User Information

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

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Exclusive: More Jockey Images from Prometheus  (Read 62522 times)

Hellspawn28
Dec 13, 2011, 01:26:26 AM
Reply #165 on: Dec 13, 2011, 01:26:26 AM
The Star Wars prequels had bad CG? I always remember all three of those movies had great looking effects but I think the practical effects that Episode 4-6 will always be the best IMO. At least this movie has set pieces for once unlike most movies now these days.


ThisBethesdaSea
Dec 13, 2011, 01:30:52 AM
Reply #166 on: Dec 13, 2011, 01:30:52 AM
"who cares about CGI" meaning, if it's done well, used well, I'm not bothered by it. What I am bothered by is the incessant diatribe against the prequel trilogy. I'm not a fan of them either, but Jesus. Point made. This is Ridley fu€king Scott peeps.

Done.

« Last Edit: Dec 13, 2011, 01:42:07 AM by ThisBethesdaSea »

SM
Dec 13, 2011, 01:35:01 AM
Reply #167 on: Dec 13, 2011, 01:35:01 AM




Mr. Clemens
Dec 13, 2011, 03:09:28 AM
Reply #170 on: Dec 13, 2011, 03:09:28 AM


Those wires were digitally removed for the Final Cut.  That's an example of a good use of CGI in conjunction with practical effects.

YES.

And the one all-new (mostly) digital shot of Batty's dove flying away was absolutely lovely, and a definite improvement over the original shot it replaced.

I trust our man Scott.



SM
Dec 13, 2011, 03:37:09 AM
Reply #172 on: Dec 13, 2011, 03:37:09 AM


Those wires were digitally removed for the Final Cut.  That's an example of a good use of CGI in conjunction with practical effects.

Those wires were visible in various versions of the film for 25 years - thus showing the a dodgy effect is a dodgy effect no matter how it's executed.


Mr. Clemens
Dec 13, 2011, 03:44:29 AM
Reply #173 on: Dec 13, 2011, 03:44:29 AM


Those wires were digitally removed for the Final Cut.  That's an example of a good use of CGI in conjunction with practical effects.

Those wires were visible in various versions of the film for 25 years - thus showing the a dodgy effect is a dodgy effect no matter how it's executed.

Not sure what you're going for, here. With the Final Cut, Rid had the technology to go in and brush those cables out, and he did so. It was a tasteful revision. If he'd filled the movie up with dancing Jar-Jars, you might be onto something. But again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We're talking about how Ridley's going to use the tools, aren't we?


SM
Dec 13, 2011, 03:52:45 AM
Reply #174 on: Dec 13, 2011, 03:52:45 AM
It was in response to "This is Ridley fu€king Scott peeps."

I know perfectly well all the stuff Riddles cleaned up and fixed in the Final Cut - but the fact remains he had a special effect that stuck out like big hairy dog balls in the flick for 25 years.  He - just like any other filmmaker - is not above the odd dodgy effect.


Mr. Clemens
Dec 13, 2011, 04:11:24 AM
Reply #175 on: Dec 13, 2011, 04:11:24 AM
It was in response to "This is Ridley fu€king Scott peeps."

I know perfectly well all the stuff Riddles cleaned up and fixed in the Final Cut - but the fact remains he had a special effect that stuck out like big hairy dog balls in the flick for 25 years.  He - just like any other filmmaker - is not above the odd dodgy effect.

Oh, I see. But one does what one can with the tools they have available at the time. Like, King Kong's rippling fur has been rippling for almost eighty years, and will continue to do so for another hundred, at least. If Cooper had had the tech to keep that from happening, he would have done so, wouldn't he? You can only blame a bad effect for being bad when it's made. And with the technology Ridley has available now, I believe he'll be giving us tasteful, beautiful shots - unlike Alien Resurrection's 'down the throat' cam, for instance.


SM
Dec 13, 2011, 04:17:28 AM
Reply #176 on: Dec 13, 2011, 04:17:28 AM
Quote
You can only blame a bad effect for being bad when it's made.

I did.  After the special effects leap of Star Wars - not to mention the visual effects of Blade Runner, I wouldn't expect such a glaringly obvious special effect to make the cut.


Xenomorphine
Dec 13, 2011, 04:18:44 AM
Reply #177 on: Dec 13, 2011, 04:18:44 AM
I wouldnt want to put words in his mouth, but the way i saw his post was that he was suggesting the reason why its not such a direct prequel to Alien is so that a sequel to Prometheus wouldnt necessarily have to continue forwards towards the first film nor tie directly into it.

So if for arguments sake Prometheus was set 1 year before Alien, Prometheus 2 wouldnt necessarily be set 6 months before Alien and carry on leading up to that film, but could go off on a tangent establishing a parallel story to Alien if Fox wanted to continue it as a franchise.

And this makes it not a prequel, how? :)

All 'prequel' means is a film set in the same continuity, made after another one, but chronologically set before it. We don't have to play weird philosophical games by decreeing over or under a certain percentage of references is what makes a prequel what it is. It only needs one deliberately and officially sanctioned reference and to not contradict any canonical history.

Even Ridley Scott himself said the creature, as it appears today, is tired and not scary. Can it be made scary by way of a bit of a re-imagining of it? Yes. In terms of the that plot device of people running down corridors or hallways on space ships, that IS probably more worn out then the creature itself. It would have to be infused with something great to turn it on its head if a good director is going to use that formula once again. :)

By that logic, we will never have any films, whatsoever, which include predatory creatures or human killers. But there are always methods of doing it well - and like I said, people rewatch the first two films all the time. If they weren't still entertained by them, even though they know what will happen, then they wouldn't do.

But where the **** is a jockey in this picture?

There isn't. People are looking for things and making guesses.

It's known as simulacra. :)

It was in response to "This is Ridley fu€king Scott peeps."

I know perfectly well all the stuff Riddles cleaned up and fixed in the Final Cut - but the fact remains he had a special effect that stuck out like big hairy dog balls in the flick for 25 years.  He - just like any other filmmaker - is not above the odd dodgy effect.

As the continued inability to simply cut between the fake Ash head and the Nostromo crew, to offset how jarring it is when suddenly seeing the actor's own, aptly demonstrates. :)

If there was one thing that film was in need of having fixed...


Mr. Clemens
Dec 13, 2011, 04:27:00 AM
Reply #178 on: Dec 13, 2011, 04:27:00 AM
I know perfectly well all the stuff Riddles cleaned up and fixed in the Final Cut - but the fact remains he had a special effect that stuck out like big hairy dog balls in the flick for 25 years.  He - just like any other filmmaker - is not above the odd dodgy effect.

As the continued inability to simply cut between the fake Ash head and the Nostromo crew, to offset how jarring it is when suddenly seeing the actor's own, aptly demonstrates. :)

If there was one thing that film was in need of having fixed...

Now this, I can get behind. It was a plain editorial decision that might've smoothed the transition between Ian Holm and his headcast. But SM, you talk about the special effects leap of Star Wars, and I call to mind the most similar analogue to the spinners of Blade Runner in that film: Luke's landspeeder entering Mos Eisley... where Lucas simply slathered some vaseline on the lens, to cover up the speeder's wheels. Ridley could have done the same to the shots of his spinner, but that would have created a blurry glow in the rain. Would that have been better?


SM
Dec 13, 2011, 04:51:16 AM
Reply #179 on: Dec 13, 2011, 04:51:16 AM
Quote
As the continued inability to simply cut between the fake Ash head and the Nostromo crew, to offset how jarring it is when suddenly seeing the actor's own, aptly demonstrates.

If there was one thing that film was in need of having fixed...

Quite.  And I've seen a version aired on TV where they had a quick cutaway close up of Ripley between the dummy head and the Holm head.  How it hasn't appeared on DVD or Blu-Ray baffles me.

Quote
Now this, I can get behind. It was a plain editorial decision that might've smoothed the transition between Ian Holm and his headcast. But SM, you talk about the special effects leap of Star Wars, and I call to mind the most similar analogue to the spinners of Blade Runner in that film: Luke's landspeeder entering Mos Eisley... where Lucas simply slathered some vaseline on the lens, to cover up the speeder's wheels. Ridley could have done the same to the shots of his spinner, but that would have created a blurry glow in the rain. Would that have been better?

The landspeeder floats on some antigrav field - vaseline on the lens works in terms of the narrative and to hide the effect.  Riddles would've been better off in that shot to dim the background lighting to hide the wires.  It's already at night and could easily have gotten away with the dark background.  It's not broad daylight like the landspeeder.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed