*EDIT +7 NEW SHOTS* - Weyland - Guy Pearce make-up - Behind the Scenes Shots

I hated the makeup on Pearce. It broke the magic and had me realize that I was watching a movie.

It is the eyes. Always the eyes are where the make-up betrays the younger artist.

Agree! Pearce really did a bad job playing old. Wonder if he even tried to act old in the eyes... And he's talks are loud and full of strength; that's way too off. Pearce said he studied how old people move and act... he did have some shakie hands plays but that's done poorly too. As for the make up, I think that's as good as things can get. it's actually quite believable already. Btw the first 2 photos looks more believable than the third...

@Rei I was going to say the same thing. The test shots look more realistic than what I saw on the big screen, which is odd. I can accept that he looks different from most really old people we see today. I'm guessing he is supposed to be well over 100 years old & has had every life extending medical procedure there is. Maybe he has also used some experimental stuff invented by Weyland Industries which isn't yet available to the public.

well besides the fact that i did not like the weyland on board subplot anyways, why did they cast guy pearce? lol its not like he was young at some point in the movie and had to age him, why not just use an older actor???

@invaderzim4 You're right, it would've made sense if Weyland had found the "Fountain of Youth" & there was a scene of him rapidly de-aging. I did enjoy the 'TED 2023 Talk' viral video though.

Worst makeup job ever. I thought this part in the movie, as have others, looked on a MUCH worse level, and more amateur than just about any C-level horror movie. Why Guy Pearce, who I adore, would allow them to cover his beautiful face up with that abomination is the greatest mystery to me... UGH...I hate it...hate it...DESPISE IT>

, and I do agree with Rei...I think Pearce did NOT do a good job acting OLD...but, why did he have to? Couldn't we have believed he was taking "youth meds" or something to keep him strong, despite "dying" internally? I would've bought that before I'd have bought the poor makeup and the acting...

I just do not get it at all, how else would an old man have appeared or acted? I disagree completely and with all due respect. I feel there was just NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to complain about here.

Well to me this images look ok, they do the job fine... In the movie due to maybe the lighting who knows sometimes it never looked as effective as the images above but it still did the job.

I agree with you BigDave, and others who think that (surprisingly!) those pre-prod and behind-the-scene shots look more convincing than the real deal. I could'nt help but see "Pearce wearing semi-convincing prosthetics and trying his best" in the movie. While those pics here look like a legit old chap. I think part of it is Guy Pearce having a quite unique face/cheek-bones/lips/chin, and them managing a good "old person look" but not "old Pearce look". And because he's so specific and old Weyland didn't look as Pearce will look when he ages IMO, then I couldn' t help but seeing both images simultaneously and feeling left out of the scenes.

[i]*moving to Prometheus Media*[/i]

The problem for me is not that he had bad makeup. It's an issue with HD digital filming that is not much talked about but has become a major issue for makeup artists. One of the things I learned first from make-up for film class in college is that, traditionally, make-up application is approached with the foreknowledge that filming with film naturally obscures, to an extent, the appearance of make-up on film. The make-up is applied with the understanding that, more than just the effect of lighting, the visual translation of the appearance of make-up is affected by the medium of film as well. Focus, a lack there of, soft focus, the film speed of the stock being used; each has an obscuring affect on how the appearance of applied make-up translates to the screen on film. HD Digital cinematography affects both the lighting and definition of the image being translated to the screen. Lighting is more difficult to control, harsher and maintains a higher light to dark contrast to film stock. Lighter areas in digital filming tend to blow out much more easily than on film. The increasing level of megapixel resolution in digital cinematography makes every imperfection and detail in a frame more difficult to obscure and infinitely more easily defined. Both of these aspects of HD Digital cinematography have made the traditional approach to make-up in filmmaking that much more difficult to utilize as a make-up artist can no longer assume that the image translation to film will hide imperfections in the application of make-up or any possible perceptable "fakeness" in the apperance of a make-up job. In the case of Weyland as an old man, these images of the make-up job DO NOT appear nearly as fake or objectionable to what we saw on the big screen as the resoultion of the images is not the same. Granted, these pics were likely digital, but the principle applies; the higher the resolution and quality of the image, the harder it is to hide that "fake" quality we all detect in this make-up job. For those who are unaware, this is the meaning of Film Speed (Wikipedia): "Film speed is the measure of a photographic film's sensitivity to light, determined by sensitometry and measured on various numerical scales, the most recent being the ISO system. Upon exposure, the amount of light energy that reaches the film determines the effect upon the emulsion. The size of silver halide grains in the emulsion affect film sensitivity; which is related to granularity because larger grains give film greater sensitivity to light. Fine-grain film, such as film designed for portraiture or copying original camera negatives, is relatively insensitive, or "slow", because it requires brighter light or a longer exposure than a "fast" film. Fast films, used for photographing in low light or capturing high-speed motion, produce comparatively grainy images. Relatively insensitive film, with a correspondingly lower speed index requires more exposure to light to produce the same image density as a more sensitive film, and is thus commonly termed a slow film. Highly sensitive films are correspondingly termed fast films. In both digital and film photography, the reduction of exposure corresponding to use of higher sensitivities generally leads to reduced image quality (via coarser film grain or higher image noise of other types). In short, the higher the sensitivity, the grainier the image will be." All of this effects and obscures the appearance of applied make-up in an image on film negative. Make-up artists have known and worked with this understanding of how to make that make-up application look as real as possible on proccessed film negative. Digital cinematography eliminates that affect and more literally records the image it is filming. Hence, Guy Pearce looks to us to be sporting an awful make-up job in theaters, when it would likely have looked far better on film stock.

I actually liked the makeup. Maybe the lighting didn't help but still thought it looked great.

Yeah, looks better here. Also the sculpt is very symmetrical, where someone that aged would wear a little differently.. Just another critical eye, sorry folks..

I didn't realize the film was shot digitally (also there was no elasticicity or there appeared to be none in the old man's face). If the test is realism w digital media then it just means you Fx guys and gals in Hollywoodland just gotta "Try Harder"....

Yep, It was shot digitally