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 43279 times)

SpaceMarines
Sep 01, 2011, 05:06:12 PM
Reply #150 on: Sep 01, 2011, 05:06:12 PM
Nothin' gets the motha' flippin' Valaquen.



nendo
Sep 01, 2011, 06:28:29 PM
Reply #152 on: Sep 01, 2011, 06:28:29 PM
It could be something else entirely.

It doesn't make sense to me to build such a massive prop for something that could be quite easily CGI'd for half the cost.

Not true. Cost of on set props and adding it in cgi later on a large movie like this works out to be the same.

You say its half the price or cheaper but what's your source? because if your just jumping onto the old bang waggon of oh cgi is half the cost then yes you may be right. But only if you want a half arsed job that doesn't look real

To get it to look perfect in cgi takes alot of resources. Could (on this High resolution) take longer to finaly render the shot than it would be to build it

If you want high end graphics which scott will want then its going to be easier, better to build part of the piece that in close ups, like the official pic, will be seen then add extentions onto it when needed. that cuts down the amount of work a model maker, animator, texture artist, lighting specialist would need to spend on that shot. Saving money and production time


yautja warlord
Sep 01, 2011, 07:06:35 PM
Reply #153 on: Sep 01, 2011, 07:06:35 PM
hopefully this is going to be good series and last for some time not just a couple then to be continued.


Gash
Sep 01, 2011, 11:33:45 PM
Reply #154 on: Sep 01, 2011, 11:33:45 PM
Making claims that Ridley Scott is more important and more influential than any other director today strikes me as incredibly bizarre and disconnected from reality.

Given some of the examples you've cited I really don't care what it strikes you as.

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.

Who cares about sci-fi or horror? You seem to think Ridley's known for four films. Enough said.


SiL
Sep 01, 2011, 11:54:59 PM
Reply #155 on: Sep 01, 2011, 11:54:59 PM
Cos he is? Of all his recent movies people still really only remember him from Hannibal, Black Hawk Down and Gladiator.


Gash
Sep 02, 2011, 12:40:21 AM
Reply #156 on: Sep 02, 2011, 12:40:21 AM
Duellists, A L I E N, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster.

Not all the above films are to my taste but all have been successful, critically or financially and all have more merit than most summer blockbusters. There are others worthy of note but he has been more prolific in the last fifteen years in directing and producing and there have been periods of lacklustre films throughout. So this is not 'hero' worship, it's pointing out that Ridley's skills are there in spades when he pulls out all the stops. And that is not something that is long distant, it is something that has occurred regularly throughout his career. I think this whole ludicrous debate started because someone suggested Ridley might be able to match Cameron, something which to me goes without saying. I'm afraid I probably over reacted and took the implication that Cameron might be a more worthy torch bearer for anything related to ALIEN as a snub to the orignators, chiefly Dan O'B, HR Giger, and Scott, who did the difficult work of creating everything. I don't hate Cameron, I think he has strengths, but I think he's built them on the shoulders of giants and flourished in his own way. However I will never find a lot to like in the 1986 sequel, it simply disappoints me - not because of what it is - but because of what it isn't.

And yes, blow me, I do think Ridley Scott is probably one of the most significant directors of our era. But heaven forfend that I should state as much, and fail to rate as highly the obvious talents of some of the other directors trotting out their wares. Pardon me for finding depth where there is none. Yes I really must go and watch The Dark Knight, or Hellboy, or The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, or other films I have little interest in.


Xenomrph
Sep 02, 2011, 01:08:44 AM
Reply #157 on: Sep 02, 2011, 01:08:44 AM
Quote
So this is not 'hero' worship, it's pointing out that Ridley's skills are there in spades when he pulls out all the stops.
I guess he forgot to do that for about half his movies.

Quote
Yes I really must go and watch The Dark Knight, or Hellboy, or The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, or other films I have little interest in.
All of those movies (and Pan's Labyrinth, and The Prestige, and Inception, and Brazil) have been widely regarded as visual spectacles.

Hell, even SiL, who is a huge 'Alien' fan and doesn't particularly like 'Aliens' as much as others (as far as I know) seems to think you're blowing Ridley Scott's reputation a bit out of proportion. Again, no one thinks he's a bad director, they're just pointing out that:

1. he hasn't done sci-fi for 30 years

2. his percentage of good to bad, especially in the last few years, is spotty at best

What he's done in the past doesn't really have any bearing on how he's going to perform now, decades later. Given his recent track record I'd say there's fair reason for people to be cautiously optimistic. Lightning could strike twice and we could get 'Alien', or we could end up with 'Body of Lies', or 'Robin Hood'. It's too early to tell, and saying "it's going to be good because it's Ridley Scott" is a little short-sighted.
There were plenty of people disappointed by 'Avatar' because they were expecting something like 'Terminator 2' or 'Aliens', and instead they got something much tamer. There were people who eagerly anticipated the Star Wars prequels, because holy shit it's Star Wars, how could George Lucas possibly f**k it up?

Welp. :(


SiL
Sep 02, 2011, 01:47:08 AM
Reply #158 on: Sep 02, 2011, 01:47:08 AM
Duellists,
Oh, come off it. Who the hell ever actually mentions that movie? How many people even know about it in the first place outside of fans of his work?

Quote
Not all the above films are to my taste but all have been successful, critically or financially and all have more merit than most summer blockbusters.
Fantastic. How about Legend, GI Jane, or 1492? They were all trashed.

Quote
There are others worthy of note
Not really, no.

Quote
And yes, blow me, I do think Ridley Scott is probably one of the most significant directors of our era.
How is he significant? How are any of them? Dude makes some entertaining films. That's it.


Xenomrph
Sep 02, 2011, 02:01:43 AM
Reply #159 on: Sep 02, 2011, 02:01:43 AM
Quote
How is he significant? How are any of them? Dude makes some entertaining films. That's it.
I can understand significance on certain levels - 'Alien' introduced the "female protagonist" idea, even though 'Aliens' turned it into the "female action-hero" idea. 'Alien' bucked a lot of "haunted house" horror movie cliches in interesting and memorable ways. The Alien design was unforgettable. Blade Runner has an iconic neo-noir visual style, and the soundtrack by Vangelis is fantastic and really memorable.

But beyond 'Alien' and 'Blade Runner', I wouldn't say any of his movies were revolutionary or iconic. They didn't push the boundaries of technology or visuals, they didn't re-shape the way we view certain character archetypes, they're all largely "safe" movies and frankly some of them sucked.

That isn't to say he can't make good movies anymore or that Prometheus doesn't have the potential to be fantastic, it's that heralding Ridley Scott as the finest director of our time because of two movies he did 30 years ago is a massive disservice to all the other directors who have contributed to cinema since 1982.

« Last Edit: Sep 02, 2011, 02:03:14 AM by Xenomrph »

SiL
Sep 02, 2011, 02:20:43 AM
Reply #160 on: Sep 02, 2011, 02:20:43 AM
That isn't to say he can't make good movies anymore or that Prometheus doesn't have the potential to be fantastic, it's that heralding Ridley Scott as the finest director of our time because of two movies he did 30 years ago is a massive disservice to all the other directors who have contributed to cinema since 1982.
How many times does Guts need to mention more recent movies for you to acknowledge he isn't just talking Alien and Blade Runner? :-\


Xenomrph
Sep 02, 2011, 02:24:55 AM
Reply #161 on: Sep 02, 2011, 02:24:55 AM
That isn't to say he can't make good movies anymore or that Prometheus doesn't have the potential to be fantastic, it's that heralding Ridley Scott as the finest director of our time because of two movies he did 30 years ago is a massive disservice to all the other directors who have contributed to cinema since 1982.
How many times does Guts need to mention more recent movies for you to acknowledge he isn't just talking Alien and Blade Runner? :-\
Because I think he's fixating on those two, and if he is I can understand why because they *are* significant. :P


ThisBethesdaSea
Sep 02, 2011, 02:39:13 AM
Reply #162 on: Sep 02, 2011, 02:39:13 AM
What's interesting to me is that instead of people responding with balance, Ridley is being seemingly bashed because some of his films aren't critically acclaimed and some are? Thelma and Louise is a great example of Ridleys non science fiction work that fared well in the eyes of critics many years later.

I would prefer that Scott hasn't been king blockbuster film, and that he's had missteps and fumblings, it keeps him grounded and his art visceral. I AM NOT saying that because the others are generally lauded that their work makes loads of money that they are worse. I am merely stating that using an artists less successful work against him is a low blow. I expect more from people then that.


Xenomrph
Sep 02, 2011, 02:45:57 AM
Reply #163 on: Sep 02, 2011, 02:45:57 AM
It isn't a low-blow when we're talking about something the director is working on now, so we use his contemporary history as a filmmaker as a benchmark for whether or not he might mess up. It at least makes more logical sense than "Well he made these great moves decades ago that are still hallmark films of the genre, so there's no possible way he could mess up today".


StrangeShape
Sep 02, 2011, 12:34:53 PM
Reply #164 on: Sep 02, 2011, 12:34:53 PM
Steven Spielberg is the name everyone knows, even a random person from the streets so thats all I have to add here. Not Ridley Scott. So I think Spielberg's the most influential in the genre and most known

Anyway, one great thing that came out of this thread is that it made me watch Blade Runner again


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed