Exclusive: New Prometheus Trailer Footage

Started by ikarop, Nov 26, 2011, 08:39:19 PM

Author
Exclusive: New Prometheus Trailer Footage (Read 157,907 times)

Tough little S.O.B.

Quote from: JKS1 on Dec 04, 2011, 01:01:29 PM
Quote from: Le Celticant on Dec 02, 2011, 05:14:28 PM
Quote from: St_Eddie on Dec 02, 2011, 04:19:46 PM
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Dec 02, 2011, 04:07:47 PM
Quote from: JKS1 on Nov 30, 2011, 02:27:36 PMSo, please, some examples of scenes and movies where the CGI depicted landscapes and spaceships arent obviously CGI

'Underworld' was made on a relatively cheap budget, but the entirety of the working mechanical crypt scene was completely generated by computers. Nobody realises it, because it looks so real.

Also, I believe that a lot of the rotor blades and associated effects during Ridley's own 'Black Hawk Down' were done in CGI, for reasons of safety. Something else few people realise, because it's done well.

Another example would be 'Independence Day'! The military withdrew support when mentions of Area 51 were refused to be removed from the script. It meant they had to switch completely over to CGI for all the air combat. A few shots were miniatures (possibly the explosions), but all the rest were done by computers. Everyone assumes they were models, but they're digital.

Then there's the stuff done for the new version of the 'Battlestar Galactica' television show. Completely CGI.

^
This.

I'm a huge supporter of practical effects and matte paintings and hate badly executed CGI with a vengeance but I've watched a fair few films on DVD, only to learn afterwards that a lot of CGI was used for landscapes.  I would never have known had I not been told.

It's worth pointing out that in these cases there always tends to be a certain amount of practical location in combination with the CGI.  Still, the fact is that bad CGI is very noticeable but well executed CGI is seemless, which is why some people claim CGI can't ever live up to practical methods; they've simply failed to recognise when it's done well.

Hello,

Before Vue & Terragen became over-popular by CG artists,
The landscapes (CG) you're referring were usually very real.
The only difference is the place they are put and matte painting
always looks "good" as CGI because it is usually "believable".
As I said in another thread of this forum:
There is a difference between what tells your eyes and what
tells your brain.

Your brain here at 1:38 will obviously tell you there is CG:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9gVWG5IQ7w#
Because it can't believe there were so many soldiers, or the
set itself seems to not exist in real life.
Yet if you ask your eyes "what is CG for sure" I'm pretty sure
they have no idea at all.
Spoiler

Here you go for your answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSPeRaePkk#ws
MOUHAHAHAHA!!
[close]

Brain & Eyes, working together, yet, different things.

yeah but I actually cited LOTR and Jurassic Park as movies that for the most part, in my opinion, employed good usage of good CGI

the CGI in those movies were for the most part a very positive contribution to the finished product, whereas Star Wars 1,2 and 3, probably the ultimate examples, were ruined by an endless barrage of empty CGI effects and creatures that rendered those films as nothing more than glorified cartoons with actors as mere props.

Along with the [still amazing] opening sequence to Balde Runner, 'Alien' could be used as another example that highlights my point:

I have not seen a single modern movie (utilising CGI effects) that has the same 'wow' factor that the whole 'derelict' sequence does in Alien. From the moment they clamber in through the openings of the ship, to the moment they encounter the Space Jockey, to the moment they come across the egg chamber and its seemingly massive scale......its 'wow' factor after 'wow' factor after 'wow' factor, and a perfect example of the powerful impact that the unique and ingenious conception and design of Giger, coupled with expert set building, model building and matte painting, can have. 

All of this is really just to counter the argument of a previous poster who posted something along the lines of 'i cant believe anyone would build models and utilise matte paintings when CGI can do the same thing quicker, easier and in more detail'.

I have nothing against good usage of well executed and appropriate CGI but again I have to repeat that I have yet to experience this same 'wow' factor on watching any modern day movie utilising advanced CGI effects.

.....and this is why that for the most part, with Prometheus, I truly hope Ridley built models and sets and resorted to a [hopefully minimal] reliance on CGI only when he absolutely had to, or when the CGI actually did enhance what was being depicted on screen yet remained seemingly 'invisible' as CGI.

When I'm finally sitting in the theatre in June 2012 and that iconic 20th Century Fox logo fades out, I for one want to experience that same dazzling 'wow' factor that I experienced, each time, during Ridley's earlier two iconic masterpieces,.

It not going to happen. You are goint to hate CGI in that movie as much as me. :(

Alienseseses

I just got back from seeing Hugo, and that's an example of CGI used for a wow factor. Granted, it didn't look realistic, but then, that wasn't the point. It's just another kind of paint to create art with. You can throw it around haphazardly and call it pretty, or you can put effort into it and use it when it works for the piece.

Tough little S.O.B.

Tough little S.O.B.

#587
Quote from: ThisBethesdaSea on Dec 04, 2011, 04:51:54 PM
I honestly don't even know what the big deal is in terms of a physical matte painting or a digital one. I've been BLOWN AWAY by digital backdrops that were/are so stunningly beautiful in their perfection. If I'm wowed, I'm wowed, it doesn't matter what the medium is.

Gollum is another WOW for me and absolutely proves how amazing CG can be if used perfectly.

For me watching at gollum is like watching Roger Rabit. Is a cartoon in  a human´s world.

That´s the problem, if people can believe gollum, if this sets the level of acceptancy for people,  why are you going to try to make it more credible? "make it like gollum its enough".  And gollums sums it all up: Non beliable movements, no sense of being phisically real, and the worst part: A COMIC DESIGN and COMICAL body and facial expresion.

Horrible.


Quote from: Alien³ on Dec 04, 2011, 04:55:47 PM
Quote from: JKS1 on Dec 04, 2011, 04:24:42 PM
Thats why 'Avatar' is so unmemorable for me - the whole thing looks like a cartoon and theres almost nothing 'believable' about any of whats depicted on screen (as much as I love many of the ideas in the movie). It never feels like a real, solid, flesh and bone place, nor did the CGI characters seem real or 'there' in a purely physical sense.

I'm the complete opposite. Although I know the world and characters are not real in Avatar, the CGI was so outstanding that it was enough to suspend my disbelief making them feel real and solid creating the sense that they were 'there.'

Hate avatar. The history is just horrible but the CGI is (even perfectly done) hateable.  The concept of it: LETS MIX real human with cartoons. That´s what it is to me. real human interacting with cartoons. So, they are in Cartoon planet. A planet with 3D cartoon creatures, drawed by some cartoon god or something. That is what I see, and what is worse, that is what James Cameron want´s us to see. A cartoon world! And people just watches at it, and they believe it.

Also, Avatar is the start for that 3D madness that is destroying sci fi and action movies.Now everything is done in the sake of 3D. Well...at least 3d somewhere because the characters are uni dimensional in all those 3d movies.

JC is dead to me.


Quote from: Alienseseses on Dec 05, 2011, 04:00:13 AM
I just got back from seeing Hugo, and that's an example of CGI used for a wow factor. Granted, it didn't look realistic, but then, that wasn't the point. It's just another kind of paint to create art with. You can throw it around haphazardly and call it pretty, or you can put effort into it and use it when it works for the piece.

If you can not make it look real, then I dont understand where is the point of it...

Just because is there Im not going to believe it. But it seems that people do as far as in on the screen...lucky them...


Alienseseses

Things don't have to look real to serve a purpose. The mere fact of CGI isn't enough- if it's artless and pointless, it's worthless. In my example, Hugo, it was an artistic choice to give the film a certain dreamlike look.

Tough little S.O.B.

Tough little S.O.B.

#589
Quote from: Alienseseses on Dec 05, 2011, 04:21:51 AM
Things don't have to look real to serve a purpose. The mere fact of CGI isn't enough- if it's artless and pointless, it's worthless. In my example, Hugo, it was an artistic choice to give the film a certain dreamlike look.

Ok I got it. Let me say it diferently: Doesn´t  need to look REAL, like from our world, but needs to look INTEGRATED in the world is descriving.

Gollum is not integrated in the world of the LOTR movie, because its not a world of 3D talking cartoons.

Avatar planet and chreatures are not integrated because its not Cartoon Planet.

Landscapes and hordes of people are integrated on 300.

The comic style is integrated on sin city because its a COMIC style movie.

Hugo I don´t know because I havn´t seen it. and Im really afraid to do so: Scorsese+3d CGI sounds bad, really bad.

CGI has ruined a lot of directors: Tim Burton, James Cameron (even he started mastering it), George Lucas, Spielberg has used it quite well but he is slipping to the dark side, or one of the saddest examples : Terry Gilliam.




By the way, maybe we should create a forum topic for discussing CGI as we are stealling the thread here...

ThisBethesdaSea

ThisBethesdaSea

#590
Good god I'm through with this topic. This is like digging to china with an icicle. You can't please people whatsoever.

Pn2501

Pn2501

#591
Quote from: Tough little S.O.B. on Dec 05, 2011, 04:31:07 AM
Quote from: Alienseseses on Dec 05, 2011, 04:21:51 AM
Things don't have to look real to serve a purpose. The mere fact of CGI isn't enough- if it's artless and pointless, it's worthless. In my example, Hugo, it was an artistic choice to give the film a certain dreamlike look.

Ok I got it. Let me say it diferently: Doesn´t  need to look REAL, like from our world, but needs to look INTEGRATED in the world is descriving.

Gollum is not integrated in the world of the LOTR movie, because its not a world of 3D talking cartoons.

Avatar planet and chreatures are not integrated because its not Cartoon Planet.

Landscapes and hordes of people are integrated on 300.

The comic style is integrated on sin city because its a COMIC style movie.

Hugo I don´t know because I havn´t seen it. and Im really afraid to do so: Scorsese+3d CGI sounds bad, really bad.

CGI has ruined a lot of directors: Tim Burton, James Cameron (even he started mastering it), George Lucas, Spielberg has used it quite well but he is slipping to the dark side, or one of the saddest examples : Terry Gilliam.




By the way, maybe we should create a forum topic for discussing CGI as we are stealling the thread here...

on drugs.... you are on drugs ..... bad ones ......... like meth ......... maybe crack.

from an very recent interview with Mr Gilliam
QuoteOn digital effects: "They are a Damocles sword. Any of this stuff you use is just a tool but there's this rush now for photorealism and it bothers me. There's so much overt fantasy now that I don't watch a lot of the films because everything is possible now. There's no tension there. Where's the tension? Is it possible? Will you succeed? Will gravity take over? None of those things are part of the equation anymore. The denial of reality and consequence was fun when these movies began but now it's been 20 years of this stuff. I keep waiting for the public to get fed up with it but then I worry that now it's been here so long the audience is trained that this is what movies are meant to be.

That said digital effects are only a tool.

Tough little S.O.B.

New Gilliam movies have the ugliest and most anoying CGI effects I´ve ever seen. Its just unwatchable. Can´t stand it.

Pn2501

Pn2501

#593
Quote from: Tough little S.O.B. on Dec 05, 2011, 09:11:10 AM
New Gilliam movies have the ugliest and most anoying CGI effects I´ve ever seen. Its just unwatchable. Can´t stand it.

maybe you should go bury or head in the sand and wait for this cgi thing to blow over.

Tough little S.O.B.

Quote from: Pn2501 on Dec 05, 2011, 09:18:49 AM
Quote from: Tough little S.O.B. on Dec 05, 2011, 09:11:10 AM
New Gilliam movies have the ugliest and most anoying CGI effects I´ve ever seen. Its just unwatchable. Can´t stand it.

maybe you should go bury or head in the sand and wait for this cgi thing to blow over.

nah, there is plenty of movies to enjoy that don't use bad CGI.

Anyway I insist we should continue this topic somewhere else, or stop it already.

Darth Vile

Darth Vile

#595
Quote from: Tough little S.O.B. on Dec 05, 2011, 04:31:07 AM
Quote from: Alienseseses on Dec 05, 2011, 04:21:51 AM
Things don't have to look real to serve a purpose. The mere fact of CGI isn't enough- if it's artless and pointless, it's worthless. In my example, Hugo, it was an artistic choice to give the film a certain dreamlike look.

Ok I got it. Let me say it diferently: Doesn´t  need to look REAL, like from our world, but needs to look INTEGRATED in the world is descriving.

Gollum is not integrated in the world of the LOTR movie, because its not a world of 3D talking cartoons.

Avatar planet and chreatures are not integrated because its not Cartoon Planet.

Landscapes and hordes of people are integrated on 300.

The comic style is integrated on sin city because its a COMIC style movie.

Hugo I don´t know because I havn´t seen it. and Im really afraid to do so: Scorsese+3d CGI sounds bad, really bad.

CGI has ruined a lot of directors: Tim Burton, James Cameron (even he started mastering it), George Lucas, Spielberg has used it quite well but he is slipping to the dark side, or one of the saddest examples : Terry Gilliam.




By the way, maybe we should create a forum topic for discussing CGI as we are stealling the thread here...

Do you think the same when watching the 1933 version of King Kong or Jason and the Argonauts? I don't believe CGI has "ruined directors". It's a tool/mechanism that's easier to employ and we're spoilt in that most movies (specifically Hollywood event movies) contain effects employed to get bums on seats (most of the effects are good even if the movie isn't). However, when assessing the validity of CGI in modern movies, one should look at the best examples and not the worst. I don't particularly like Avatar, but it would have been impossible to make a few years ago. I happen to think it's a worthy experiment at pushing the boundaries of virtual environments in cinema.

CGI presents filmmakers with further opportunity to realise their ideas/concepts. Of course not all of them are good or worthy of exploration, but I'd sooner have a Jurassic Park, The Lord of the Rings , Star Wars, Star Trek movies made possible by CGI than not have them at all. But that's just me...

boabwalker

boabwalker

#596
Cheers man but missed it again,got to see the stills though thats defo a space jockey next to the chair,kinda adds up to the story that man pisses off the jockeys enougth for them to activate the urns into some kind of bio weapon. lovein the website mate keep up the great work,Boab

JKS1

JKS1

#597
Quote from: Darth Vile on Dec 05, 2011, 10:58:28 AM
Quote from: Tough little S.O.B. on Dec 05, 2011, 04:31:07 AM
Quote from: Alienseseses on Dec 05, 2011, 04:21:51 AM
Things don't have to look real to serve a purpose. The mere fact of CGI isn't enough- if it's artless and pointless, it's worthless. In my example, Hugo, it was an artistic choice to give the film a certain dreamlike look.

Ok I got it. Let me say it diferently: Doesn´t  need to look REAL, like from our world, but needs to look INTEGRATED in the world is descriving.

Gollum is not integrated in the world of the LOTR movie, because its not a world of 3D talking cartoons.

Avatar planet and chreatures are not integrated because its not Cartoon Planet.

Landscapes and hordes of people are integrated on 300.

The comic style is integrated on sin city because its a COMIC style movie.

Hugo I don´t know because I havn´t seen it. and Im really afraid to do so: Scorsese+3d CGI sounds bad, really bad.

CGI has ruined a lot of directors: Tim Burton, James Cameron (even he started mastering it), George Lucas, Spielberg has used it quite well but he is slipping to the dark side, or one of the saddest examples : Terry Gilliam.




By the way, maybe we should create a forum topic for discussing CGI as we are stealling the thread here...

Do you think the same when watching the 1933 version of King Kong or Jason and the Argonauts? I don't believe CGI has "ruined directors". It's a tool/mechanism that's easier to employ and we're spoilt in that most movies (specifically Hollywood event movies) contain effects employed to get bums on seats (most of the effects are good even if the movie isn't). However, when assessing the validity of CGI in modern movies, one should look at the best examples and not the worst. I don't particularly like Avatar, but it would have been impossible to make a few years ago. I happen to think it's a worthy experiment at pushing the boundaries of virtual environments in cinema.

CGI presents filmmakers with further opportunity to realise their ideas/concepts. Of course not all of them are good or worthy of exploration, but I'd sooner have a Jurassic Park, The Lord of the Rings , Star Wars, Star Trek movies made possible by CGI than not have them at all. But that's just me...

Remove Star Wars 1,2,3 from that list and I'd agree with you as I'd be quite happy if those movies were never made

Anyway I'm just glad that it seems as though Prometheus wont feature CGI Space Jockeys and theyve built huge sets, so I'm happy on those fronts at least, and thank God there wont be any CGI androids either

droideggs

droideggs

#598
I'm glad Scott is doing more set pieces than all out CGI. Yes, even in 2012, CGI can still SUCK. There is no texture in CGI. The human eye can detect its artificiality instantly.

unkle73

unkle73

#599
Thanks for the link. Superb.
Is this the only trailer to have been leaked this far? I'm just wondering if the trailer from ComiCon was ever leaked.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News