Prometheus (2012)

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Monk360

Just watched this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u94wR...yer_embedded#!

Too awesome.

Loved it. It would be a great way to finish the second film (we created ourselves and try to hide the knowledge from ourselves).

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by R0CK0X

If I'm not mistaken, the name of the planet isn't even mentioned in the first Alien movie, is it? I don't remember hearing "LV-426" until the scene with Van Leuwen in Aliens. So people who have only seen the first flick might just assume the planet in Prometheus and Alien are one and the same.

I think you are right.... damn you, now I might have to watch Alien again.

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Kiss theaters goodbye. It's going to happen sooner or later. I'll be surprised if there is anything left beyond specialty screening houses (like places where you can be waited on for dinner and watch a movie at the same time) twenty years from now.

How funny you mention this - my brother is infatuated with the idea of opening a specialty movie theater that runs old and new classic films all the time and people pay a yearly membership and can go anytime they like or sign up for when they want to go. No cell phones allowed, no interruptions, comfy chairs, top-end screen and gear, all that stuff. Basically, a theater for theater professionals

Interesting idea, at least.

[R0CK0X]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

I think you are right.... damn you, now I might have to watch Alien again.

I did a check after I posted. From the AVP wiki:

"LV-426 was first introduced in the 1979 film Alien, though it is not named and is simply referred to as a "planetoid" or "ball". In the 1986 sequel Aliens, LV-426 is named."

http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Acheron_(LV-426)

[jetthead]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Kiss theaters goodbye. It's going to happen sooner or later. I'll be surprised if there is anything left beyond specialty screening houses (like places where you can be waited on for dinner and watch a movie at the same time) twenty years from now.

Similar things were said with the advent of television and yet theaters are still here. They're not going away.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

How funny you mention this - my brother is infatuated with the idea of opening a specialty movie theater that runs old and new classic films all the time and people pay a yearly membership and can go anytime they like or sign up for when they want to go. No cell phones allowed, no interruptions, comfy chairs, top-end screen and gear, all that stuff. Basically, a theater for theater professionals.

Yes, I think places like that will always be around.

Originally Posted by jetthead

Similar things were said with the advent of television and yet theaters are still here. They're not going away.

Sure they will (and the idea that a 13" B&W screen would ever replace the experience of a 70mm epic is just silly).

Theaters will die. When you can have a huge home theater, buy the bluray, and have everyone over in the comfort of your own home, watching the movie as much as you wish? And you think people will still want to plop down a bill every weekend of the summer to take their family out?

The only reason it has not happened yet is not everyone has a deluxe system in their home. But as that progresses and becomes more common, theater chains will recede into eventual oblivion.

The writing's on the wall.

[Monk360]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Theaters will die.

Theaters that just show movies will die, yes.

Which is why chains like Cinemark are shifting to showing concerts, live ballet/stage performances, teleconferences, and multi-player gaming tournaments to supplement the loss of movie viewers.

If the content is compelling enough, people will still come.

People once predicted the death of arcades as a result of home video game consoles...30 years later, arcades are alive and well. You just have to find ways to stay one step ahead and provide a better experience.

[R0CK0X]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

$50 for the four disc set? I got mine for $24.99.

I was just at HMV today and noticed they had the 3D set for $50. Highway robbery.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

The writing's on the wall.

It was on the last theatre I went to.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Walter E Kurtz

I thought it was a poor decision to cast guy pearce in an old man suit.

Apparantly, they wanted someone who still looks young and has youthful energy...

Why oh why didnt they just cast an older distinguished actor....

because they WERE going to have flashbacks in the movie when Weyland was younger, but those scenes never got into the movie and they were left with Guy pierce only being older in the film

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by wormraper

because they WERE going to have flashbacks in the movie when Weyland was younger, but those scenes never got into the movie and they were left with Guy pierce only being older in the film

I still think Christopher Plummer would have been the perfect choice.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by R0CK0X

If I'm not mistaken, the name of the planet isn't even mentioned in the first Alien movie, is it? I don't remember hearing "LV-426" until the scene with Van Leuwen in Aliens. So people who have only seen the first flick might just assume the planet in Prometheus and Alien are one and the same.

Originally Posted by R0CK0X

I did a check after I posted. From the AVP wiki:

"LV-426 was first introduced in the 1979 film Alien, though it is not named and is simply referred to as a "planetoid" or "ball". In the 1986 sequel Aliens, LV-426 is named."

http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Acheron_(LV-426)

I just finished watching the relevant chapters of the 1979 Theatrical and 2003 cut of Alien. When they try to determine where they are, the system Zeta 2 Reticuli is mentioned by Lambert, but the planetoid is not referred to as LV-426. So, you might conclude that the planetoid in Prometheus and Alien is LV-223. This makes Aliens not canon with regard to Prometheus further tweaking fan noses to the breaking point. Add that to a complete change in the xenomorph lifecycle, ampules instead of eggs, trilobites rather than facehuggers......excuse me. I have to open the window and scream again.

[jala12]

Originally Posted by wormraper

because they WERE going to have flashbacks in the movie when Weyland was younger, but those scenes never got into the movie and they were left with Guy pierce only being older in the film

I found it funny how they were also originally going to show what Weyland's dreams were like while he was in hibernation. Apparently, we could have seen a futuristic yacht in some tropical ocean with bikini-clad babes chilling with Weyland who appears as his young self in his dream.

It certainly would have given some more insight into his character, showing what he lost and misses by becoming old.

[Monk360]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I still think Christopher Plummer would have been the perfect choice.

IIRC, I recall the Ridley originally had Max Von Sydow in mind for the role.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Monk360

People once predicted the death of arcades as a result of home video game consoles...30 years later, arcades are alive and well. You just have to find ways to stay one step ahead and provide a better experience.

Dude, videogame arcades are long gone. My current city has one notable one, and my hometown has zero (and it used to have a bunch of them back in the '80's).

By bringing up arcades, you actually support my position with an excellent example: the home console destroyed the arcade.

Things change. People don't like to face it, but they do. Consoles killed the arcade, Netflix and Redbox killed the video rental store, tablet computers are going to be the future of most all home personal computing (replacing the clunky PC in a big plasitic box as well as the traditional laptop), and the home theater is going to kill the cinema chain.

Sure, there will always be some stragglers (there always are), but the majority of people are going to be at home with their wall-sized TVs, eating their own popcorn, drinking their own drinks, and watching their own movies.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Dude, videogame arcades are long gone. My current city has one notable one, and my hometown has zero (and it used to have a bunch of them back in the '80's).

By bringing up arcades, you actually support my position with an excellent example: the home console destroyed the arcade.

Things change. People don't like to face it, but they do. Consoles killed the arcade, Netflix and Redbox killed the video rental store, tablet computers are going to be the future of most all home personal computing (replacing the clunky PC in a big plasitic box as well as the traditional laptop), and the home theater is going to kill the cinema chain.

Sure, there will always be some stragglers (there always are), but the majority of people are going to be at home with their wall-sized TVs, eating their own popcorn, drinking their own drinks, and watching their own movies.

sorry, but the tablet may eat into the Laptop market but NOT the desktop market. they said the same thing about laptops killing desktop's years ago, not even a close comparison, two seperate uses

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by wormraper

sorry, but the tablet may eat into the Laptop market but NOT the desktop market. they said the same thing about laptops killing desktop's years ago, not even a close comparison, two seperate uses

It will happen, trust me. Look at the computing power of the modern smartphone. Tell someone thirty years ago that they would hold something like that in their hand and they might have answered: "Yeah, if we live in Star Trek."

Why have an immobile box on the floor under your desk when you can just take the entire package with you to the living room when you're done doing your bills at the desk?

You know, for a bunch of sci-fi fans, I'm really surprised at how limited a lot of people think.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

It will happen, trust me. Look at the computing power of the modern smartphone. Tell someone thirty years ago that they would hold something like that in their hand and they might have answered: "Yeah, if we live in Star Trek."

Why have an immobile box on the floor under your desk when you can just take the entire package with you to the living room when you're done doing your bills at the desk?

You know, for a bunch of sci-fi fans, I'm really surprised at how limited a lot of people think.

maybe one day, but not ANYWHERE in the near future. laptops, and tablets will never have the raw power something that a desktop can provided. it's pure pysics, larger cases can hold more powerful components. even the fastest laptop has NOTHING on a properly built Desktop

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by wormraper

maybe one day, but not ANYWHERE in the near future. laptops, and tablets will never have the raw power something that a desktop can provided. it's pure pysics, larger cases can hold more powerful components. even the fastest laptop has NOTHING on a properly built Desktop

There will be a small underground of desktop builders/users, just like there are small hotrod clubs driving the cars of years gone by. But the average consumer doesn't need much more computing power than what we have now. Tablets will continue to get more powerful, to the point that people won't need to have both a tablet and a desktop. You'll just set the tablet on your desk, the wall in front of the desk will come on and that will be your monitor. You'll use your full-sized tools (like keyboard, drawing pad, ect.) while at the desk for games, net surfing, whatever, then you'll grab your tablet, go into the living room, and run your home theater with it (which we can already do).

Everyone always thinks that the time they are in will remain the same in the future (just with shinier things). We won't have cars, but flying cars. We won't have dogs, but robot dogs, and so on...

It just doesn't work that way.

Anyway, we should get back on topic.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

There will be a small underground of desktop builders/users, just like there are small hotrod clubs driving the cars of years gone by. But the average consumer doesn't need much more computing power than what we have now. Tablets will continue to get more powerful, to the point that people won't need to have both a tablet and a desktop. You'll just set the tablet on your desk, the wall in front of the desk will come on and that will be your monitor. You'll use your full-sized tools (like keyboard, drawing pad, ect.) while at the desk for games, net surfing, whatever, then you'll grab your tablet, go into the living room, and run your home theater with it (which we can already do).

Everyone always thinks that the time they are in will remain the same in the future (just with shinier things). We won't have cars, but flying cars. We won't have dogs, but robot dogs, and so on...

It just doesn't work that way.

maybe, but as times go by the programs become more hardware intensive requiring beefier computers etc. sure it may come about, but I don't see it happening for AT LEAST 20 years +. I work in the computer field and even the engineers don't see the demise of desktops in the near future, most of them sneer at laptops unless people just web browse. I max out my brand new desktops ability in less than a month of using it. REally wish we had the 8 core procs out right now. Even the best laptops in the market (and I've plaid with them) dont' come near to what a good desktop will do. sure things will get smaller and smaller but tablet size will take decades to THAT much better to where the difference between a desktop and tablet are miniscule enough to give up the desktop

it would have to be at a point where there's less than 5% power and performance difference between a tablet and a desktop before I'd even dream of switching. hell, most people I know NOW think of TAblets as a novelty but nothing they'd like to own for more than a few hundred bucks (most solid computers I use cost in the thousands) and they loathe the touch screens.

[Walter E Kurtz]

Originally Posted by gates70

It's obvious that they'll use him at some point without the old man makeup (ie; flashbacks or whatever)

Thats what I thought aswel...

But apparantly pearce asked scott, 'why not cast an older actor?' and scott replied with wanting a youthful character....

I love guy pearce but I think a mckellen, gambon, plummer, hopkins, would have been a better choice.

Im not sure how weyland will feature in the future sequels since he is dead aswel.