talented, superior to myself. But I often wondered how that talent would translate to the outside. There is a unique perspective that can only come from experience, getting in the trenches, so to speak. I have no doubt that the animators on this project are the very best at what they do. And, everything I have seen so far looks incredible. But, making the aesthetic with your own two hands lends itself to true understanding. I guess the perfect solution would be to mix the model maker's DNA with the CGIer's DNA. Hey, its a new xenomorph!
Quote from: BetterDuckJMG on Apr 03, 2012, 10:02:00 AMI would offer that the fella running this show has been around the block once or twice.
One of those times was
Robin Hood. It was the last time. Ridley Scott is the guy who gave us the Black Knight Maid Marion and the children of the corn militia. He thought that was a good idea. Now he's taken one of the most original and mysterious and f'd-up-in-all-the-right-ways characters ever and turned it into a 9 foot tall blue bald guy in a tapir helmet. Is that a good idea? Maybe it is, but I remember
the Black Knight Maid Marion and the children of the corn militia and I'm scared.
Right now I'd say this movie is half and half hit and miss, and half the hits are designs carried over from Alien. The telescope and Derelict remain cool. The human vehicle design and costuming aren't good enough. The music is a hit. Wasn't that giant head in Dark City? Well it does look like the Stranger will be Tuning, but I'm not impressed with the ampule room. I'm fine with the 3D. The Alien mural looks very Gigerish, SJ Stellar Cartography looks more like an
Enterprise effect than a Giger design. The squid taken out of Shaw doesn't look like Giger did it either. The armor retracting from the Prometheus cockpit - pretty cool, when it was in
Chronicles of Riddick.I'm going to be optimistic and guess Prometheus will be enjoyable for most people, but in the long term, from what I've seen so far, it may slot in just under Alien 3. I'm hoping it will be better, but those final Xenos will have to be something special. Dogburster>Papa Smurf.
Quote from: BetterDuckJMG on Apr 04, 2012, 09:33:37 AM
That, my friend, was particularly well said. Excellent point regarding the perspectives of the design artist sitting behind the keyboard, and the model maker implementing design principles that would be functional. I am a graphic designer, but I've also been around awhile (I'm 40). I have been out in the real world for a while, and my occupation is a new one. While going back to school, many of my classmates were half my age, and appropriately were a bit naive to what the real world, the working and functioning world was really like - a little wet behind the ears through no fault of their own. Some were very talented, superior to myself. But I often wondered how that talent would translate to the outside. There is a unique perspective that can only come from experience, getting in the trenches, so to speak. I have no doubt that the animators on this project are the very best at what they do. And, everything I have seen so far looks incredible. But, making the aesthetic with your own two hands lends itself to true understanding. I guess the perfect solution would be to mix the model maker's DNA with the CGIer's DNA. Hey, its a new xenomorph!
Hah, yes!
Your experiences are precisely the sort of thing I've found. In the early days of this, there was a lot of cross-over 'bleed' between the two effects avenues, but now CGI has matured so much and got so radically advanced, that it's far more of a self-supporting speciality. Often, because of its nature, you get people getting started in the industry who are literally teenagers and know little else outside it.
I'm a big supporter of CGI being done right. Those times it is are usually when you have no idea it's CGI you're looking at, but the things we feel are done 'wrong' in science-fiction, in this instance, are more to do with the design philosophies. I'm not much younger than you and my father being an RAF engineer and, later in civilian life, a tool-maker, gave me a great appreciation for that sort of thing which I didn't quite realise at the time.
Still, being on the brink of getting a tablet PC (probably the newest iPad) and checking out the various art/design applications available for the public, actually gives me hope. It won't be long before you no longer need to attend several years on a specialised course to get some of this stuff in even short, independent films and that's when I feel we'll see a proper reversal... Ordinary people with access to what, just three or four years ago, would have been hyper-advanced visual effects tools, who also have
life experience in the kind of fields some futuristic starship or weapons engineer would be getting taught in (or at least, having lots of such people in their social circle they can get the opinions of).
Then we'll hopefully see more of a departure from the stylistic Japanese animation way of doing things and back to dented metal, bulkheads, chipped paint and realistic deck layouts. :)
It's a shame more fantasy artists don't try that sort of thing, really. The temptation is always to make something look good, but a wreck can have a charm all of its own - and I suppose the biggest proof of this is, ultimately... The original derelict.
Quote from: jeremy_ray on Apr 04, 2012, 09:35:24 AM
Maybe it is, but I remember the Black Knight Maid Marion and the children of the corn militia and I'm scared.
:D
QuoteThe music is a hit.
Still waiting to judge that... What we've heard, so far, could still be purely promotional-only music, rather than anything from the film's composer.
Quote from: BetterDuckJMG on Apr 04, 2012, 09:33:37 AM
That, my friend, was particularly well said. Excellent point regarding the perspectives of the design artist sitting behind the keyboard, and the model maker implementing design principles that would be functional. I am a graphic designer, but I've also been around awhile (I'm 40). I have been out in the real world for a while, and my occupation is a new one. While going back to school, many of my classmates were half my age, and appropriately were a bit naive to what the real world, the working and functioning world was really like - a little wet behind the ears through no fault of their own. Some were very talented, superior to myself. But I often wondered how that talent would translate to the outside. There is a unique perspective that can only come from experience, getting in the trenches, so to speak. I have no doubt that the animators on this project are the very best at what they do. And, everything I have seen so far looks incredible. But, making the aesthetic with your own two hands lends itself to true understanding. I guess the perfect solution would be to mix the model maker's DNA with the CGIer's DNA. Hey, its a new xenomorph!
Quote from: BetterDuckJMG on Apr 03, 2012, 10:02:00 AM
I fully understand what the purpose of this thread is. I guess I would consider myself an optimist. So, I guess the gripe I have is the posters who seem to be ridiculing some of the CGI and the overall aesthetics of the trailers. The strength of their argument seems to be either the timeline (Prometheus is 37 years prior to Alien) which should make the aesthetic look older or that the trailer images don't look as dirty as the beloved '79 original. While I get this notion, I would like to point out that the temples look pretty 'dirty' to me. The new derelict (inside and out), for those complaining about continuity to the original, is an operational space craft, not one that has been rotting on LV-426 for a long time. It would make sense that it has a newer look, yes? Also, a well-funded scientific exploration craft would probably be equipped with shiny things and such, not to mention that it would have a very clean and sterile environment (like a science lab or hospital); it would not look like an oil rig. I saw complaints about the hologram looking monitors. Um, we have touch screen displays right now. Sorry if their inclusion in this movie upsets your delicate sensibilities but if the Prometheus was outfitted with 13" RCA tube tv's, the general audience (not you) would have a hard time suspending their disbelief - 'FTL travel, cryogenic sleeping chambers, synthetic humans, and...the same effing tv's I see at my grandpa's barbershop?' Uh, no. I saw the term 'lazy' somewhere in this thread. For those who are on board with this notion, I would offer that the fella running this show has been around the block once or twice. This whole operation is his. Period. If you don't think that every scenario, every single part of this film hasn't been studied, researched, picked apart, and analyzed, and that only the best ingredients have been allowed into the recipe, I think that you are setting yourself up to be disappointed, and you will only have yourself to blame. When the day comes that film makers pass the hat around to us message board folk to fund the exact movie that we want to see, meeting our every expectation, and we pony up $100 million then we can make our demands. We, as fans have waited 30+ years or more for what we love which is to say Sir Ripley's imagination to hit the big screen once again. Its almost here, so enjoy the ride. And don't take things so seriously. Who knows, this film maybe the one we're talking about in another 30 years.
Paragraphs people...DO YOU USE THEM???
Quote from: jeremy_ray on Apr 04, 2012, 09:35:24 AM
The squid taken out of Shaw doesn't look like Giger did it either.
He only did a mural for Prometheus if we're to believe the reports. However, unless there's a spoiler image of the thing, which I therefore wouldn't have seen, then all I've seen of this 'squid' is in the trailer, and it could conceivably look a lot like one of the larger facehuggers that Giger initially came up with. There's a lot of design in Prometheus that appears to be channeling early concept art from A L I E N so that's not impossible.
Quote from: Gash on Apr 04, 2012, 05:50:58 PM
Quote from: jeremy_ray on Apr 04, 2012, 09:35:24 AM
The squid taken out of Shaw doesn't look like Giger did it either.
He only did a mural for Prometheus if we're to believe the reports. However, unless there's a spoiler image of the thing, which I therefore wouldn't have seen, then all I've seen of this 'squid' is in the trailer, and it could conceivably look a lot like one of the larger facehuggers that Giger initially came up with. There's a lot of design in Prometheus that appears to be channeling early concept art from A L I E N so that's not impossible.
;) Keep an eye on Giger's old work.
@Glaive - To be honest, I simply poured out my thoughts. In the future, I'll attempt to format my longer posts in a more readable format. Please, try to forgive my insolence.
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 04, 2012, 06:35:36 PM
Quote from: Gash on Apr 04, 2012, 05:50:58 PM
Quote from: jeremy_ray on Apr 04, 2012, 09:35:24 AM
The squid taken out of Shaw doesn't look like Giger did it either.
He only did a mural for Prometheus if we're to believe the reports. However, unless there's a spoiler image of the thing, which I therefore wouldn't have seen, then all I've seen of this 'squid' is in the trailer, and it could conceivably look a lot like one of the larger facehuggers that Giger initially came up with. There's a lot of design in Prometheus that appears to be channeling early concept art from A L I E N so that's not impossible.
;) Keep an eye on Giger's old work.
That's what I've been thinking/hoping. I've been so wrapped up in the idea that I've been doing illustrations to better articulate how Giger's original designs could be used towards what we've seen in the trailer.
Take a look see.
Spoiler
Proto-facehugger Jockey mask atmosphere converter.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1208.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc377%2FBatChainPuller%2FJockeyMaskmm.png&hash=9effec6ec9bd8d153c495cda8f0a46f196033ed9)
Spoiler
Squid burster
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1208.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc377%2FBatChainPuller%2FProtoBurstermm.png&hash=b4b03e3d648c50050d98e59cf00d3abcddb0b3fc)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1208.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc377%2FBatChainPuller%2FProtoBurster2mm.png&hash=a063d7fe6d6fcd8827ac314c38a3394fc4f3bfca)
I was thinking of these....
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1203.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb381%2Fconkerthump5%2Fhuggers.jpg&hash=ef2cf91fbb541ca68dd2ef6f30f365d8c0056b28)
I'm curious to know how many posts here simply said...
"...I LIKE griping..."
Life's too short to find out...
Xenomorphine, BetterDuckJMG - I briefly worked the concept art job and had a couple things up on the big screen. I've worked with guys who did stuff you all know - the Nebuchadnezzar, the Droideka. I'll put in my two cents on why design work has gone downhill. I can sum it up in two words-
Adobe Photoshop.
What?
Here's a story told to me by Christian Scheurer (http://www.christianlorenzscheurer.com/) who worked on Dark City among many other things. I believe he did the big head the Prometheus head looks so much like. We were working on a project with another guy, who was designing stuff in pencil. He couldn't paint. Christian said this other guy's work was really good, everything you would want was in it. BUT, the producers would come around, and they wouldn't look at it because it was pencil. They wanted to see the digital paintings.
So that's the problem in a nutshell, as I saw it. You have your guys who are into design, who can make the coolest designs you ever saw, but they don't paint. They're too specialized in design. The guy who is more of a design generalist, but can paint like a crazy mofo, WINS, because he can wow with color and lighting. The people deciding which design goes forward aren't necessarily the best judges of design, but they see the color and the lighting and they think "yeah, this is better!" And of course that guy who can work in a cubicle, or come over to your house with a tablet pc and whip out a design in 15 minutes, fits much better into the production process than the old school kit basher who needs his studio space.
Go over to conceptart.org and watch for a while, and notice how little focus they put on design, and how much they put on illustration. On anatomy, lighting, color. No wonder the design work today sucks, right? The guys doing the designs don't practice design half as much as they practice painting. The guy who shows up at the studio with amazing lighting and colors, who knows anatomy and can talk intelligently about the Impressionists and the Baroque Period, will get the job and design the space ship. The guy who shows up with kitbashed models and a sketchbook is probably going home.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Apr 04, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
Still, being on the brink of getting a tablet PC (probably the newest iPad) and checking out the various art/design applications available for the public, actually gives me hope. It won't be long before you no longer need to attend several years on a specialised course to get some of this stuff in even short, independent films and that's when I feel we'll see a proper reversal... Ordinary people with access to what, just three or four years ago, would have been hyper-advanced visual effects tools, who also have life experience in the kind of fields some futuristic starship or weapons engineer would be getting taught in (or at least, having lots of such people in their social circle they can get the opinions of).
I'm sad to say your hopes are poorly founded.
I've been working exclusively with free software for a decade, and I've tried to make one of those "ordinary people" films. Almost everyone who initially volunteered bailed when it was time to, you know,
do work. I've thought about it and, wow,
what was I thinking? It's tough enough to get people to work if you pay them a better than average salary, put them under a contract, and watch them all day long. Open Source software has something unique going for it. It doesn't work that way outside the software world. You criticize a beginning artist's work and he's gone. He doesn't think, "I'm getting art critique from a guy who's worked professionally, I should learn." He's gone.
Look at all the clout Ton Roosendaal has with the Blender Foundation. He can bring artists into a studio environment and pay them, and get free work over the internet, and - have you seen Sintel? (http://www.sintel.org/) It looks awful. You would only be impressed by this movie if you're an open source fan boi wearing rose colored glasses. I'm an open source fan boi, and even I have to admit Sintel is terrible.
Quote from: Gash on Apr 04, 2012, 05:50:58 PM
Quote from: jeremy_ray on Apr 04, 2012, 09:35:24 AM
The squid taken out of Shaw doesn't look like Giger did it either.
He only did a mural for Prometheus if we're to believe the reports. However, unless there's a spoiler image of the thing, which I therefore wouldn't have seen, then all I've seen of this 'squid' is in the trailer, and it could conceivably look a lot like one of the larger facehuggers that Giger initially came up with. There's a lot of design in Prometheus that appears to be channeling early concept art from A L I E N so that's not impossible.
As far as Giger's involvement goes, I've heard it both ways. Is "mural only" the latest word?
We've seen lots of "Giger-derived" works and, IMO, they're never as good as the real thing. How can they be? Giger does Giger all the time. Those other guys, who are talented illustators, did Robin Hood yesterday and will be doing Ninja Turtles tomorrow.
Quote from: Bat Chain Puller on Apr 04, 2012, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 04, 2012, 06:35:36 PM
Quote from: Gash on Apr 04, 2012, 05:50:58 PM
Quote from: jeremy_ray on Apr 04, 2012, 09:35:24 AM
The squid taken out of Shaw doesn't look like Giger did it either.
He only did a mural for Prometheus if we're to believe the reports. However, unless there's a spoiler image of the thing, which I therefore wouldn't have seen, then all I've seen of this 'squid' is in the trailer, and it could conceivably look a lot like one of the larger facehuggers that Giger initially came up with. There's a lot of design in Prometheus that appears to be channeling early concept art from A L I E N so that's not impossible.
;) Keep an eye on Giger's old work.
That's what I've been thinking/hoping. I've been so wrapped up in the idea that I've been doing illustrations to better articulate how Giger's original designs could be used towards what we've seen in the trailer.
Take a look see.
Spoiler
Proto-facehugger Jockey mask atmosphere converter.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1208.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc377%2FBatChainPuller%2FJockeyMaskmm.png&hash=9effec6ec9bd8d153c495cda8f0a46f196033ed9)
Spoiler
Squid burster
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1208.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc377%2FBatChainPuller%2FProtoBurstermm.png&hash=b4b03e3d648c50050d98e59cf00d3abcddb0b3fc)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1208.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc377%2FBatChainPuller%2FProtoBurster2mm.png&hash=a063d7fe6d6fcd8827ac314c38a3394fc4f3bfca)
nice artwork. Perhaps the space jockeys place in life is inevitable: married to a face hugger!
Jeremy, much appreciated and very informative.
Depressing, but... Yes, informative. I forgot to mention that executive-level approval is likely what often prevents the design/engineer types from getting much headway in the industry and it looks like your experiences back that suspicion up. Executives do love that sort of approach you mention and it spells style-over-substance doom.
And, of course, when they reel out the 'we're doing it old school' line to please the fans, it's because they have a different understanding of that 'old school' truly means.
I'm primarily a writer, but I know what you mean about certain talents getting scared off/unnecessarily offended by criticism - encountered it dozens of times. When you've got a proverbial baby, pride of authorship always comes into play, unless you've learned to acknowledge that and leave ego behind. People without general experience don't realise how vital this is (the opposite end of that spectrum has its own problems, needless to say; project managers who want you to change your results, but give either no indication of how or state it in the most nonsensically abstract of terms).
I can only say that I felt privileged to receive my first constructive criticism. Improved my work, no end! And because I realised that, I felt grateful. Something of a baptism of fire, but you're often all the better for it.
Quote from: BetterDuckJMG on Apr 03, 2012, 10:02:00 AM
I fully understand what the purpose of this thread is. I guess I would consider myself an optimist. So, I guess the gripe I have is the posters who seem to be ridiculing some of the CGI and the overall aesthetics of the trailers. The strength of their argument seems to be either the timeline (Prometheus is 37 years prior to Alien) which should make the aesthetic look older or that the trailer images don't look as dirty as the beloved '79 original. While I get this notion, I would like to point out that the temples look pretty 'dirty' to me. The new derelict (inside and out), for those complaining about continuity to the original, is an operational space craft, not one that has been rotting on LV-426 for a long time. It would make sense that it has a newer look, yes? Also, a well-funded scientific exploration craft would probably be equipped with shiny things and such, not to mention that it would have a very clean and sterile environment (like a science lab or hospital); it would not look like an oil rig. I saw complaints about the hologram looking monitors. Um, we have touch screen displays right now. Sorry if their inclusion in this movie upsets your delicate sensibilities but if the Prometheus was outfitted with 13" RCA tube tv's, the general audience (not you) would have a hard time suspending their disbelief - 'FTL travel, cryogenic sleeping chambers, synthetic humans, and...the same effing tv's I see at my grandpa's barbershop?' Uh, no. I saw the term 'lazy' somewhere in this thread. For those who are on board with this notion, I would offer that the fella running this show has been around the block once or twice. This whole operation is his. Period. If you don't think that every scenario, every single part of this film hasn't been studied, researched, picked apart, and analyzed, and that only the best ingredients have been allowed into the recipe, I think that you are setting yourself up to be disappointed, and you will only have yourself to blame. When the day comes that film makers pass the hat around to us message board folk to fund the exact movie that we want to see, meeting our every expectation, and we pony up $100 million then we can make our demands. We, as fans have waited 30+ years or more for what we love which is to say Sir Ripley's imagination to hit the big screen once again. Its almost here, so enjoy the ride. And don't take things so seriously. Who knows, this film maybe the one we're talking about in another 30 years.
sometimes i find myself wondering if something in a movie is real or cgi. that dont happen with practical effects. they r tangible.
also, seems everything gets digital post touching. like lighting. In Alien lighting was one of the best things. check this article
http://toddwardrope.blogspot.mx/2012/03/alien-redux.html (http://toddwardrope.blogspot.mx/2012/03/alien-redux.html)
or for example look both of this pics. tell me which one do you actually feel the lighting, or wich one do you feel is real.
thats not all the trailer anyway, theres some cool ones
Quote from: jeremy_ray on Apr 05, 2012, 12:27:21 AM
Xenomorphine, BetterDuckJMG - I briefly worked the concept art job and had a couple things up on the big screen. I've worked with guys who did stuff you all know - the Nebuchadnezzar, the Droideka. I'll put in my two cents on why design work has gone downhill. I can sum it up in two words-
Adobe Photoshop.
What?
Here's a story told to me by Christian Scheurer (http://www.christianlorenzscheurer.com/) who worked on Dark City among many other things. I believe he did the big head the Prometheus head looks so much like. We were working on a project with another guy, who was designing stuff in pencil. He couldn't paint. Christian said this other guy's work was really good, everything you would want was in it. BUT, the producers would come around, and they wouldn't look at it because it was pencil. They wanted to see the digital paintings.
So that's the problem in a nutshell, as I saw it. You have your guys who are into design, who can make the coolest designs you ever saw, but they don't paint. They're too specialized in design. The guy who is more of a design generalist, but can paint like a crazy mofo, WINS, because he can wow with color and lighting. The people deciding which design goes forward aren't necessarily the best judges of design, but they see the color and the lighting and they think "yeah, this is better!" And of course that guy who can work in a cubicle, or come over to your house with a tablet pc and whip out a design in 15 minutes, fits much better into the production process than the old school kit basher who needs his studio space.
Go over to conceptart.org and watch for a while, and notice how little focus they put on design, and how much they put on illustration. On anatomy, lighting, color. No wonder the design work today sucks, right? The guys doing the designs don't practice design half as much as they practice painting. The guy who shows up at the studio with amazing lighting and colors, who knows anatomy and can talk intelligently about the Impressionists and the Baroque Period, will get the job and design the space ship. The guy who shows up with kitbashed models and a sketchbook is probably going home.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Apr 04, 2012, 01:17:28 PM
Still, being on the brink of getting a tablet PC (probably the newest iPad) and checking out the various art/design applications available for the public, actually gives me hope. It won't be long before you no longer need to attend several years on a specialised course to get some of this stuff in even short, independent films and that's when I feel we'll see a proper reversal... Ordinary people with access to what, just three or four years ago, would have been hyper-advanced visual effects tools, who also have life experience in the kind of fields some futuristic starship or weapons engineer would be getting taught in (or at least, having lots of such people in their social circle they can get the opinions of).
I'm sad to say your hopes are poorly founded.
I've been working exclusively with free software for a decade, and I've tried to make one of those "ordinary people" films. Almost everyone who initially volunteered bailed when it was time to, you know, do work. I've thought about it and, wow, what was I thinking? It's tough enough to get people to work if you pay them a better than average salary, put them under a contract, and watch them all day long. Open Source software has something unique going for it. It doesn't work that way outside the software world. You criticize a beginning artist's work and he's gone. He doesn't think, "I'm getting art critique from a guy who's worked professionally, I should learn." He's gone.
Look at all the clout Ton Roosendaal has with the Blender Foundation. He can bring artists into a studio environment and pay them, and get free work over the internet, and - have you seen Sintel? (http://www.sintel.org/) It looks awful. You would only be impressed by this movie if you're an open source fan boi wearing rose colored glasses. I'm an open source fan boi, and even I have to admit Sintel is terrible.
Quote from: Gash on Apr 04, 2012, 05:50:58 PM
Quote from: jeremy_ray on Apr 04, 2012, 09:35:24 AM
The squid taken out of Shaw doesn't look like Giger did it either.
He only did a mural for Prometheus if we're to believe the reports. However, unless there's a spoiler image of the thing, which I therefore wouldn't have seen, then all I've seen of this 'squid' is in the trailer, and it could conceivably look a lot like one of the larger facehuggers that Giger initially came up with. There's a lot of design in Prometheus that appears to be channeling early concept art from A L I E N so that's not impossible.
As far as Giger's involvement goes, I've heard it both ways. Is "mural only" the latest word?
We've seen lots of "Giger-derived" works and, IMO, they're never as good as the real thing. How can they be? Giger does Giger all the time. Those other guys, who are talented illustators, did Robin Hood yesterday and will be doing Ninja Turtles tomorrow.
great post, your absolutely right in all design i think the problem is with people valuing the technical details over the actual design.
Anyone else notice that the Space Jockey looks a bit similar to that guy being face-fukked? Their suits are similar....hmmm
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 07, 2012, 01:14:54 PM
Anyone else notice that the Space Jockey looks a bit similar to that guy being face-fukked? Their suits are similar....hmmm
maybe it's because giger never draw normal people, but always biomechanoid?
but it doesn't answer your question. :)
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 07, 2012, 01:14:54 PMAnyone else notice that the Space Jockey looks a bit similar to that guy being face-fukked? Their suits are similar....hmmm
One can only hope ;)
- The look of the overall design (not looking like the Alien universe).
- CGI.
- Aggresive fanboys who attack anyone who states their worries about something they're interested in (not so much a fault with the movie itself, just its blind following).
- Disney Jockey?! The only horrifying thing about this "Space Jockey" is that it looks like a cute disney cartoon character:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi891.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac115%2Fminarhodes%2Fvlcsnap-2012-03-18-19h11m47s166.png&hash=c3361ddc283f612065c958ebc58e9f0ecbdfc9f7)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbenjaminbrandt.com%2Fcutaways%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2FDUMBO.jpg&hash=3ac53dfe583af05dd2ef6fc710e3bbc6be08f0f8)
- Possibility of the the whole plot leading back to humanity, destroying the mystery of these Alien beings.
- 3D.
I find everything we know so damn cringe worthy. I'm almost sure it's time for me to move on. No hope for a decent alien flick. It's only getting worse (by ruining the Space Jockey. As of today, i call him Suit Jockey). And many fans here are sci fi fans, giger fans and Ridley scott fans to me, but no alien fans. :P
Quote from: stroggificated on Apr 15, 2012, 01:27:06 PM
I find everything we know so damn cringe worthy. I'm almost sure it's time for me to move on. No hope for a decent alien flick. It's only getting worse (by ruining the Space Jockey. As of today, i call him Suit Jockey). And many fans here are sci fi fans, giger fans and Ridley scott fans to me, but no alien fans. :P
Well put!
See this is what I have been stating all along, is that they should've left the "Alien" universe out of it and let Prometheus be its own thing.
Don't get me wrong, I am very passionate when it comes to philosophy and discovering the mysteries of the universe, I just don't think these kind of things work well in an "Alien" movie. You see when it comes to the Alien movies it has always been about the situation, in fact the situation becomes the story itself, which I think is great.
Quote from: Omega1 on Apr 15, 2012, 01:43:54 PM
Well put!
See this is what I have been stating all along, is that they should've left the "Alien" universe out of it and let Prometheus be its own thing.
Don't get me wrong, I am very passionate when it comes to philosophy and discovering the mysteries of the universe, I just don't think these kind of things work well in an "Alien" movie. You see when it comes to the Alien movies it has always been about the situation, in fact the situation becomes the story itself, which I think is great.
Every time I look at the small details in this film I cringe, apart from that frieze with the very Giger-esque look to it shown in the trailer. I do wish that it bore no connection with Alien because it probably might be a great film without the idea of a connection.
I know the SJ suit appears to be altering and may end up looking different in the film, but why they chose to sell it based on that clip I do not know. It looks really terrible. It's not just the gimpy arms, I can't get past the mask. It just looks like a baby dinosaur or the tapir as the others say. How do you get from something that looks so badass in ALIEN to THAT.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 15, 2012, 02:13:26 PM
I know the SJ suit appears to be altering and may end up looking different in the film, but why they chose to sell it based on that clip I do not know. It looks really terrible. It's not just the gimpy arms, I can't get past the mask. It just looks like a baby dinosaur or the tapir as the others say. How do you get from something that looks so badass in ALIEN to THAT.
Another well put statement.
Even to this day I still get creeped out when I see the original Space Jockey from Alien (like the xenomorph it is the thing of nightmares), but when it came to seeing that clip of the "Disney Jockey" from Prometheus I was just stunned at how cartoony and silly it looked.
From what I have seen and heard of Prometheus so far I find myself wishing more and more that they'd have left the Alien universe out of it.
I don't understand how a connection to the alien universe is somehow corrupting this film? Is this just because a 3 second shot of the Space Jockey doesn't in that moment match up despite the fact that we see images / structures of said jockeys that do look correct? (a photo in a cave) Have we lost that much faith in Ridley that we've completely thrown out a film before we've even seen it?
The more I read these comments, the more premature and immature some of them seem. It's like going into a restaurant and seeing a server carry a plate of eggs and taters to another table and at that moment, because they don't look like how I remember them, I think "This food is gonna suck" before I've even sat down.
Some one spell this out for me. Besides the three second shot of the Space Jockey in-suit-motion what else is wrong?
I freely admit that this film could be awful, but I'm betting it won't be about the look of the film, it will be about story.
well it might be a good scifi film for me if I didn't have to connect it with the universe of Alien, trying to associate the mysteries of those worlds and or compare it with the wonders of the production design of the original movie going by what we see and what we've been given as images and handouts
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 15, 2012, 02:57:29 PM
I don't understand how a connection to the alien universe is somehow corrupting this film? Is this just because a 3 second shot of the Space Jockey doesn't in that moment match up despite the fact that we see images / structures of said jockeys that do look correct? (a photo in a cave) Have we lost that much faith in Ridley that we've completely thrown out a film before we've even seen it?
Some one spell this out for me.
That is the thing though, we already have multiple pages worth of reasons why some of us are put off of Prometheus, but you just don't seem to get it no matter how many reasons we give. As much as I hate the statement "You just don't get it", it seems to be the case.
Just because Ridley Scott once made a great movie some people love doesn't automatically mean he can do it again. Review the art, not the artist.
Quote from: Omega1 on Apr 15, 2012, 02:56:59 PM
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 15, 2012, 02:13:26 PM
I know the SJ suit appears to be altering and may end up looking different in the film, but why they chose to sell it based on that clip I do not know. It looks really terrible. It's not just the gimpy arms, I can't get past the mask. It just looks like a baby dinosaur or the tapir as the others say. How do you get from something that looks so badass in ALIEN to THAT.
Another well put statement.
Even to this day I still get creeped out when I see the original Space Jockey from Alien (like the xenomorph it is the thing of nightmares), but when it came to seeing that clip of the "Disney Jockey" from Prometheus I was just stunned at how cartoony and silly it looked.
From what I have seen and heard of Prometheus so far I find myself wishing more and more that they'd have left the Alien universe out of it.
We only seen the Space Jockey for like 3 seconds in the Trailer.
Quote from: mastermoon on Apr 15, 2012, 03:14:39 PM
Quote from: Omega1 on Apr 15, 2012, 02:56:59 PM
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 15, 2012, 02:13:26 PM
I know the SJ suit appears to be altering and may end up looking different in the film, but why they chose to sell it based on that clip I do not know. It looks really terrible. It's not just the gimpy arms, I can't get past the mask. It just looks like a baby dinosaur or the tapir as the others say. How do you get from something that looks so badass in ALIEN to THAT.
Another well put statement.
Even to this day I still get creeped out when I see the original Space Jockey from Alien (like the xenomorph it is the thing of nightmares), but when it came to seeing that clip of the "Disney Jockey" from Prometheus I was just stunned at how cartoony and silly it looked.
From what I have seen and heard of Prometheus so far I find myself wishing more and more that they'd have left the Alien universe out of it.
We only seen the Space Jockey for like 3 seconds in the Trailer.
Yeap, and that is all it took.
You've made my point....REVIEW THE ART....and said art is not readily available for review. I want to get it. What I am not getting?
Someone? Anyone?
Ridley Scott just didn't make one good film.....he redefined a genre, and every film in that genre made afterwards are judged by those standards. ALIEN and Blade Runner are arguably Ridley's best films, or two of them. Prometheus could easily end up being his science fiction misstep. No matter how excited I am by the imagery that I've seen, the film could fall flat completely. I'm willing to believe and accept that if it should transpire.
At the moment, nothing I've seen is giving me pause. Sure, the Jockey we've seen ensuited (new word :) does look a bit different, but because I haven't seen the other 119 minutes of the film, I am not disheartened. I'm a born optimist however.
(that's all it took for people suspicious and dubious out of the gate) Remember, the larger portion of fandom for this film is wildly positive. I'm not worried about 3-4 people.
I made 2 points on the SJ in the trailer.
1) I didn't like the design aesthetically for the points I mentioned before.
2) I questioned on why they would sell the movie on such a piss poor image. They've been playing mind games with fans since that statement Scott released back in Jan 11', that Prometheus was no longer a prequel blah blah blah. Then they turn that around and say, well hey, look at the trailer, wink wink, what do you think it is now huh?
So they ARE selling it to ALIEN fans with that image. And as an ALIEN fan I think that image looks inferior to the image I was given in the original movie.
I thought the chair rising was truly spectacular. But the Jockey image, not so much.
I also don't think it's a fair argument to suggest that "Ridley Scott won't let us down". That's not an argument, it's a hope. I was originally happy when they "cancelled" the Alien Prequel because Scott has had a poor track record in recent years.
I really am hoping that the "big ideas" in this movie are thought provoking big ideas. I don't mind aesthetic alterations if it supports a terrific story and mood.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 15, 2012, 03:19:01 PM
What I am not getting?
I suppose you're not getting the "What!?" aspect of it
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 15, 2012, 03:19:01 PM
You've made my point....REVIEW THE ART....and said art is not readily available for review. I want to get it. What I am not getting?
WE ARE!
We are reviewing what we are seeing so far, so hello yourself! ???
Maybe the space tapir in the trailer is not the same space jockey shown in the original ALIEN movie?
what can anybody gripe about, nobody has seen the movie. ???
Quote from: stroggificated on Apr 15, 2012, 01:27:06 PM
I find everything we know so damn cringe worthy. I'm almost sure it's time for me to move on. No hope for a decent alien flick. It's only getting worse (by ruining the Space Jockey. As of today, i call him Suit Jockey). And many fans here are sci fi fans, giger fans and Ridley scott fans to me, but no alien fans. :P
Wow, Stroggificated is even at a lower C.E.L (Cvalda Expectation Level) then me. I figure I am around a 3.5
Stroggificated must be at level 1.0 ;D
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 15, 2012, 04:59:19 PM
Quote from: stroggificated on Apr 15, 2012, 01:27:06 PM
I find everything we know so damn cringe worthy. I'm almost sure it's time for me to move on. No hope for a decent alien flick. It's only getting worse (by ruining the Space Jockey. As of today, i call him Suit Jockey). And many fans here are sci fi fans, giger fans and Ridley scott fans to me, but no alien fans. :P
Wow, Stroggificated is even at a lower C.E.L (Cvalda Expectation Level) then me. I figure I am around a 3.5
Stroggificated must be at level 1.0 ;D
wheres that CEL? isn´t Prometheus Emotional Stages?
i am still at a solide 4.0 i think and although my expectation level was at the edge of dropping because of all that awkward stuff Ridley brought up in the interviews, i'll just accept it and take the movie for what it is.
can't wait for those baldheaded, blue, tapir-suit-wearing giants from outer space who also inhabited atlantis to kick some ass!
Ridley Scott:
"I think it's entirely logical. The idea that blue, tapir-suit-wearing giants from outer space who also inhabited atlantis were here three billion years ago. If something happened here two billion years ago, if there was a civilization at least equal to ours, there would be nothing left after two billion years. It would be carbon. We talk about Atlantis and cities under water that have long gone, long submerged, but they're in the relatively recent past. I'm talking about one-and-a-half-billion years ago – was this planet really empty? I don't think so."
When I think about how they're trying to sell Prometheus, and I'll say what's stuck in my mind WAAAY more then that fleeting image of a besuited Space Jockey the images of the ship itself, but mostly The Orrey and the Giant Head. From DAY ONE, THAT is what how Scott and Co have been selling this film. The mystery of the Giant head, and the beauty and illustriousness of the Orrey keep me fascinated, aside from some archetypal imagery of Shaw in that MedPod, that fukked up shit in Holloway's eyes, and last but not least, the image of the SJ itself standing over Shaw in a HUGE fukking HOLY SHIT moment that visually has defined the threat so imminent in this story. The only time i think about the SJ suit is when people continue to harp on it.
These arguments against just seem weak to me.
QuoteSpoiler
Proto-facehugger Jockey mask atmosphere converter.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1208.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc377%2FBatChainPuller%2FJockeyMaskmm.png&hash=9effec6ec9bd8d153c495cda8f0a46f196033ed9)
Spoiler
Squid burster
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1208.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc377%2FBatChainPuller%2FProtoBurstermm.png&hash=b4b03e3d648c50050d98e59cf00d3abcddb0b3fc)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1208.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc377%2FBatChainPuller%2FProtoBurster2mm.png&hash=a063d7fe6d6fcd8827ac314c38a3394fc4f3bfca)
Bat Chain Puller this is the best idea ever, making the face hugger into the elephantine mask of the space jockey! Ash did say that it was feeding Kane oxygen in the first Alien which in turn woud make it make perfect sense. Whatever Ridley Scott actually does in Prometheus I'm afraid I'm going to be dissapointed now that I've seen your drawings 'cause I don't think there could be a better explanation that fits what we've already seen (before Prometheus). But who knows maybe Ridley was thinking along the same lines...
Quote from: B1-66ER on Apr 15, 2012, 08:02:28 PMBat Chain Puller this is the best idea ever, making the face hugger into the elephantine mask of the space jockey!
It's a great idea I agree, but unfortunately not likely to be realized. We have seen that the helmets are inert and know that the 'old tropes' were removed from the script, hence no huggers.
My only gripe so far is the fact the film *may* be strwen with too many sci-fi cliches such as mutations by a foreign substance and an asshole crew member who you just know will bite it first.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 15, 2012, 03:28:57 PM
I made 2 points on the SJ in the trailer.
1) I didn't like the design aesthetically for the points I mentioned before.
2) I questioned on why they would sell the movie on such a piss poor image. They've been playing mind games with fans since that statement Scott released back in Jan 11', that Prometheus was no longer a prequel blah blah blah. Then they turn that around and say, well hey, look at the trailer, wink wink, what do you think it is now huh?
So they ARE selling it to ALIEN fans with that image. And as an ALIEN fan I think that image looks inferior to the image I was given in the original movie.
??? The design aesthetic looks the same to me. What makes it such a piss poor image? It looks cool enough. I get the impression that people are upset because the new Jockey doesn't look exactly like old one,
but it shouldn't. One is alive, the other has been dead for possibly centuries or more. I wouldn't expect a living person to look like a mummy. I'm not seeing a problem here.
Exactly Kelgaard. These jockeys are very different, they should look different.
Quote from: B1-66ER on Apr 15, 2012, 08:02:28 PM
Bat Chain Puller this is the best idea ever, making the face hugger into the elephantine mask of the space jockey! Ash did say that it was feeding Kane oxygen in the first Alien which in turn woud make it make perfect sense.
It makes sense in the regard that the facehugger would need to keep its host alive.
Slightly off topic I suppose, but I do believe this shot may go some way towards vindicating Prometheus when it comes to 'bad CGI'. I doubt it will be in every shot anyway, but if that ship really is computer generated throughout, it truly is amazing wouldn't you say!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb13%2FAndyUK_1962%2FPROMETHEUS.jpg&hash=d22696cff8396d14c31ef179dcc9e35e1fa478ae)
Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 16, 2012, 10:50:02 PM
Slightly off topic I suppose, but I do believe this shot may go some way towards vindicating Prometheus' when it comes to 'bad CGI'. I doubt it will be in every shot anyway, but if that ship really is computer generated throughout, it truly is amazing wouldn't you say!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi16.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb13%2FAndyUK_1962%2FPROMETHEUS.jpg&hash=d22696cff8396d14c31ef179dcc9e35e1fa478ae)
yes, but like the most CG-stuff it unfolds it's artificiality in movements. in particular: animals/living beings.
Because there are no ships like Prometheus around, I'm not so sure what would be considered or seen as artificial movement. Most of the time, these filmmakers (the good ones) go to great lengths to get future science plausibly right.
Quote from: kelgaard on Apr 16, 2012, 03:24:48 PM
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 15, 2012, 03:28:57 PM
I made 2 points on the SJ in the trailer.
1) I didn't like the design aesthetically for the points I mentioned before.
2) I questioned on why they would sell the movie on such a piss poor image. They've been playing mind games with fans since that statement Scott released back in Jan 11', that Prometheus was no longer a prequel blah blah blah. Then they turn that around and say, well hey, look at the trailer, wink wink, what do you think it is now huh?
So they ARE selling it to ALIEN fans with that image. And as an ALIEN fan I think that image looks inferior to the image I was given in the original movie.
??? The design aesthetic looks the same to me. What makes it such a piss poor image? It looks cool enough. I get the impression that people are upset because the new Jockey doesn't look exactly like old one, but it shouldn't. One is alive, the other has been dead for possibly centuries or more. I wouldn't expect a living person to look like a mummy. I'm not seeing a problem here.
Because the concept of having an extraterrestrial life enslaved to its chair brought to life by Giger was the most disturbing thing ever that it felt coming from one of Lovecraft Mythos when by just seeing it you "guess" and get somehow what it is even if it bring a thousands mysteries, you know it's not good and it scares you to the point that you expect that the answer you want won't be answered because you fear the unknown nature of the thing.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgeektyrant.com%2Fstorage%2Fpage-images%2FSpace%2520Jocky%2520alien.jpeg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1296158369138&hash=e706ac3db85f6c7a177a0a73eb81ae834e7fce4e)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesnstuff.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F03%2F23-space-jockey.png&hash=e5423b376c458c7ad000cbc3eb60472139645415)
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 16, 2012, 07:05:38 PM
Quote from: B1-66ER on Apr 15, 2012, 08:02:28 PM
Bat Chain Puller this is the best idea ever, making the face hugger into the elephantine mask of the space jockey! Ash did say that it was feeding Kane oxygen in the first Alien which in turn woud make it make perfect sense.
It makes sense in the regard that the facehugger would need to keep its host alive.
Yeah and it in turn makes sense that said ability could be used to provide a different species (who relate to the face-huggers symbiotically insead of parasitically) i.e. engineers with whatever nutrients they need to survive outside of their indigenous atmosphere. What if the whole creation of the xenos (along with their parasitic behavior) is due to the fact that Engineers relate to them symbiotically which then translates into parastic behavior with non-engineer/spacejockey species that do not have the same biology.
(I don't surmise this being the movie, just the tangent the drawings create)
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 16, 2012, 05:24:28 AM
Quote from: B1-66ER on Apr 15, 2012, 08:02:28 PMBat Chain Puller this is the best idea ever, making the face hugger into the elephantine mask of the space jockey!
It's a great idea I agree, but unfortunately not likely to be realized. We have seen that the helmets are inert and know that the 'old tropes' were removed from the script, hence no huggers.
This. Plus the fact that the original Facehugger creature, depicted in ALIEN, crawled off of Kane and hid itself away in an overhead nook, at the end of it's life. This implies that it only needs to stay attached to it's host for a certain period of time (perhaps to make sure it's embryonic chestburster is viable), and then detaches from the host, to die a short time later.
Quote from: B1-66ER on Apr 17, 2012, 01:17:47 AMWhat if the whole creation of the xenos (along with their parasitic behavior) is due to the fact that Engineers relate to them symbiotically which then translates into parastic behavior with non-engineer/spacejockey species that do not have the same biology.
It's been discussed before and you are right, it would be a neat little device that would definitely be original and surprising, possibly even more so to
Alien fans than to everyone else. To my knowledge at least, the films never properly establish what the hugger actually does to the host other than feed him/her oxygen, so there is certainly room for it. The explanation I like best is that the hugger injects a virus into the host body that causes it to grow the alien embryo from it's own tissue, like a kind of cancer. This meshes with the shared DNA idea.
Awaiting a canon expert to set me straight in this of course. :P
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 17, 2012, 02:45:43 AM
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 16, 2012, 05:24:28 AM
Quote from: B1-66ER on Apr 15, 2012, 08:02:28 PMBat Chain Puller this is the best idea ever, making the face hugger into the elephantine mask of the space jockey!
It's a great idea I agree, but unfortunately not likely to be realized. We have seen that the helmets are inert and know that the 'old tropes' were removed from the script, hence no huggers.
This. Plus the fact that the original Facehugger creature, depicted in ALIEN, crawled off of Kane and hid itself away in an overhead nook, at the end of it's life. This implies that it only needs to stay attached to it's host for a certain period of time (perhaps to make sure it's embryonic chestburster is viable), and then detaches from the host, to die a short time later.
What if it crawls off and dies because while attached to the space jockeys it receives some kind of nourishment it needs to survive (have to be something along those lines to be symbiotic) , and the fact that it does not receive it attached to a different host is why it crawls off and dies. Add that to the virus idea and voila! you've got an Alien rip off horror movie with room for sequels.
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 17, 2012, 01:16:47 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgeektyrant.com%2Fstorage%2Fpage-images%2FSpace%2520Jocky%2520alien.jpeg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1296158369138&hash=e706ac3db85f6c7a177a0a73eb81ae834e7fce4e)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesnstuff.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F03%2F23-space-jockey.png&hash=e5423b376c458c7ad000cbc3eb60472139645415)
What's the point of this? These images aren't just separate Jockeys, they're from vastly different times. One is fossilized, and it's suit is securely fastened.
Mummified. ;)
It's like comparing a dead tree to a live one and bitching that they don't look the same....D.U.M.B. ;) :)
lol thisbehesdasea
So far my only complains are: No alien (yet), and the chosen composer. Other than that i like everything: actors, custumes, look, textures, etc.
What's the point of this? These images aren't just separate Jockeys, they're from vastly different times. One is fossilized, and it's suit is securely fastened.
[/quote]
The point was to keep talking bout this with an image of both SJ.
I dont see a problem if theyre differents or from different times.
The problem, as le-celticant and others argue, is that one looks like some lovecraftian ancient astronaut, and the other has a level of ridicule that members in here depict it as some kind of moeritherium mammal
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnerdreactor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2FSpace-Jockey-2.jpg&hash=7a224f35668a3abf718c3f75501dd9585832fda6)
See this one for exampla. Dont care if theyre statues or mummified organisms or just suits or whatever. it creeps more.
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 17, 2012, 01:16:47 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgeektyrant.com%2Fstorage%2Fpage-images%2FSpace%2520Jocky%2520alien.jpeg%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1296158369138&hash=e706ac3db85f6c7a177a0a73eb81ae834e7fce4e)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesnstuff.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F03%2F23-space-jockey.png&hash=e5423b376c458c7ad000cbc3eb60472139645415)
does it look more to your liking with the original's color scheme?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv370%2Fddstoth%2Fjockey.jpg&hash=ec62af321cc510eebebf2c2005ff09db85a42bf6)
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 18, 2012, 02:36:11 AMIt's like comparing a dead tree to a live one and bitching that they don't look the same....D.U.M.B. ;) :)
Nope, it's like comparing a really big dead tree to a really little live one. Come on, you must be wearing 6 inch thick rose-colored glasses to not notice how different those two Jockeys are. You might not care, but a lot of fans do - belittling other members because of it is a dick move.
IMO what's D.U.M.B. is suggesting that the new Jockey can be reconciled with the old one by 'growing into its suit' or 'mutating to get bigger' or some other magic. It's not a f**king wizard.
Get real son.
I'll get real when that 3 second shot is 3 minutes and we have context. Bitching about a flash from a scene is premature :) :P ::) ::) ::) ;D
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 18, 2012, 03:28:27 AMI'll get real when that 3 second shot is 3 minutes and we have context. Bitching about a flash from a scene is premature :) :P ::) ::) ::) ;D
Fair point that. I too am hoping that context is enough to fix this aberration. Anyway, it's been discussed ad-nauseum, so end of.
The more we get closer to the release, the more sites without reliable sources from the movie will be posting pointless informations, speculations etc. .. :-/
OK the case that a fosil cannot be reconciled with its living counterpart makes sense now. See these pictures? There is no way that this fosil was ever a dinosaur... It cannot be reconciled. I mean they look so different, the textures, the colors, the positioning... it dont match :P
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.cri.cn%2Fmmsource%2Fimages%2F2008%2F07%2F24%2F46860724dinosaur.jpg&hash=4680d638ac4a293664d5448ac88ee4adf88d0ea8)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prehistoria.piwko.pl%2FObrazki%2Futahraptor.jpg&hash=67b26e022376363cc5e9c0910d93586778445f87)
Quote from: Federick Gonsa on Apr 18, 2012, 05:19:44 PM
OK the case that a fosil cannot be reconciled with its living counterpart makes sense now. See these pictures? There is no way that this fosil was ever a dinosaur... It cannot be reconciled. I mean they look so different, the textures, the colors, the positioning... it dont match :P
http://english.cri.cn/mmsource/images/2008/07/24/46860724dinosaur.jpg
http://www.prehistoria.piwko.pl/Obrazki/utahraptor.jpg
[Heavy sigh][/Heavy sigh] Federick, firstly, the Space Jockey was not fossilized...it was mummified. Secondly, I still don't even follow your intended meaning (even with sarcasm considered)??
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 18, 2012, 05:27:51 PM
Quote from: Federick Gonsa on Apr 18, 2012, 05:19:44 PM
OK the case that a fosil cannot be reconciled with its living counterpart makes sense now. See these pictures? There is no way that this fosil was ever a dinosaur... It cannot be reconciled. I mean they look so different, the textures, the colors, the positioning... it dont match :P
http://english.cri.cn/mmsource/images/2008/07/24/46860724dinosaur.jpg
http://www.prehistoria.piwko.pl/Obrazki/utahraptor.jpg
[Heavy sigh][/Heavy sigh] Federick, firstly, the Space Jockey was not fossilized...it was mummified. Secondly, I still don't even follow your intended meaning (even with sarcasm considered)??
WRONG!!! If you watch the original Alien movie, Dallas clearly states that "Its been dead a long time... fossilized."
Quote from: Federick Gonsa on Apr 18, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 18, 2012, 05:27:51 PM
Quote from: Federick Gonsa on Apr 18, 2012, 05:19:44 PM
OK the case that a fosil cannot be reconciled with its living counterpart makes sense now. See these pictures? There is no way that this fosil was ever a dinosaur... It cannot be reconciled. I mean they look so different, the textures, the colors, the positioning... it dont match :P
http://english.cri.cn/mmsource/images/2008/07/24/46860724dinosaur.jpg
http://www.prehistoria.piwko.pl/Obrazki/utahraptor.jpg
[Heavy sigh][/Heavy sigh] Federick, firstly, the Space Jockey was not fossilized...it was mummified. Secondly, I still don't even follow your intended meaning (even with sarcasm considered)??
WRONG!!! If you watch the original Alien movie, Dallas clearly states that "Its been dead a long time... fossilized."
Federick, as I have explained an insufferable amount of times in the past...this was simply a mistaken use of term, used by a "blue-collar" captain of a glorified merchant marine vessel. Fossilization is a geological process, requiring the specimen to be completely covered by sedimentary deposits. Over geological time, the organic material is replaced by minerals. The Space Jockey was not encased in rock, but rather has been desiccated and mummified due to exposure to the dry, cold, reducing atmosphere of LV-426.
Fine you win :-\
lolsuits with teeth
Just put it down to the fact that Dallas was a Captain. Not a geologist or an archaeologist. He didn't know what he was looking at, so just picked what he felt was an appropriate word at the time ;)
And that dialogue was there simply to reinforce the Lovecraftian vibe of the sequence (though 'mummified' would have worked just as greatly).
The Jockey was indeed mummfied, however. I think Giger described how he added some shreds of skin to the sculpt to add that impression, or something.
Quote from: Federick Gonsa on Apr 18, 2012, 06:35:06 PM
Fine you win :-\
Federick...I probably shouldn't have included the "heavy sigh" comment. Honestly, it wasn't directed at you specifically. It was meant as a general indication of frustration over a continuously misused, misunderstood, misinterpreted and/or misapplied scientific term used to describe the condition of the original Space Jockey.
I like to think that the final writer of Dallas' dialogue for this scene knew better, but deliberately had Dallas misspeak in order to show he wasn't necessarily a "student" of the Sciences, and to make the character more relatable to the general audience. However, the possibility exists that the final writer simply screwed up.
Another similar, and perhaps more glaring example of bad geological science, is in Jurrasic Park. We see Dr. Grant exposing a completely intact, conveniently museum display-ready, fossilized Velociraptor skeleton, by simply brushing away loose sand and grit. I guess Spielberg didn't want to be bothered showing the paleontologists laboring (over the course of days and weeks) to remove numerous gross rock(s), each containing only parts of the fossilized skeleton...and the ensuing
months of tedious, precision laboratory effort, required to separate and remove the non-relevant matrix rock from the interesting rock (fossil).
Of course, showing this actual process in any sort of detail, wouldn't make for an exciting movie. However, Spielberg might have used a few techniques in order to represent how, in reality, a fossil is initially discovered (a small part or fragment is already partially exposed at the surface), followed by a site assay, dig prep and initial excavation. He might have shown this through a time-lapse sequence, or time compressed montage. Instead, a generation of kids are brought up thinking:
a) Fossils are conveniently located beneath a flat and level, horizontal ground surface...allowing for simple, easy extraction.
b) Fossils are found more or less complete and intact.
c) Fossils, when discovered, are museum display-ready. All that is required is a bit of digging, followed up with a bit of brushing...all done at the site.
Deuterium, I envy your patience.
It was probably a decision based on Ridley wanting the Jockey to look like a fossil (his exact word) in the regard that its body and chair are fused and seem to be the one edifice. Unfortunately people take it completely literally.
Yes I agree the original space jockey (pilot in a chair) was meant to appear fossilized. The older, the better. More mysterious. They slipped up. (Because as deuterium pointed out, there is no way the space jockey is actually a fossil.)
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Apr 18, 2012, 06:37:43 PM
lolsuits with teeth
Jockey also had a tongue
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa277%2Flovegunner%2FAVP%2Ftongue.png&hash=da3c185327aa9e7ab42b205f0b4070af7250e7a8)
Hey, guys. Very LONG, LONG, LONG, time lurker...First time ever posting.
I have been a fan of the Alien movies for about 25 years. I recognixe Alien as the true vision of the franchise and Aliens as a very sufficeint follow up. Alien 3 (theatrical release) was disappointing, but the extended version was bliss. Alien Ressurection had its moments, but overall, I feel that it was just a vehicle to milk a silent franchise. (Off the record, I do enjoy the original Predator. In addition, I must admit I enjoyed the AVP movie. AVP: R was just awful and unnecessary. I don't regard AVP as canon; it is just cinematic fun.) I understand that Fox has married the Alien universe with the Predator universse, however, I, personally, choose to ignore that.
That being said, I really enjoyed the trailers and Noomi Rapace is just stunning. (Her eyes and cheekbones are AMAZING.) There are denials of it being a prequel, but clealry, it incorporates elements of Alien i.e. the Spacy Jockey race as well as the Weyland Corporation. My take is that it will definitely "link" to the universe as Alien fans know it. I have faith that Ridley would not let the Alien story be butchered like the Star Trek universe was with the 2009 movie.
The fact that the UK gets it befoire the US is my biggest gripe. I don't want it spoiled for me.
I realize that I could refuse to look at any websites after June 1, but the temptation will be TOO great!
Logan Marshall-Green (who just keeps getting worse with every trailer/featurette released) and Rafe Spall...
These may be the two worst costumes in the entire franchise:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.tinypic.com%2Fercr3s.png&hash=30ad42c8071d83ffaa5f5cd676a3d335d804f5a0)
As if wearing flipflops on the street on Earth isn't horrifying enough, he's gotta bring it to another planet. No wonder the Engineers want us dead lol
Lol.
Also, that cringe-worthy bit of dialogue during the scene inside of the RT01 in the minute and forty-second long featurette. It just sounds so...awkward.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F9kmj2g.png&hash=82296c59d692c2b21bea6c8f8be9d8b0691a1ec4)
"Anything and everything." Barf. :P
I hope to Alien God that Charlize comes through for us and torches his ass.
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 28, 2012, 04:40:09 AM
I hope to Alien God that Charlize comes through for us and torches his ass.
Charlize is the Alien Goddess. KNEEL.
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 28, 2012, 04:40:09 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F9kmj2g.png&hash=82296c59d692c2b21bea6c8f8be9d8b0691a1ec4)
"Anything and everything." Barf. :P
I hope to Alien God that Charlize comes through for us and torches his ass.
:D My thoughts exactly! I obviously haven't seen the film yet but I think a big mistake was to have a couple on the crew. Maybe I would have felt differently if it was somebody other than Logan Marshall Green that was cast. I get that Shaw and Holloway are different from one another and that's great and everything but he just feels like he's the one little parasite dragging an otherwise awesome cast down. If Vickers does toast him, that might end up being one of my favourite scenes in this film. Whatever the case, I hope they don't eventually allow him on the ship.
Quote from: Vickers on Apr 28, 2012, 04:58:17 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 28, 2012, 04:40:09 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F9kmj2g.png&hash=82296c59d692c2b21bea6c8f8be9d8b0691a1ec4)
"Anything and everything." Barf. :P
I hope to Alien God that Charlize comes through for us and torches his ass.
:D My thoughts exactly! I obviously haven't seen the film yet but I think a big mistake was to have a couple on the crew. Maybe I would have felt differently if it was somebody other than Logan Marshall Green that was cast. I get that Shaw and Holloway are different from one another and that's great and everything but he just feels like he's the one little parasite dragging an otherwise awesome cast down. If Vickers does toast him, that might end up being one of my favourite scenes in this film. Whatever the case, I hope they don't eventually allow him on the ship.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffuturemediachange.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2Fdon-draper-smoking.jpg&hash=ce2d9976883300e1ed2e63435f3657338f052067)
Finally, the Griping Thread is apparently unanimous in its griping! :laugh:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_l8bzeeo8q61qa7oseo1_r1_250.gif&hash=4633458ea05cb62f7ccaff9138abc1864d9b9055)
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
I've never seen a single episode of Mad Men.
I don't think I ever will.
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Apr 28, 2012, 05:00:22 AM
Quote from: Vickers on Apr 28, 2012, 04:58:17 AM
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 28, 2012, 04:40:09 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F9kmj2g.png&hash=82296c59d692c2b21bea6c8f8be9d8b0691a1ec4)
"Anything and everything." Barf. :P
I hope to Alien God that Charlize comes through for us and torches his ass.
:D My thoughts exactly! I obviously haven't seen the film yet but I think a big mistake was to have a couple on the crew. Maybe I would have felt differently if it was somebody other than Logan Marshall Green that was cast. I get that Shaw and Holloway are different from one another and that's great and everything but he just feels like he's the one little parasite dragging an otherwise awesome cast down. If Vickers does toast him, that might end up being one of my favourite scenes in this film. Whatever the case, I hope they don't eventually allow him on the ship.
http://futuremediachange.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/don-draper-smoking.jpg
I haven't seen a single episode of Mad Men but Jon Hamm is smoking hot, even without a cig. ;)
Yes he is! He's walking sex!
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 28, 2012, 04:21:48 AM
Logan Marshall-Green (who just keeps getting worse with every trailer/featurette released) and Rafe Spall...
These may be the two worst costumes in the entire franchise:
http://i45.tinypic.com/ercr3s.png
LMAO!! :D :D
I have to admit, those costumes look absolutely rediculous.
Can't wait to see Vickers light him up with the flamethrower, if that happens.
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 28, 2012, 03:24:00 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 28, 2012, 04:21:48 AM
Logan Marshall-Green (who just keeps getting worse with every trailer/featurette released) and Rafe Spall...
These may be the two worst costumes in the entire franchise:
http://i45.tinypic.com/ercr3s.png
LMAO!! :D :D
I have to admit, those costumes look absolutely rediculous.
Can't wait to see Vickers light him up with the flamethrower, if that happens.
Yes ridiculous because they actually look like something people would wear.
I was watching "On the water front" yesterday and was amazing at how little mens casual fashion has changed in 60 years. I figure people will dress just like lazy slackers in 80 years as well.
PS: I guess none of you have worked retail, because about 20% of my customers look exactly like that. And yes, a couple of them are scientists.
And jesus, this the hormone level on this forum you would think everyone is a f**king teenage. They are plastic, cg'd, caked on makeup dolls people. They aren't human. See them on the street at 8am hung over they are human, on a screen they are as fake as the space jockey. I have always found it amusing how much people get worked up or actors. It's kinda sad. And by kinda sad i mean really really sad.
Quote from: fiveways on Apr 28, 2012, 05:10:23 PM
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 28, 2012, 03:24:00 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 28, 2012, 04:21:48 AM
Logan Marshall-Green (who just keeps getting worse with every trailer/featurette released) and Rafe Spall...
These may be the two worst costumes in the entire franchise:
http://i45.tinypic.com/ercr3s.png
LMAO!! :D :D
I have to admit, those costumes look absolutely rediculous.
Can't wait to see Vickers light him up with the flamethrower, if that happens.
Yes ridiculous because they actually look like something people would wear.
I was watching "On the water front" yesterday and was amazing at how little mens casual fashion has changed in 60 years. I figure people will dress just like lazy slackers in 80 years as well.
PS: I guess none of you have worked retail, because about 20% of my customers look exactly like that. And yes, a couple of them are scientists.
And jesus, this the hormone level on this forum you would think everyone is a f**king teenage. They are plastic, cg'd, caked on makeup dolls people. They aren't human. See them on the street at 8am hung over they are human, on a screen they are as fake as the space jockey. I have always found it amusing how much people get worked up or actors. It's kinda sad. And by kinda sad i mean really really sad.
Loosen up and have some fun, dude.
I see people dress like that in real life, too. It doesn't get under my skin though. :P
I still think they look silly, and if vickers torches holloway I will relish the moment. After all, its just a movie...
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 28, 2012, 04:21:48 AM
Logan Marshall-Green (who just keeps getting worse with every trailer/featurette released) and Rafe Spall...
These may be the two worst costumes in the entire franchise:
http://i45.tinypic.com/ercr3s.png
What the f**k is Ralph Spall wearing on his feet? Those are some ugly ass boots. :laugh:
Quote from: First Blood on Apr 28, 2012, 06:37:56 PM
What the f**k is Ralph Spall wearing on his feet? Those are some ugly ass boots. :laugh:
They look like a Future Version of these monstrosities:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mintedlife.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F12%2Fugg.jpg&hash=f59a6e8bcd32c845f3589321806d2a1f20000cd5)
UGG boots--the most offensive piece of white people-footwear ever devised.
A lot of women tend to wear these -- but they just look incredibly awkward on men.
The depth of his intrigue just got a little deeper.
There is something funny about seeing Holloway wearing those sandals :D
Remember how we joked once that he could essentially be played by Matthew McConaughey? Well, loose the shirt and we're there ;)
I'm still stuck on how humanoid the Engineers are.
I'm just really getting worried about the dialogue. I seem some seriously cheesy/cringe-worthy moments ahead.
After going back and watching the original Alien again, I realize that the cast is what really sold that movie. They did an excellent job in my opinion.
I mean, isn't this a sort of unwritten rule, advertising your forum on someone else's forum? That makes the guys over on prometheusforums look really bad man, and that sucks because I am also a member of that forum.
Just ignore him guys. glaswegianmark is Mark McAllister BTW. Aka the guy who wrote that terrible Prometheus fake script from a few months ago.
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=42429.0 (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=42429.0)
I loved that script hilarious stuff, " feline solution " even Harry Knowles loved it.
Quote from: ikarop on Apr 29, 2012, 02:34:08 AM
Just ignore him guys. glaswegianmark is Mark McAllister BTW. Aka the guy who wrote that terrible Prometheus fake script from a few months ago.
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=42429.0 (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=42429.0)
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic.epicfail.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Falien_vs_predator_fail.jpg&hash=4e5b8ca15d0ef9eadad1cc8b52c151842628e358)
Quote from: ikarop on Apr 29, 2012, 02:34:08 AM
Just ignore him guys. glaswegianmark is Mark McAllister BTW. Aka the guy who wrote that terrible Prometheus fake script from a few months ago.
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=42429.0 (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=42429.0)
AKA the guy in response to whom Spaihts tweeted 'writer, kill thyself'? Man that was priceless.
Quote from: Eva on Apr 29, 2012, 09:45:13 AM
Quote from: ikarop on Apr 29, 2012, 02:34:08 AM
Just ignore him guys. glaswegianmark is Mark McAllister BTW. Aka the guy who wrote that terrible Prometheus fake script from a few months ago.
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=42429.0 (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=42429.0)
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic.epicfail.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Falien_vs_predator_fail.jpg&hash=4e5b8ca15d0ef9eadad1cc8b52c151842628e358)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: Eva on Apr 29, 2012, 09:45:13 AM
Quote from: ikarop on Apr 29, 2012, 02:34:08 AM
Just ignore him guys. glaswegianmark is Mark McAllister BTW. Aka the guy who wrote that terrible Prometheus fake script from a few months ago.
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=42429.0 (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=42429.0)
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic.epicfail.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Falien_vs_predator_fail.jpg&hash=4e5b8ca15d0ef9eadad1cc8b52c151842628e358)
i like how they kept the new design of the Xeno kind of...oldschool.
no GFX in the world could reproduce this terrific look!
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 18, 2012, 06:57:28 PM
Quote from: Federick Gonsa on Apr 18, 2012, 06:35:06 PM
Instead, a generation of kids are brought up thinking:
a) Fossils are conveniently located beneath a flat and level, horizontal ground surface...allowing for simple, easy extraction.
b) Fossils are found more or less complete and intact.
c) Fossils, when discovered, are museum display-ready. All that is required is a bit of digging, followed up with a bit of brushing...all done at the site.
If only. More likely they believe the devil created dinosaur bones to trick the world into thinking he doesn't exist.
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 28, 2012, 04:40:09 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F9kmj2g.png&hash=82296c59d692c2b21bea6c8f8be9d8b0691a1ec4)
"Anything and everything." Barf. :P
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTCBpX0h_WzllWHOBH-RDsr9qCdJM2vl-HpGRSba2ckqn0Q5_ig5Q&hash=1c06b5145352bf00818279752a6f0689e29c370e)
"Anything and everything."
i think they spoiled too much. specially in regards of the jockey's suit & telling us, that there's a lone survivor of the race.
wasn't it part of the fun to assume it from the broken sarcophagus? :(
i mean, i'm very glad, that i did not read this "set & props" article.
My main gripes regarding this movies are:
1) The fact that a human ship can damage a Space Jockey that easily. I mean come on these guys are space travelling for millions of years, are supposed to have extremly advanced biotech, yet are unable to build a ship which can withstand a collision with a very primitive ship compared to theirs ?
I would have a less hard time to accept it if Prometheus used some king of very high energy weapon that blast everything in a radius of several dozen of miles like an anti-matter bomb. Unless of course if Prometheus overload their energy source which happens to explose during the crash, but them the explosion would have been much more violent ?
I really like the way the time machine explose in the movie of the same name (with Guy Pearce), and the way it obliterates the morlocks. I would have really liked something similar but at the scale of an interstellar faster than light ship.
2)The fact that the prometheus crew exploring the temple can that easily take off their helmett despites being in an alien ecosystem from whom they know nothing. Have not heard of micro organisms ?
Quote from: timiteh on Apr 30, 2012, 01:11:15 PM
My main gripes regarding this movies are:
1) The fact that a human ship can damage a Space Jockey that easily. I mean come on these guys are space travelling for millions of years, are supposed to have extremly advanced biotech, yet are unable to build a ship which can withstand a collision with a very primitive ship compared to theirs ?
There's nothing in the movies that indicates that they've been traveling around for millions of years anywhere. Assuming they did actually visit primitive man, that's MAYBE twenty or thirty thousand years back. Maybe upto a hundred thousand yards ago.
and if the spend a lot of their time in stasis, which we are led to believe considering they have cryo tubes, then they may not have had space travel for very long at all.
Also, it doesn't matter if something is technologically inferior when compared to something else. Lots of speed, and kinetic force are going to kick the ass of anything at
some point.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 30, 2012, 01:38:55 PM
There's nothing in the movies that indicates that they've been traveling around for millions of years anywhere. Assuming they did actually visit primitive man, that's MAYBE twenty or thirty thousand years back. Maybe upto a hundred thousand yards ago.
and if the spend a lot of their time in stasis, which we are led to believe considering they have cryo tubes, then they may not have had space travel for very long at all.
Also, it doesn't matter if something is technologically inferior when compared to something else. Lots of speed, and kinetic force are going to kick the ass of anything at some point.
First, it is Ridley Scott itself who said that they are millions of years old not me.
Second even if they spend a lot of time in stasis, in millions of years of space travel, one could imagine that they have spent at least hundred of thousands of years improving their technology.
Third, if they are a space faring species, they should have found way to build ship able to withstand impacts from objects moving way faster, with much more kinetic energy, than whatever human ship colliding with their ship in the movie.Either their ship should have an extremly resistant hull or some kind of energy defensive shield. Their ship could have also counter measure such as defensive weapon to destroy whatever threatening object coming too close of it.
Btw, i also wonder how come humans have managed to build FTL ships which have not energy shield to have a much better protection than a mere hull.
Quote from: timiteh on Apr 30, 2012, 03:18:46 PM
Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 30, 2012, 01:38:55 PM
There's nothing in the movies that indicates that they've been traveling around for millions of years anywhere. Assuming they did actually visit primitive man, that's MAYBE twenty or thirty thousand years back. Maybe upto a hundred thousand yards ago.
and if the spend a lot of their time in stasis, which we are led to believe considering they have cryo tubes, then they may not have had space travel for very long at all.
Also, it doesn't matter if something is technologically inferior when compared to something else. Lots of speed, and kinetic force are going to kick the ass of anything at some point.
First, it is Ridley Scott itself who said that they are millions of years old not me.
Second even if they spend a lot of time in stasis, in millions of years of space travel, one could imagine that they have spent at least hundred of thousands of years improving their technology.
Third, if they are a space faring species, they should have found way to build ship able to withstand impacts from objects moving way faster, with much more kinetic energy, than whatever human ship colliding with their ship in the movie.Either their ship should have an extremly resistant hull or some kind of energy defensive shield. Their ship could have also counter measure such as defensive weapon to destroy whatever threatening object coming too close of it.
Btw, i also wonder how come humans have managed to build FTL ships which have not energy shield to have a much better protection than a mere hull.
Ever heard of the Titanic?
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 30, 2012, 03:37:29 PM
Ever heard of the Titanic?
No connexion there. The Titanic sank because of at least two design errors (the steel use to build it and a too small rudder), a strategic error (the decision to turn as the Titanic would not have withstood as many damages if it didn't turn) and a significant lack of luck.
It would be similar if a drakkar( or more likely a much more primitive ship) collided with the Titanic and make it sink.
Quote from: timiteh on Apr 30, 2012, 04:13:43 PM
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 30, 2012, 03:37:29 PM
Ever heard of the Titanic?
No connexion there. The Titanic sank because of at least two design errors (the steal use to build it and a too small rudder), a strategic error (the decision to turn as the Titanic would not have withstood as many damages if it didn't turn) and a significant lack of luck.
It would be similar if a drakkar( or more likely a much more primitive ship) collided with the Titanic and make it sink.
The point is they assumed it was unsinkable, and we all know what happened with that. Have a good day! ;)
Quote from: timiteh on Apr 30, 2012, 04:13:43 PM
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 30, 2012, 03:37:29 PM
Ever heard of the Titanic?
No connexion there. The Titanic sank because of at least two design errors (the steel use to build it and a too small rudder), a strategic error (the decision to turn as the Titanic would not have withstood as many damages if it didn't turn) and a significant lack of luck.
It would be similar if a drakkar( or more likely a much more primitive ship) collided with the Titanic and make it sink.
I don't consider steel factor and small rudder as errors.. There were so many circumstances and events which lead to the final disaster.. Olympic loosing blade from the propeller, near collision with the New York, ice field warnings, Californian, almost empty lifeboats, decisions of the crew minutes after the collision, etc., etc., etc. ...
Well this thread went to the shitter quickly.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 01, 2012, 02:37:57 AM
Well this thread went to the shitter quickly.
Still goin' strong 23 pages in. You jelly? ;D
Quote from: Zenzucht on Apr 30, 2012, 09:26:19 PM
Quote from: timiteh on Apr 30, 2012, 04:13:43 PM
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 30, 2012, 03:37:29 PM
Ever heard of the Titanic?
No connexion there. The Titanic sank because of at least two design errors (the steel use to build it and a too small rudder), a strategic error (the decision to turn as the Titanic would not have withstood as many damages if it didn't turn) and a significant lack of luck.
It would be similar if a drakkar( or more likely a much more primitive ship) collided with the Titanic and make it sink.
I don't consider steel factor and small rudder as errors.. There were so many circumstances and events which lead to the final disaster.. Olympic loosing blade from the propeller, near collision with the New York, ice field warnings, Californian, almost empty lifeboats, decisions of the crew minutes after the collision, etc., etc., etc. ...
Reguarding the Titanic: The primary causes for its sinking where the failure of wrought iron rivets, a combination of the impact and freezing temperatures causing them to disintegrate on impact, the iceberg ripping a gash in the hull which then caused the hull plates to buckle, while the brittle substandard quality steel of which the hull was constructed simply crumpled under the stress, the ship quickly filled with water.
Quote from: Cvalda on May 01, 2012, 02:40:57 AM
You jelly? ;D
Did someone say jelly? Get on my
bread, Cvalda.
Quote from: Cvalda on May 01, 2012, 02:40:57 AM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on May 01, 2012, 02:37:57 AM
Well this thread went to the shitter quickly.
Still goin' strong 23 pages in. You jelly? ;D
I love how the thread title says Official.
...and your signature brings a smile to my face. :)
Lolz....get a room you two! :)
Quote from: OpenMaw on May 01, 2012, 03:12:48 AM
Did someone say jelly? Get on my bread, Cvalda.
I do believe I asked if Bethesda was jelly. You can offer
him your bread. :P
Quote from: Predaker on May 01, 2012, 03:14:05 AM
I love how the thread title says Official.
...and your signature brings a smile to my face. :)
8) :)
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 29, 2012, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 28, 2012, 04:40:09 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F9kmj2g.png&hash=82296c59d692c2b21bea6c8f8be9d8b0691a1ec4)
"Anything and everything." Barf. :P
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCBpX0h_WzllWHOBH-RDsr9qCdJM2vl-HpGRSba2ckqn0Q5_ig5Q
"Anything and everything."
I like the Newborn better. :P
Quote from: Cvalda on May 01, 2012, 03:21:37 AM
I do believe I asked if Bethesda was jelly. You can offer him your bread. :P
I offer everyone my bread...
Spoiler
...Because nobody wants it!
Is Holloway supposed to look like he's drunk and/or high in that shot with David?
Quote from: OpenMaw on May 01, 2012, 07:04:15 AM
Is Holloway supposed to look like he's drunk and/or high in that shot with David?
A fuller shot shows him with a bottle, and he's slumped over, so I'd imagine he's pretty drunk there.
Quote from: Space Sweeper on May 01, 2012, 07:15:49 AM
A fuller shot shows him with a bottle, and he's slumped over, so I'd imagine he's pretty drunk there.
Hm, wonder what that's all about.
Perhaps David is trying to study human sexual behavior.
It's a human/artificial that is piloting the Juggernaut.
Hence why he could not know all the commands and conter mesures to avoid a collision.
;)
Would be a kick in the bollocks if the real engineers only appeared as holograms and the one we see is a human in an enginner outfit or mutated to look like one. Would make me sad.
We will see a real Engineer at the beginning of time scenes.
Then it will be those holograms showing the disaster that happened in the Engineer's waystation.
Then the encounter with the Engineer survivor of the disaster.
Stuff will happen and we will end up with the tiny Engineer aka David or Peter Weyland ;)
Thats how i see it but i might be wrong.
:)
You guys assume that the Engineers aren't the humanoids we've seen so far? Don't set yourselves up for disappointment.
Is this for me?
Or for those hoping for a higher race above the Engineers?
I'll have a go:
Prometheus seemingly wants to tell us the polar opposite of what Alien tried to tell us.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on May 01, 2012, 11:41:35 AM
I'll have a go:
Prometheus seemingly wants to tell us the polar opposite of what Alien tried to tell us.
they're telling both the same: we... are not alone.
Nope.
Alien, showing us space truckers discovering an unknown alien spacecraft (let's remember it was an alien spacecraft back in '79) in some small planetoid in the ass-end of the universe (catch the reference!), wanted to tell us that the universe is unbelievably vast, how small we are compared to it and made us wonder what otherwordly horrors may lurk in the shadows of other systems and galaxies.
Prometheus seems to take this idea and completely turn the tables -- showing us the crew of the Prometheus ship bringing back what seems to be the head of an extraterrestrial thing, with all-but humanoid traits and proportions, and showing us said head exploding in a spray of green goo, revealing a perfectly humanoid head, wants to tell us the opposite: the universe is small, and in the ass-end of the universe the crew of the Prometheus does not meet something humanity has no link with -- something alien -- but something that seems to be deeply linked to us (quite obviously) and may even be our 'creators'.
Long story short, for what we know so far (we don't know if the actual film will be exactly like the trailers are showing it -- I'm working with the data supplied so far), the two films seem to have polar-opposite philosophies.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on May 01, 2012, 04:24:02 PM
Nope.
Alien, showing us space truckers discovering an unknown alien spacecraft (let's remember it was an alien spacecraft back in '79) in some small planetoid in the ass-end of the universe (catch the reference!), wanted to tell us that the universe is unbelievably vast, how small we are compared to it and made us wonder what otherwordly horrors may lurk in the shadows of other systems and galaxies.
Prometheus seems to take this idea and completely turn the tables -- showing us the crew of the Prometheus ship bringing back what seems to be the head of an extraterrestrial thing, with all-but humanoid traits and proportions, and showing us said head exploding in a spray of green goo, revealing a perfectly humanoid head, wants to tell us the opposite: the universe is small, and in the ass-end of the universe the crew of the Prometheus does not meet something humanity has no link with -- something alien -- but something that seems to be deeply linked to us (quite obviously) and may even be our 'creators'.
Long story short, for what we know so far (we don't know if the actual film will be exactly like the trailers are showing it -- I'm working with the data supplied so far), the two films seem to have polar-opposite philosophies.
I agree.
Wow...
How did all of this go so wrong? Reading the plot, it's obvious how Jon Spaihts' original script ran, and it's obvious how Lindelof changed it--completely f**king pointlessly.
Spoiler
Oh, LOLz, Derelict crash but now its not the same derelict.
Oh, LOLz, Jockeyburster but now its not the same jockey.
Not that I wanted to necessarily see those things in the first place,
but what is the point? Why does this film even exist if it doesn't even bother to answer the "questions" Scott had since
ALIEN? Absolute travesty.
Quote from: Cvalda on May 30, 2012, 04:08:06 PM
Wow...
How did all of this go so wrong? Reading the plot, it's obvious how Jon Spaihts' original script ran, and it's obvious how Lindelof changed it--completely f**king pointlessly.
Spoiler
Oh, LOLz, Derelict crash but now its not the same derelict.
Oh, LOLz, Jockeyburster but now its not the same jockey.
Not that I wanted to necessarily see those things in the first place, but what is the point? Why does this film even exist if it doesn't even bother to answer the "questions" Scott had since ALIEN? Absolute travesty.
Spoiler
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWnmCu3U09w# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWnmCu3U09w#)
Open First spoiler at 27 sec and second one at 45sec
Spoiler
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Spoiler
The possibility to make more sequel and so more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Good morning Cvalda. Riddle me something ( :laugh:!
that's our new pun-of-choice, okay?)
Spoiler
Is that one of the big sources of contention that I'm missing here, that the 'derelict' and 'jockey' end up much in the same fashion as the Acheron ones, but they are, in fact, totally different?
If that's the case, it does ramp up the lame factor a bit.
Yeah. It's completely stupid and pointless and nothing but cynical fan bait
Lindelof kept saying "Oh, I approached this as an ALIEN fanboy!"--meaning he's a moron who should never have gone near this script in the first place. ::)
Yep!
Quote from: Cvalda on May 30, 2012, 04:17:02 PM
Yeah. It's completely stupid and pointless and nothing but cynical fan bait
Lindelof kept saying "Oh, I approached this as an ALIEN fanboy!"--meaning he's a moron who should never have gone near this script in the first place. ::)
It's a solid scifi movie you're just butthurt ;)
An I the only one here who thinks 2001 is vastly over rated? I'm not baiting an argument here but that film is obtuse for the sake of being obtuse
I've never seen so much butthurt fans sinse the release of Predators :laugh:.
Quote from: Cvalda on May 30, 2012, 04:08:06 PM
Wow...
How did all of this go so wrong?
I think (mis)Step #1 was the decision to base the story upon an "ancient astronauts" angle. Having decided upon (mis)Step #1, Ridley decided to "retcon" the original Space Jockey. Since in the typical "ancient astronaut" lore, the AAs are more or less large humans, this required replacing the truly alien (and surreal) SJ with a "big blue guy in a suit" concept. This was (mis)Step #2.
So, IMHO, Prometheus went "off the rails", "left the reservation", "screwed the pooch"... at a very early stage.
Then, since Ridley realized he needed some kind of aliens in his alien prequel movie, we are treated to:
Spoiler
Ass Flower snakebursters
Giant Octupus tentacle beasty (trapped in a closet)
Quote from: mastermoon on May 30, 2012, 04:24:44 PM
I've never seen so much butthurt fans sinse the release of Predators :laugh:.
We know. Stop shoehorning that film in these threads.
Quote from: Deuterium on May 30, 2012, 04:25:09 PM
I think (mis)Step #1 was the decision to base the story upon an "ancient astronauts" angle. Having decided upon (mis)Step #1, Ridley decided to "retcon" the original Space Jockey. Since in the typical "ancient astronaut" lore, the AAs are more or less large humans, this required replacing the truly alien (and surreal) SJ with a "big blue guy in a suit" concept. This was (mis)Step #2.
So, IMHO, Prometheus went "off the rails", "left the reservation", "screwed the pooch"... at a very early stage.
Agreed 400% with you there. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Quote from: Deuterium on May 30, 2012, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: Cvalda on May 30, 2012, 04:08:06 PM
Wow...
How did all of this go so wrong?
I think (mis)Step #1 was the decision to base the story upon an "ancient astronauts" angle. Having decided upon (mis)Step #1, Ridley decided to "retcon" the original Space Jockey. Since in the typical "ancient astronaut" lore, the AAs are more or less large humans, this required replacing the truly alien (and surreal) SJ with a "big blue guy in a suit" concept. This was (mis)Step #2.
So, IMHO, Prometheus went "off the rails", "left the reservation", "screwed the pooch"... at a very early stage.
Then, since Ridley realized he needed some kind of aliens in his alien prequel movie, we are treated to:
Spoiler
Ass Flower snakebursters
Giant Octupus tentacle beasty (trapped in a closet)
That's about it.
I am curious though. If you had the chance to make a movie about the Space Jockey what would it essentially be about ?
I have some vague concepts about what would have worked for me, but nothing i can put on paper. Is there a thread about the subject ?
This is ... wow this is going to require a lot of therapy to deal with.
You know, personally, I don't give a rip about AA theory or the creatures in the film. I'm even okay with the Jockeys weaponizing the goo because they want to exterminate us (again,
for reasons unknown.) But why why why do you promote your movie like it's going to present the audience with these big, complex secrets and then answer them in some way?
I'm all for mystery, and at first it seemed like what I was reading implied a lot of mystery still left. But now it seems like it's pretty much
all still a f**king mystery, because they avoid exploring any issue much at all and saving any possible discoveries of that magnitude for some wishful sequel.
Just what in the f**k? Let me expand, if you guys and gals will indulge me for a minute:
Spoiler
What I like so far - The temples being bio-weapons factories, and the jockeys wanting to wipe us out. This is basic, but Ridley has said this is what he thinks from the get-go, no surprise there. Also, even if they answer nothing, it still leaves a huge bundle of complex motivations and discoveries, albeit sadly left out for a 'sequel.'
For example, if the Jockeys are intelligent and advanced enough to create us, and create other life in general, especially 2,000 years ago, they simply have to have higher-order thought and advanced science which involves high degrees of reasoning and comprehension. It's a logical necessity that they're very intelligent.
There is an explanation, we're just not going to get it until Prometheus 2: It Doesn't Matter When It's Arcturian.
The Jockey and his behavior are fine, I mean he could just be a soldier-type, and really pissed off for that matter. I mean it's apparent that the jocks decided our fate 2,000 years ago, so he's had awhile to think about it. Could help explain the quick resort to violence when we show up.
So... The jockeys and the incident from 2,000 years ago while they were trying to weaponize the goo. This is cool, but heralds the origin of the Xenomorph by itself. To me that completely eliminates the need for the end scene that we've apparently gotten.
But I like the way the xenomorphs are created in the film, a sort of accident that developed through Holloway (for a cool reason, involving David and those interesting dynamics as well as thoughts on life and the search for answers, this is exactly what I wanted to see from David and from everythinig I've read it sounds like he nails it,) then the sex with Shaw (which again could have very, very interesting elements to it. Does Holloway do it on purpose? Does he want to see how it will change? Many questions still..)
Don't like -
If the goo is just 'death,' that's going to be lame city, just beyond lame. Whats the point to the mutations, the hammerpedes, all of it? f**king lame sauce. Just make the goo kill us outright and fly by in your croissant and crop-dust us all. Why all the mad mutation bullshit which could potentially infect you and create the world-destroying awesomeness of the xenomorph?
And what was the point of having a unique concept like the sacrificial jockey?
Again, what are the point of the star maps? Did the accident make the jockeys leave them on earth so that instead of them coming here, humans could come find them when they were ready, infect themselves, and maybe bring the virus back to earth? The human-space jockey mutation idea serves this purpose well, and I really, really liked that set-up. Does this happen in the film? I'm not quite sure from the reviews so far.
But then, why were they planning on f**king leaving LV-228 anyway? *head spins, then explodes*
im in the same boat as you raging dragon. Im not just a fan boy whose fanfiction didnt come true. I was hoping this would be the movie that Lindelof got right, allows Ridley take Sci fi to the next level, and we all are drooling at the mouth afterwards because of all the possibilities, we NOW have answers, we NOW catch a glimpse of the big picture and are Horrified AND Fascinated of whats to come. But we dont get that. We get a movie that is all cliche and no revelation.
Spoiler
It doesnt give the SJ point of view, it doesnt let us see what our place was in all this, we dont even know what the SJs messed up on or succeeded in creating (incident) IT doesnt even "link" to alien in any meaningful way. Its not our SJ from alien. Why go to the SAME solar system to visit the SJs if you do not intend to tie it in with lv426 ATLEAST? They say its not about alien...but it is....it so is.
Things like "What is the goo" and "why was shaw's baby squiidlike?" "How do we get from worm to eel to squid to implantation of ???? a xeno? a random humanoid alien? These types of things are the guide rails the writer should GIVE the audience....create your mystery around the core of these truths or rules, actually around something...not just around nothing and emptiness that you PLAN to fill in later.
Why even use the "SJs" this way? Go to some unknown planet and have the same story take place involving some other being......bring the SJ in later when you plan to do them justice, same with the xeno if at all.
Spoiler
I agree it could end up being pointless and confusing to show the ship crash and then the engineer jockey getting chestbursted. I hope he isn't sitting in the pilot chair when it happens, at least.
Quote from: RagingDragon on May 30, 2012, 05:04:35 PM
This is ... wow this is going to require a lot of therapy to deal with.
You know, personally, I don't give a rip about AA theory or the creatures in the film. I'm even okay with the Jockeys weaponizing the goo because they want to exterminate us (again, for reasons unknown.) But why why why do you promote your movie like it's going to present the audience with these big, complex secrets and then answer them in some way?
I'm all for mystery, and at first it seemed like what I was reading implied a lot of mystery still left. But now it seems like it's pretty much all still a f**king mystery, because they avoid exploring any issue much at all and saving any possible discoveries of that magnitude for some wishful sequel.
Just what in the f**k? Let me expand, if you guys and gals will indulge me for a minute:
Spoiler
What I like so far - The temples being bio-weapons factories, and the jockeys wanting to wipe us out. This is basic, but Ridley has said this is what he thinks from the get-go, no surprise there. Also, even if they answer nothing, it still leaves a huge bundle of complex motivations and discoveries, albeit sadly left out for a 'sequel.'
For example, if the Jockeys are intelligent and advanced enough to create us, and create other life in general, especially 2,000 years ago, they simply have to have higher-order thought and advanced science which involves high degrees of reasoning and comprehension. It's a logical necessity that they're very intelligent.
There is an explanation, we're just not going to get it until Prometheus 2: It Doesn't Matter When It's Arcturian.
The Jockey and his behavior are fine, I mean he could just be a soldier-type, and really pissed off for that matter. I mean it's apparent that the jocks decided our fate 2,000 years ago, so he's had awhile to think about it. Could help explain the quick resort to violence when we show up.
So... The jockeys and the incident from 2,000 years ago while they were trying to weaponize the goo. This is cool, but heralds the origin of the Xenomorph by itself. To me that completely eliminates the need for the end scene that we've apparently gotten.
But I like the way the xenomorphs are created in the film, a sort of accident that developed through Holloway (for a cool reason, involving David and those interesting dynamics as well as thoughts on life and the search for answers, this is exactly what I wanted to see from David and from everythinig I've read it sounds like he nails it,) then the sex with Shaw (which again could have very, very interesting elements to it. Does Holloway do it on purpose? Does he want to see how it will change? Many questions still..)
Don't like -
If the goo is just 'death,' that's going to be lame city, just beyond lame. Whats the point to the mutations, the hammerpedes, all of it? f**king lame sauce. Just make the goo kill us outright and fly by in your croissant and crop-dust us all. Why all the mad mutation bullshit which could potentially infect you and create the world-destroying awesomeness of the xenomorph?
And what was the point of having a unique concept like the sacrificial jockey?
Again, what are the point of the star maps? Did the accident make the jockeys leave them on earth so that instead of them coming here, humans could come find them when they were ready, infect themselves, and maybe bring the virus back to earth? The human-space jockey mutation idea serves this purpose well, and I really, really liked that set-up. Does this happen in the film? I'm not quite sure from the reviews so far.
But then, why were they planning on f**king leaving LV-228 anyway? *head spins, then explodes*
Spoiler
The xeno was not created with Holloway/Shaw/engineer infection.
The xeno we see at the end is the one shown in the mural of the head room so it's as least 2000 years old.
That type of xeno is worshipped by them they make mural of him.
That mural is actually an altar, altar that has a bowl identical to the one the sacrifice engineer drinks the content to disintigrate himself and seed Earth with life.
That xeno is maybe a higher being, remember the giger lifecycle mural that shows Engineers sacrificing one of their own to give birth to a xeno, the engineer civilization is high on sacrifice it seems.
Maybe they tried to weaponize this higher being (maybe they discovered him and did not created him) creating the eggs and facehuggers but still an outbreak took place and all the engineer in the base were infected.
Save for one that managed to take off with a cargo of weaponized higher beings, the facehugger eggs, but he was already infected and landed on LV426.
As for Earth Engineer's plan, well since the black goo in the urns mutates the host or give birth to squid facehuggers maybe the Engineers want to use us as incubator so they can collect more xenos.
I just cant wait til someone inevitable posts a blurry cellphone pic of the you-know-what in the end, so we can all collectively cringe.
Quote from: Predaker on May 30, 2012, 05:29:40 PM
Spoiler
I agree it could end up being pointless and confusing to show the ship crash and then the engineer jockey getting chestbursted. I hope he isn't sitting in the pilot chair when it happens, at least.
From what i know
Spoiler
the sj is just dead,laying there in the lifeboat med section, and his chest bursts
What is dumb to me is that the creature is a "proto" or Pure Xeno. Fine, how does that even relate to lv426? IT DOESNT. isnt that what this movie was supposed to be about? We still dont know what the sj's were doing, what they made, or where those creatures even are. (That is the MOST important thing to show). It defeats the entire purpose of using SJ's, weyland, xeno's, and lv223.
Quote from: NGR01 on May 30, 2012, 05:36:44 PM
Spoiler
The xeno was not created with Holloway/Shaw/engineer infection.
The xeno we see at the end is the one shown in the mural of the head room so it's as least 2000 years old.
That type of xeno is worshipped by them they make mural of him.
That mural is actually an altar, altar that has a bowl identical to the one the sacrifice engineer drinks the content to disintigrate himself and seed Earth with life.
That xeno is maybe a higher being, remember the giger lifecycle mural that shows Engineers sacrificing one of their own to give birth to a xeno, the engineer civilization is high on sacrifice it seems.
Maybe they tried to weaponize this higher being (maybe they discovered him and did not created him) creating the eggs and facehuggers but still an outbreak took place and all the engineer in the base were infected.
Save for one that managed to take off with a cargo of weaponized higher beings, the facehugger eggs, but he was already infected and landed on LV426.
As for Earth Engineer's plan, well since the black goo in the urns mutates the host or give birth to squid facehuggers maybe the Engineers want to use us as incubator so they can collect more xenos.
Spoiler
Wow, that's a bit more meat to chew on... thanks! See I thought they were going to show the accidental/unintentional transition that the black goo takes through humans, then by impregnation giving birth to cuddles, who is a fleshy weird version of a xeno ancestor, then when cuddles attacks the jock, that gives us the obvious link to the biomechanoid nature of the final xenomorph (implying that the "suit" the jock wears is either part of their body or was for some reason incorporated in the DNA when it was impregnated.)
But this just sounds like it's going in circles. The aliens were already created... so what's the deal with cuddles? Seems to be the strongest link. That must mean that the xeno we see in the end isn't the same form as the ones from the beginning/2,000 years prior?
What you wrote really has me intrigued, though. The hopes have gone back up just a teeny tiny bit. :laugh:
Lol at people complaining about lack of answers and mystery.
Hello?? Alien provides absolutely no answers and all mystery.
Rabble rabble rabble!!!!!!
Quote from: Mohawksinspace on May 30, 2012, 06:42:50 PM
Lol at people complaining about lack of answers and mystery.
Hello?? Alien provides absolutely no answers and all mystery.
Rabble rabble rabble!!!!!!
But alien as Matrix or inceptions as explained much earlier shown thing that serves no story purpose but rather helped to build this whole horrible atmospheres by MAKING YOU question yourself.
PROMETHEUS Involve those question through characters that ask it DIRECTLY to the spectators as we were dumb just because they need to make the story progress this way.
HUGE DIFFERENCE between both.
I still have alot of questions;
Spoiler
-Why did the Sacrifice Engineer seed Earth to begin with? Why does the Engineer want to destroy mankind? Also reducing the Engineer to a Big Bad to terrorise Shaw kinda sucks.
So many unanswered questions - I hope when I actually see this film I can rationalise some of this.
Quote from: harlock on May 30, 2012, 08:13:48 PM
I still have alot of questions;
Spoiler
-Why did the Sacrifice Engineer seed Earth to begin with? Why does the Engineer want to destroy mankind? Also reducing the Engineer to a Big Bad to terrorise Shaw kinda sucks.
So many unanswered questions - I hope when I actually see this film I can rationalise some of this.
Spoiler
Mystery but I guess it's what is said once in the movie "to create life you need to destroy it first".
But new questions are raised like "who created the SJ then?"
Maybe they want to kill off the Human Race and intruduce forms of life via the Ampules? But were not able to 2000 years ago. I havent seen the film though..... ;)