|
Darko posted:It's set in the Alien universe and happens before the first movie and some elements from the first movie are in it, so it will fall under your definition of "prequel" by default. It's not just "inspired" by the universe.
|
| # ? Aug 4, 2011 21:24 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 22:15 |
|
|
Steve Yun posted:In the first Alien film, it turns out that the Company is a worse villain/adversary than the alien itself. You can think of Alien and Prometheus as a branching movie franchise about the Company. Actually, that's true in 2 and 3 as well. in 2, the motherhood showdown overshadows Burke causing all the problems in the first place, but in 3, the Company inevitably showing up is what forces the drastic action more than anything.
|
| # ? Aug 4, 2011 21:33 |
|
|
Steve Yun posted:In the first Alien film, it turns out that the Company is a worse villain/adversary than the alien itself. Burke had a much more solid plan in 'Aliens' by infecting Ripley and Newt and finding a way to dispose of the Marines, he just didn't count on Ripley escaping and warning the others.
|
| # ? Aug 4, 2011 21:46 |
|
|
The Company made them pick up the Alien. Ash watched the impregnation and let it happen on purpose. That's what caused Ripley to take action to blow up the ship - she was saying "gently caress you" to the Company. It was behind all the events of the movie - pick up the Alien, bring it back at all costs.
|
| # ? Aug 4, 2011 21:51 |
|
|
The way I understood the first film, the ship was sent there by the Company knowing full well that the alien was going to kill them all and they put Ash there to make sure the alien got delivered to the Company, even if it meant killing the crew. edit: beaten like an expendable crewmember Steve Yun fucked around with this message at Aug 4, 2011 around 21:55 |
| # ? Aug 4, 2011 21:52 |
|
|
Darko posted:The Company made them pick up the Alien. Ash watched the impregnation and let it happen on purpose. That's what caused Ripley to take action to blow up the ship - she was saying "gently caress you" to the Company. It was behind all the events of the movie - pick up the Alien, bring it back at all costs. Ripley also took action to blow up the ship because there wasn't really any other conceivable way to eliminate the Alien.
|
| # ? Aug 4, 2011 21:57 |
|
|
You're comparing Ash to the Alien, we're comparing the Company to the Alien, the Company that intentionally sent the crew into a deathtrap in the first place.
|
| # ? Aug 4, 2011 22:07 |
|
|
Steve Yun posted:The way I understood the first film, the ship was sent there by the Company knowing full well that the alien was going to kill them all and they put Ash there to make sure the alien got delivered to the Company, even if it meant killing the crew. E: Or the "crew expendable" directive was put in place ahead of time in case what they found was deemed useful. Nate RFB fucked around with this message at Aug 4, 2011 around 22:13 |
| # ? Aug 4, 2011 22:11 |
|
|
Nate RFB posted:This I don't agree with word for word, no matter what nonsense the EU says. I think the company definitely knew something was there, and placed Ash on the crew ahead of time to make sure their best interests were kept, but otherwise didn't know exactly what was there or that it would necessary kill everyone. Then Ash reports in and they relay the "crew expendable" order. The bottom line I'm trying to make here is that the Company is worse than the alien. Ripley explicitly spells this out in the second film: "You don't see them gently caress each other for a percentage point" Steve Yun fucked around with this message at Aug 4, 2011 around 22:18 |
| # ? Aug 4, 2011 22:13 |
|
|
Well they sent the ship there to obtain some sort of Alien sample, but ultimately they didn't know what it was going to do or even what it was other than that it was extraterrestrial and therefore valuable. All they had to go off of was the derelict ship's transmission, and all that told them was "stay away". The company didn't know the crew was going to die, it just didn't care if it did. Nate RFB posted:This I don't agree with word for word, no matter what nonsense the EU says. I think the company definitely knew something was there, and placed Ash on the crew ahead of time to make sure their best interests were kept, but otherwise didn't know exactly what was there or that it would necessary kill everyone. Then Ash reports in and they relay the "crew expendable" order.  The company knew about the derelict's signal before the Nostromo was enroute to Earth, and it specifically got routed to those coordinates without the crew really knowing about it. Ash was a last-minute addition to the crew and replaced the Nostromo's usual science officer just before they left for Earth.
|
| # ? Aug 4, 2011 22:13 |
|
|
I'm confused, because I thought this project was going to be completely separate from Alien after all, but now it sounds pretty entrenched in the same universe. Hm. It's very exciting nonetheless! About the whole Company being the true villain of the Alien franchise, I think that's pretty clear. They routinely value the xenomorphs over the safety of their own employees (or others for that matter). I really like how in the original Alien Ripley is characterised as clear-headed and rational and insists the alien shouldn't be brought aboard. She wants to follow protocol, even when it may threaten a life. In most movies such characters - these boring sticklers for logic and sense! - are obstacles to the story, not the protagonists.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 00:02 |
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I want to be excited about this, but... I don't know. I'm holding out for a trailer or something so I can get a feel for how it's going to look, because I'm hoping this will be good but the (eventually fake) script that was "leaked" was so insanely awful that it made me really wary of this being good. Ridley Scott being really coy about how much involvement it has with the Alien series makes me worried because I don't know what to expect. If it is an actual Alien prequel that really changes my preconceptions and standards I'd be holding the movie against rather than if it's something separate that happens to have 'Alien'-like tones and visual influences. A script that turned out to be fake is tempering your feelings for this? What the hell?
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 01:10 |
|
|
Xenomrph posted:he chose the least efficient way to deal with Ripley The idea was that he was raping Ripley, not that he just chose a bad way to try to kill her.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 01:11 |
|
|
Nate RFB posted:This I don't agree with word for word, no matter what nonsense the EU says. I think the company definitely knew something was there, and placed Ash on the crew ahead of time to make sure their best interests were kept, but otherwise didn't know exactly what was there or that it would necessary kill everyone. Then Ash reports in and they relay the "crew expendable" order. A little of this, a little of that. I just watched the movie again yesterday, and it's completely clear that the Company knew what the signal meant (ie. some type of alien life) and put that ahead of the crew in general. I don't think they knew exactly WHAT it was, although Prometheus will probably change that, but they had an "this is an alien signal, extract biomass" protocol in place that had something to do with the exact bearing that the crew was going to (thus putting Ash there beforehand).
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 01:30 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:A script that turned out to be fake is tempering your feelings for this? What the hell? sean10mm posted:The idea was that he was raping Ripley, not that he just chose a bad way to try to kill her. Then again Bishop addresses it in-dialogue in the sequel, he says Ash's model was "a bit twitchy". That's good enough for me.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 03:14 |
|
|
It's really that Ash lacks whatever element of human psychology makes one capable of violence and/or sexuality. he tries to kill Ripley but doesn't know how, so his attack takes on some kind of weird surprise sex overtones - but he doesn't really understand that either, which is why he clumsily uses the magazine as a weapon. He idolizes the alien because it obviously has no such issues. Reducing it to 'he was a lemon' deflates the point of the scene/character/film.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 03:34 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Reducing it to 'he was a lemon' deflates the point of the scene/character/film. Lemon, you say? 
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 04:23 |
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I'm wary of anything we hear about it because Ridley Scott and everyone involved has gone back and forth on what the movie is about and what it contains that I'm not sure what to believe anymore. I recall somebody working on the film stating that there was going to be a campaign of misinforation spread to deal with the issue of spoilers and plot details being revealed before people can see the film. I've no idea if it's true or not since it's one of those "One of our sources close to the project says..." type deals and something like that could backfire terribly, but it does seem like quite a sensible idea in a way and an appropriate way to deal with leaks. I actually think it would be really cool if this continues though you know? All these different rumours about what the film is about etc, and then we are all genuinely surprised when we finally go to see it. I am curious to see how much the trailer ends up revealing too. I think it's a real shame when trailers for movies reveal pretty much everything that's going to happen, but I recall the original Alien having quite a good trailer so I suppose it's 50/50 at this point.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 10:29 |
|
|
MUFFlNS posted:I recall somebody working on the film stating that there was going to be a campaign of misinforation spread to deal with the issue of spoilers and plot details being revealed before people can see the film. I've no idea if it's true or not since it's one of those "One of our sources close to the project says..." type deals and something like that could backfire terribly, but it does seem like quite a sensible idea in a way and an appropriate way to deal with leaks. Judging from the pictures and description the trailer simply reveals that it's a sci fi movie that takes place at least partly in space and something bad happens. Robot_Rumpus fucked around with this message at Aug 5, 2011 around 15:38 |
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 13:05 |
|
|
It would be cool if the 'Prometheus' trailer had heavy overtones of the original 'Alien' trailer. http://youtu.be/LjLamj-b0I8 Which explained nothing about the movie except its in space & bad, bad stuff happens.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 14:38 |
|
|
Popcorn posted:I'm confused, because I thought this project was going to be completely separate from Alien after all, but now it sounds pretty entrenched in the same universe. Hm. It's very exciting nonetheless! Probably a better term we can use instead of "prequel" is "spinoff."
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 17:09 |
|
|
Bonk posted:No it wouldn't. Angry nerds only ever put a damper on other angry nerds' expectations. Internet reactions don't have nearly as much clout in the public eye as anyone on the internet likes to think it does. Maybe not in the public eye, but marketing driven studio execs can be far too sensitive to it. http://www.vanityfair.com/online/os...jack-black.html quote:In 2004, reports surfaced that Warner Bros. had commissioned Robert Smigel (of S.N.L. and Late Night with Conan O’Brien fame) to write a comedic version of Green Lantern with Jack Black in mind as the star. In Smigel’s version, the power ring that chooses Hal Jordan to become Green Lantern malfunctions and, instead, chooses a reality-television star played by Black. Led by die-hard Green Lantern fans, the Internet revolted and, reportedly based on the potential backlash, Warner Bros. killed that version of the project—choosing instead to go with a more serious version that is currently in theaters. I doubt something like that would happen to Scott, but don't doubt the power of fandom to kill off good ideas.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 17:12 |
|
|
Maarak posted:Maybe not in the public eye, but marketing driven studio execs can be far too sensitive to it. I didn't see the Green Lantern, and I heard it was really bad, but a Jack Black green lantern would have been horrible. He doesn't have the greatest track record with his starring roles.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 17:17 |
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Well sure that was the symbolism behind it, but from a "I am a robot with a mission to complete, this woman is compromising my mission and I should deal with it" standpoint it really doesn't make much sense. He's not just a robot though. He may be artificial, but it's clear Ash has emotions, otherwise he wouldn't idolize the alien so much for being so cold. More than the rest of the crew, he's a slave to the Company, owned 100% by them. They've made him as human as possible in order to disguise his artificiality, but he resents it. Instead of hating the Company, he hates his crewmates because he was made in their flawed image. Presumably, androids don't age, so he can only be a few years old, which would give him the emotional maturity of a child. When he attacks Ripley, he's not simply coldly trying to eliminate her so that the mission is a success. He's doing what he's dreamed of for ages. He's unleashing his rage on her, while hating himself for feeling that rage in the first place. His admiration for the alien isn't because it's stronger, tougher, or more dangerous, but because he doesn't want to think or feel. He's the anti-Roy Batty. AFewBricksShy posted:I didn't see the Green Lantern, and I heard it was really bad, but a Jack Black green lantern would have been horrible. He doesn't have the greatest track record with his starring roles. The Smigel script was pretty solid as I recall, and this would have been 2004 Jack Black, not 2011 Gulliver's Travels Jack Black. It embraced the inherent goofiness of the material, which I think might be the only way to really approach the character unless Warner Brothers is willing to allow more fundamental changes to the source material. Space cops that use magic rings to fly around, and make giant green boxing gloves is never going to not be silly, despite the desire to make the next one grim n' gritty. Maarak fucked around with this message at Aug 5, 2011 around 17:39 |
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 17:31 |
|
|
Maarak posted:His admiration for the alien isn't because it's stronger, tougher, or more dangerous, but because he doesn't want to think or feel.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2011 17:41 |
|
|
I hope what's leaked so far has been disinformation. As much as I hope for this, it reeks of bad prequel. There's too much focus introducing characters fans will be familiar with (Theron/Corporation), there's stupid connecting of items that don't need to be connected (Corporation knew about Xenomorph before Alien), the past was more advanced than the future (multiple xenomorph variations)... meh.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 06:09 |
|
|
Maarak posted:I doubt something like that would happen to Scott, but don't doubt the power of fandom to kill off good ideas.  You're talking about movies where the fandom is the prime demographic though. That'll happen for something that's marketed directly to and intended to satisfy a rabid fanbase like comic book movies, because they have specific, measurable revenue coming from these people. I can see fan reactions changing how a studio makes their move when a product is created for that exact group. I can see a TV show like Lost throwing in references that only its internet fans get. I can see video game films wedging in all sorts of fanservice. If this were say, Dark Horse Comics producing an Alien film with space marines, revealed to big fanfare and a Q&A session at ComicCon, with an official, central community forum devoted to letting the fanbase sound off, then the internet might have some sway. But that's never going to happen outside of that type of realm. There are fanservice movies, and then there's the rest of the cinematic world. \/\/\/Right, LOTR is the same way, no matter how much fans bitch about no Tom Bombadil. Bonk fucked around with this message at Aug 6, 2011 around 10:35 |
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 06:22 |
|
|
Maarak posted:Maybe not in the public eye, but marketing driven studio execs can be far too sensitive to it. So the studio sacked a crappy knockoff of a superhero movie, to make a crappy knockoff of a superhero movie (with lots of money spent on CGI), and the lesson to be learned is that nerds should fall in line and accept what Hollywood hands them. Brilliant. Lord of the Rings. You can be very accurate to source material, and make boatloads of money doing it. It's just significantly easier to write off the fans and hope to make it back on DVD sales. Harry Potter, etc.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 08:07 |
|
|
Maarak posted:I doubt something like that would happen to Scott, but don't doubt the power of fandom to kill off good ideas. It has been proven time and again that internet fandom isn't nearly as powerful a factor as it appears. The majority of ticket buyers does not give a flying gently caress about what nerds in talkbacks and forums think.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 08:30 |
|
|
DocHorror posted:It would be cool if the 'Prometheus' trailer had heavy overtones of the original 'Alien' trailer. That trailer it's a work of art
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 14:44 |
|
|
Trump posted:It has been proven time and again that internet fandom isn't nearly as powerful a factor as it appears. The majority of ticket buyers does not give a flying gently caress about what nerds in talkbacks and forums think.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 17:09 |
|
|
quote:5. There will be no green screens. This is the best loving news I have ever heard for a movie. God drat I love you Ridley Scott, even if you are filming this in 3D.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 18:55 |
|
|
free snack posted:This is the best loving news I have ever heard for a movie. God drat I love you Ridley Scott, even if you are filming this in 3D. Still better than "film in 2D and hastily convert to 3D"
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2011 19:39 |
|
|
Cacator posted:Still better than "film in 2D and hastily convert to 3D" For the most part I really, really hate 3D. Other than Avatar I've yet to see another film that I would call worth it for the price and for the trouble of wearing the stupid glasses. But if there's a genre in which 3D could really work I think it would be Scifi horror, I'm not sure why, but I've got a good feeling.
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2011 00:41 |
|
|
The problem with 3d is that it still has a super cheesy gimmicky overtone to it. Hopefully Ridley Scott will avoid the blatent shots that were only filmed for the effect. If it is used properly (which I can't think of any movie that has yet, except for maybe Avatar), it will simply be there to help with the atmosphere and not be a hokey gimmick.
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2011 03:52 |
|
|
Fiendish Dr. Wu posted:The problem with 3d is that it still has a super cheesy gimmicky overtone to it. Hopefully Ridley Scott will avoid the blatent shots that were only filmed for the effect. If it is used properly (which I can't think of any movie that has yet, except for maybe Avatar), it will simply be there to help with the atmosphere and not be a hokey gimmick. Coraline did this and it was amazing to watch in 3D. It and Avatar are the high watermarks. Tron came close, but not quite. If Ridley is shooting with a 3D camera, I have no doubt it'll be something interesting and not just for the gimmick.
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2011 03:58 |
|
|
I am OK with any crap going on in this except the Space Jockey and the derelict transport. Those things should be left unexplained.
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2011 04:08 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Coraline did this and it was amazing to watch in 3D. It and Avatar are the high watermarks. I'd kind of like to watch it in 3D, if only I had the $5000 worth of equipment.
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2011 04:13 |
|
|
Quantify! posted:Was Coraline actually intended to be 3D? I thought it came out before 3D got big. It's the first stop motion animated film to be shot in 3D. Digital 3D as we know it now has been around since 2006.
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2011 05:06 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 22:15 |
|
|
For me, this whole film rides on whether or not they go with spaceship technology conceptualized in the 70's.
|
| # ? Aug 7, 2011 05:40 |
|
