Comments (Page 5,061)

Member Posts: 95 Frantz › Posted 10/16/2011 I'm not that idealistic ...i think that 80% of people are basically dumb ...so 80% of our governments are dumb ... plus add a 15% of criminals . The difference is that i don' see difference ..they lie , they steal , the do good things no more and no less than us ...they aren't a different breed . Frantz, BINGO ! Dead Bang On The Money !!!

Hey Neurion, Here watch this [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wneHFnqKQN4]LOL[/url] Yup its done by a black guy, but he brings up many valid points. Regards, Rick

Elliot Goldenthal. Alien 3 Public Enemies Heat Titus Or Angelo Badalamenti. Twin Peaks Blue Velvet Mullholand Drive (Be interesting to see how he interprets Ridley! Paul Haslinger. Underworld While she was out Tangerine Dream

I predict if they launch with a PG-13 rating this film fails miserably. I cannot believe, refuse to, that the studios would even consider such a thoroughly dumb and absolutely out of touch, detrimental, and completely incompetent move which would directly and negatively effect any potential success of this film. If I am Scott, on this one, I tell them straight up, it goes out as a minimum R rated film or it sits in a frikkin' can for the rest of their lives and they can kiss my Xenomorphing butt!

Not exactly to the standard of the others, but here's mine. I used the ancient story of Prometheus as a basis for depicting human interaction with the 'gods'... [img]http://i892.photobucket.com/albums/ac127/Moorkey/Prometheus.jpg[/img]

Hey Moorkey, I have to say A W E S O M E! I can see that being used by Dark Horse Comics for the comic adaptation.

nice.

Here's another one... [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/promeban1-1.gif[/img] The original file for this puppy is 1500 x 500

Notes On Giger's work On "Alien" Initial Work Giger talked about his sudden transition into being the designer of the derelict space craft, which would have been confusing situation because he had initially not been expected to design the craft but only the life form that was the title creature. The derelict would have been designed by Chris Foss (design seen here) if Dan O'Bannon had his way. [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/derelict6.jpg[/img] Gigers Work 374 [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/02derelict.jpg[/img] Foss' half buried derelict Another point to note, if one takes a look at Foss' second derelict design and Giger's main design, work 274, it looks a lot as if the left half of Giger's ship is a biomechaniased version of Voss' lobster like structure sticking out of the sand, and Giger has given the thing another half with a hammer shaped tip. The fin to the left side of Voss' derelict on Giger's derelict becomes a bulbous protruberance . [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/396.jpg[/img] Giger's wreck detail work 396 1.) H. R. Giger: 5 March 1978, London. "In Scott's office on Lexington Street, I outline my ideas for the derelict (plate 374) The derelict is a space-ship built by non-humans which the three astronauts come across on the strange planet. Scott thinks its absolutely great. O'Bannon who has just flown over from the USA, doesn't think it's technical enough. A battle of pros and cons begin. I keep quiet; I know that Scott will win the argument. I did the picture one morning when I couldn't get back to sleep. I was staying in a flat in Old Church Street in London at the time. [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/374a.png[/img] derelict sketch 374a The derelict is not strictly in my field of work. But I had this idea and simply had to get it down. By the time Mia gets up I have finished the picture. I also get a good feeling when pictures go so easily, and looking back, I'm often not disappointed with my work. The certainty that my ideas will be adopted and that Scott can interpret them allows me to keep quiet. The war of words comes to an end and Scott asks me to paint a picture of the entrance passage. The battle is won. "(Giger's Alien, p22, ) 2.) H. R. Giger: "Well, it was decided that I would do the alien and only the alien. That's because Ron Cobb was working on the project in the early, early days. I don't remember whether they asked me or not, but I painted my version of the derelict in the morning and showed it to Ridley in the afternoon. He said, "That's it. We'll use it. Please do the entrance and the interior now." So I wound up doing more than we expected." (Warren's Alien Collector's edition, p33) [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/375.jpg[/img] Giger's Wreck Entrance , work 375 3.) H. R. Giger: 16 March, Zurich "I've had a longish talk with my lawyer about my contract, and an hour and a half's telephone conversation with Beale, a production executive of Twentieth Century Fox. It all seems clear for the time being. I've made my concession and done two extra pictures for my Alien designs. I've finished the entrance passage (plate 375) as well as a view of the derelict showing the glass dome about the cockpit (plate 382)." (Giger's Alien, p22, ) origins of wreck entrance design 4.) H. R. Giger: "Once the alien was under control, Ridley asked me if I could design a spaceship not made by human beings. Well how do you do that? I thought maybe it might look organic - something that could grow even, like a plant *- but I didn't know exactly what it should look like. Then early one morning I couldn't sleep, I got up and started painting and the derelict ship was born in a few hours. It ended up like an aerodynamic bone with little technical stuff all over it, but it wasn't anything I had planned - it just sort of ran out of my mind and my airbrush, which is not uncommon for me. Often I try to switch off my thoughts as much as possible and let the painting flow spontaneously from my subconscious mind. (Cinefex 1) (* Giger often talks about creating the final image that looked as if it were something planted that was on the verge or maturing. In Warren's Alien Collector's edition (p32) he mentions" I wanted it to look like something planted - perhaps in the process of maturing.) Changes http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8sv9gYsuLwc/TIVHLXh993I/AAAAAAAAAUk/rIsPJZnES4c/s1600/396.jpg [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/396.jpg[/img] work 396 There was talk about changes that needed to be made to the derelict's design, the information about this is not exactly clear in the quotes below, we find Giger's explanation revealed that there was some confusion about whether the ship could be told apart from the landsdcape and then we also discover another side to it, that his derelict space ship design didn't make sense in three dimensional terms for the modellers so Giger had to do some pictures to explain the structure even further. Giger mentioned that there were several reasons given for the need to change it but not one of the ones given was the most talked about how there was some trouble getting the design accepted but nothing about the problem regarding how to interpret it's dimensions. Were these two events or one event seen from two extremely different points of view? We might wonder perhaps if the earlier concern about whether they could be interpreted took place at an earlier time as described in the first Giger quote in "Initial Work". However Giger produced two other paintings to explain the shape of the derelict as seen from the side, works 396 and 397, and perhaps 382 [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/397.jpg[/img] work 397 [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/derelictportals.jpg[/img] 1.) H. R. Giger:19 July 1978, Shepperton Studios " They ask me to the office, where Scott, Seymour and Carroll are waiting for me. Carroll says I will design another derelict. The entrance passage and the landscape can stay the same as those that have been built in Sound Stage H, but the rest will have to be changed. As it is now, it is too reminiscent of a bone (work 378*) and might make people think it was an organic part of the landscape. There will also be technical difficulties in building it. I am astounded to hear this from Carroll, of all people, who had been enthusiastic about my derelict when he first saw it. I suspect that Shusett and O'Bannon are behind it. Even good friends can often infuriate one. I try to convince Carroll that the dimensions and the aerodynamic shape are enough in themselves to distinguish the derelict from the landscape, and moreover the technical details ought not to be too obvious in case they spoil the biomechanical character of a space-ship built by non-humans. I simply can't see how I can improve on it; I regard it as one of my best pictures. Carroll proves unyielding and finally practically orders me to conjure up something else out of the ground. They seem to think I can just shake good ideas out of my sleeve - the bitter fate of a creative artist. Scott keeps quiet during the discussion, and in silent opposition demonstrates a quite ordinary, banal crashed aircraft, its tail fins pointing skyward. I understand and, promising to try something different, go back to my work. This is an occasion when time will work for me. " (Giger's Alien, p24, ) (* Giger makes a reference to work 378 in his book Giger's Alien but this an error because this is the painting of the egg silo exterior, so maybe he is still talking about work 374) 2.) H. R. Giger: "I liked the derelict very much and Ridley did also - but then they wanted it changed for several reasons. But I said I could not. Once I have a good design, I cannot change it to something I think is not so good." (Cinefex 1) 3.) Ridley Scott: "There's a great tendency in this business not to use the first thing you come up with. As a result, people often just work something to death - I've been accused of this time and time again. What we were looking for here was a totally alien-looking spacecraft. I didn't think it would something with a lot of lights on it and stuff like that. I figured it would be like nothing anyone ever imagines; either that, or extraordinarily familiar and slightly archaic looking. And Giger's first drawing was just a knockout. I took one look at it and said 'That's it.' Other people couldn't quite see it though, so I had to keep digging my heels and saying, ' You wont get a better derelict - don't screw about with it.' You know, Giger is a special case, and when something's that good, you have to recognise it and leave it alone." (Cinefex 1) [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/escher-waterfall-small.jpg[/img] 4.) Brian Johnson: "It's a wonderful design, but as it turned out, we couldn't build it. It was like an Escher optical illusion. As a two-dimensional painting it look very logical, but there was not actual way you could build it in three dimensions. To get a rough idea of the shape, we took about a nine-inch piece of polystyrene and then carved it with a little device that looks like a tuning fork with a wire stretched between. When you heat it up, the hot wire just melts its way through the polystyrene and you can carve the right sorts of shapes very quickly, You can't get the sorts of detail you can with clay. But somehow the derelict form just didn't work, so I got together with Giger and we talked about possible modifications. Then he went off and did the drawing. From that we produced another polystyrene shape which he though was pretty good."(Cinefex 1) [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/Screenshot2010-09-06at234423.png[/img] 5. Brian Johnson: We took Giger's sketch and sculpted a small replica without any detail, just the basic shape, for a test. It's a common problem. A director will come to you with drawing; "Hey I've got this great sketch!" But it's a two-dimensional drawing, and when you put it into three dimensions it never looks the same. You have to be able to look at the sketch and say, "That's going to look like a pile of rubbish. Why don't you let me have a go at making something similar, but might have a totally different shape in three dimensions?" "We showed the rough sculpted form of the Giger sketch to Ridley, who said that it was somewhere near what he would like. Then we built a huge one about 12 feet across that would be used for background establishing shots. (Starlog. October 1979) [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/382-1.jpg[/img] Success The following comments speak about the successful creation of the Giger's derelict. Giger points a finger at Dan O'Bannon being a major opposition towards building his design. 1.) H. R. Giger: 3 August, 1978, Shepperton Studios. Next day O'Bannon flies back to America. Mia films him as a souvenir. (Giger's Alien, p24, ) 2.) H. R. Giger: 20 September, 1978, "Seymour drives me to Bray Studios, where the special effects group works. In the middle of the hall is my tried and trusty derelict, or at any rate the framework of it, with a nucleus of steel tubes. The whole surface is covered with netting. Dick Butten, one of the modellers, has built it up, and now Voysey has to cover it with a coat of plasticine and fit it out with cables and technical accessories. I'm delighted with the way they have done the job, built up from my plasticine models, I say so to the group, and they seem very pleased. Extraordinary -suddenly they are working from my designs. Has O'Bannon's departure got something to do with it? As always there simply wasn't time to make any other design. (Giger's Alien, p26) 3) Martin Bower :"At this time we were joined by Peter Voysey. He had been working on the sets, in particular the huge "space jockey" over at Shepperton. Now he set about detailing the Alien derelict. An outside contractor had built a huge 2 foot wide polystyrene shape over a steel framework based on one of Giger's drawings. Now he had a job of detailing it! I cannot tell you exactly how many pounds of plasticene he used by I believe it was several hundred. I know we cleaned out every florist, toy and craft shop in the area! This was applied and sculpted over an entire models with thousands of EMA pipe bends pressed into it and then spray painted directly over. It was filmed that way and was fine as long as no one pressed it too hard! " (scifi and fantasy models p36) [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/Screenshot2010-09-06at234423.png[/img] 4) Nick Allder :"The model was built of polystyrene with a fibreglass skin." (Starlog, October 79)

In my made up alien universe, his first ink sketch 374a = was the derelict craft when it first teleported to LV-426, then after several thousands of years or several decades? transformed fractally into that. You know as part of the terror forming processes absorbing elements from the planet. Hence, why the portal is not damaged. But don't mind me that's just the green goo crystallizing in my imaginations. Thanks Spartacus for that boost! I'm drooling like an alien.

Your most welcome Ruhaniya. That is a good read.

The Thing is… Well, I saw “THE THING” prequel last night. (NO SPOILERS) If I compare it to the average Science fiction/Horror film…it wasn’t terrible, and had some pretty interesting ideas. On the other hand, if I compare it to truly excellent films of the genre, of which there are few (Carpenter’s THE THING, ALIEN), it’s quite weak and feeble…at best. The setting/atmosphere was a bit stale…and “diet Coke.” Like its predecessor, there should have been more of a…pardon the pun, “Who Goes There?” sense of paranoia in the air. Also, I never really got the sense of bitter cold, and the frigid reality that it would be in Antarctica. The extra-terrestrial monster manifestations are pretty cool designs, with some rip-offs…or homage to the original The Thing, Alien, From Beyond, Leviathan, etc. A few of the effects are crap, right out of a “Sifi channel” original movie, but most are passable or good. The films editing and pacing is a bit off, and the third act feels rushed. However, I will sacrifice criticizing everything for a solid story, believable characters, and realistic, interesting dialogue. The question is: Who goes to see Science Fiction Horror Films? I mean…Who goes there?! I’ll tell you who goes there. MALES. That’s right! Males between the ages of 10 and 50. Sure you have a couple of “here and theres,” but by and large, it’s “Dudes” who make or break a SciFi/horror film’s box-office success. So why in God’s name, do filmmakers continue to shove and shoehorn female characters into traditional “male roles”? Once again, I’ll tell you why…to push a liberal, feminist agenda. These roles are traditional because they work…and are more realistic. This is an unpopular and fairly taboo subject in today’s society. You would think, they would be smart…and greedy enough to realize that sometimes you cannot accomplish both box-office success, and political correctness simultaneously. Alas, they’re too numb to figure out or balance this equation. When I saw the film last night, there were about 70 or 80 people in the audience…give or take. Only 6 or 7 were female. This is what I talking about. This is a “Guy flick,” whether people like it or not. So, all the males in the theater sat there and watched a woman shell out most of the flame throwing, alien ass-kickins. In my humble opinion, this is the main reason why this movie will fail. To tell you the truth, I actually, really liked the lady protagonist’s character…a lot! Doesn’t change the fact, that deep down, males want to identify with a male protagonist. One could say: “Well it worked in “ALIEN” with Ripley”. My answer for that would be: It worked in ALIEN, first of all, because it was a novelty. It had never…really been done before. Secondly, in the original ALIEN, Ripley was not the Rambo type of character she was eventually developed into. She was a young, responsible officer, who had command authority and terrible decisions thrust upon her, in an impossible situation. Thirdly, ALIEN was less of an action picture, and more of a horror film. Therefore, Ripley fit perfectly into the horror genre’s male psychological…Beauty and the Beast cycle, where male viewers are free to be scared and terrified, vicariously through a female character’s predicament…without injuring their own male ego. Ultimately, I enjoyed a lot of the elements in the new “THE THING” film…but it’s still weak, and pales in comparison to the original. ~Neurion P.S. The screening did not include a "PROMETHEUS" trailer.

"ya- rrright!?"

the tragedy is that we can continue to talk about other movies until the superbowl ... all octoberrrrr .....novemberrrrrr ...decemberrrrrrrr .....januarryyyyyyyy ......

Neurion I gotta say you hammered the proverbial nail into the subliminally repressed male coffin. Well said. And by that I mean you said it better than I could've. And I've been known to say things well. It astounds me how 30 odd years later we've been unable as an audience to connect with a female protagonist enamored with male qualities. It isn't just Hollywood to blame either or even contemporary society. The more you look into it the more it becomes apparent that it is something inherent in our human psyche, conditioned, evolved, call it what you will; this male dominant aspect of our species is here to stay. For now at least. Were not the only creatures to behave this way and we certainly won't be the last. Perhaps Prometheus will address this dare I say truism if it is in fact an origins story about more than just the alien xenomorph and their makers. Perhaps Prometheus will expand beyond all the conjecture and hypothesis and rhetoric and truly become a cinematic masterpiece. I hope so.

I'm just looking at the image of Giger's Hierolglyphics painting in 'Giger's Alien' and a couple of things strike me... 1. The version that Apollo posted has a revised head on the 'humanoid' perring over the egg and with the facehugger and with the chestburster. In the original art, the humanoid appears to be wearing a space helmet in all three instances. I have heard before that this painting has been 'modified' - but why. The revised version does look more Space Jockey I agree, but I think it is too small if you compare against the egg. 2. Could it be that the creature arching over the painting is a version of the Space Jockeys that 'births' the eggs? Its mid-section does look odd and appears to be suggesting this is the case.

For now I made this. I was inspired by one of the leaked stills at comic-con, where you could see a hand above something glowing. I recreated something similar. It definitely looked like an non-human technology that is active in some way. [img]http://www.tamasdesign.net/prometheus_tamas.png[/img] [url=http://tamasdesign.net/prometheus_tamas.png]Full size[/url]

DUDE, i say that's fantastic, it's so incredibly original man, awesome job I love it.

oh almost forgot, My most sincere apologies to admin for not adhering to the rule of NOT USING THE PROMETHEUS TAG ON THE BANNERS. they can in fact easily be taken out if need be, but whats important is that I make you aware that I am aware of what I did, and it was wrong, so MY APOLOGIES. S O R R Y ! [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/LT.HIGHTIMES/sorry.gif[/img]

@Vanilla-Hollywood, hmmm I'm not really sure. This past year has been a bit of a blur for me can't seem to remember most of the movies I've seen been stuck watching lots of tv shows instead. I guess the ones I remember best are Rise of the Planet of the Apes, X-Men First Class & Red (silly but very entertaining). For the genre & based on viewing experience I was most pleasantly surprised by how good Planet of the Apes was. Had no expectations going into it so I guess that helped. Andy Serkis definitely deserves an oscar nomination in the very least for his performance in that one. He was the movie.

Again, guys, I´ve to state that I´m actually more into screenplays and plot-wise qualities, when it comes to be a bulky mash-up of special effects, CDIs and whatsoever, once more. For instance, take the `Perry Rhodan´ universe, that I mentioned afore. This sci-fi hero´s based universe is equipped w. all kinds of nonsense and maunder, too, but it´s basically those stories, that keep it alive- after this, entire he surely wouldn´t give a good role-model for an American or any big Film production; nevertheless its fan base is gaining or renewing, ever since (it even has some shorter films) But let me bring out or retain some facts in memory: There´s always some movie makers (film studio intendants) relying and conceiving on some (comic book) example and balancing it: is going to score? - the next thing to hype??? if so, then let´s do a movie production!!! That´s film industries, clear. But as you also know, in the case of the Alien universe things are situated a bit differently; as they´ve this fabulous designer Giger aboard, it´s basically his artwork that displays the alien/Prometheus/a.s.o.-universe. He, in the meantime, would deliver all sorts of blurred visions and warped commingles w. sexually-mechanic connotations in his drawings; as soon as he comes up with some more precise, everyone would turn to this honorable gent and abandon even some fresher and better ideas, just to have his concept realized. With respect to all sorts of sci-fi fandoms and their related realms of possibility: in my experience there is not so much new stuff left, anymore... (and even so if, it´d only effect that anchorpoint essays need to be re-written, due to Giger monopoly) So, when speculating on the plot, or even just on a trailer, the question rather must be: what´s remains on substantially new things at all, that could occur in Prometheus for all the effort and money spent? Even if some of you here might not be w. me, Vanilla. P.S.: Allow me to still advert to the Krauts (die Krauts); It´s a couple of industrial designers from Offenbach/ Germany. Muscleing in on sci-fi/fantasy arts-design scene in the early ninetees, their once loosely Giger- (but also others; see Predator?!) inspired design was brought on another level;In my opinion, they´ve made it to create sth. self-contained out of it. [url=http://www.die-krauts.de/index_01.html]If you want to affirm yourself.[/url]

lol yea...tru dat.

Count me in on anything Giger.

you got it Rick!

OMG "She lives to eat" The Alien in Alien was female and is not evil? GIGER'S ALIEN 1979 Foreword (excerpt) Timothy Leary Each cultural epoch in human history produces its unforgettable visionary artist a genius who is energized to voyage within; to trip through the galaxy of his own nervous system and return with vital information about the past and future of our evolution. Visionaries like Giger over stand too much. They over look. They over see. They over state. They over thrill. They physically frighten dutiful hive members who often become nauseous or screamingly panicked by this simple exposure to the tissue fact and cellular fabric of life. Artists like Giger are often censored, ignored, imprisoned, burned at the stake, kidnapped to Hollywood or, more often, carted off to asylums. Because they are the Aliens, the mutants. Higher intelligences, unidentified Flying Organism too different, too revealing to be tolerated. Giger's Alien, portrays the making of the monster film. It documents the shadowy birth of this mysterious squishy creature who has been terrorizing movie audiences all over the world. Giger's Alien is not an evil, scary creature. There is no evil in Giger. There is no evil in the poopy magnified cell growths within our bodies. The worst thing you can say about Giger's Alien is this: She eats to live. Is She ugly? No more ugly than we would look to any member of the food chain that we regularly and thoughtlessly pop in our red, gulping, adenoidal mouths three times a day. Giger's art has consistently wrestled with the paradox of The Beauty and the Beast. Thus he adds another chapter to the wondrous encyclopedia of mutants who represent those aspects of ourselves that we are not ready to wine and dine with. Retrieved from: www.hrgiger.com on 10/14/11

Well is a bit of everything we saw in the comic con fotage and based on the first"leaked-fake" script ... there is really of nothing really nowe here , not a part for which i could say " oh thats very immaginative , can be the real script " ...i mean even a 14th years old can write a script like that . + if the space jocket got open and a human get out i will leave the theatre immediately + im sure Scott will avoid another " cat and mouse" final act + It miss any reference with the characters ...

[quote]Well is a bit of everything we saw in the comic con fotage and based on the first"leaked-fake" script ... there is really of nothing really nowe here , not a part for which i could say " oh thats very immaginative , can be the real script " ...i mean even a 14th years old can write a script like that . + if the space jocket got open and a human get out i will leave the theatre immediately + im sure Scott will avoid another " cat and mouse" final act + It miss any reference with the characters ...[/quote] The part at the end is new Frantz. I'm with you on the Jockey, but it says [u]humanoid[/u] not [u]human[/u].You could say the Xeno from Alien was humanoid as it had two arms and legs.I am expecting the Jockey to have a humanoid look, especially if the storyline is they are the creators of life on earth.

i went to the premiere on wednesday in Montreal It sucked Hard and I do mean It Sucked big time! sorry! no news on the trailer, I missed it if it was even shown here.

Well, I am not sure to be happy or sad about that Sparta as the original is probably in my top three movies ever.Other sites are reporting the same, not a patch on the original.And I guess the trailer must be coiming out with "In Time" after all then, damn.

There was no imagination or creative story telling present. All they did was watch the original and ripped off Carpenter's name and place theirs...pretty lame!

Hey Guys, No Prometheus Trailer although Fox did Trailer "In Time" on The thing. All I saw for trailers was In Time, Immortals and Contraband that's it. The 4:40 show had about 10 people in it max. The prequel explained a little bit more about the movie regarding the Norwegians and why the guy was shooting at the dog in the beginning of the original. I saw what looked similar to Replicator computer technology that you would see in Stargate: Atlantis and the old Stargate, series towards the end. It also seemed to steal a little bit from Alien. The Norwegians were tracking a signal in the ice. Much like the Nostromo waking the crew and diverting to the "signal". Regards, Rick

the ship was self destructing, hence the flames. Ripley had started the scuttle procedure it is written on the panel when she initiated self destruct. As an effect it looks like they were using the flamethrowers to simulate the slow destruction of the ship. as for people thinking it looks lame, hey! it was 1977 man!

If a Trailer is coming out this month The Movie "In Time" is a 20th century Fox film. Would make sense for it to be with the same release company.

Fox please give us a trailer - throw us a bone!

I just got tickets for The Thing tomorrow. Maybe I'll catch a trailer there. But I doubt it. Universal is releasing it and not Fox.

Must be hard to stand 2 hours of that atrocious remake to hope to see a prometheus trailer ...you deserve a Silver Alien Medal for extreme courage under shitty movies .

Perhaps it will air before the Puss in Boots movie. lol

@ Hudson 25. By your leave, what was the best movie you´ve seen, say, for the last years? I personally liked Polanskis `The Ghost Wrtiter´ very much.

I hope its with either Immortals or In Time. Who knows it might even be during the super bowl at this point.

I saw in another thread, that someone suggested that the goo in the urns may turn David into a human, hence the pic we saw of him teary eyed. That would definitely be different. I agree with most of your ideas Mentos. The only thing I can't figure out yet, is how they are going to leave it open for a sequel like Ridley and company have been rumored at getting to. Seems like more than one person will need to survive if that's to happen.