Ridley Scott confirms Untitled Alien Prequel will be shot in 3D
"Of course, it'll be 3D. I could have converted Robin Hood. They'd said last October, I could have squeezed it under the hammer and got it in as a 3D version of Robin Hood."
About the number of new Alien Prequel films he has planned, Ridley Scott replied:
"It'll be two. It'll be prequel one and two. Then Alien 1. At the moment I'm just trying to get the first one out."
To read more from this interview, be sure to check out the entire story on Collider.
Prometheus was released June 8th, 2012 and stars Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Guy Pearce, Logan Marshall-Green, Sean Harris, Rafe Spall. The film is directed by Ridley Scott.
Comments (34)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
RojoDiablo
Yeah, Avatar on blu-ray is sick in 2D! Haven't seen it in 3D.
3 years agoby @rojodiabloFlag
Busav
TALK AGAIN WITH THE MASTER GIGER, USE HIS IMAGINATION AND MAKE IT PERFECT AND EVEN MUCH MORE GREATER THAN THE FIRST ONE, YES IN 3D WITH ALL THE EFFECTS AND SCARE!!!
3 years agoby @busavFlag
nightwatch1203
um, Messenger, yeah you can find it in a theatre that doesnt support it NOW, but what happens if later all the theatres decide to only show the 3d versions and not the 2d or better yet if the studios only release the 3d versions and not the 2d what are you going to do then i wonder.
3 years agoby @nightwatch1203Flag
Vanboy
Todd,
Glad to hear that 3D is growing on you. It's nothing to be ashamed of. You're not raping 2D. It can still be seen.
Hell, I sometimes switch to the original mono track to my Duel DVD. It was re-recorded with totally new sound effects and everything, but I sometimes want to hear the original, non-polished version. That and a can of Bud and I'm set.
I bought Avatar on Bluray, and I'm not pissed because it's in 2D. More options are better. Don't fear cinematic advancements everybody.
3 years agoby @vanboyFlag
blackg1000
I'm just well excited they are making these movies for 2 main reasons. 1. Scott is directing and he knows these movies as good as anybody and has probably had the idea to do a prequel for years and now is the right time to make them. It would be terrible if anyone else made these movies and 2. Why do you have to watch it in 3D? I literally just finised watching Avatar on Blu-Ray and it was excellent in 2D. Some movies are made for 3D (not many) but you don't have to watch it this way to enjoy it. These movies are going to be amazing.
3 years agoby @blackg1000Flag
Mutant
I'll watch it when it comes out, I'm warming up to the idea of 3D slowly. Man, people will be jumping in their seats when this is out. Better take nose plugs as well, this is going to rock.
3 years agoby @zenderFlag
jameslev
i honestly don't really see the difference between different cameras and sh*t so it doesn't matter to me, if its a good movie i like it if its not i don't like it, that's all i care about lol, however i think itll be cool in 3d whether they film it like that or not, like i said, i don't notice the difference
3 years agoby @jameslevFlag
Messenger
@K-man Unfortunately digital is the way things are swinging now a days. Film is far from being obsolete but HD is they companies want to go now a days and then they throw a film grain filter on the HD have faux film which makes me laugh. But like you I do have faith in RS. Cant wait to see it
3 years agoby @messengerFlag
ejk1
I love the fact that Ridley is coming back to this franchise. Hopefully, he can save it from the damage done by the AVP movies.
As for 3D versus 2D, with the exception of the extra money I have to pay, I don't really care. If I want to see a movie, and it is being shown in 3D only, then I'm still going to see it. Likewise 2D.
3 years agoby @ejk1Flag
K-Man
@ Messenger - Yeah but what my concern is is that the digital look wont fit the moody, atmospheric look needed for a good alien film.
But like I said a while ago, I have absolute faith in Ridley's decisions for this film. The guy is a master.
3 years agoby @k-manFlag
Messenger
Guys, guys, guys, just because they make it in 3D doesn;t mean you have to watch it in 3D. Go to a theater that doesn't support it.
3 years agoby @messengerFlag
Shogun BlizZzard
This is only true if 3D last 1 or 2 years,which I don't think it will, if it dose I hope it keeps 2D version, 3D's for the movie to come out, 3D just a gimmick to get more money and people back into theaters like in the 70's, heres a thought why not just go all the way and make virtual reality movies that would be an experience, dont fix sh*t from the past work on things of the future, I think it will be release mid 2011, early 2012, and I can't wait
3 years agoby @omegablizzzardFlag
K-Man
@ Xoptionm3 - What the f*ck are you talking about? You have absolutely no clue as to anything you just wrote! You are literally talking out of your ass.
First off, Cameron developed *TWO* types of 3D cameras for Avatar. The first is a digital camera that utilizes two lenses on a single camera, side by side (which allows for the use of depth perception in the exact same way the human eyes do). This camera was used mainly on the sets where the majority was live action elements. For the forest and flying scenes, he developed what is essentially a virtual 3D camera that allowed him to move (or fly) around in a virtual space and it also allowed him and the other crew members to see a rough animation of what the pandora planet, or whatever else, would look like behind the cast he was filming.
Secondly, film and digital are NOT as similar as you think. Digital is recorded in one of two ways, either on digital HD tape...yeah tape, just like f*ckin TV, (as the star wars movies were done) or on HD drives which allow them to upload there footage immediately into the computers without digitizing. The "James Cameron" cameras work as the latter of the two and the image that you get is actually much more similar to that of what the human eye sees. When shooting on film, however, the camera captures the image on a piece of celluloid that "sees" the image completely different than the human eye. Film captures light in a much softer way but requires a lot more of it in order to do so. Ultimately the image is much more dreamlike. Digital records light in a much harsher, stronger way, which is why sets begin to look more like sets and lighting looks staged. This is why you hear people say "Digital is reality and film is what you imagine". I personally think "reality" is much more boring in this case.
Also, because digital is more sensitive to light it makes shooting high contrast images much harder. For example, shooting a movie like Minority Report, which had to go through a bleach bypass in order to get the contrasty, grainy look, would be next to impossible to film with a digital camera. There are certain post-production methods that can alter the image in the computer but to obtain the same feel is literally impossible as of this moment.
Lastly, what in gods name are you talking about when you say "35mm cameras are so large anyway why use it unless you are really looking for a specific look?????"
Film cameras are the exact same size as digital cameras!! In fact, the Arricam Lite, for example, is actually much smaller than the JC 3D cameras! So that has nothing to do with it! And yes, he is try to go for a specific look. If you watch ANY of the alien films, you will notice that they are ALL bathed in shadows everywhere you look. This makes the audience feel uneasy because you are unsure of what lurks around the corner! If everything looks and feels like a set with false, staged lighting then you've really f*cked yourself!
A little quicker film speed???? WTF?? So you want the movie to be in slow motion? I dont get it.
Dont write something unless you know what you are talking about.
3 years agoby @k-manFlag
Xoptionm3
Also, getting it converted is just a time and money thing... there is not a different look from shooting and 3-d and transferring same as when you watch a dvd that was converted to HD for television... it looks the same...
3 years agoby @xoptionm3Flag
Xoptionm3
I agree with art kid though, 3-d is ok but it doesnt make the movie much better, to me it gives me a head ache... im done with 3-d avatar was just as good normal...
3 years agoby @xoptionm3Flag
WARRock
im totally up for this:) i dont really care if its in 3D or not as long as its good.
3 years agoby @jcFlag
Xoptionm3
i would say that it will be film transferred to 3D technology. Camerons 3-d cameras were special in that they were digitizing facial and body parts in real time so they could see their cgi avatars while still acting in front of a camera. I also think that film and digital are so similar now a days once its converted to 3-d or a digital reel because many theaters dont play reels. I think for a movie like Alien though he will go digital. The lighting effects will be more feasible in space and 35 mm cameras are so large anyway why use it unless you are really looking for a specific look. In my opinion though alien would look better on film.. a little quicker film speed, make it slightly gritty and grainy, it will look spectacular
3 years agoby @xoptionm3Flag
K-Man
The reason why I ask this is because we have yet to hear Scott himself say "it will be *SHOT* in 3D". All he says above is that it will be 3D. Well, so have the last twenty big budget films and only ONE of them (Avatar, obviously) was actually shot in 3D!
Please, Please, Please stay away from digital Scott! Sure it makes the 3D experience better but when watching in 2D it looks like sh*t in comparison to film!
3 years agoby @k-manFlag
jameslev
im ready for it
3 years agoby @jameslevFlag
the MovieGhost
@(Insert Username Here): That doesn't sound too bad
3 years agoby @the-movieghostFlag
K-Man
What I want to know is whether it will be filmed with "James Cameron's" 3D cameras or whether Scott will stick with 35mm film cameras and have the films converted? I personally hope he sticks with film because they haven't yet perfected digital cameras and its almost impossible to get that moody, high contrast, beautiful look of film which is absolutely essential for an Alien film.
Knowing Scott, who has been against digital for years because of that very reason, he will let those greedy bastard studios do what they want with the finished product, which in this case would involve YET ANOTHER hack job conversion!
But to be completely honest, im not too worried about it because Scott knows what he is doing and is a true visionary artist. I doubt he would let the finished product suffer due to the inadequacies and limitations of digital.... At least I hope so!
3 years agoby @k-manFlag
GreatOz
what a shock
3 years agoby @greatozFlag
artkid04
Really Scott??? Really?? 3-D??? thats it, after this year I am done with 3d!!!
3 years agoby @artkid04Flag
T.Clark
"Alien: Genesis"
How's that for a title, eh?
3 years agoby @insertusernamehereFlag
Mmm_mmm
You really have to admire the xenomorph's strong jaw line.
3 years agoby @mmm-mmmFlag
mosorwvlad
Hell yeah ! Now that's the best news for me this year !
3 years agoby @mosorwvladFlag
ed_wood
Shot in 3D and not converted is the best news I've heard. I think Scott will come up with something just a cool as he did with the original Alien.
3 years agoby @ed-woodFlag
the MovieGhost
I love the sound of this. Imagine sitting in the Theater with your girlfriend, watching the first Prequel, and outta nowhere a Facehugger jumps out at yah!
I can't wait for these! Please don't f*ck 'em up Mr. Scott
3 years agoby @the-movieghostFlag
The Soylent Green Monkey
Ouch. My ass.
3 years agoby @soylentgreen2Flag
Joser1500
heel yea I always wounder where they came from....
3 years agoby @joser1500Flag