Monolithium said:

asterisk8 said:

The flashy CG floating see-through displays seem like pandering to Avatar-fans, not like the meticulous, thoughtfully considered aesthetic of a director like Ridley Scott. I'll still see the movie, and let it stand or fall on the merits of its story/acting/directing, but it's just disappointing to me. If any director could've made "antiquated" technology look sexy in a 2012 film, it's Ridley Scott. Hey, Duncan Jones' Moon succeeded wonderfully without needing to wow the kids with fancy holo-displays. That film's aesthetic would fit right in with any number of classic science fiction films of the 20th century.

But would MOON have looked the way it did if it had the budget that Prometheus has?

I'm not a fan of hypotheticals. :) But I will say that having to work with limitations is something that always benefits those with real creativity. Huge budgets and a cadre of Yes Men have the opposite effect.

Whatever Moon's budget, Jones proved that fancy technology is not what drives great science fiction, it's ideas.

Who_Am_I? said:

Its the golden era of the Earth like the golden era of a certain republic far, far away. Thats why its all new, shiny and high tech. Pretty basic stuff people.

I'm not interested in "basic stuff". I'm interested in directors who throw "basic stuff" out the window and write their own rules.