New Prometheus trailer (here be rage)

[JONESCR]

Prometheus is a prequel to Aliens its the same setting

 

[Kahunaburger]

Because 8-bit computers are the future.

They are if the future in question is an Alien prequel.

OT: This doesn't look good. Maybe it will defy expectations, but right now it looks like the sort of Alien movie J. J. Abrams would direct. How does improved technology = worse visuals?

 

[Kahunaburger]

Because 8-bit computers are the future.

They are if the future in question is an Alien prequel.

Not to sound condescending, but I find having problems with not sticking to a 40+ year old vision of the future (seeing how far that vision has progressed) to be a little goofy. This is coming from a guy who loved Alien, too.

I don't know - every future will be dated eventually, and the "we will all still be using 8-bit computers" future is more gritty and visually interesting than the "everything is an iPhone" future. Alien is dated, Blade Runner is dated, and 2001: A Space Odyssey is dated, but they're all much more visually interesting, solid-feeling, and credible as settings that people live in, than, say, the Star Trek reboot.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

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!

 

[Spitfire]

Dafaq i recognize on his shoulder ?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6iW29w0sMV4/TjV9SN4SeBI/AAAAAAAAApo/QKNhN84aMlU/s1600/space-jockey-alien.jpg

There's no way that's concept art for the movie. I mean, personally, I don't think that Ridley Scott is any longer the director that he once was, but I really doubt that he's senile enough to put a Predator twist in Prometheus.

Regarding your other point, it does look like this movie has some continuity issues with the original Alien movie.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care about the fact that the technology is more advanced in this one, and I didn't expect any different either.
Clearly they want this movie to be a blockbuster, and clearly they want it to look as flashy as possible, and the fact of the matter is that having 1970's computer screens in it was just not going to cut it.

 

[Woodsey]

This is what happens with any kind of revisited future-fiction tech.

You can look past old-looking tech from an old film, but you can't have a film made in 2012 with tech that looks like it's from the fucking 70s.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I don't know - every future will be dated eventually, and the "we will all still be using 8-bit computers" future is more gritty and visually interesting than the "everything is an iPhone" future. Alien is dated, Blade Runner is dated, and 2001: A Space Odyssey is dated, but they're all much more visually interesting, solid-feeling, and credible as settings that people live in, than, say, the Star Trek reboot.

Well, not every future. Surely there are limits to how far technology can progress.

I have nothing against grit or interesting design for a future, but when something is being passed on as futuristic, when it quite clearly is either dated as fuuuuuuuuuuck already, or is a dated version of a futuristic vision, it just seems wrong.

I'm not sure about that - the internet seems to cream it's collective shorts at the mere mention of steampunk. Nothing wrong with retro SF - the point of the visual design is to work within the context of the movie and the universe the movie is set in, not to evoke a feeling of the future in viewers from a specific time period.

In other words, Blade Runner (for instance) was a good SF film, is a good SF film, and will continue to be a good SF film. Even if it was released for the first time today, it would be a good SF film, despite the dated technology.

 

[Nickolai77]

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.

 

[Spitfire]

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

Yes, it's a plot hole but thirty odd years ago Cameron 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.

Not that I disagree with the gist of your post, but James Cameron didn't direct Alien, and he didn't direct Prometheus either.

 

[Kahunaburger]

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

Yes, it's a plot hole but thirty odd years ago Cameron 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.

When Silent Hill 2 came out they didn't have the technology to fully display environments, so they added the fog that was so vital to that game's atmospheric horror. At least one re-release completely missed the point, got rid of the fog, and wound up with a much less scary game. It becomes more abundantly clear with each re-release that the only thing preventing George Lucas from cramming the original Star Wars movies with extraneous CGI crap was technological limitations. Can anyone honestly say that the latest iterations of these works that have been made possible by advancements in technology are better than the originals?

In other words, just because Ridley Scott now can set an Alien prequel in an iPhone future and CGI every outdoor environment into breathtaking beauty, it doesn't mean he should.

EDIT: Oh, and speaking of James Cameron, Aliens and Terminator 2 vs. Avatar. Just sayin.'

 

[Nickolai77]

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

Yes, it's a plot hole but thirty odd years ago Cameron 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.

Not that I disagree with the gist of your post, but James Cameron didn't direct Alien, and he didn't direct Prometheus either.

Yeah i've edited the mistake now, easy one to make given Cameron directed Aliens.

Last time i made an error like this and didn't bother to correct it i had like twelve people in my inbox informing me of my mistake.

When Silent Hill 2 came out they didn't have the technology to fully display environments, so they added the fog that was so vital to that game's atmospheric horror. At least one re-release completely missed the point, got rid of the fog, and wound up with a much less scary game. It becomes more abundantly clear with each re-release that the only thing preventing George Lucas from cramming the original Star Wars movies with extraneous CGI crap was technological limitations. Can anyone honestly say that the latest iterations of these works that have been made possible by advancements in technology are better than the originals?

In other words, just because Ridley Scott now can set an Alien prequel in an iPhone future and CGI every outdoor environment into breathtaking beauty, it doesn't mean he should.

EDIT: Oh, and speaking of James Cameron, Aliens and Terminator 2 vs. Avatar. Just sayin.'

Do you ever get the feeling that digital artists from the older generation take a view to CGI were they think that by inserting the latest CGI into their films or games it makes them automatically better? Because to me that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of technology and art, which is kind of ironic if you're a sci-fi film director.

 

[Kahunaburger]

When Silent Hill 2 came out they didn't have the technology to fully display environments, so they added the fog that was so vital to that game's atmospheric horror. At least one re-release completely missed the point, got rid of the fog, and wound up with a much less scary game. It becomes more abundantly clear with each re-release that the only thing preventing George Lucas from cramming the original Star Wars movies with extraneous CGI crap was technological limitations. Can anyone honestly say that the latest iterations of these works that have been made possible by advancements in technology are better than the originals?

In other words, just because Ridley Scott now can set an Alien prequel in an iPhone future and CGI every outdoor environment into breathtaking beauty, it doesn't mean he should.

EDIT: Oh, and speaking of James Cameron, Aliens and Terminator 2 vs. Avatar. Just sayin.'

Do you ever get the feeling that digital artists from the older generation take a view to CGI were they think that by inserting the latest CGI into their films or games it makes them automatically better? Because to me that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of technology and art, which is kind of ironic if you're a sci-fi film director.

That's exactly the feeling I get for a lot of these movies, and is definitely the feeling I'm getting from this trailer.

 

[Kahunaburger]

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.)

 

[AbstractStream]

I guess I understand your "rage," but I'm actually quite looking forward to this movie.
Prometheus reminds me a lot of Alien and if it isn't a prequel, then it can simply boil down to it being Ridley Scott and his "signature touch."

 

[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.

 

[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?