|
 Official Twitter Official Facebook Here's the first official promotional shot from the film!  The film is shooting in both PG-13 and R-rated versions with a decision to be made later as to which version will hit theaters. Source. It looks like filming for Prometheus has been completed, or is close to being finished. Ridley Scott talked at San Diego Comic Con (via satellite uplink from the set in Iceland) and stated that he was busy working on the final shoot for the movie. The scene in Iceland apparently takes place at the very start of the movie, and may or may not represent planet Earth in its early years. Click this link if you want to see an image of the camp they have setup in the Icelandic desert and the kind of look they apparently seem to be going for. This also reveals that Giger has been working on a major project for the film. San Diego Comic Con also brought actual footage of the film (more on this below) and some various bits and pieces of info from the Prometheus panel (Ridley Scott, Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron and Damon Lindelof) which are summarized here. To read about the footage of the movie that was shown at SDCC, click here  SPOILERSTo see screenshots of the footage shown at SDCC, click here SPOILERSThere have also been many images leaked from the sets of Prometheus showing very Giger/Alien-esque environments that you can probably find via a simple Google Image Search. The last Prometheus thread seems to have been closed for some reason, but given the wealth of information that has been revealed this past couple weeks I think that it's time to open up discussion on the movie once more. We still have no idea whether or not this will actually feature aliens or not (this is for the best I think) but the images of the footage shown at SDCC reveal that Ridley Scott still knows how to make a fantastic looking sci-fi movie.
|
| # ¿ Aug 3, 2011 03:30 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2013 15:35 |
|
|
Here's another couple tidbits of info from SDCC that I forgot to stick in the OP.Ridley Scott speaking via satellite at SDCC posted:What I want to do is scare the living poo poo out of you. It shares one piece of DNA with the original Alien but that's all. It involves a space exploration mission that finds a civilisation that is home to some very uncivilised behaviour. Charlize Theron on the character she'll be playing posted:She’s very different from anything I’ve done. She’s a suit, essentially. She’s kind of the machine that runs the machine that takes this mission into space. At first she comes off very cold and frigid and like it’s about the economics for her – she’s not a scientist, not a believer, and she runs a very tight ship. But you can tell that she’s going to be a problem. What I love about Ridley is that we layered her: you think you know what she is but then you realise that she’s mysterious. Ridley had me lurk in corners all the time so she’d seem suspicious. But the really exciting thing is that in the third act you strip her to her skin and see what that’s really about. The most exciting piece of information regarding this film so far is hearing Scott say that he wants to scare the poo poo out of audiences, and the fact that all the horror aspects of the movie are successfully being kept a secret (so far anyways) is pretty awesome.
|
| # ¿ Aug 3, 2011 15:08 |
|
|
ack! posted:This makes me quite happy as it's what I love about Alien and Aliens (and Alien3 I guess). Yeah I found this really nice because I think it was touched on during the panel at SDCC, but somebody asked Scott about this and he basically said that they wanted to build huge expansive sets and have everything be real rather than CGI. He also stated that it's actually cheaper to do than CGI as well (or the other way around? I honestly forget now) but I think it's great that he's gone this route. Then there's also the rumours circulating from somebody who was up at Pinewood Studios (or wherever it was in the UK they were filming) who stated that he saw guys in alien costume near the set. That could just end up being bullshit though.
|
| # ¿ Aug 3, 2011 22:53 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Bugblatter posted:It's a good poster if xenos play a prominent role in this film... but that's presuming a lot at this point. We're not sure if they appear at all. I think that skull is supposed to belong to a space jockey, not a xenomorph. My main reasoning for that being the eye sockets and the nose thing which you can see the space jockey having in the original Alien. Xenomrph posted:I am quite fond of Elliot Goldenthal's soundtrack for 'Alien3', I don't think he would be that bad of a choice. I loved the soundtrack for Alien 3, it's probably one of my favourite movie soundtracks of all time.
|
| # ¿ Aug 13, 2011 11:13 |
|
|
Lasher posted:I remember the last thread someone said David Lynch should have helmed the prequel and it would be two hours of horrific gibberish as we see this alien crew go about it's daily business until the alien comes into it. Obviously it was a jokey post but still... I still maintain that an Alien movie directed by David Lynch would be incredible  I was being totally serious too. The guy knows how to craft a terrifying/unsettling scene, and could no doubt nail the atmosphere perfectly if you look back at Eraserhead. I'm aware it might seem kinda dumb to think about but I think everybody could at least agree that it would probably be one of the scariest movies ever made? 
|
| # ¿ Aug 13, 2011 23:52 |
|
|
A couple more set pics have been revealed, looks pretty neat!Spoilers! More Prometheus set pics
|
| # ¿ Sep 2, 2011 01:25 |
|
|
These new promo shots are pretty exciting  I also stumbled on an old plot outline for the movie from a few months ago. As usual there's obviously a chance it could be complete nonsense but given how cool it sounds, nevermind how well it leads into the first Alien movie and seems to go well with what we know about the movie so far, I really hope that this actually is the real plot. Here's a spoilered outline for anyone curious:Earth. Year 2058. Archaeological digs in Africa reveal alien artifacts that humans were genetically engineered by a advanced alien race (space jockeys). These "Alien Gods" also terraformed Earth in order to make it habitable for their human creations. Amongst finds are coordinates to the Alien God's home-world, to Paradise. Months later the Weyland Corp launch the spaceship PROMETHEUS and his crew, into deep space to make first contact. Thanks to faster than light travel a few years later the PROMETHEUS enters the Zeta Riticuli star system. Humans are greeted by their makers, then transported further into space to a scary yet fascinating world. The Alien Gods are proud of their "children", their first creation to reach such levels of intelligence. As a reward they share bits of their astonishing bio-based technologies with the humans. But for one crew member of the Prometheus it's not enough. In a treacherous act he steals the "bio-source code" to Terraforming, a technology at the origin of all Gods' power, that could make humans equal to the gods. The Alien Gods may be scientists but are also ruthless conquerors, destroyers of worlds who will not accept humans as equals. They unleash on the escaping human crew their favorite bio-weapon, a creature used to "clean up" worlds before colonization. But something goes wrong in the process and humans manage to turn the bio-weapon against their makers. Giving birth to a smarter, nastier, bigger breed of gut eating creatures. Creatures that will be the demise of Paradise. What's left of the Prometheus crew manages to escape the doomed planet. On their trail a survivor Alien God in very familiar ship with one ultimate mission. Bring the wrath of the Gods to Earth. This seems to match up pretty well with everything Ridley has said, as well as hints from the cast of the movie too. I also find it very exciting since we would get to see a completely alien world that might be very Giger-influenced visually, combined with a new creature for them to have fun with and hopefully scare the crap out of us with up until the final reveal of the traditional Alien we've known from the previous films.
|
| # ¿ Nov 25, 2011 14:51 |
|
|
Yeah I mean even though it's low quality, it looks like an absolutely fantastic trailer. It's been a long time since I actually went to the cinema to see a movie but I cannot wait to see this on the big screen.
|
| # ¿ Nov 26, 2011 23:39 |
|
|
Mean Bean Machine posted:A (possible) plot synopsis has leaked, http://boxofficebuz.com/news_full.php?id=287. Apparently there are huge spoilers in there, I didn't read it but guessed some of you might find it interesting to debate its veracity. Well if that's true I sincerely hope that the "In a strange, erotic ceremony, the Protoforms seemingly mate with the Bio-Brain and each other to create thousands of EGGS" scene is as nightmarish and hosed-up as I imagine it to be, Giger would have a field day designing the visuals for something like that.
|
| # ¿ Nov 29, 2011 13:37 |
|
|
Robot_Rumpus posted:The entire fourth one was all a dark comedy and the director has even gone on record as record as stating that was his goal from the beginning. Really? I never would have guessed that personally. My take on the fourth film was that I always thought of it as "Cronenberg does Aliens" given the similarities to the second film combined with the body horror element (even though it was done by a different director). Robot_Rumpus posted:I thought the first two were easily as dark, if not darker than the third. Why in the world would you have said the third was the darkest? I mean I don't think it gets darker than the first one. I'm interested in hearing why you think the original Alien is darker then Alien 3 if you'd care to elaborate? I find the classification of it as a knock off of the original Alien equally confusing.
|
| # ¿ Dec 7, 2011 00:07 |
|
|
Bugblatter posted:I dunno man, I can't see Cronenberg doing the "Alcohol so toxic you need boxing gloves (????) to handle it" gag. I was referencing the body horror aspect.
|
| # ¿ Dec 7, 2011 00:37 |
|
|
Bugblatter posted:I was giving an example as to why it's more of a comedy than a "Cronenberg does Aliens" film. Even the gore was handled as a gag in many cases, like the soldier realizing his brain had been bitten out. Oh, I didn't really think the boxing gloves scene was meant to be funny since there wasn't anything to laugh about really, it seemed more like it was just there to show tensions between the crew of the Betty and add a little character development. The general having his skull cracked open was kinda funny, but I certainly wouldn't class the whole film as a comedy. I mean you could say the Bishop/Hudson knife scene demonstrates how Aliens is a comedy and I'd disagree with that too v  vThe reason I mentioned Cronenberg was because the scenes with all the clones, the newborn, the twisted doctor displaying some kind of sexual attraction to the aliens and so on, it all made me think of Cronenberg movies such as Videodrome, Crash, Naked Lunch and Scanners etc. It's just got this bizarre/disgusting vibe that relates to the aforementioned movies in my opinion, and gives the film a lot of charm I think.
|
| # ¿ Dec 7, 2011 15:35 |
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Although I think that the longer, pieced together work-print cut of Alien 3 is a bit better than the theatrical one, and although I am sure Fincher would've made one hell of a movie if he didn't have the studio gently caress him over constantly, I think what would've gone a long way into making it work for me was if the special effects didn't look like utter poo poo. This is the only thing that bugs me about Alien 3, is the effects for the actual alien itself. Nevermind how jarring it looks going from a man in a suit to the puppet thing they used, but throughout the movie the actual size of the alien changes quite noticably which really detracts from the film. For example one moment it can be quite large and menacing, then a few scenes later it appears to be the size of a dog and quite small. Here's a prime example, the scene where the alien confronts Ripley for the first time after killing Clemens. Before the alien kills Clemens we see it standing behind the curtain behind him, it's a huge towering monster that's over 7ft tall. It lifts him up off his feet like a ragdoll. A few seconds later Riplay is down on the ground and this gigantic creature seems to have shrinked somehow?! It has the physique of an average sized dog and looks as though it would only stand 4ft tall if on its back legs. Bugs the hell out of me, but not a terribly large amount since I still consider that scene to be the most iconic in the whole franchise.
|
| # ¿ Dec 8, 2011 22:51 |
|
|
I quite liked how in the extended cut of Resurrection you see them actually land on Earth and it's a complete post apocalyptic wasteland. If I recall correctly, they land in Paris which is an actual desert, with the fallen remains of the Eifel Tower behind them. Presumably the planet has been mostly abandoned at that stage of the future in the storyline, since they seemed to not feel bad about crashing a military ship onto the surface as if it was nothing vv Regarding the future of the franchise, I hope that Prometheus reignites it so to speak (the actual Alien franchise that is, since AVP is its own thing in my eyes) and we start seeing good movies again, preferably that don't deal with Ripley but are instead just part of the universe and standalone stories in their own right.
|
| # ¿ Dec 13, 2011 09:24 |
|
|
Xenomrph posted:
That's kinda silly when you think about it though. I mean an old piece of junk like the Betty can safely enter Earth's atmosphere, but a large military vessel gets obliterated upon entry? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Regarding the original Resurrection script, I actually really liked the idea they had for the newborn being spidery and covered in veins, it would have looked freaky as hell.
|
| # ¿ Dec 13, 2011 12:42 |
|
It actually hits the upper atmosphere and gets destroyed. When making the movie, the filmmakers actually rigged up the Auriga ship miniature with explosives so they could film it exploding from bow to stern as it hit the atmosphere (similar to how the skyscraper miniatures were destroyed when making 'Independence Day'), but they ultimately didn't use the effect in the movie.
|
Regarding aliens in Prometheus, I couldn't tell given the low quality of the leaked trailer but there was a very small clip where something was leaping through the air onto a human below. I'm not 100% sure what's going on in that small clip however, but it looked kinda xenomorph-ish. If anyone else recalls the part I'm referring to I'm curious what you think it was showing.
|
| # ¿ Dec 15, 2011 15:48 |
|
|
I'm quite interested to see what questions Prometheus answers, and also what questions it raises. The reason I say this is mainly because I recall Ridley Scott saying that he originally planned two make two movies, not just one, and judging by his brief interview at Comic Con a little while ago he still planned to make a sequel to this. I wouldn't be at all surprised that the ending is left open for a sequel if the film performs as well as Fox wants it to (which is likely).
|
| # ¿ Dec 24, 2011 15:19 |
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Are you really slamming the end Queen vs Ripley scene? I mean honestly that scene is more loving iconic than almost everything in Alien(except for maybe the chestburster, but honestly I think they are equal). The "fun for all the family" comment is loving bullshit if you were being serious. It's a hard R rated film. Please try to not rage out just because somebody said something that you disagree with. Some people dislike a lot of things about Aliens, it's all personal taste. I'm of the opinion that things like the Queen/Powerloader boxing fight were great fun when I saw the movie as a youngster, but now I'm older I don't think so highly of the film at all. My own personal vote for most iconic scene in the franchise has always been the initial encounter between Ripley and the creature in Alien 3 after it kills Clemens. When I think of the Alien franchise, this scene is usually what I think of first:  Regarding the queen facehugger. I'm fairly sure that the scene where he holds it up (screencapped earlier) wasn't in the theatrical version of the film, primarily because when editing they realized that it made zero sense to have a facehugger that does that yet the initial chestburster isn't a queen. I'd hazard a guess that's the reason why the clip was originally left on the cutting room floor.
|
| # ¿ Dec 27, 2011 00:25 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It's fine to say "personal taste" but throwing in smug comments that basically come across "well, it was okay when I was a kid, but now that I'm a mature adult, it sucks" or referring to the climatic scene as a "boss fight" like it is a video game is pretty inflammatory. It wasn't an attempt to be smug, just an explanation of the reasons I don't like the film as much as I used to. If it comes out that when then sorry, that's just how I view the film personally. I mean when I was 10 years old or so, seeing Ripley literally chokeslam the Queen into an airlock was badass, but over time I prefer seeing the aliens portrayed as being scary and weird rather than being punched up. Take the AVP movies for example, people think that seeing a predator shoulder charge an alien looks ridiculous right? The powerloader/queen fight in Aliens comes accross the same way to me. Now if I had seen AVP when I was the same age I was when I first saw Aliens I'd probably think it was just as amazing and love the film, but since then my tastes have changed, that's all. I'm not looking down on anyone who likes it.
|
| # ¿ Dec 27, 2011 00:58 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:You're still coming across as pretty smug. You miss the defense that while yes the Power Loader/Queen fight is and looks hokey (and I say that as someone who likes it), it is the climax to a well-crafted narrative. Saying you dislike that scene because of the effects is to see the forest for the trees and refuse to acknowledge the film on a more mature level than a ten year old; y'know, one who can see cheese and bad special effects and judge whether or not the narrative presents the imagery in a way that belies them (also known as "why Empire Strikes Back holds up and Attack of the Clones is dogshit"). I didn't say that I dislike the scene because of the effects though. Regarding the art direction I think the film holds up brilliantly. I think the problem is that you're assuming there is a defense to an opinion when there isn't one, I'm aware of the symbolism of Ripley and the queen fighting etc and at the end of the day I still think it's a terrible scene. ApexAftermath posted:If that is how you feel then I think you are really missing out on the emotion in the film. By that point you should be fully invested in not only Ripley surviving but also saving Newt. It should be an emotionally tense scene and it just builds and builds right to when she launches it out the airlock. That really sucks if all you get from it is "typical sci fi action scene". Well put it this way, I think the way Ripley and the queen fight cheapens and detracts from any emotional impact the scene could have had, by trivializing it into some kind of space boxing match. When I think of an emotionally tense scene in Aliens I think of Ripley's initial encounter with the queen, which was done really well in my opinion and did a better job of portraying what they were trying to with the robot suit and queen fistcuffs scene on board the Sulaco. mind the walrus posted:...it's not like it makes the Aliens more cuddly or less intimidating as monsters. It does change a bit more of why they're scary--for better or for worse as some will argue... Now you've gone and done it! 
|
| # ¿ Dec 27, 2011 01:40 |
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:See you characterize it this way, but that is not at all what the scene is like. You must live in opposite world. It was the only thing for her to do in that moment, and the power loaders existence makes perfect logical sense and doesn't come off as convenient or contrived in any way. If you think it does then you are wrong. I am sorry but you are wrong. My dislike for the scene doesn't have anything to do with the existence of the power loader (at least not in the way that you're thinking anyways). I mean look, if you like the scene that's fine. Some of us do and some of us don't. I was merely stating that I didn't like it and why that is, trying to dance around that and argue something which is entirely a matter of opinion and personal taste is pointless. I understand what the scene is meant to symbolize and what they were going for, and I still think it's bad. Trying to tell somebody that they're wrong for not liking something that you do is absurd. Neither of us is right or wrong. ImpAtom posted:Aliens was pretty much all about Ripley confronting the horror she escaped. I mean, it isn't subtle, literally the first time we see her unfrozen is a dream sequence where she has a nightmare about being chestbursted. You can argue that I guess she shouldn't have trauma because she blew it out the airlock in Alien I guess, but the movie certainly isn't trying to argue that. Something I find interesting between Alien and Aliens is how Ripley changes so much between the two films. In the original Alien she was purely logic-driven, the sensible member of the crew that thought with a level-head, and that's what got her through the ordeal. When Kane was brought back Ripley wanted him quarantined, something that could have possibly saved the rest of the crew. In Aliens however that all goes out the window. I can see why, but it's kinda funny to watch the film progress as her character moves from "I'm not going back" to going back and only being on the Sulaco, and then she's going down to the surface, and then she's going into the complex... Constantly making the bad decisions that got people killed in the first film. Xenomrph posted:The "mystery" stuff from 'Alien' is a bit of a genie in a bottle, and you can't really put it back in the bottle once you've let it out. What would you have preferred an Alien sequel to be, without it being a rehash of 'Alien'? How would the series have gone forward without taking away some of the "mystery" of the Alien? Aliens by David Lynch. Come on now, it would have been mindblowing 
|
| # ¿ Dec 27, 2011 16:02 |
|
|
Popcorn posted:This assumes that the series 'going forward' and becoming a series was desirable in the first place. I'm of the opinion that it was, in regards to all four Alien movies (I consider AVP and AVP:R a seperate series of films personally). One thing I like about this franchise is that Fox got different directors for each film, who all brought their own things to the table, which I find quite respectable. Alien, Aliens and Alien 3 are all significantly different to each other thanks to being given to different directors. I also think Resurrection is, but not quite as much since in my eyes it shares way too many similarities to Cameron's Aliens film. I definitely think it's a good thing though that because of the way Fox handled the franchise, everybody has a different favourite for different reasons. I just think it's a shame that Resurrection seemingly did poorly enough to turn Fox off the franchise, since I've always wondered what directors they would have got for new entries in the franchise. On the other hand though, judging by the AVP series we can only assume a theoretical Alien 5 would have been handed off to Paul W Anderson anyways and that would have been quite depressing.
|
| # ¿ Dec 27, 2011 16:31 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:What happened was practically the opposite: Aliens arguably became the defacto Alien Film, in terms of base popularity and how its representation of the Alien species became the standard. I think a very strong case could be made for Alien 3 taking that credit actually, since the idea of the xenomorph taking on the traits of its host had a very large impact on the Alien universe as a whole, and greatly influenced not just future movies, but all of the expanded universe stuff as well. Oh and before anyone says, yeah I know expanded universe isn't a great topic to bring up, but still, what Fincher brought to the table had a huge impact on the franchise as a whole I think.
|
| # ¿ Dec 27, 2011 23:48 |
|
|
Darko posted:She wanted to have sex with an Alien in Aliens, and Cameron was like "gently caress that." Due to her getting a certain amount of creative control as the series went on, she was able to get it put in the Alien Resurrection script which is why you have that scene with her writhing in a group of aliens and sinking into them. I think it was actually the scene after that, where the xenomorph is carrying her and she's clinging to it, which makes for a very bizarre scene since it looks so sexual. I'm fairly sure that with Resurrection she was still firmly told "No way" regarding a sex scene with an alien, but they compromised and allowed the aforementioned scenes to meet her halfway with the request. It's a shame really since I get the impression that Alien Resurrection was torn between being two vastly different films. You've got the initial script by Whedon which was basically Aliens: 2 compared to Weaver's intentions to make a more surreal, arty and downright bizarre film. I'd actually be quite interested to see how the film would have turned out if Sigourney was given complete control and wrote the script herself from scratch, it could certainly be dreadful but I also think it would have a possibility of being fantastic too.
|
| # ¿ Jan 3, 2012 15:40 |
|
|
I'd jump straight into the extended edition, then watch the original release at a later date if you're curious as to what was changed. As it stands though, I'm of the personal opinion that save for the poorly done alien effects, the extended cut of Alien 3 is a fantastic film and second only to the original Alien itself in regard to quality within the franchise. I think it speaks volumes about Fincher's talent that he made something so good regardless of studio gently caress-ups.
|
| # ¿ Jan 3, 2012 21:43 |
|
|
I think it was in one of the old threads, but I remember someone detailing why they liked the design of the xenomorphs in Resurrection so much, with references to the scene with the ones in the holding cell and how they looked so incredibly black it gave them this genuinely freaky not-of-this-world appearence. I can't remember how it was worded or explained exactly but ever since reading it, it gave me a better appreciation for the visuals of Resurrection at least. Does anybody remember the post I'm thinking of?
|
| # ¿ Jan 3, 2012 23:35 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Ridley can kvetch all he wants about the commonality of the Alien design ruining its supposed horror, what really 'ruined' the Xenomorphs was that they didn't have any horror in them after you watched Alien once. If it weren't for Cameron taking the species in a more viceral direction that that actually hit the "big bug things coming at me and want to hurt me" part of the human brain, they wouldn't be scary at all. I think it's a matter of opinion really. I personally think that Cameron was responsible for ruining the horror of the xenomorph by making it too relateable to insects, compared to the creature in the first film that really was just utterly bizarre and genuinely alien. For me at least the original Alien provoked the thought of "Really, what the hell is that thing?!" whereas Aliens was more "Oh, just giant space ants". It's plain to see why Cameron changed the creature and represented it in the way that he did, but I think it was at the cost of the horror aspect of the original creature design. Regarding Prometheus possibly ruining the creature even more, I'm going to take a wild guess that we might perhaps see the original form of the xenomorph before taking on traits from human DNA. There's also a very large chance we won't see anything like it at all, but I don't think it would do much harm to show the xenomorph as this species that's been around the universe for an incredibly long time, and the creature we know from the other movies is only a particular strain that resulted from human interference. That gives Ridley plenty of opportunity to make something scary and fresh again, without taking too large of a dump on the rest of the franchise. Who knows though? It's something I'd like to think he would get Giger very heavily involved in since he's really the only person that could pull it off, but as far as I know his only involvement is in set design.
|
| # ¿ Jan 4, 2012 16:41 |
|
|
Degenerate Star posted:I never understood how the Space Jockey beacon could be interpreted at all by humans, if the Space Jockeys were so ancient and the humans hadn't seen them before. Also, why would they risk the crew of a freighter towing a valuable cargo, instead of a survey ship whose only loss would be the crew? I think this too. When watching Alien I feel that it hints pretty heavily that the company already knew what was on that planet, and everything was far too deliberate for it to be a sudden discovery.
|
| # ¿ Jan 4, 2012 16:46 |
|
|
Darko posted:I never got an "unknowable" feel from the Aliens, and I saw it as a kid, even. They ALWAYS had an insectile/arachnid life pattern; Aliens just added an entire hive of them. Implant > parasite > hatch - kill > repeat is common on earth; and scary because this is a being that applies it to humans. Aliens doesn't really change that in any way outside of adding a central queen as opposed to making it strictly individual. They were always space insects even from the beginning... I see what you're saying, but my point was more to do with the actual behaviour of the xenomorph itself and how it differs between Alien and Aliens. Xenomrph posted:Discovering that the Alien was only created a few decades earlier completely undoes that, even if the Jockeys are ancient. The Jockeys aren't scary, it's the Alien that's scary. The Alien obviously kills Jockeys. Finding out that the Alien is a science experiment gone wrong that escaped in the past couple decades undermines their impact more than the AvP movies ever could. Alternatively, if they go the route that the xenomorphs are an ancient species but the ones that we know from the Alien films are a new strain brought about by human interference in Prometheus, I think that would be quite cool. It would allow the opportunity for a new creature to be introduced without interfering with the established universe and the Lovecraftian themes wouldn't be lost. So we'd end up with a win/win situation.
|
| # ¿ Jan 5, 2012 00:37 |
|
|
Steve Yun posted:It turns it into this ever-adapting monster that tailors itself to be the worst possible thing for each victim race I've always liked the idea of that being responsible for the sexual undertones of the creature in the first film, along with the implied surprise sex of Lambert. It's a shame that the sequels completely ignored such a significant aspect of the original creature, but the prospect that all the perverse horror is a direct result of human traits is pretty messed up I think.
|
| # ¿ Jan 5, 2012 00:49 |
|
|
epheneh posted:I'm just deathly afraid that Prometheus will not give us the scares of Alien (or Aliens). And I'm sure they'll end up saying it wasn't supposed to; it's 'different.' I can't remember the source off the top of my head, but I'm 99% sure I've seen Ridley Scott say in an interview that he's aiming to scare people shitless with Prometheus (his words, if I remember correctly). In the material I saw, he was very blunt and upfront with his intentions to terrify people in some way with this movie. Of course, given the apparent back-and-forth regarding what this movie is, this may well have changed throughout production.
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2012 08:22 |
|
|
Since we're discussing the sexual overtones of Alien, I thought I'd share this deleted scene that maybe one or two people here might not have seen. It was removed because it looks ridiculous no doubt, but the way the xenomorphs tail rises into the air upon seeing Lambert is quite blatantly sexual in my opinion, and does seem to backup the theory that the character was raped by the alien in the movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR5jYeIMBKk
|
| # ¿ Jan 9, 2012 09:44 |
|
|
I think that if Alien had never had a sequel we'd all be much more excited and hopeful for Prometheus, as opposed to worrying about how they could possibly gently caress it up.
|
| # ¿ Jan 9, 2012 17:12 |
|
|
wyoming posted:In Alien Ripley is largely genderless (actually while searching for a quote, I came across an early script where the writer comes out and says "The crew is unisex and all parts are interchangeable for men or women.") Perhaps the only time her being female comes into play is when the alien is reduced to a peeping tom at the end (the gaze from the audience and the alien wouldn't be nearly effective if it were Tom Skerritt in his skivvies.) What about the scene where Ash tries to kill her by forcing a pornographic magazine down her throat? I always felt that the violence against Ripley and Lambert was much more sexual than any harm that the male members of the crew came to throughout the film, and that it was a deliberate choice to go that route with the movie. I know that initially with the script for Alien, they had no set gender for characters and Ripley was originally going to be male (I think?) but I always thought that once they had decided on what gender each character had, that they made some very concious decisions with the script and imagery they were presenting to the audience.
|
| # ¿ Feb 7, 2012 11:07 |
|
|
Steve Yun posted:She sucked in Alien 4, but who didn't. I was pretty disappointed that Michael Wincott was killed off so early since I think he's a fantastic actor. I'd have rather they killed off Hillard.
|
| # ¿ Feb 8, 2012 01:57 |
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:The script was altered at the end from having the W-Y commandos killing Aaron right as they entered to only after he attacks Bishop. Also note they bandage Morse and take him with instead of just outright executing him. Really? That's a real shame then, because if they had left the script as it was with the commandos killing Aaron as soon as they arrive and executing Morse after Ripleys death, I think the film would have been even better. I know they already cranked the sad/hopeless factor to 11 for the movie as it was, but going even further would have been pretty good I think. The film had a wonderfully bleak tone that I feel was an appropriate way to end the trilogy, it's a shame that they ended up scaling things back a little for the climax. Regarding the post apocalyptic debate, I think the only time the series has shown anything post apocalyptic is the deleted scene at the end of Alien Resurrection where they land on earth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnmMksVK8pY
|
| # ¿ Feb 17, 2012 16:31 |
|
|
Blind Sally posted:The running gag throughout the film was that Morse believed (was told by the voices in his head???) that he would live forever - never die, something along those lines. I figured his surviving to the end was just the continuation of that joke. Are you sure that you're not thinking of another movie? Morse was presented as one of the most umm... I don't want to say down to earth since he was all for murdering Ripley after they first see the alien, but his character wasn't delusional at all if I remember correctly. All I can think of is that you're referring to the scene where Dillon tries to rally the prisoners into fighting the creature and Morse wishes to sit the fight out, which isn't because of any delusions of immortality, but that he only cares about saving his own skin and would rather wait for the rescue team than risk his life fighting the alien. Xenomrph posted:I was always a fan of "Hey guys.... my door ain't workin'.... I think we better re-think this thing..." I prefer these myself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_mlCe_yKXk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBABxhGK_wg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zztieJJFURA Morse loving owns. Why wasn't Alien 4 the adventures of Morse? In space, everybody runs with scissors. MUFFlNS fucked around with this message at Feb 18, 2012 around 05:03 |
| # ¿ Feb 18, 2012 04:54 |
|
|
omg car crash posted:I'm a little confused. Wouldn't Bishop "II" be an android if he played the same character in AVP? Lance Henriksen plays different characters in Aliens, Alien 3 and AVP. In Aliens he is the droid Bishop, and in Alien 3 he's Bishop II. For AVP they got him to play Charles Bishop Weyland. It was a cheap attempt at appealing to fans of the Alien franchise which lead to nothing but confusion amongst the fanbase and assumptions of continuity errors. Just take it for what it is, Paul WS Anderson being a fool.
|
| # ¿ Feb 18, 2012 05:29 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2013 15:35 |
|
|
Dsparil posted:What was different with the SE? I heard it was just subtle changes. The SE of Alien 3 was significantly longer, as well as filling in some things that simply didn't make sense in the theatrical version. For example, whereas in the theatrical version of Alien 3 they fail to capture the creature, in the extended cut they actually successfully capture it. There's a lot more character development too as well as other things being changed around. It's definitely worth watching in my opinion.
|
| # ¿ Feb 20, 2012 03:34 |
|
