PROMETHEUS pre-release discussion. - Page 9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

I'm sorry, but HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!

My hyperbole is equally on board with yours (official/eventual trailer location: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/prometheus/)

I AM SO EFFIN' HARD FOR THIS.

"This is not an Alien film... but you need to cut the teaser so it looks like one, oh, and include all those bloody bumper sounds and FX from the original Alien trailer... but it's not an Alien film"

The teaser trailer for the trailer for Prometheus is better than at least half of the films I have seen this year.

The Alien-film denials for this are becoming quite comical.

Ridley, meet Barry Bonds and Rodger Clemens... Barry Bonds, and Rodger Clemens, meet Ridley Scott.

Did I just watch a TEASER of a TEASER of a TRAILER of a FILM??

AWESOME!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham 

Did I just watch a TEASER of a TEASER of a TRAILER of a FILM??

 

AWESOME!!!

"It's not a teaser!" - Ridley Scott

Hahahahah

What, it just shares the same DNA as a teaser?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

"It's not a teaser!" - Ridley Scott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

"It's not a teaser!" - Ridley Scott

It only shares DNA of a teaser.

Scott can say all he wants about it not being an Alien film... he said Deckerd is a Replicant... so he obviously has no idea what he is filming.

Whatever it is, I want what it's selling. 

The movie looks cool, but what I'm really looking forward to is every new image or trailer being greeted with "see! It looks just like an Alien movie! It's not unconnected after all!!" even though just about everyone involved has been quite open about it being in the same universe for ages now. That's the stuff that really puts a spring in my step.

Fuck off, Paul...deep down you KNOW you want this to be an ALIEN prequel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn3YouxdY5k&feature=player_embedded

more DNA

It's related to the ALIEN prequel...when the prequel gets made....by Ridley Scott.

He better not fuck up relating them, you know, when that happens....

True story on the making of this. Ridley Scott kept his radio on only one band, so everyone in the crew could here him getting his dry cleaning ordered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham 

Fuck off, Paul...deep down you KNOW you want this to be an ALIEN prequel...

Well I'm happy for it to be connected, but I'm more interested in the new 'epic' side of things they keep touting. I'll be disappointed if the third act turns out to be the old xenomorph picking people off as per usual, which is all we'd be expecting right now if they'd called it something like "Alien Origin" and sold it as a full blown Alien movie from the start.

Prometheus: The Rise of Ripley! You heard it hear first folks. If he's denying it being an Alien movie, which it so toooootally is, what's to prevent him from pulling a fast one on us about the lead characters' names?

No xenomorph in this movie

As many have stated before, It's in the same universe but it's not directly tied to the events. Only within the last few minutes does it show it's true connective tissue. He's clearly telling you about the Space Jockey. Not sure why people are having a hard time understanding this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

As many have stated before, It's in the same universe but it's not directly tied to the events. Only within the last few minutes does it show it's true connective tissue. He's clearly telling you about the Space Jockey. Not sure why people are having a hard time understanding this.

We're just making a few cracks at Scott's expense. The way he states that Prometheus is a side story in the Alien universe is not very clear for laymen audiences and kind of funny. Or at least that's the impression I'm getting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

"It's not a teaser!" - Ridley Scott

The guy in the teaser is not Ridley Scott. It's Tony Scott.

He shares the DNA of Ridley Scott.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

As many have stated before, It's in the same universe but it's not directly tied to the events. Only within the last few minutes does it show it's true connective tissue. He's clearly telling you about the Space Jockey. Not sure why people are having a hard time understanding this.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone here gets that. It's just the whole post-Lost willfully obtuse marketing angle is kind of a joke here, especially in light of what we're seeing of the film. If Ridley would just say, "It takes place in the ALIEN universe but isn't about the aliens." all would be resolved. But they're trying to market it as a big mystery, and it's getting tiresome.

Wait, so is this an Alien prequel, or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Wait, so is this an Alien prequel, or not?

'N'yes...'

And then a giant fucking Alien breaks out of the Space Jockey.

"there's your DNA"...

My only worry with this film is the 3D.  Not that I don't like 3D, but they're shooting and projecting at 24fps I believe.  It's simply not very effective at that frame rate.  Lots of juttering during fast motion and it's distracting, and one thing I hated about Avatar in 3D.  I will probably catch the 2D release first and try 3D after.  Thankfully Jackson and Cameron are remedying the situation with 48 and 60fps productions respectively (Hobbit, Avatar sequels).

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

And then a giant fucking Alien breaks out of the Space Jockey.

 

"there's your DNA"...

And then, if we're lucky, starts singing "Hello My Baby!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

My only worry with this film is the 3D.  Not that I don't like 3D, but they're shooting and projecting at 24fps I believe.  It's simply not very effective at that frame rate.  Lots of juttering during fast motion and it's distracting, and one thing I hated about Avatar in 3D.  I will probably catch the 2D release first and try 3D after.  Thankfully Jackson and Cameron are remedying the situation with 48 and 60fps productions respectively (Hobbit, Avatar sequels).

What a boring worry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

What a boring worry.

Well of course it's boring to someone who doesn't notice or pay attention to something like that.  I do, and it bothers me.  Apparently it also bothers Peter Jackson and James Cameron.  Go figure.

Have to agree with Ambler here. There's an ugly, stuttery quality to some of Avatar that I found really unpleasant. If 3D's here to stay, and higher framerates fix the problem, that stuff is going to look horribly dated quite soon.

The only thing that worries me about higher frame-rates is whether or not a movie will not longer feel like a film as we generally know it now.  I realize that it's simply something that I'm very used to, but if 48 or 60 fps ends up making movies feel like video in motion (or that goddamned smooth feature on HDTVs), I'm going to hate it for a while.

For 3D films, it makes sense.  But if a film isn't in 3D...

Also agree with that. It's not like film with higher framerates is some radical new technology, it's been around for ages but just doesn't look anywhere near as cinematic. A lower framerate just has more 'weight' somehow. Look at old BBC dramas that were shot on videotape like I, Claudius - it makes everything look like a stage play. Definitely very curious to see what a massive budget 3D movie is like in that format, especially if it solves that jerkiness problem, but I'm not sold on the idea by any means. Especially if they plan to show the 2D version that way as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

Have to agree with Ambler here. There's an ugly, stuttery quality to some of Avatar that I found really unpleasant. If 3D's here to stay, and higher framerates fix the problem, that stuff is going to look horribly dated quite soon.

And they need to get rid of the glasses...that should be just around the corner.

3D contact lenses? 3D laser eye surgery? Someone needs to get on the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

The only thing that worries me about higher frame-rates is whether or not a movie will not longer feel like a film as we generally know it now.  I realize that it's simply something that I'm very used to, but if 48 or 60 fps ends up making movies feel like video in motion (or that goddamned smooth feature on HDTVs), I'm going to hate it for a while.

 

For 3D films, it makes sense.  But if a film isn't in 3D...

That's a common worry, but unfounded.  Frame rate and refresh rate are not the same thing.  That video-ey looking shit on TVs is not what 48/60fps motion pictures will look like. 

It looks like film, only much much better.  Clealer, sharper, more immediate...if the screen is a window, it shatters it and you can put your hand through, coupled with 3D it's going to make your eyes pop out of your head. 

Doug Trumbull did experiments with higher frame rates and the reviews were insane.  You can even experiment with this yourself if you have a super8 camera that can do 48fps and a super8 projector that can project 48fps...I know someone who did that and he said it was stunning in just super8.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

Also agree with that. It's not like film with higher framerates is some radical new technology, it's been around for ages but just doesn't look anywhere near as cinematic. A lower framerate just has more 'weight' somehow.

That's actually not true.  48/60fps capture/projection looks plenty cinematic, even MORE cinematic...you're talking about motion blur really, but Doug Trumbull did experiments with higher frame rates and the results were unbelievable to those who witnessed it.  He even had scientists come in and measure people's emotional responses to the same images shown at higher and higher frame rates, topping out at 72fps.  The higher the frame rate went, the more emotionally involved the audience became. 

Higher frame rates is really the future of cinema. 

We talking 'ShowScan' here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham 

We talking 'ShowScan' here?

Yes, the studios never took the bait, but the results were striking to anybody who witnessed it.  Trumbull did higher frame rate tests in 65mm, which would be the equivalent of Nolan's IMAX stuff with TDKR, but honestly the RED cam can already do IMAX resultion images.  Jackson is shooting The Hobbit films on RED EPIC, which can go way beyond IMAX resolution (28K...IMAX is about 8K resolution)  Coupled with the higher frame rates, cinema is about to go into hyperdrive.
 

Well I haven't seen it in action so I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. I quite enjoy the fact cinema is still this evolving thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_ab7t2wvCQ

Be quick! 

Holy shit. Avatar for adults! 

Gah! That looks great! I think the frame rate might be off a little though. And clearly there is no connection to ALIEN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Gah! That looks great! I think the frame rate might be off a little though. And clearly there is no connection to ALIEN.

Other than what looks to be a space jockey head at 32 seconds and at 43 seconds it looks like the chair of the spaceship found in Alien.  Man I cannot wait for the proper quality trailer.

I know dude I was kidding. This movie looks more like the original ALIEN than any of the sequels combined.

That looks like maybe the best thing ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottieFerguson 

And then, if we're lucky, starts singing "Hello My Baby!"

 

Speaking of baby...

Who gave you permission to post pictures of my son's birth!