Prometheus

[flickchick85]

Bear McCreary's work on BSG makes him a composing god to me.

 

[Soapy]

Indeed.

[YT]so10dKbhorI[/YT]
[YT]4EQXEIoZrZE[/YT]
[YT]9c2ZJPKz5u8[/YT]

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

Avatar was basically a Star Wars Prequel anyway. Visually stunning, terrible script, horrible dialogue, boring lead performances, enjoyable supporting performances, great action.

I have no idea who I would want to see doing a Terminator movie though.

I should be the one doing the Terminator movie...

Yeah, Avatar is totally light weight in every aspect. Simple. Formulaic. This film had Sigourney Weaver and you didn't even remember it after the whole thing ended.

My snobbish sense is tingling hard as well as my hater-gonna-hate sensor.
I hope you two will be disappointed by the prequel, that will make your feet touch the ground again.
I don't like saying this kind of things but I am tired of people pissing on Cameron and Avatar the way you do and putting X or Y director on a pedestal by trashing the others for no objective reason.

PS : no hard feelings.

 

[moviedoors]

I have no idea who I would want to see doing a Terminator movie though.

John Hyams. The man took a franchise that was never good, Universal Soldier, two washed up former stars, next to no budget, and made a truly badass flick. He knows how to shoot action coherently, with tension, with clear choreography, and he got effective performances out of guys not known for their acting chops. And he somehow managed to give a Universal Soldier movie a great sense of tone and atmosphere.

And that was his debut feature. This man would annihilate with a Terminator movie. Hollywood, I hope you're paying attention.

-----

On topic, I like the idea of this Alien prequel in concept, but in execution, I think Ridley Scott did his only truly badass work before I was even born (Alien and Blade Runner). He's not bad, he takes really pretty pictures and obviously takes his work seriously, but I'll be damned if most of his movies don't bore me to death. I'm rooting for this movie, but I hope Scott takes his auteur hat off and just makes a badass genre flick.

I'm really turned off by his recent name dropping of Zecharia Sitchin, too. Screw that nutball.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I have no doubt this will be better than Alien 3 and AR. Ridley Scott directing a script by Lindelof that got him excited to return to the genre after nearly 30 years starring Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender as the leads? That is a recipe for awesome.

And this is why it will be better.

I'm not cocky, I'm confident this will be better. This is also Scott's return to sci fi in nearly 30 years. That could be a great thing.

 

[Carnotaur3]

My snobbish sense is tingling hard as well as my hater-gonna-hate sensor.
I hope you two will be disappointed by the prequel, that will make your feet touch the ground again.
I don't like saying this kind of things but I am tired of people pissing on Cameron and Avatar the way you do and putting X or Y director on a pedestal by trashing the others for no objective reason.

PS : no hard feelings.

No hard feelings... but how does my view of Cameron and Avatar say I'm a hater?

The guy's changed since Titanic. He's obviously lost all sense of propelling storytelling, character, and grounded reality in favor of pushing boundaries of film technology... and that's it. I made my analogy to Lucas because it was quite apt, though Cameron has always been the better storyteller.

There wasn't a single disappointing film of his until Avatar came along.

Now, if that's snobbish, hang me now. But I have to be honest about it. And that is really how I feel. The only thing that hasn't changed about Cameron is how smart he's able to market a movie... and he's a damn genius. That's why Avatar did so well. But again, that goes back to the "formulaic" nature of Avatar.

 

[dark_b]

interesting how 2 years change people. in 2009 we talked how bad the marketing was since there was no marketing. now it was the marketing why the movie made so much money.
how can you think that the movie had so low drops for 3 months because of the marketing?

and i didnt know that having a predictable story means the same as bad storytelling.

 

[Carnotaur3]

interesting how 2 years change people. in 2009 we talked how bad the marketing was since there was no marketing. now it was the marketing why the movie made so much money.
how can you think that the movie had so low drops for 3 months because of the marketing?

and i didnt know that having a predictable story means the same as bad storytelling.

So you like having stories be predictable? Well there's nothing I can say to help you there.

Cameron knew how to market the movie to all ages and sex. I wasn't talking specifically about the trailers and ads for the film. A lot of people worried back then when they weren't seeing trailers right away, but Cameron had the special preview the December before didn't he? That was a year away. And then of course: "From the Director of Terminator 2 and Titanic" really does help.

Not to mention the early hype for the movie was huge. So huge that Cameron was making statements to back down the hype.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Now, if that's snobbish, hang me now. But I have to be honest about it. And that is really how I feel. The only thing that hasn't changed about Cameron is how smart he's able to market a movie... and he's a damn genius. That's why Avatar did so well. But again, that goes back to the "formulaic" nature of Avatar.

Avatar did well because of how well Cameron marketed it? Come on, now... That's not true. Avatar was by all definition a word-of-mouth film. It had a modest opening and THEN it exploded because of it's phenomenal word-of-mouth. It's week to week drops were insane.

Marketing alone will only get you as far as good opening. After that your on your own.

Not to mention it's Blu-Ray/DVD sales were also massive and even outsold TDK by a pretty big margin. It's currently the highest selling Blu-Ray of all time. Clearly people dug the film enough to go out and buy it (the 2-D version of it) in droves after they already saw it multiple times in theaters.

I respect your opinion about not liking it, but the movie did connect with a worldwide audience on a massive scale and was insanely popular. I don't see how that's debatable.

 

[dark_b]

So you like having stories be predictable? Well there's nothing I can say to help you there.

Cameron knew how to market the movie to all ages and sex. I wasn't talking specifically about the trailers and ads for the film. A lot of people worried back then when they weren't seeing trailers right away, but Cameron had the special preview the December before didn't he? That was a year away. And then of course: "From the Director of Terminator 2 and Titanic" really does help.

Not to mention the early hype for the movie was huge. So huge that Cameron was making statements to back down the hype.

the Avatar marketing from october through december was normal blockbuster type marketing for a movie of that size. trailers,posters,tv spots,.......

fact is that the movie made so much money because of positive word of moith based on the movie. the opening weekend,opening week is proof.

thank you

 

[Carnotaur3]

Avatar did well because of how well Cameron marketed it? Come on, now... That's not true. Avatar was by all definition a word-of-mouth film. It had a modest opening and THEN it exploded because of it's phenomenal word-of-mouth. It's week to week drops were insane.

Marketing alone will only get you as far as good opening. After that your on your own.

Not to mention it's Blu-Ray/DVD sales were also massive and even outsold TDK by a pretty big margin. It's currently the highest selling Blu-Ray of all time. Clearly people dug the film enough to go out and buy it (the 2-D version of it) in droves after they already saw it multiple times in theaters.

I respect your opinion about not liking it, but the movie did connect with a worldwide audience on a massive scale and was insanely popular. I don't see how that's debatable.

I'm not discounting its word of mouth as to its success. But the movie was not that good either. General audiences love formulaic movies. That's why almost every film coming out of Hollywood now is the same damn thing.

 

[Valaquen]

People have been saying that since cinema began. I don't think that offhandedly attributing stupidity to a mass of people in order to explain a film's week-by-week success is the way to go. If all movies nowadays are formulaic as Avatar was, then why is Avatar the anomaly here, ie, the one movie to get stronger almost every week and eventually put a $1 billion dollar gulf between it and its closest competitor - which is also a film by the same director? Well-established films like Indiana Jones and the like do stellar business, but not almost 3 billion dollar business! Obviously there is something to the film that a great deal of people are receptive to, and it's not fair to chalk that up to 'people love formula,' especially when the same reasoning does not seem to apply to the apparent wealth of formulaic movies.

I think we've veered off-topic, anyhow.

 

[moviedoors]

People have been saying that since cinema began. I don't think that offhandedly attributing stupidity to a mass of people in order to explain a film's week-by-week success is the way to go. If all movies nowadays are formulaic as Avatar was, then why is Avatar the anomaly here, ie, the one movie to get stronger almost every week and eventually put a $1 billion dollar gulf between it and its closest competitor - which is also a film by the same director? Well-established films like Indiana Jones and the like do stellar business, but not almost 3 billion dollar business! Obviously there is something to the film that a great deal of people are receptive to, and it's not fair to chalk that up to 'people love formula,' especially when the same reasoning does not seem to apply to the apparent wealth of formulaic movies.

I think we've veered off-topic, anyhow.

I didn't love Avatar because of the formula, I loved it because holy crap was it gorgeous. To steal a phrase from Guillermo Del Toro, it wasn't eye candy, it was eye protein. It made my brain swell with delight to look at such a viscerally real alien world.

That's why it made almost 3 billion dollars.

 

[Carnotaur3]

People have been saying that since cinema began. I don't think that offhandedly attributing stupidity to a mass of people in order to explain a film's week-by-week success is the way to go. If all movies nowadays are formulaic as Avatar was, then why is Avatar the anomaly here, ie, the one movie to get stronger almost every week and eventually put a $1 billion dollar gulf between it and its closest competitor - which is also a film by the same director? Well-established films like Indiana Jones and the like do stellar business, but not almost 3 billion dollar business! Obviously there is something to the film that a great deal of people are receptive to, and it's not fair to chalk that up to 'people love formula,' especially when the same reasoning does not seem to apply to the apparent wealth of formulaic movies.

I think we've veered off-topic, anyhow.

I'm not calling audiences stupid. A lot of them just don't care what they see anymore and Hollywood doesn't give them the choices they need. We used to go to movies because we didn't know what we were going to see. Now we go to see movies because we know what to expect.

Avatar isn't the most formulaic movie ever made or anything. It's just got qualities in modern films that I detest. It's a vapor of a film... but one with state of the art special effects. The level of detail that Cameron is known for is definitely present, but he used to have that be the forefront not just to technology but also his storytelling. That's absent in the film.

There are certainly more films out there that are far more deserving of berating as far as formulaic, pandering, mindless movie-making goes.

 

[Hunter Rider]

The problem with your argument is that you're assigning your own personal view as the truth.

 

[Valaquen]

I'm not calling audiences stupid. A lot of them just don't care what they see anymore and Hollywood doesn't give them the choices they need. We used to go to movies because we didn't know what we were going to see. Now we go to see movies because we know what to expect.

Avatar isn't the most formulaic movie ever made or anything. It's just got qualities in modern films that I detest. It's a vapor of a film... but one with state of the art special effects. The level of detail that Cameron is known for is definitely present, but he used to have that be the forefront not just to technology but also his storytelling. That's absent in the film.

There are certainly more films out there that are far more deserving of berating as far as formulaic, pandering, mindless movie-making goes.

When you said, I'm not discounting its word of mouth as to its success ... General audiences love formulaic movies you were [or seemed to be] crediting Avatar's success with people spreading the word about the movie all due to the fact that the film is simple/'formulaic'. There didn't seem to be any other reason for the film's success apart from clever marketing [which was lamented as being woeful and inadequate back in the day, I recall] and the fact that masses love dumb thrill rides. This is why I said you seemed to be calling audiences stupid in a 'offhanded' way.

A lot of people don't care what they go to see - but when they see a movie they can make an informed opinion on it, and if that opinion results in strong word-of-mouth, then the consensus must be favourable, right? So obviously, audiences like Avatar because it entertained them, not because they all had the sudden desire for a formulaic eye-fest.

 

[dark_b]

to make a connection to Prometheus. if the movie is different and unique with good 3D then it can have fantastic word of mouth. and can become a big movie.

the problem is that it is PG13 and realesed in summer. so my fear is that it will be a popcorn movie. i hope its not. the universe(alien) ,the look and the actors are very good.plus Scott showed with Robin Hood that he is still a perfectionist when it comes to building a world.

 

[Valaquen]

I don't think it's been confirmed to be PG-13. That was thrown around during the wild rumour phase with the $250million budget and Alien: Paradise rubbish.

 

[dark_b]

I don't think it's been confirmed to be PG-13. That was thrown around during the wild rumour phase with the $250million budget and Alien: Paradise rubbish.

if Scott is making a R rated blockbuster set in the alien universe on a budget higher then 100 millions..................then hallelujah !!!!!!!!!!

which he is not.

 

[Valaquen]

if Scott is making a R rated blockbuster set in the alien universe on a budget higher then 100 millions..................then hallelujah !!!!!!!!!!

which he is not.

Amen to the first statement. We'll see to the second

 

[MadVillainy]

I dont see why making it R over PG13 would necessarily make it a better movie.

I dont really care about the rating, the amount of blood, or cursing that much as long as it's good

 

[Carnotaur3]

When you said, I'm not discounting its word of mouth as to its success ... General audiences love formulaic movies you were [or seemed to be] crediting Avatar's success with people spreading the word about the movie all due to the fact that the film is simple/'formulaic'. There didn't seem to be any other reason for the film's success apart from clever marketing [which was lamented as being woeful and inadequate back in the day, I recall] and the fact that masses love dumb thrill rides. This is why I said you seemed to be calling audiences stupid in a 'offhanded' way.

A lot of people don't care what they go to see - but when they see a movie they can make an informed opinion on it, and if that opinion results in strong word-of-mouth, then the consensus must be favourable, right? So obviously, audiences like Avatar because it entertained them, not because they all had the sudden desire for a formulaic eye-fest.

My point was Hollywood doesn't give them much of a choice in films now. There aren't a lot of great films coming through the woodwork. Avatar promised to be a huge blockbuster film in the middle of December with no competition in sight with state of the art special effects. That's really enough incentive for a box office success and it was. It did booming business.

But compare it to a film like Jaws that pretty much started what we'd call "block buster". Could you really compare? I realize this is subjective but Jaws is not only a fun, entertaining film, it's also a masterpiece in horror, suspense and adventure with characters you can absolutely relate to and care for.

So that's my view on the progression... or I guess digression... of where block buster films and even films in general have gone through.

Again, I can't blame the general audiences for making it a success. I don't think they're stupid, as you're suggesting I'm insinuating. I just don't think they have many choices in the way of blockbusters. An average movie goer gets off work, sees a huge event film, wants to go, gets entertained for two hours plus. May even really like or love the thing to see it again. But I really believe they don't have quite the expectations they used to back in the day.

The problem with your argument is that you're assigning your own personal view as the truth.

No. I was stating an opinion.

 

[dark_b]

I dont see why making it R over PG13 would necessarily make it a better movie.

I dont really care about the rating, the amount of blood, or cursing that much as long as it's good

see thats the problem. R rating is not always about blood and cursing.

have you watched Shutter Island? if there was no blood and no cursing it would still be a R rating. the scene in the dark prison with the candle would autoamtic give it an R rating.

now imagine this ship Prometheus and the planet. imagine having slow suspensful scenes with creepy music. it automatic gets an R rating. and this is what an alien movie neeeds. no violence,blood and body parts flying around. it needs oldschool visual filmmaking.

 

[MadVillainy]

Ive seen Shutter Island, but dont remember every detail of it. I do remember it had f*** and other curse words in it as well as some blood.

I dont think it was rated R completely because of it's tense scenes. I never saw it but didn't the Ring have alot of tense scenes in it (that's wat I heard) and that was rated PG13

I will say though I will care if they cut alot out in post to make it PG13. If they make it with PG13 in mind I dont think it would really make it worse

 

[TX85]

I bet Fox will just make the film PG-13 then Unrated Cut on DVD&Blu-Ray,Which will just be curse words/blood&some gore added in with maybe an extra scene or two.....Such as they did with Die Hard 4&AVP's!!

I myself do prefer blood/gore&some curse words for these films,But PG-13 could still be enjoyed,I enjoy AVP's a bit more with the Unrated and same with Die Hard 4 But I personally really enjoyed PG-13 Die Hard anyway!!!!