User Information

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

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Things of note in Weyland Information page  (Read 16427 times)

wonkyfunk303
Mar 22, 2012, 04:16:18 PM
Reply #30 on: Mar 22, 2012, 04:16:18 PM
That linked interview is the best one I've read in regards to prometheus yet. Good find. I'm interested character ideas, motivations, choices, etc.... That interview also proves my theory about Ridley and Co. REALLY thinking about not just character in terms of personality, but what they would wear, down to their shoelaces. It tells the critics of the costume choices that they weren't just pandering, they're solid histories.

no offence but it does no such thing, how do you know that the designers didn't research mercenaries on the net and see a lot of computer game characters and decided to do the same?.

i would really like you to also explain to me why prometheus has technology far more futuristic looking than even resurrection that is set hundreds of years in the future way past prometheus?, and please do it without making excuses.

you said in the other thread that wanting an r rating disproved my theory too which was utter nonsense and youve yet to address it...

floating touch screens...

touch screens and info on cryotubes...

flashy displays on everything...

auto med table that removes thing from shaw thats not available in resurrection when they remove queen embryo from ripley...

mass effect style space suits....

theyve done a george lucas to appeal to modern generation and make it stand up when compared to modern sci fi films and games plain and simple.

thanks

rich

could it not be that the crew of the nostromo were just miners.... ie why would they have the best tech? i mean for project prometheus they are all scientists and archaelogists.... whereas with ripley and co, they were just a work horse.

as for ress.... that was a military post out of regulated space, knowing what politics are like, i doubt they would fund that kind of equipment... hence the crudeness of it all, get the job done, as cheap as possible?

whereas weyland, big company loads of money etc.. etc.. etc..

if that makes sense?

sorry mate but you dont seem to be getting my point, its very easy to sit and make up reasons why and to retcon them in your own mind to make them fit, but they arent real reasons, im talking about the real reason its been done in prometheus....

but just to answer one reason you gave, the med bed in alien resurrection is well over 200 years after prometheus, im pretty sure they could afford to have one by then, and the fact that its out of regulation space is just to cover up what its up to, no expense appears to be spared elsewhere, they appear to have built a huge ship with staff etc just exactly for the purpose of breeding the aliens, im sure an auto med bed wouldnt be missed out to save cost when it could be so useful for the mission.

thanks

rich

That linked interview is the best one I've read in regards to prometheus yet. Good find. I'm interested character ideas, motivations, choices, etc.... That interview also proves my theory about Ridley and Co. REALLY thinking about not just character in terms of personality, but what they would wear, down to their shoelaces. It tells the critics of the costume choices that they weren't just pandering, they're solid histories.

and just to add, i know you arent a gamer but i dont think you realise how big the gaming industry is nowadays.

about 70% pf the worlds populaition plays video games,.... thats most of the developed world.....

the average age of gamers is 33, and average age of game buyers is 40, most gamers are aged between 18 and 35

people also play at aged 65 to 70.....
http://videogames.lovetoknow.com/video-games/how-many-people-play-video-games

now taking these numbers into account, i would say that most the percentage of prometheus target audience will be gamers, i would also bet that a fair percent of the staff/film crew/designers are gamers too

also i would bet that some of the crew have also worked on games at some point as many big games have movie budgets, actors, designers etc.

now again granted that games have borrowed/stole or been influenced by the alien series but i think its also come full circle and movies are influenced by games and also try to appeal to whats in fashion.

now after seeing these numbers, if you think that no movie designers/makers get influenced by games or try to appeal to gaming audience then i think youre living in fantasy land..

thanks

rich

and???? does it really matter?? so long as the film kicks ass and isnt a flop or a letdown i shall be happy..... no point in being so nit picky!

or does fanboyism really go that in depth?

thanks

james


RICH-ENGLAND
Mar 22, 2012, 04:23:29 PM
Reply #31 on: Mar 22, 2012, 04:23:29 PM

@wonkyfunk303

not really, but again, another one not reading posts properly and missing the points!. first up there was a thread made specifically for people to talk about minor gripes they had with the film, i explicitly stated that i didnt care too much as long as the film was good but listed a few gripes for the sake of conversation to which ThisBethesdaSea took umbridge to, so i am merely addressing those points and answering his posts, which after all, is what a forum is for right?.......

secondly, i dont remember that post being directed at you so you can feel free to carry on about your day......

and no, my fanboyism doesnt go that far, i think you should look at others for that as its not me that got upset.

thanks

rich

« Last Edit: Mar 22, 2012, 04:37:16 PM by RICH-ENGLAND »

wonkyfunk303
Mar 22, 2012, 04:30:27 PM
Reply #32 on: Mar 22, 2012, 04:30:27 PM
i wasnt getting upset, just thought it was being over analyzed.


i only offered my 2p's worth as its a solution that works for me personally and a way i can identify with the retcon going on seeing as the computers and displays in alien were so plain.... and dated...

im really looking forward to this film and hoping they dont screw it up, im also hoping it answers lots of unanswered questions from Alien, or at least gives an indication.

thanks

james


RICH-ENGLAND
Mar 22, 2012, 04:41:06 PM
Reply #33 on: Mar 22, 2012, 04:41:06 PM
i wasnt getting upset, just thought it was being over analyzed.


i only offered my 2p's worth as its a solution that works for me personally and a way i can identify with the retcon going on seeing as the computers and displays in alien were so plain.... and dated...

im really looking forward to this film and hoping they dont screw it up, im also hoping it answers lots of unanswered questions from Alien, or at least gives an indication.

thanks

james

you misunderstood, i didn't mean you were getting upset, but nvm.

and yes, we can all make reasons to retcon etc and can all think up ways to make things fit, but thats missing the whole point of mine and ThisBethesdaSeas debate.

again, im not too bothered and i understand why its been done which ive explained in my posts many times, but Bethesda doesnt agree about the real reasons behind it which is the point of our debate.

thanks

rich

« Last Edit: Mar 22, 2012, 04:43:39 PM by RICH-ENGLAND »

harlock
Mar 22, 2012, 04:59:17 PM
Reply #34 on: Mar 22, 2012, 04:59:17 PM
The constellation shown does like the Ursa Major's six right-most stars of the Big Dipper, which is interesting.

Rather than concentrate on Ursa Major as a whole, looking at the Big Dipper shows Mizar is a binary star, just like Zeta 2 Reticuli and Merak has a confirmed planetary system. These would be the left-most and right-most stars of the formation, 78 and 79 Light Years from Earth, so both are further away from Zeta 2 Reticuli and may need Project Prometheus to reach.

Its wiki page also says that the Dipper is changing shape as it ages, so Holloway is probably pulling at it to de-age the Dipper to match with the pictogram's visuals of it?

Also, funnily enough, if one follows the handle of the Dipper, you can measure a distance to Arcturus...  ::) and a little less funnier, but still applicable, Cassiopeia, as mentioned before.


SM
Mar 22, 2012, 07:55:19 PM
Reply #35 on: Mar 22, 2012, 07:55:19 PM
Quote
i would really like you to also explain to me why prometheus has technology far more futuristic looking than even resurrection that is set hundreds of years in the future way past prometheus?,

Good point.  Hadn't though of that.  All the screens in that look decidedly CRT.


And stuff
Mar 22, 2012, 08:30:36 PM
Reply #36 on: Mar 22, 2012, 08:30:36 PM
i wasnt getting upset, just thought it was being over analyzed.


i only offered my 2p's worth as its a solution that works for me personally and a way i can identify with the retcon going on seeing as the computers and displays in alien were so plain.... and dated...

im really looking forward to this film and hoping they dont screw it up, im also hoping it answers lots of unanswered questions from Alien, or at least gives an indication.

thanks

james

you misunderstood, i didn't mean you were getting upset, but nvm.

and yes, we can all make reasons to retcon etc and can all think up ways to make things fit, but thats missing the whole point of mine and ThisBethesdaSeas debate.

again, im not too bothered and i understand why its been done which ive explained in my posts many times, but Bethesda doesnt agree about the real reasons behind it which is the point of our debate.

thanks

rich

I don't think people are missing your points in every post, I think you might be missing the big picture.  Scott probably adopted the aesthetics for these movies (Alien and Prometheus) based on a futuristic vision of current technologies at the time that he made them.  After all, that's what sci-fi is all about, right?  Just like with any visionary artist, his ideas will most likely stay relevant with the times.  From his perspective, he wants to make an original piece - not an installment of something he's already done.  That'd just be silly.  The technologies you see in the trailers for Prometheus are pretty accurate to what we'd imagine our future being now that we're in 2012, not 1979.  Try and see if from a realistic point of view rather than from that of a fan.  I think that's a step we've all had to take since seeing the trailers for Prometheus.


ThisBethesdaSea
Mar 22, 2012, 10:26:11 PM
Reply #37 on: Mar 22, 2012, 10:26:11 PM
Here it is, my opinion and perspective about why Ridley Chose a more high tech future as opposed to a low tech one. Quite frankly, looking at where we are right now in 2012 with our iPads and our phones and 3D, etc.... I believe if the larger audience were to walk in to the theater and see a decidedly low tech future I don't think it would translate as well. For the core fans I think we'd be like "kool" but because of where our collective technology is at the moment, the future of the 1970s isn't as plausible as the future of 2012....I would bet that it would even seem a bit hokey. When I watch ALIEN now, and see the crew pushing actual buttons and knowing that we're so far beyond that as a world culture, I think Ridley mad the right choice. I don't think it's about pandering to a specific tech demographic as it was just freshening up the brand. With newer tech there's more room to tell a better story. That's all I have the moment, so shoot me. ;)

« Last Edit: Mar 22, 2012, 10:49:06 PM by ThisBethesdaSea »

ikarop
Mar 22, 2012, 10:42:45 PM
Reply #38 on: Mar 22, 2012, 10:42:45 PM
One thing I noticed. Peter Weyland was born in 1990. The average life expectancy for Weyland Employees is 95 years.

1990 + 95 = 2085 (aka the year where Ridley stated Prometheus takes place). Another hint at Peter Weyland being close to death.


Deuterium
Mar 22, 2012, 11:04:33 PM
Reply #39 on: Mar 22, 2012, 11:04:33 PM
I don't remember people complaining when Robert Wise and the art and production designers updated the Enterprise, from the design aesthetic of what the "future" might look like to people living in the mid 60s to what the "future" might look like for people living at the end of the 70s.

By comparison, there has been an even greater span of time between the production of Alien and now Prometheus.  Our technological culture has changed much more radically in the last 30 plus years, versus the time between TOS Star Trek and TMP.

I have no problem whatsoever with Ridley re-imagining the design aethetics, in light of the technological revolutions that have already occured, and extrapolating into the future.

The problems occur when you go in the other direction.  Kubrick was a brilliant visionary, and simply nailed the "future-tech" that is presented in "2001:  A Space Odyssey".  Not only did he foresee the use of 3-D computer graphics (used in the various spacecrafts cockpits for navigation and docking), but they friggin' had flat screen displays.  Heck, Poole and Bowman had iPad like devices on the Discovery.  Yet, for some incomprehensible reason, in "2010:  The Year We Make Contact", they have regressed to using old CRT monitors.  I always hated that.
 
 



Zeta Reticuli
Mar 22, 2012, 11:06:56 PM
Reply #40 on: Mar 22, 2012, 11:06:56 PM
One thing I noticed. Peter Weyland was born in 1990. The average life expectancy for Weyland Employees is 95 years.

1990 + 95 = 2085 (aka the year where Ridley stated Prometheus takes place). Another hint at Peter Weyland being close to death.

...or that he is actually going to die in the movie. and i'm not talking about a "natural death".


Melack
Mar 22, 2012, 11:08:46 PM
Reply #41 on: Mar 22, 2012, 11:08:46 PM
I love the high-tech sci-fi visuals that we have seen of this film so far. I would hate for Ridley to copy the older more low-tech style of Alien (which is amazing for it's kind too) just for it to fit better in continuity. The "Nostromo is a mining ship" explanation is good enough for my mind. To see a modern sci-fi film set in the future with tech lower than we have now would just feel weird.


Cvalda
Mar 22, 2012, 11:09:10 PM
Reply #42 on: Mar 22, 2012, 11:09:10 PM
I don't remember people complaining when Robert Wise and the art and production designers updated the Enterprise, from the design aesthetic of what the "future" might look like to people living in the mid 60s to what the "future" might look like for people living at the end of the 70s.
I think the griping stems from the inconsistency of Scott's reverse engineering of ALIEN's aesthetic. For example, the interiors of the ship and the screen panels are pretty damn consistent with ALIEN--the new screens may now be flat, but they have the same lo-fi look to them. It's great. And then the cliche hologram stuff comes in... throwing a wrench into an otherwise excellent keeping of continuity.

Quote
The problems occur when you go in the other direction.  Kubrick was a brilliant visionary, and simply nailed the "future-tech" that is presented in "2001:  A Space Odyssey".  Not only did he foresee the use of 3-D computer graphics (used in the various spacecrafts cockpits for navigation and docking), but they friggin' had flat screen displays.  Heck, Poole and Bowman had iPad like devices on the Discovery.  Yet, for some incomprehensible reason, in "2010:  The Year We Make Contact", they have regressed to using old CRT monitors.  I always hated that.
Ugh, that movie. One of the worst sequels ever. Even worse because the book was a very good, entertaining read.


josh_axey
Mar 22, 2012, 11:18:49 PM
Reply #43 on: Mar 22, 2012, 11:18:49 PM
I still stand by a statement I made some time ago regarding the differences in tech.

Nostromo: Industrial ship, low cost, industrial components used - Comparable to current tech CNC fabrication equipment (CRT monitors, rudimentary CLI on the unit itself).

Prometheus: Top of the line, high cost, pinnacle of development, research vessel - Thus top of the line, brand new, non-main stream equipment.

My only half-gripe now lies with holographic displays, which seems a bit inconsistent when compared with the other films in the series - but when compared along side ALIEN only - has nothing to base itself off, therefore does not effect technological continuity in my opinion. A rudimentary refinery and mining vessel has no need for anything like that.


SM
Mar 22, 2012, 11:25:34 PM
Reply #44 on: Mar 22, 2012, 11:25:34 PM
Quote
I don't remember people complaining when Robert Wise and the art and production designers updated the Enterprise, from the design aesthetic of what the "future" might look like to people living in the mid 60s to what the "future" might look like for people living at the end of the 70s.


I'm sure some people did.

I didn't dig the new Abrams Enterprise design personally.  Interiors were decent enough (despite the OH&S issues connected to eye strain from all the lens flares...)

Quote
Yet, for some incomprehensible reason, in "2010:  The Year We Make Contact", they have regressed to using old CRT monitors.  I always hated that.

Russians couldn't afford flat screens  ;D


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed