
- Time
- Post link
The gym exposition scene seemed a bit dumb to me but I'm still mostly optimistic about the film... mostly.
The more I think about it the more I think the whole notion of setting a film in the Alienverse but not feature the aliens is quite lame. I'm sure the makers of this film think it is oh so neat and clever.
These days I think most films spend all their best ideas and budget on viral marketing and sexy trailers.
Wow! I've turned incredibly hostile towards this film in under 24 hours!
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
The heck you talking about? I'm still as pumped as ever for this thing!CP3S said:
It was kind of sad to watch all the excitement and build up in this thread, then to see it all deflate with that last trailer.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
The gym exposition scene seemed a bit dumb to me but I'm still mostly optimistic about the film... mostly.
There is only so much one can deduce from a trailer. The studio probably doesn't want anyone to think this a direct sequel or yet another Alien Vs. Predator film.
Showing one of the "big chaps" now would do just that.
Where were you in '77?
Prometheus Plot, based on trailers
I doubt this is totally accurate, and I'm still not 100% convinced this is even the same planet as Alien
but it's pretty good anyway.
timdiggerm said:
Prometheus Plot, based on trailers
I doubt this is totally accurate, and I'm still not 100% convinced this is even the same planet as Alienbut it's pretty good anyway.
I surmised a lot of this from the trailer as well. As you said, it is probably not 100% accuate, but I think it gets a lot right. I agree with you in that it is probably a different planet and the alien ship is not the same vessel as in Alien - which had been on LV-426 an incredibly long time (the space jockey was fossilized). Unless some horrible time travel element is in the plot...
The trailer was quite poor really - it gave away every scene in the movie in apparently chronological order, so it allowed people to put together what appears to be the entire plot quite easily. It was incredibly obvious that at one point Prometheus crashes into the alien ship - the black guy who plays the Captain sacrificing himself (of course).
Well, it looks like I've saved myself some money and disappointment this June!
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
timdiggerm said:
...y'all might be more willing to see this as just a really good sci-fi movie
assuming it's really good, of course.
That's where I'm at with it. I'm really not too interested in a Alien prequel. I am interested in another good sci-fi film by Riddly Scott though and if it has some ties to Alien, that's neat too.
The idea of a different story within the same universe but featuring very little of what you've seen of that universe is very interesting to me. Would love to see Riddly do something like that with Blade Runner.
timdiggerm said:
I like the caption under the first photo in the fourth row. I think it should have been the working title of the film:
"Total Douchebag: the tale of Charlie Holloway"
:)
“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers
theprequelsrule said:
I surmised a lot of this from the trailer as well. As you said, it is probably not 100% accuate, but I think it gets a lot right. I agree with you in that it is probably a different planet and the alien ship is not the same vessel as in Alien - which had been on LV-426 an incredibly long time (the space jockey was fossilized). Unless some horrible time travel element is in the plot...
I wouldn't be so sure about that last bit. It's been stated, I believe by Scott himself, that "The Space Jockey" in Alien is just a space suit, not an actual fossilized body.
The naked push ups bit and the expositional scene are clearly set after the crew wake up as both are in a gym on the ship.
timdiggerm said:
It's been stated, I believe by Scott himself, that "The Space Jockey" in Alien is just a space suit, not an actual fossilized body.
This is another thing that gives me feelings of slight trepidation. I always loved not knowing exactly what I was looking at when seeing the space jockey in Alien. Being uncertain about its physiology, of where the chair ended and the organism began, really made the space jockey seem alien in the truest sense of the word--it was something that was completely foreign to our technology and comprehension (I believe Giger himself would agree this was the intent, his art being focused on the seamless melding of the organic with the artificial).
Having the technology (not to mention the origin) surrounding the space jockey explained ruins that sense of mystery and wonder which Alien so expertly created.
“It’s a lot of fun… it’s a lot of fun to watch Star Wars.” – Bill Moyers
But it also means that almost anything could be in a chair like that if it can fit into the suit.
The alien could have been a blob that wears bipedal slightly humanoid bodies like some fat people wear cars.
Bingowings said:
But it also means that almost anything could be in a chair like that if it can fit into the suit.
The alien could have been a blob that wears bipedal slightly humanoid bodies like some fat people wear cars.
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
I grew up with those books and they were fun if a bit weird.
Barbamama was black so it was a cool example of an ethnically diverse marriage, it was a bit strange that none of her children resembled him much but they grew underground like potatoes which was kind of interesting.
theprequelsrule said:
The trailer was quite poor really - it gave away every scene in the movie in apparently chronological order...
Ah, to know that you'd have had to already have seen the movie. Awesome! How was it? Not that good, then? :(
CP3S said:
theprequelsrule said:
The trailer was quite poor really - it gave away every scene in the movie in apparently chronological order...
Ah, to know that you'd have had to already have seen the movie. Awesome! How was it? Not that good, then? :(
Lol. Yeah well, I suppose there is some speculation. Damn the interwebs!
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
TV SPOT No 2 (a few microseconds of new stuff).
Attempted plot summary assembled from trailer shots:
Interesting take but I don't think the bald, taller human-looking characters are mutated team members. They could be the purported engineers of an alien race.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
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?
Since they're like poetry, what with the rhyming and all, I find that I only need to watch three out of the six films.
corellian77 said:
Having the technology (not to mention the origin) surrounding the space jockey explained ruins that sense of mystery and wonder which Alien so expertly created.
I agree, that mystery is one of the major reasons the original Alien film is so powerful, explain this and the magic is broken. This is sacred ground for many of us how silly that may sound, but sooner or later Hollywood cannot resist dickin' around with these things that you love, it's inevitable, it happens with everything you thought was sacred, you just need to ignore the new material.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
We are making a whole lot of assumptions though.
We may never see the thing that suit was designed for but instead see what has since been altered to fit in the suit.
msycamore said:
corellian77 said:
Having the technology (not to mention the origin) surrounding the space jockey explained ruins that sense of mystery and wonder which Alien so expertly created.
I agree, that mystery is one of the major reasons the original Alien film is so powerful, explain this and the magic is broken. This is sacred ground for many of us how silly that may sound, but sooner or later Hollywood cannot resist dickin' around with these things that you love, it's inevitable, it happens with everything you thought was sacred, you just need to ignore the new material.
TV SPOT 3, more new stuff.
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.
But would Android (1982) look like Moon (2009) if Aaron Lipstadt had access to the same film making technology Duncan Stardust had?