User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Prometheus vehicles exposed  (Read 46631 times)

StrangeShape
Sep 01, 2011, 01:17:31 PM
Reply #135 on: Sep 01, 2011, 01:17:31 PM
Bethesda described the most important features of Scott's scifi movies in a pill. The visual look or the way sene looks, a shot can convey more than 15 pages of dialogue about the subject and feelings like in Nolan movies and can do it without a single line. Just a shot or a scene, like the above mentioned Deckard scene

At the same time I find it rather shocking that you diminish others as being about special effects and costume designs. Both Cameron and Spielbegr are very heart oriented directors, thats why their movies have so much appeal. Theyre not Michael bay who only has explosions and big CG, they also convey feelings and likeable characters as well. I noticed you do have a preference for a very dark and dirty scifi (I dont have any kind of preference in scifi, as long as its a serious story), so Im a little suprised you dont even like and give credit to The Terminator and AI

In the long run Im amazed theres this ultimatum and semicompetition made by fans between those two great, mutually respecting directors and friends. Instead of being absolutely thrilled such 2 giants and legends had made movies in the same series, people are trying to discredit one another in order to bring up their personal favorite. What is it, Hghlander? There can be only one?  ::)

Just want to add on the subject of Cameron influencing Prometheus. It goes further than Fusion cameras and 3d. When Ill get a chance Ill post the quote, but according to Cameron he was the one who talked him into coming back to scifi when both were meeting regularly on the set of Avatar


Look into my eye
Sep 01, 2011, 01:42:28 PM
Reply #136 on: Sep 01, 2011, 01:42:28 PM
Xenomorph....I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're missing the larger point. First of all, I don't like this 'better than' business. Both gentleman have created some pretty astounding work respectively. For me, as a science fiction lover, and some one who will even watch a couple of the Species films just to see what's going, and as a person who loves the original Star Wars trilogy, David Lynch's Dune and a few others....NOT ONE of the films by Lucas, Cameron, Lynch, Kubrick resonate in my consciousness the way A L I E N and BladeRunner have. There's a quality about Scotts films that transcends costume design and technological feats. His sole science fiction films created this isolated distance, this tangible spacial dissonance between the film and the viewer. The way Deckard looked out on to the city in BladeRunner capturing the essence of full yet lonely big city living, the way Brett embodied blue collar qualities....I can't shake how it's effected the way I see everything when it comes to science fiction. I can't say that for Cameron, Lucas, Lynch, Soderbergh, (possibly Spielberg).

More soon.

I doubt Xeno, amonst others and myself included, would disagree with a word of this post.
However, Xeno,myself and others were defending Cameron when an earlier post had described his movies as overhyped and badly written.
I love Scott's work for many of the reasons you mention, but I'm sorry, nobody is gonna tell me James Cameron does not know how to write a movie.


ThisBethesdaSea
Sep 01, 2011, 03:02:55 PM
Reply #137 on: Sep 01, 2011, 03:02:55 PM
Okay...back for a minute as I await yet another flight.....


I should preface this by saying none of the last aformentioned directors I think make 'less than' films, for whatever that's worth. It's really about singular connection from screen to viewer. I actually LOVE Avatar more then most because Cameron captures a purity and beauty of a natural world that I connected to spiritually, if that makes sense. It was amazing.

Spielbergs ET and Close Encounters also tapped into grit that I could identify with, a single mother, a father leaving his family for reasons beyond his knowledge, etc...  Basically he created a world of dysfunction that's laudibly authentic while conjuring a spell of space and wonder around it, entrancing the lives of his somewhat downtrodden characters in the midst.These are amazing things and abilities I'm not so sure Spielberg posseses anymore (War of the Worlds anyone).

In terms of Cameron, I agree that he directs from the heart, or he attempts to create a heart center in his films. The difference for
me in regards to Scotts Science Fiction work is that everything I see in A L I E N and BladeRunner, all of the technology, the
acting, the sets, the beautiful minutiae only serves to round out the characters, drawing me, and giving me an opportunity to say "yes, I've been there, I know that feeling, I've seen those skies too." I just haven't experienced this in any other sci-fi films, but that doesn't mean the others, very capable and amazing directors, don't affect me in different awesome ways. Scotts film just resonate deeper. I can't explain it.


« Last Edit: Sep 01, 2011, 03:10:38 PM by ThisBethesdaSea »

Look into my eye
Sep 01, 2011, 03:11:24 PM
Reply #138 on: Sep 01, 2011, 03:11:24 PM
Okay...back for a minute as I await yet another flight.....


I should preface this by saying none of the last aformentioned directors I think make 'less than' films, for whatever that's worth. It's really about singular connection from screen to viewer. I actually LOVE Avatar more then most because Cameron captures a purity and beauty of a natural world that I connected to spiritually, if that makes sense. It was amazing.

Spielbergs ET and Close Encounters also tapped into grit that I could identify with, a single mother, a father leaving his family for reasons beyond his knowledge, etc...  Basically he created a world of dysfunction that's laudibly authentic while conjuring a spell of space and wonder around it, entrancing the lives of his somewhat downtrodden characters in the midst.These are amazing things and abilities I'm not so sure Spielberg posseses anymore (War of the Worlds anyone).

In terms of Cameron, I agree that he directs from the heart, or he attempts to create a heart center in his films. The difference for me in regards to Scotts Science Fiction work is that everything I see in A L I E N and BladeRunner, all of the technology, the acting, the sets, the beautiful minutea only serves the round out the characters, drawing me, and giving me an opportunity to say "yes, I've been there, I know that feeling, I've seen those skies too." I just haven't experienced this in any other sci-fi films, but that doesn't mean the others, by capable and amazing directors don't affect me in different ways. Scotts film just resonate deeper. I can't explain it.

Like I said previously, it has nothing whatsoever to do with who is the best director, who has the biggest beard or who can piss the highest
It has nothing to do if Cameron can direct a movie well, or the differences between him and Scott.
It has all absolutey everything (and only) to do with Cameron being a bad writer or not, that's all.Don't read things into this discussion that aren't there.This isn't a Scott v Cameron discussion at all.


Valaquen
Sep 01, 2011, 03:12:53 PM
Reply #139 on: Sep 01, 2011, 03:12:53 PM
Okay...back for a minute as I await yet another flight.....


I should preface this by saying none of the last aformentioned directors I think make 'less than' films, for whatever that's worth. It's really about singular connection from screen to viewer. I actually LOVE Avatar more then most because Cameron captures a purity and beauty of a natural world that I connected to spiritually, if that makes sense. It was amazing.

Spielbergs ET and Close Encounters also tapped into grit that I could identify with, a single mother, a father leaving his family for reasons beyond his knowledge, etc...  Basically he created a world of dysfunction that's laudibly authentic while conjuring a spell of space and wonder around it, entrancing the lives of his somewhat downtrodden characters in the midst.These are amazing things and abilities I'm not so sure Spielberg posseses anymore (War of the Worlds anyone).

In terms of Cameron, I agree that he directs from the heart, or he attempts to create a heart center in his films. The difference for me in regards to Scotts Science Fiction work is that everything I see in A L I E N and BladeRunner, all of the technology, the acting, the sets, the beautiful minutea only serves the round out the characters, drawing me, and giving me an opportunity to say "yes, I've been there, I know that feeling, I've seen those skies too." I just haven't experienced this in any other sci-fi films, but that doesn't mean the others, by capable and amazing directors don't affect me in different ways. Scotts film just resonate deeper. I can't explain it.

Like I said previously, it has nothing whatsoever to do with who is the best director, who has the biggest beard or who can piss the highest
It has nothing to do if Cameron can direct a movie well, or the differences between him and Scott.
It has all absolutey everything (and only) to do with Cameron being a bad writer or not, that's all.Don't read things into this discussion that aren't there.This isn't a Scott v Cameron discussion at all.
... i think he explained himself excellently ...


ThisBethesdaSea
Sep 01, 2011, 03:17:44 PM
Reply #140 on: Sep 01, 2011, 03:17:44 PM
LookIntoMyEye...you lost me. What are you taking about?

*addendum*

For my money, and in terms of films that capture what old Spielberg films were able to....Super 8 was the best science fiction film I've seen since.....return of the Jedi....in the order of Close Encounters kinds of films. I remember being all of those kids, trying to make movies, making models, etc...

« Last Edit: Sep 01, 2011, 03:20:50 PM by ThisBethesdaSea »

SpaceMarines
Sep 01, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Reply #141 on: Sep 01, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
!!!!



Look into my eye
Sep 01, 2011, 03:30:14 PM
Reply #143 on: Sep 01, 2011, 03:30:14 PM
LookIntoMyEye...you lost me. What are you taking about?

*addendum*

For my money, and in terms of films that capture what old Spielberg films were able to....Super 8 was the best science fiction film I've seen since.....return of the Jedi....in the order of Close Encounters kinds of films. I remember being all of those kids, trying to make movies, making models, etc...

Now I know you smoke the happy baccy.What exactly are you posting and why?
This thread started out talking about the vehicles in Prometheus, then it got hijacked about Cameron being a bad writer and now your rabbiting on about god knows what dude.
Here have a wallpaper I thought was cool.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii283/Evilqtl_2007/Misc/HR-Giger-Alien.jpg

Peace!

PS
Thread is totally screwed now








robbritton
Sep 01, 2011, 03:58:02 PM
Reply #144 on: Sep 01, 2011, 03:58:02 PM
Yeah, heaven forfend that conversations should evolve!

Anyway, for my money Cameron lost his ear for dialogue after The Abyss. It's good in T2, but getting shaky. True Lies is a sexist mess, all the worse for coming from the pen of the inventor of Sarah Connor and 1986 model Ripley. Ridley Scott is a master at creating a world, although as my years pass I suspect there's slightly more style than substance to a lot of his output. Alien remains an utter classic, though. Cameron is possibly better at fashioning a narrative character, Scott a character character - if that makes sense. However, Scott is not a writer, so really the only place they can be truly compared is on direction.

The vehicles look interesting, although the car thing is a tad uninspiring in the flat daylight of the set photo. I'm sure it'll look better in situe. It's certainly a different design ethic to Alien, but why shouldn't it be? I'm all for evolution.


Gash
Sep 01, 2011, 04:08:09 PM
Reply #145 on: Sep 01, 2011, 04:08:09 PM


{of Ridley Scott} ...his last several movies weren't very good and there's plenty of other directors who are consistently better, and I'm not even talking "turn your brain off" popcorn movies. Hell, I suspect Ridley Scott would be the first one to admit it. He'd be flattered to think someone thought that of him, but I'm confident he wouldn't agree.

I wouldn't be so confidant.

Danny Boyle, Chris Nolan, David Fincher, Guillermo del Toro, Neil Blomkamp, Clint Eastwood, Terry Gilliam, I'd put any of those higher than Ridley Scott if only because Scott's last several movies weren't very good and the last visually iconic, groundbreaking movie he did was Blade Runner, 30 years ago.


And you talk about saying things with a straight face.  :laugh:


Xenomrph
Sep 01, 2011, 04:09:05 PM
Reply #146 on: Sep 01, 2011, 04:09:05 PM
That's being rather generous. Star Wars was the first major sci-fi to have rusty conduit-filled corridors on its interstellar spaceships.
Probably, but Dark Star was never major. Cobb worked on DS and Alien, so I see the progression going from there. Lucas saw DS too, as did Roger Christian, who saw it and called it 'amazing.' Though he was also influenced on Star Wars by Alphaville and Solaris.
Point is that it wasn't 'Alien'. :P

Xenomorph....I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're missing the larger point. First of all, I don't like this 'better than' business. Both gentleman have created some pretty astounding work respectively. For me, as a science fiction lover, and some one who will even watch a couple of the Species films just to see what's going, and as a person who loves the original Star Wars trilogy, David Lynch's Dune and a few others....NOT ONE of the films by Lucas, Cameron, Lynch, Kubrick resonate in my consciousness the way A L I E N and BladeRunner have. There's a quality about Scotts films that transcends costume design and technological feats. His sole science fiction films created this isolated distance, this tangible spacial dissonance between the film and the viewer. The way Deckard looked out on to the city in BladeRunner capturing the essence of full yet lonely big city living, the way Brett embodied blue collar qualities....I can't shake how it's effected the way I see everything when it comes to science fiction. I can't say that for Cameron, Lucas, Lynch, Soderbergh, (possibly Spielberg).

More soon.
I can understand that, and at least you're putting your opinion out there with the caveat that it's your opinion, and it's how the movies have resonated for you. I guess I was more of taking issue with Gash's hero-worship of Ridley Scott at the expense of all other directors. Making claims that Ridley Scott is more important and more influential than any other director today strikes me as incredibly bizarre and disconnected from reality.

It's one thing to like 'Alien', but to say he's that important today (let alone the most important), when he hasn't made a sci-fi or horror movie in 30 years, and his last few movies have been mediocre at best, doesn't make sense.


Valaquen
Sep 01, 2011, 04:11:58 PM
Reply #147 on: Sep 01, 2011, 04:11:58 PM
That's being rather generous. Star Wars was the first major sci-fi to have rusty conduit-filled corridors on its interstellar spaceships.
Probably, but Dark Star was never major. Cobb worked on DS and Alien, so I see the progression going from there. Lucas saw DS too, as did Roger Christian, who saw it and called it 'amazing.' Though he was also influenced on Star Wars by Alphaville and Solaris.
Point is that it wasn't 'Alien'. :P
Correct  :laugh: Alien is one step in a series of progressions. Probably the second most famous step after Star Wars, but not the second step in itself  :)


jevjnd2000
Sep 01, 2011, 04:58:38 PM
Reply #148 on: Sep 01, 2011, 04:58:38 PM
I'm surprised that no one seems to have mentioned it, but that loader thing is in the first official shot.  Not sure that helps discern what it is, though.



 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed