New Prometheus trailer (here be rage)

[Kahunaburger]

And really, the creepy atmosphere is all that should matter in a movie like this. I don't know about you, but the giant holograms, pretty skyboxes, and iPhone-esque gadgets don't strike me as creepy or atmospheric the way the primitive/noisy Alien computers did. I'm about a decade younger than Alien and grew up using computers orders of magnitude more powerful than the ones available in 1979, but when I saw the movie the special effects technology worked well for me - it supported the movie's tone and atmosphere, which is exactly what it needed to do. (It also seems more real and solid to me than the stuff in the Prometheus trailers - never underestimate practical effects haha.)

The only reason they worked for me was that I knew when the film was made. If that wasn't the best the filmmakers had at the time, I would've thought they're taking the piss.

Whereas I facepalmed the second I saw that Ridley Scott (of all people) was apparently taking cues on sci-fi visual design from movies like Avatar.

Also, Prometheus uses a lot of practical effects too, don't underestimate it entirely. From the trailers, everything apart from the spaceships and explosions looked pretty photo-real, too. And even those looked way better than the original.

They certainly looked like more technology had been thrown at them, but that doesn't translate to looking "better." Moebius, Giger, and 1979!Ridley Scott know what they're doing.

 

[CODE-D]

I like the touch screen virtual tech as its one of the reasons I cant watch the old alien movies seriously anymore. That other tech (alien, aliens etc) looks like shit you give to a run down school to keep in storage.

I'll grant that the archaic computers in Alien added to the creepy atmosphere of the film, but really, as a form of technology that's like, what, 150 years in the future, it's just not viable at this point.

And really, the creepy atmosphere is all that should matter in a movie like this. I don't know about you, but the giant holograms, pretty skyboxes, and iPhone-esque gadgets don't strike me as creepy or atmospheric the way the primitive/noisy Alien computers did. I'm about a decade younger than Alien and grew up using computers orders of magnitude more powerful than the ones available in 1979, but when I saw the movie the special effects technology worked well for me - it supported the movie's tone and atmosphere, which is exactly what it needed to do. (It also seems more real and solid to me than the stuff in the Prometheus trailers - never underestimate practical effects haha.)

I was born in 1991 and seeing those computers in alien like I said just look silly and make me think, how is this ship even functioning. Is that the alien snarling or the sound of dial-up.

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on Blade Runner, 2001, and Solaris?

Ive heard of Blade runner, something with androids and feeling and blah blah blah inspiration for david 8 in prometheus.
Never heard of Solaris.
Havent seen all of 2001(its just so goddamn long and quiet)but know the key points monkeys, precursors, hal is an asshole, its full of stars, giant super fetus. But even that movie tried to look futuristic for its time and had they had the ability to do touch screens and virtual stuff I bet they would have or at the least made it very sleek and shiny like in star trek(2009).

 

[Kahunaburger]

Whereas I facepalmed the second I saw that Ridley Scott (of all people) was apparently taking cues on sci-fi visual design from movies like Avatar.

>implying Avatar had anything worth copying design-wise.

Seriously though, apart from the fact that both movies are sci-fi and made with modern CGI, there's almost nothing there that would imply kinship on almost any level.

I dunno, the pretty skyboxes, bright lighting, iPhone technology, and floating holograms definitely put this movie squarely in the Avatar/nu Trek/etc. category in my mind.

They certainly looked like more technology had been thrown at them, but that doesn't translate to looking "better." Moebius, Giger, and 1979!Ridley Scott know what they're doing.

Meh. If something looks less fake, I'll just go ahead and say that most of the time it's better.

I actually think the new one looks much more fake - it has that whole CGI sheen that the human brain can just pick up somehow. The first one definitely has a bit of the it's only a model [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3dZl3yfGpc] factor, but unlike 99% of CGI, models look like solid objects that exist in the real world, which puts them ahead of CGI in my book.

And aesthetics > graphics in terms of movie-making. Compare the visual design in the original Star Wars movies to the visual design in the prequels, for instance.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

At least Star Wars had an excuse that while the Prequels were shinier, the OT is more advanced, but visual aesthetic was phased out in favor of practicality.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I like the touch screen virtual tech as its one of the reasons I cant watch the old alien movies seriously anymore. That other tech (alien, aliens etc) looks like shit you give to a run down school to keep in storage.

I'll grant that the archaic computers in Alien added to the creepy atmosphere of the film, but really, as a form of technology that's like, what, 150 years in the future, it's just not viable at this point.

And really, the creepy atmosphere is all that should matter in a movie like this. I don't know about you, but the giant holograms, pretty skyboxes, and iPhone-esque gadgets don't strike me as creepy or atmospheric the way the primitive/noisy Alien computers did. I'm about a decade younger than Alien and grew up using computers orders of magnitude more powerful than the ones available in 1979, but when I saw the movie the special effects technology worked well for me - it supported the movie's tone and atmosphere, which is exactly what it needed to do. (It also seems more real and solid to me than the stuff in the Prometheus trailers - never underestimate practical effects haha.)

I was born in 1991 and seeing those computers in alien like I said just look silly and make me think, how is this ship even functioning. Is that the alien snarling or the sound of dial-up.

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on Blade Runner, 2001, and Solaris?

Ive heard of Blade runner, something with androids and feeling and blah blah blah inspiration for david 8 in prometheus.
Never heard of Solaris.
Havent seen all of 2001(its just so goddamn long and quiet)but know the key points monkeys, precursors, hal is an asshole, its full of stars, giant super fetus. But even that movie tried to look futuristic for its time and had they had the ability to do touch screens and virtual stuff I bet they would have or at the least made it very sleek and shiny like in star trek(2009).

And I think that tells me about all I need to know.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Now all the rage...
I knew - i f*cking knew - that Scott will fall for better technology in the past trap. Touchscreens, virtual monitors, high tech, lasers, neons, stinking-green fumes in hibernator chambers. For f*cks sake...

....

Alien and Aliens have aged terribly, technology wise. Looking at them, we see technology that is old and outdated NOW.

It is entirely illogical that Scott would make his new movie, filmed in 2011, look like it takes place in an alternative history version of 1985.

The same thing happened in Star Trek TNG - those computers they used looked really cool and sci-fi until we got lap-tops. Now they look outdated - laptops are sleeker and have better graphics.

Anyway, it could be worse. Scott COULD be remaking Alien and updating all the tech. Instead, he's leaving his masterpiece alone and just making a prequil. A prequil that looks pretty fricken sweet. Count your blessings, OP.

 

[JesterRaiin]

I'm a little confused on what you're trying to convey here.

Are you basically upset because the tech in one future fiction setting is different from the tech in a different future fiction setting?

Jockey race ? Checked. Jockey space ship ? Checked. Transport of dangerous species onboard ? Checked. Synthetic with white-ish blood ? Checked. Weyland-Yutani ? Checked.
It's the same setting even if Scott won't admit it.

Plus, the Prometheus is a state of the art laboratory vessel meant for discovery, and the Nostromo is basically just a rusty oil tanker.

"Alens" anyone ? 40+ years past "Alien" movie ? Sulaco ? Colonial Marines ? Army equipment ? Lcd-virtual-touch screens ? ...Noooooooooooooooooooooope.

Dafaq i recognize on his shoulder ?

GET TO DA THEATAAHHH!!!

That would be such an awesome twist.

You're one ugly... ;]

Why Scott, WHY ?! >:|

Because quite simply, science marches onwards. [http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScienceMarchesOn]

And don't you dare look surprised, some idiot always links to an appropriate TV Tropes page and today that idiot is me!

;]
Rules are for the weak. We're talking about Ridley "i made awesome movies without all this fancy CGI stuff" Scott !

I think the OP's being a bit too pedantic about this.

Yes, it's a plot hole but thirty odd years ago (edit) Ridly Scott didn't have the technology to do flashy computer screens like he can now. Back in the 80's the computer screens themselves were high tech and probably impressive to the audiences back then.

I'm aware of that fact, thank you very much. :]

I think you people missed something :

Actually it's possible that for such long distances the earlier, crude but less demanding and solid technology will be chosen over new hi-tech miracles.

Really, check the data, there are less quad-core processors in modern satellites and "starships" than you could imagine. What i'm saying here is : there's a justification to keeping old 10'' monochrome screens and flashing diodes in futuristic setting. I understand - people like to see "hi-tech" in modern movies, but for f*cks sake, there's much better ways to introduce it than throwing it in the faces of audience.

One thing more : what can stop Mr. Scott now, from saying "aw, whattahell, let's rewrite Alien and/or Blade Runner, let's put more CGI there" ? >:|

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

2 seconds of Idris Elba in the trailer = All the excuse I need to see the fuck out of this movie.

 

[Flamezdudes]

I bet this will be the ship that was found in Alien or the other ship those creatures are trying to get off the planet with. It will have the birth of Alien at the end or will lead to it.

Still looking forward to this film a lot.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think it pretty much goes without mentioning that I meant two attempts at portraying the same thing, one being more fake than the other.

The problem is that it's actually not two versions of the same thing. One portrays a hostile, sinister universe with unreliable technology, the other portrays a universe with pretty vistas and sleek technology. In other words, one attempt fits the theme, and the other doesn't.

 

[fix-the-spade]

"Alens" anyone ? 40+ years past "Alien" movie ? Sulaco ? Colonial Marines ? Army equipment ? Lcd-virtual-touch screens ? ...Noooooooooooooooooooooope.

Ah, but Aliens did have super high tech. Hadleys Hope had a big glass touch screen table that they view the colony schematics on whilst the civilian Space Station had a virtual outdoor environment that Ripley sits by while waiting for Burke to retrieve info on her daughter.

Provided the visual style of the film as a whole fits Alien I can live with CGI and snazzy user interfaces. From a canon perspective it's easy to explain away with Weyland-Yutani's famous open policy regards high technology and intelligence. The Nostromo is twenty plus years old by Alien and the platoon on Sulaco are effectively a B-Company on movie form, green officer, under strength and seemingly under equipped. The only reason they go out at all is because a crazy lady says she saw a monster there, it's supposed to be a formality. That's my explanation anyway.

If CG Aliens start dropping out and doing the Conga... well...

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think it pretty much goes without mentioning that I meant two attempts at portraying the same thing, one being more fake than the other.

The problem is that it's actually not two versions of the same thing. One portrays a hostile, sinister universe with unreliable technology, the other portrays a universe with pretty vistas and sleek technology. In other words, one attempt fits the theme, and the other doesn't.

I didn't say the tones of the movies are entirely the same. It was just a statement about special effects in general.

Although, tone's the problem, isn't it? The Alien movies are very dependent on thematic and tonal elements. Aliens has a tonal shift and is much more of an action movie, but it works because it maintains the whole "insignificant humanity poking into stuff they should have left alone in an unknown, scary, and hostile universe" thing. The script, set design, prop design, lighting, and effects all support the tonal underpinning of the film. From what I've seen of this movie's script, lighting, effects, props, etc. all seem to indicate it will be closer to the AvP end of the tonal spectrum than it should be.

Maybe I'm wrong, and the trailers for Prometheus just suck. But everything I see about this movie impresses me less and less.

 

[hutchy27]

Well one explanation is that the Prometheus is a hi-tech research ship and is outfitted with the best of the best technology of it time while the ship from alien is a less advance mining ship which might of had been using old technology.

 

[Kahunaburger]

What the fuck, man? You take that back! Ridley would never create another AvP! *sobs*

Sorry, I meant to say something more along the lines of "this is closer to the AvP end of the spectrum than I'm comfortable with." I don't think it's going to be very much like AvP at all, just that the tone seems (to me, at least) to be straying a little too far afield of the first movie.

But yeah, agree to disagree, especially since the thing isn't even out yet

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I'm sure if he could have put this tech into Alien he would have. This still seems pretty damn atmospheric and cool. Frankly, if he'd used the same stuff as in Alien I doubt I'd be able to take it as seriously.

 

[The Preened Mr. Fust]

I'm getting the impression that people going into this film expecting to get an atmosphere like in the original Alien are setting themselves up for disappointment. The trailer, if you ask me, quite clearly shows this movie to be a different bird.

Will I find this movie as good as Alien? Probably not, but I'm sure glad he's not trying so hard to be just like it.

Will I still enjoy the movie? Probably so, I love future tech and space creatures.

Captcha: have an inkling


Edit: Also, people, please bear in mind Aliens was directed by James Cameron, not Ridley Scott.