So Ridley Scott is directing an Alien prequel... (The official Prometheus Thread)

[crocodile 8,010]

There is one already, as far as I know.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But where's the art?

That is hardly relevant. In 2D only about 15% of films made have any real artistic ambitions, and about half of them fail. You can't expect better numbers in 3D.

The directors who are heavily plugging 3D are the guys famous for big special effects and action films (Spielberg, Cameron, Burton, Bay, Jackson, Lucas). Were is Scorcese, Woody Allen, Peter Weir, Michael Apted, Frears, Cronenberg???

[Wojo 2,453]

They tell human stories, character dramas, and romance tales. To date, they haven't found ways to incorporate 3D to tell those stories better.

[Brónach 1,302]

I'll get into 3D when I see a scene in 3D that absolutely needs it to be told and understood by others, as if it was colour or sound.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Anyway, the way Hollywood is marketing 3D to the public is suspect.

Yes. I was really annoyed when I saw the first trailer for that new Three Musketeers movie that's coming. They were marketing the movie solely on the fact that it was shot in 3D. Blegh.

Second trailer isn't as 3D-heavy though, I'll give them that.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That looked woeful!

Why is every women in a period piece kicking ass these days? Most women don't do roundhouse kicks now, let alone in revolutionary France....

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Film isn't necessarily art, it's craft. 3D is a tool, less of a gimmick than before. Stefan I'd love to see the beautiful english landscape in 3d. Perhaps Pride and Prejudice and Zombies will be in 3D.

I trust that Scott will give us a good 3D experience. His friendship with Cameron will definately get him pointers.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

3D is a tool, less of a gimmick than before.

Why does every 3D film have 3D in big letters on the poster then?

Maybe 3D can be more then a gimmick, but that's not how it's been used right now.

[Quintus 5,399]

It's interesting to note that those vast English landscapes of War Horse are not to be shown in 3D. But then, isn't that supposed to be a 'small', personal film?

I personally associate 3D with spectacle and I'd prefer it to stay that way. I think it probably will. When I watch a Mike Leigh film I do not expect to be blown away by how spectacular the kitchen looks when the wife walks out on the husband after putting up with his shit for twenty five years.

[A24 4,331]

But where's the art?

That is hardly relevant.

So artists that are able to evoke immersive, almost 3D like images, with classic photography is irrelevant? And let's not forget that we (our brain) are partly responsible for making the image complete. There's another difference for ya.

Isn't 'immersiveness' the point of 3D? Isn't this how Joey said we should look at the technology? Where's the art if you just have to push a button?

[Brónach 1,302]

The art starts after you push the button and do something with it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

who cares about art, film is not art, it's craft. rarely does a film move into the realm of art. Given the limit of todays younger filmmakers and their weaknesses one simply has to take a film for what it is. Rarely does a film become more than the sum of it's parts. In film there is no pushing a button, and I don't give one flying flip about photographic art, even if I did, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

In the context of this discussion concerning Ridley Scott he's succeeded in makeing films that fall into the realm of Art. Alien is an example, some would say Blade Runner. The man is quite capable of making that leap, not always, but is capable.

[Quintus 5,399]

Indeed. And perhaps it's only a matter of time before Scott uses 3D as a tool to create art again.

[A24 4,331]

film is not art,

No, it can be art, only those are not your type of movies. You just like stories.

Who cares if it's art? Maybe you're right, not too many, I suppose.

Alex

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The directors who are heavily plugging 3D are the guys famous for big special effects and action films (Spielberg, Cameron, Burton, Bay, Jackson, Lucas). Were is Scorcese, Woody Allen, Peter Weir, Michael Apted, Frears, Cronenberg???

Um...

And Woody Allen despises special features and anything beyond 2.0 mono sound, I doubt he'll ever do 3D.

[Quintus 5,399]

Remember: stories cannot be art, in Alex's world.

[A24 4,331]

Remember: stories cannot be art, in Alex's world.

Maybe they are, but I know Joey thinks they are not.

[Quintus 5,399]

I don't know about that.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

film is not art,

No, it can be art, only those are not your type of movies. You just like stories.

Who cares if it's art? Maybe you're right, not too many, I suppose.

Alex

it's terrible that I enjoy a wider range of films than you. Since you only like art then you're choice of films is almost infinately limited compared to mine. Alex you throw the word art around to easily. I tend to be more demanding in what I call art than even you. Course I'm also less concerned.

[crocodile 8,010]

Geez, the only thing we're missing in this conversation is Zack Snyder and Limal singing "Neverending Story" in the background.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

Geez, the only thing we're missing in this conversation is Zack Snyder and Limal singing "Neverending Story" in the background.

Karol

Well, we've still managed to have The Great 3D Debate in full swing in two threads at the same time, which is an achievement in itself.

[A24 4,331]

it's terrible that I enjoy a wider range of films than you. Since you only like art then you're choice of films is almost infinately limited compared to mine.

Why is the range of films that I like limited? Why is your taste more diverse than mine? I don't get it.

Geez, the only thing we're missing in this conversation is Zack Snyder and Limal singing "Neverending Story" in the background.

It seems to me that you want to bring Zack Snyder into the conversation. And "neverending story", it that my fault?

[crocodile 8,010]

Geez, the only thing we're missing in this conversation is Zack Snyder and Limal singing "Neverending Story" in the background.

It seems to me that you want to bring Zack Snyder into the conversation. And "neverending story", it that my fault?

No, it's all of us.

Karol

[A24 4,331]

It's part of the fun of discussion boards like these. This hardly ever happens on Facebook.

[Quintus 5,399]

Apparently a lot of this sort of thing goes on on Twitter. I'm beginning to see the appeal of it, but I won't be joining any time soon.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

it's terrible that I enjoy a wider range of films than you. Since you only like art then you're choice of films is almost infinately limited compared to mine.

Why is the range of films that I like limited? Why is your taste more diverse than mine? I don't get it.

because most films are not deemed art, thus limiting what you're interested in. Is Watchman Art (Zack Snyder) , I'd say not, but you'll probably disagree. Yet we both watched it.

My range of films goes all the way back to the late 20's to today. You have the advantage in that you have access to films from Europe that I never hear of or get a chance to see because they never penetrate the US market. I love a lot of films I figure you'd deem beneath you(I admit I may well be wrong). I have an appreciation for B films of all genre's. And there are few here with my fondness of old Black and White films in general. Thank goodness for TCM and the oldies they show.

[A24 4,331]

There is some truth in that but only when it comes to my absolute favorite movies. Yes, I see those as art, but then again, I think most people would deem their favorite movies art. They say art is everything what man creates to express himself. According to this definition film is art. The difference is there is good art and there is bad art. Great art never dies, meaning, it still touches the heart of new generations, it keeps influencing spectators and artists.

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

Yes, much like Ghoulies II.

[A24 4,331]

Yes, great art keeps inspiring us.

[Wojo 2,453]

One man's art is another's pile of dung.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Christmas Vacation still inspires.....

[A24 4,331]

Alien won't die. Prometheus will probably be forgotten in a few years.

And this way we are back on topic.

Okay, it will be forgotten in 10 years, after the studio has forced us a couple of sequels down our throats.

Alex

[Wojo 2,453]

Christmas Vacation still inspires.....

And I wanna look him straight in the eye, and tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of....

I forget the rest.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Adter this we'll just have to see if Scott is strong enough to resist the possibility of Blade Runner II: Replication.

[A24 4,331]

Scott: "No, no, no, it's a completely new concept with only some strains of Blade Runner DNA."

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well, obviously the blimps will have to go. That was a bit of a mistake!

[Brónach 1,302]

Prometheus will probably be forgotten in a few years.

I think this could be quite good.

It's what Scott does best and going by his episodes in Lost, Lindelof is probably a great writer for something that has to be solved in 2 or 3 hours. The cast is great, too.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Adter this we'll just have to see if Scott is strong enough to resist the possibility of Blade Runner II: Replication.

how many films does he have left in him anyways? He's on the 80 side of 70.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yeah but he still looks rather vigorous.

[crocodile 8,010]

More vigorous than John Williams, actually.

Karol

[Quintus 5,399]

He's 73! Wow, I thought he was early sixties at the most.

[A24 4,331]

Scott looks great!

But Is Harrison Up To It?

Alex

[Thor 7,495]

Scott looks great!

But Is Harrison Up To It?

Alex

DeckLIN?!? What kind of moronic interviewer is that?

Embarassing.

Needless to say, I'm very excited about the Scott/ALIEN film. He is a filmmaking genius and one of my alltime favourite directors, the ALIEN films are probably my alltime favourite films (esp. 1 and 2) and the combo of Scott and sci fi is mouthwatering, to say the least.

Bring it on...this is another thing I've been waiting for for YEARS!

[A24 4,331]

But Thor, Scott's style has changed since then. I don't think the genre alone was responsible for the magnificence of these movies. I'm curious but I wouldn't be surprised if the new film is more in accordance with his new films. Also, the film is PG-13.

Alex - realist

[Thor 7,495]

But Thor, Scott's style has changed since then. I don't think the genre alone was responsible for the magnificence of these movies. I'm curious but I wouldn't be surprised if the new film is more in accordance with his new films. Also, the film is PG-13.

Alex - realist

Yeah, I'm aware of that, but Scott is Scott. His visual trademarks seep through every film from BOY ON A BICYCLE to ROBIN HOOD. And since he was at his very best in the sci fi genre once upon a time, I see no reason why we can't expect the same now...even though there has been an evolution in his his style too.

[A24 4,331]

The reason why I personally don't expect a new Alien or Blade Runner (that level of excellence) is based on a thirty-year-long output in where he made films which I consider to be less visually driven, less artistic and a lot more mainstream than in the beginning of his career. It's like somewhere down the line it dawned to him that film is more about commerce than it is about art.

but Scott is Scott.

But for me there are two Scotts or maybe even three. Artists go through phases. I am only a fan (a huge fan, BTW) of his first phase (his Kubrick period, if you will ).

I can only hope that Prometheus will bring back some of his former self.

Alex

[Thor 7,495]

The reason why I personally don't expect a new Alien or Blade Runner (that level of excellence) is based on a thirty-year-long output in where he made films which I consider to be less visually driven, less artistic and a lot more mainstream than in the beginning of his career. It's like somewhere down the line it dawned to him that film is more about commerce than it is about art.

Not sure I agree with that assessment. Yes, there have been some misfires too (as have all filmmakers), but overall Scott is more about the visual art than anything. He's never been an arthouse director in the traditional sense (except maybe BOY ON A BICYCLE), but the art is located more in ways he communicates audiovisual ideas within a more or less mainstream, storytelling Hollywood setting.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree with Alex, though I find it remarkable that Scott is even trying to do something new. His last few films hardly betray that level of ambition.

[A24 4,331]

I'm not talking about misfires. That's a different discussion altogether. I'm talking about general priorities and artistic emphasis in a person's work. His first movies are almost silent movies (their stories were also kept to a minimum). They are not just beautiful but also very strong visual communicators. The visuals did all the talking and this, accidentally or not, made his first films highly open to interpretation. After or since Legend, I see a lot more water being added to the wine, and that goes for the narrative tone as well, which is 'slightly' more compromised by relying more on script, big events or spectacle, more clear-cut characters and exposing dialogue. Of course, this is also due to the times we are living in. The seventies style of moviemaking has disappeared from Scott's movies.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Thank goodness...