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

[Dynaman]

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.

Which is exactly my point, even the movie with the best 3D to date was not really ready. As I said before, trying to look at anything other then the focus of the action caused a headache as things could not be focused on - and that is just not natural. It can be argued that 2D regular movies are not natural either, but our brains (at least mine) does not get a headache trying to watch them (unless they go for the other gimick that is currently in style, namely using too many fast cuts of too limited a duration - but that is a seperate topic)

[Radd]

Which is exactly my point, even the movie with the best 3D to date was not really ready.

Er...I said the 3D was "astoundingly well done", as in, "it looked fantastic". This is pretty much the opposite of "not really ready".

As I said before, trying to look at anything other then the focus of the action caused a headache as things could not be focused on - and that is just not natural.

I did not experience any headaches or eye strain in either Avatar or Tron, the two most recent 3D movies I've seen. In both movies I pretty much forgot I was even wearing the glasses while watching.

I have experienced both in older 3D movies.

I don't put much stock in anecdotal arguments, my own anecdotal experiences included, it would be interesting to know what percentage of moviegoers did experience these issues.

[sketchley]

it would be interesting to know what percentage of moviegoers did experience these issues.

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

In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.

This is also interesting, in regards to forced perspective/look-at points*:

http://www.shadowlocked.com/2009122170/opinion-features/how-to-avoid-getting-a-3d-headache-while-watching-avatar.html

*it's not entirely limited to 3D. There have been some rapid pans in, for example, the revised SWIV, have an overly blurred and overall jerky/jumpy image progression if you're not looking at the focus of the action. Nevertheless, 3D exasperates it...

Edited January 2, 2011 by sketchley

[Dynaman]

Er...I said the 3D was "astoundingly well done", as in, "it looked fantastic". This is pretty much the opposite of "not really ready".

Then we have a difference of opinion and I'll leave it at that.

[Phyrox]

Whatever qualities this new movie may have (or may not have), it will doubtless not feel or look or sound anything like the first two. That, for me, is enough for me to steer clear of it. Call me backwards-looking, or a curmudgeon, but that's my view.

It probably won't be shameful, like the AVPs, but it won't measure up. Look deep within yourself, you know it's true. It'll be like Kingdom of Heaven compared to A Lion In Winter. Not bad, but not classic.

[Dynaman]

Whatever qualities this new movie may have (or may not have), it will doubtless not feel or look or sound anything like the first two.

There is a chance it will be good, I mean, for every 1000 "The Day the Earth Stood Still" remakes there is 1 "Shop around the Corner" remake...

[atomicscissors]

First off, Happy New Years everyone. Hope everyone here had a great time.

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?

You're right, most of the sheeple will not realize what they are looking at. Also, when I use the word "cheap" I was not referencing the technique's monetary cost.

What would you consider a greater achievement: creating atmosphere naturally (through lighting, set design, and direction), or creating atmosphere on a computer? If you picked the latter, then we are on two different wavelengths with regards to film-making.

I don't believe 3-D is an effect "not otherwise possible", see below.

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

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.

Agreed. Anything done poorly, even color, can adversely affect a film. The "colorization" of black and white films is an atrocity. However, the advent of colored films should be seen as a natural evolution of the art form, after all we all see in color. But before anyone says, "Aha! We all see in three dimensions as well!", take into account Roger Ebert's first reason about why he hates movies in 3-D. To paraphrase: movies are already filmed in 3-D, even when they're filmed in 2-D. That is, there is already perspective and depth of field. Objects in the foreground already seem closer to the viewer than those in the background.

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.

I also disagreed with Ebert when he mentioned videogames not being art. However he is a man, and like all men, he is not infallible. It is wrong to disregard him, like you seem to have, just because of his opinion on videogames, or his other "questionable" opinions (whatever those may be).

Just as in The Walking Dead thread, I didn't come here looking to change any minds, just voice my opinion: 3-D has given 20th Century Fox and Ridley Scott an excuse to come up with not just one, but two, prequels. I don't believe they will ever come close to touching the creepiness of Alien, or the action of Aliens.

20th Century has already lost $40 on the film. That's the cost of the two tickets I'm not going to buy.

[EXO]

I agree with Ebert though as far as 3D doesn't and rather distracts from the viewing experience. Every time a knife or something comes at you in the middle of a movie, you start to think about how cool that little gimmick was. It actually takes you out of the story. The best part for me is actually forgetting that it's a 3D movie and just enjoying a good yarn. Toy Story 3 is a really good example. At the end of it I forgot anything that had to do with any 3D scenes.

I had a friend that said video games weren't art either. I thought she was crazy. I think besides movies and TV, it's one of the most perfect combination that allows almost all the senses to enjoy art. Sight, sound and story. Sometimes touch. Thank goodness not smell. Maybe 3D glasses are meant more for games because that's actually you controlling the character, so when things come at the screen it adds to the realism of being in the game.

[derex3592]

So I just finished up watching all 4 Alien movies on Blu-Ray and made it through ALL the extra stuff as well. Very well done interviews and thoughts put forward by everyone involved about all 4 movies. Makes you realize just how convoluted this franchise has been since the beginning. If you are a fan of the series, you need to pick it up. I had never seen the "special versions" of 3 and Resurrection. Still not great films, but better in my opinion than what was released in the theaters. Especially 3. I believe if Ridley AND H. R. Giger set out to make a prequel, it will be well thought out and probably pretty good, as long as it's not a re-hash of everything else. I will probably go to see it. Although the 3-D thing they could leave OUT. just my .02.

[taksraven]

The biggest problem with the Alien franchise has been that its like a car with nobody at the steering wheel. Different directors, different writers, all with their own take on what the franchise is about and as a result the franchise weaves all over the road.

I don't think that there is any real solution to the problem, I just wanted to point it out.

[derex3592]

The biggest problem with the Alien franchise has been that its like a car with nobody at the steering wheel. Different directors, different writers, all with their own take on what the franchise is about and as a result the franchise weaves all over the road.

I don't think that there is any real solution to the problem, I just wanted to point it out.

You hit the nail on the head with that statement. That's exactly the overall feeling I got from watching all the "making of" documentaries.

[EXO]

A figurehead doesn't really necessary mean that a franchise will be cohesive. Aside from the obvious example *cough*Lucas!*cough* I was watching an interview with Robert Duvall and he told the story of when Coppola visited him to ask if he wanted to reprise his role for Godfather 3. Coppola asked for his mother's recipe (I forget for what) and then mentioned the Godfather movie. The next day Coppola called and was embarrassed about forgetting the recipe, not once mentioning the movie. He knew he was going to decline the part by the time casting called. I think the only way to do a successful movie series is to make them all back to back to back. I'm not a big Harry Potter fan but it seems like that's the way to do it, I don't think Chris Columbus was all that hands on at the end. Not sure though.

[atomicscissors]

I think the only way to do a successful movie series is to make them all back to back to back.

While, I dont' think it's the only way, it does help immensely.

[sketchley]

Actually, I completely disagree. Aside from Lord of the Rings, which was filmed at the same time, how many film series that have been filmed and released back to back were satisfying?

For example:

Back to the Future II & III: even the director stated that the editing on II suffered because of the concurrent filming of III.

The Matrix II & III: the writing in III suffered because the majority of good ideas were used up in II.

Pirates of the Caribbean II & III: same as the Matrix.

On the other hand, there are film series that have been released within a reasonable period of time, yet still had enough of a break between the films for the production team to rest and come up with good ideas:

Star Wars I~III, and IV~VI: if the making of documentaries are anything to go on, despite the 2 to 3 year gap between films, the key production team was pretty much working exclusively on the films for the entire period.

Harry Potter

Spiderman I & II (III suffered from something...)

Borne Identity, etc.

Indiana Jones

and of course, JAMES BOND.

So, the key point is both a break to do something else, but the break being short enough to be able to reassemble the cast and crew and recapture the energy.

Edited January 11, 2011 by sketchley

[taksraven]

Actually, I completely disagree. Aside from Lord of the Rings, which was filmed at the same time, how many film series that have been filmed and released back to back were satisfying?

I think that the literary basis of the Trilogy helped with making those films. Peter Jackson knew exactly where he was going and where he had to go. From what I understand the money made just from Fellowship was enough to cover the budget of the entire trilogy.

For example:

Back to the Future II & III: even the director stated that the editing on II suffered because of the concurrent filming of III.

The Matrix II & III: the writing in III suffered because the majority of good ideas were used up in II.

Pirates of the Caribbean II & III: same as the Matrix.

The Matrix parts 2 and three also suffered from the fact that the filmmakers had more of an unlimited budget and resources and got lazy. This often happens. Also one of the "Brothers" was in the process of becoming a "Sister".

On the other hand, there are film series that have been released within a reasonable period of time, yet still had enough of a break between the films for the production team to rest and come up with good ideas:

Star Wars I~III, and IV~VI: if the making of documentaries are anything to go on, despite the 2 to 3 year gap between films, the key production team was pretty much working exclusively on the films for the entire period.

Harry Potter

Spiderman I & II (III suffered from something...)

Borne Identity, etc.

Indiana Jones

and of course, JAMES BOND.

So, the key point is both a break to do something else, but the break being short enough to be able to reassemble the cast and crew and recapture the energy.

Don't forget as well, if you produce a film and have the sequels in production at the same time it means that the sequels will get made, rather than be axed if the first film is a failure or if it is a success but just doesn't make the hundreds of millions the studio imagined. (ie, The Golden Compass and The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, both were successful films with the sequels pretty much ready to go, but at the end of the day not enough of a profit was made to satisfy the studio, thats also why things have gone quiet about Iron Man 3.)

A figurehead doesn't really necessary mean that a franchise will be cohesive. Aside from the obvious example *cough*Lucas!*cough* I was watching an interview with Robert Duvall and he told the story of when Coppola visited him to ask if he wanted to reprise his role for Godfather 3. Coppola asked for his mother's recipe (I forget for what) and then mentioned the Godfather movie. The next day Coppola called and was embarrassed about forgetting the recipe, not once mentioning the movie. He knew he was going to decline the part by the time casting called. I think the only way to do a successful movie series is to make them all back to back to back. I'm not a big Harry Potter fan but it seems like that's the way to do it, I don't think Chris Columbus was all that hands on at the end. Not sure though.

No, it never assures success, artistically or financially, but I think it helps a lot. Even though he made lame decisions at times, I think the Star Trek franchise did suffer from the death of Gene Rodenberry and I'm sure that most of the stuff that was made afterwards did not really conform to his "vision" of the 23rd century.

(Word has it that Gene saw an early edit of Star Trek VI, gave the thumbs up to everybody there, then went and got his lawyer on the phone and began legal proceedings to have 15 minutes cut from the film for being too "militaristic". He died 3 days later so this legal action was never completed and the film was released uncut.)

[anime52k8]

Star Wars I~III, and IV~VI: if the making of documentaries are anything to go on, despite the 2 to 3 year gap between films, the key production team was pretty much working exclusively on the films for the entire period.

Harry Potter

Spiderman I & II (III suffered from something...)

Borne Identity, etc.

Indiana Jones

and of course, JAMES BOND.

The star wars prequels where terrible, Harry Potter and the Borne movies where based on successful books, and James bond Indian Jones have little to no connection between their individual movies.

if they're trying to tell a continuous story over several movies it works better to do them in quick succession, the trick is they actually have to have enough story for 2 movies rather than 1 movie with a lot of padding (like the Matrix sequels.)

[badboy00z]

So what's the story for this prequel?? I personally loved all of the Alien movies so bring it on. If it sucks then it will just make the originals that much better.

[VT 1010]

The only thing concrete we know about the movie is that it's a prequel. IIRC, Weylan(d)-Yutani and the Space Jockeys are also involved. This is straight from Ridley and that's all we know about the story.

[big F]

Well done right it could be a true successor to the original 4 films.

Its made very obvious that the Weylan - Yutani company is slightly corrupt and all consuming, seeing as how they are constantly referred to in all films, they own the whole shooting match. It would be easy to say they they just covered up the whole Temple under the Ice incident it is such a remote site it would be easy. They are well aware of the Aliens and Predators long before they get to send humans to other stars in their company ships years later.

By the time they get to Terra forming planets then you can bet that there are dozens of Bishop units out there with secret instructions to procure samples no matter the cost.

There is so much possible for this story, I hope they don't Frell it up.

[VT 1010]

I hope the leave EVERYTHING from the AVP movies out of this prequel--and any other Alien movie for that matter.

[myk]

I hope the leave EVERYTHING from the AVP movies out of this prequel--and any other Alien movie for that matter.

They can leave the hot teenage girls getting impaled on walls-I don't have a problem with that...

[HappyPenguins]

The only thing concrete we know about the movie is that it's a prequel. IIRC, Weylan(d)-Yutani and the Space Jockeys are also involved. This is straight from Ridley and that's all we know about the story.

So we can expect to see Bishop again?

[VT 1010]

So we can expect to see Bishop again?

Probably not. The entire reason "Bishop" was in AVP was because the creator wasn't visionary enough to move past the fan-wanking. I'm sure that the writers are going to at least try something a little different...I hope. Don't get me wrong--I like the Bishop character from Aliens (and even the one from the recent game); however, I think it's best to move on. I hope the female lead isn't a shameless Ripley knock-off either.

Now that I'm done ranting, I just need to take a breath and relax...

[HappyPenguins]

Probably not. The entire reason "Bishop" was in AVP was because the creator wasn't visionary enough to move past the fan-wanking. I'm sure that the writers are going to at least try something a little different...I hope. Don't get me wrong--I like the Bishop character from Aliens (and even the one from the recent game); however, I think it's best to move on. I hope the female lead isn't a shameless Ripley knock-off either.

Now that I'm done ranting, I just need to take a breath and relax...

Think we'll see any robots like Ash?

[taksraven]

Think we'll see any robots like Wynona's Big Brown Bieber?

Edited January 13, 2011 by taksraven

[myk]

I hope the female lead isn't a shameless Ripley knock-off either.

You're talking about the female lead in the last AvP, right? lol...

[electric indigo]

While we're at it:

There will be an android (Michael Fassbender, juicy Stelios from 300) and Charlize Theron is to kick out either Michelle Yeoh or Noomi Rapace or both...

[VT 1010]

Think we'll see any robots like Ash?

All of the prior Alien movies have had some sort of "artificial person." I'd be surprised if this one didn't.

EDIT: Looks like that may have been answered already.

You're talking about the female lead in the last AvP, right? lol...

Unfortunately, yes...

Edited January 13, 2011 by VT 1010

[derex3592]

I'm gonna venture out on a limb here, but I kinda didn't mind the first AVP. I thought is was a fairly cool movie.

The second one kinda turned into a blood bath near the end and generally didn't do anything for me..

[Majestic]

Bummer about Charlize potentially ousting Noomi Rapace from the project. Rapace was awesome in Girl With the Dragon Tatoo and I could easily see her as a tough Ripley-type crewmember. Maybe her english isn't pitch perfect, or the studios don't want to bank on a "no name" actress.

[Dynaman]

I'm gonna venture out on a limb here, but I kinda didn't mind the first AVP. I thought is was a fairly cool movie.

Ditto, I thought it was a decent enough popcorn flick (nowhere near the same class as Aliens or Predator, but decent).

The second one kinda turned into a blood bath near the end and generally didn't do anything for me..

I refused to see a movie that had a promo showing the facehuggers bursting into a pregnancy ward, if a movie has to stoop that low in and advertisement, then I know full well it is not for me...

[Kanedas Bike]

So...uh...yeah;

Everyone can stop bitching about how much the Alien prequel will suck.

-b.

[myk]

Bummer about Charlize potentially ousting Noomi Rapace from the project. Rapace was awesome in Girl With the Dragon Tatoo and I could easily see her as a tough Ripley-type crewmember. Maybe her english isn't pitch perfect, or the studios don't want to bank on a "no name" actress.

Seeing how "intense" Noomi's Dragon Tatoo movies were maybe studio exec's might have been thinking that the world just needs to take a break from her for a bit, lol. I guess that won't be the case with "Prometheus."

Meanwhile, now that AvP 1999 for PC's has been made compatible for XP and newer video cards, I'll get my head bite jollies there instead...

Edited January 15, 2011 by myk

[Black Valkyrie]

For me, for sure I would choose Noomi Rapace, she kinda resembles Sigourney Weaver.

[Kanedas Bike]

Since Fox has officially canceled the Alien prequel does anyone have thoughts on how the newly titled 'Prometheus' will turn out, and what elements from the Alien universe will be recognized/able?

-b.