Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Mr. Beaks Talks The Origin, Aim And MPAA Rating Of PROMETHEUS With Sir Ridley Scott And Damon Lindelof!

What exactly is PROMETHEUS? Judging from Saturday's presentation at WonderCon, it's the movie that's going to make or break my summer.

While the teaser Fox released last December was tantalizing, what the studio unveiled over the last twenty-four hours was an expertly orchestrated marketing coup. First, there was the IMAX trailer. Then a virally-leaked confirmation of the artificial origin of Michael Fassbender's character. Finally, there was the full theatrical trailer, presented in 3D to a packed ballroom in the Anaheim Convention Center. Now, there's just an agonizing two-and-a-half month wait until June 8th.



Sir Ridley Scott's reentry into the ALIEN universe is also his first science-fiction film since 1982's BLADE RUNNER, and that's what he prefers to emphasize when discussing the forthcoming film. My feeling since PROMETHEUS was announced has been that Scott was eager to made a sci-fi epic, and he knew that the best way of getting it into production with the proper budget was to link it, however tangentially, to the franchise he co-created with Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett thirty-three years ago. If that's what it takes to get this widescreen maestro working on a massive scale in this genre again, I'm all for it.

Some filmmakers slow down once they hit seventy; Scott's looking to his past to invigorate his future. PROMETHEUS is also Scott's first 3D production, and, in talking to him Saturday, it sounds like he's a total convert. I'm grateful that I had the opportunity to chat with Scott and Damon Lindelof (who shares a writing credit with Jon Spaihts) for ten minutes in the midst of their very busy WonderCon, and, joking aside, I tried to ask questions that would illuminate the aim of PROMETHEUS without spoiling its big reveals (and while you've seen some cool shit in these marketing materials, the big reveals have yet to be disclosed). We did discuss the film's rating, which is still up in the air. Scott and Lindelof are very diplomatic in their responses, but I sense that they would prefer the R cut. Read the interview and decide for yourself.

I should add that this interview was conducted prior to the screening of the theatrical trailer. My line of questioning might've been a little different had I viewed that trailer ahead of time.


Mr. Beaks: Let's see how much I can get you guys to give away.

Damon Lindelof: Good luck.

Beaks: What's exciting about PROMETHEUS to me is that it feels, on one level, like you're using the bait of ALIEN to bring people into a smart science-fiction film they might otherwise avoid if they didn't suspect it was connected to a popular franchise.

Sir Ridley Scott: That's a good way of putting it.
Lindelof: It's feels a little more manipulative than we would put it probably, but it's not the most unfair characterization.
Scott: The very loose target was that nineteen months ago. Then what happened was you get an idea, which is the starting spec, and the evolution occurs. It just moved further and further away from that original thought that you specified. It has nothing to do with that now. It begs much larger, more interesting questions.
Lindelof: I think that the creative process was such that I was coming at it from the fanboy perspective, which is "If Ridley Scott is going to do a science-fiction movie, do I want to see any of that stuff?" Yeah, I want to see some of it, but I don't want it to be about that. From Ridley's point of view, he said, "I did that in 1979, and I'm not looking to outdo myself or repeat myself. I want to do something new." Yet there is a certain cool familiarity. There's something about saying, "I've recorded a new album, but in the encore I might play a couple of the songs from earlier albums." That's what the fan experience wants to be, and we tried to craft the movie accordingly.

Beaks: We've seen the Space Jockey. You talk about the evolution, but were there certain elements from ALIEN that you always wanted to incorporate?

Scott: No plan. The starting block had a kind of general, generic... well, actually, one specific question: "Who are they and why?" Then "Who are they and why?' started to get answered, and that's where you get the complete branch-out into, honestly, another universe.

Beaks: With a Space Jockey.

Lindelof: Well, you've seen shots now in some of the materials that are going out there, and I think that hopefully the question changes from what it's been - which is "What is this movie's relationship to ALIEN?" - into "How much of the movie is going to be focused on the guy in that chair? Who is the guy in that chair? Is it a guy in that chair?" All of those questions sort of power us up until the movie, which will speak for itself hopefully.

Beaks: Genre-wise, judging from what we've seen so far, the horror element seems to be the most pronounced. Obviously there's sci-fi and action as well. How did you view the mix of genres?

Scott: With as much good, inventive taste as possible; without treading on things that have been done before, and trying to be as original as possible, where the events occur organically from the backbone of the story so you experience everything. You mention horror. Yeah, it's kind of horror, but frankly the whole package is way more interesting than that. It's a combination of everything. Is there action? Of course there is. Is there horror? Of course there is. But I think the overall scheme of things is always on this platform of these big questions, which always make it more interesting. It's very provoking.
Lindelof: I think there is a good version of saying "It's very hard to describe what this movie is" in terms of tying it up in a neat bow. And then there's a bad version of that, where the movie is just all over the place. If you take a movie like INCEPTION, which sort of defies explanation but obviously connected very well with audiences... in terms of saying, "Is that an action movie?" Yeah, people are running around and shooting each other with guns. But you can't really describe it, and one of the reasons is, love it or hate it, it's trying to do something new. That's what I thought was so exciting about the movie that Ridley wanted to make. "Let's not rely on trying to put this in the horror movie corner." He pitched me this sequence that just him talking about it scared the shit out of me. (Laughs) Now that I've seen it on screen, I think probably the most iconic scene in the movie is going to be a horror scene. It's psychologically scary and viscerally scary. That being said, that's just three minutes of screen time in a two-hour film. Hopefully, it has all of the above.

Beaks: In trying to do something different, how much latitude did you have with the studio?

Scott: Total. They don't interfere. You come to them finally with a complete thing saying this is what it is, and they have comments and points and "Didn't get this" or "Got that." Fundamentally, it's just entirely supportive. My conversation with them was, honestly, pretty quick. Two-and-a-half years ago, I said "There's this idea I want to do, which is science fiction." And here we are two-and-a-half years later sitting here talking with this big thing coming out. That's very fast in this business, isn't it?
Lindelof: Yeah. Amazing.
Scott: I think they're very happy. So the inception... bad word? Good word?
Lindelof: Yes.
Scott: The inception was a relatively short space of time.
Lindelof: There's been a massive amount of trust, I think. The Fox executive we've been working with most - other than Tom Rothman, who's been amazing - is this guy Steve Asbell, who is a massive Ridley Scott fan and a massive science-fiction fan. So he's always looking at the movie through the prism of "I get to this as a job!?!?" as opposed to "I'm giving you notes to shape the movie in the way that I want to" - which can be the downside of the studio experience, but it hasn't been here.

Beaks: I have to ask about the rating. Has that been resolved yet? R or PG-13?

Scott: It will be what it is. At the end of the day, you've got to go for the best movie - and that comes from Tom Rothman basically.
Lindelof: You directed the movie that you wanted to direct though.
Scott: Yeah, yeah. Of course, you go for as stringent as possible. But at the end of the day, it's a pretty good relationship with me and Tom.

Beaks: Shooting in 3D, did that change how you thought compositionally?

Scott: Shooting in 3D? Easy. Very straightforward. I come from the visual side anyway, and I was punished for that for many years when I was trying to do television and film. "Yeah, but he doesn't talk to actors." And I said, "Well, I don't need to talk to actors when I can fucking well make a great picture. After all, Hitchcock said it's all about pictures, isn't it, dude?" Then I gradually learned how to speak to actors, and pulled myself together. I think I've operated on 3,000 commercials and half of my movies I've been the camera operator, so I can tell you what lens to put on eleven cameras in this room. And then working with [director of photography] Dariusz Wolski, who is one of the best, I'd say, of three or four around... it was the first time for me, and he'd just experienced 3D for the first time himself on [PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES]. It was easy. That said, his team below will read this and go, "Motherfucker!"
Lindelof: (Laughs) "We made it easy for him!"
Scott: I was standing on the platform going "No! Next! This! That! This! That! Boom! Boom!", and down below they're on cables and wires, pulling levers and cogs and shit. So I'm sure there were [problems] I wasn't aware of.
Lindelof: Again, from the fanboy perspective, you take a guy like Ridley, who's a brilliant visual storyteller, but he's been drawing with the same six crayons all this time. And then you suddenly say, "Hey, did you know that there's actually sixty-four crayons?" It was amazing to watch the facility with which you used those new tools. I love that you shot it in 3D, and it's not a conversion.
Scott: You could shoot this scene as a conversation piece in 3D, and there is no question it would add to the universe of the scene. There's no question about it. What you don't realize is that you see in 3D. You've got two cameras. (Points to my eyes.). You've got parallax. That's how you see in 3D. But your brain gets so used to seeing in 3D that you think you see in 2D. You don't. All that 3D does now is remind you that this is what you already see like. That's all it is.


And this June 6th, Sir Ridley Scott will hopefully remind us what it's like to be scared senseless with PROMETHEUS.

Faithfully submitted,

Mr. Beaks

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 18, 2012, 12:11 a.m. CST

    The marketing from this weekend sold me

    by OutsideChance

    Im there

  • March 18, 2012, 12:18 a.m. CST

    Please be rated R.

    by SebastianHaff

    Please be rated R.

  • March 18, 2012, 12:18 a.m. CST


    by Tony fucknuts

    Yes, certainly. But I'm sold. Looks fucking unreal.

  • March 18, 2012, 12:18 a.m. CST

    cant wait

    by KHjLL

  • March 18, 2012, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Holy Fucking Shit.

    by DickBallsworth

    Cautiously optimistic, but this looks like it will kick all kinds of unholy ass. And I am THERE.

  • March 18, 2012, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Thanks, Beaks

    by Sgt.Steiner

    Awesome fucking interview. Sending psychic wave to Tom Rothman.... R-rating....R-rating...R-rating....

  • March 18, 2012, 12:23 a.m. CST

    Ridley GETS 3d.

    by gotilk

    That's right. Don't like it, pluck an eye out. This man will do it right. I think our *3d My Dinner With Andre* is still a few years off, but it will happen and many people will wonder why we didn't do it 20 years ago. It's just the way we see. Like color.

  • March 18, 2012, 12:24 a.m. CST

    And yes you got the best out of your 10 minutes.

    by gotilk

    Great interview. I'm not sure I've EVER been this excited to see a new film.

  • March 18, 2012, 12:26 a.m. CST

    I can't even believe how good the movie looks...

    by sonnyfern

    That trailer freaking blew me away...I just hope the movie lives up to it!

  • March 18, 2012, 1 a.m. CST

    If the theatrical version isn't R-rated...

    by Mike

    ...(which I suspect may end up being the case, because the studio is going to try and bring as large an audience as they can...) the Blu-Ray will probably be uncut and unrated.

  • March 18, 2012, 1:02 a.m. CST

    i think fox went for it as fast as they did only if it was 3D

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    no 3D no movie - of course ridley scott went along - that or dont make it - i cant see 3D movies (one eye) - so im bias - but even if i could my opinion would be the same - gimmick - they used to be called "moving pictures" for a reason - they are moving photographs - 3D cant make a movie better - or, in my opinion, the experience of watching a movie better - they were intended to be seen 2 dimensionally - that said, this movie looks great

  • didn't think i'd be like that originally, but there you go. What we've been shown has all the elements of a great piece of intense science fiction, there's no reason in my mind SO FAR there needs to be explicit violence and language to make it better. There's certainly a cool feeling an R rating gives a film though that says "anything could happen", but again, i trust Scott to be making the best decisions here. i'm on board 100%.

  • March 18, 2012, 1:09 a.m. CST

    also, how is this guy fucking 70??

    by mojination

    what a machine!

  • March 18, 2012, 1:32 a.m. CST

    Looks the astronauts are turning into space jockeys

    by solanine

    Or some kind of proto xenomorph

  • March 18, 2012, 2:23 a.m. CST

    I'm a little concerned about the PG-13 vs. R thing

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    The majority of this movie isn't going to turn into some "smart" sci-fi crap about corporation greed, aliens are god and we should question, etc. with the horror being on the backburner (allowing for a potential PG-13). Like is the red head the star of this and we're going to learn about here explorations, convincing others to believe in her cooky theory, and getting used to deep space travel for 2/3 of the movie? I'm so pumped to see this, but that just is the nightmare scenerio I see.

  • in reality we only really focus with one eye at a time (try it). 3D forces us to focus with both at once (hence some people getting headaches). The scale thing is a deal breaker for me though.

  • March 18, 2012, 2:28 a.m. CST

    It Doesn't Even Matter...

    by chad kuhns

    ...if this film has anything concrete to do with Alien whatsoever. All the marketing from this weekend, along with just the obvious confidence and appreciation Sir Ridley has for science fiction and his own lineage in that universe have sold me on this film. It's the one film this summer that doesn't feel like it needs a massive hype machine, and probably the only film that feels like there is no way it won't exceed expectations. Guess that's the beauty of taking a break from the genre for 20 years. You get to come back fresh and turn it on it's head all over again.

  • "I don't need to talk to actors, I can fucking well shoot a picture." -Sir Ridley Scott Good stuff.

  • March 18, 2012, 3 a.m. CST

    I have a feeling there won't be any "Aliens"

    by AllPowerfulWizardOfOz

    There will only be the race of the space jockey in terms of any kind of life form that is not human for the majority of this film. This will be the only link to the "Alien" universe until the very end of the movie when the Space Jockey encounters an "Alien" egg and the movie ends cold with him getting face hugged. Based on what SRS said in this interview and looking at the full trailer frame by frame my gut tells me that the "Aliens" only get a cameo which will come at the end to tie it all together.

  • March 18, 2012, 3:02 a.m. CST

    Prometheus is alluding to The Modern Prometheus/Frankenstein.

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • March 18, 2012, 3:10 a.m. CST

    Good interview!


    Nice work. Good questions and interesting answers.

  • March 18, 2012, 3:40 a.m. CST

    Those banking on Aliens being in the movie...

    by Andrew Coleman

    Should probably fuck off. I hate that mindset. Like the Venom lovers who bitched and complained so long and hard for Venom in Spider-man so execs arm pulled Venom into Sp3 and ruined it. Fuck the aliens those acid blood cock suckers don't even need to be in this movie for one second for it to kick all sorts of ass.

  • March 18, 2012, 3:41 a.m. CST

    There was a live Q&A with Scott and Lindelof last night.

    by KilliK

    you can see it in replay here:

  • Can I read this interview without getting some massive spoilers?

  • March 18, 2012, 4:02 a.m. CST

    First off John Carter ruled and secondly...

    by Andrew Coleman

    It says SPOILER ALERT at the top clearly. So you kept reading if you read spoilers it's your fault.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:17 a.m. CST

    The best use of 3D is and has always been Muppetvision.

    by UltraTron

    When that little Waldo guy points right at your nose. Ever since then I've heard nothing but this bullshit added sense of depth crap. Nobody has since been man enough to bring the Muppetvision nose touch to cinema audiences. Not even Cameron. Shiiit. No one has even made anything as good as the t3D ride at universal. 3D shit that comes out and hangs out in front of you. 3D is all this and that when it's done for a movie that will play both ways. True 3D reaches out and touches your nose while talking directly at "just you". I love you Waldo! You little Waldo rigged 3D animated state of the art made before all this shit motherfucker.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:21 a.m. CST

    Don't agree with his assessment on 3D

    by richievanderlow

    But .. I'd be willing to give it a shot on a movie like this if Ridley says this is how it should be viewed.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:26 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah I forget every game I play in 3D has moments like that.

    by UltraTron

    Sorry film. You've been so obsolete for so many years I forget that you can only work within a 2 hour time frame. If Ridley announced that he was making this entertainment spectacle in conjunction with Rockstar games using their new face tech and 3D.. Well then you might have the new evolution of entertainment

  • The movie is about the Space Jockey. They extrapolated from that. But it still fits into Alien. Scott keeps saying "Oh, it's related to Alien but not really" is just him trying to be an artist and separate himself from doing the same thing he did before. I'm sure I had a point in there somewhere but I'm drunk and it's 5:30 AM and I need to finish my beer and have a smoke and go to bed. Rah, rah, Prometheus, rah! Everybody on the ship turns into Aliens. The end. Spoiler alert.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:42 a.m. CST

    Totally. I mean what the fuck is all this bullshit?

    by UltraTron

    An alien movie with all the production design of an alien movie with the same music from the alien trailer in the trailer. This better be a fucking alien movie or I'm already suing you for false advertising

  • Post S6 Lost premiere, when you found out that Locke was really Smokey, he repeated ad nausem in various formats that (and I'm drunkenly paraphrasing right now): "As the audience, you question should change from 'What is the Smokey Monster' to 'Who is the Smoke Monster'?" The answer? Space Jockey had parental figure issues. And everybody on the ship turns into Aliens. There. I just saved you 13 bucks.

  • I assure you, out of everyone reading this talkback, I am the most alcoholic geek of anyone visiting this webpage. BO-YAH! WINNING! etc.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:46 a.m. CST

    he's 70 years old?!

    by antonphd

    well, i don't feel so bad about how awesome alien and blade runner were considering the fact that he was in his 40s i thought he must have been some kind of prodigy or something if he did it in his 20s goddamn hope

  • March 18, 2012, 4:49 a.m. CST

    of course we see in 3d

    by antonphd

    just when i forgot how dumb the talk back can be i read a comment about how we see in 2d obviously from someone who doesn't play sports

  • March 18, 2012, 4:52 a.m. CST

    myphdisdoom: yeah!

    by UltraTron

    Everyone who thinks this is an alien film should fuck off! Who cares if it's got the same exact designs, creature designs, music in the trailer, etc from Alien(79). You shouldn't be swayed into thinking this has anything to do with Alien(79) by those things. You should take a power drill to these specific areas of your brain to ensure that none of these false associations are made

  • Read between the lines of saying it's a "pretty good" relationship between Scott and Rothman equals "He holds the purse strings so I gotta do what he wants but we'll both be incredibly nice aboot it cuz there's cold hard cash on the line." Yay, PG-13! FUCKING YAY!!!!

  • I. Don't. Fucking. Get. It. Must watch trailer again.

  • March 18, 2012, 5:03 a.m. CST

    It will be creepy if we find out that

    by UltraTron

    that the aliens are based on human DNA from the Prometheus crew. Make sense what with the aliens human looking skulls under the translucent skin and the human looking metal teeth and.. Well fuck I just hope it isn't female predators wearing augmented space jockey bio-suits to facilitate production of predator weaponry and to keep predator males from going all Muslim on them like Dasizgoot reported.

  • March 18, 2012, 5:11 a.m. CST

    Ridley Scott is full of shit.

    by KilliK

    In the QA live chat,he said that he doesnt want to make the same old things he did in the past,that's why he decided to turn the original Alien prequel script into something bigger,into Prometheus. He forgets though that his original official announcement was that he was going to make an Alien prequel and later that prequel movie was green-lighted as the Prometheus film.And that change came directly from the FOX studio for obvious reasons and not Scott himself. Besides why did he announced a few months ago that he wanted to make a BR sequel? isnt this a case of doing the same,old,shit? And if he wanted to do something entirely new then why: 1.He didnt make the Forever War as he was planning for years now? 2.He didnt make Prometheus as an independent scifi movie with no connections in the Alien universe? As i said the old guy is full of shit.I understand why he has to lie,you simply dont tell to the public what happens behind the curtains when making a new movie but he should try to find better fake explanations for his actions and his motivations.

  • I don't mind that he is playing in the Alienverse now, since the latter Alien films kind of fucked up that series. A Blade Runner II though? We haven't had any sequels to taint that one, and I think it is wiser to leave it be. The Forever War would be new ground to cover without having to worry about fitting the story with an already established mythology like we have with Prometheus leading into Alien. I wonder if they waited too long to get The Forever War going. Remember when not too long after Avatar mania hit, Ridley said he was going to make The Forever War in 3D using the technology that James Cameron used on Avatar? Had he got that one going right away instead of being stuck finishing up Robin Hood and having to worry about what they called Prometheus -- the Alien prequel at the time, maybe the studio would have been keen to get on the Avatar sci-fi/3D bandwagon and green light The Forever War? Now it seems Sir Ridley is no longer interested in The Forever War.

  • March 18, 2012, 6 a.m. CST

    Ridley Scott has been interested in THE FOREVER WAR for decades...

    by godoffireinhell

    ...and I'm sure he'd have preferred getting to shoot that one instead of PROMETHEUS but obviously the studios are reluctant to give any director $250-300 million for an unproven and not-yet-branded property when instead they can play it save and make new installments in established franchises. You may bring up AVATAR as an example that contradicts the above but I figure the greenlight for that one had a lot to do with Cameron's track record with Fox and the mad money he made them in the past as well as the promise of changing thousands of theater screens to 3D screens, promising more money for the studio from many future productions even if AVATAR should not light the box office on fire the way it ultimately did. There's JOHN CARTER right now to prove those suits right but maybe if PROMETHEUS sets the box office on fire Scott will have the clout to make an original science fiction film. If it only does alright ($600 million worldwide or less, the number necessary to break even) then he'll be stuck making other films, possibly including the BLADE RUNNER whatever-quel.

  • March 18, 2012, 6:40 a.m. CST

    I fucking hate that word ' Franchise'

    by alan_poon

    He didn't create a franchise, he created a masterpiece in film making. Franchise is a word that's usually connected with making large sums of money. Is that what Ridley Scott intended?

  • March 18, 2012, 7:13 a.m. CST

    lv_426, her her. THE FOREVER WARS has been too long in the waiting.

    by AsimovLives

    and if Ridley Scott keeps delaying it, some hack fuck like jar jar abrams might do it instead and fuck it all up beyond any possible recognitition and fuck it up forever.

  • why doesn't he have final cut on his own films, dammit?

  • March 18, 2012, 7:49 a.m. CST


    by Lemmys_E_string

    "As i said the old guy is full of shit".... bloody hell, by all means have an opinion on someone and the films they make, but how about, you know, just a modicum of respect someone you only know through the work they produce in their chosen profession.

  • March 18, 2012, 8:15 a.m. CST

    @lemmys_e_string what the hell are you talking about?

    by KilliK

    that i shouldnt criticize what someone says because of his contribution to the art of cinema? because that's what i did,i criticized what he said,i didnt say anything at all about him as a person. And even if wanted to criticize someone in a personal level,having made some great movies wouldnt have stopped me from doing it. got it?

  • March 18, 2012, 8:36 a.m. CST


    by FluffyUnbound

    You would think that KINGDOM OF HEAVEN would have ended all this nonsense of Ridley not having automatic final cut. That's pretty much the worst case scenario here: a situation where the difference in the quality of the final product between the theatrical version and Ridley's version for PROMETHEUS is as wide as it was for KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Yes, there's a wide difference in quality in the BLADE RUNNER cuts, too - but the theatrical release of BR was still a great film. With KoH, the theatrical version BLOWS compared to Ridley's cut.

  • March 18, 2012, 8:39 a.m. CST

    Great short imformative interview!!

    by ATARI

    I love Ridley's attitude.<br> <br> And I don't care that the final rating will be PG-13 (you all know this to be true). Because I'll be buying the unrated extended edition blu when it comes out.<br> <br> Can not wait until June 8th. <br>

  • March 18, 2012, 8:45 a.m. CST

    @fluffyunbound i agree

    by KilliK

  • Lindeloff seemed to get that and try and clarify it in his follow-up answers.

  • March 18, 2012, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Who wants to lay odds on a massive disappointment?

    by NeonFrisbee

    You realize you're setting yourselves up for one, right? I want to see it, but my expectations are low. (Being hobbled by PG-13 isn't helping matters.) Those of you setting yourselves up for the second coming of Alien and/or Blade Runner are almost certainly going to be buzzkilled.

  • March 18, 2012, 10:12 a.m. CST

    "It's very hard to describe what this movie is"....?

    by LowDevil

    Did Lindelof fuck this up trying to go too deep and fail (Lost)?? This looks so great so far but following some of his comments now make me unsure. Scott we can trust but Linelof wrote the script and like Lost, added as they went along. Which was a disaster.

  • March 18, 2012, 10:18 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    i know what you mean, and that has been my biggest fear about this movie. I'm very hopeful about this movie, but in the ack of my head is always this though "but what if it doesn't live up?".

  • March 18, 2012, 10:19 a.m. CST

    re: "I fucking hate that word ' Franchise'"

    by buggerbugger

    Same here. Glad to see there's two of us, alan. No talkbacker should use that scummy word to describe anything they care about.

  • March 18, 2012, 10:24 a.m. CST

    Space jockey...

    by BeMoreFunny

    How important were they in Alien? I haven't seen that film in a few years and don't remember every detail. What part of the film did they feature in? Was it a major thing or just a throwaway background image? lso Ridley Scott hasn't made a great film in how many years, ten? I don't see why everyone seems to be assuming this will automatically be equal to Alien or Blade Runner--he hasn't had that fastball in a long time.

  • March 18, 2012, 10:28 a.m. CST

    damon lindelof wrote it.

    by JAMF

    nuff said. i won't hold my breath for this one.

  • March 18, 2012, 10:31 a.m. CST

    Who are they and why

    by DinoBass

    Those types of comments concern me and temper my enthusiasm. I hate it when a movie explains away too much of the mystery. Is the Space Jockey in Alien a gunner, navigator, or something entirely different and incomprehensible? I hope that Prometheus answers that question in a way that opens up other mysteries.

  • March 18, 2012, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Again we are in the hands of that mfucker Tom Rothman

    by Frye777

    great! the guy will push for a PG-13 rating. he is a fag.

  • He really looks energized by new technology, and wants to use it to make the film better and not detract from it. He doesn't look 74 at all either.

  • March 18, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Why can't they release both R and PG-13 versions, dammit?

    by spacechampion

    Studios already release simultaneously in 2D, 3D and Imax, so it should be in the digital film age to release simultaneous PG-13 and R versions and test out their bullshit theories on which one a larger audience will go to see.

  • March 18, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST

    I can't wait to see how they tie it into Predator!!!

    by Squashua


  • March 18, 2012, 11:08 a.m. CST

    After Lost

    by TBon2

    I have no faith in Lindelof. Talk about no answering any questions. And their lame explanation about the ending. It's been two years, and I still feel violated and used.

  • March 18, 2012, 11:29 a.m. CST


    by Jeff

    Damn, that second trailer was intense. Crazy shit looks like it's going to happen in this movie. I'm not the least bit interested to see if "Aliens" are part of it, since we've seen that story a billion fucking times already. This looks different. I like the larger, more frightening aura of what's going on here. It has to do with humanity's evolution, instead of just people fighting and getting eaten by chest-bursting aliens. The horror elements in a film like this, the truly uncompromising, universe-doesn't-fucking-care elements, could really scare people. Plus... and it's a big plus... it's an original story, from an original script! Based on what I've seen, however, this film needs to be R-rated. NEEDS TO BE, no question. Anything less is just silly. I guess we'll see. Good interview, Beaks, by the way. Thanks!

  • I never followed up whether it was fake or not. But this should shed some light on things. --Reuters-- The German website Dasizgoot apparently caught Ridley Scott on his way to lunch and were able to glean the following: the story of Prometheus will combine elements from Bladerunner, Alien and Predator. When asked if the Predators bred humans as slaves to build the pyramids Ridley responded with a solid- "Yes. You will see how that happened. You will also see the origin of the 'alien'."

  • March 18, 2012, 11:45 a.m. CST

    the ancient writing on the walls is very similar to the stuff in AVP


    ugh. i mean i LOVE the idea of predators and aliens being in the same 'universe', but i don't want them in PROMETHEUS. but you know what, whether the shoulder-cannon concept art was fake or not (i think it was)..the jockey telescope/gun? looks just like a large one.

  • Do you know what the actual definition is? A firm which already has a successful product enters into a continuing contractual relationship with other businesses operating under the franchisor's trade name and usually with the franchisor's guidance, in exchange for a fee. It's an ugly concept that can sometimes dilute the impact of the original, through over-exposure and artistic inferiority. Bill Watterson knew this. It applies to heartless, corporate-crafted turds like Bayformers (not an original work), which is itself based off of crass toy marketing from 25 years ago. But not to original films of true greatness, like Alien. To me, the original, inspired work is almost always completely divorced from the corporate gang-rape that follows.

  • March 18, 2012, 11:59 a.m. CST


    by mascan42

    If the recently-leaked script is anything close to what was shot, I don't see how a PG-13 is possible unless 90% of it takes place off-screen.

  • March 18, 2012, 12:24 p.m. CST

    re: Ridley Scott and director's cuts

    by Ribbons

    Generally I agree that the director's cuts make Ridley Scott's movies. The difference is night and day (Blade Runner, Legend, Kingdom of Heaven). However, has anybody here watched both cuts of American Gangster? The theatrical edition is way better, which is strange.

  • March 18, 2012, 12:38 p.m. CST


    by Jeff

    lisab... you're right about people thinking this is going to be a scary film, rather than something larger and more interesting. Sure. But honestly, I think you're just being a bit contrarian at this point. You can't argue that film won't be fucking scary, in perhaps the most creative ways we've seen in a long time. It won't be scary throughout, I agree, as evidenced by Noomi's hopeful blips of "It's a message" scenes in the trailer. But what are people ultimately going to be feeling as they walk out of the theater? Many profound thoughts about our future existence, yes -- hopefully this film will provoke such a response. But after seeing Scott's latest, I predict the overriding feeling will be one of wonder, combined with a visceral "Goddamn, that was fucking scary!" A good scary, but still scary. I think that's what most people here are thinking from the footage we've seen.

  • a R Release would be nice, yes.

  • March 18, 2012, 1:06 p.m. CST

    So, by being in the same universe...

    by The Dum Guy

    One could surmise the Space Jockeys are in conflict with the Predators, since obviously the Space Jockeys are assholes. Honestly, what kind of advanced civilization would make an elaborate pitcher-plant like setup, just to take over a slightly less advanced civilization? Lazy, ones, thats who. At least Predators have the balls to go out and look for things to kill... or have the decency to create a planet devoted just to hunting.

  • March 18, 2012, 1:11 p.m. CST

    how can a kind word ever be said about Tom Rothman

    by TitusPullo

    fucker upper of geek movies for years

  • This movie can't get here quick enough!!!

  • March 18, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST

    no logical reason for this to be PG-13

    by Jobacca

    Its not for kids....and teenagers wont give a damn about it either way. Make it R,no compromises,and watch it melt the box office numbers. Grow some balls FOX....

  • sorry Mr. Scott, i don't see in pop up book/viewmaster vision. things aren't flat cut outs pushed ahead of the background items. :P as for the movie, it does look cool but its nothing amazing or jaw dropping. but i'm not a geek and i dont think the alien movies are amazing, just a fun time at the movies. and bladerunner is a bore beyond boredom but thats pointless to mention as it has nothing to do with this FRANCHISE. ;)

  • March 18, 2012, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Why did Ridley stay away from sci-fi for so long?

    by Nerd Rage

    Anyone know?

  • March 18, 2012, 1:46 p.m. CST

    The debunked leak that was true

    by Raymond_Q_Smuckles

    Remember that leaked synopsis a while back that was debunked as fanfic speculation? It was 100% correct. The whole debunking thing was spin. Look at any of the new trailers and find one second of film that doesnt gibe with the leaked synposis.

  • March 18, 2012, 1:46 p.m. CST

    I wuv Ridley Scott

    by Volllllume3

    But I'm not seeing his sci-fi epic in theaters if it's rated PG-13. Sorry bros, I have to draw the line somewhere.

  • March 18, 2012, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Seriously that was fucking overload!!!!!!

    by MainMan2001

    Scott is making this movie like he has something to prove!!!!!!!! Thank you!!!!! Seriously man thank you!!!!

  • March 18, 2012, 1:53 p.m. CST

    It makes perfect sense to make this PG-13.

    by The Dum Guy

    Look how well it worked for the Die Hard franchise.

  • ...dont'cha think? <p> The movie doesn't get released for another few months. Don't shoot your loads early.

  • March 18, 2012, 2:04 p.m. CST

    mainman2001 - Good luck with that argument

    by Jaka

    It's unwinnable around here lately. Regardless of how much most talkbackers claim to be film lovers, there is a huge contingent at this site right now that insists a movie can't be good if it isn't rated R. To my mind that means they aren't seeing at least 2/3 of all the films released to theaters. *shrug* For what it's worth, I agree with you.

  • March 18, 2012, 2:14 p.m. CST

    It really isn't about the rating that matters...

    by The Dum Guy

    It is the fact that they (studios) release films cut to the minimum in order to garner a PG-13 release, while on the other hand letting the director (for the most part) shoot whatever the hell he wants knowing his version will still be seen by the public when it is released on Blu-ray/DVD. Personally I don't care about a rating, but I am appalled at the blatant fact that we (in essence) receive an inferior product prior to getting what was originally conceived. I watched Live Free of Die Hard in the theaters with the PG-13 rating, but haven't seen the "Un-rated" version, simply because I doubt "motherfucker" and more blood will make that a better picture.

  • March 18, 2012, 2:15 p.m. CST

    I have no worries.

    by Yelsaeb

    That rarely evey happens, but at this point I'm pretty sure this will be a good movie.

  • March 18, 2012, 2:31 p.m. CST

    lisab: I guess I go to movies at off hours or something

    by UltraTron

    because I've never seen so much as a cellphone screen light up in a theater. My perspective is one of someone who sees flawless presentations on a regular basis. It's the movies themselves that tend to fail me. Oh and obviously predators are in this. They are the pussy face and the alien is the dick face. Fffffffffooooommp! Perfect fit!

  • I was wondering when this thread would turn into the phase where bitter nerds start complaining that something looks 'overrated' and 'won't live up to expectations' Problems which ultimately are the fault of the viewer and not the movie. In a year when we're getting a new Ridley Scott scifi/alien film, a 3rd Nolan batman flick, an avengers film, a new spiderman, Bond & Hobbit film, somehow still there are tons of people giving long winded (and usually poorly formatted) posts about how all of these movies look like huge piles of garbage.

  • March 18, 2012, 2:34 p.m. CST

    TWEEKED OUT ON PROMETH....I feel like its about time we get some DKR to chew on.

    by the Green Gargantua

  • ...and just not getting too over hyped for something. I'm excited, but I'm going to temper that excitement with a bit of calm, rationale. Most of the movies I've been this excited for in the last decade have not lived up to the hype. The few that have were made even BETTER by the fact that I kept my expectations at a reasonable level. No doom predicting here, just being careful with the geek out.

  • March 18, 2012, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Unnecessary comma

    by Jaka

    I hate those.

  • March 18, 2012, 2:53 p.m. CST


    by Rebel Scumb

    Don't get me wrong, I try to always keep my expectations in check. I never see movies as the second coming or life changing or anything like that. I'm just excited that we have a bunch of geek movies coming out that have the potential to be a lot of fun. I've seen nothing to keep me from being optimistic about them so I'm going to continue to be so. Cautiously optimistic (for me) is the best approach.

  • March 18, 2012, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Everything's so clean and over-exposed

    by performingmonkey

    Watching the trailer again it saddens me to see yet again a lack of atmosphere thanks to everything being exposed to fuck due to 3D. I KNOW Ridley isn't trying to do Alien again but if you go and check out both that and Blade Runner the cinematography of those movies creates this wondrous atmosphere where you can never be 100% sure what you're seeing. The lighting is sublime in both pictures and they remain two of the most beautiful ever shot, particularly Blade Runner. BR looks even better in 1080p so it's not HD that makes today's movies to 'clean' looking. It's all the bullshit surrounding.

  • March 18, 2012, 3:05 p.m. CST


    by Anthony Torchia

    Please dear God, be R My wife knows Tom Rothman, I asked her if a blowjob would help get him on board, she said only if accompanied by the guarantee of $200 million. Anyone?

  • March 18, 2012, 3:39 p.m. CST


    by Doctor_Strangepork


  • soft and film grainy you can relax. It looks totally cinematic. A master is behind the camera and you can feel it in every shot.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Studio should have the balls to make it R

    by Chris

    'Nuff said.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST


    by NeonFrisbee

    Exactly. I mean, I'm definitely intrigued enough to see it, but I have no illusions that it's going to touch Alien or Blade Runner. I'll settle for "pretty good." Have no delusions of "OMG! HOLY SHIT! WOW!" cause it ain't gonna be that. But pretty good will be good. They should be able to do "pretty good" onna Pg-13 space horror flick.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:23 p.m. CST

    bullshit tallboy6t6

    by phifty2

    Not that I'm exactly proud of my drinking skills I will drink you under the table anytime anywhere. See how I even worked in an ALIENS ref?

  • March 18, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    pretty good is already good enough. not all movies can boast being pretty good, is it not?

  • March 18, 2012, 4:27 p.m. CST

    Re: lisab

    by Jeff

    Some good points you make about audiences getting "so dull-witted, so jaded and so so-called sophisticated that they don't even want that kind of fear-of-the-unknown." For the record, I was never a comic book guy and used to be a... well, a "non-fanboy" fan of Star Wars until George became a corporate conqueror. I've always been a fan of risk-taking films and books, regardless of genre, though science fiction is my bread-and-butter, since I've published three hard science fiction stories over the years. I'm not a writer by trade, I just do it for fun. So to your points about movie audiences, I don't group myself in with most texting, hamburger-chewing viewers. In fact, during all the movies I've ever seen in my area of the country, what you're describing has never once happened. Not even once. It's weird for me to even think about it happening, to be honest, because if the texters didn't stop after I asked them to the first time, I'd probably walk over and punch their fucking lights out. Seriously, I'd be pretty fucking pissed. But it's never happened for me. Even when I've watched movies in the city. I've heard it happens, yes. Quite a lot. Where you've seen movies, it must annoy the hell out of you. People seeing movies where I live tend to fill theaters, but remain quiet and interested the entire movie. I'm not joking, and maybe you think I'm lying, but I'm not. People like me, in my area, will flock to see "Prometheus" and generally won't say a word the entire film. Or text. Or eat hamburgers. Or guffaw with their friends. I know this because I see a lot of films. This is why I'd say your experience with the film-going audience is possibly representative of a larger trend, but it's not fully representative of every part of the country. This is why I feel audiences around me will probably enjoy this film for it's (hopefully R-rated) scariness. Not because they're jaded douchebags who talk during the film.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    i'm less and less worried about the PG-13 rating at this point.

    by AsimovLives

    I'm starting to believe that Scott can deliver even if it's PG-13 rated.

  • No?

  • March 18, 2012, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Expendables 2 will be Rated R!!!

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    Check out Stallonezone or Impace Online.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Expendables 2 will be Rated R!!!

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    Sorry, that was Stallonezone and Impact Online. Both of those have the story -- it's rated R again.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:42 p.m. CST


    by Jeff

    It'd be nice if they simultaneously released R-rated and PG-13 versions of the same movie, dahveed1972. That'd be fucking great. Especially with this one. I can't remember it ever happening before, however. Hope it does, though.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST


    by NeonFrisbee

    Oh yeah, I'm at peace with pretty good. And, as you noted, "pretty good" is still better than "crap" (the default setting for 99% of what gets shoved down our throats lately). I'm def there opening weekend (or close enough to that).

  • March 18, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST

    "The only problem is naked pushups"?

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    Bullshit. I mean granted, I haven't seen the film, but it looks like there's some pretty graphic violence in it... stuff coming out of people, I bet 90% of the cast getting killed in the film... how is any of that going to be shown without doing bloodless quick cuts or cutting things to only be "implied violence"? To say nothing of people not being allowed to talk as people talk.

  • March 18, 2012, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Btw, I guess Theron is also a replicant / robot / whatevers?

    by NeonFrisbee

    Am I the only one who thinks she and Fassbenderbot look strangely related? And not just because they're both hott.

  • What the hell is he talking about? All I'm saying is that the reason they keep showing viral vids that feature the robots is because they are fore-shadowing that the artificial person becomes the bio-mechanical Alien we all know and love. Hence the metal teeth and polarized silicon outer shell. And it's other humanoid features. Is that fassbender in the trailer transforming into the alien? Is that him with alien legs but no tail and his hands are still human looking? Also the predators are the pussy faces to the alien's dick heads. That's all I'm trying to say. You will see them mate in this movie when we find out that aliens are actually the predator's men. All predators we have seen so far are female- hence the pussy on their face. Why does reflecto keep following me?! Make him stop.

  • March 18, 2012, 5:19 p.m. CST

    @neonfrisbee SPOILERS

    by KilliK

    if the leaked plot summary is real,then Theron's character is actually a bioenginered human-hybrid entity created by the Jokeys.

  • March 18, 2012, 5:24 p.m. CST


    by NeonFrisbee

    Oh shit! So she is some kinda replicanty thing? Sweet. Okay, now I'm more and more intrigued.

  • do you have it?

  • March 18, 2012, 5:38 p.m. CST

    It won't let me post links in here

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    But let me try: Go to Stallonezone dot com. Forward slash Wordpress forward slash ?p=4376

  • March 18, 2012, 5:46 p.m. CST

    The space jockeys

    by Relugus

    I'm hoping this is focused on the "space jockeys", as that's much more interesting than the "aliens" which are pretty much mindless xenomorphs. The mysterious alien civilization seems to me much more scarey than any face-hugger.

  • March 18, 2012, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Oh now the aliens are mindless xenomoprhs?

    by KilliK

    it gets better and better,doesnt it?

  • they are officially made from the same studio which has the ownership of both franchises.You can be on denial but that doesnt change the fact that A1,A2,A3,A4,AVP,AVP2,P1,P2,P3 happen in the exact same universe.sorry.

  • March 18, 2012, 6:10 p.m. CST

    and Predators is an abomination for a movie.

    by KilliK

  • and it is a directly connected or set in the same universe of the original,is considered canon. Ridley can say the fuck he wants about this matter but the problem is that he simply cant erase from the existence,these two flicks.He can try to retcon the universe which will probably result in plotholes and contradictions,but he cant force the majority of the average movie audience to believe that the aliens and the universe in AVP are not the same in the Alien movies.

  • Rodriguez's fiasco.

  • March 18, 2012, 6:36 p.m. CST

    deaftOne: oooooh. Ok. Mentioning Predators = troll. Gotcha.

    by UltraTron

    What does mentioning Aliens get me?

  • Unless this is a re-boot then Predators built the pyramids and used humans as slaves. Maybe they had the humans engineered for this purpose in the same way they had the aliens engineered to be used in their hunting rituals. Excuse me if you haven't been keeping up with all these movies that show that. And since it completely fits like a glove that the space jockeys have a cargo hold full of aliens in the original movie- to assume that they are the predator's weapon makers for this particular nasty weapon as well as their shoulder cannons which resemble the space jockey chair is only natural. Also in requiem we see a predator agent take action to prevent an alien outbreak on earth. He seems like a responsible predator chap who doesn't want his ritual weapon getting out of control. He even disolves all evidence of the alien and it's actions. The ritual weapon his space jockey buddies made for him. We also see Ms Yutani receive predator tech.

  • March 18, 2012, 7 p.m. CST

    Perhaps the space jockeys deal arms to several cool alien races

    by UltraTron

  • March 18, 2012, 7:01 p.m. CST

    Predators are just one of the races that uses their geiger-tech.

    by UltraTron

  • March 18, 2012, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Oh and Ms Yutani fore-shadows the Prometheus mission.

    by UltraTron

  • ask FOX,the studio which was so scared to have the Alien name associated in this expensive project,that they changed the script and are marketing it as an entirely new scifi film than a new Alien movie.Hell even Ridley doesnt dare (or is forced by the studio) to officially announce Prometheus as a direct Alien prequel. As a for the rest,someone whi thinks P2 is shit and praises Predators,should see his psychiatrist.

  • March 18, 2012, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Yes this happened in that shitty little requiem movie.

    by UltraTron

  • March 18, 2012, 7:04 p.m. CST

    My point about "mindless xenomorphs"

    by Relugus

    is that the creatures in the Alien and Aliens movies are basically animals. Fantastic, scary animals, but they don't have any greater agenda than using humans as fodder. I like that Ridley is exploring something very different in Prometheus; an advanced alien civilization and what it is planning, but which also has connections to the Alien universe. It does remind me a bit of the Precursors and the Flood in the Halo Universe.

  • March 18, 2012, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Which is just as valid as IronMan 2. Kinda like filler

    by UltraTron

  • Color me excited. After AvP, AvP:R, and Predators; I'm looking forward to a quality entry into this franchise again. Perhaps one right up there with Alien, Aliens, or Predator. We'll see.

  • March 18, 2012, 7:41 p.m. CST

    I am nervous that the "space jockey"...

    by kells

    ...will turn out to be one of the crew members morphed into that form by whatever it is they find. Also wondering if Charlize Theron will end up being the Alien Queen from Aliens...

  • March 18, 2012, 8:09 p.m. CST

    I once argued that energy cannot be created or destroyed...

    by The Dum Guy

    Only change/transferred. To which someone I know said I was wrong, and it is matter that cannot be created or destroyed. To which another person pointed out that we where both half right and half wrong. To FOX the company, anything Alien or Predator is canon, together, for them. In Scott's mind, he can justify anything he does on film (and in press) by saying AvP(s) have nothing to do with 'his' universe, and he is correct. It is similar to how when the Omen was shot, Richard Donner (in his mind) shot the movie as if it was about Peck's character going insane, thinking that his son was the anti-christ, while everything surrounding him was coincidence. However the Studios didn't think that would make for a good sequel.

  • March 18, 2012, 8:13 p.m. CST


    by The Dum Guy

    If you are correct about Theron=Queen, then the implications of the sex scene in A:Resurrection is bizarely erotic...

  • March 18, 2012, 8:19 p.m. CST

    LOL at the buffoon who said we don't see in 3D

    by Mel

    of course we do , we have 2 fucking eyes. Close an eye and try to figure out how close something is to you.

  • March 18, 2012, 8:34 p.m. CST

    I never said they'd be anywhere near this movie.

    by UltraTron

    Dasizgoot reported this and I mentioned it.

  • Based on Scott's comments in this and other interviews, it sounds like the movie he turned in is exactly the movie that he wanted to make. If this is the case, than the rating is relevant only to those who (mistakenly) think that R-rated movies are inherently better than PG-13 movies. Enough with that already! It reminds me of the pretentious "dark and gritty is better" mindset. As has been pointed out in other Talkbacks, the original Alien would probably be rated PG-13 if it were released today (with the possible exclusion of a few F-bombs). Without knowing the exact details of the Prometheus' story, it's impossible for anyone to say that it needs the gore or violence than would warrant an R rating. If it has a strong story and visuals, I don't really care what it's rated.

  • March 18, 2012, 9:18 p.m. CST

    HARRY - how was your set visit to PACIFIC RIM?

    by donnie

    Let us know. Was oriental town exciting?

  • March 18, 2012, 9:57 p.m. CST

    There's only been ONE good movie with a Predator in it.

    by hank henshaw

    And that movie is called "Predator". The rest of them? shit.

  • March 18, 2012, 10:07 p.m. CST

    This trailer gives away a major plot point

    by Jaster Mareel

    If you wanna stay fresh, don't watch it. It's not entirely unsuspected, but I was a little surprised. MORE surprised that they actually put that in a trailer this early. SPOILER!!!!!! I'm talking about the fact that =invitation= is a trap so the evil aliens can find a species they can destroy. That's a pretty big thing to give away at this point. Also they shouldn't has said DICK about Fassbender being a robot goddamnit! One of the best parts of Alien was finding out Bilbo had milk for blood!

  • March 18, 2012, 10:31 p.m. CST

    The rest of the Alien series is de-cannonized?

    by darthwaz1

    It seems that way..

  • March 18, 2012, 10:50 p.m. CST

    Charles Bishop Weyland would kick the shit out of Peter Weyland

    by NeoDevilbaneX

    No, seriously... it seems like the only things that are threatened to be de-canonized are the AVP duology. How would anything we've seen or heard about Prometheus contradict anything in Aliens, Alien 3 or Alien: Resurrection? I see the creation of Cameron's Colonial Marines in the new Weyland website's timeline. The Queen and egg-laying? We already know the Aliens we see in Prometheus are early, bigger "Gorilla" versions... perhaps when left to their own devices for a while they develop they evolve into what we more traditionally regard as the Aliens (Queens, eggsac, egg-laying, etc.). Alien 3? Um, we learned that Aliens take some traits from the lifeforms they chest-burst... I don't see how anything in Prometheus would contradict that (if anything, maybe support it if the Aliens we see in it chestburst from the Jockeys). Alien: Resurrection? That was just human genetic tinkering, kind of its own thing. Oh, and Weyland-Yutani gets bought out by Wal-Mart 200 years after Aliens... shitty for them. AVP and AVP:R obviously can't work for the simple fact that if we see the Aliens GETTING CREATED in 2070 or 2080 or whenever Prometheus takes place in, there can't be Aliens in underground pyramids in 2004 for Predators to mess with. Though even then that could be explained. If the Aliens are like a template that the Jockeys can create/unleash at will (and assumedly would have had this tech for thousands/millions of years... I doubt they just SUDDENLY develop it when the Prometheus arrives) then it's not far-fetched to believe that some Predator hunters once decided to hunt some Space Jockeys and stole that template themselves, or if not the biotech then an actual batch of Aliens directly. The only thing that can't be explained quickly is Charles Bishop Weyland as CEO of Weyland in AVP. The timeline on the Weyland website online right now pretty clearly leaves no room for Charles Weyland anywhere on it, and it has Peter starting the company. Of course, we know precious little about Charles, so maybe his dad had the early startup version of the company (on the timeline, Charles could easily be either the "an Oxford-educated Professor of Comparative Mythology" or "a self-taught engineer" mentioned as Peter's parents) before getting killed by a Predator in 2004. The only survivor of AVP and that whole Weyland expedition was Alexa, and she wouldn't say shit to anybody about what she saw (probably). There'd be a Queen at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean that no one knows about, but so what. In AVP:R we see Yutani getting Predator tech, but that doesn't mean much... just means the seeds are sown for Yutani becoming good competition for Weyland until the two companies get in bed with one another (probably after the horrific failure of the Prometheus mission). So yeah, it can work.

  • March 19, 2012, 12:47 a.m. CST

    It's a message" -- the alien language says "Etagramulfabetz

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • Scott can say and do whatever the fuck he wants with his movies.But he cant eliminate these two films from the general consensus of the audience.Hicks is dead,Ripley is a clone and somewhere there in the arctic there is buried an ancient pyramid with an Alien queen in it.

  • March 19, 2012, 2:32 a.m. CST

    asimovlives, hacks making The Forever War instead of Sir Ridley

    by lv_426

    You know what truly scares me, even more than being butt-raped by a space jockey....? What scares me is that if through the Lindelof connection, J.J. Abrams or the entity know as Orci-Kurtzman manage to somehow weasel their way into the Alien universe for a Prometheus or Aliens sequel. For example, what if Ridley is busy making that Cormac McCarthy script with Fassbender, or goes onto to direct Blade Runner part II or The Forever War after Prometheus, yet 20th Century Fox wants a Prometheus sequel or another Aliens film ASAP?

  • The rating of a film is not determined by the context within elements of a film exist, but by their individual merits and detriments. In short, it is individual shots and incidents (whether they be language, violence, sex, gore, nudity, etc) that affect a rating and not the tone, feel or quality of a film. It is entirely possible to have a very terrifying movie with intense horror sequences and for it to be PG-13 as long as it doesn't show anything or allude to a horrific act. And while the MPAA does often require cuts to made "in context" if something horrible is happening off-camera or if the context pushes it into the adult realm (e.g. we don't SEE anal rape in a film, but hinting that it has/is taken/taking place can cause cuts to be made). There is nothing in alluded to in the PROMETHEUS trailer which - to me - sticks out as an "R" film and you must admit that if the entire movie was just like the trailer, but only more-so, then it'd still make a pretty scary ride. Horror and ratings are not tied, except for audiences (and I know you are out there) who NEED violence and gore to feel scared. In which case, PROMETHEUS may not be able to help you out on that subject if they've constructed a film designed to be PG-13. None-the-less, I doubt the fear-element will be endangered. Only hacks cannot separate the thrills a film can offer and the rating it implies and only hacks are unable to work with a rating to offer you the maximum impact of action, romance, sex or horror.

  • March 19, 2012, 2:44 a.m. CST

    PS - Ridley Scott isn't 70...

    by NZPoe

    ...he's 75.

  • March 19, 2012, 3:12 a.m. CST

    killik the nutless monkey

    by Frye777

    you are just an annoying little fart bullshiting here all day long. get a life fuckface.

  • March 19, 2012, 3:14 a.m. CST


    by Frye777

    when you reply to my comment (which I wont read) do not forget to include: "sorry to break it down to you". you ratfuck.

  • March 19, 2012, 3:20 a.m. CST

    @frye777 oh wow,another tough guy.

    by KilliK

  • lets hope that this will never happen.

  • March 19, 2012, 3:56 a.m. CST

    The more they're revealing, the more it jives with the leaked script

    by i_got_worms

    Starting to think I proooobably shouldn't have read it.....

  • March 19, 2012, 4:06 a.m. CST

    @reflecto cool story bro.

    by KilliK

  • March 19, 2012, 7:24 a.m. CST

    Not excited by PROMETHEUS -- it's just more sci-fi horror

    by Michael Morning

    I'm tired of crap like EVENT HORIZON and SUNSHINE that just end up being generic slasher films in outer space. Sci-Fi horror should've ended with ALIEN. It was an awesome concept then, but now it just rings as hollow and tired. While AVATAR was derivative as hell, at least it wasn't more crappy sci-fi horror. PROMETHEUS is a big set up for what's going to be, in the end, just another run-from-killer-alien movie, albeit with huge special effects. Just not interested.

  • No matter what argument any idiots make... The fact remains... PG-13 means an edited/compromised version of Ridley's vision. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND CAN DEFEND THIS? How can studios expect to bring people to the theaters? They're so worried about the "dying theater experience" well... FIX IT. Not with 3D and not with CGI. With CONTENT. No one wants to see the edited version in theaters. Back in the day, shit was EDITED FOR TELEVISION but at least you knew that if you paid your hard earned money in the theater, you'd get the R version. Today it's the exact opposite. The theater experience is total shit. They have kids running the places. The sound is never right. The projectionists are kids who don't know crap. The content and quality of the films are all geared towards the A.D.D. generation. AND NOW THEY WANT TO THROW IN THE "MAKE EVERY MOVIE PG-13" BIT AS WELL?!?!? How do they expect to pull people like myself out of their homes with a strategy like this?

  • March 19, 2012, 7:28 a.m. CST

    PG-13 release rating, R Director's cut rating. No more discussion.

    by Dr_PepperSpray

    You know it's going to happen.

  • March 19, 2012, 7:37 a.m. CST

    The King's Speech fiasco...


    I've hear a lot of people talking about this... Asking if both PG-13 and R ratings can be done simutaneously. First off. The editing from R to PG-13 of this film was a travesty of stupidity performed by the idiot Weinstiens. None of the film makers supported it. It was a bully move that studios over rode the powers that be to make happen. Secondly, neither versions were ever shown in theaters at the same time. MPAA doesn't allow for this. So even if we got 2 versions, they'd have to release them at separate times. I can't understand how anyone would defend any form of censorship whatsoever and let's be brutally honest here... When we talk about ratings, we're talking about censorship. Do we really need a new adult science fiction drama to be edited down to something 13 year old friendly? What's the point? 13 year olds will see the film anyway, regardless of what it's rated. R ratings certainly did not stop me when I was a kid. I saw Carpenter's THE THING and ALIEN many times. Is it that studios don't expect their parents to tag along with their kids anymore? Is it that modern parents simply drop their kids off at metroplexes to "babysit" them with retarded Disney and Pixar crap and they don't even bother seeing movies anymore? I think this may have some truth to it. WELL - PROMETHEUS IS YOUR CHANCE GUYS! Just try it and see what happens. Older people (and fanboys of course) are the only ones who know what this movie is. We love Ridley Scott and grew up with ALIEN and Blade Runner. YOU ALREADY HAVE US. Thing is, you haven't had us in AGES. People my age in general just don't go to movies anymore because the experience SUCKS ASS. Now you have us. Why not make sure it's the best possible experience then? YOU'LL MAKE YOUR STUPID MONEY BACK. Fucking stupid greedy idiots.

  • March 19, 2012, 7:37 a.m. CST

    nzpoe - I understand where you're coming from but...

    by CptBlood

    You're right. Ratings are based on specific content. Shooting someone can sit in a PG film, stabbing someone bumps it up to 15, stabbing a CGI monster PG, stabbing an actress 15, talking about a rape, pg, actual rape 15 - 18. It's theoretically possible to have a terrifying PG or even U rated film as long as it is carefully cut together. That said, what was the last truely scary PG film you saw ? The last two in recent memory that flirted with horror for a PG audience I can recall were insidious and Don't be afraid of the dark. Both earned 15 certificates despite having very little graphic violence sex or language. I'm not saying Promethius won't be terrifying regardless of its rating, it is possible that Ridley will produce something as genuinely unnerving as the original Alien, but what are the odds ? Name three genuinely scary PG 13 movies from the last 5 years and I'll reconsider my opinion.

  • Film makers today simply suck for the most part. That's the biggest issue. The next issue is studio stupidity. This manifests in all sorts of ways. Studios catering to political correctness/censorship. Studios looking at things like a robot would look at them rather than a being with a soul. (It's the QUALITY that makes a movie win or loose. Nothing more!) The thing that has confused shit is the fact that so many shit films have done well lately. It confused the robots running the studios. They're like "Well Pirahnna 3D did well.. Why doesn't DRIVE 3D do well?" Well... Both of them are stupid movies. And the only reason one did better is fanboys. As I've said before, fanboys are not a good thing always when it comes to box office because they have the ability to make the most shit film succeed. Disney KNOWS this. Look at the garbage they churn out. TRON LEGACY? Are they fucking kidding us? It's like they rub it in our faces. It's like they make it purposely TERRIBLE just because they know that's what fanboys want. Fanboys dont' want realism. They want gay dance numbers... Like what actually HAPPENS in Legacy! Well... I hope we're entering a period where the intelligent will at least put a dent in the stupid. That way the studios can start making intelligent films again for intelligent audiences and make money.

  • That's why Body Snatchers 78 is PG and JAWS is PG but ALIEN and THE THING are R. People need to stop acting like you can blanket apply a rating to ALL sci fi horror. You have to take each individual film on it's own. A film like PROMETHEUS can not be as "shocking" as ALIEN and ALSO cater to 13 year old children.

  • March 19, 2012, 8:27 a.m. CST

    Does the leaked "fake" script sound like it could be PG-13?

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    I haven't read it, but just curious how it would play in this debate.

  • March 19, 2012, 8:31 a.m. CST

    @melgibsoncalledmethenword - I see your buffoon and raise you a moron

    by jazzdownunder

    Yes we see in 3D, but guess what... 3D in the movie theatre is NOT 3D. So yes, anyone that says we don't see in 3D is wrong, but saying that what we see in 3D film is anything like what we see in real life is even wronger. Don't believe me ? Next time you are in a 3D movie try moving your head and seeing how your perspective of the projected stereoscopic image changes... ah, but you see, it doesn't. What you have in front of you is a series of stacked, planar parallax, forced DOF images (in real life your eye controls DOF instead of having to deal with the DOF around it) which FOOL your tiny little brain into THINKING they are seeing 3D. Assuming that it doesn't give you a headache first. Ridley Scott may be a genius film maker (I love his work) but he doesn't understand the physics of 3D if he thinks that what he will present to us is "how we see in real life" (points to eyes).

  • And I'm not talking about things popping out in your face. I mean a whole new way of blocking and framing shots. I was at GDC a few weeks ago, and Sony gave a talk on 3D. They showed a clip from "Pina", which of all things is a documentary on choreography, and it was STUNNING in 3D. I couldn't give two shits about choreography, and now I want to see this film, and in 3D.

  • March 19, 2012, 9:40 a.m. CST

    I blame Alien 4. I avoided all the trailers. If only I knew... if only I knew

    by Domi'sInnerChild

  • March 19, 2012, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Haha. I meant ideas should never be filtered through a rating

    by UltraTron

  • Actually dude. When you're older you may develop the acumen to even understand some of the words in my sentences. But that day is not today my friend.

  • March 19, 2012, 9:58 a.m. CST

    It was fun reflecto.

    by UltraTron

    I fully expect there to be no predators in Alien 7. There. Happy now?

  • March 19, 2012, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Oh I can't resist-

    by UltraTron

    Oh course there's gonna be Predators in this thing. How the fuck can there be aliens if there arn't predators? Predators had the fucking things created in the first place for their hunting rituals. What fucking planet is everyone living on? Did I miss the memo? Ridley is being paid by the same studio isn't he? You are just assuming and hoping that there are no predators in this. So am I. But that doesn't make Dasizgoot's article less valid because the studio hasn't come forward to debunk it. Now I know some of you have worked long and hard to erase your memories of the blasphemy that the end scene in Predator 2 spawned. But let's not forget that the original Alien hints at all these back-stories and that Predator became part of that back-story over the years. That's how they chose to tell it so far. So is it a re-imagining, re-boot, re-make, spin-off or something in between? As far as anything I've seen in the trailers goes this is a straight-up Alien film that the studio is trying to masquerade as something else to avoid the bad taste of AvP. I have not seen anything that goes against what has happened so far in the fox movies

  • March 19, 2012, 10:24 a.m. CST

    Charles Weyland/Peter Weyland could very well be father and son...


    it would make sense that a young peter Weyland existed when his father died in antartica in 2004- the same year he invented an artificial trach-thingamajig.....because wasn't Charles dying of lung or throat cancer or something (in AVP)? seems like Peter would be pushed to working on things related to that...

  • March 19, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST

    And another thing- I can't get the trailer music out of my head.

    by UltraTron

    Bwaaaahhmm, bwaaahhmm, bwaaaaahhmmm, bwaaaaaahhhmm, skreeeee, bwaaaahhmmm, skreeeee, bwaaaaahhhmm, skreeeee.... Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Make it stop!!!!

  • March 19, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    myphdisdoom, you suck your dad off with that mouth?

    by Nick

  • March 19, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    @ jazzdownunder

    by Dollar Bird

    Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment about why a 3D movie does not mimic actual vision. Gold star for you.

  • March 19, 2012, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Did you guys hear about the pirate movie? It was rated...

    by frank

    PG-13. To maximize profits.

  • March 19, 2012, 11:07 a.m. CST

    PG-13 plus Non-Post Converted 3D = Big Bucks

    by Nick

  • March 19, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST

    GOOD MOVIE = Big bucks


  • March 19, 2012, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Alien would not be rated PG-13 if it was released today.

    by Volllllume3

    Stop making this shit up. Neither would Aliens or Terminator or T2 or Predator or [insert]R-rated movie[/insert]

  • March 19, 2012, 12:31 p.m. CST

    @mentaldominance: "GOOD MOVIE = Big bucks" ...

    by Dollar Bird

    I trust you do not believe this always to be the case.

  • I was at the Wondercon panel. It's clear this is an Alien prequel, and it's clear that what happens in it will leave no room for AVP's storyline.

  • March 19, 2012, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Just remember, Pretty Woman, Jerry MaGuire, and Gladiator were rated R

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    Don't neuter this.

  • March 19, 2012, 2:28 p.m. CST

    In Scott We Trust

    by AsimovLives

  • March 19, 2012, 2:48 p.m. CST

    John Carter at $180 million worldwide...

    by Mattman

    what a huge bomb!

  • March 19, 2012, 3:54 p.m. CST

    180 million worldwide, still over 100 million in the hole

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    Probably more. Who knows what the international marketting budget was.

  • March 19, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Mentaldominance has never trusted Disney, and he never will

    by Mattman

    He'll never forgive them for the death of his boy.

  • March 19, 2012, 4:38 p.m. CST


    by Dollar Bird

    It's true, bad movies sometimes make money. But it's also true that good movies sometimes don't make money. I don't think I need to remind you that both "Blade Runner" and "Carpenter's The Thing" were seen as financial failures during their theatrical release. (Though perhaps you don't think those are good movies, and therefore deserving of their low financial returns.)

  • March 19, 2012, 5:10 p.m. CST

    If only studios could figure out how to only make good movies on any budget

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    Then we could determine box office purely by the amount of Nic Cage onscreen.

  • March 19, 2012, 5:46 p.m. CST

    LOL. People actually think 3D film mimics how we see?!

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Holy fuck, people are ignorant. Stop learning about life through movies and celebrities.

  • March 19, 2012, 5:46 p.m. CST

    The thing was a failure because of that shitty E.T. kiddy crap.

    by UltraTron

    Then Warner bros pays Spielberg 25 mil for the rights to the E.T. 2600 game with only 6 weeks to make the game and the game sucked. Then the stock report comes out that Atari lost money from the previous year and suddenly everyone is so fucking swayed by that report they think video games are a dead fad. Then the video game industry completely crashes down around our ankles because of shitty kiddy crap E.T. Then Nintendo comes out with the entertainment system. They just change the name from video game to entertainment system. Then they suddenly own 90% of the gazillion dollar video game industry that never went anywhere. It's just that people are fucking retarded and swayed by anything on the tv. Oh they lost money?! Oh then all video games must suck then- next! Yes this all happened because of that little disgusting burn victim mutant telescope neck lizard creature star wars character. Yeah remember that fucker's whole family is in one of the prequels. I'd like to plaster E.T.'s brains on a wall in front of children.

  • March 19, 2012, 5:52 p.m. CST

    Oscar Goldman is so stupid he just pecks all over the place.

    by UltraTron

    -that's because he is a little chicken Ricky

  • March 19, 2012, 5:55 p.m. CST

    The TV tells me to go see John Carter every commercial break

    by Domi'sInnerChild

  • It was the poor sales Atari's new system. although ET does hold some responsibility for the whole mess.

  • March 19, 2012, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Ridley Scott: King of the director's cut...

    by darthwaz1

    seriously, every movie..

  • March 19, 2012, 6:04 p.m. CST

    LV-426 controversy

    by darthwaz1

    In Alien, it's a brown planet, in Aliens it's a gray planet..what gives!?!

  • March 19, 2012, 6:06 p.m. CST

    You didnt pay attention to what Ridley said about 3D.

    by KilliK

    He said that all the movies are already 3D but the stereoscopic technology helps our eyes to see the movies as something with depth than something which is put on a 2D surface,the silver screen in this case.And he is right,3DS is about enhancing the already captured 3D world of the movies,not replicating the real world 3D vision.

  • March 19, 2012, 6:10 p.m. CST

    Ted Talk

    by rakesh patel

    everyones seen this right?

  • March 19, 2012, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Not criticizing what Ridley said

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    but all the fools I've seen for the past couple years demanding that 3D cinematography replicates how we see things. The most impressive and effective bits of 3D depth I've seen in films are the cryo chamber scene in Avatar and the whole of Cave of Forgotten Dreams. So yes, it can and does work.

  • March 19, 2012, 7:01 p.m. CST


    by Ditch Brodie

    According to Deadline Hollywood Daily, "Disney’s $200M write down for John Carter appears to be the biggest loss to date for a single film — exceeding the inflation adjusted $147M deficit from Cutthroat Island". Therefore you are correct: John Carter is a huge bomb.

  • March 19, 2012, 7:22 p.m. CST

    ditch brodie, oh so now you choose to believe Disney?

    by Mattman

    I love how you guys will believe whichever source is the most apocalyptic and favors your opinion. John Carter has not concluded its worldwide run yet. $180 in the first two weeks, and it's not done. It's a bit premature to call it their biggest loss to date when it's still going. They can say that all they want (and it's in their best interests, btw, to now play up the loss... since they can't claim it's a success).

  • Showscan is to 3D what Color photography is a cave drawing. Yeah, that's exaggerating, but Showscan is truly a stunning process. Once you see it, the Viewmaster 2D effect of "3D" is not even in the same ballpark.

  • March 19, 2012, 8 p.m. CST

    darthwaz1 , It's called terra-forming man, get to know it.

    by the Green Gargantua

  • That was you, right?

  • March 19, 2012, 8:07 p.m. CST


    by darthwaz1

    Ok, so terra-forming can change the color of the planet, but what about the rings around the planet in Alien? No rings in Aliens!!

  • March 19, 2012, 8:34 p.m. CST


    by Ditch Brodie

    You asked me "so now you choose to believe Disney?" Are you implying that I didn't before? I'm confused. Also please cite evidence that backs your claim that, aside from my single post above, (which is backed up by published sources) I "believe whichever source is the most apocalyptic and favors [my] opinion." Finally, how is it in Disney's best interest to "play up the loss"? How does it benefit them to declare that their losses exceeded most expectations and that John Carter is the biggest bomb of all time? Please cite empirical evidence that backs up your claim. Did Carolco play up their box office losses when Cutthroat Island came out? Does Disney really want to brag that they have the biggest box office bomb of all time? Why not just say they lost $100 million? That way they could play up the loss but still be in the midrange of bombs. Once again I'm confused.

  • March 19, 2012, 9:44 p.m. CST

    I think Avatar poisoned the audience to John Carter

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    There was no way people would go to it in droves a year later. It's like if there was a less interesting boat disaster movie coming out a year after Titanic with some unknown star and director claiming to be the original story Titanic cribbed from and better overall (despite the critics saying otherwise). Good luck.

  • March 19, 2012, 10:13 p.m. CST

    It's a completely over rated film.


  • March 19, 2012, 10:35 p.m. CST


    by xsikal

    Avatar came out in 2009, not "a year before John Carter" People unfamiliar with the source did not want to see John Carter because the marketing did not in any way tell them wtf it was supposed to be about.

  • March 19, 2012, 11:03 p.m. CST

    this talkback is about John Carter now?


    The marketing wasn't the problem. While the marketing was poor, a good film should be able to overcome it. Especially a film backed with $250 million in production value. Ultimately it was the content of the trailers that turned many people off. And their suspicions were right: it's a mediocre movie. One of the common criticisms is the casting. After actually watching the movie I think the casting of John Carter was o.k., he's a pretty good actor. I could see Taylor Kitsch starring in a successful James Cameron-directed John Carter film. There's a myriad of problems with the film, including the casting of other characters. There were also some moments that I thought were really great, which were all weighed down by a weak script, weak characters, and weak art direction: I disliked the art style in nearly every department; costume design, creature design, set design, you name it.

  • March 19, 2012, 11:31 p.m. CST

    mattman, no I didn't Twitter Sir Ridley

    by lv_426

    Or crap, that sounds wrong! Anyways, it was probably was some other planet posing as LV-426.

  • I think that in Alien, there were just a few wide shots that showed the big gas giant that LV-426 is a moon of. In Aliens, it seems the widest shot we have of the planet is during the initial approach the Sulaco makes. It is a tighter shot than we see in Alien, and seems to be just showing LV-426/Acheron and not anymore of the gas giant. Then when the marines are on the surface near the colony, the cloud cover is pretty thick. I always assumed that it was just too cloudy to see the gas giant in the sky, or that it was just not framed in any of the shots if you know what I mean. I doubt Cameron overlooked any of that, as in Avatar he had Pandora as a moon of the gas giant Polyphemus.

  • Not that E.T. is bad, but I do think it is overrated. I still prefer Close Encounters as well, if we are talking Spielberg alien movies.

  • Since it wasn't successful, they will now play up its failure to get the biggest write off possible. Which means they will inflate the numbers as much as possible. It's shady that they're already claiming this in the SECOND week, despite the fact that it's made $180 million and will still bring in more cash.

  • March 20, 2012, 12:13 a.m. CST

    The Thing vs. E.T... kinda depends on what mood I'm in

    by Mattman

  • He is freaking retarded, not a super intelligence, a seriously stupid creature that could be lured into the pit of disease by candy.

  • March 20, 2012, 2:36 a.m. CST

    Re: "Franchise"

    by Relugus

    It applies to heartless, corporate-crafted turds like Bayformers (not an original work), which is itself based off of crass toy marketing from 25 years ago.

  • March 20, 2012, 2:47 a.m. CST

    Hollywood shitting on source material

    by Relugus

    It applies to heartless, corporate-crafted turds like Bayformers (not an original work), which is itself based off of crass toy marketing from 25 years ago.

  • March 20, 2012, 2:47 a.m. CST


    by Relugus

    It applies to heartless, corporate-crafted turds like Bayformers (not an original work), which is itself based off of crass toy marketing from 25 years ago.

  • Prometheus is being made by a man who understands the source material, given he had a hand in creating it in the first place. "Franchise" is merely a term, which can be either good or bad. Except Simon Furman and other comic writers in the UK made it into great science fiction with strong characterisation and complex plots. The origin of the Transformers in the UK comic is genius, whereas Bayformers is Hollywood trite. Bayformers, like Aliens Vs Predator, rapes the source materials and totally misses the point of them.

  • March 20, 2012, 3:23 a.m. CST

    RE: John Carter

    by rakesh patel

    never heard of the story before, didnt know what it was about. the other thing that put me off was the trailers. seemed just a massive cgi fest.

  • March 20, 2012, 4:07 a.m. CST

    Super jacked to see this

    by smudgewhat

    Humans gonna get served. Badly.

  • March 20, 2012, 6:17 a.m. CST

    Will derh be Predehtors in dis moo vie?


    I hope derh will be. Nyyyyaggahh! get to dee choppah!!

  • March 20, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    @ Relugus...

    by 3774

    ...if you use quotation marks, most of your post will disappear. Random sections of your post will often disappear if you use other marks (such as brackets, asterisks, etc) as well, but not always.

  • March 20, 2012, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Just prep for PG-13. He did say it's up to Rothman.

    by Larry Sellers

    And think of every PG-13 movie you've ever seen that was good, and you'll realize that it doesn't really matter. A PG-13 to studios is basically a BUT WHAT IF rating. BUT WHAT IF pre-teens are interested?? BUT WHAT IF parents want to feel safe bringing their kids to this?? It's a safety net rating. Yeah, it's bullshit. But you know, studios gotta eat and all that.

  • March 20, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST

    larry sellers

    by AsimovLives

    by eatinjg you mean snorting cocaine and Ferrari shopping sprees. But i got your point.

  • And not just on FX and AMC. Some of the crime dramas on networks have R-worthy gore and subject matter.

  • March 20, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Mixed messages on the ratings

    by rhizomeman

    Sounds like R when Ridley says, "It will be what it is. At the end of the day, you've got to go for the best movie." But then sounds like PG-fuckteen when he says, "and that comes from Tom Rothman basically" Oh well...we'll all just have to wait a few more weeks.

  • March 20, 2012, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Re : ditch brodie

    by Real Deal

    Gee. It seems like you want John Carter to bomb by the tone of your comments. Now why would that be since it was a good movie?

  • March 20, 2012, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Re : domi'sinnerchild

    by Real Deal

    My TV doesn't do that. As a matter of fact I haven't seen a commercial for John Carter in over a week. Maybe you need a new TV.

  • March 20, 2012, 7:01 p.m. CST

    Re : mentaldominance

    by Real Deal

    Well here's a grownup ( 59 ) who liked John Carter. One of many.

  • March 20, 2012, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Re : winona_ryders_pussy_juice

    by Real Deal

    " And their suspicions were right: it's a mediocre movie. " I disagree whole heartedly.

  • March 21, 2012, 12:15 a.m. CST

    In The UK Trailer

    by Raskolnikov_was_framed

    The shot of the worm burying into LMGs eye...that's pretty fucking disturbing and is only a tiny bit of the crazy stuff we're going to see...this will be R

  • March 21, 2012, 3:15 a.m. CST

    2:03 and 2:13 = Space Jockey

    by BurntOrange

    You're welcome.

  • March 21, 2012, 2:23 p.m. CST


    by carlanga

  • March 22, 2012, 2:06 p.m. CST

    Sir Ridley Scott...Knight of the Living Dead.

    by cookylamoo

  • ....but you know that this isn't going to happen. We're going to get the watered down PG-13 cut theatrically and then the "unrated director's cut" blu-ray around the end of the year. It truly bothers me that a filmmaker at the level and calibur of Sir Ridley Scott was forced to film the violent sequences in both PG-13 and R rated versions. Abosolutely pointless. Tom Rothman sucks!

  • March 23, 2012, 7 a.m. CST

    There's no getting away from the fact Scott has made some fucking awful films.

    by roboplegicwrongcock

    I mean lets face it, this could go either way as much of Ridley Scott's back catalogue is patchy to say the least. For every Gladiator there's a Kingdom of Heaven. For every Blade Runner there's a GI Jane. Alien - Legend? American Gangster - Hannibal?

  • March 23, 2012, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Fuck you, Ridley. Whoops...SIR Ridley

    by JohnnyKrypton

    I've no desire to see yet another great film get pissed all over. Should've left well enough alone

  • March 23, 2012, 3:33 p.m. CST

    roboplegicwrongcock johnnykrypton

    by macatae

    These two particular muppets should never be allowed on a computer with scum insults about a great director. So easy to contribute utter shite comments which add nothing to the subject. You two should be locked in a padded room together.

  • March 24, 2012, 1:22 p.m. CST

    I hate that word "franchise" too.


    Makes it sound just like a business with no creativity. Something Hollywood can be good at.

  • March 24, 2012, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Be prepared for disappointment on this.


    Some people seem to be hyping it up to be something really special. Just remember making something really special is very hard these days as most things have been done already.

  • March 24, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST



    I've got a horrible feeling that this movie will attempt to explain everything........and ruin it.

  • March 24, 2012, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Sometimes it's better to have mystery than explain everything


    Many film makers don't seem tio understand that anymore.

  • March 25, 2012, 11:37 p.m. CST

    can I hypersleep until this opens??? CANT WAIT

    by Cursum Perficio

  • March 30, 2012, 8:05 a.m. CST


    by HughHoyland

    This movie went to the front of the list of movies to see this year. It looks well...amazing to say the least. But I think tons of people are not looking at this from a logical view but rather some strange rose colored glasses thing were no matter how well told/made the story actually is, it simply cant match the "idea" thats in their heads. Therefore I bet theres a lot of "it sucked!", "boring", "disapointing", "could have been much better" and so on. Nothing could withstand that kind of expectation.

  • March 30, 2012, 1:41 p.m. CST


    by thedoctor28

    I hear what your saying. But this is SRS we are talking about, so there is a chance it will deliver!

  • March 30, 2012, 9:24 p.m. CST


    by HughHoyland

    Agreed. Oh I have no doubt SRS will deliver the goods and show us a fatastic sci-fi story as only he can. Its just the "fans" overblown and sometimes somewhat delusional expectations that could be a pisser after its release.