The Hollywood Reporter interviews Scott, concept art, quotes, etc.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Also this overview of Scott's production companies contains a tidbit I'd missed:
Among upcoming projects: The Man in the High Castle, a BBC miniseries that returns Scott to sci-fi author Philip K. Dick
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
I love this insane detail:
Now Lindelof was ushered by the director to a building adjacent to Scott's sleek Los Angeles offices. "Ridley walked me up a stairwell, and there was a great big metallic vault door," recalls Lindelof. "It was a foot thick with some kind of locking apparatus, and he opened it carefully." Inside was a beehive of activity. "He introduced me to production designer Arthur Max and four 20-year-olds sitting at computers, designing stuff."
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
Arthur Max is yet another guy with a hell of a resume, it looks like.
― mh, Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I am so hyped but everything about this seems specifically, scientifically designed to let me down. PLEASE DON'T SUCK.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
I should watch Body of Lies and Robin Hood as a baseline for what recent-year Ridley Scott is like. The last film of his that I saw was American Gangster, which was pretty OK.
― mh, Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
There's some spoilery stuff in the interview, obv, but I suspect you've already made your decision about whether to learn more or not about the film.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
Phil otm, I really don't want this to suck
― Peppermint Patty Hearst (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 22 May 2012 16:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm going to be an optimist. Prometheus is going to rule! That way, if it sucks, at least I had the pleasure of anticipation. Who wants to waste one's time poo-pooing or nailbiting over some summer blockbuster that hasn't come out?
― He's sick of the Swiss. He don't like em. (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 22 May 2012 16:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
I remain excited but I'm trying not to read too much about it so I don't get pre-bummed out, should there be anything to get bummed out about. It's a delicate balance.
― Peppermint Patty Hearst (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 22 May 2012 16:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
So jealous that the UK is getting this a week early
― bark ruffalo (latebloomer), Tuesday, 22 May 2012 17:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm gonna have to avoid the internet for a week come June 1st
― bark ruffalo (latebloomer), Tuesday, 22 May 2012 17:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm going to be on vacation! It's like a built-in spoiler buffer.
― mh, Tuesday, 22 May 2012 17:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
Someone re-cut a trailer from the original 'Alien' into the modern style. I love it when people do this; I like contrast trailer styles.
― Choad of Choad Hall (kingfish), Sunday, 27 May 2012 20:55 (11 months ago) Permalink
i would pay to go see that movie
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Sunday, 27 May 2012 21:12 (11 months ago) Permalink
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY
― Johnny Fever, Sunday, 27 May 2012 21:14 (11 months ago) Permalink
trailer for this movie is fucking insane
― flopson, Sunday, 27 May 2012 23:26 (11 months ago) Permalink
I've got tickets for the midnight showing this Thursday. Really hope it's going to be worth it.
― DavidM, Monday, 28 May 2012 04:17 (11 months ago) Permalink
if any of you are crazy for alien's production design, one of the guys who worked on it has a 5-part documentary all about the making of it, with tons of detail on costuming, sets, props, etc:
http://www.zen171398.zen.co.uk/
Alien Makers parts 1-5 are what you want
― Hungry4Ass, Monday, 28 May 2012 12:17 (11 months ago) Permalink
Please stop bumping this thread so that I am not tempted to click on this thread. Thanks!
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 May 2012 12:48 (11 months ago) Permalink
opening in the uk a week before the usa...
― Ward Fowler, Monday, 28 May 2012 13:21 (11 months ago) Permalink
ok! (xpost)
― StanM, Monday, 28 May 2012 13:28 (11 months ago) Permalink
All joking earlier in the thread re: 3D aside though - is there a way I'll know beforehand if this 3D thing will work for me? Still haven't seen a 3D movie and I, well, I kinda wanna know what it's like. This looks like something I might go and see in the cinema (haven't been since the last LOTR movie, to be honest, but this and the batmang thingy may possibly get me to break my waiting-until-the-DVD/bluray-comes-out habit).
― StanM, Monday, 28 May 2012 16:53 (11 months ago) Permalink
do you lack general depth perception abilities?
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, 28 May 2012 17:09 (11 months ago) Permalink
ouch
― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Monday, 28 May 2012 17:31 (11 months ago) Permalink
i've never heard about 3d not working for anybody. not like those fucking magic image posters...
― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 28 May 2012 17:37 (11 months ago) Permalink
My brother has bad vision in one eye and 3D doesn't work for him
― Number None, Monday, 28 May 2012 17:39 (11 months ago) Permalink
astigmatism can bugger it up.
― Merdeyeux, Monday, 28 May 2012 17:41 (11 months ago) Permalink
No, not usually, but I know people who've had to leave because of headaches/shit just not being in focus for them etc. - I wear contacts (slight myopia) so I wondered.
― StanM, Monday, 28 May 2012 17:48 (11 months ago) Permalink
(No = general depth perception problems)
I have to wear the damn things over my glasses. Not fun
― Number None, Monday, 28 May 2012 17:49 (11 months ago) Permalink
Fwiw, this movie was at least filmed in 3-D, rather than converted after the fact, which is more than most these days and which from experience generally results in a better experience.
i've never heard about 3d not working for anybody.
There actually are some people who can't discern the effect, just like there are some people who are colorblind.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 May 2012 18:00 (11 months ago) Permalink
I imagine this will be a pretty good option for a first 3D viewing alright
― Number None, Monday, 28 May 2012 18:02 (11 months ago) Permalink
http://www.vision3d.com/whycant.html
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 May 2012 18:02 (11 months ago) Permalink
Until they make 3-D glasses that fit comfortably over and work well with prescription eyeglasses, I am manifestly Not Interested in 3-D. The one time I've tried it, I hated it.
― Brony! Broni! Broné! (Phil D.), Monday, 28 May 2012 18:04 (11 months ago) Permalink
It doesn't matter anyway, it's as much of a gimmick as it ever was, and the ticket sales show it. A good director and DP know how to use the size and pereived depth of the screen and their sets or locations to create what they want.
― Brony! Broni! Broné! (Phil D.), Monday, 28 May 2012 18:05 (11 months ago) Permalink
3d is dumb, everyone knows
― lag∞n, Monday, 28 May 2012 18:06 (11 months ago) Permalink
When I try out one of those plastic blue/red 3D glasses and I look at some of the 3D stuff online it sometimes kinda works and sometimes it just doesn't.e.g. this one works immediately: http://www.bfoto.ru/news/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3131.jpgbut this one only after focusing for a while: http://www.bfoto.ru/news/wp-content/uploads/3d_foto_anaglif_13.jpg
Meh. I'll just go and see the 2D version.
― StanM, Monday, 28 May 2012 18:09 (11 months ago) Permalink
I agree it's dumb and it won't last, but I kinda want to see what I've been hating instinctively all this time :-/
― StanM, Monday, 28 May 2012 18:10 (11 months ago) Permalink
I have never seen a 2D version of something that I wished was in 3D when I was watching, and have never seen a 3D movie in which I thought the 3D was essential (save "Avatar," which was like a test reel for the format, and the Herzog, ironically, which needed the effect to depict the depth of the cave paintings). In fact, I actively seek out 2D screenings when possible. That said, I don't have a problem with the 3D, aside from a little extra dimness to the image.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 May 2012 18:21 (11 months ago) Permalink
i have prescription glasses and never had any problems with it
that said i haven't seen anything in 3d that didn't seem like a gimmick except "avatar" which i thought was actually pretty impressive and seamless
― the late great, Monday, 28 May 2012 19:00 (11 months ago) Permalink
http://realorfake3d.com/
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 May 2012 19:30 (11 months ago) Permalink
nu 3D is great, love it to death, always see the 3D version if i get a chance
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Monday, 28 May 2012 19:47 (11 months ago) Permalink
3D has fans, but it was chiefly just a gimmick by the studios to force theaters to upgrade to digital projection. Now, just about all of them have and there are fewer and fewer 3D films released every year.
― Johnny Fever, Monday, 28 May 2012 19:49 (11 months ago) Permalink
i'm not sure it was that fiendishly conspiratorial, but yeah, that does seem to have been the effect
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Monday, 28 May 2012 19:57 (11 months ago) Permalink
It's actually a genius gimmick. Digital projection means no film costs. 3D glasses means a ticket upcharge. And best of all, 3D screenings can't be videotaped and pirated (though that security has been undone by 2D screenings).
Is it just me, or did that much feared "Phantom Menace" 3D redux come and go without much fanfare?
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 May 2012 19:59 (11 months ago) Permalink
Pretty much
― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Monday, 28 May 2012 20:08 (11 months ago) Permalink
I'd like to see this in 2D but the only showing in my neighborhood are at like 12:45 in the afternoon
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 28 May 2012 21:26 (11 months ago) Permalink
showingS
the weird thing about the phantom menace 3d was the number of scenes of people standing around talking blandly about things that were rendered in eye-popping 3d vs. the number of action sequences that weren't.
― how's life, Tuesday, 29 May 2012 00:40 (11 months ago) Permalink