Prometheus - on Blu-Ray and DVD Oct. 9, 2012

[myk]

Ew!

[Keith]

They can do what Hunt for Red Oktober did, in that case the Russians started out speaking subtitled russian and in the middle of a sentence switched to English - sounds kinda silly but it worked VERY well in the film.

Shyeah right, that's as crazy as casting Sean Connery as a Russian. Oh wait...

[Dynaman]

Shyeah right, that's as crazy as casting Sean Connery as a Russian. Oh wait...

He had the requisit UK accent for playing a Russian in a US film. Worst case of that was "Stalingrad" where I could swear the kid was going to say "Vatzily Zitzev, Cockney Russian Sniper, Guvner!" (oh yeah - be sure to say that with the "chimney sweeper" accent Dick Van Dyke had in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang)

Back on track though - it did work and could be usefull for the Alien Prequal (come to think of it, didn't Avatar do the same thing? I know the one lady spoke English but I'm pretty sure the others used it at certain points even though they did not speak it.)

[Radd]

I feel generally positive about this. We're getting Ridley Scott and H.R. Giger, this feels more like a return to form than a quick cash-in. We'll see, tho.

On the Red October topic, yeah...I kinda hated the way they handled the Russian characters. I'd have preferred they stuck to Russian dialogue, or at least had Russian accents.

I kinda doubt the movie will be lacking any human characters, tho. Space is big, and in the Alien universe communication isn't instantaneous. I would suspect we're going to see humans encountering xenomorphs and space jockeys and probably lead right in to the original movie.

[atomicscissors]

I kinda doubt the movie will be lacking any human characters, tho....I would suspect we're going to see humans encountering xenomorphs and space jockeys and probably lead right in to the original movie.

So, this movie is a retcon then?

It's my understanding that the Nostromo's encounter with the Xenomorph and the Space Jockey was humanity's first encounter ever with the two species.

If it does end up being a retcon, I've got only one thing to say: "boo."

Edited December 30, 2010 by atomicscissors

[Radd]

That really depends on your definition of a "retcon", the more narrow definition is that a "retcon" is when you go back and change an established fact, directly contradicting the existing material. There are plenty of ways to show humans encountering xenomorphs and space jockeys decades before Ripley and the crew of the Nostromos without contradicting anything in the first two Alien movies (and quite honestly I'm perfectly fine with them contradicting whatever they feel like with the Alien movies past those).

The broader definition of a retcon, that anything changed or added to the timeline whether or not spelled out explicitly in the existing material, is..well quite honestly so broad a definition that the term "retcon" becomes meaningless. Anything showing new information about a backstory would be considered a retcon. Darth Vader being Luke's father would be a retcon made in Empire.

[taksraven]

Nah, we don't need "narrow" and "broad" definitions of this hateful word. The first sentence of the wikipedia article on the subject successfully sums it up.....

Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon) refers to the deliberate alteration of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction.

Edited December 30, 2010 by taksraven

[Radd]

Nah, we don't need "narrow" and "broad" definitions of this hateful word. The first sentence of the wikipedia article on the subject successfully sums it up.....

Which would make the concept of humans encountering space jockeys and xenomorphs not a retcon, so long as it's handled right. (Like no one survives, or WaylandYutani covers it all up before creating their priority directive for employee ships to check out any possible indication of extra-terrestrial life.)

[HappyPenguins]

meh ever since hearing it is going to be in 3D I lost interest....

maybe I'm just two dimensional

[atomicscissors]

That really depends on your definition of a "retcon", the more narrow definition is that a "retcon" is when you go back and change an established fact, directly contradicting the existing material. There are plenty of ways to show humans encountering xenomorphs and space jockeys decades before Ripley and the crew of the Nostromos without contradicting anything in the first two Alien movies (and quite honestly I'm perfectly fine with them contradicting whatever they feel like with the Alien movies past those).

Right. I'm using "retcon" in that way (narrow). Wikipedia's definition of this "hateful" word works as well.

My whole guff about this, as I stated earlier, is it's my understanding that the Nostromo's crew (Lambert, Ash, Kane, Parker, Brett, Dallas, and Ripley) were the first humans (Ash isn't technically a human, but whatever) to encounter the Xenomorph and the Space Jockey.

But now, 32 years later, we're being told she's not The First? That title seems to be destined for Noomi Rapace? You know. That chick from "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? Yeah, that girl.

Am I wrong to assume this, that the Nostromo was the first? Is there anything in the various movies that contradict this notion?

This just bugs me (no pun intended) because, yeah Ripley was the first to tangle with a Xenomorph and blow it out of an airlock, and yeah she also blew a QUEEN out of another airlock, but Noomi is probably going to have a protracted battle with a QUEEN and a KING and there's probably going to be some bullet-time thrown in for good measure too, and the kids will OOH and AAH and they'll talk about how cool the 3D effects were.

Sigh. Please excuse an aging fanboy's rage.

[taksraven]

You must have loved the episode of Star Trek:Enterprise, when the crew was the "first" one to encounter the Borg.

What a screw up that idea was.....

Taksraven

Sigh. Please excuse an aging fanboy's rage.

Welcome to modern cinema, BTW.

[Radd]

Right. I'm using "retcon" in that way (narrow). Wikipedia's definition of this "hateful" word works as well.

My whole guff about this, as I stated earlier, is it's my understanding that the Nostromo's crew (Lambert, Ash, Kane, Parker, Brett, Dallas, and Ripley) were the first humans (Ash isn't technically a human, but whatever) to encounter the Xenomorph and the Space Jockey.

But now, 32 years later, we're being told she's not The First? That title seems to be destined for Noomi Rapace? You know. That chick from "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? Yeah, that girl.

Am I wrong to assume this, that the Nostromo was the first? Is there anything in the various movies that contradict this notion?

This just bugs me (no pun intended) because, yeah Ripley was the first to tangle with a Xenomorph and blow it out of an airlock, and yeah she also blew a QUEEN out of another airlock, but Noomi is probably going to have a protracted battle with a QUEEN and a KING and there's probably going to be some bullet-time thrown in for good measure too, and the kids will OOH and AAH and they'll talk about how cool the 3D effects were.

Sigh. Please excuse an aging fanboy's rage.

The problem with this perspective is that there is never at any point in the first two movies where it's confirmed that the Notromo is the first group of humans to encounter these beings. In fact, the very idea that Weyland-Yutani has a built in protocol that will not only stop a current mission mid-stride and send the crew out in search of possible alien life and that there is even an android on board that will prioritize this over the crew's life seems to indicate that corporation has good reason to halt a profitable mission to go chasing little green men that probably don't exist.

It's like people crying "Retcon!" when the ruins of the Global were revealed in Macross Frontier. Sorry, no, incorrect. That does not contradict what we know, it fills in the gaps of things we didn't know. DIFFERENT.

And yes, don't take this wrong but there is some fanboy rage going on here. You're making assumptions about a movie that we haven't even seen a trailer for which seem to fly in the face of the facts. Despite the fact that we're getting the director of the original classic back you're saying it's going to be another typical modern Hollywood action fest. I'm not quite sure how you've come to the conclusion that the director of Alien and Blade Runner is going to make a sugar hyped Matrix style MTV video.

I'm not saying we're guaranteed some good movies here, believe me I'm cautiously optimistic here at best, but I'm just not seeing Ridley Scott giving us something as bad as AvP.

[sketchley]

I'm just curious, has anyone read the wikipedia article on these new movies? From the goings on here, and what's written there, it's like two ENTIRELY different ideas are being discussed.

[TehPW]

You must have loved the episode of Star Trek:Enterprise, when the crew was the "first" one to encounter the Borg.

What a screw up that idea was.....

Taksraven

Welcome to modern cinema, BTW.

No, it wasn't Tak. It very Neatly wraps some plot threads from TNG. After all, that episode is the chain starter (potentialally) for the whole gig)

ok maybe not...

[atomicscissors]

The problem with this perspective is that there is never at any point in the first two movies where it's confirmed that the Notromo is the first group of humans to encounter these beings. In fact, the very idea that Weyland-Yutani has a built in protocol that will not only stop a current mission mid-stride and send the crew out in search of possible alien life and that there is even an android on board that will prioritize this over the crew's life seems to indicate that corporation has good reason to halt a profitable mission to go chasing little green men that probably don't exist.

It's like people crying "Retcon!" when the ruins of the Global were revealed in Macross Frontier. Sorry, no, incorrect. That does not contradict what we know, it fills in the gaps of things we didn't know. DIFFERENT.

And yes, don't take this wrong but there is some fanboy rage going on here. You're making assumptions about a movie that we haven't even seen a trailer for which seem to fly in the face of the facts. Despite the fact that we're getting the director of the original classic back you're saying it's going to be another typical modern Hollywood action fest. I'm not quite sure how you've come to the conclusion that the director of Alien and Blade Runner is going to make a sugar hyped Matrix style MTV video.

I'm not saying we're guaranteed some good movies here, believe me I'm cautiously optimistic here at best, but I'm just not seeing Ridley Scott giving us something as bad as AvP.

I'm going to concede: I believe you are right, there is never a point in the first two movies where it is specifically mentioned that the Nostromo was the one to make first contact.

And you're also right on another point: I don't know what the prequel is going to be about; I shouldn't say that's it's going to be your typical Mindless.Summer.Action.Blockbuster because I haven't read the script, let alone viewed a trailer (but, I'll tell you one thing: they don't film serious dramas in 3-D).

I read the Wikipedia entry like sketchley suggested (it never occurred to me to do so). I learned two things today. The first made me sad:

Since 3-D films need high lighting levels on set, the hallmark atmosphere of the Alien films with darkness and shadows will be added in post-production...

Sigh. Sacrificing true atmosphere for an excuse to sell overpriced movie tickets.

The second thing I learned today made me even sadder:

[Ridley] Scott...hinted at the possibility that the Xenomorph Alien was designed either as a biological weapon or as a means to "clean up" planets.

The Xenomorphs are no longer just eyeless creatures who lurk in the dark; no longer faceless monsters who kept me up all night as a kid. No, they're possibly biological weapons now. I guess they're right: ignorance is bliss.

I wish I could be just as "cautiously optimistic" as you, but in 1999 I didn't think George Lucas could give us something as bad as The Phantom Menace.

[the white drew carey]

I'm not quite sure how you've come to the conclusion that the director of Alien and Blade Runner is going to make a sugar hyped Matrix style MTV video.

Have you seen his movies lately? They are full of generic "wowee" action pieces with grand, but ultimately dull, storylines in-between. Ridley Scott hasn't done an innovative film in decades.

[sketchley]

Sigh. Sacrificing true atmosphere for an excuse to sell overpriced movie tickets.

Agreed.

The Xenomorphs are no longer just eyeless creatures who lurk in the dark; no longer faceless monsters who kept me up all night as a kid. No, they're possibly biological weapons now. I guess they're right: ignorance is bliss.

For fun you should read the original thoughts on the back story on the Xenomorph. I believe it's on or connected to the Wikipedia article on "Alien" (first movie). In a way, the pyramid motif from AvP makes a bit more sense.

I wish I could be just as "cautiously optimistic" as you, but in 1999 I didn't think George Lucas could give us something as bad as The Phantom Menace.

Funny thing is, I was checking out the The Numbers website, and apparently Phantom Menace did a lot better than SW II, III, or even the twice-released IV! Take what you will from that, but Jake Lloyd has a huge selling power.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/worldwide.php

#13 SWI

#22 SWIII

#29 SWIV

(Alien, Predator, AvP, none on the list.)

[atomicscissors]

I was checking out the The Numbers website, and apparently Phantom Menace did a lot better than SW II, III, or even the twice-released IV! Take what you will from that, but Jake Lloyd has a huge selling power.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/worldwide.php

#13 SWI

#22 SWIII

#29 SWIV

(Alien, Predator, AvP, none on the list.)

What bothers me about Box Office Gross lists is that they never take inflation into account. Still it's a damn shame that The Phantom Menace made more than A New Hope or Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Vertigo, The Wizard of Oz, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Chinatown, Apocalypse Now, Dr. Strangelove, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, M*A*S*H, Unforgiven, The Shawshank Redemption, A Clockwork Orange, Platoon, Goodfellas, Casino, Pulp Fiction, Blade Runner...I could go on and on...

edit: and Phantom Menace has probably made more than True Grit ever will. True Grit is a great movie. Go see it.

Edited December 31, 2010 by atomicscissors

[sketchley]

What bothers me about Box Office Gross lists is that they never take inflation into account.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/#inflation_adjusted

Alas, the USA market only.

EDIT: from 1977 onwards only.

Edited December 31, 2010 by sketchley

[Radd]

Sigh. Sacrificing true atmosphere for an excuse to sell overpriced movie tickets.

Actually, this is done more often than you might think. It can be done really well, too. Chances are, if you saw the movie before reading this on wikipedia you probably wouldn't realize.

The second thing I learned today made me even sadder:

...

The Xenomorphs are no longer just eyeless creatures who lurk in the dark; no longer faceless monsters who kept me up all night as a kid. No, they're possibly biological weapons now. I guess they're right: ignorance is bliss.

Yeah, I'm with you on this particular point. The risk you run when explaining things that had been left up to the imagination for decades is that what you come up with isn't as powerful as the unknown.

I wish I could be just as "cautiously optimistic" as you, but in 1999 I didn't think George Lucas could give us something as bad as The Phantom Menace.

Have you seen his movies lately? They are full of generic "wowee" action pieces with grand, but ultimately dull, storylines in-between. Ridley Scott hasn't done an innovative film in decades.

Fair points. I haven't seen a Ridley Scott film since Gladiator, which, while definitely no Blade Runner, I thought was pretty good.

Although, on Lucas himself, the man did give us Ewoks, the Star Wars Christmas Special and Howard the Duck, so the warning signs were most definitely there.

[VT 1010]

It's not technically a retcon since Weylan(d)-Yutani already knew about the xenomorphs to some degree. And this is entirely in the first movie--not some crazy EU stuff.

In regards to all of the crazy RUMORS going around about the movies plot and casting, I'd suggest reading this article: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/18897/-alien-prequel-talk-official-reaction/

As to whether or not it will be any good, it couldn't be worse than the last two or the AVP movies. Let's not forget this will be Ridley Scott's first sci-fi movie since Blade Runner. Either way, the movie is in preproduction. We don't even have much in the way of plot details, let alone a trailer. Condemning it already seems a little premature.

Have you seen his movies lately? They are full of generic "wowee" action pieces with grand, but ultimately dull, storylines in-between. Ridley Scott hasn't done an innovative film in decades.

Black Hawk Down came out in 2001 and it was quite innovative. And American Gangster, the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven, and Matchstick Men--while not terribly innovative--were still pretty good movies.

[myk]

It's been a while, so what was innovative about Black Hawk Down?

[Warmaker]

Agreed.

For fun you should read the original thoughts on the back story on the Xenomorph. I believe it's on or connected to the Wikipedia article on "Alien" (first movie). In a way, the pyramid motif from AvP makes a bit more sense.

Funny thing is, I was checking out the The Numbers website, and apparently Phantom Menace did a lot better than SW II, III, or even the twice-released IV! Take what you will from that, but Jake Lloyd has a huge selling power.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/worldwide.php

#13 SWI

#22 SWIII

#29 SWIV

(Alien, Predator, AvP, none on the list.)

I'll tell you why TPM did so well. It came out when people were still very hungry for anything Star Wars.

Think about how things were leading up to TPM's release. Return of the Jedi came out in 1983. Phantom Menace in 1999. It had been 16 whole years since the last SW movie. When TPM came out, George Lucas had a reputation still where he literally could do no wrong (everyone forgot Howard the Duck, but not me). The older fans still had quite fond memories of the original flicks. TPM was carrying the fabled "Star Wars" name and franchise. The imagination and expectations were running wild leading up to TPM. And to top it off, despite Lucas' missteps with work from TPM onwards, promoting and hyping was not his weakness. I had to admit those trailers were very nice.

Anyways, thats the general stuff that led into why TPM did well in the box office. But you're going to have a tough time finding fans putting in a higher light than the Original Trilogy, specifically against ANH & ESB, despite the big money TPM made.

[VT 1010]

At the time, there weren't many "war" films based on recent Middle-Eastern/African conflicts, especially with a big budget (this was pre-9/11). If it weren't for all of the things that have been happening over the past decade, Black Hawk Down would still be one of a few. This is not to mention the focus of the film. It wasn't so much a one sided portrayal of a given conflict. It was a bit more ambiguous. Certainly it had the whole "war is hell" thing going; however, it was whether or not the hell being endured was worth it that was in question.

BHD also had a very distinctive visual style. Unlike many war films of the era which often had a very pale and muted look, BHD used more color. The color timing had vibrant yellows, oranges, and browns contrasted with blue skies. Compare that to the desaturated look which was more common at the time--films like the following: Three Kings, Behind Enemy Lines, Tigerland, Enemy at the Gates, The Thin Red Line, Windtalkers, and (of course) Saving Private Ryan. In fact, BHD was even nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar.

And finally, it was the first major motion picture I can recall that didn't show Delta operators on motorcycles with rockets.

[atomicscissors]

Actually, this is done more often than you might think. It can be done really well, too. Chances are, if you saw the movie before reading this on wikipedia you probably wouldn't realize.

You're right about this, but adding atmosphere in post-production seems cheap to me. In fact, I think the whole fad of filming a movie in 3-D cheapens the art of making movies. "If you can't make it good, make it 3-D," seems to be the post-Avatar Hollywood mantra nowadays. The prequel just seems like a money grab by 20th Century Fox and Mr. Scott.

Roger Ebert wrote an article for Newseek earlier this year wherein he said 3-D is best suited for children's films and animation. He also writes:

Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market. Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes. I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It’s all about the marketing.

Full article here: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

It's been a while, so what was innovative about Black Hawk Down?

I think it was the first 144-minute action scene.

[myk]

I think it was the first 144-minute action scene.

Just as I thought...

At the time, there weren't many "war" films based on recent Middle-Eastern/African conflicts, especially with a big budget (this was pre-9/11). If it weren't for all of the things that have been happening over the past decade, Black Hawk Down would still be one of a few. This is not to mention the focus of the film. It wasn't so much a one sided portrayal of a given conflict. It was a bit more ambiguous. Certainly it had the whole "war is hell" thing going; however, it was whether or not the hell being endured was worth it that was in question.

I agree that war movies of any kind and especially involving that region were rare, however the film seemed rather one sided to me; after all it involved U.S. Operators who were merely trying to do their jobs for the sake of peace when the big bad black militia came along and screwed everything up. The philosophical ramblings of "Hootie," (I think that was his name) to me were just tacked on sentiments to try and give the movie some sort of depth when there really wasn't any. Instead, I think Platoon, Flags of our Fathers or Letters from Iwo Jima are some war movies that certainly focused on introspection and reflection rather than two hours of straight combat.

BHD also had a very distinctive visual style. Unlike many war films of the era which often had a very pale and muted look, BHD used more color. The color timing had vibrant yellows, oranges, and browns contrasted with blue skies. Compare that to the desaturated look which was more common at the time--films like the following: Three Kings, Behind Enemy Lines, Tigerland, Enemy at the Gates, The Thin Red Line, Windtalkers, and (of course) Saving Private Ryan. In fact, BHD was even nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar.

BHD was highly distinctive in its style. I haven't watched it in a long time but of all the things I remember it's the look of the film-very beautiful in a hard, gritty way.

And finally, it was the first major motion picture I can recall that didn't show Delta operators on motorcycles with rockets.

C'mon man, you realize that the whole Mogadishu thing wouldn't have been so bad if the Delta guys were equipped with rocket firing motorcyles LOLz....

Edited December 31, 2010 by myk

[the white drew carey]

Unlike many war films of the era which often had a very pale and muted look, BHD used more color. The color timing had vibrant yellows, oranges, and browns contrasted with blue skies. Compare that to the desaturated look which was more common at the time--films like the following: Three Kings, Behind Enemy Lines, Tigerland, Enemy at the Gates, The Thin Red Line, Windtalkers, and (of course) Saving Private Ryan. In fact, BHD was even nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar.

And finally, it was the first major motion picture I can recall that didn't show Delta operators on motorcycles with rockets.

Yeah, because Somalia is all yellows, oranges and browns. There is nothing innovative about that. And to say that The Thin Red Line was desaturated is complete lunacy. The environment was bright and colorful, and so is the film.

Don't get me wrong, BHD is a GOOD film. One of the best that Ridley has done in a long time. But there was very little that was innovative about it, cinematically.

And, finally, it is total BS that the Delta Ops weren't using their (flying) motorcycles with rockets. What a rip-off, man!

Edited December 31, 2010 by the white drew carey

[VT 1010]

Yeah, because Somalia is all yellows, oranges and browns. There is nothing innovative about that. And to say that The Thin Red Line was desaturated is complete lunacy. The environment was bright and colorful, and so is the film.

My mistake. I haven't seen the Thin Red Line in years, so I was just going off of memory (and the poster). Nonetheless, I would also like to point out France isn't a bunch of drab grays either, yet Spielberg chose otherwise for Saving Private Ryan. My point is that BHD's visuals could have been stylized in many ways, but the one chosen was very unique at the time.

And, finally, it is total BS that the Delta Ops weren't using their (flying) motorcycles with rockets. What a rip-off, man!

Some stuff is still classified I guess...

I agree that war movies of any kind and especially involving that region were rare, however the film seemed rather one sided to me; after all it involved U.S. Operators who were merely trying to do their jobs for the sake of peace when the big bad black militia came along and screwed everything up. The philosophical ramblings of "Hootie," (I think that was his name) to me were just tacked on sentiments to try and give the movie some sort of depth when there really wasn't any. Instead, I think Platoon, Flags of our Fathers or Letters from Iwo Jima are some war movies that certainly focused on introspection and reflection rather than two hours of straight combat.

In the beginning, when Gen. Garrison was interviewing one of Adid's guys, and when the Somali guy is talking to Durant, they're both trying to establish the Somali point of view. They view it as their own problem and outside interference as futile. That's how I interpreted it anyway. In addition, Hoot's ramblings didn't seem to be tacked on since this said philosophy is shown throughout the film. That was, after all, the entire reason those two Delta operators were killed: trying to save a fellow soldier.

I think it was the first 144-minute action scene.

Yes, that's another innovation.

[sketchley]

I'll tell you why TPM did so well. It came out when people were still very hungry for anything Star Wars.(...)

YOu've missed my points:

1) the international market is different from the English speaking or even the USA market. You're defining one market (not sure if it's the English speaking one in general or the USA one specifically). Though your points are valid, they are not applicable in all circumstances, states, and cultures; as the international audience has entirely different expectations.

2) Jake Lloyd. He brings in the non-fan female demographic. Yes, there are many female fans of Star Wars, but amongst the non-fans (especially those that were dragged along by their boyfriends), if you ask them about any of the Star Wars movies, they'll ask "what happened to that cute little boy?"

[renegadeleader1]

I could look forward to this if done right.

I have a book of HL GIGERs collection of sketches and art and his stuff is amazing in its blending of erotic horror. One thing to note is that he was so disgusted after the 2nd movie at how they turned his aliens into gushy fleshy slimy abominations I think he vowed never to work on creature designs on any alien movie. IIRC S. Weaver was really unhappy with the direction of the 3 and 4th film as well.

If they do prequel they need to bring back Giger as creature designer. His designs were a larger contributor to the movies success and it will be fitting to bring him back

Wasn't it Weaver's idea to kill off Ripley in the first place because she was tired of the series and being typcast? I also recall the studio giving her choice of director for ressurection to get her to come back to the series and she chose the french surrealist Jeunet(who couldn't speak enlish at the time)?

[Radd]

You're right about this, but adding atmosphere in post-production seems cheap to me.

I'm not certain this is a rational opinion. If the audience, even those looking for it, cannot tell when they see the final product how can one justify calling it cheap? Especially when it's an extra, and costly step in production or used to achieve some effect not otherwise possible?

In fact, I think the whole fad of filming a movie in 3-D cheapens the art of making movies. "If you can't make it good, make it 3-D," seems to be the post-Avatar Hollywood mantra nowadays.

Let's step back a few decades and replace a few words.

In fact, I think the whole fad of filming a movie in colour cheapens the art of making movies. "If you can't make it good, make it colour," seems to be the post-Robin Hood Hollywood mantra nowadays.

Yes, 3D is a gimmick to get people into theatres for an experience most cannot get at home, but so was colour, so was THX, etcetera.

Done well, colour has added much to film making. Done poorly, well look at a lot of the early colourized stuff, where colour was put into films not originally created in colour. These movies often look worse than the black and white originals. When something originally recorded for mono audio is turned into full surround the end result can sometimes be pretty bad, too.

Roger Ebert wrote an article for Newseek earlier this year wherein he said 3-D is best suited for children's films and animation. He also writes:

Roger Ebert has had many questionable opinions over the years. This is the man who said videogames could not under any circumstances be considered "art". He has settled firmly into the "grumpy old man stuck in the past" set. A lot of the opinions he expresses lately remind me of the 1927 quote, "Talking film is as little needed as a singing book." If Ebert were an old man then I'm sure he would have agreed with that statement.

[taksraven]

Wasn't it Weaver's idea to kill off Ripley in the first place because she was tired of the series and being typcast?

Probably. A lot of actors start screaming for their characters to be killed once they become "too" popular.

and she chose the french surrealist Jeunet(who couldn't speak enlish at the time)?

Neither could you, it would seem.... :P

[Dynaman]

Yes, 3D is a gimmick to get people into theatres for an experience most cannot get at home, but so was colour, so was THX, etcetera.

Both color and sound were added long before any type of home viewing was possible, excepting the filthy rich who could afford a home theater. THX, I could never really tell the difference between a movie with it and a movie without it.

The main problem with 3D is they are STILL pusing it too early, stereoscopic works for viewmaster pictures but watching a movie in 3D for a couple hours - when you are forced to focus your eyes where the film decides you will focus them does not work. A well done movie can get around the problem to some extent, but even Avatar got on my nerves when I tried to focus on things other then the main part of the action.

[Radd]

Both color and sound were added long before any type of home viewing was possible, excepting the filthy rich who could afford a home theater. THX, I could never really tell the difference between a movie with it and a movie without it.

Irrelevant to my point.

The main problem with 3D is they are STILL pusing it too early, stereoscopic works for viewmaster pictures but watching a movie in 3D for a couple hours - when you are forced to focus your eyes where the film decides you will focus them does not work.

A well done movie can get around the problem to some extent, but even Avatar got on my nerves when I tried to focus on things other then the main part of the action.

I'm really not sure I follow you here. The only thing I won't complain about with Avatar (which I thought was a terrible movie) was the 3D effect, which was astoundingly well done. I had no problem looking around the screen away from the central focus of the shot, in fact there were shots I thought that took amazingly good advantage of that. 3D doesn't rely on you having your focus drawn to a specific place on the screen, the sense of depth is enhanced by looking around and it can be used to great effect by toying with the viewer's peripheral vision, which Avatar did well.

[renegadeleader1]

Probably. A lot of actors start screaming for their characters to be killed once they become "too" popular.

Neither could you, it would seem.... :P

At least I can direct