New Prometheus trailer (here be rage)

[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?

 

[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.