MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Teaser: Prometheus

The QT on the Apple site is now live here. That would be the recommended viewing experience..

Be Sociable, Share!

31 Responses to “Teaser: Prometheus”

  1. Tim DeGroot says:

    Looks stunning, I just hope it can muster the mystery and suspense of Alien.

  2. Tuck Pendelton says:

    So….what’s it about?

  3. Chris says:

    I’m going to need some clean pants and a new chair.

  4. mysteryperfecta says:

    The HD version of the teaser showcases some stunning shots (e.g. around the 16 second mark).

    Its funny that many of the scenes/set pieces in this teaser aren’t anything we haven’t seen in other movies, but Ridley simply does them better.

  5. Monco says:

    Looks great.

  6. Telemachos says:

    Great teaser. This is one of my most anticipated movies for 2012.

  7. Hallick says:

    This looks like a well-produced SyFy Channel Original more than a visionary theatrical event.

  8. Hallick says:

    Even the music sounds like a TV hack’s version of the theme to “Inception”.

  9. Well says:

    You are genuinely stupid.

  10. leahnz says:

    putting on my super ‘alien/s’ dork cap i’ll preface this by saying something dreadful would have to happen to keep me from seeing this in the cinema when it comes out, but just my two cents with a few questions/critical observations after watching the HD version in slow mo:

    as is often the case with retconned prequels – just the concept of which makes my sphincter tighten involuntarily, i can’t help it – the continuity of production design here is ok but still looks a bit too slick and shiny in many respects for tech in a time that supposedly precedes that of the nostromo and space marines of ‘alien/s’, which was certainly of the functional workaday variety but had a certain look and feel that appears to be largely absent in this (tho admittedly the visual samples are brief), which is a bit disappointing. (those silly clear full-bubble-head-helmet spacesuits are ridiculous compared to the superfunctional chunky tough-as helmet-suits of the nastromo, which looked standard issue)

    also one of the cool things about the classic scott/cameron one-two punch is that the two crews were populated by what looked like ordinary people believable in their roles (aside from hellooo hicks, but one foxy matinee-idol marine isn’t too much of a stretch, hicks seemed a grunt through and through), whereas this crew looks like the ‘model home version’, too good-lookin for the sake of it, i don’t buy it.

    further, i don’t know what to make of quite a few shots/imagery so obviously derivative of scott’s own ‘alien’ – for example the sea of oblong podium-thingees so reminiscent of the eggs, the acid (or whatever it is) eating thru the glass helmet to fassy’s face so like that of the face-hugger burning thru onto kane, to name a couple; i’m not sure if this sort of blatant replication is a good thing or not, but feels weird, lacking in originality, trying too hard to harken back (forward…?).

    perhaps most bizarre to me is the fact that assuming the crashing horseshoe space-jockey ship is the same one found by the nostromo, it means the humans are on LV-426 for some reason, seemingly giving ‘the inhospitable rock’ some retconned significance, which chaffes me for some reason. (also re: the production design continuity of LV-426, the LV-426 of ‘alien’ – and even the atmosphere-processed version in ‘aliens’ – is so fucking gnarly and poison-wind-scoured, inhospitable and vicious-looking, the version in this trailer looks far too caring and sharing, like a calm, cloudy day in the desert of new mexico or something. that bugs me.)

    having said all that i’m still super keen, but weirdly i feel more trepidation about it all after seeing the trailer than before, which seems to be the opposite from most other people.

  11. Hallick says:

    “You are genuinely stupid.”

    You’re right. I’m the composer of the trailer music.

  12. leahnz says:

    the inception ‘bwooooonk’ rip-off repetitive horn thing in trailers has done its dash, i agree there

  13. Hallick says:

    If they had just sucked it up and USED the actual music from “Inception” it might have worked, but going with such a Dollar Store version like this, even if it has nothing to do with the music in the actual movie, is just undisciplined daftness.

  14. Tofu says:

    … You folks know that sound is from the original 1979 Alien trailer, right?

    … Right?

  15. leahnz says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEVY_lonKf4

    tofu: not really, kind of… there is an echo of the original trailer ‘alarm’ sound that starts up well AFTER the inception horns sound off several times in the prometheus trailer, fading into only the original alarm sound toward the end (which is a nice touch/ode to ‘alien’) — but it’s the inception horns rip-off that i think hallick was referring to, i know i was

  16. Foamy Squirrel says:

    So… the end of humanity is that someone leaned against this upright U and it fell over (and hilarity ensued)?

    Cos that’s what it looks like.

  17. LexG says:

    I’d like to plant an alien in Charlize.

    A 5-inch alien if you know what I mean.

  18. Lynch VanSant says:

    As for the cleaner/shinier look…wasn’t the Nostromo in Alien a mining/shipping vessel? So, of course it will be grungier. We don’t know the purpose of the crew in Prometheus yet. If they are an exploratory vessel seeking out extra-terrestrial life or a scientific vessel then you would expect a cleaner/shinier look. But don’t be so picky, fanboys. This trailer is far more exciting than the Dark Knight Rises or Hobbit trailers even though I’m looking forward to those movies as well.

  19. Rupper says:

    “So… the end of humanity is that someone leaned against this upright U and it fell over (and hilarity ensued)?”

    LOL

    “This looks like a well-produced SyFy Channel Original more than a visionary theatrical event.”

    Uh-huh because Ridley Scott it no way influenced all sci-fi TV and films since 1979.

    You sir, are a Giant Walking Reproductive Organ.

  20. Hallick says:

    “Uh-huh because Ridley Scott it no way influenced all sci-fi TV and films since 1979.”

    I get that people have Giant Walking Reproductive Organs in their pants for Ridley Scott’s movies, but to go by the audio-visual experience of this trailer alone, what is specifically there to be supernaturally excited about other than some state-mandated decree that Ridley Scott+Aliens=INSTANT AWESOME CLASSIC? (How did that work out for George Lucas+Star Wars=BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME by the way?).

    If anyone objective saw this thing attached to a DVD without knowing that its part of the Alien franchise and that Ridley Scott is the director, would they honestly be THAT blown away about it? It might be a good movie or a great movie anyway, but it just doesn’t look like a bold new vision in science fiction filmmaking in any way whatsoever.

  21. arisp says:

    New Year’s Resolution: Never read anything Hallick writes anymore.

  22. leahnz says:

    aw i feel bad for hallick getting slammed, because apart from the fact that he’s entitled to have the opinion that the trailer doesn’t look that special, in some respects i agree with him — and that’s as someone for whom the ‘alien/aliens’ original/sequel is one of the all-time greatest one-two punches of modern film-making.

    when it comes down to it i’d think much of the reason the imagery in the trailer is being fawned over is simply because of anticipation, like seeing old friends after a lifetime away: omg it’s the spacejockey’s helmet! omg it’s the spacejockey’s gun! omg it’s the spacejockey’s ship! omg they’re running in a corridor looked freaked! omg there’s acid eating tru helmet glass! omg those atv’s kinda look like the ones in ‘aliens’! omg someone’s going to make an alien movie now that might not suck and blow at the same time!

    but this trailer has me scared shitless of a pretty-people shiny retcon job, that it’s gonna be all overblown ‘BEGINNINGS AND ENDINGS!’ grand poobah epic nonsense rather than a lean and mean scary origin tale of some sort (and a big part of me thinks, just leave well enough alone). all the derivative imagery in the trailer alone makes me at least acknowledge hallick’s point about it looking unoriginal even in the context of a prequel…

    (but at the end of the day i hope i’m wrong and scott pulls his finger out and makes a movie that’s not his usual recent grumpy fucker ‘well-made but dull as dishwater lulls me to sleep after 20 mins’ ilk)

    also, just ONCE i’d like to see a prequel utilise tech that actually looks like it PREDATES the subsequent entries, w/out everyone having to scramble to somehow explain away/justify the flashy nature of technology that by all common sense was not as advanced as that of later entries. the nostromo was a deep-space ore transport vessel; assuming the ship and the technology used to transport billions of dollars worth of payload for a huge private corporation (weland-yutani corp) was of a substandard technological nature makes no sense, the spaceship nostromo and subships would logically be comprised of the best workaday tech of the day to ensure the success of its long, arduous, dangerous journey back to earth… not to mention one must take into account the tech/look of the space station and spaceships and military hardware in ‘aliens’ as an extremely cohesive sequel production design-wise to ‘alien’ set 57 years in the future (and since when does the military use basement tech?) — so for prometheus to look so significantly spiffier and shinier than anything in ‘alien’ or ‘aliens’ tech-wise MAKES NO SENSE. enough of making tech spiffy for spiffy’s sake when it goes against logic. i’m drafting a petition.

  23. christian says:

    To Scott’s defense, in every interview I read from the ALIEN release days, Scott always expressed interest in a prequel about the derelict ship. And as fer this, Scott + Giger + sci-fi + 3D = yes please.

  24. LexG says:

    Ridley Scott is the SINGLE GREATEST FILMMAKER IN ALL OF HISTORY and anybody who criticizes a SINGLE FRAME of any one of his movies is DEAD. FUCKING. WRONG.

    SIR RIDLEY = GOD. But fuck ALIEN, I want BLACK RAIN 2.

  25. Hallick says:

    “New Year’s Resolution: Never read anything Hallick writes anymore.”

    Awww, come on now arisp…if you make it a resolution you’re just gonna be reading something else I wrote by January 6th.

  26. leahnz says:

    just wondering, but is the christian above THE christian (as in tech dreams christian) or a different christian. confusing

  27. Geoff says:

    Leahz, I dig you but I think you’re getting way too overwrought about the look of this – bottom line, Alien was over 30 YEARS AGO shot with less technology and on grainer film….even if you shot the same exact sets and similar actors, there’s just no way that this film would not look shinier!

    I was just watching Warrior earlier this evening on BluRay – FANTASTIC movie by the way. The film is gritty, uses real-world locations, scruffy actors that look the part….and STILL, if you even compare the look to Rocky III (which is probably one of the less grittier Rocky movies) from less than 30 years ago, Warrior still looks ten times glossier by comparison. You can’t fight the passage of time.

  28. leahnz says:

    uh geoff, how am i getting way too ‘overwrought’ just because i’m expressing myself? i’m not the one insulting people in this thread for expressing their opinions, i’d say those individuals are the ones who are overwrought, i’m just babbling about something of interest to me.

    (and apologies if i’m the only person talking about the actual content of the trailers and original films in detail, rather than some variation of ‘this rules’, ‘this looks lame’, ‘well you SUCK’. and i’ve been drinkin’ champagne most of the day so trust me if anything i’m underwrought. almost under the table in fact)

    ftr when i say ‘shiny’ i’m not talking about production values-type glossy – which seems to be what you’re referring to – i’m talking about production DESIGN shiny, meaning the look of the technology re: the physical mechanics/set design appears incongruous, far more advanced/sleek/clean-lined/flashy/futuristic than the design of the tech in the movies that supposedly come well afterwards in the timeline. i’m sorry if this doesn’t mean anything to you, or anyone else apparently, but it does to me. different strokes i guess

    (also why is everyone calling me ‘leahz’, leah’s fine or adding my location is fine but leahz is…kinda weird, reminds me of ‘bratz’ dolls)

  29. leahnz says:

    oh and i’m not literally starting a petition. just to be clear. exaggerating for effect

  30. cadavra says:

    “I’d like to plant an alien in Charlize. A 5-inch alien if you know what I mean.”

    Lex–I hope you haven’t seen YOUNG ADULT yet. 😉

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon