Prometheus Set & Location Pictures

[ThisBethesdaSea]

No mention of how awesome CGI can look if used properly.......LOTR but mostly....yeah, it's pretty bad. George Lucas set the bar pretty low, perhaps one of the laziest filmmakers out there.

Practical sets....practical effects!!!

[NUB DESTROYER]

Practical FX has been around for how many years?

Full-scale CGI for how many?

We can't ever run unless we try to take those first few baby steps.

[Nightmare Asylum]

I LOVE Star Wars, but to be honest, CGI still can't beat real build set, although Avatar made a huge leap concerning of reality of CGI.

There's no doubt about that.

But with a movie like this, a movie that's set in space, you're going to see a plethora of CGI shots; exterior hull shots, other planets, etc... Personally I would like to see as many physical sets as possible.

'Moon' would tend to disagree with you...

"Moon" 

The Duncan Jones film Moon. If you haven't seen it, I would highly recommend it.

Anyways, about the photos: Weyland logo, squeeee! Loving all the set pics so far. Really great stuff!

[St_Eddie]

I don't mean to offend anyone with my comment.  I'm just pointing out that this whole film can be done more practically and efficiently with today's technology.  The guys who do CGI are also craftsmen in their own right...and if you look at films like Star Wars Ep 1-3, you can really tell how authentic everything can look with modern computer tech.  I think a lot of fans of the Alien movies don't trust CGI because they had a bad experience with the way things looked in Alien3...but that was 20 years ago and technology has come so far since then.  I thin FOX should have insisted on using Industrial Light and Magic to make this film...but since they didn't, I guess we can just file this one under the long list of mistakes that FOX has made with this franchise since the 1990's.

Wow, you couldn't be any more wrong if you tried.  You used Star Wars 1-3 as an example for how CGI can be put to good use?!  This leads me to believe that you're either blind, or that you're George Lucas himself!  Also, there was only one CGI shot in Alien 3 (the alien's head cracking at the end), the rest was a rod puppet.  Seriously, people like yourself make me despair for the film industry.  I only pray that you don't work within that industry.

In summary, this is my reaction to your uninformed ramblings...

[JaaayDee]

I don't mean to offend anyone with my comment.  I'm just pointing out that this whole film can be done more practically and efficiently with today's technology.  The guys who do CGI are also craftsmen in their own right...and if you look at films like Star Wars Ep 1-3, you can really tell how authentic everything can look with modern computer tech.  I think a lot of fans of the Alien movies don't trust CGI because they had a bad experience with the way things looked in Alien3...but that was 20 years ago and technology has come so far since then.  I thin FOX should have insisted on using Industrial Light and Magic to make this film...but since they didn't, I guess we can just file this one under the long list of mistakes that FOX has made with this franchise since the 1990's.

[Blacklabel]

George.. is that you? 

[JaaayDee]

Hello everyone

Spoiler

If the images are removed there is another place on this forum where you can always find them along with all of the other set photos released in the past months.

[close]

[Marr]

Er but Star Wars episodes1-3 were a complete CGI filled mess. Now (original release)  episodes 4-6.....now your talking...no CGI there...
Amazed but very pleased that we are getting a big summer film with almost lost art of practical effects & sets etc. Hope other people take note.

[Highland]

mmm, I'd have to disagree with everyone then.

The CGI in Revenge of the Sith is for the most part, exceptional. It has some dodgy moments for sure, usually involving the over exaggerated movement of a Jedi or organic life form. It's easily one of the best films in recent times as far as image quality, sound and special effects go.

The practical effects in the original Star Wars are also exceptional and hold up well, but let's not kid ourselves on here.

A blend of CGI and practical effects obviously offers the best of both worlds. There are some scene's which have to be used with CGI if the director wants his vision to be portrayed on screen, they just can't been done otherwise.

[Ash 937]

I see all the points you are making...but idk, I'm still having a hard time thinking that the stress of physical set design, the waste of raw materials to build them, and the space used to house all of it is really worth it in a final product. 

I watched Alien again last night and was amazed about how bad it looked when Ripley shot the creature out of the airlock of the Narcissus.  It was so obvious that it was a man in a suit.  I think that if Ridley had access to CGI tech back in 1979, that wouldn't have been a problem and it would've looked more convincing.  When the director's cut came out a part of me hoped he would've addressed this problem and the effect would've been cleaned up or the outer shot of the creature being blasted out of the Narcissus would've been reredered in CGI completely.

As for the huge sets that were originally photographed for this thread...I'm still asking myself "why?"  It can all be done for less and with less today.  And maybe Ridley could've gotten the 'R' rating he wanted if the film cost was less that the reported $150 million...but instead he had to go and insist on making this film the more expensive way.  No way FOX would've given him an R rated movie for $150mil when their bottom line is about money rather than artistic integrity (at that cost anyway). It seems he got the sets he wanted but he had to compromise the rating he wished for to get it.

...and I'm not sure what sort of an Alien film would be better; the one with hand built sets thats rated PG-13 or the one that costs less with CGI and would be rated 'R'.  I guess we will all just have to wait and see the film to discover the value of all of this for ourselves.

[T Dog]

No mention of how awesome CGI can look if used properly.......LOTR but mostly....yeah, it's pretty bad. George Lucas set the bar pretty low, perhaps one of the laziest filmmakers out there.

Practical sets....practical effects!!!

I don't really like the LOTR CGI either. All those movies just look like big dirty CGI f**kfest's to me. I've been to a few of the shooting locations of LOTR's and they shot in really really mundane locations and then did everything in post. They kind of started a trend with it in terms of fixing things in post such as lighting, backgrounds, clouds etc. On another note I find Peter Jackson's films pretty boring. Brain Dead is great fun though.

Maybe it has to do with what I saw in my formative years, but there is a magic in the matte, and it's been lost.

[Glaive]

George.. is that you? 

[JaaayDee]

No mention of how awesome CGI can look if used properly.......LOTR but mostly....yeah, it's pretty bad. George Lucas set the bar pretty low, perhaps one of the laziest filmmakers out there.

Practical sets....practical effects!!!

I don't really like the LOTR CGI either. All those movies just look like big dirty CGI f**kfest's to me. I've been to a few of the shooting locations of LOTR's and they shot in really really mundane locations and then did everything in post. They kind of started a trend with it in terms of fixing things in post such as lighting, backgrounds, clouds etc. On another note I find Peter Jackson's films pretty boring. Brain Dead is great fun though.

Maybe it has to do with what I saw in my formative years, but there is a magic in the matte, and it's been lost.

I humbly respect your opinion, and I personally disagree with it.  Strongly.

[Highland]

@ Ash 937

Although I don't agree with your entire post, I also highlighted the need for making a giant landing leg when the first set of images hit. It doesn't make much sense, although this may be piece that's used several times.

It may not even be what we think it is.

[Glaive]

What have CGI sets got to do with the rating of a film??!!??