Lol, I meant prequel.

I think Scott wold use the term "prequel" very lightly. Events take place before Alien, but they veer off the facehugger/chest burster/xenomorph trilogy rapidly (he's right - that's been done to death and there is no shock in doing it again). Elements of those are there, but in a more primitive form.

Another thought. The ship the crew of the Nostromo discover was old. Clearly as ancient as the one the Prometheus crew discover, BUT that ship's cargo was clearly a more advanced form of organism than those on the ship discovered in the new film. You could say that we saw the elements of the xenomorph in an unassembled form. Conversely, you could also say that the structure was a huge genetic assembly plant, and the "solution" to clearing out a planet was engineered to the biology that planet supported. Something went wrong.

Given the fact that the engineers appeared to have bolloxed up before, crashing on LV 426, it sounds like they haven't quite got their sh!t together. Where else have they cocked up?

I was reminded by a line by Arthur C Clarke in one of his 2001 books - "and, so, dispassionately, they had to weed" (or something similar).

Haven't read this thread (seeing the film on Sunday, HOPEFULLY), but this would appear to be a spoileriffic article that may or may not clear a few things up. Dunno, I obviously haven't read it

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/ridley-sc ... rets-to-t3

It doesn't really help. It just talks about one particular scene and Ridley's view on the origin of the human race. Which is something I'd hoped would've been explored a lot more in Prometheus. Apparently, it was more of a sci-fi horror/thriller.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/56310

Just as a throwback...

The linked to article at T3 really is worth a read.

http://www.t3.com/features/ridley-scott ... rets-to-t3

I particularly like Scott’s adherence to using practical effects above CGI. He does it because he can.

In the article, Damon Lindelof says:


And he has a point there. I think it can help if you know that stuff is real - it’s on set, cameras are working round it, puppeteers are pulling wires, actors have something real to work with. It all adds to the feel of the finished picture.

Prometheus is a return visit for me, I think.

In the land of CGI, it either has to look fake, where it's instantly recognisable as something that has been created in an artificial environment, ie in a computer, or it has to be flawless.
We haven't yet reached a stage where the flawless synthespian has been achieved.
I've seen very close approximations of it, but they all fall into the uncanny valley when it comes to any sort of close-up, conversational interaction with a real live human being.
The human brain is still a little too sophisticated to be completely fooled for more than a few seconds.
The range of human facial nuances is simply too complex to be accurately mimicked for any length of time by a computer program and turned in to something unrecognisable from a human.

Mark

Three words: Walking With Dinosaurs. When that TV series was being developed, they were very aware that there was a distance at which point the CGI would appear unbelievable, and that puppets would need to be employed. That distance was about (from memory) a couple of metres. That’s for SD TV too - so resolution could support possibly more intimate closeups, but they chose instead to build puppets. Cinema resolutions, and HD TV as well, make it very hard to pull this off. You only need the eyes not to quite meet, or for the timing of the animation to be slightly off kilter for it to fall apart. Yes, they are getting better at it, but for mixing live action and CGI “synthespians” (great word, BTW), there is a long way to go.



I’d tack a “yet” to the end of that sentence. I do believe that eventually we will have this - but computing power to shunt the polygons needed around is not here yet.

Madagascar 3 beats Prometheus at US box office:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18393200

So a $10m difference between the two - but hardly surprising. Madagascar is a family film, and ticket sales will likely be kid + parent(s), and I would wager that at least one of the parents doesn’t really want to see that film. So it’s a slightly exaggerated figure because of that.

That would be me, sat in the cinema watching Madagascar and wishing I were actually watching Prometheus!

Read Weyland Smithers’ review of the film here. It”s in the comments section.
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/24141/ ... s-spoilers

That's what you think! Ryan Gosling is fully CGI, I'm one of only a few people who can tell.


This guy was an early prototype (too obvious) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-M4nQTrKTcrk/T ... 2011-4.jpg

I didn't, but apparently you should sit through the credits...
http://egotastic.com/2012/06/prometheus-goes-viral-all-the-way-ends-movie-with-a-video-clue-video/

http://www.whatis101112.com

Find an iPad, and try to open this URL. Use Tapatalk for maximum annoyance.

Bunch of spoiler links that suggest future hints and talk about an extended Blu-Ray etc:

http://www.aintitcool.com/