Some news on Prometheus.

So, I was just on IGN and reading stuff on what they saw of the intro of Prometheus, and while I won't spoil it, I would like to just mention one small thing that is said. They mention that it starts out on Earth in 2089, but after some stuff goes on, it fast forwards to 2091 where the crew of the Prometheus is journeying to a "planet called LV-233 (the early action in the original Alien took place on LV-426)". Now, was it just the IGN writer of the article that doesn't know LV-426 is a moon, not a planet, or is LV-233 an entirely new planet to the series? I was wondering if it's actually a planet they're going to, or if it's the same moon in Alien/Aliens, but it's later on named differently. I was assuming they'd be going to the same moon, but at the time of this movie taking place, it is unnamed, and later named LV-426. If anyone wants to read it, here's the link. There's not much being spoiled here, but if you really don't want to read it, don't.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1222668p1.html

I'd really like to know, 'cause it's not really clear as to what the person is saying.

I think you know too much about Aliens.

Is this the sequel to Mars Needs Moms?

@Dagbiker: I'll take it as a compliment, so thank you. :) There's no fiction you take interest in and like to know about?

@PeasantAbuse: That movie fucking sucked. How dare you.

@NTM: You can take it as a complement, i did not mean it badly.

@Dagbiker: Maybe, but usually saying something like that often means something along the lines of "get a life".

@NTM: I honestly didnt mean it badly at all. I was just remarking at your knowledge of the Aliens Universe.

@Dagbiker: Huh, alright. Thanks then. I guess you've noticed me making past threads about the franchise than.

I love how the movie looks like it uses practical effects more than CG. I don't know if it really is practical or CG made to look more realistic, but it's a refreshing feel after something like Avatar. I'm really looking forward to this movie. It has a great retro, 80s - early 90s feel to it.

@McGhee: Well if you're referring to the environments in the film and not the space ships, then yes, those are "practical". Those are real life locations, and none, or at least very little of it is CG. So when they go into an alien ship, or even on their own, none of it is CG, it's all a very elaborate set, and the outside, like the waterfall and landing you see in the trailer, is a real place. It costed less but also maintains a very slick look to it.

ive listened to IGN describe other trailers on subjects i knew and they were just winging it.

nothing wrong with that so much unless its a movie you are OCD on.

so take what they say as joe blow commentary for entertainment not scholarly work.

I actually liked the original Alien more than Aliens. Looking forward to this.

I have no idea what you are talking about in your OP though :) ... :(

@stinky: Yeah, I understand that. They weren't talking about a trailer though, they were talking about the actual intro to the film. Either way, I guess it still applies?

@Still_I_Cry: What was it that you don't understand? Maybe you just have to read the article, or are you not familiar with the Alien franchise enough to know what I'm saying? Also, nothing towards you, 'cause I don't really mind too much, but I never understand why people have to dislike one or the other. I love both of those films, and everyone else should too. Well, I mean, they don't have to, 'cause opinions, but they both are legitimately both of high quality sci-fi films, and not offensive.

@NTM said:

@stinky: Yeah, I understand that. They weren't talking about a trailer though, they were talking about the actual intro to the film. Either way, I guess it still applies?

@Still_I_Cry: What was it that you don't understand? Maybe you just have to read the article, or are you not familiar with the Alien franchise enough to know what I'm saying? Also, nothing towards you, 'cause I don't really mind too much, but I never understand why people have to dislike one or the other. I love both of those films, and everyone else should too. Well, I mean, they don't have to, 'cause opinions, but they both are legitimately both of high quality sci-fi films, and not offensive.

Not that familiar with the franchise. I also wasn't acting like I had to choose, just saying generally I liked Alien more, as those are the only two I have seen.

@Still_I_Cry: I guess I was just saying, a lot of people like to choose which is better than the other, I wasn't necessarily point fingers at you. Also, that's a good thing. Alien 3 and Resurrection shouldn't be watched, they suck, Resurrection more than three though. Not that you care.

@NTM said:

@Still_I_Cry: I guess I was just saying, a lot of people like to choose which is better than the other, I wasn't necessarily point fingers at you. Also, that's a good thing. Alien 3 and Resurrection shouldn't be watched, they suck, Resurrection more than three though. Not that you care.

I was actually thinking of following up but I guess I shouldn't :P

@Still_I_Cry: You can, just don't come back to me and say "Three and four were so much better you idiot! I even watched the AVP movies and those were awesome!" I don't assume you would, but just saying.

Interesting. I remember the number/name LV-426 from the first one (not a HUGE fan, but it rings a bell). How about we just go down the middle? What if LV-426 IS a moon, but the planet it revolves around is LV-233? Or LV-233 is a planet in the same system as LV-426? I don't know. Either way, I'm seeing this movie.

@myketuna: No, that can't be. Acheron (LV-426, and maybe LV-233), is the moon of the planet Calpamos. I think it's the same moon, but I'm not entirely sure now. Glad you're going to see it, more money for Prometheus, means sequel.

@NTM said:

@Still_I_Cry: You can, just don't come back to me and say "Three and four were so much better you idiot! I even watched the AVP movies and those were awesome!" I don't assume you would, but just saying.

Eh, AVP was ok. I thought the end was moronic as hell though, that wrecked the movie for me.

@myketuna: No, that can't be.

@Still_I_Cry: I don't mind AVP as a whole, but I don't like those films. I certainly don't like how they're stuck in the present, or very near future. To me at least, they're not OK, but I'm not crazy, so I'm not exactly offended by it.

@myketuna: Ha, I don't mind what you imagine, I guess. I think it's the same moon, but if it's not, I can only imagine it not even being part of the Alien universe, and that's not the case, so I think it has to be the same. I was just confused 'cause of the way the editor of the IGN article wasn't very clear. If that's not the case, then I don't know, anything could be the case. Since the planet is in Prometheus, I'd say it's either the same moon, or it's definitely in the same system.

I am soooo excited for this fecking movie

@chocolaterhinovampire: Good. You should be. Ha.

Well, it's probably safe to presume that they'll visit the location that was present in Alien. I mean, I believe that the turret in the trailer also makes an appearance in Alien, albeit briefly. Actually, the mere appearance of the turret doesn't necessarily mean that the film will revisit the location, but it's certainly a possibility.

@mylifeforAiur: It's the same thing, and it focuses more on the Space Jockey in Prometheus, so I'd say it's definitely going to. I think what's seen in the trailer at the same time of this photo you posted is just before the figure on the right takes control of the ship and tries to go to Earth, so the Prometheus crashes into the ship to stop it.

I was always under the impression that Weyland-Yutani simply assigned LV designations to worlds (or moons) as they were discovered for charting purposes.

@MB: Well, that sounds plausible, I don't know though. I don't know how that would affect it. I can't think straight now though, time for bed. The last thing I will say though is, go see this movie in the theaters. That goes for everyone.

@NTM: Oh, definitely. I'll probably go to a midnight showing of this flick just because it's going to be full of Aliens fans. I normally hate going to movie theaters but I'll make an exception in this case.

@MB: Same. Anyways, goodnight.

Damn it Ridley, just start working on Blade Runner 2!

I don't understand why you would change a planet from one scientific designation to another. I could understand why it would be changed to something colloquial, but why 233 to 4.. whatever number you said it was? DId they decide the planet was more important than they originally thought so they doubled its name?

Just watched the video, was boss. I never would of seen this thanks for sharing it.

@TheDudeOfGaming: He probably will, but it most likely won't be called Blade Runner.

@NTM: Well in the article it is mentioned that the ending will pretty much coincide with the beginning of the 1979 alien ,that probably means that whatever happens through the movie causes them to land up on 233.

If you catch it in the trailer they mention that when they awaken their intention is to land on earth .

Also i'm excited to get more info finally on the origin of the space jockeys (possibly the xenomorphs creators) and to see a live one.

Hope this film will create a mythos on the whole alien universe.

BTW did you read that april 1st article about a prometheus sequel with Cameron at the helm.