Prometheus isn't a horror like Alien, it doesnt contain the same explosive action as Aliens. Altogether I found it quite disappointing, it just felt like it had no direction and no real cause for existance. The previous Alien films were so amazing partly due to the fact that they were simple and yet surrounded by mystery and unanswered questions. I find it odd that Ridley Scotts now trying to explain away all the mystery surrounding the Aliens and their origins. Whats next? Are we going to get a sequel to Blade Runner telling us whether or not Deckard was a replicant.
I am eagerly awaiting a midnight show Thursday night. Not quite AVENGERS excited, but still pretty jazzed. I loved LOST and pretty much everything Ridley has made thus far, so I'm hoping it at leas meets expectation.
I am going to see this in 3D. The trailer looked good with the depth and it was more dynamic than most of the 3D I've seen. AVENGERS in 3D (an upconvert) was good but not life changing. PHANTOM MENACE in 3D was meg. TITANIC in 3D was okay. This is one of the few that was SHOT in 3D so it seems like that might make a difference. The HOBBIT trailer in 3D was staggering.
How many people are planning on seeing this in 3D versus 2D?
__________________ S O N N Y B O O P R O D U C T I O N S www.sonnyboo.com
Ray, I'm not saying this has affected your opinion of 3D, because I have no clue which movies you saw, or in which theaters. But if anyone else is listening, it is definitely true that not all 3D movies are created equally, and not all 3D theaters are created equally. To enjoy it, you really need to the best of both.
That being said, I have plenty of friends who have seen the best of both, and are still meh about it all, and I think that viewpoint is perfectly okay.
I watched AVATAR - shot in 3D - from a Christie projector and found myself too distracted by the stupid actions of characters to "fully" appreciate the 3D effect.
IOW, the 3D effect (and pretty colors) wasn't a magic salve for basic stupid story elements.
I watched THE AVENGERS - retro-3Ded - also from a Christie projector and only 'noted' that some 3D was going on and perhaps mildly distracted by perpetually flinching against OBLIGATORY "sticking something out at the audience!" shots (which were mercifully few).
I don't really know 'what' it is that I expect from 3D.
I'm a glutton for story and logic.
Pretty lights and sparkly things hold no sway.
Put me down in the 2d camp. I've seen good 3d. I've seen bad 3d. I've seen just passable 3d. I've seen movies where I liked the effect, and where I liked the movie in spite of the effect. I have come to the conclusion that it's just not worth paying for (for me).
That said, I'll probably see the Hobbit in 3d....but not the first time (or likely the second).
Ray, Josh, I understand where you're coming from, completely. And for what it's worth, though I actually do like 3D (when it's done well), I've recently begun choosing 2D, depending on the movie.
Ooh, The Hobbit! For me, that one is a must-see in 3D, not just for the 3D, but because I want to see how it looks with a faster frame-rate. Plus, they're using Cameron's fancy cameras, and that can't be a bad thing.
Out of curiosity, I took a look at my local multiplex's showtimes, in regards to 3D. Currently, there are only two 3D showtimes for Avengers, vs. seven 2D showtimes. And it's not a function of not having enough 3D screens. So, people are voting with their feet?
__________________
GUERILLA!!!
Last edited by Cracker Funk; 06-05-2012 at 02:40 PM.
So, I read a review with a few spoilers, and it sounds like everything you need to know about the movie is in the trailer.
Ha ha ha ha! I love it; everything in that is made of paper!
I've decided that I'll see PROMETHEUS in 2D. Every 3D movie I've ever seen has irritated my eyes. All this talk about improvements in the technology is B.S. to me. It's as bad as it ever was. I've only appreciated it in Disney short subjects, where it was used to full effect - CAPTAIN EO, HONEY I SHRUNK THE AUDIENCE and STAR TOURS.
No they didn't. They used DUAL RED EPICS for THE HOBBIT, not the CAMERON-PACE 3D camera rigs.
Oh, I wasn't aware they were different cameras. But weren't they built by Cameron? I thought I remembered reading an article that said Cameron pretty much begged Jackson to use them.
Oh, I wasn't aware they were different cameras. But weren't they built by Cameron? I thought I remembered reading an article that said Cameron pretty much begged Jackson to use them.
James Cameron may have begged him, but it's pretty clear they are NOT using the Cameron-Pace rigs and James Cameron is not much if a fan of the RED cameras.
__________________ S O N N Y B O O P R O D U C T I O N S www.sonnyboo.com
Huh. I did some googling, to try and find the "article" I thought I had read, but I think somewhere I got things jumbled up.
In retrospect, I think what I actually did read about was Cameron (successfully) convincing Jackson to shoot at a higher frame rate (can't confirm that, cuz I still can't find the article). Add to that the story about Cameron purchasing 30 Red Epics (to build 15 3D rigs), and my brain mistakenly filled-in the blanks.
That's an awesome video, by the way. Thanks for posting it.
"His reward so far -- more than 65,000 view on YouTube by late Tuesday afternoon, a mention on the official Facebook page for Prometheus and a tweet by Prometheus writer Damon Lindelof."
Tragedy.
If only we could get that kind of attention for any of our crowdfunding campaigns we could bring in... tens of extra dollars.
Prometheus is one that I'm really looking forward to seeing in 3D. I think it's a no brainer for those of us who have any positive feelings for the new 3D. Some critic, looking at those snippets down the page on Rotten Tomatoes, wrote that it's the best use of 3D since Avatar. I don't know, one of contemporary cinema's masters of the visual is Ridley Scott. I like to hear that having decided to shoot it in 3D, he chose to go all the way and shoot it natively(?...not like I quite understand such things...I'll leave that to you sharper folks to understand that stuff for now).
What's cooled my heels a bit is hearing the first reviews come in saying that it's not a great movie storywise...not a great movie as I, and I'm sure all of us had hoped it would be. Sounds like it's okay, but not a classic. If it had turned out otherwise, going to the midnight opening would have been a no brainer. As it is, I'm sitting on the fence. It sounds like I could wait a bit to see it. The clock is ticking. I better make up my mind soon if I want to buy a ticket. For all I know, it's already too late.
Presently, I'm sitting less on the fence when it comes to 3D. As I posted on another thread, when I saw the trailer for The Great Gatsby, when I and some family went to see MIB III, I was pretty wowed by how it looked in the trailer. And that's not some spectacular, it's a melodrama. And all of us, my family and I, all thought it looked pretty freaking cool that way. No, it didn't look quite natural. But I'm reminded of something I've heard Ebert (a noted foe of 3D) say repeatedly about black & white...one of the wonderful things about black & white is it's otherworldiness. That's sort of what struck me about the trailer of The Great Gatsby. Anyway.
I'm not so thrilled about the frame rate of the Hobbit. Initial reports say it's not so good. Hey, we're all of the same species, as far as I know. If the people who were privilaged to see that ten minute cut of the film say it's not so nice, I suspect that many of the rest of us at large are likely to feel similarly. I don't buy the argument that 24 frames per second is pleasing to the human eye and brain only because it's what we've been conditioned to. I suppose time and experimentation may tell. Anyway. In any case, I also want to see it in 3D.
Linear Mode
