• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New 3 minute trailer for Prometheus

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spidey07
Aye. That be it and one of my favorites.

Ditto. Very well-done for its budget. Highly recommended to any fan of Alien.

Yea Event Horizon is good too. Some pretty disturbing imagery in the log videos if you slow it down.
 
I finally watched Alien in anticipation of this, what was up with the alien laying on its side at the end of them movie?
 
Last edited:
What I notice in the trailer is everyone looks like polished actors.

In the First Aliens move, every one looked like and acted real employees who worked in a ship not people acting out in a drama class.
 
Last edited:
James3shin said:
Looks a lot like Aliens - not too excited about this one.
Click to expand...


You do have a point except for the "not too excited about this one" part.

Obviously, there is something wrong with you. Seek help.

But seriously, yes, from the previews, it's exactly the same plot.
 
Number1 said:
You do have a point except for the "not too excited about this one" part.

Obviously, there is something wrong with you. Seek help.

But seriously, yes, from the previews, it's exactly the same plot.
Click to expand...

What's so exciting from all these trailers? Nothing

Sure it's from an awesome director which gives it some leeway but the trailers don't make it look great at all. We've been burned so much on trailers that look good that I don't get excited over a good trailer any more. I wait until the movie is out and read reviews on it.
 
Sureshot324 said:
Alien3 is underrated IMO. Some of the special effects of the alien are pretty bad but overall a good movie. The rest are pretty terrible.
Click to expand...
I agree on 3. Not as good as the first two, but nowhere near as bad as 4. The AvP hijack doesn't even count. 3 doesn't deserve the derision it usually receives. Plus it stars Tywin Lannister.
 
Bulk Beef said:
Sureshot324 said:
Alien3 is underrated IMO. Some of the special effects of the alien are pretty bad but overall a good movie. The rest are pretty terrible.
Click to expand...

I agree on 3. Not as good as the first two, but nowhere near as bad as 4. The AvP hijack doesn't even count. 3 doesn't deserve the derision it usually receives. Plus it stars Tywin Lannister.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I just re-watched the first two movies, then watched the third for the first time. I expected to find that it was "under-rated" as Sureshot324 suggested. It was absolutely awful by all measures. I see why David Fincher wanted to disassociate himself from it.
 
Bulk Beef said:
I agree on 3. Not as good as the first two, but nowhere near as bad as 4. The AvP hijack doesn't even count. 3 doesn't deserve the derision it usually receives. Plus it stars Tywin Lannister.
Click to expand...

I hope you're joking. I just watched the 2003 Special Edition last night with fresh eyes. IOW, I forgot enough about it from when I was young for me to not know what was next and it was laughably bad every step of the way. Comical, annoying, cartoon-like characters as if the director was saying saying something like "CUT! That's wasn't nearly kiddie enough. I'm going to need you to kick the annoyance factor up a notch. Take [X+1]!"

It was full of all the stuff I hated in recent movies (District 9, in particular), like characters just doing things out-right contrary to their motivations or without proper motivation/exposition of their goals. On top of that, the SE cut adds confusion. For example, they fail to capture the alien at one point in the theatrical version and yet they think that they can just add a scene of people talking about the captured alien just before showing it being released again. Perhaps they thought the scene of them talking about it was all we needed to not question the scene of the other man releasing it, but all it did was move the "What?! When did they capture it?!" question from an identically confused audience to a slightly earlier scene. Also, being "mentally challenged" does not explain the character's behavior (being willing to kill others to set free the very monster he was afraid of so that it could kill him and even more). Just like I thought I missed them capturing the alien, I honestly thought that I missed where the movie showed that he was somehow hypnotized or under the control of the alien or something, but it was just supposed to be him "returning" to his previous crazy mental state according to synopses I see online. What? Was he previously violently suicidal? How did he survive to become an inmate? Makes. No. Sense. - Only. Raises. Unanswered. Questions. - Confuses. Viewers. I remain convinced that whoever made the special edition "Assembly Cut" was as bad or worse than the people responsible for the terrible theatrical cut.

The rest of the movie was filled with one tired character personality- or setting-cliche after cliche, like needlessly hiding details about the alien from other characters.

Stabbing the superior second movie in the back couldn't possibly help. What good did Ripley's triumphant battle do after her return for Newt if Newt was going to die anyway and all it did was allow the aliens on the ship to kill her, the others, and threaten humanity? There are so many general things wrong that affect the entire movie, but there was still a ton of scene-by-scene stupid to pick apart.

I love David Fincher, but I don't totally buy his blaming it all on the producers wrenching control away from him. He still planned to make the stupid religious prison-planet idea. Even though the parts I think are ill-conceived are what was given to him, his vision for the movie still included them and I don't believe he could have polished that turd with any amount of creative skill and freedom. Because he didn't plan to go back to the drawing board even with those freedoms, I don't give him a pass.

I believe that the critics all thought the hypocritically violent religious people setting was intellectual social commentary on religion instead of tired cliche. It's the only way to explain how it has a 57% Top Critics approval on Rotten Tomatoes. Top Critics only rate higher than the general critics when they think it's intellectual or cultured.

Ichinisan said:
I disagree. I just re-watched the first two movies, then watched the third for the first time. I expected to find that it was "under-rated" as Sureshot324 suggested. It was absolutely awful by all measures. I see why David Fincher wanted to disassociate himself from it.
Click to expand...
Dammit. You wrote this while I wrote mine but people kept distracting me and wouldn't let me finish my post.
 
Last edited:
I saw Alien 3 in the theater and I also own the Alien Quadrilogy on DVD. By comparison the directors cut of Alien 3 is light years better than the theatrical cut. Still the basic story line ruined what could have been a great continuation of the story line from Aliens.
 
CZroe said:
I hope you're joking. I just watched the 2003 Special Edition last night with fresh eyes. IOW, I forgot enough about it from when I was young for me to not know what was next and it was laughably bad every step of the way. Comical, annoying, cartoon-like characters as if the director was saying saying something like "CUT! That's wasn't nearly kiddie enough. I'm going to need you to kick the annoyance factor up a notch. Take [X+1]!"

It was full of all the stuff I hated in recent movies (District 9, in particular), like characters just doing things out-right contrary to their motivations or without proper motivation/exposition of their goals. On top of that, the SE cut adds confusion. For example, they fail to capture the alien at one point in the theatrical version and yet they think that they can just add a scene of people talking about the captured alien just before showing it being released again. Perhaps they thought the scene of them talking about it was all we needed to not question the scene of the other man releasing it, but all it did was move the "What?! When did they capture it?!" question from an identically confused audience to a slightly earlier scene. Also, being "mentally challenged" does not explain the character's behavior (being willing to kill others to set free the very monster he was afraid of so that it could kill him and even more). Just like I thought I missed them capturing the alien, I honestly thought that I missed where the movie showed that he was somehow hypnotized or under the control of the alien or something, but it was just supposed to be him "returning" to his previous crazy mental state according to synopses I see online. What? Was he previously violently suicidal? How did he survive to become an inmate? Makes. No. Sense. - Only. Raises. Unanswered. Questions. - Confuses. Viewers. I remain convinced that whoever made the special edition "Assembly Cut" was as bad or worse than the people responsible for the terrible theatrical cut.

The rest of the movie was filled with one tired character personality- or setting-cliche after cliche, like needlessly hiding details about the alien from other characters.

Stabbing the superior second movie in the back couldn't possibly help. What good did Ripley's triumphant battle do after her return for Newt if Newt was going to die anyway and all it did was allow the aliens on the ship to kill her, the others, and threaten humanity? There are so many general things wrong that affect the entire movie, but there was still a ton of scene-by-scene stupid to pick apart.

I love David Fincher, but I don't totally buy his blaming it all on the producers wrenching control away from him. He still planned to make the stupid religious prison-planet idea. Even though the parts I think are ill-conceived are what was given to him, his vision for the movie still included them and I don't believe he could have polished that turd with any amount of creative skill and freedom. Because he didn't plan to go back to the drawing board even with those freedoms, I don't give him a pass.

I believe that the critics all thought the hypocritically violent religious people setting was intellectual social commentary on religion instead of tired cliche. It's the only way to explain how it has a 57% Top Critics approval on Rotten Tomatoes. Top Critics only rate higher than the general critics when they think it's intellectual or cultured.


Dammit. You wrote this while I wrote mine but people kept distracting me and wouldn't let me finish my post.
Click to expand...

???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top