• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Ridley Scott's Prometheus Trailer

Status
Not open for further replies.
He definitely sounded more gravelly (and notably less Australian :P), and awesome. Some people think he's too theatrical here but I loved it. He owned that 'room'.

And he does sound like John Hurt, haha.
 
Or James Mason, which is what God sounds like*, so that's fitting given the video.

*according to Eddie Izzard
 
When he asked people if they knew who he was, i thought he was going to say...

I am, the batman.


Whats with the fucking stupid voice？
Im getting sick of this hammy over acting.
 
For my final dissertation I wrote about the 'Godlessness of Sci Fi films', with a good portion of it discussing the Alien series. This film looks like it would have made a good talking point as well. But yeah, excited as hell for this.
 
Eh. Would have preferred if the fake TED talk had actually seemed like a TED talk rather than a skilled actor effortlessly reading from a script. Even the king of presentations, Steve Jobs, would never be so dramatic or perfectly spoken.

Still, neat way to advertise a film.
 
Suairyu said:
Eh. Would have preferred if the fake TED talk had actually seemed like a TED talk rather than a skilled actor effortlessly reading from a script. Even the king of presentations, Steve Jobs, would never be so dramatic or perfectly spoken.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It kind of ruins it for me that this feels nothing like a TED talk.
 
Suairyu said:
Eh. Would have preferred if the fake TED talk had actually seemed like a TED talk rather than a skilled actor effortlessly reading from a script. Even the king of presentations, Steve Jobs, would never be so dramatic or perfectly spoken.
Click to expand...

Yea, but was Steve Jobs a super genius who was also Guy Pearce dressed in that suit?


Weyland probably pissed on Jobs' grave before delivering that speech


and then recorded it and played it back to the TED attendants after the fade to black.
 
Suairyu said:
Eh. Would have preferred if the fake TED talk had actually seemed like a TED talk rather than a skilled actor effortlessly reading from a script. Even the king of presentations, Steve Jobs, would never be so dramatic or perfectly spoken.

Still, neat way to advertise a film.
Click to expand...

In the future, public speakers are better public speakers.
 
Also what's with the floaty camera thing? That's sci-fi mistake #1 - just because in the future the technology exists, doesn't mean it'll be used as if it's nothing. By 2100 TED talks will still be done in regular lecture halls with non-levitating cameras, nevermind 2020, simply because what's the point of a levitating camera in that setting?

The Ridley Scott of Alien and Blade Runner would have understood that, man :(
 
Isn't he supposed to be playing this massively egotistical and arrogant CEO, though?

Seems like the kind of person that would rent out a massive stadium just to give a well honed speech on the future aspirations of his company.
 
Suairyu said:
Also what's with the floaty camera thing? That's sci-fi mistake #1 - just because in the future the technology exists, doesn't mean it'll be used as if it's nothing. By 2100 TED talks will still be done in regular lecture halls with non-levitating cameras, nevermind 2020, simply because what's the point of a levitating camera in that setting?

The Ridley Scott of Alien and Blade Runner would have understood that, man :(
Click to expand...

I could see upgraded Skycams being used heavily for a broadcast in a large arena/auditorum.
 
Suairyu said:
Also what's with the floaty camera thing? That's sci-fi mistake #1 - just because in the future the technology exists, doesn't mean it'll be used as if it's nothing. By 2100 TED talks will still be done in regular lecture halls with non-levitating cameras, nevermind 2020, simply because what's the point of a levitating camera in that setting?

The Ridley Scott of Alien and Blade Runner would have understood that, man :(
Click to expand...

it looked more like this: http://www.hizook.com/files/users/3/ARDrone_Helicopter_iPhone_Robot.jpg

makes sense to have one of these in the future, you dont need to set-up camera cranes (important if the event is in a huge hall), you can get shots from every angle and you dont have a camera crew running around.
 
S1kkZ said:
makes sense to have one of these in the future, you dont need to set-up camera cranes (important if the event is in a huge hall), you can get shots from every angle and you dont have a camera crew running around.
Click to expand...
Why would you want shots from every angle for a TED talk?

I mean there's a lot technology could have done for the people aboard the Nostromo, but a lot of it was still analogue and manual tech because that makes cost-effective sense.

Also, the time of this supposed talk is 2023. Seriously.
 
Suairyu said:
Why would you want shots from every angle for a TED talk?

I mean there's a lot technology could have done for the people aboard the Nostromo, but a lot of it was still analogue and manual tech because that makes cost-effective sense.

Also, the time of this supposed talk is 2023. Seriously.
Click to expand...

-why not? its easy to operate, you only need one camera and it could be the standard in the future. setting up a standard camera (or cameras) is a pain in the ass, this mini-helicopter thing would make everything much easier and cheaper.

-like you said, its cost effective. the nostromo is like an old truck, there is just no need for fancy tech on board of a mining ship. why would weyland give high-end tech to its fucking space truckers?

-we already have flying cameras that you can control with your iphone. 10 years in the future, this could be standard mass market tech.
 
Suairyu said:
Why would you want shots from every angle for a TED talk?

I mean there's a lot technology could have done for the people aboard the Nostromo, but a lot of it was still analogue and manual tech because that makes cost-effective sense.

Also, the time of this supposed talk is 2023. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Well, they're sticking to the Alien timeline and this takes place 50 years before the film.

Some of you are looking into this teaser way too much, I think. It was directed by Ridley Scott's son and who knows how much involvement Ridley Scott himself had. Judging from the interview, Lindelof just thought it'd be neat to pull some marketing stunt with TED since he's a fan, and thought it would be appropriate.

I agree it doesn't come off naturalistic at all but I doubt that was the original intention, especially given the amount of cuts and the camera angles used, which are far more dynamic than your usual TED talk.

Here's what Lindelof said:

Lindelof said:
I know there was some discussion about what the scale of this was going to be. I think that it’s probably out there that TEDTalks are going to be happening in arenas and stadiums in 12 years, but we also thought that a guy like Peter Weyland — whose ego is just massive, and the ideas that he’s advancing are nothing short of hubris — that he’d basically say to TED, “If you want me to give a talk, I’m giving it in Wembley Stadium.” So, he could actually bend the idea of what a TEDTalk is to him. Could you get an arena-level crowd to show up and listen to someone talk about ideas? That to me was the cool step outside the realm that we’re all comfortable knowing.

As an aficionado of TED itself and what TED does, I feel the intimacy is very important. I hope that in 2023 it’s still happening in Long Beach on a fairly intimate level, but those talks are available on a widespread basis. But it wouldn’t have been as cool to say, “In 2023, TEDTalks are going to look the same exact way that they do in 2012.”
Click to expand...
 
Wouldn't have been "as cool", no, but it would have been much better sci-fi. This makes me slightly worried for the film itself now.

S1kkZ said:
-we already have flying cameras that you can control with your iphone. 10 years in the future, this could be standard mass market tech.
Click to expand...
We also have cameras that shoot in resolutions 20x greater than 1080p, but they aren't being used to make films. It's just not convincing.

Also, there's the issue of battery - powering a flying camera of sufficient quality for as long as a TED talk?

Yeah, it's all on the fringes of possibility but decent sci-fi - the type that Ridley Scott always set out to make - doesn't deal with the fringes of possibility; it tries to make it feel real, grounded and efficient.
 
Blader5489 said:
In the future, public speakers are better public speakers.
Click to expand...


Man, you'd hope so.



Suairyu said:
Wouldn't have been "as cool", no, but it would have been much better sci-fi. This makes me slightly worried for the film itself now.

We also have cameras that shoot in resolutions 20x greater than 1080p, but they aren't being used to make films. It's just not convincing.

Also, there's the issue of battery - powering a flying camera of sufficient quality for as long as a TED talk?

Yeah, it's all on the fringes of possibility but decent sci-fi - the type that Ridley Scott always set out to make - doesn't deal with the fringes of possibility; it tries to make it feel real, grounded and efficient.
Click to expand...


Right, so interstellar travel and androids are 'real and grounded', but fucking batteries that are slightly less worthless than they are now is somehow unrealistic to you?

Actually, I can't imagine batteries ever being worth a damn either.
 
Suairyu said:
We also have cameras that shoot in resolutions 20x greater than 1080p, but they aren't being used to make films. It's just not convincing.

Also, there's the issue of battery - powering a flying camera of sufficient quality for as long as a TED talk?

Yeah, it's all on the fringes of possibility but decent sci-fi - the type that Ridley Scott always set out to make - doesn't deal with the fringes of possibility; it tries to make it feel real, grounded and efficient.
Click to expand...

fringes of possibility? like the flying cars in blade runner? ;)
we already have the iphone thing, its 399,- and everyone can buy it. its already mass market technology, not some fancy super expensive tech like 8k cameras (or imax cameras). all they need is to put a better camera in there, make the battery last longer and bam. and like i explained before: a flying camera would be very efficient and save a lot of money (mostly for sport events and concerts, not so much for films/tv).
 
I agree Suairyu. But I don't think Ridley Scott had a direct hand in the outcome of this viral. Maybe as an overseer, but I imagine he's probably hard at work in putting together the film and completing it before the deadline three months from now.


A bit OT but:
I can't stop myself from contemplating what a young Tyrell would be like.
I imagine a young Tyrell would have probably been the opposite of a young Weyland.
More philanthropist, meeker, more prone to stuttering and not in a stadium with floating cameras., but rather a humble auditorium.
 
Suairyu said:
Wouldn't have been "as cool", no, but it would have been much better sci-fi. This makes me slightly worried for the film itself now.
Click to expand...

Prometheus is set in 2073. They're capable of interstellar travel at that point. I imagine we won't be. Welcome to most of science fiction?

Blade Runner was set in 2019. We don't have flying cars and remarkably human-like androids. Incongruity!
 
Suairyu said:
Wouldn't have been "as cool", no, but it would have been much better sci-fi. This makes me slightly worried for the film itself now.

We also have cameras that shoot in resolutions 20x greater than 1080p, but they aren't being used to make films. It's just not convincing.

Also, there's the issue of battery - powering a flying camera of sufficient quality for as long as a TED talk?

Yeah, it's all on the fringes of possibility but decent sci-fi - the type that Ridley Scott always set out to make - doesn't deal with the fringes of possibility; it tries to make it feel real, grounded and efficient.
Click to expand...
dkmb86g_409gbsm9mcb_b.jpg


The most successful cell phone in the world 11 years ago. HD TV's were also exceedingly rare, and cost upwards of $5000+ for just 720p. People still bought CD's en masse, GPS tech was not ubiquitous and many, many people still used dial-up internet at 56k or slower.

Who knows what will be in 2023.
 
If you guys honestly don't understand why interstellar travel and flying cars are necessary suspensions of disbelief but something like a flying camera for a tech conference isn't, you must not watch much sci-fi.

It's all the details. You forgive the spaceships or flying cars because the smaller things make sense. You create authenticity with those small details.

Flying camera in a TED talk, even if somewhat possible, isn't authentic. And I don't mean authentic to TED, I mean authentic to a conference.

Zeliard said:
Prometheus is set in 2073. They're capable of interstellar travel at that point. I imagine we won't be. Welcome to most of science fiction?

Blade Runner was set in 2019. We don't have flying cars and remarkably human-like androids. Incongruity!
Click to expand...
This also misses the point. Blade Runner, despite being in 2019, still feels authentic as a world. It's not so much about "what would be possible?" but more about "realistically speaking, where would they cut the corners and just keep doing it as they've always done it?"
 
Suairyu said:
If you guys honestly don't understand why interstellar travel and flying cars are necessary suspensions of disbelief but something like a flying camera for a tech conference isn't, you must not watch much sci-fi.

It's all the details. You forgive the spaceships or flying cars because the smaller things make sense. You create authenticity with those small details.

Flying camera in a TED talk, even if somewhat possible, isn't authentic. And I don't mean authentic to TED, I mean authentic to a conference.
Click to expand...

We forgive those things because we have some sense that these writers and directors aren't seers, and can't see into the future. They can guess, they can extrapolate based on available data, they can talk to futurists, but that's about it. Sometimes they come remarkably close, sometimes they aren't anywhere near, and sometimes it becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy as in Blade Runner's case.

And again, the movie takes place in 2073. So everything in the film will be relevant to that year. Ridley Scott has significantly more leeway to do whatever in year 2073 than he does in year 2023. This video isn't directly relevant to how the film will be; it's viral marketing meant to make a specific impact, and everything about it is designed around that.
 
Suairyu said:
If you guys honestly don't understand why interstellar travel and flying cars are necessary suspensions of disbelief but something like a flying camera for a tech conference isn't, you must not watch much sci-fi.

It's all the details. You forgive the spaceships or flying cars because the smaller things make sense. You create authenticity with those small details.

Flying camera in a TED talk, even if somewhat possible, isn't authentic. And I don't mean authentic to TED, I mean authentic to a conference.

This also misses the point. Blade Runner, despite being in 2019, still feels authentic as a world. It's not so much about "what would be possible?" but more about "realistically speaking, where would they cut the corners and just keep doing it as they've always done it?"
Click to expand...

ok... now I honestly can't tell if you are being serious or not. I don't like accusing anyone of trolling, I know we all have our bizarre hang-ups, but man...

Are you really this fired up over the idea of 'flying cameras' in a futuristic setting (even if this only takes place 11 years away) for a fun little viral marketing bit for an upcoming sci-fi movie?
Did the program that Deckard had in Blade Runner where he could zoom into unseen dimensions of a digital image bother you this much, too? Is that realistic to you in a mere 7 years?

Hell, the NFL has 'floating' cameras over the fields (via 'invisible' wires, of course) for games. Maybe these were more advanced versions of those, if you want to get 'realistic'. :D
 
Suairyu said:
If you guys honestly don't understand why interstellar travel and flying cars are necessary suspensions of disbelief but something like a flying camera for a tech conference isn't, you must not watch much sci-fi.

It's all the details. You forgive the spaceships or flying cars because the smaller things make sense. You create authenticity with those small details.

Flying camera in a TED talk, even if somewhat possible, isn't authentic. And I don't mean authentic to TED, I mean authentic to a conference.

This also misses the point. Blade Runner, despite being in 2019, still feels authentic as a world. It's not so much about "what would be possible?" but more about "realistically speaking, where would they cut the corners and just keep doing it as they've always done it?"
Click to expand...
You're looking way too hard at this thing. It's an inspired piece of 3 minute online marketing to mostly nerds. And the fact is you have no way of knowing what is possible 10 years from now. We could very well see a TED talk in a stadium by then. With flying cameras.
 
TheJollyCorner said:
Did the program that Deckard had in Blade Runner where he could zoom into unseen dimensions of a digital image bother you this much, too? Is that realistic to you in a mere 7 years?
Click to expand...
As I've kept saying, it's nothing to do with what's actually possible. Yeah, taking a photograph and adjusting the POV is impossible. Floating camera is totally possible. The difference is the way the tech was presented in Blade Runner felt clunky, workman-like and authentic. The flying camera does not - it feels gratuitous and unlikely, even if possible.

That's why flying cars and and interstellar travel are also fine - they're presented in a way that makes them feel real. The act of landing the Nostromo on a planet and the subsequent takeoff is a huge, delicate operation that risks the ship. The flying car is designed with an engineer's eye and mindset. They feel like possible impossible things.

See also: the modern Battlestar Galactica. The plot device was "we can't have networked systems because Cylons", but that was an excuse for the design team. Everything in Battlestar feels militarily authentic because of how low tech it is in regards to how it is used. In the real world, our most advanced battleships and fighter planes are tech from the 70s and 80s. The pinnacle of today's military tech won't actually be in use until at least 2020, by which time it'll actually be old tech again.

If a set of manned cameras get the job done easier and cheaper than a flying camera, TED would use the manned cameras. That's my issue, is all. Not that the flying camera isn't possible in 10 years (because as you've said, you can buy one yourself today. Not to the quality needed for a conference in a stadium, but in ten years who knows?), but because it doesn't feel authentic to me that they'd actually be using them.
 
Suairyu said:
If a set of manned cameras get the job done easier and cheaper than a flying camera, TED would use the manned cameras. That's my issue, is all. Not that the flying camera isn't possible in 10 years (because as you've said, you can buy one yourself today. Not to the quality needed for a conference in a stadium, but in ten years who knows?), but because it doesn't feel authentic to me that they'd actually be using them.
Click to expand...

That video clearly sets up an alternate history to our own so I have no problem believing that as the year 2023. Weyland Industries is celebrating 50 years by 2023 and in the first decade of the 21st century there have been major breakthroughs with nanotech, biotech, fisson, and fusion. He refereed to them in the same way as cars and the internet in the 20th century. Not to mention that they value science and technology so much that they hold a conference for it, with cheering crowds, in a stadium. Sounds to me like that world developed differently and so it stands to reason that they have different priorities.

I also have a problem that you present clunky and workman-like as authentic and dismiss anything gratuitous as inauthentic.
 
VistraNorrez said:
I also have a problem that you present clunky and workman-like as authentic and dismiss anything gratuitous as inauthentic.
Click to expand...
Because a professional event doesn't go for gratuitous, it wants something guaranteed to work with minimal fuss. Consumer tech? Sure, that's almost always flashy. But professionals are always big on their analogue buttons and manual controls though. That big phone that one guy posted a few posts up is actually a perfect example of how professional level equipment still looks. They want exact, fine control and failing that the option to just bodge it and get it working good enough. Like with the military, a lot of the tech powering TV broadcast studios is still old and reliable where seemingly better options are available. And that's not an attitude that'll disappear in 10 years, I reckon.

edit - anyway we've both said our thoughts on the matter let's not risk derailing the thread. Feel free to reply to the points I just made but I'm gonna leave it at that.
 
Suairyu said:
Because a professional event doesn't go for gratuitous, it wants something guaranteed to work with minimal fuss. Consumer tech? Sure, that's almost always flashy. But professionals are always big on their analogue buttons and manual controls though. That big phone that one guy posted a few posts up is actually a perfect example of how professional level equipment still looks. They want exact, fine control and failing that the option to just bodge it and get it working good enough. Like with the military, a lot of the tech powering TV broadcast studios is still old and reliable where seemingly better options are available. And that's not an attitude that'll disappear in 10 years, I reckon.

edit - anyway we've both said our thoughts on the matter let's not risk derailing the thread. Feel free to reply to the points I just made but I'm gonna leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree here, I have seen broadcasting studios where robotic camera's are the norm. Its pretty cool/ freaky. On the whole they are on rails and so its not quite on par with flying camera's but if it was efficient enough I could certainly see some broadcasting studios go with flying cams.

I agree with you, in that flying cams seem way too unrealistic, but I just wanted to point out that typically if tech is good enough its implemented pretty well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ridley Scott says Hollywood is “drowning in mediocrity”
2 3
112
988
Men_in_Boxes replied
Prometheus holds up very well 13 years later
2
96
1K
Trilobit replied
Ridley Scott interview - sharks in the colosseum, Maximus returning from the afterlife to kill Jesus Christ, asleep at the wheel for Prometheus
45
4K
dem replied
Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven is an overwhelming spectacle
32
5K
aerts1js replied
Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven, an underrated masterpiece, was released 20 years ago today
30
1K
Madflavor replied
Top Bottom