Prometheus

[AOA]

A team of scientists journey through the universe on the spaceship "Prometheus" on a voyage to investigate Alien life forms. The team of scientists becomes stranded on an Alien world, and as they struggle to survive it becomes clear that the horrors they experience are not just a threat to themselves, but to all of mankind.

Arguably could be the best sci-fi movie of all time.

 

[Beargryllz]

Every scene in that trailer looks like a scene from Alien

and then I wiki'd Prometheus 2012

lol

 

[Southern Kross]

I'm surprised you posted the trailer and not the promo clip which is creating a lot more buzz. Note this is not a spoiler from the movie but a clip created specificly to promote the film in the form of a TED talk:

 

[AOA]

Thanks for that - a lot. You beat me to it.

I really do not know why many people are evidently compelled to believe this movie is not related to Alien. Because Weyland Corp as looked like in this promo is the corporation in the Alien as well as Alien versus Predator franchises.

 

[Totenkindly]

Because Ridley Scott kept insisting it wasn't a prequel... but it sure as hell resembles one.

 

[AOA]

Because Ridley Scott kept insisting it wasn't a prequel... but it sure as hell resembles one.

Oh by all means.. Weyland Corp is a sufficient evidence.

 

[Anew Leaf]

From wikipedia:

Conceived as a prequel to Scott's 1979 science fiction horror film Alien, rewrites of Spaihts' script by Lindelof developed a separate story that precedes the events of Alien, but which is not directly connected to the films in the Alien franchise. According to Scott, though the film shares "strands of Alien's DNA, so to speak", Prometheus will explore its own mythology and ideas. Principal photography began in March 2011, with filming taking place in England, Iceland, and Spain. Prometheus is scheduled for release between May 30 and June 8, 2012 in various territories through 20th Century Fox.

It looks amazing so far. I am pumped.

 

[Salomé]

Wow. Guy looks rough.

 

[Lexicon]

[YOUTUBE="yHM-vbz9ACA"]not relevant [/YOUTUBE]

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh by all means.. Weyland Corp is a sufficient evidence.

I know, I saw that promotional vid (with Guy Pierce) the other night on IMDB.

I think they're quibbling. It's obviously using the same source material and taking place before the movies, it just might not be the exact same storyline leading to Alien(s)(3)(Resurrection).

in any case, it's one of the movies I'm excited about this year, with Scott at the helm and the cast they've assembled.

 

[1487610420]

Because Ridley Scott kept insisting it wasn't a prequel... but it sure as hell resembles one.

Because the snow flake marketing appeals to the masses.

 

[Zarathustra]

Thank you for that.

I'd done a good deal of research on it after I saw the trailer for the first time some months ago and thought to myself, "Holy shit, they're making an Alien prequel!", but somehow I missed this one coming out (4 days ago?), even though I think I subscribed to their youtube channel. Regardless of whether it ends up being a prequel proper, it's obviously going to be fleshing out the same universe, and will have taken place before the original 'Alien'.

Kind of a side note: does anybody have any thoughts on whether, @1:58, he's somewhat making a reference, not only to the 'Alien' universe, but to the 'Blade Runner' universe as well? During that sequence, the camera shot changes in such a way that it's completely different than the rest of the clip (you'll have to watch from the beginning to notice), which could seem to be that added emphasis to say, "yes, what you're thinking is correct... " (ftr, this is what I thought the first time I watched it; I've watched it since, a number of times, and now have no idea whether I'm reading too much into it, or whether I saw it right the first time -- my mind's tainted... [and, unfortunately, now yours probably will be, too...]). 'Blade Runner' took place in 2019 (and is also directed by Ridley Scott [for the few who do not know]), and the Replicants were, at the time of that movie, while extremely similar to humans, not quite "completely indistinguishable from us". Anyway, just a thought...

It would be interesting, though, this late in the game, not only to flesh out his 'Alien' universe, but to even combine it with one of his other great ones. Not that he isn't more-or-less already there, but that could take him into sci-fi territorial greatness beyond any other director. The only (contemporary) person who could lay claim to anything close would be Cameron, I think, and, rather interestingly, something I just thought of, I've tended to see Cameron typed as INTJ and Scott typed as INTP. And, obviously, Scott directed 'Alien', while Cameron directed the follow-up 'Aliens' (which is a great movie as well). Cameron also started 'Terminator' and, obviously, 'Avatar'. I wonder to what extent Scott doing 'Prometheus' had to do with keeping up/surpassing Cameron in the "greatest sci-fi director of all time" competition. Does anybody know what kind of a relationship these two have?

[MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION]

 

[Nicodemus]

Kind of a side note: does anybody have any thoughts on whether, @1:58, he's somewhat making a reference, not only to the 'Alien' universe, but to the 'Blade Runner' universe as well? During that sequence, the camera shot changes in such a way that it's completely different than the rest of the clip (you'll have to watch from the beginning to notice), which could seem to be that added emphasis to say, "yes, what you're thinking is correct... " (ftr, this is what I thought the first time I watched it; I've watched it since, a number of times, and now have no idea whether I'm reading too much into it, or whether I saw it right the first time -- my mind's tainted... [and, unfortunately, now yours probably will be, too...]). 'Blade Runner' took place in 2019 (and is also directed by Ridley Scott [for the few who do not know]), and the Replicants were, at the time of that movie, while extremely similar to humans, not quite "completely indistinguishable from us". Anyway, just a thought...

The reason he looks into the camera is because the notion of replicants that are almost indistinguishable from humans is, as the uncanny valley hypothesis states, that they can have a disturbing effect on us. It is a comment for the film audience rather than the audience in the hall. I doubt he is referring to the replicants from 'Blade Runner', because 'Alien' had this one:

The screenplay for 'Alien' was probably influenced by 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' by Philip K. Dick, on which 'Blade Runner' is based, but I am not seeing sufficient evidence to assume that Scott is actively trying to fuse these two worlds in this new 'Alien' film.

I wonder to what extent Scott doing 'Prometheus' had to do with keeping up/surpassing Cameron in the "greatest sci-fi director of all time" competition. Does anybody know what kind of a relationship these two have?

I do not know what kind of relationship they have, but I do know that Cameron's films are action movies featuring sci-fi devices rather than sci-fi films ('The Abyss' and 'Avatar' being the most sci-fi-esque ones). 'Avatar', though, apart from a few ideas and the graphics, is not a good film. Though Cameron is obviously much more into technology, Scott, for me, has already won whatever sci-fi competition these two may be in. Yet I do not expect high quality from him anymore.

 

[Zarathustra]

The reason he looks into the camera is because the notion of replicants that are almost indistinguishable from humans is, as the uncanny valley hypothesis states, that they can have a disturbing effect on us. It is a comment for the film audience rather than the audience in the hall. I doubt he is referring to the replicants from 'Blade Runner', because 'Alien' had this one:

Hmm...

Interesting reading.

It's not what I saw, but I'll look again.

I was talking about the shot of his back.

When I first watched it, while the question "Did he just make a 'Blade Runner' reference?" was swirling through my head, that shot seemed completely out of place from all the previous ones.

Just enough to make me go, "Did he just do what I think he did?"

The screenplay for 'Alien' was probably influenced by 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' by Philip K. Dick, on which 'Blade Runner' is based, but I am not seeing sufficient evidence to assume that Scott is actively trying to fuse these two worlds in this new 'Alien' film.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is "actively trying to fuse these two worlds"; I'd just say that he might have made a fun little wink to those who might think about such things.

Considering how much attention has been paid to the way in which this film will relate to a previous universe he has created, I felt it coyly appropriate that he might take it even one step further and say, "Have you ever considered that Tyrell and Weyland might be competitors?"

I do not know what kind of relationship they have, but I do know that Cameron's films are action movies featuring sci-fi devices rather than sci-fi films ('The Abyss' and 'Avatar' being the most sci-fi-esque ones).

You would have been fun in a science fiction film class I took with my favorite professor my third year in college. These were the exact kind of discussions we had.

Would you mind delineating the difference between the two, in your opinion?

I used 'The Terminator' as one of the three films in my final paper (along with '2001' and 'The Animatrix') -- would be interested to hear your position.

'Avatar', though, apart from a few ideas and the graphics, is not a good film.

Agreed.

Although, I can't quite recall how much money I wasted seeing it over and over again in theatres.

The girlfriend loved it.

And those graphics were amazing.

/ inferior Se

Though Cameron is obviously much more into technology, Scott, for me, has already won whatever sci-fi competition these two may be in.

Tbh, that was my sentiment as well.

But I'm sure the (commercial) success of 'Avatar', while by no means the entire reason Scott decided to come back to the genre (just now), was at least enough to give him that added kick in the arse to say, "Let's show Jimmy how it's really done."

I mean, we are talking Hollywood-sized egos here.

Yet I do not expect high quality from him anymore.

Yes, well, you've always been the pessimist between us...

 

[Nicodemus]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is "actively trying to fuse these two worlds"; I'd just say that he might have made a fun little wink to those who might think about such things.

Considering how much attention has been paid to the way in which this film will relate to a previous universe he has created, I felt it coyly appropriate that he might take it even one step further and say, "Have you ever considered that Tyrell and Weyland might be competitors?"

Perhaps. But I would rather ask myself to which extent he will deal with ideas from the 'Alien' sequels.

Would you mind delineating the difference between the two, in your opinion?

The focus makes the difference, obviously. 'The Terminator', I would say, is much more interested to show the destruction and horror the Terminator brings about than to examine problems resulting from fictional science/technology. Yes, one can easily identify the latter with the former; the point is that the Terminator seems to me to be but a vehicle for the action, not the other way around (it is even clearer in the second film, which, by the way, I prefer). 'Blade Runner', quite evidently, is a whole other caliber; and I would describe 'Alien' as a fight between technology and nature, using horror elements to sow reasonable doubt about man's role as the pride of creation.

Although, I can't quite recall how much money I wasted seeing it over and over again in theatres.

I spent none.

All hail the internet!

But I'm sure the (commercial) success of 'Avatar', while by no means the entire reason Scott decided to come back to the genre (just now), was at least enough to give him that added kick in the arse to say, "Let's show Jimmy how it's really done."

I mean, we are talking Hollywood-sized egos here.

Scott could direct a better film, but it will neither be as commercially successful nor as crucial in developing new film technology as 'Avatar'. So the only way in which he could show Cameron "how it's really done" is, quasi, artistically. And, as I said, I doubt Cameron has much to fear in that regard.

Yes, well, you've always been the pessimist between us...

Well, it is due to our differences that we can have this marriage of almost Blakeian profundity.

 

[Totenkindly]

. I wonder to what extent Scott doing 'Prometheus' had to do with keeping up/surpassing Cameron in the "greatest sci-fi director of all time" competition. Does anybody know what kind of a relationship these two have?

I read Scott as having more S sensibilities than N (which is why I like his scifi/horror work, he tends to be very grounded). Also, Scott is a cross-genre director far more than Cameron is, so I'm not sure why he would even care about being the "greatest scifi director of all time" -- being a scifi director doesn't seem to be something he places a lot of his identity in. Alien, Blade Runner, and Legend as far as I recall are the only three of his 12-15 directed movies that were labeled as scifi, and they were early in his career.

In comparison, a much higher percentage of Cameron's work seem to involve scifi/fantasy elements. I think only True Lies and Titanic were "non-scifi/fantasy" movies at least in the trappings. Even Strange Days (which I think he handed off to Kathryn Bigelow, his wife or ex-wife at the time?) was written/derived by him and had scifi elements.

 

[Mia.]

I'm so there.

 

[Zarathustra]

I read Scott as having more S sensibilities than N (which is why I like his scifi/horror work, he tends to be very grounded).

I could see this.

Funny thing is, I think you were the first person who said INTP to me (after I claimed NTJ).

With him, it's part of the reason why I originally thought ENTJ (TeSe).

I definitely see it with his brother.

If he's a Sensor, what type do you think he is?

ISTP?

Not to put too much importance on stereotypes: but aren't ISTPs reputed for often hating sci-fi?

Also, Scott is a cross-genre director far more than Cameron is, so I'm not sure why he would even care about being the "greatest scifi director of all time" -- being a scifi director doesn't seem to be something he places a lot of his identity in.

Really?

From everything I've seen, 'Blade Runner' is his biggest baby of them all. I doubt he's made two Director's Cuts, over a decade apart, for any of his other films. And the fact that he's coming back to do an 'Alien' prequel, or at least something within the same universe... and pretty much right after Cameron came out with Avatar... also, I think you're being a bit Ti nitpicky here: when I said "greatest sci-fi director of all time competition", it didn't mean that he only directs sci-fi, it was a credit to the fact that he has directed two of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, films which would probably find themselves on almost any top 5 list of sci-fi films. When you directed 40% of the top 5 sci-fi films of all time, you probably qualify as one of the greatest sci-fi directors of all time.

Alien, Blade Runner, and Legend as far as I recall are the only three of his 12-15 directed movies that were labeled as scifi, and they were early in his career.

Well, while I appreciate the gift (as related as the two genres are, 'Legend' is a fantasy film), my take is different: 'Blade Runner' and 'Alien' have got to be among his best, if not certainly his best, work, and the fact that those three films are what essentially launched his career, imo, means that they are just that much more important. In fact, part of my original point is that it's interesting that he's coming back to sci-fi after all this time off, so, not only had I already acknowledged the fact that he's been doing a lot of non-sci-fi work for a long time, the fact that he's coming back to the genre is part of my thesis why this all might have something to do with Cameron.

 

[Totenkindly]

If he's a Sensor, what type do you think he is?

ISTP?

Not to put too much importance on stereotypes: but aren't ISTPs reputed for often hating sci-fi?

I would think ISTP, probably. As far as your last comment:

1. Just because all ISTPs generally get bored with scifi doesn't mean Scott isn't allowed to dabble in it or enjoy it. But as I noted, only 3 out of his 12-15 directorial expeditions have been scifi. I think he was into them because the stories were interesting to him, not because they were scifi.

2. I don't really see Scott as into scifi as much as he is into telling a story. This is in fact why I like his movies, they're kind of "clean" movies (kind of like Michael Mann's movies); and his scifi flicks weren't so hung up on the scifi, they were still focused on story and characters. It reminds me of how Jonathan Demme -- a comedy director -- made one of the best thrillers of all time and swept the Academy Awards in 1991. He brought counter-genre sensibilities to the picture that worked.

From everything I've seen, 'Blade Runner' is his biggest baby of them all. I doubt he's made two Director's Cuts, over a decade apart, for any of his other films. And the fact that he's coming back to do an 'Alien' prequel, or at least something within the same universe... and pretty much right after Cameron came out with Avatar... also, I think you're being a bit Ti nitpicky here: when I said "greatest sci-fi director of all time competition", it didn't mean that he only directs sci-fi, it was a credit to the fact that he has directed two of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, films which would probably find themselves on almost any top 5 list of sci-fi films. When you directed 40% of the top 5 sci-fi films of all time, you probably qualify as one of the greatest sci-fi directors of all time.

Well, while I appreciate the gift (as related as the two genres are, 'Legend' is a fantasy film), my take is different: 'Blade Runner' and 'Alien' have got to be among his best, if not certainly his best, work, and the fact that those three films are what essentially launched his career, imo, means that they are just that much more important. In fact, part of my original point is that it's interesting that he's coming back to sci-fi after all this time off, so, not only had I already acknowledged the fact that he's been doing a lot of non-sci-fi work for a long time, the fact that he's coming back to the genre is part of my thesis why this all might have something to do with Cameron.

Whatever. All of this is opinion, I can't comment on it except to say what I already said; and you're welcome to believe whatever you'd like.

 

[Zarathustra]

I would think ISTP, probably.

I'll keep it under consideration.

2. I don't really see Scott as into scifi as much as he is into telling a story. This is in fact why I like his movies, they're kind of "clean" movies (kind of like Michael Mann's movies); and his scifi flicks weren't so hung up on the scifi, they were still focused on story and characters.

Or, alternately, they were just well-told sci-fi stories.

It reminds me of how Jonathan Demme -- a comedy director -- made one of the best thrillers of all time and swept the Academy Awards in 1991. He brought counter-genre sensibilities to the picture that worked.

Yeah, I might accept the analogy if two of Demme's first three movies were two of the greatest thrillers of all time...

Except that, if that were the case, your argument would be a fail.

All of this is opinion...

Not really.

A good deal of it was fact, and some of it was conjecture.

...I can't comment on it except to say what I already said; and you're welcome to believe whatever you'd like.

I know, it almost makes one wonder why you commented on it in the first place.