Just confirmed via twitter
https://twitter.com/!/prometheusnews/status/189655057367703553 (https://twitter.com/!/prometheusnews/status/189655057367703553)
Full collection of twitter and blog reactions here (http://www.prometheusforum.net/discussion/525/prometheus-new-20-min-footage-updates-coming-in-fast)
Quote
The footage was presented in 3D, but we'll discuss the pros and cons of that later. For now, let's talk about the content. There's one spoiler in here, but it's nothing you haven't seen if you've been watching the trailers closely.
We open on the shot from the trailers that show Elizabeth Shaw, as played by Noomi Rapace, clearing dirt and small stones out of a crack in a cave wall someplace. She's looking through the crack, right at us.
After we cut outside to a verdant mountainside, a title card announces that we're in Skye, and that it's the year 2079.
The remainder of the scene features Shaw uncovering an ancient illustration on the cave wall and showing it to her fellow archaeologist and apparent romantic partner, Charlie Holloway, played by Logan Marshall Green. As well as the now well-known "star chart" element in the image, with a taller figure (representative of the Space Jockey) pointing to the heavens, one of the cave drawings shows a big, deadly looking... something, attacking a group of smaller human figures.
This thing is not humanoid, nor does it look like the standard Alien series xenomorph. It's pale, too – not coloured in like the Jockey. For now, there's no telling if this is just a red herring or a little bit of set-up.
A dissolve to deep space, and a new title card introduces the spaceship Prometheus. It's now 2083, and we're somewhere in deep space. The last line of the title card is a tease too – the spaceship's mission is classified as "undisclosed."
Note the name of the destination planet: it's LV -226, possibly 223. Not LV-426, as featured in Alien and Aliens.
And neither is it Zeus.
On board Prometheus, the ship's computer (no reference to Mother, MuThUr, Father or any of the other Alienverse fan-bait computer names) is sounding an alert that they are reaching their destination. David the Android, as played by Michael Fassbender, makes his way to check in on Meredith Vickers, as played by Charlize Theron. She's the only passenger on board to have woken from hypersleep yet.
And she's doing her morning exercises, dripping phenomenal amounts of sweat as she does push ups. You've seen a close-up of her at work in the trailers. Charlize Theron appears even more statuesque than normal, if that's possible.
Vickers asks, and with apparent dispassion, if any of the other passengers died during their two and a half year journey. When David confirms that everybody is still alive, he's sent to wake them all, and so he does.
Freshly awoken and sitting on the side of her hypersleep bed, Elizabeth Shaw does not seem, just yet, to be made of the same tough stuff as Vickers. She's retching and puking into a little bowl – and like everybody else, absolutely drenched in sweat.
Holloway seems to be rather more composed, drinking what appears to be milk.
Once everybody is up and dressed, they have a little breakfast. The echoes of Alien in this scene are plentiful. Shaw is wearing a grey uniform that positively screams its callback to the original designs, complete with sewn on patches. Even the table looks familiar.
Next up, a briefing. This scene takes place in a room seen in the trailers, with the crew sitting on basic little chairs. Vickers greats the crew, commenting on how she personally hired some herself. But there's another message for everybody...
Vickers starts the play back of a holographic recording. Half of the room is taken over by the virtual representation of a well-appointed, luxurious room, somewhere back on Earth.
And into this room walks a holographic representation of Peter Weyland, as played by Guy Pearce. But it's not the young Weyland we've seen in the TED talk, this is him many years later, near the end of his life. The message was apparently recorded shortly before the departure of the Prometheus.
Pearce's makeup was not the most convincing I've ever seen, but he's giving it his all under the rubber. Unfortunately, his costume, bald head and little dog on a leash conjured up images of Dr. Evil. It's likely to be no more than an accidentally comic coincidence, but I did wonder for a second if Scott was trying to make Weyland look like a villain, perhaps to later confound this.
During his recorded presentation, Weyland refers to the fact that he'll be dead by "now", and even cracks a joke about it. At the end, when he cedes the floor to "the scientists", Holloway makes his own quip about having to follow a ghost.
It's misdirection: there are other shots of Weyland, at this age, corporeal and very much alive, in one of the earliest trailers.
Holloway calls up the holographic presentation we've seen in the trailer, showing the various cave paintings, carvings and ancient archaeological finds that show, again and again, the space jockey figure pointing to the stars. He projects it, somehow, out of a shiny, relatively featureless object that looks like a Rubiks Cube. I had difficulty understanding the functionality of this item – it seemed like it would be nearly impossible to use. Perhaps it's supposed to be a secure way of storing data, and the complex series of actions that were needed to fire it up, and through touches to a mostly unmarked interface, are some kind of security measure.
The climax of the scene has been seen in the trailers. It's the moment where Shaw explains her interpretation of the recurring "star chart" images. These aren't just maps, she believes – they're invitations.
And then we cut to a minute or so of fast-cut, sizzle footage. Almost all of this seemed to be stuff from the trailers. One sudden image aside, there were no obvious surprises or revelations in this sequence – or, indeed, any new mysteries.
This single, sudden image is hard to explain, and it flashed by so quickly that I'm not sure how accurate my memory of it is, but I want to try and describe the thing I saw.
This thing was clearly some kind of life form, probably alien in origin, though it's believed that mutated humans will feature in the story too. It looked a bit like a flower crossed with a sphincter and it had sharp claws or teeth or other protrusions of that kind. And it seemed to be reaching up and coming towards the screen. There was undoubtedly a touch of "Facehugger plus" about this thing.
It's fair to say that the audience were impressed with this morning's presentation. The appearance of a pale cave painting monster and "Dr. Evil" Weyland aside, there were no great plot revelations in what we saw, but the sequence certainly impressed as well as teased – with it's pace, it's mood, with great production design and Dariusz Wolski's superb lighting.
But more about the look, style and craft of the thing when I come back with details of the Q&A later."
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/04/10/ive-just-seen-bunch-of-scenes-from-prometheus-want-tell-about-them/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BleedingCool+%28Bleeding+Cool+Comic+News+%26+Rumors%29 (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/04/10/ive-just-seen-bunch-of-scenes-from-prometheus-want-tell-about-them/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BleedingCool+%28Bleeding+Cool+Comic+News+%26+Rumors%29)
Reactions:
- PrometheusMovieNews (http://www.prometheusmovienews.com/2012/04/prometheus-footage-screening-and-qa-report/)
- BleedingCool (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/04/10/ive-just-seen-bunch-of-scenes-from-prometheus-want-tell-about-them//)
- TotalFilm (http://www.totalfilm.com/news/prometheus-footage-reveal-report/)
- Cinemart (http://cinemart-online.co.uk/2012/04/10/special-report-prometheus-footage-preview//)
- Cine-vue (http://www.cine-vue.com/2012/04/preview-prometheus-footage-reveal-and.html)
- FilmChronicles (http://www.filmchronicles.com/exclusive-look-at-prometheus-with-ridley-scott/)
Hi, I don't really want to read these as for spoilers. I was just wondering if they commented on if the music is good or not?
Thanks.
Thanx Darkoo... :)
I might as well check it out as it is almost impossible not to hear about the new details, considering there's still almost 2 months to go..
PS: thanx Valaquen - much appreciated :)
They say there aren't many spoilers but there seems to be a god few details relating to the feel of the film. I skimmed it. Didn't read it word for word.
And Scott pretty much confirms in the Q and A what we all were thinking regarding Rapace and a creature. Great. It's my own fault for looking at the trailer too much. Or is it their fault for providing us with certain information?
I wonder if the cave painting monster is the proto alien..
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 10, 2012, 12:28:26 PM
And Scott pretty much confirms in the Q and A what we all were thinking regarding Rapace and a creature. Great. It's my own fault for looking at the trailer too much. Or is it their fault for providing us with certain information?
QuoteAt this point, people are so vested in the experience they're going to have watching the movie that many of them are actually pushing back against the release of information. It's such a rare experience, these days, to walk into a movie without having been fed most of it already. Years ago, I was lucky enough to be working very, very hard at the time The Matrix came out, and I hadn't seen TV in months. I had had my head in a computer, the entire time. And, when I went to see The Matrix, I didn't know anything about it. Nothing, at all. And, I had one of the most amazing experiences in a movie theater, ever. All the surprises really were surprises, and my mind was completely blown. I think that someone who gets to walk into Prometheus tabula rasa is going to have a similarly thrilling ride.
Jon Spaihts
Nipping this in the bud - any more unwarranted passive aggressive baiting and more than posts will be deleted. I've deleted the unnecessary posts. Keep on topic.
There's not too much that is news to us apart from piecing together some of the footage we've seen already and bits of information on connecting footage. But I'm glad they didn't reveal too much.
I'm curious about the score though. Did any of the scenes presented have score attached to them? Sometimes less score is more and can really help create an unsettling tone when there's long periods of silence (musically speaking) and only sound effects and dialogue.
I've only skimmed through the summaries so maybe I missed something but interestingly enough they don't mention anything score related.
http://www.prometheusforum.net/discussion/525/prometheus-new-20-min-footage-updates-coming-in-fast (http://www.prometheusforum.net/discussion/525/prometheus-new-20-min-footage-updates-coming-in-fast)
a collection of twitter comments and impressions i can't be bothered cut and pasting them all.
WTF. i believed it was made out of stone
Spoiler
Quotethe revelation that that giant head "is moving"
from TOTALFILM link
Also glad that it now seems to be confirmed that this film does not take place on LV-426.
A detail... Shaw is having her 'chestburster-inspired' scene with no other actors involved. That's pretty insane if no one is aware of that huge 'thing' growing inside of her or her being infected at all...
@Vickers - nice looking avatar/sig you've designed there - Shamash too 8)
Quote from: zuzuki on Apr 10, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
WTF. i believed it was made out of stone
Spoiler
Quotethe revelation that that giant head "is moving"
from TOTALFILM link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc#)
Quote from: Eva on Apr 10, 2012, 01:09:15 PM
@Vickers - nice looking avatar/sig you've designed there - Shamash too 8)
Girls gotta wear the best outfit she can get her hands on : )
Quote from: zuzuki on Apr 10, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
WTF. i believed it was made out of stone
Spoiler
Quotethe revelation that that giant head "is moving"
from TOTALFILM link
I know right? How xan the other reports leave such a major twist out? And the cave painted portrayel, as well as creature jumping at screen? Come on, we saw the discovery into in the trailers... I want deets on the lifeforms
Quote from: alex.isonfire on Apr 10, 2012, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: zuzuki on Apr 10, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
WTF. i believed it was made out of stone
Spoiler
Quotethe revelation that that giant head "is moving"
from TOTALFILM link
I know right? How xan the other reports leave such a major twist out? And the cave painted portrayel, as well as creature jumping at screen? Come on, we saw the discovery into in the trailers... I want deets on the lifeforms
That will probably be on the facebook update of the day.
And I always thought ZARDOZ the moment I saw the Giant Head. Love that horrible movie.
Quote from: shamash on Apr 10, 2012, 01:24:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc#)
OMG :laugh:
That belongs in a Monty Python film...
Considering my massive expectations on behalf of how David will pan out, I really digged this snippet from the TotalFilm report:
Quote...before a hologram of Peter Weyland introduces the lead scientists and congratulates them on the mission ahead. As suggested by his TED talk, it's to be one of discovery. He also makes reference to David the android, describing him as "a son" before referring to his absence of a soul. David looks a bit hurt.
I just can't wait anymore for this film... I can't anymore... I need help, guys...
Quote from: Eva on Apr 10, 2012, 01:51:50 PM
Quote from: shamash on Apr 10, 2012, 01:24:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc#)
OMG :laugh:
That belongs in a Monty Python film...
Considering my massive expectations on behalf of how David will pan out, I really digged this snippet from the TotalFilm report:
Quote...before a hologram of Peter Weyland introduces the lead scientists and congratulates them on the mission ahead. As suggested by his TED talk, it's to be one of discovery. He also makes reference to David the android, describing him as "a son" before referring to his absence of a soul. David looks a bit hurt.
I just can't wait anymore for this film... I can't anymore... I need help, guys...
Calm yourself Eva. It's nearly here. You can wait. It's just like waiting for christmas as a kid. The more you complain the longer it seems its gonna arrive.
We're briefly introduced to various crew members (including Idris Elba's scene-stealing badass, the pilot, Janek)
Excellent!
I voted for Janek in the "Which Character are you looking forward to the most?" poll a few days ago. Great to hear he is actually as badass as I suspected he was going to be from the little snippets we see of him in the trailers so far.
Idris Elba is a seriously underrated actor - his performances in Luther and The Wire are outstanding...
idris elba - underrated?
anybody on this site who doesn't like him? :D
Quote from: Arcyarc on Apr 10, 2012, 02:13:11 PM
We're briefly introduced to various crew members (including Idris Elba's scene-stealing badass, the pilot, Janek)
Idris Elba is a seriously underrated actor - his performances in Luther and The Wire are outstanding...
Agreed
Quote from: Eva on Apr 10, 2012, 01:09:15 PM
@Vickers - nice looking avatar/sig you've designed there - Shamash too 8)
Why, thank you! :)
Quote from: shamash on Apr 10, 2012, 01:42:58 PM
From vodi at pf
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fx7lU7.jpg&hash=8a824dafd572a33aee94fef60c351f66917759e8)
i lol'd
:D Lol!
Anyway, the majority of the film might not take place on LV-426 but anything is fair game in those last 8 minutes. ;) I'm guessing the derelict crash happens somewhere in the last 8 minutes but I hope I'm wrong and I think I remember reading something about no footage from the final act of the film being shown yet, so who knows.
sighs....AGAIN....Lindelof himself said that Prometheus WILL NOT end with the derelict crashing on LV426.
Quote from: Eva on Apr 10, 2012, 01:51:50 PM
Quote from: shamash on Apr 10, 2012, 01:24:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc#)
OMG :laugh:
That belongs in a Monty Python film...
Well, Zardoz does begin with a character announcing that the film will be "most satirical". So no it's not meant to be taken very seriously... that bit allways seems to go above people's heads once they see Sean Connery in this :laugh:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fseanconneryday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2Fzardoz-sean-connery.jpg&hash=e02ac145f4ad28baa2d78e68d282da2cf73bf1b5)
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 10, 2012, 03:33:00 PM
sighs....AGAIN....Lindelof himself said that Prometheus WILL NOT end with the derelict crashing on LV426.
Well excuse me for making a mistake and missing one piece of information.
Quote from: Vickers on Apr 10, 2012, 03:21:17 PM
Quote from: Eva on Apr 10, 2012, 01:09:15 PM
@Vickers - nice looking avatar/sig you've designed there - Shamash too 8)
Why, thank you! :)
Quote from: shamash on Apr 10, 2012, 01:42:58 PM
From vodi at pf
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fx7lU7.jpg&hash=8a824dafd572a33aee94fef60c351f66917759e8)
i lol'd
:D Lol!
Anyway, the majority of the film might not take place on LV-426 but anything is fair game in those last 8 minutes. ;) I'm guessing the derelict crash happens somewhere in the last 8 minutes but I hope I'm wrong and I think I remember reading something about no footage from the final act of the film being shown yet, so who knows.
I'm betting the 'crash' happens between the half-way and two-thirds mark.
I would bet that if there are indeed TWO derelict ships, one perhaps escapes (and that's the one LV426 bound?)
Is footage gonna be uploaded to youtube anytime soon?
Would love a look at the extended cave painting and the creature...
Quote from: Glaive on Apr 10, 2012, 03:49:25 PM
Quote from: Vickers on Apr 10, 2012, 03:21:17 PM
Quote from: Eva on Apr 10, 2012, 01:09:15 PM
@Vickers - nice looking avatar/sig you've designed there - Shamash too 8)
Why, thank you! :)
Quote from: shamash on Apr 10, 2012, 01:42:58 PM
From vodi at pf
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fx7lU7.jpg&hash=8a824dafd572a33aee94fef60c351f66917759e8)yeah, I think they sent the Derelict (where?) not many hours before the Prometheus arrive.
i lol'd
:D Lol!
Anyway, the majority of the film might not take place on LV-426 but anything is fair game in those last 8 minutes. ;) I'm guessing the derelict crash happens somewhere in the last 8 minutes but I hope I'm wrong and I think I remember reading something about no footage from the final act of the film being shown yet, so who knows.
I'm betting the 'crash' happens between the half-way and two-thirds mark.
No final act footage, and more interestingly the final act I have read was closed set and few have any idea what happens in it. I wonder if they even kept the final act from the actors not involved in it. This could all be bullshit, but with the level of security surrounding this movie I tend to believe it.
QuoteTheron revealed after the screening that her character is initially detached from the mission, but has actually got a very personal reason for being there. Curioser and curioser...
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/prometheus-footage-reveal-report/ (http://www.totalfilm.com/news/prometheus-footage-reveal-report/)
I'll bet my bottom dollar that Miss Vickers is REALLY Miss Weyland and she's there to look after Daddy! ;D
QuoteScott was then asked a quesiton about the rating of the original Alien, but his answer was a more general one. Starting with a half-joking "I want a certificate that's best for the box office", he made a valid arguement that it's in everyone's interest to make a film that is as accessible to as big an audience as possible. After all, he pointed out, if a studio doesn't make its money back, there are no movies. Even if a rubbish film is a hit, overall it's a good thing. I have to say, as much as I'd like to see a full-on R/18 rated Prometheus, I understand completely that studios are running a business – Scott himself said is a director and a business man. Given that movies like The Woman in Black and The Hunger Games are pushing boundries at the lower rating, I don't think we should be too worried if Prometheus ends up a PG-113/12A – after all, there's always the likely uncut video release.
http://www.prometheusmovienews.com/2012/04/prometheus-footage-screening-and-qa-report/ (http://www.prometheusmovienews.com/2012/04/prometheus-footage-screening-and-qa-report/)
Fair enough really, the studios do have to make money from these projects. Fingers crossed for the directors cut being 18+!
The studios do have to make money from these projects???
Seems to me there just as scared... just like Fox are terrified to push the envelope a bit further..... like cmon... FOX can push for an R/18 Rating.. but they just think of the kids... -_- the hell with that I say.
FOX care about money not about the franchise (AVP example) that was R wasn't it? and it went down hill... if Scott was given full power to make an R/18 Rating Prometheus... it would be the most sickest thing to date.
Quote from: x-M-x on Apr 10, 2012, 05:46:59 PM
The studios do have to make money from these projects???
Seems to me there just as scared... just like Fox are terrified to push the envelope a bit further..... like cmon... FOX can push for an R/18 Rating.. but they just think of the kids... -_- the hell with that I say.
FOX care about money not about the franchise (AVP example) that was R wasn't it? and it went down hill... if Scott was given full power to make an R/18 Rating Prometheus... it would be the most sickest thing to date.
AVP-R was fantastic for an R rated film.
...Oh wait, no it wasn't. :)
Yeah, FOX cares about making money. That's not a bad thing. If Prometheus can deliver a good story and solid atmosphere i'm not really going to miss gore too much.
Quote from: x-M-x on Apr 10, 2012, 05:46:59 PM
The studios do have to make money from these projects???
Seems to me there just as scared... just like Fox are terrified to push the envelope a bit further..... like cmon... FOX can push for an R/18 Rating.. but they just think of the kids... -_- the hell with that I say.
FOX care about money not about the franchise (AVP example) that was R wasn't it? and it went down hill... if Scott was given full power to make an R/18 Rating Prometheus... it would be the most sickest thing to date.
Business is about maximising your profits not pandering to fanbois. Not that I would not appreciate being pandered to! I can, however, understand where they are coming from.
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Apr 10, 2012, 06:05:51 PM
Quote from: x-M-x on Apr 10, 2012, 05:46:59 PM
The studios do have to make money from these projects???
Seems to me there just as scared... just like Fox are terrified to push the envelope a bit further..... like cmon... FOX can push for an R/18 Rating.. but they just think of the kids... -_- the hell with that I say.
FOX care about money not about the franchise (AVP example) that was R wasn't it? and it went down hill... if Scott was given full power to make an R/18 Rating Prometheus... it would be the most sickest thing to date.
Business is about maximising your profits not pandering to fanbois. Not that I would not appreciate being pandered to! I can, however, understand where they are coming from.
True,
But they can at least give what the fans REALLY WANT n make money at the same time... im sure FOX trust Scott?
(seems they don't) - sh!t happens tho...
Quote from: x-M-x on Apr 10, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
True,
But they can at least give what the fans REALLY WANT n make money at the same time... im sure FOX trust Scott?
(seems they don't) - sh!t happens tho...
What fans really want is a good story, solid atmosphere, a solid cast and good characters. Gore, violence, and language are a seasoning. You don't need buckets of blood to make something seem intense or scary.
Quote from: Eva on Apr 10, 2012, 01:51:50 PM
Quote...before a hologram of Peter Weyland introduces the lead scientists and congratulates them on the mission ahead. As suggested by his TED talk, it's to be one of discovery. He also makes reference to David the android, describing him as "a son" before referring to his absence of a soul. David looks a bit hurt.
I just can't wait anymore for this film... I can't anymore... I need help, guys...
Oh god, I know-- that was the part that really got me, too.
I'm sure many people noticed this error, but many sites who recently veiwed the Q&A footage are quoting different dates of when the Prometheus ship is first introduced to the audience.
According to George Wales of Total film, Martyn Contario of Cenimart and even the Prometheus Movie News website itself, the year the Prometheus arrives for it's mission to LV-223 appears to be 2093. Yet other reports by Brendan Connelly of Bleeding Cool and Tony Scudder of Film Chronicles, put the date much closer to what was originally stated as 2085 and say the footage included a title card that lays the date at 2083. So what's the story on this, anyone know why people are seeing different dates when only one can be correct?
Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 10, 2012, 07:21:34 PM
I'm sure many people noticed this error, but many sites who recently veiwed the Q&A footage are quoting different dates of when the Prometheus ship is first introduced to the audience.
According to George Wales of Total film, Martyn Contario of Cenimart and even the Prometheteus Movie News website itself, the year the Prometheus arrives for it's mission to LV-223 appears to be 2093. Yet other reports by Brendan Connelly of Bleeding Cool and Tony Scudder of Film Chronicles, put the date much closer to what was originally stated as 2085 and say the footage included a title card that lays the date at 2083. So what's the story on this, anyone know why people are seeing different dates when only one can be correct?
Typo probably.
EMPIRE online has a write-up: http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs/empire-states/post/p1219 (http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs/empire-states/post/p1219)
Hard to not read those reports but it's tomorrow morning for me.
I'm glad it's not spoilerific stuff they showed.
Can't wait ^^
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Apr 10, 2012, 07:33:22 PM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 10, 2012, 07:21:34 PM
I'm sure many people noticed this error, but many sites who recently veiwed the Q&A footage are quoting different dates of when the Prometheus ship is first introduced to the audience.
According to George Wales of Total film, Martyn Contario of Cenimart and even the Prometheteus Movie News website itself, the year the Prometheus arrives for it's mission to LV-223 appears to be 2093. Yet other reports by Brendan Connelly of Bleeding Cool and Tony Scudder of Film Chronicles, put the date much closer to what was originally stated as 2085 and say the footage included a title card that lays the date at 2083. So what's the story on this, anyone know why people are seeing different dates when only one can be correct?
Typo probably.
Yeah you're probably right about it being a typo, but who is actually correct!! I also noticed the same mistake been made with the initial discovery, the cave scene from the trailer on the Isle of Skye, in which some reports stated the year was 2079, the date I believe to be the correct one, while others say the discovery was made in 2089. ...oh well. :)
Quote
As well as the now well-known "star chart" element in the image, with a taller figure (representative of the Space Jockey) pointing to the heavens, one of the cave drawings shows a big, deadly looking... something, attacking a group of smaller human figures.
This thing is not humanoid, nor does it look like the standard Alien series xenomorph. It's pale, too – not coloured in like the Jockey. For now, there's no telling if this is just a red herring or a little bit of set-up.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/prometheus/trailers/normal_imaxtrailer020.jpg)
Interesting. This, um, whatever it is, perhaps?
Quote from: Bad Replicant on Apr 10, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote
As well as the now well-known "star chart" element in the image, with a taller figure (representative of the Space Jockey) pointing to the heavens, one of the cave drawings shows a big, deadly looking... something, attacking a group of smaller human figures.
This thing is not humanoid, nor does it look like the standard Alien series xenomorph. It's pale, too – not coloured in like the Jockey. For now, there's no telling if this is just a red herring or a little bit of set-up.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/prometheus/trailers/normal_imaxtrailer020.jpg)
Interesting. This, um, whatever it is, perhaps?
I've always thought that tentacle belonged to Shaw's rapidly growing squidlet.
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 10, 2012, 07:47:41 PM
EMPIRE online has a write-up: http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs/empire-states/post/p1219 (http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs/empire-states/post/p1219)
From Empire online article:
QuoteFor example, we learned that the planet on which much of the action takes place is designated LV-223. Just a stone's throw, astronomically speaking, from LV-426, home of Alien and Aliens.
2. Another connection comes in the subtitles informing us about the Prometheus, as Scott did with the Nostromo. It has a crew of 17 (ten more than the Nostromo), it is very, very far from Earth (if we recall correctly, 32x1014 km from Earth, which is approximately 32 HUNDRED TRILLION kilometres from our home planet. Quite a way to go.).
Hmmm, not sure I would qualify a system which is 338 light years away from Earth (if Empire Online is accurate about the km), as a "stone's throw away" from ZR2 (LV-426), which is 39 light years away. Sure, from a galactic perspective, they are practically on top of each other, but from a local, stellar perspective, they are significantly far apart...by almost a full order of magnitude.
It's a figure of speech.
Quote from: dembones on Apr 10, 2012, 09:41:57 PM
Quote from: Bad Replicant on Apr 10, 2012, 09:24:05 PM
Quote
As well as the now well-known "star chart" element in the image, with a taller figure (representative of the Space Jockey) pointing to the heavens, one of the cave drawings shows a big, deadly looking... something, attacking a group of smaller human figures.
This thing is not humanoid, nor does it look like the standard Alien series xenomorph. It's pale, too – not coloured in like the Jockey. For now, there's no telling if this is just a red herring or a little bit of set-up.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/gallery/albums/movies/prometheus/trailers/normal_imaxtrailer020.jpg)
Interesting. This, um, whatever it is, perhaps?
I've always thought that tentacle belonged to Shaw's rapidly growing squidlet.
Probably so. Point is, whatever's hangin' out beyond that door could be same thing depicted in the cave painting.
Dear god in heaven I cannot wait for this film!!!!!!!!!!! I want the book, the toys, the blu ray, the posters!!!!!!!
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 10, 2012, 10:39:44 PMDear god in heaven I cannot wait for this film!!!!!!!!!!! I want the book, the toys, the blu ray, the posters!!!!!!!
...the collectable cola cup!!!! I hear you mate, all of this media content is getting me a little antsy. I have officially reached number 11 on the
Prometheus scale... forgetting my fears and gripes and just letting it happen man. ;D
Good to see confirmation on the LV-426 debate as well.
Spoiler
NEED
THIS
MOVIE
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW.
LOL at Weyland and his little dog. Too bad no footage can be leaked due to the whole 3D thing. I really like the sound of that opening--cryosleep awakening side-effects are always cool.
im sure the twist will not be about that an alien ship would reach the Earth or not...because we all know regarding the future events that its not going to happend but what then....?
"the surprise its in the story" - sir ridley scott
One thing I noticed that enticed me:
Holloway drinking something that looked like milk.
Ring any bells? Curiouser and curiouser.
Would love to see this footage. Very intrigued by the rest of that cave painting (the pale non-human thing).
Quote from: josh_axey on Apr 11, 2012, 01:00:31 AM
One thing I noticed that enticed me:
Holloway drinking something that looked like milk.
Ring any bells? Curiouser and curiouser.
Would love to see this footage. Very intrigued by the rest of that cave painting (the pale non-human thing).
Indeed. Maybe just a passing nod. But it could be, you know,
milk. ;D
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 11, 2012, 01:19:55 AM
Quote from: josh_axey on Apr 11, 2012, 01:00:31 AM
...
Indeed. Maybe just a passing nod. But it could be, you know, milk. ;D
Well yeah :laugh:.
Holloway being the hinted second android seems odd. But you never know :-X.
Why the hell would he be drinking his own blood?
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Apr 11, 2012, 02:52:16 AM
Why the hell would he be drinking his own blood?
Ash did in the original--or something like it.
Many of our favorite film Sociopaths seem to like their Milk.
Alex from "A Clockwork Orange"
Chigurh from "No Country for Old Men"
Leon from "The Professional" (well, he is a noble sociopath)
Ash from "Alien"
Col. Hans Landa from "Inglorious Basterds"
Quote from: Cvalda on Apr 11, 2012, 03:02:25 AM
Quote from: MrSpaceJockey on Apr 11, 2012, 02:52:16 AM
Why the hell would he be drinking his own blood?
Ash did in the original--or something like it.
Yep, and I believe Bishop is seen drinking white milk like fluid at one point as well.
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 11, 2012, 05:07:43 AM
Many of our favorite film Sociopaths seem to like their Milk.
Alex from "A Clockwork Orange"
Chigurh from "No Country for Old Men"
Leon from "The Professional" (well, he is a noble sociopath)
Ash from "Alien"
Col. Hans Landa from "Inglorious Basterds"
I hadn't given that a thought.
Quote from: josh_axey on Apr 11, 2012, 05:58:11 AM
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 11, 2012, 05:07:43 AM
Many of our favorite film Sociopaths seem to like their Milk.
Alex from "A Clockwork Orange"
Chigurh from "No Country for Old Men"
Leon from "The Professional" (well, he is a noble sociopath)
Ash from "Alien"
Col. Hans Landa from "Inglorious Basterds"
I hadn't given that a thought.
I guess it all comes down from Alex.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.gossipcenter.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Ffullsize_image%2Fimages%2Fp%2Fprometheus-main-041112-2.jpg&hash=64a31021bcf20257599dcbfbc58b21c410384f14)
http://celebrity-gossip.net/prometheus/photo/prometheus-stars-14 (http://celebrity-gossip.net/prometheus/photo/prometheus-stars-14)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIcn9DemMc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIcn9DemMc#)
Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 10, 2012, 09:18:34 PM
Yeah you're probably right about it being a typo, but who is actually correct!! I also noticed the same mistake been made with the initial discovery, the cave scene from the trailer on the Isle of Skye, in which some reports stated the year was 2079, the date I believe to be the correct one, while others say the discovery was made in 2089. ...oh well. :)
Its either a typo or the production crew messing about, knowing that the fanbois will get their knickers in a twist over such irrelevant details :laugh:
Here's a fun game: Pick the director...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.gossipcenter.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Ffullsize_image%2Fimages%2Fp%2Fprometheus-main-041112-2.jpg&hash=64a31021bcf20257599dcbfbc58b21c410384f14)
Hint: he's the good-looking one.
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 11, 2012, 05:07:43 AM
Many of our favorite film Sociopaths seem to like their Milk.
Alex from "A Clockwork Orange"
Chigurh from "No Country for Old Men"
Leon from "The Professional" (well, he is a noble sociopath)
Ash from "Alien"
Col. Hans Landa from "Inglorious Basterds"
Luke Skywalker from Star Wars - he got BLUE milk!
That`s why he isn`t sociopath ;)
There's a new interview with Ridley Scott here (Spanish, translated via google): http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotogramas.es%2FPeliculas%2FPrometheus%2FRidley-Scott-No-hay-que-hacer-enfadar-a-los-dioses (http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotogramas.es%2FPeliculas%2FPrometheus%2FRidley-Scott-No-hay-que-hacer-enfadar-a-los-dioses)
If any specific excerpts catch your eye, let me know and I'll translate them myself for you.
Quote from: ikarop on Apr 11, 2012, 02:54:03 PM
There's a new interview with Ridley Scott here (Spanish, translated via google): http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotogramas.es%2FPeliculas%2FPrometheus%2FRidley-Scott-No-hay-que-hacer-enfadar-a-los-dioses (http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotogramas.es%2FPeliculas%2FPrometheus%2FRidley-Scott-No-hay-que-hacer-enfadar-a-los-dioses)
If any specific excerpts catch your eye, let me know and I'll translate them myself for you.
I'm sure an English translation of that is already around, because I recall reading it a couple of days ago. Either that, or Scott is regurgitating the same answers verbatim in every interview.
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 11, 2012, 03:04:57 PM
Quote from: ikarop on Apr 11, 2012, 02:54:03 PM
There's a new interview with Ridley Scott here (Spanish, translated via google): http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotogramas.es%2FPeliculas%2FPrometheus%2FRidley-Scott-No-hay-que-hacer-enfadar-a-los-dioses (http://translate.google.es/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotogramas.es%2FPeliculas%2FPrometheus%2FRidley-Scott-No-hay-que-hacer-enfadar-a-los-dioses)
If any specific excerpts catch your eye, let me know and I'll translate them myself for you.
I'm sure an English translation of that is already around, because I recall reading it a couple of days ago. Either that, or Scott is regurgitating the same answers verbatim in every interview.
i already read it, too.
Oh indeed! Just noticed it's the stuff.co.nz interview. Funny because Fotogramas is one of the biggest movie magazines here and they are selling this as some big exclusive. Even Fox Spain tweeted about it. Oh Fox...
They REALLY are pushing to make us believe Vickers is an android...or is this 'reverse, REVERSE psychology'?
Damn, I'm SO confused.
Quote from: Glaive on Apr 11, 2012, 03:18:36 PM
They REALLY are pushing to make us believe Vickers is an android...or is this 'reverse, REVERSE psychology'?
Damn, I'm SO confused.
On it...
Quote from: Master on Apr 11, 2012, 02:03:00 PM
That`s why he isn`t sociopath ;)
ahh, but he is...
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthehealingtouch.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fjokerpic.jpg&hash=2e2c9600db319313b21f8ec5a5bd49ead2eb4369)
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Apr 11, 2012, 04:28:12 PM
Quote from: Master on Apr 11, 2012, 02:03:00 PM
That`s why he isn`t sociopath ;)
ahh, but he is...
http://thehealingtouch.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/jokerpic.jpg
:laugh:
Also, bear in mind that he was a terrorist and just how many people he killed blowing up the Death Star... :D
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Apr 11, 2012, 04:29:40 PM
Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Apr 11, 2012, 04:28:12 PM
Quote from: Master on Apr 11, 2012, 02:03:00 PM
That`s why he isn`t sociopath ;)
ahh, but he is...
http://thehealingtouch.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/jokerpic.jpg
:laugh:
Also, bear in mind that he was a terrorist and just how many people he killed blowing up the Death Star... :D
Also remember that Luke didn't blow up the Death Star on purpose. I mean, he
wanted to, but ultimately he pretty much arsed it. ;D
Quote from: Despicable Dugong on Apr 11, 2012, 12:52:45 PM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 10, 2012, 09:18:34 PM
Yeah you're probably right about it being a typo, but who is actually correct!! I also noticed the same mistake been made with the initial discovery, the cave scene from the trailer on the Isle of Skye, in which some reports stated the year was 2079, the date I believe to be the correct one, while others say the discovery was made in 2089. ...oh well. :)
Its either a typo or the production crew messing about, knowing that the fanbois will get their knickers in a twist over such irrelevant details :laugh:
Not really irrelevant if you live there.
I took from Scott's comments regarding the MPAA that they had submitted it for a rating and were rather surprisingly given an R. THey obviously want a PG-13, but I gathered from the tone of his response that the MPAA just simply consider this an R film. It's just fundamentally R in their eyes.
Which makes me wonder, even if they keep cutting it to shreds to get the rating down, will that make a difference or is the tone of the movie simply for adults?
So will they begin to cut it to shreds to achieve a PG13 or will they just except that they have on their hands is fundamentally R and keep it that way.
Not sure if it's been posted but here's the transcript. Interesting reading: http://www.flicksandbits.com/2012/04/11/ridley-scott-noomi-rapace-michael-fassbender-charlize-theron-interview-for-prometheus/24078/ (http://www.flicksandbits.com/2012/04/11/ridley-scott-noomi-rapace-michael-fassbender-charlize-theron-interview-for-prometheus/24078/)
Quote from: Darkoo on Apr 11, 2012, 12:41:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIcn9DemMc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIcn9DemMc#)
private filming ....for who?
Well i was at the screening this morning but missed the actual footage (it was only 12 minutes from early in the movie), i attended the press conference, i recorded a bit then filmed a bit before a fox employee assaulted me telling no filming (wtf the tv cameras were for bitch?) Whatever, the question were as usual very dull,the only piece of information that really struck me is when Scott said that the Derelict did not crashed but landed on purpose, he insisted on he did not crashed.
He also said right after that the link between Prometheus and ALIEN is in the last 7/8 minutes again.
I guess that it does really have to do with the Derelict and the SJ...
The lenght is 1H59 without the ending credits.
Thea rating in France will minors under 12 not authorized.
Guess it's PG13.
Noomi insisted a lot on a scene where she went to hell, wich was very disturbing, hard to do for her, but she felts Scott present all the even when she was almost naked and bloddy...
Guess she was talking of the infection/medpod scene wich seems to be the answer to the chesburster scene from ALIEN from what she implied.
What i got from my friend who saw the footage.
Very Blade Runner feel...
3D was so so...
The aging makeup of guy pierce was meh (but not a deal breaker).
I'll upload the little video and audio i got (nothing to see really save for a giant screen with PROMETHEUS poster and 4 small figures i the horizons lol but the audio is ok).
My expectations are lowered a bit from the vibe i got after the screening but people are definitly eager to see the movie.
EDIT, just read the transcript from Flicks and Bits and god these are almost the same questions and answers i heard at the screening today. They must be bored to death to repeat themselves again and again...
Quote from: NGR01 on Apr 12, 2012, 12:11:14 AM
Well i was at the screening this morning but missed the actual footage (it was only 12 minutes from early in the movie), i attended the press conference, i recorded a bit then filmed a bit before a fox employee assaulted me telling no filming (wtf the tv cameras were for bitch?) Whatever, the question were as usual very dull,the only piece of information that really struck me is when Scott said that the Derelict did not crashed but landed on purpose, he insisted on he did not crashed.
He also said right after that the link between Prometheus and ALIEN is in the last 7/8 minutes again.
I guess that it does really have to do with the Derelict and the SJ...
The lenght is 1H59 without the ending credits.
Thea rating in France will minors under 12 not authorized.
Guess it's PG13.
why u miss the footage :o
2 hours of film???!!!!!! this is not epic well maybe the r version
the derelict in Alien didnt crash but landed?? :-\ it sounds like Ridley is trying to fit things.. i dunno one day im very excited about this movie and other day is so-so... well wtf
Quote from: bioweapon on Apr 12, 2012, 12:24:20 AM
Quote from: NGR01 on Apr 12, 2012, 12:11:14 AM
Well i was at the screening this morning but missed the actual footage (it was only 12 minutes from early in the movie), i attended the press conference, i recorded a bit then filmed a bit before a fox employee assaulted me telling no filming (wtf the tv cameras were for bitch?) Whatever, the question were as usual very dull,the only piece of information that really struck me is when Scott said that the Derelict did not crashed but landed on purpose, he insisted on he did not crashed.
He also said right after that the link between Prometheus and ALIEN is in the last 7/8 minutes again.
I guess that it does really have to do with the Derelict and the SJ...
The lenght is 1H59 without the ending credits.
Thea rating in France will minors under 12 not authorized.
Guess it's PG13.
why u miss the footage :o
2 hours of film???!!!!!! this is not epic well maybe the r version
the derelict in Alien didnt crash but landed?? :-\ it sounds like Ridley is trying to fit things.. i dunno one day im very excited about this movie and other day is so-so... well wtf
can't be.
would contradict from what he has said on flicksandbits.com
QuoteI don't know how the hell he got that name; there was this big boned creature who seemed to be nine feet tall sitting in this chair and I went in to Fox with four questions. Who are they? Why are they there? Why that cargo and where were they going or had they in fact had a forced landing?
Yep missed the footage because of bad timing.
Had to drop my kid at the nanny then took me longer than i expected to get to the theatre.
It was quite early and everytime when you get those big stars events, fox press team gets all crazy and speed.
It's almost as they diss the people they organize the screening for its crazy...
Must be a french thing coz it seems that journalists from abroad are usually very happy of their experiments in such events.
But seriously i'm not dissapointed to have missed the footage.
It was really not much. Next time it will be for the full movie and i will not miss it ^^
Yeah Kol just read this transcript and i assure you that is what he said this morning.
That the derelict did not crashed but landed (it struck me because it was a quite important piece of info to me), maybe it was a forced landing on purpose lol. Don't know what the subtilities are but he did said that it landed not crashed.
In the Morning theres the AVENGERS pres screening but i'm too f**king tired to do the same marathon as today...
Going to bed now, will upload the video bit i have tommorow ;)
Nothing much to see but just to share.
He merely speculates whether it was a forced landing. Perhaps you can read some motive/intent in that comment, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rua8WuG9x9E#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rua8WuG9x9E#ws)
You're the best, Darkoo!
Quote from: Darkoo on Apr 12, 2012, 08:11:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rua8WuG9x9E#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rua8WuG9x9E#ws)
thank god for the french narration >:(
Thanks Darkoo ^^
Now i will see it better lol
BTW i went to AVENGERS.
It sucks.
Ive read many people think that avengers is really good, places like slash film and even Devin Farraci liked it
Quote from: NGR01 on Apr 12, 2012, 09:33:45 AM
Thanks Darkoo ^^
Now i will see it better lol
BTW i went to AVENGERS.
It sucks.
Comment removed - please refrain from baiting other members.
Sorry Valaquen ;)
Shamash, really had a hard time staying awake this morning.
I'll go see it again.
But it didnt work for me this morning.
Sets feel to fake and some cgi too cartoony to me.
One thing i liked is the teamwork, the way all the characters are handled together.
But since Serenity i was not affraid of that aspect in Whedon's work.
i really dont understand why people are so snobby about film around here, this is essentially a forum dedicated to the Aliens Vs Predator movies, its a really silly attitude to have.
back on topic.
Yeah that French Narration was a struggle, does anyone have a transcript of that video in english?
Quote from: Darkoo on Apr 11, 2012, 12:41:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIcn9DemMc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIcn9DemMc#)
Ughhhh, fuggin' paparazzi freaks.
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Apr 12, 2012, 10:34:33 AM
Quote from: Darkoo on Apr 11, 2012, 12:41:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIcn9DemMc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIcn9DemMc#)
Ughhhh, fuggin' paparazzi freaks.
Indeed. I'd feel claustrophobic.
Quote from: Vickers on Apr 12, 2012, 10:42:55 AM
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Apr 12, 2012, 10:34:33 AM
Quote from: Darkoo on Apr 11, 2012, 12:41:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIcn9DemMc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEIcn9DemMc#)
Ughhhh, fuggin' paparazzi freaks.
Indeed. I'd feel claustrophobic.
Ha ha i'm there in that video ^^
I stayed away from the crowd.
Papparazzi are not the worst here.
It's the fans.
One guy has almost hugging Scott to get a f**king poster signed.
Later i was at their hotel and those f**king groupies were there too.
Get a life you f**ks.
Quote from: NGR01 on Apr 12, 2012, 10:04:22 AM
Sorry Valaqueen ;)
Maaaan, that's my fiance's name ;)
Woops sorry again then ^^
Yep i'm talking about those leech fans that almost assaulted the crew.
I got a life and a decent job thank you for caring ;)
And no i'm not like them, i don't care for signed posters or such stuff. Really not my cup of tea.
Especially when it means assaulting an artist like they did.
So Ridley and Co arrived AFTER the footage was shown??
In Paris yes,
the footage then "and now please welcome Sir Ridley Scott & co".
Later at an hotel nearby they made one on one interviews with the big french medias.
So, Ridley said that the runtime of the movie is 1:59 and its very tight an its what it should be...... he also said that there was a longer version of it (extra 17 minutes)
But I still can't believe how the EPIC movie with some huge thematic elements can be so "short" :-\
Quote from: CanisMajoris on Apr 12, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
So, Ridley said that the runtime of the movie is 1:59 and its very tight an its what it should be...... he also said that there was a longer version of it (extra 17 minutes)
But I still can't believe how the EPIC movie with some huge thematic elements can be so "short" :-\
yup, very disappointing. they did compare it, from the start to the nearly 4 hour blockbuster "lawrence of arabia" and now it turns to be half of it's size. what a shit load of f**k... :-[
2 hours is not short especially if the movie gets down to business fast.
Like it seems to be the case.
Quote from: NGR01 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:22:47 PM
2 hours is not short especially if the movie gets down to business fast.
Like it seems to be the case.
it's too short.
Hmmm :-\ I wish it was about two and half hours, but I wish that upon every movie I am excited for. 1:59 isn't bad, but you'll have to take away at least 7 minutes of credits, so we're down to 1:52, atleast. Nitpicking, I know.
Also, we have to remember that we are dealing with one of the greediest companies out there. I wouldn't put it past FOX to make Ridley cut it down 45 minutes or so to fit another showing in per day.
4 hours is NOT a viable running time for something that could potentially make loads of cash. If a film is 3 hours, that means less showings...of course, this may mean nothing as Titanic and Avatar have 3 hour run times.....but Scott doesn't have that kind of credibility. If Prometheus does gangbusters then he can make the sequel as long as he wants it. I hope it does 100+ million the first weekend...then Ridley will be able to do whatever he wants for the foreseeable future.
Well, the ALIEN was even shorter..... But even Ridley said that it was just a C story done in an A way......just a killing of bench of people in the claustrophobic environment .... "alien felt EPIC, but this IS EPIC" c RS.
But how then?? ???
100million+ opening weekend probably won't happen. I'm thinking, maybe, if the reviews and marketing are good, somewhere around 50 million.
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:27:33 PM
Hmmm :-\ I wish it was about two and half hours, but I wish that upon every movie I am excited for. 1:59 isn't bad, but you'll have to take away at least 7 minutes of credits, so we're down to 1:52, atleast. Nitpicking, I know.
Also, we have to remember that we are dealing with one of the greediest companies out there. I wouldn't put it past FOX to make Ridley cut it down 45 minutes or so to fit another showing in per day.
1:59 without credits..... but its still short....
avatar was 40 minute longer and it f$#ed up every single movie in BO....
just curious how they squeezed everything in 2 hours, but i feel i'll be disappointed.... :(
I see. 2 hours isn't THAT short, dude. They could pull an AVP and make it 90 minutes.
Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:44:11 PM
I see. 2 hours isn't THAT short, dude. They could pull an AVP and make it 90 minutes.
Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.
yeah... I could live with that....... if it was R..
I see they want to make as much money as possible, but making it shorter and + compromising the rating and watering it down is what I call a Fu$ed Up Movie.. :P
BTW Ridley is sure that the runtime is perfect for this and it gives me some hope... but still :-[
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:44:11 PM
Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.
...surely you're not serious!!! ::)
Ahh. Yes, Fu$ed up. Makes perfect sense. :P :laugh:
The PG-13 rating was pretty shitty, but hearing Ridley Scott, one of my inspirations, sell out was the hardest part.
Damnit, Scott! :'(
Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 12, 2012, 02:52:52 PM
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:44:11 PM
Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.
...surely you're not serious!!! ::)
Surely you aren't. Look at Cameron's last two movies $$$$ wise, now look at Scott's.
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:54:38 PM
Ahh. Yes, Fu$ed up. Makes perfect sense. :P :laugh:
The PG-13 rating was pretty shitty, but hearing Ridley Scott, one of my inspirations, sell out was the hardest part. Damnit, Scott! :'(
Well, even waaay back when he was promoting The Duellists, Scot in interviews claimed to make films for a wide audience. This continued throughout his career. There's just more people paying attention to what he says now.
Quote from: CanisMajoris on Apr 12, 2012, 02:39:15 PM
avatar was 40 minute longer and it f$#ed up every single movie in BO....
Granted, Avatar was a success but the story could have very easily been told in 2 hours.
Well...Yeah, I understand that, and that's the way I want to be too, but he just came out and said "what's the point if no one would see it" or something along those lines. People were going to see it no matter the rating. He could have stuck to his guns and made it R.
Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 12, 2012, 02:52:52 PM
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:44:11 PM
Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.
...surely you're not serious!!! ::)
Yes, he IS serious.
...and DON'T call him Shirley.
...(someone had to...) ;D
Quote from: Glaive on Apr 12, 2012, 03:03:49 PM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 12, 2012, 02:52:52 PM
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:44:11 PM
Remember, Avatar had James Cameron, the beginning of the 3-D craze, and, well some other stuff I won't mention. Prometheus has Ridley Scott, yes, but his name isn't as automatic as Cameron(in the public eyes). And the 3-D might help it, but this isn't being released at the beginning of the current 3-D craze, its coming at the end.
...surely you're not serious!!! ::)
Yes, he IS serious.
...and DON'T call him Shirley.
...(someone had to...) ;D
Damnit! :laugh: Wish I would'a thought of that. Nice one, Glaive.
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:27:33 PM
Hmmm :-\ I wish it was about two and half hours, but I wish that upon every movie I am excited for. 1:59 isn't bad, but you'll have to take away at least 7 minutes of credits, so we're down to 1:52, atleast. Nitpicking, I know.
Also, we have to remember that we are dealing with one of the greediest companies out there. I wouldn't put it past FOX to make Ridley cut it down 45 minutes or so to fit another showing in per day.
Scott said it was 1H59 without the credits.
Again its all about execution.
Its the same with the rating.
Have a little faith fellows.
But, SERIOUSLY, 2 hours is at least an extra screening (if not two) per screen, per cinema, per day...let THAT sink in...
Quote from: CanisMajoris on Apr 12, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
So, Ridley said that the runtime of the movie is 1:59 and its very tight an its what it should be...... he also said that there was a longer version of it (extra 17 minutes)
But I still can't believe how the EPIC movie with some huge thematic elements can be so "short" :-\
Yes, that's really disappointing, expected it to be 2 hrs 30 mins at least, especially for such a huge summer 3D blockbuster release. Then again, what with Rothman pushing for a PG-13 and all the hype FOX is putting behind this movie to put bums on seats, I'm probably not the only one here thinking maybe they've shown too much already. I wouldn't be suprised if this film was butchered for its theatrical release, but with home cinema systems so great these days as long as we get old Riddles' version at some point, I couldn't care less. :D
Quote from: NGR01 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:07:27 PM
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 02:27:33 PM
Hmmm :-\ I wish it was about two and half hours, but I wish that upon every movie I am excited for. 1:59 isn't bad, but you'll have to take away at least 7 minutes of credits, so we're down to 1:52, atleast. Nitpicking, I know.
Also, we have to remember that we are dealing with one of the greediest companies out there. I wouldn't put it past FOX to make Ridley cut it down 45 minutes or so to fit another showing in per day.
Scott said it was 1H59 without the credits.
Again its all about execution.
Its the same with the rating.
Have a little faith fellows.
Oh, I have faith, man. Even with the less than ideal running time, and the PG-13 rating, I will be there Friday at noon with the biggest smile in the world on my face.
And we will be all chanting in our minds "please dont suck please dont suck please dont suck"
;)
Is the runtime confirmed on that Youtube video? The French voice over is giving me a headache...
Quote from: NGR01 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:12:55 PM
And we will be all chanting in our minds "please dont suck please dont suck please dont suck"
;)
...and probably more so after that first screening....
"what did we miss....what did we miss" lol
Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 12, 2012, 03:16:19 PM
Quote from: NGR01 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:12:55 PM
And we will be all chanting in our minds "please dont suck please dont suck please dont suck"
;)
...and probably more so after that first sceeening....
"what did we miss....what did we miss" lol
That's what I hope to be saying for days if not weeks after my first screening. :)
My god.....you people...nothing satisfies you...
"It's only 2 hours? I'm already disappointed"
"It's not rate R? It'll suck. You sellout Ridley Scott."
"Too much CGI...You sold out Ridley Scott. but use CG with to make the Jockey seem 13 foot tall, that's fine"
:P :P :P :D :o ??? ??? :laugh:
Try reading more before you post shit like that. Seriously, leave that to other people, not you, Bethesda.
And you can't say you a truly satisfied or not satisfied until you've see the movie.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 12, 2012, 03:29:08 PM
My god.....you people...nothing satisfies you...
"It's only 2 hours? I'm already disappointed"
"It's not rate R? It'll suck. You sellout Ridley Scott."
"Too much CGI...You sold out Ridley Scott. but use CG with to make the Jockey seem 13 foot tall, that's fine"
No one actually said
any of that, they just expressed an opinion about it... isn't that what these forums are for!! Stop being such a killjoy...pleeeaaassssee. ;D
Quote from: ikarop on Apr 12, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
Is the runtime confirmed on that Youtube video? The French voice over is giving me a headache...
Source
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=hu&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.silence-action.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fapercu-prometheus-science-fiction-prestige%2F (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=hu&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.silence-action.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fapercu-prometheus-science-fiction-prestige%2F)
When checking that link it said the movie is indeed 119 minutes :).
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:31:52 PM
Try reading more before you post shit like that. Seriously, leave that to other people, not you, Bethesda.
And you can't say you a truly satisfied or not satisfied until you've see the movie.
Try understanding sarcasm/ irony before you post, Prime113.
Quote from: Glaive on Apr 12, 2012, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:31:52 PM
Try reading more before you post shit like that. Seriously, leave that to other people, not you, Bethesda.
And you can't say you a truly satisfied or not satisfied until you've see the movie.
Try understanding sarcasm/ irony before you post, Prime113.
We all know sarcasm does not go well over on the interwebs. That's why there are such things as emoticons, specifically this one - :P - And how do you know for sure he was being sarcastic or ironic?
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:45:47 PM
Quote from: Glaive on Apr 12, 2012, 03:42:15 PM
Quote from: Prime113 on Apr 12, 2012, 03:31:52 PM
Try reading more before you post shit like that. Seriously, leave that to other people, not you, Bethesda.
And you can't say you a truly satisfied or not satisfied until you've see the movie.
Try understanding sarcasm/ irony before you post, Prime113.
We all know sarcasm does not go well over on the interwebs. That's why there are such things as emoticons, specifically this one - :P - And how do you know for sure he was being sarcastic or ironic?
Reading his entire post.
Hmmm, I'm not seeing how you could do that. I've seen plenty of post like that on this thread. Maybe they were all being sarcastic and not actually getting fed up with people bitching about rating and runtime. :-\
I'm actually MORE curious how you could translate that ANY other way...believe me, I'm as baffled by YOU, as you are by ME.
...also, if you NEED to post an emoticon to show a point...it REALLY undermines things.
(...ahhh, you're American...that explains...)
Because that's-
Actually, since your last post was quite humorous, I'm gonna call truce.
Stay on topic guys.
A 119 min run time would do for me :)
We were never at war...
"Hi, I'm Glaive, and I'm a "Prometheus-o-holic...Nice ta know ya!!"
Quote from: Darkoo on Apr 12, 2012, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: ikarop on Apr 12, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
Is the runtime confirmed on that Youtube video? The French voice over is giving me a headache...
Source
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=hu&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.silence-action.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fapercu-prometheus-science-fiction-prestige%2F (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=hu&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.silence-action.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fapercu-prometheus-science-fiction-prestige%2F)
I know :). Fox France posted the recording but I'm trying to get the actual quote from Ridley for the news. The question about the director's cut is asked at minute 30 but the voice over is way to loud to make out the words.
Quote from: Glaive on Apr 12, 2012, 03:58:29 PM
We were never at war...
"Hi, I'm Glaive, and I'm a "Prometheus-o-holic...Nice ta know ya!!"
:laugh: Yes, we were never at war, but as Alien3 said, we were getting off-topic just a little. :)
119 minutes would be awesome! :-*
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 12, 2012, 04:56:24 PM
119 minutes would be awesome! :-*
lol just round it up... 1 Min off by 2 hours? wow if it's true.. still tho...
A.L.I.E.N Runtime: 117 Min | 116 min (director's cut)
Aliens Runtime: 137 Min and the USA: 154 min (special edition)
Alien³ Runtime: 114 min | 145 min (2003 Special 'Assembly Cut' Edition)
Alien Resurrection Runtime: 109 min | 116 min (2003 Special Edition)
Prometheus Runtime: 119 Min (hope we get around 140 min on the blu-ray)
Damn, still better than nothing.
2 hours is more than enough time to have my mind blown. I do have a feeling now though that the movie will be PG-13 and those extra 17 mins will be the NR (R) version we will get on Blu-Ray. But, even if it is PG-13, i'm sure it will still be an amazing film.
I've asked this before but....why can't Fox release 2 versions?? Is there a law against it?
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 12, 2012, 06:49:22 PM
I've asked this before but....why can't Fox release 2 versions?? Is there a law against it?
It's not financially feasible and would likely confuse the audience. Not to mention potentially divide and then lose some of their audience.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 12, 2012, 06:49:22 PM
I've asked this before but....why can't Fox release 2 versions?? Is there a law against it?
I think, and lets just say it's going to be PG 13, there is no reason why the IMAX 3D versions can't be rated R, and the other versions be rated PG-13.
Quote from: Samus007 on Apr 12, 2012, 06:56:31 PM
I think, and lets just say it's going to be PG 13, there is no reason why the IMAX 3D versions can't be rated R, and the other versions be rated PG-13.
If they're all PG-13, they make that much more money. That's why.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 12, 2012, 06:57:48 PM
Quote from: Samus007 on Apr 12, 2012, 06:56:31 PM
I think, and lets just say it's going to be PG 13, there is no reason why the IMAX 3D versions can't be rated R, and the other versions be rated PG-13.
If they're all PG-13, they make that much more money. That's why.
I do agree to some extent, but lets be honest, those IMAX 3D versions are going to be sell-outs even at an R rating. And the film only gets about a 2 week run in IMAX before being replaced by the next big release anyway.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 12, 2012, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 12, 2012, 06:49:22 PM
I've asked this before but....why can't Fox release 2 versions?? Is there a law against it?
It's not financially feasible and would likely confuse the audience. Not to mention potentially divide and then lose some of their audience.
Shrek 2 had 2 versions out in the cinema. One for kids which had the sexual references removed and the full theatrical cut. its been done before
Great new! 2 hours is the perfect run time i think, plenty can happen in 2 hours! And there will be an extended cut too! This is awesome news!
Well I doubt I'm jumping the gun in assuming the rating with be PG-13.
It's just complete and utter nonsense now though to go and pay to see something well aware that I'm not being provided with the proper product. We know it's watered down now. It's a fact.
I hope we get the R-rated version in Europe :)
The US is an interesting nation..
"Oh no, we CANT have sex and voilence in movies, cause that would "hurt" our childrens perception" ....
"and on the other hand we think it is absolutely OK to sell guns to people."
Quote from: NGR01 on Apr 12, 2012, 11:50:33 AM
Yep i'm talking about those leech fans that almost assaulted the crew.
I got a life and a decent job thank you for caring ;)
And no i'm not like them, i don't care for signed posters or such stuff. Really not my cup of tea.
Especially when it means assaulting an artist like they did.
I was a keen fan once, then my "idol" signed some stuff for me and all that "wow" feeling was gone. Now, all fans seems to me as some kind of freaks..
But I was once freak too :D
As a lifelong RS fan, I was really hoping for something around 2 1/2 myself but I guess I can understand the reasoning behind 1H59M. Your casual movie goer/date night couple like movies that are under two hours and a long running time can be the deciding factor when their standing at the box office window deciding what movie to see. Most people are not the rabid fans as we are that are going to hang on EVERY word uttered in this movie. Anyway, after this absolutely agonizing wait, we get to do it immediately again while waiting for the Blue Ray Edition and wanting to hear Ridleys commentary!
Well it's Ridley "business" sense that's the reason he's still making movies these days after a ton of flops.
Flops, many of which I've enjoyed but flops none the less from a commercial perspective.
I know he's "not stupid" as he says himself. Just wish he had more balls when pushing HIS vision out into the cinema.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 12, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
Well I doubt I'm jumping the gun in assuming the rating with be PG-13.
It's just complete and utter nonsense now though to go and pay to see something well aware that I'm not being provided with the proper product. We know it's watered down now. It's a fact.
I agree. If I am going to pay to see this movie, I dont want to watch the version that was watered down for 13 year olds. No offense to the young fans but this movie should be rated R. Sorry Riddles! You won't be getting any of my $$.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 12, 2012, 07:26:10 PM
Well I doubt I'm jumping the gun in assuming the rating with be PG-13.
It's just complete and utter nonsense now though to go and pay to see something well aware that I'm not being provided with the proper product. We know it's watered down now. It's a fact.
I agree too, though I don't think I can until the dvd comes out with the proper director's cut, I mean I'm going to see the watered down subproduct of Prometheus the day of Its release.
Guys the rating system is mostly utter nonsense.
Look what Verhoevhen used to do, shoot hardcore violent scenes that he would gladely cut just to make sure that what he really wanted would pass unoticed.
This is a massive blockbuster movie, it almost did not happen when Scott said he wanted an R and fox said no.
Then Scott toght about it, do i really want to do this movie? Yes whats need to be done will be done.
But i have both options.
At least he shot what he needed for the R cut.
Now if you're able to wait for the DVD release to see the movie more power to you.
But seriously ranting about the rating and the running time.
See the movie then shred it to pieces if you hate it.
Tell 'ya what I'm gonna do . . . . . I'm going to see the theatrical release but I'm gonna try my hardest to just view it as a trailer for the upcoming 3-4 month away Blue Ray release!
I just don't like being treated like a child and an idiot by companies who want me to pay money to go see a censored product that they made suitable for 13 year olds when I'm a 26 year old man.
The movie will be just less graphic.
It won't ruin the story.
Based on the footage that has been shown it seems like the film get's straight into the plot, with none of that long-driven nothingness that happens in a lot of long films these days which could easily be done without. Two hours is a perfect length for a film like this - like Alien which was little under two hours, the first half of the film will more than likely introduce the audience to all of the characters and of course set everything up - all the mythology and exploration will be delivered, and then the second half of the film will be the horror, and when shit goes down!
As for the PG-13 thing - it hasn't actually been confirmed that the film is a PG-13 yet, has it? Of course, the explanation for the 17 minutes cut from the film could be due to the rating, and that would be slightly disappointing - but it's not that we would never get the uncut version. Ridley will most-definitely include it on the DVD/Blu-Ray. But it could still possibly be an R-Rated film.
Also, the 17 minutes cut may not exactly mean that that's all they have cut. The film could have been screened for the MPAA, and upon cutting the film they removed 17 minutes. There could be more cut that they just never thought to include in the film for the Theatrical Cut.
In the end though - I think two hours is perfect - and 136 minute director's cut on Blu-Ray will be a nice bonus.
Now...I want a couple more posters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The thing that disappoints me most is, this movie has been described as "epic," even by Sir Riddles himself, right! When I think of "epic" I think of movies built on a massive scale, with a production to match, stories that develop and take their time. Movies like Ben Hur (1959 - $16 million, 212 minutes), 2001: A Space Odessy (1968 - $10 million, 141 minutes), Spartacus (1960 - $12 million, 184 minutes). More recently, Gladiator (2000 - $103 million, 155 minutes), Lord of the Rings (2001 - $93 million, 178 minutes), King Kong (2005 - $207 million, 187 minutes), Robin Hood (2010 - $200 million, 140 minutes. All these movies, whatever we think of them, had huge scale and big budgets for their time, but they also have something else in common... they didn't feel rushed.
Of course we all know movie making has changed so much lately. But we also know what Ridley Scott is capable of, that Prometheus has a massive production worth up to a reported $200 million, and we've all seen proof of the epic scale it could be, but with a running time of just 119 minutes it strikes me as anything but epic. Obviously the problem for the studio is how to sell their product to the masses not just the fans. I just think with so many fans of this genre waiting to see this movie, putting it out as PG-13 while bad enough is understandable, but if Prometheus is truly meant to be "epic", why risk hurting it's theatrical release even more by possibly cutting it to shreads, when it's pretty obvious who's going to want to see this type of film and no guarentees the movie will attract an outside audience in he first place!
Even with all the hype, I STILL talk to people who don't know what Prometheus is, while the people expected to see it most, us the Alien/Predatopr fans, who I'd wager would see Prometheus many times if it's great, might well be the same people put off seeing it at all if they hear the movie fails to measure up. And just imagine, all this could happen because one person thought 'if the movie was shorter more people would go see it, and so it would make more money.' Well, I hate to burst your bubble Mr Rothman, but it doesn't always work that way. And I wonder, are you just trying it on because you really didn't like what you saw and just want it over with... in which case we should all be worried!!
ALIEN when it was re-released in france as its director's cut version was PG-13...
Time have changed and it's not like both ALIEN & ALIENS were ULTRA GORE.
In fact it wasn't at all, the only scene I can see pretty bloody is the chestburster but everything else was off screen and too quick and didn't spoil much.
So I don't really see the problem since most of the time a film that is planned as R-rated MUST aim to an audience that wants R-rated things (SAW, AVP REQUIEM, PIRANHA, CHAINSAW MASSACRE, etc.) and I ABSOLUTELY don't want Prometheus to turns to be like this.
But if you do, it's fine, I mean we all want another AVP requiem, right? :D
A solid 2 hours is fine as long as they don't dick around too much at the start.
But my Space Jockey God, the suits in Fox are ridiculous.
The 17 minutes might have been worth cutting to keep the film tighter, might not be a content thing.
Still hoping they release a harder cut in Europe.
For some reason they obsess over the domestic gross more than the international. Can't remember why.
Needing a movie to be 2.5 hours plus to be epic may be a little misguided. There are a dozen films I can name you right now that are fantastic and epic in scope that are exactly or under 2 hours. 119 minutes is 2 hours and 20 minutes...and that's a good amount of time to be sitting still in a theater. I would bet that if Ridley needed it to be longer, he would have made it longer.
You're just grinding metal, ease down....ease down....;) :)
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 12, 2012, 09:53:38 PM
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 12, 2012, 09:51:36 PM
119 minutes is 2 hours and 20 minutes...
Ehhhhh.......
Exactly what I was thinking. But, maybe he was adding in the previews and such.
Quote from: Le Celticant on Apr 12, 2012, 09:40:12 PM
ALIEN when it was re-released in france as its director's cut version was PG-13...
Time have changed and it's not like both ALIEN & ALIENS were ULTRA GORE.
In fact it wasn't at all, the only scene I can see pretty bloody is the chestburster but everything else was off screen and too quick and didn't spoil much.
I was actually watching
Alien a week ago with a friend, and we both noted how if this was a new film release in this day-and-age, other than the chestbursting scene (mainly due to the gore) that no way would
Alien be a solid R-Rating. There is barely any bad language, or any nudity, and the only violence comes from the Alien itself and from Ash.
Wasn't Ridley's
Robin Hood a PG-13? And, that had a nice amount of violence in it - without being gory, and let's face it - except for that single scene that is remotely gory is the chestbursting scene, as you stated.
Ridley will make sure he releases the film that he wants to release. There's no way someone like Ridley Scott would just release the film, trimmed down to his distaste just to make money. The film will be great - I have faith :)
Seriously people are suprised that the R cut was not selected?
Come on from the moment that Scott started to avoid the question by not giving a straight answer it was done.
Seriously you think Rothman will go with "yeah released the R even if we lose money it's so good it's worth it"
Also 2 hours of a shitty movie can be very long.
3 hours of a great movie can pass like flash.
It's the content that counts.
Just to explain a bit about the "17 minutes cut" which many people did not get.
I've seen the interview (and I'm french if you wonder) and I think according to what Ridley tried to say was:
He did an error in the early stage of editing by removing 17 minutes of the film and noticed it was too short and lacked of some things so he decided to do changes to give us a "very good version for the theatrical release".
So it's not 17 minutes that has been cut, it is probably less since he mentioned that the version of this editing was a bit too rushed and then later he modified it (so he may have extended it) to give us the final version we'll get.
The narrative of Spartacus is pure pain for me, although I love Peter Ustinov's performance.
Quote from: Le Celticant on Apr 12, 2012, 09:40:12 PM
ALIEN when it was re-released in france as its director's cut version was PG-13...
Time have changed and it's not like both ALIEN & ALIENS were ULTRA GORE.
In fact it wasn't at all, the only scene I can see pretty bloody is the chestburster but everything else was off screen and too quick and didn't spoil much.
So I don't really see the problem since most of the time a film that is planned as R-rated MUST aim to an audience that wants R-rated things (SAW, AVP REQUIEM, PIRANHA, CHAINSAW MASSACRE, etc.) and I ABSOLUTELY don't want Prometheus to turns to be like this.
But if you do, it's fine, I mean we all want another AVP requiem, right? :D
This isn't about adding more blood, gore, and dirty language. It's about combining violent and sexual imagery together, mixing in a way that raises more questions than answers. These are adult themes.
Flailing about like a madman, squirting blood, and dropping "F" bombs is more PG-13 adolescent material to me. Prometheus should deal with adult themes of violent and sexual imagery mixed together to draw a sense of dread and bewilderment from the audience. Making the audience exit their comfort zone (for 119 minutes)
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 12, 2012, 10:24:55 PM
Quote from: Le Celticant on Apr 12, 2012, 09:40:12 PM
ALIEN when it was re-released in france as its director's cut version was PG-13...
Time have changed and it's not like both ALIEN & ALIENS were ULTRA GORE.
In fact it wasn't at all, the only scene I can see pretty bloody is the chestburster but everything else was off screen and too quick and didn't spoil much.
So I don't really see the problem since most of the time a film that is planned as R-rated MUST aim to an audience that wants R-rated things (SAW, AVP REQUIEM, PIRANHA, CHAINSAW MASSACRE, etc.) and I ABSOLUTELY don't want Prometheus to turns to be like this.
But if you do, it's fine, I mean we all want another AVP requiem, right? :D
This isn't about adding more blood, gore, and dirty language. It's about combining violent and sexual imagery together, mixing in a way that raises more questions than answers. These are adult themes.
Flailing about like a madman, squirting blood, and dropping "F" bombs is more PG-13 adolescent material to me. Prometheus should deal with adult themes of violent and sexual imagery mixed together to draw a sense of dread and bewilderment from the audience. Making the audience exit their comfort zone (for 119 minutes)
Nice to know YOU know how it should be...
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 12, 2012, 10:24:55 PM
Quote from: Le Celticant on Apr 12, 2012, 09:40:12 PM
ALIEN when it was re-released in france as its director's cut version was PG-13...
Time have changed and it's not like both ALIEN & ALIENS were ULTRA GORE.
In fact it wasn't at all, the only scene I can see pretty bloody is the chestburster but everything else was off screen and too quick and didn't spoil much.
So I don't really see the problem since most of the time a film that is planned as R-rated MUST aim to an audience that wants R-rated things (SAW, AVP REQUIEM, PIRANHA, CHAINSAW MASSACRE, etc.) and I ABSOLUTELY don't want Prometheus to turns to be like this.
Don't think that studios & producer are stupid.
They sell you product and usually when you do, you want to sell it well. ::)
But if you do, it's fine, I mean we all want another AVP requiem, right? :D
This isn't about adding more blood, gore, and dirty language. It's about combining violent and sexual imagery together, mixing in a way that raises more questions than answers. These are adult themes.
Flailing about like a madman, squirting blood, and dropping "F" bombs is more PG-13 adolescent material to me. Prometheus should deal with adult themes of violent and sexual imagery mixed together to draw a sense of dread and bewilderment from the audience. Making the audience exit their comfort zone (for 119 minutes)
Back in 1979, it was possible.
Nowadays, it's not.
When you do a R-rated nowadays, you must have nudity (usually a chick with a sex scene) you must have a lot of gore and it must be about teenagers most of the time because THAT IS THE AUDIENCE AIM AT.
And this is the audience aim at because that's the people who GO SEE a r-rated film because they've just turned 18 or have since a few year and don't usually pay attention to a lot of artistic content but rather want to shut their brain off and have a good entertainment.
Don't think that producers & studios are stupid.
They have to sell a product and when you do sell it, you want it to sell it well so you can continue to produce.
QuoteThis isn't about adding more blood, gore, and dirty language. It's about combining violent and sexual imagery together, mixing in a way that raises more questions than answers. These are adult themes.
And by the way, it's not the sexual meaning & the violence which would make Prometheus a R-rated.
At least not the one we see in ALIEN. ::)
Even in their time they couldn't make the rape of lambert.
Lol....whoops...my bad talk about dumb math skills..obviously that's one hour and 59 minutes....hehehehehe.....;) ;) I'll own that! :)
...interesting...
Quote from: Glaive on Apr 12, 2012, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 12, 2012, 10:24:55 PM
Quote from: Le Celticant on Apr 12, 2012, 09:40:12 PM
ALIEN when it was re-released in france as its director's cut version was PG-13...
Time have changed and it's not like both ALIEN & ALIENS were ULTRA GORE.
In fact it wasn't at all, the only scene I can see pretty bloody is the chestburster but everything else was off screen and too quick and didn't spoil much.
So I don't really see the problem since most of the time a film that is planned as R-rated MUST aim to an audience that wants R-rated things (SAW, AVP REQUIEM, PIRANHA, CHAINSAW MASSACRE, etc.) and I ABSOLUTELY don't want Prometheus to turns to be like this.
But if you do, it's fine, I mean we all want another AVP requiem, right? :D
This isn't about adding more blood, gore, and dirty language. It's about combining violent and sexual imagery together, mixing in a way that raises more questions than answers. These are adult themes.
Flailing about like a madman, squirting blood, and dropping "F" bombs is more PG-13 adolescent material to me. Prometheus should deal with adult themes of violent and sexual imagery mixed together to draw a sense of dread and bewilderment from the audience. Making the audience exit their comfort zone (for 119 minutes)
Nice to know YOU know how it should be...
If you think it should be more like the first AvP movie (PG-13) I have no issue with that. I prefer to see it shown in a different light, however. My personal opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
Didn't Ridley mention that the creatures in Prometheus would do perverse things? I would imagine that level of sexuality which may translate to bestiality would not sit well with the fraking MPAA....they are a corrupt engine to the core. It's all about money.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 12, 2012, 10:42:50 PM
Didn't Ridley mention that the creatures in Prometheus would do perverse things? I would imagine that level of sexuality which may translate to bestiality would not sit well with the fraking MPAA....they are a corrupt engine to the core. It's all about money.
Exactly. Such scenes don't require F-bombs or blood and guts to make it rated-R content.
"What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a couple of hard, pipe-hittin' n****s to go to work on homes here with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch. You hear me talkin' hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ass."
- Marsellus Wallace
i dont understand all of the fuss about the rating, so what theres not much more gore, its not like the entire plot is going to hinge on the rating. its not 'watered down' or 'kid-ified' or anything of the sort, its the same film.
Quote from: Byohzrd on Apr 12, 2012, 10:47:49 PM
i dont understand all of the fuss about the rating, so what theres not much more gore, its not like the entire plot is going to hinge on the rating. its not 'watered down' or 'kid-ified' or anything of the sort, its the same film.
Please read the thread, because we are not asking for more gore. Ridley Scott himself said the movie basically deals with R-rated material. It's what he wanted to do, but the suits at FOX think it will make more money after they water it down for kids.
Quote
There's no way someone like Ridley Scott would just release the film, trimmed down to his distaste just to make money. The film will be great - I have faith :)
Dude, Ridley has been pandering to the suits since 1982.
Quote from: Stannis Baratheon on Apr 12, 2012, 09:59:10 PMRidley will make sure he releases the film that he wants to release. There's no way someone like Ridley Scott would just release the film, trimmed down to his distaste just to make money. The film will be great - I have faith :)
Have a read of some of Scott's recent comments regarding the rating issue. Sadly, he disagrees with you.
If the trailers and all the released promo material until now is any indication, the film looks solid no matter the rating. It's the film of the year as far as I'm concerned.
I've watched so many pathetic R-rated (15/18 where I live) horror and thriller movies the last years, movies that made we want to put a flamethrower to Hollywood. And they weren't scary...
I'd prefer a R-rating as well, but it ain't happening. Accept it and move on... :)
Quote from: Eva on Apr 12, 2012, 11:02:09 PM
If the trailers and all the released promo material until now is any indication, the film looks solid no matter the rating. It's the film of the year as far as I'm concerned.
I've watched so many pathetic R-rated (15/18 where I live) horror and thriller movies the last years, movies that made we want to put a flamethrower to Hollywood. And they weren't scary...
I'd prefer a R-rating as well, but it ain't happening. Accept it and move on... :)
I accept that I'm most likely getting a film that's been edited from a film suitable for adults to a film suitable for 1st year secondary school kids.
If the blu-ray comes with the added footage/ R-rating, im content. After we see it, we can all look forward to the BR and added content. My main argument for R is, i dont want to look like an ass in the cinema for yelling at loud teens on dates being rude and havong no knowldge of the franchise. Hate loud kids.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 12, 2012, 11:14:18 PM
I accept that I'm most likely getting a film that's been edited from a film suitable for adults to a film suitable for 1st year secondary school kids.
Okay, please explain this to me. What
exactly makes you think they took intelligence out of the movie? Gore and violence do not equal suitable for adults.
We don't know what they took out.
But they could have toned down a sexual undercurrent.
Anyway, I don't know how you do a PG-13 p*ssy burster. Sorry in advance. That sounds horrible.
They took out the space tapir. That thing would scar kids for life.
Tapir. Great design Neville Page.
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 12, 2012, 10:42:19 PM
Quote from: Glaive on Apr 12, 2012, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 12, 2012, 10:24:55 PM
Quote from: Le Celticant on Apr 12, 2012, 09:40:12 PM
ALIEN when it was re-released in france as its director's cut version was PG-13...
Time have changed and it's not like both ALIEN & ALIENS were ULTRA GORE.
In fact it wasn't at all, the only scene I can see pretty bloody is the chestburster but everything else was off screen and too quick and didn't spoil much.
So I don't really see the problem since most of the time a film that is planned as R-rated MUST aim to an audience that wants R-rated things (SAW, AVP REQUIEM, PIRANHA, CHAINSAW MASSACRE, etc.) and I ABSOLUTELY don't want Prometheus to turns to be like this.
But if you do, it's fine, I mean we all want another AVP requiem, right? :D
This isn't about adding more blood, gore, and dirty language. It's about combining violent and sexual imagery together, mixing in a way that raises more questions than answers. These are adult themes.
Flailing about like a madman, squirting blood, and dropping "F" bombs is more PG-13 adolescent material to me. Prometheus should deal with adult themes of violent and sexual imagery mixed together to draw a sense of dread and bewilderment from the audience. Making the audience exit their comfort zone (for 119 minutes)
Nice to know YOU know how it should be...
If you think it should be more like the first AvP movie (PG-13) I have no issue with that. I prefer to see it shown in a different light, however. My personal opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
You pointed the worse example in the world.
AVP has a R-rated cut (which is... worse I thought.)
And there is another AVP which is R-rated known as Requiem.
And obviously the R-rated added SO MANY good elements HAHA!
You made me laugh for the night, thank you so much :D
Keep in mind also that every country has a different system of rating.
I went see Matrix in theater when I was 7... just saying.
And the fact 2001 a space odyssey wasn't R-rated didn't ruin the master piece.
In fact it made it even better since everything was subtle and well thought. A true piece of art.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 12, 2012, 11:49:24 PM
We don't know what they took out.
But they could have toned down a sexual undercurrent.
Anyway, I don't know how you do a PG-13 p*ssy burster. Sorry in advance. That sounds horrible.
Well... I'm pretty sure said lil "Vaginal Excavator" (Makes the space squid sound like a bull fighter... Or something.) is actually just a glorified and horrifying c-section.
There's a scene in "Time After Time" right at the beginning of the film. We see from Jack The Ripper's POV as he stalks a woman and kills her in an alley. We see a little blood, very little... But we never see the knife penetrate her, and we only see the look on her face, and the sound of fabric tear. It's an incredibly effective moment.
...See, making the scenes in Prometheus unnerving is going to come down to the editing, acting, and sound. Not the gore. I trust Noomi to know how to act, because she does. I know Ridley can direct a damn good movie when he's got his A-game on.
So how would I personally shoot this scene to be intense, yet PG-13 friendly?
Shoot pretty much the same way Scott has. Using lots of close up shots on Noomi, shooting across her body, putting things in the extreme foreground of the frame in front of her so we can't quite see what the thing is. (It's very reflective of her own perspective. She's strapped in, with limited view of these things happening right in front of her. TO HER.)
Have her strapped in, the arm comes down and starts cutting her open to extract this thing. We watch her reaction as she looks away, biting down on her lip, trying to stifle cries of pain, afraid to look at whatever might be inside of her.
We don't have to see the gaping hole in her side where this thing is extracted to get the horror of the scene. The vulnerability is going to be in the actresses face. That's where the focus should be if you want this to be adult and real. Not on a bunch of effects. You use those to season the scene, of course. (showing a shot of her stomach with something moving under the skin. Something bulging up.) but you don't have to have gobs and gobs of blood and blood everywhere to make it work.
The reason the burster scene is so damned good isn't the gore. Though it's all done very well. What really sells it are those actors who are giving such a fantastic performance, and the great use of editing.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 12, 2012, 11:49:24 PM
Anyway, I don't know how you do a PG-13 p*ssy burster. Sorry in advance. That sounds horrible.
I presume the AutoDoc is going to perform some type of caesarian section on Shaw.
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 13, 2012, 12:15:35 AM
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 12, 2012, 11:49:24 PM
Anyway, I don't know how you do a PG-13 p*ssy burster. Sorry in advance. That sounds horrible.
I presume the AutoDoc is going to perform some type of caesarian section on Shaw.
That's not really a chest burster equivalent scene then really is it?
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 12, 2012, 11:49:24 PM
We don't know what they took out.
But they could have toned down a sexual undercurrent.
Anyway, I don't know how you do a PG-13 p*ssy burster. Sorry in advance. That sounds horrible.
Haha! This was the best thing I've heard all day! I'm gonna bring that up in a general conversation in the morning. Sicken my girlfriend! :D P*ssy burster!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Stannis Baratheon on Apr 13, 2012, 12:33:09 AM
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 12, 2012, 11:49:24 PM
We don't know what they took out.
But they could have toned down a sexual undercurrent.
Anyway, I don't know how you do a PG-13 p*ssy burster. Sorry in advance. That sounds horrible.
Haha! This was the best thing I've heard all day! I'm gonna bring that up in a general conversation in the morning. Sicken my girlfriend! :D P*ssy burster!!!!!!!!
spoiler alert. can't start using it till after the movie.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 13, 2012, 12:23:16 AM
That's not really a chest burster equivalent scene then really is it?
Yes, but in which fashion is it going to rival the chest burster scene?
The gore fashion, or as I like to call it "the childish" way.
Or the psychological fashion. The adult way.
Which one is going to resonate in the bigger way?
You're potentially evoking a lot of fears here. Fear of surgery, fear of childbirth, body invasion, rape... Lots of things just beneath the surface. You don't need to pour gore on the scene for that to be effective.
Watch Evil Dead 2. For all the blood and carnage in that movie is it really all the scary or effective? It's freaking hilarious. (Intentionally, obviously, but it just proves the point that gore has nothing to do with scares.) :)
Quote from: ikarop on Apr 12, 2012, 03:59:20 PM
Quote from: Darkoo on Apr 12, 2012, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: ikarop on Apr 12, 2012, 03:14:52 PM
Is the runtime confirmed on that Youtube video? The French voice over is giving me a headache...
Source
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=hu&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.silence-action.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fapercu-prometheus-science-fiction-prestige%2F (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=hu&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.silence-action.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fapercu-prometheus-science-fiction-prestige%2F)
I know :). Fox France posted the recording but I'm trying to get the actual quote from Ridley for the news. The question about the director's cut is asked at minute 30 but the voice over is way to loud to make out the words.
is this the video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4_pnGj9wm4#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4_pnGj9wm4#ws)
found it on youtube, w/o french overdubbs. haven't seen it. don't want to get spoilered by.
Alien scene with John Hurt is one of the classic movie scenes ever. Then again Alien was an adult horror movie.
On another note, interesting that Fassbender says he took inspiration from Blade Runner .......
Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 13, 2012, 12:37:07 AM
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 13, 2012, 12:23:16 AM
That's not really a chest burster equivalent scene then really is it?
Yes, but in which fashion is it going to rival the chest burster scene?
The gore fashion, or as I like to call it "the childish" way.
Or the psychological fashion. The adult way.
Which one is going to resonate in the bigger way?
You're potentially evoking a lot of fears here. Fear of surgery, fear of childbirth, body invasion, rape... Lots of things just beneath the surface. You don't need to pour gore on the scene for that to be effective.
Watch Evil Dead 2. For all the blood and carnage in that movie is it really all the scary or effective? It's freaking hilarious. (Intentionally, obviously, but it just proves the point that gore has nothing to do with scares.) :)
Thanks for helping clarify what I was saying. Scenes with gore are catering to the younger audience, with the adult themes as the under current.
Quote from: Predaker on Apr 13, 2012, 01:26:45 AM
Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 13, 2012, 12:37:07 AM
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 13, 2012, 12:23:16 AM
That's not really a chest burster equivalent scene then really is it?
Yes, but in which fashion is it going to rival the chest burster scene?
The gore fashion, or as I like to call it "the childish" way.
Or the psychological fashion. The adult way.
Which one is going to resonate in the bigger way?
You're potentially evoking a lot of fears here. Fear of surgery, fear of childbirth, body invasion, rape... Lots of things just beneath the surface. You don't need to pour gore on the scene for that to be effective.
Watch Evil Dead 2. For all the blood and carnage in that movie is it really all the scary or effective? It's freaking hilarious. (Intentionally, obviously, but it just proves the point that gore has nothing to do with scares.) :)
Thanks for helping clarify what I was saying. Scenes with gore are catering to the younger audience, with the adult themes as the under current.
Perfect Example:
My younger brother put Alien on tonight to watch with his friend, and his friend said that he thought it wasn't scary at all because there wasn't even any gore, and stated that the Saw films are far better. That shows how younger audiences are more accustomed to just seeing gore in horror films, rather than complex adult themes that don't need to by bloody to be horrific.
Thankfully my younger brother has grew up having to watch more intelligent films instead of all this teenage-friendly bullshit!
Woops, a bit of an akward moment for Sir Ridley when he forgot the name of Yaphet Kotto. But hey, that can happen to any of us.
Ohh, and before any other males chime in...Charlize's legs look fantastic in this interview.
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 13, 2012, 01:50:07 AM
Woops, a bit of an akward moment for Sir Ridley when he forgot the name of Yaphet Kotto. But hey, that can happen to any of us.
Never.
Who forgets the name of Sir Yaphett Kotto.
Quote from: Space Sweeper on Apr 13, 2012, 01:54:19 AM
Quote from: Deuterium on Apr 13, 2012, 01:50:07 AM
Woops, a bit of an akward moment for Sir Ridley when he forgot the name of Yaphet Kotto. But hey, that can happen to any of us.
Never.
Who forgets the name of Sir Yaphett Kotto.
LOL.
Just for the record, I mean't it as an "age" thing (getting older)...not that in any way, shape, or form that Sir Yaphet is "forgettable". The man is a living legend.
So the 17 minutes relates to another movie altogether. Then he says it's always the directors cut essentially. Think he was being coy though. Since he's not really one to talk about theatrical directors cuts.
And then he basically rambled on about casting which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the question that was asked.
Is he hard of hearing? No joke intended.
Quite succinctly, Scott says in regards to the derelict: "It didn't crash, it parked". Interesting.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 13, 2012, 02:04:48 AM
Is he hard of hearing? No joke intended.
No, not at all. He's just Ridley Freakin' Scott, and he'll talk about whatever he feels like. ;D
Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 13, 2012, 02:20:48 AM
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 13, 2012, 02:04:48 AM
Is he hard of hearing? No joke intended.
No, not at all. He's just Ridley Freakin' Scott, and he'll talk about whatever he feels like. ;D
Funny, but definitely agree^. :D
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 13, 2012, 02:18:37 AM
Quite succinctly, Scott says in regards to the derelict: "It didn't crash, it parked". Interesting.
I always thought the crash was funny/ hard to understand from the screen shots. One shows it almost motionless standing up, another its turned around and appears rolling. IDK , crazy.
Quote from: bleau on Apr 13, 2012, 02:38:52 AM
Quote from: ChrisPachi on Apr 13, 2012, 02:18:37 AM
Quite succinctly, Scott says in regards to the derelict: "It didn't crash, it parked". Interesting.
I always thought the crash was funny/ hard to understand from the screen shots. One shows it almost motionless standing up, another its turned around and appears rolling. IDK , crazy.
Scott was talking about the derelict in
Alien, saying that to his mind it parked and didn't crash. I know this may not be a surprise to some people as lots of fans have speculated/argued that one way or the other, but it is interesting to hear him so clearly state what happened, especially so close the release of
Prometheus. It makes one wonder how or if this small detail will tie into the new film at all.
Where and when did the 'the derelict crashed' retconn start?
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 13, 2012, 04:34:16 AM
Where and when did the 'the derelict crashed' retconn start?
Err... What do you mean by retcon in this case? As far as I know the idea has been brought up many times over the years and never really been agreed one way or the other. Some behind the scenes stuff has often suggested it landed there, but many fans have suggested it was a crashed ship. So I don't really think there's any major retconning going on. :)
Not exactly off topic but here's a few things maybe someone could explain for me!!
...though please excuse a little ranting first...
I recently saw a movie called The Hunger Games, recommended to me by friends after reading the book, so I was dragged along too. It wasn't exactly a bad film, just so long and unnecessary on too many occassions, I almost fell asleep watching it half way through,lol. But here's the thing! That movie is 142 minutes long, rated a 12a here in UK (the equivalent of PG-13 in the States), but there wasn't one time in the first week (except the really late showings) the queue to see it wasn't right round my local cinema, so clearly the length of a PG-13 film doesn't necessarily affect its popularity, yet it doesn't appear anyone at FOX nor Riddles himself, gave this any thought with their puny 119 minute effort.
So why is this movie really finding it so hard to get a PG-13 rating, while Scott continues to lay the blame firmly with the MPAA (for reasons I'm curious about), and Rothman is quite happy defending everything because he knows he can't lose, I shudder to think what's going on behind the scenes. Like most films, I assume an uncut verson of Prometheus was made anywhere up to 180 minutes long, most of which would have been cut by the director and his assistant several times over before the MPAA sees anything, mostly unwanted material, resulting in a final cut for them to decide what needs to go in order to gain the required rating, which they still haven't done.
Also with Prometheus it sounds like there were two seperate cuts made, an 'R' cut first for the DVD/Blu Ray, then a PG-13 cut from the same thing for the cinema release, is that right??? Anyway, reports suggest up to 17 minutes have supposedly been cut from this 'R' rated version in order to get that PG-13 the studio wanted, so one would assume the film was made with PG-13 in mind, but if that was the case what did FOX submit to the MPAA which they ended up cutting so much from before the movie even got an 'R' rating. Indeed, after all that, why is it the MPAA STILL haven't finished when, for all we know, they could realistically cut Prometheus down to 90 minutes before they are satisfied!!
Like I said, maybe I'm missing something here and someone else knows more about the film editing process than I do, but something tells me we're being screwed with this movie. Old Riddles is going to get his version out anyway so I doubt he's even bothered (he probably never wanted a PG-13 just like the rest of us), while those of you who prefer to pay extra for the pleasure of seeing Prometheus in 3D may lose out twice, especially if the medium doesn't do the it any justice (I've yet to see any live action movie really do 3D justice), while I suspect Rothman is laughing all the way to the bank even if this film only breaks even!!
...end of another rant! lol
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 13, 2012, 04:34:16 AM
Where and when did the 'the derelict crashed' retconn start?
What rettcom?...this is canon, brudda!!
Quote from: RoaryUK on Apr 13, 2012, 05:25:50 AM
Not exactly off topic but here's a few things maybe someone could explain for me!!
...though please excuse a little ranting first...
I recently saw a movie called The Hunger Games, recommended to me by friends after reading the book, so I was dragged along too. It wasn't exactly a bad film, just so long and unnecessary on too many occassions, I almost fell asleep watching it half way through,lol. But here's the thing! That movie is 142 minutes long, rated a 12a here in UK (the equivalent of PG-13 in the States), but there wasn't one time in the first week (except the really late showings) the queue to see it wasn't right round my local cinema, so clearly the length of a PG-13 film doesn't necessarily affect its popularity, yet it doesn't appear anyone at FOX nor Riddles himself, gave this any thought with their puny 119 minute effort.
So why is this movie really finding it so hard to get a PG-13 rating, while Scott continues to lay the blame firmly with the MPAA (for reasons I'm curious about), and Rothman is quite happy defending everything because he knows he can't lose, I shudder to think what's going on behind the scenes. Like most films, I assume an uncut verson of Prometheus was made anywhere up to 180 minutes long, most of which would have been cut by the director and his assistant several times over before the MPAA sees anything, mostly unwanted material, resulting in a final cut for them to decide what needs to go in order to gain the required rating, which they still haven't done.
Also with Prometheus it sounds like there were two seperate cuts made, an 'R' cut first for the DVD/Blu Ray, then a PG-13 cut from the same thing for the cinema release, is that right??? Anyway, reports suggest up to 17 minutes have supposedly been cut from this 'R' rated version in order to get that PG-13 the studio wanted, so one would assume the film was made with PG-13 in mind, but if that was the case what did FOX submit to the MPAA which they ended up cutting so much from before the movie even got an 'R' rating. Indeed, after all that, why is it the MPAA STILL haven't finished when, for all we know, they could realistically cut Prometheus down to 90 minutes before they are satisfied!!
Like I said, maybe I'm missing something here and someone else knows more about the film editing process than I do, but something tells me we're being screwed with this movie. Old Riddles is going to get his version out anyway so I doubt he's even bothered (he probably never wanted a PG-13 just like the rest of us), while those of you who prefer to pay extra for the pleasure of seeing Prometheus in 3D may lose out twice, especially if the medium doesn't do the it any justice (I've yet to see any live action movie really do 3D justice), while I suspect Rothman is laughing all the way to the bank even if this film only breaks even!!
...end of another rant! lol
the movie i'm going to see in the cinema will be a two hours teaser for the final cut that i will get a few months later.
i will enjoy it and watch it with great anticipation for the complete uncut thing. :P
I don't really care in the slightest about the rating. What I do care about is the run time and if it has been heavily cut. Small shots of blood being cut out is fine but once you start messing with the run time by 20-30 minutes then we will have an underdeveloped and confusing mess like the theatrical cut of Alien 3, and we don't want that do we?
i reconsidered my thinkings 'bout the run time... and i came to one conclusion: the 2 hours only will affect largely on the first screening (when you see the movie for the first time), a bit disappointing not spending 3-4 hours in the universe of prometheus.
but when prometheus becomes our favourite movie (of all time) and we'll watch it once in a week, when released on dvd, the 2 hours (+ 17 min) will be en0ugh, i think/hope.
even aliens special edition became a bit too long in those years. but i won't dare watching the theatrical cut once of aliens.
The 17 minutes thing was NOT in relation to Prometheus.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 13, 2012, 11:44:50 AM
The 17 minutes thing was NOT in relation to Prometheus.
for which movie then?
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 13, 2012, 11:44:50 AM
The 17 minutes thing was NOT in relation to Prometheus.
I think he was either referring to
Robin Hood or
Kingdom of Heaven. I'm steering more towards the latter, due to the two completely opposite reactions to the Theatrical Version and the Director's Cut. I've never seen so much diverse reactions to two versions of the same film - except for maybe
Blade Runner. But then again,
Kingdom of Heaven had about 45 minutes of additional footage, when
Robin Hood did in-fact have about 17 minutes. But seeing as Ridley forgot Yaphet Kotto's name, I don't think it's outside the realm of extreme possibility that he made have simply gotten mixed up with which film had the specific amount of minutes cut.
Has anybody else noticed that Ridley's hearing seems to be going! Everyone of these on-stage interviews he's done for
Prometheus he's had hearing difficulties and blames anything but his own hearing, haha.
RoaryUK......puny 119 minutes??? ;) get over it. That's like looking at a plate of food, and complaining that you won't get filled up before you even eat. Give the damn thing a chance. :)
Yes he said he cut 17 minutes from one of his recent movie that damaged the story.
He didnt want to say what movie.
A friend journalist who had a one on one interview asked him about the lenght Scott said hewas very happy with the 119mins cut. Once the shit start to hit the fans the events unfold quickly.
The movie is mean and lean he said. No fat.
He did not wanted to dwell into what has been cut, what to expect for the BR.
I'm not expecting a cut as long as KINGDOM OF HEAVEN but more like 15/20 more minutes.
From what i know you can't cut big chunk of the story and still make it work like he did wi (th KOH.
It will probably have to do with the tone, violence, some background( like Shaw's father scene).
There was about 40 minutes cut from Kingdom of Heaven.
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Apr 13, 2012, 11:58:04 AM
RoaryUK......puny 119 minutes??? ;) get over it. That's like looking at a plate of food, and complaining that you won't get filled up before you even eat. Give the damn thing a chance. :)
Of course I'll give it a chance lol, still puny though ;D
The average length of ANY theatrical film is around 90 minutes.
Anyway back on topic.
At the heart of it, he's pretty much a sell out.
He's 73? You would think he'd give less of a shit about pleasing the studio and just making a last stab at perfection.
Does he relish in his legacy of a man who pleased the studio heads? He lets them distort his vision at the end of the day.
I suppose the problem is, he's part artist part business man part just doing a job. He referred to his movies as "just a job" during one of the q and a's. Says it all really.
... since the 70's Scott has said he's a businessman, and makes movies for mass audiences and money.
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 13, 2012, 12:43:28 PM
... since the 70's Scott has said he's a businessman, and makes movies for mass audiences and money.
Ha! I dare people to say 'well this guy makes movies just for money' again as a criticism against other directors.
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 13, 2012, 12:43:28 PM
... since the 70's Scott has said he's a businessman, and makes movies for mass audiences and money.
I posted yesterday that he's been a sell out since 82' (Blade Runner). And I'm holding to that. Probably why so many of his films have been good but not exceptional.
Shut up A Good Year is awesome.
Quote from: Glaive on Apr 13, 2012, 12:38:50 PM
The average length of ANY theatrical film is around 90 minutes.
Not too sure I agree with that, a lot of the kids stuff that are U and PG perhaps, but over the last 12 months a lot of movies have been 100 minutes or more, especially some of the higher profile stuff. :)
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 13, 2012, 12:46:34 PM
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 13, 2012, 12:43:28 PM
... since the 70's Scott has said he's a businessman, and makes movies for mass audiences and money.
I posted yesterday that he's been a sell out since 82' (Blade Runner). And I'm holding to that. Probably why so many of his films have been good but not exceptional.
And he's been wanting to mass market his movies since The Duellists. He just wasn't successful. People think 'sell-outs' who fail have more artistic integrity? Even going back to the The Duellists he was derided as less of an artist and more of an ad-man.
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 13, 2012, 12:43:28 PM
... since the 70's Scott has said he's a businessman, and makes movies for mass audiences and money.
No, that just means Ridley is more pragmatic than more 'air-head/ wet-behind the-ears' directors...and as such is MORE LIKELY to have his vision REALISED!!!
Quote from: Valaquen on Apr 13, 2012, 12:43:28 PM
... since the 70's Scott has said he's a businessman, and makes movies for mass audiences and money.
...that cigar is such a dead give away, bet he's been smoking that since the 70's too.... wonder what he's really smokin; ;D
I've only ever met Sir Riddles once, long time ago some 30 years at least, but he wasn't smoking in then I recall...lol
"Wheezey Wanka and the Tobacco Factory"... ;D
Quote from: Glaive on Apr 13, 2012, 01:00:15 PM
"Wheezey Wanka and the Tobacco Factory"... ;D
Well, if it makes him happy it's obviously good shit, wouldn't you say ;) ...maybe Prometheus will suprise us in more ways than we ever imagined.
Why all the sudden hate for Scott?
Some people really need to grow up.
This not hate but objectivity.
Scott has never been an author he's a solid and gifted director who wants to fill seats.
He's an artist with a strong businessman side.
It's an insult.
Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere - it's hard to keep track where posters inform of rating issues, but I discovered this interesting tidbit:
QuoteDirector Ridley Scott & the cast of Prometheus recenty took part in a multitude of Q&A press sessions for the movie in & a recording of the Paris event has emerged online [in French]. During the event it was also revealed that the movies run-time will be 1 hour & 59 minutes but there will also be an extended cut with an additional 17 minutes of footage. This is currently a very contentious issue with the fanbase & seems to imply that the shorter version is a PG-13 rating while the extended version is for an R rating & from what I am hearing the R-rating will be screened as the European threatrical release while the US will suffer the PG-13.
http://www.scriptflags.com/2012/04/prometheus-multiple-running-times.html (http://www.scriptflags.com/2012/04/prometheus-multiple-running-times.html)
Any credibility to this story?
Quotehttp://www.scriptflags.com/2012/04/prometheus-multiple-running-times.html (http://www.scriptflags.com/2012/04/prometheus-multiple-running-times.html)
Any credibility to this story?
None whatsoever.
1. There won't be an alternative version with an extra 17 minutes; this is due to misreporting what Scott said in Paris, he was referring to another film which he'd restored 17 minutes to later on, but said that his cut on Prometheus is pretty much final.
2. The author of that "article" is simply extrapolating based on that false piece of information.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-8-4pHyCAEWs%2FT4ciIyWAsJI%2FAAAAAAAAHhE%2FjzT_bptlOkE%2Fs1600%2Fhere.jpg&hash=0f00d8910a6a11ce4f495827dd1ea32df594ce80)
new picture?
Quote from: gooner_no1 on Apr 13, 2012, 06:56:30 PM
None whatsoever.
1. There won't be an alternative version with an extra 17 minutes; this is due to misreporting what Scott said in Paris, he was referring to another film which he'd restored 17 minutes to later on, but said that his cut on Prometheus is pretty much final.
2. The author of that "article" is simply extrapolating based on that false piece of information.
Right - thx for clearing that up. I don't speak French, so... :P
Quote from: Eva on Apr 13, 2012, 07:00:57 PM
Quote from: gooner_no1 on Apr 13, 2012, 06:56:30 PM
None whatsoever.
1. There won't be an alternative version with an extra 17 minutes; this is due to misreporting what Scott said in Paris, he was referring to another film which he'd restored 17 minutes to later on, but said that his cut on Prometheus is pretty much final.
2. The author of that "article" is simply extrapolating based on that false piece of information.
Right - thx for clearing that up. I don't speak French, so... :P
I am definitely for the 119min movie, I don't mind faster narrative. I think it's a matter of how experienced movie aficionado watches the movie.
Anyway, it's interesting that some of the recent Ridley's movies have around + - 10 minutes in extended versions:
Theatrical/extended:
Robin Hood: 140min/156min
American Gangster: 157min/176min
Kingdom of Heaven: 144min/190min
Black Hawk Down: 144min/152min
Gladiator: 155min/171min
If it will be 30 minutes of sequences/shots with Prometheus/Derelict class ship drifting through space, I will be happy :)
Quote from: Zenzucht on Apr 13, 2012, 09:57:09 PM
Quote from: Eva on Apr 13, 2012, 07:00:57 PM
Quote from: gooner_no1 on Apr 13, 2012, 06:56:30 PM
None whatsoever.
1. There won't be an alternative version with an extra 17 minutes; this is due to misreporting what Scott said in Paris, he was referring to another film which he'd restored 17 minutes to later on, but said that his cut on Prometheus is pretty much final.
2. The author of that "article" is simply extrapolating based on that false piece of information.
Right - thx for clearing that up. I don't speak French, so... :P
I am definitely for the 119min movie, I don't mind faster narrative. I think it's a matter of how experienced movie aficionado watches the movie.
Anyway, it's interesting that some of the recent Ridley's movies have around + - 10 minutes in extended versions:
Theatrical/extended:
Robin Hood: 140min/156min
American Gangster: 157min/176min
Kingdom of Heaven: 144min/190min
Black Hawk Down: 144min/152min
Gladiator: 155min/171min
If it will be 30 minutes of sequences/shots with Prometheus/Derelict class ship drifting through space, I will be happy :)
30 minutes of David walking around the Prometheus! :P
Hr also very adamantly says that the derelict parked in alien. it landed, it parked, it did not crash.
Quote from: Eva on Apr 13, 2012, 07:00:57 PM
Quote from: gooner_no1 on Apr 13, 2012, 06:56:30 PM
None whatsoever.
1. There won't be an alternative version with an extra 17 minutes; this is due to misreporting what Scott said in Paris, he was referring to another film which he'd restored 17 minutes to later on, but said that his cut on Prometheus is pretty much final.
2. The author of that "article" is simply extrapolating based on that false piece of information.
Right - thx for clearing that up. I don't speak French, so... :P
And from a US release point of view that would be box office suicide. If they released the movie a week later and 17 minutes shorter in the states it would tank. People would download the "real" version of it and f**k going to see it in the theatre. Most of this forum would be doing that. That would kill profits even more then a "R" rating.
See the '17 minutes cut' statement in context at about the 31 and a half minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4_pnGj9wm4#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4_pnGj9wm4#ws)
Scott is obviously talking about one of his other movies, NOT Prometheus.
It's perhaps a matter of various statements during different stages of principal photography, but I am slightly confused.
I remember Ridley saying that they shot first 14-15 minutes of movie, so called "The Beginning of time" sequence like 2001, on Iceland. They apparently shot some LV-223 exteriors there as well (there were some photos of the props from the set, right?) and in Q&A video above, he also says there is 5 to 6 minutes of David walking through the ship, busy with some android/butler business.
Therefore, Prometheus won't be classic three act movie? I mean, Overture: "The Beginning of Time", "The Prometheus", "The Temple", "Stealing the Fire", "The Punishment from the God(s)", "Coda (Alien DNA)", credits, David disco medley from the two years on Prometheus?
And second thing.. It seems to me that nobody from the interviewers/press didn't make any review of so far answered things and they keep asking about the same stuff & stuff they obviously can't speak about in order to keep the secrecy until the release.. "Fortunately", Ridley doesn't hesitate to f-bomb anybody :D
I don't know why studios think R rated movies don't well when Terminator 3, all three Matrix movies, The Hangover films and 300 did just fine?
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Apr 14, 2012, 10:12:23 PM
I don't know why studios think R rated movies don't well when Terminator 3, all three Matrix movies, The Hangover films and 300 did just fine?
Yes but you can make even more money lowering the rating and opening it up to a mass of more people. Just fine doesn't cut it with studios when they want the best possible return for a franchise they have high future hopes in
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Apr 14, 2012, 10:12:23 PM
I don't know why studios think R rated movies don't well when Terminator 3, all three Matrix movies, The Hangover films and 300 did just fine?
Terminator 3 was the third movie of already very successful franchise.
Before The Wachowskis made The Matrix, they did another movie to prove they are able to direct a serious production & The Matrix was produced by Joel Silver, already a big name in the business..
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Apr 14, 2012, 10:12:23 PM
I don't know why studios think R rated movies don't well when Terminator 3, all three Matrix movies, The Hangover films and 300 did just fine?
Prometheus is a new name. WE know it's an alien movie, but the name itself will mean nothing to a general audience beyond the marginal power of worth-of-mouth. Not to mention "Alien" has a bit of stigma thanks to the AVP films, it's not as easy a sell as you might think for some.
300 was a comic book before it was a film. That's a built in fanbase.
Terminator 3 is a sequel to a HUGELY successful set of movies. The audience was there.
Hangover's a comedy - It costs far less to make then something such as this, which is an FX spectacle.
You have to look at how much the film cost to make. Most of those films didn't cost near as much as Prometheus did. This is a HUGE movie with a rather large budget. They have to make that back, not only to recoup the costs and turn a profit, but to also justify a sequel if there is going to be one.
Has there been an announcement on the actual budget yet?
alien resurrection doesn't really help that reputation....
Wish the budget and then with ad budget, it has to be PG-13. They are spending a lot of this film.
Plus, Ridley's last couple movies didn't fair so well at the box office.
I just hope the film can still be dark and good with a PG-13 rating. It seems like Fox hopes that this movie will bring back it's budget domestically then worldwide. Studios seem to look at the US box office then they do overseas.
Hopefully they'll release it as an 18's in Europe. Being in my mid 20s I don't fancy paying for something that's been watered down for 13 year olds.
with the 17 minutes i think he was talking about Legend. He stated before he hated how the test screenings went with that movie and that he stupidly decided to cut a lot out of the movie.
Quote from: tmjhur on Apr 15, 2012, 01:58:55 PM
Hopefully they'll release it as an 18's in Europe. Being in my mid 20s I don't fancy paying for something that's been watered down for 13 year olds.
If that happens, which i seriously doubt, it would only be in countries with a late release. the countries getting it on the 1st are getting the same version as the USA. Any changes and they will shoot themselves in the foot as that encourages downloading.
Quote from: Snowdog on Apr 15, 2012, 02:20:24 PM
with the 17 minutes i think he was talking about Legend. He stated before he hated how the test screenings went with that movie and that he stupidly decided to cut a lot out of the movie.
A Director's Cut Blu-Ray please!
Quote from: Zenzucht on Apr 14, 2012, 02:49:10 PM
It's perhaps a matter of various statements during different stages of principal photography, but I am slightly confused.
I remember Ridley saying that they shot first 14-15 minutes of movie, so called "The Beginning of time" sequence like 2001, on Iceland. They apparently shot some LV-223 exteriors there as well (there were some photos of the props from the set, right?) and in Q&A video above, he also says there is 5 to 6 minutes of David walking through the ship, busy with some android/butler business.
Therefore, Prometheus won't be classic three act movie? I mean, Overture: "The Beginning of Time", "The Prometheus", "The Temple", "Stealing the Fire", "The Punishment from the God(s)", "Coda (Alien DNA)", credits, David disco medley from the two years on Prometheus?
And second thing.. It seems to me that nobody from the interviewers/press didn't make any review of so far answered things and they keep asking about the same stuff & stuff they obviously can't speak about in order to keep the secrecy until the release.. "Fortunately", Ridley doesn't hesitate to f-bomb anybody :D
Very, very few films (even or perhaps especially classic ones) actually fall into the three-act structure. 4 or 5 acts is actually much more common. Also, your titles sound a little 2001-esque, although maybe that's appropriate given the themes of the film!