Prometheus (Ridley Scott)

[Stay Puft]

PROMETHEUS
Director: Ridley Scott

IMDb page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/)

http://i.imgur.com/tg8uV.jpg

[Watashi]

Not since the atrocious Wall-E has one movie so thoughtlessly trashed a superior film. This time both David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia and Steven Spielberg’s A.I.: Artificial Intelligence are dishonored through the characterization of an ominous automaton, David (played by Michael Fassbender who quickly has come to emblematize crap cinema).

Good ole' Armond White.

[megladon8]

Today while in line at Subway I heard someone talking about this new movie "Prah-Meh-Thoose".

Really? I mean...really???

[Adam]

Kinda distressed by the week's worth of shaky word of mouth, but this (http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-critic-reviews/prometheus.2/) Glenn Kenny review is at least keeping my hopes up

[Morris Schæffer]

Today while in line at Subway I heard someone talking about this new movie "Prah-Meh-Thoose".

Really? I mean...really???

Hey man, match cut started this trend. Must have been a lurker.

[Morris Schæffer]

My fanboy wants to opt for a big fat "nay" but on an objective level, I have to admit this isn't bad. It's got things going for it.

[Ezee E]

Ebert gave it four stars.

[MadMan]

Good ole' Armond White.Okay now he's not even trolling, he's just being a fucking moron. I haven't even seen AI but I know enough about that film to know that David has little to do with that particular film. The Lawrence of Arabia comparison actually struck me as Scott's little joke, as David Lean directed Arabia and thus he has a character named David in the film. Plus the fact that Lawrence and David do share some resemblance in being really cold, uncaring characters. That's where the whole thing ends, however. Maybe White should shock us all by not bashing a movie we expect him to bash, but that would require him to take his head out of his ass.

Anyways I'm glad I went to a midnight showing of this, it was great. Hopefully this and American Gangster are more of a sign that Scott is heading in the right direction once more. At least so much that he never makes another boring movie like Robin Hood again.

[Dead & Messed Up]

What was in this movie was good and occasionally great (Fassbender), but nothing in it improves on the mystery of the original film, and Scott no longer has the discipline to give the questions he's asking room to breathe.

This movie is probably worth seeing, but there was much disappointment.

[number8]

Unrelated but if you guys want to hate on Lindelof some more, he just wrote a Batman comic that was out yesterday that was absolutely god fucking awful.

[number8]

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/211012881658023936

[Dead & Messed Up]

Blog review with spoilers.

There's a moment in Prometheus when I nodded internally, thought, "So that's what a Space Jockey is," and then an overwhelming depression hit. Because now I know what a Space Jockey is. The original Alien featured an enormous room with a mysterious creature at the center, peering into a giant telescope. The scene offered grandeur, but more importantly, the scene offered mystery. What was this creature? Why was it carrying those eggs? Where was it going? With the concept design from H. R. Giger, it was even difficult to know where the creature stopped and its chair began. We never received answers, because the point was to slow down and inspire such questions. Now we have answers. How could they not disappoint?

In fairness, Prometheus makes its intentions clear from the opening of the film, which begins billions of years ago, with the intelligent design of life on Earth, and then flashes to the near-future, when scientist Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) quickly and speciously concludes that ancient astronaut glyphs prove that humanity was engineered by otherworldly beings. This is a potential boon to her faith in God, although one might think that evidence for a faith destroys the point of the whole thing. Screenwriter Damon Lindelof approached this conundrum with frequency in the television show Lost, where the chief ideological battle was between show-me rationality and new-age feel-goodery.

There's some pleasure to be gained from a film that's willing to ask these questions, but Ridley Scott races through these ideas like a busy parent going through a checklist at the grocery store. Some themes, like the search for one's lineage and maternal desire, thread together successfully, but most feel cursory. Minutes after Shaw laments her inability to conceive, android David (Michael Fassbender) deduces that she's pregnant. This leads to a fantastically squirmy scene of body-horror, but after it's over, Shaw never gets a chance to recognize how horribly her infertility was mocked.

This extends to plot developments too. One minute after someone says a storm is coming, the heroes outrace a gigantic cloud of dust. Ten seconds after somebody warns that a monster’s on the way, the monster arrives. The reveal of a looming human sculpture arrives almost casually in the background, decorative instead of mind-blowing.

Cursory works as a descriptor for most of the cast. The film features seventeen people in the ship's crew, but only a handful make an impression, and the remainder exist to be assaulted by unknown life-forms. A mohawked geologist does little geology aside from tossing radar-balls into the air, and a biologist makes the spectacularly moronic decision of petting a hissing extra-terrestrial cobra. Gruff pilot Janek (Idris Elba) is backed by two co-pilots who could be abandoned without any loss in drama.

The only sequence in the film that takes its time is an opening sequence where David goes through his daily routine. He plays basketball, wheels around in a go-cart, analyzes the people still in cryo-stasis, and watches Lawrence of Arabia. David has an affinity for Peter O'Toole, with his precise diction and blue eyes and blonde hair, and there's a similar mirth to Fassbender's performance that elevates every scene that features him. Indeed, the filmmakers love him so much that, even after he's crossed a moral event horizon, a character that ought to step on his synthetic little head essentially forgives and forgets attempted murder. Not a smart decision, but understandable, because David is just that charming.

Noomi Rapace and Idris Elba deserve some credit, too, for evolving into warriors of mankind by the end of the story, and, on the pro side, most of the special effects are impressive. There's an image in the film that shows Prometheus, tiny, zipping across a static star-field; it wonderfully communicates the loneliness of such a voyage. There's also a cute opening image that recalls the opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with a planet slowly sinking beneath the frame, and that was a film that also searched for big answers to big questions. Who made us? Where did life start? What is our destiny?

The difference is that 2001 relied on suggestion as much as possible, while Prometheus feels like that film's ADD-addled step-child, wondering the same things but allowing no time for consideration, reflection, or suspense. It's easy to put this at the feet of writer Damon Lindelof, who became a pariah of sorts after the conclusion of Lost, but most of those problems fall at the feet of Ridley Scott, who displays almost none of the discipline that made Alien such a tense and mysterious experience. What’s here isn’t bad, but it’s too quick to feel substantial, too informative to retain a sense of mystery. 2001 and Alien feel like full texts. Prometheus feels like Cliff’s Notes.

RATING: C+

[Sxottlan]

Looked great. Fassbender was very good.

Everything else? Meh. Script was pretty weak.

More later if I can.

[Henry Gale]

Well I liked it. A lot, even.

I absolutely have some issues with it, but at the same time I'm still trying to wrap my head around so much of it while even the next morning continuing to come down from the rush of taking it all in ― because above else, it's much more of a superbly crafted visceral experience (the 3D, the setting(s), the creatures, overall design of it, and all) than it is a particularly concrete, faultless piece of storytelling where everything gels narratively ― that I can't help but just give my gut reaction to it, which is definitely a positive (though not ecstatic) one, more than I can put together any real, articulate thoughts or arguments of it.

In the end, probably somewhere around a B+ for me. I'll try to elaborate more later.

[Saya]

Overall, I liked it. Just came back from it.

All in all, I wish the characters were more professional though. The incompetence of the crew bothered me. Especially taking into account that this was supposed to be a trillion dollar mission? Wouldn't you hire the best of the best?

Some actions of characters (especially the biologist and geologist) bothered me. Just from the top of my head...

Why were these guys so hell bent on touching an alien life form?

Hey, there's a breathable atmosphere in in this alien ship here. Let's just take off our helmets. I understand why they would do it from a movie perspective, it just annoyed me that they were so careless.

Also, how did geologist and biologist guy get lost in the ship? They had audio/visual contact with the crew in Prometheus and they just had mapped that area with those cool looking flying devices. Did I miss anything on this part?

The part with the dead guy suddenly appearing at the ship and the crew just opening the doors without making sure it was safe bothered me as well.

Maybe I'm just nitpicking...

Looking forward to the sequel.

[Watashi]

This whole movie was pointless.

What an awful final scene.

[Watashi]

Why would the Engineers come and go throughout history to leave all these "maps" across Earth that only leads them to a... military facility? Also, Lindelof did it in Star Trek, and he does it here: have crew land on huge foreign planet.... right exactly to the place where the last surviving engineer is.

[Morris Schæffer]

This whole movie was pointless.

What an awful final scene.

Studio interference? Part of me likes to believe Ridley had nothing to do with these moronic decisions, but another realizes the man's output just hasn't been grand the last decade. In any case, this is a tricky project, always was going to be, I respect that, but the final product is so conflicted.

All this hoopla about "it's going to be/it's not going to be a prequel" seems to have thrown the makers themselves a curveball.

[EyesWideOpen]

I still haven't seen 4 but I liked this better then any of the other films.

[Pop Trash]

I still haven't seen 4 but I liked this better then any of the other films.

At this rate of wrongness, my money is on you saying Alien:Resurrection is the best in the series.

[Skitch]

I don't know, my friends are saying its only second to Aliens. Seeing it tomorrow. I'm guessing I'm gonna love it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This was a bloated, corny, convoluted mess. Started with so much promise, and had some great scenes along the way, but what a completely wasted opportunity it turned out to be.

[Henry Gale]

Kind of interesting how this synopsis that Rowland posted last July was mostly correct in terms of the throughline of it, but with some major differences. I guess it's still spoiler-y to the final film for those that haven't seen it:


A possible, very detailed synopsis has been leaked. Read at your own peril:

Earth. Year 2058.

Archaeological digs in Africa reveal alien artifacts that humans were genetically engineered by a advanced alien race (space jockeys). These “Alien Gods” also terraformed Earth in order to make it habitable for their human creations. Amongst finds are coordinates to the Alien God’s home-world, to Paradise. Months later the Weyland Corp launch the spaceship PROMETHEUS and his crew, into deep space to make first contact. Thanks to faster than light travel a few years later the PROMETHEUS enters the Zeta Riticuli star system. Humans are greeted by their makers, then transported further into space to a scary yet fascinating world. The Alien Gods are proud of their “children”, their first creation to reach such levels of intelligence.

As a reward they share bits of their astonishing bio-based technologies with the humans. But for one crew member of the Prometheus it’s not enough. In a treacherous act he steals the “bio-source code” to Terraforming, a technology at the origin of all Gods’ power, that could make humans equal to the gods. The Alien Gods may be scientists but are also ruthless conquerors, destroyers of worlds who will not accept humans as equals. They unleash on the escaping human crew their favorite bio-weapon, a creature used to “clean up” worlds before colonization. But something goes wrong in the process and humans manage to turn the bio-weapon against their makers. Giving birth to a smarter, nastier, bigger breed of gut eating creatures. Creatures that will be the demise of Paradise. What’s left of the Prometheus crew manages to escape the doomed planet.

On their trail a survivor Alien God in very familiar ship with one ultimate mission.

Bring the wrath of the Gods to Earth.


Most of all, I like the idea of more interaction and betrayal with the Engineers. Could this have been an earlier draft? Because it was definitely real, just with some big differences.

[Ezee E]

Boy, Lindelof's twists and use of villains really hurts an otherwise amazing first half of a movie.

Ridley Scott crafts his best work in quite some time, and in scenes of suspense, really gears things well. Loved Noomi Rapace, even though I don't really understand her point of being there...

But everything is all so convenient after 90 minutes.

[transmogrifier]

That plot summary posted by Rowland is so, so much better than what we actually got, which was frankly a huge mess of unanswered questions, thinly drawn characters and a rushed avalanche of random events masquerading as an ending.

What exactly was the point of Theron's character? She doesn't contribute in any way, shape or form to the story, and has one of the stupidest final scenes you can imagine for a character that is supposed to have half a brain.

[Ezee E]

That plot summary posted by Rowland is so, so much better than what we actually got, which was frankly a huge mess of unanswered questions, thinly drawn characters and a rushed avalanche of random events masquerading as an ending.

What exactly was the point of Theron's character? She doesn't contribute in any way, shape or form to the story, and has one of the stupidest final scenes you can imagine for a character that is supposed to have half a brain.
This too.

Idris Elba, however, is a standout once again.

[transmogrifier]

This too.

Idris Elba, however, is a standout once again.

But even his character is a total mess. He goes to the installation once, comes back after barely poking around, and suddenly he knows exactly what the Space Jockey's were doing and their motivation?

I mean, they needed him to have a reason to act as he did right at the end, but boy did they provide it in a half-assed manner.

Still, Elba himself is all good. But he can't save that plot.

EDIT: And oh shit, that's right the biologist who, when coming across an alien creature that looks a lot like a snake (you know, those things on Earth that we tend to avoid) decides that the best course of action is to try and PET IT, despite looking like a snake and being an alien. It was at that point I realised that the screenwriter had given up figuring out how to logically get from point A to point B, and was trying to figure out whether he could get this piece of shit script finished before his next yoga appointment.

[Watashi]

This movie really needed a formidable villain whose presence takes over the entire film. The lone Engineer didn't do anything scary or threatening besides looking like Nemesis from Resident Evil.

They should have gone all the way with David's (or Vickers) villainy.

Also, did anyone find it funny when Shaw had her alien abortion, she was running around with blood everywhere and no one seemed to care or ask questions.

[Rowland]

Also, did anyone find it funny when Shaw had her alien abortion, she was running around with blood everywhere and no one seemed to care or ask questions.There were many amusing inconsistencies like this and those detailed above by trans.

Another was when those two dudes who insisted on returning to their ship after discovering the first dead jockey were later revealed to still be wandering the tunnels during the sand storm, only to later enter the room with the giant head statue anyway. What a lazy fucking contrivance that was.
I agree that the synopsis I posted a year ago was superior. It reads like an early draft that was rendered increasingly idiotic and incoherent through daft rewrites, as well as the desire to produce a series of prequels.

Whatever the case, the xenomorph creation story presented here doesn't make much sense when squared against the established mythology, and I can't imagine the writers of this somewhat ambitious but ultimately hackneyed script having a satisfying bridge already figured out. Instead, this plays like the first chapter of a half-prequel/half-reboot series, which is irksome, given the standard set by this first entry.
All that said, this is entirely watchable, if not ever as viscerally, intellectually, or emotionally stimulating as I'd hoped for. There admittedly are intriguing intimations of thematic depth, which the film ultimately proves incapable of paying off in any illuminating or thought-provoking manner, resorting instead to that hoary standby, daddy issues. And while it's all very polished and nice-looking, Scott is only marginally successful at conveying dread, atmosphere, and what have you.

[Rowland]

What exactly was the point of Theron's character? She doesn't contribute in any way, shape or form to the story, and has one of the stupidest final scenes you can imagine for a character that is supposed to have half a brain.I read that Theron wasn't initially satisfied with the substance of her character, so the writers devised two scenes specifically designed to humanize her character and thus woo her to the role. Knowing this beforehand, I'm pretty certain I immediately recognized said two scenes.

[Rowland]

Question:

I thought the surgical machine introduced while touring Theron's fancy living quarters was hers, since it's nearly in the same room and a point is made about how rare (and thus valuable) it is. If that were the case however, why the fuck would she have it programmed to only operate on the male anatomy?! Please tell me I'm mistaken and this isn't just an inexplicable contrivance.

[transmogrifier]

I read that Theron wasn't initially satisfied with the substance of her character, so the writers devised two scenes specifically designed to humanize her character and thus woo her to the role. Knowing this beforehand, I'm pretty certain I immediately recognized said two scenes.


With captain and father?

[transmogrifier]

Question:

I thought the surgical machine introduced while touring Theron's fancy living quarters was hers, since it's nearly in the same room and a point is made about how rare (and thus valuable) it is. If that were the case however, why the fuck would she have it programmed to only operate on the male anatomy?! Please tell me I'm mistaken and this isn't just an inexplicable contrivance.

I assume it was made for Weyland originally?

[Rowland]

With captain and father?
Yep, though the latter at least supports the film's overriding thematic makeup concerning paternal figures, so I'm not so sure now about that one, doesn't seem like it'd be written expressly to please Theron. Perhaps the second one was cut.

I assume it was made for Weyland originally?Ahh yes, fair enough. I had it in my head that she didn't know he had gone along for the trip, but thinking about it now, that was obviously not the case, given the confrontation with David in the hallway and such.

[Ezee E]

Oi, screw you Lindelof, stick with TV.

[Kurosawa Fan]

After this and that Snow White abomination, I'm more convinced than ever that Theron can't act worth a damn anyway. Why anyone would alter their script to woo her for anything more than nude scenes is beyond me.

[megladon8]

Whaaaaaat?

I mean, I haven't seen this yet, but Theron's a great actress. She's just made some terrible work choices.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Whaaaaaat?

I mean, I haven't seen this yet, but Theron's a great actress. She's just made some terrible work choices.

What has she done that's impressed you? See, that was my first instinct as well after Snow White, but then I went back and thought it through, and I can't think of any performance she's given that has actually wowed me. Monster wasn't kind on a second viewing. Give me something else. I just don't see it. She's adequate at best, hammy and trying too hard at worst.

[Irish]

I can't think of any performance she's given that has actually wowed me.

I liked her quite a bit in Young Adult, but your point is pretty well taken.

She's been in some terrible movies. Like maybe 1 out of 10 are worth watching at all, nevermind her performance.

[Boner M]

She was very good in Young Adult.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Haven't seen Young Adult. Likely never will. I'll continue my ignorant discrediting of her talents, thank you.

[Pop Trash]

She was very good in Young Adult.

Yes. One of the best performances of last year. Better than Tilda Swinton in ...Talk About Kevin imo (yes I went there).

[Watashi]

I thought she was fine in Prometheus.

[MadMan]

I thought she was fine in Prometheus.Same here.

I wrote a sprawling and messy review of this movie on my blog last night at 5 in the morning. I'm still not sure how to put into words why I liked this movie so much, and I'm also sure that Scott is already planning the Director's Cut :lol:

[megladon8]

While a little brief, I found her work in The Road to be pretty great.

She was also awesome on "Arrested Development".

[EyesWideOpen]

I've liked Theron in every movie I've seen that she was in.

[Dukefrukem]

I think you guys are being too harsh on this.

[Skitch]

Me too. I quite enjoyed this. Have spent the last few hours discussing it with friends. My biggest complaint is it felt rushed...hopefully there is a longer directors cut coming.

[transmogrifier]

The more I think about it, the worse the script becomes. Some of the plotting is simply amateurish. They are going to have to do a lot of retrofitting to force it all to make sense.

[Dukefrukem]

The abdominal surgery scene and snake attack in the catacombs scene were two of the most refreshing horror scenes I've seen in quite some time.

I agree with most about plot holes and failed logic, but I can definitely ignore it. This will be joining my collection for sure on Blu-ray.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Are you talking about the snake attack scene that starts with the biologist trying to pet a hostile extra-terrestrial alien that looks like Satan's Death Cobra of Death?

Why doesn't the asshole just start poking at the goo inside meteors?

[Saya]

http://idoitforthelolz.weebly.com/uploads/9/0/8/5/9085639/7025321_orig.gif

The more I think about the movie, the less I like it..

[D_Davis]

Loved it.

[Pop Trash]

There's something about this that seemed like Scott just stopped giving that much of a shit after the one hour mark. It's not just the script, but also the acting gets progressively more shrill and some of the formal beauty goes out the window (or at least a bit...I still think Scott has an eye for composition that is certainly above mid-tier as far as big budget filmmakers go).

That tacked on ending seemed very test screeny to me. I'm thinking they got back notes that said "needs a better ending" which is in fact true, but instead of rewriting/reshooting the final third of the movie, the studio just stuck an [SPOILER] alien doing some alien shit in there.

[Rowland]

Are you talking about the snake attack scene that starts with the biologist trying to pet a hostile extra-terrestrial alien that looks like Satan's Death Cobra of Death?Yep he is. Far from refreshing, that was one of the straight-up dopiest scenes in the movie.

[transmogrifier]

The abdominal surgery scene and snake attack in the catacombs scene were two of the most refreshing horror scenes I've seen in quite some time.

I agree with most about plot holes and failed logic, but I can definitely ignore it. This will be joining my collection for sure on Blu-ray.

I know opinions are subjective and all that, but I honestly cannot comprehend giving that absolutely ridiculous snake scene a pass, let alone thinking it one of the best scare scenes of recent times.

The biologist TRIES TO PET AN ALIEN LIFEFORM when it had previously established him as a coward. And this is after the movie has them leave the too jar place because they weren't keen on it, just to have them get conveniently lost (despite being in contact with the ship the whole time, which had their location AND A SCAN OF THE ENTIRE AREA) and then come back TO THE PLACE THEY WANTED TO AVOID IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Pop Trash]

Oh it's dopey allright, but you do get a pretty sick Anaconda like megadeath outa that scene.

[Pop Trash]

Also, maybe I missed it, but what the hell was Guy Pearce's grandpa supposed to be doing the whole time on the ship before he randomly shows up? Was he in hypersleep? If so, no one noticed?

[Morris Schæffer]

Also, maybe I missed it, but what the hell was Guy Pearce's grandpa supposed to be doing the whole time on the ship before he randomly shows up? Was he in hypersleep? If so, no one noticed?

Well, Vickers knew and so did David. There was a scene halfway where they're all hush hush about someone. But it's likely the others didn't know. Why? Well, that's "intrigue" for ya. ;)

edit: And may I just add that calling Pearce's weyland "Grandpa" is an insult to all the actual grandpa's in the world. Pearce was a monstrosity.

[Dukefrukem]

Are you talking about the snake attack scene that starts with the biologist trying to pet a hostile extra-terrestrial alien that looks like Satan's Death Cobra of Death?

Why doesn't the asshole just start poking at the goo inside meteors?

Yes that snake attack scene.

[Dukefrukem]

I know opinions are subjective and all that, but I honestly cannot comprehend giving that absolutely ridiculous snake scene a pass, let alone thinking it one of the best scare scenes of recent times.

The biologist TRIES TO PET AN ALIEN LIFEFORM when it had previously established him as a coward. And this is after the movie has them leave the too jar place because they weren't keen on it, just to have them get conveniently lost (despite being in contact with the ship the whole time, which had their location AND A SCAN OF THE ENTIRE AREA) and then come back TO THE PLACE THEY WANTED TO AVOID IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You've mistaken my post. I said it was a great horror scene. I didn't say the logic and continuity was perfect. That was the first question mark for me when I was watching. I thought, "OK that was weird, but I'm still in". Where it completely fell apart for me was when Weyland was woken up and everyone seemed to ignored Naomi falling to her knees with staples across her stomach. At that very moment, I knew the film had failed. I gave the movie 3 stars, there was a lot that worked, but unfortunately there was a lot that didn't.

[Dukefrukem]

Extended Cut confirmed. 20 additional minutes. I guess there is a longer cut of the fight between Dr. Shaw and the Engineer, but Scott is unsure if that will be in the cut or just a deleted scene. Scott also said the extra minutes will address a lot of the concerns people had with the movie.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/7514/original/giantprom.jpg?1339434639

[Pop Trash]

And may I just add that calling Pearce's weyland "Grandpa" is an insult to all the actual grandpa's in the world. Pearce was a monstrosity.

Pearce is a great actor, but I kept thinking he was the Grandpa from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

[Morris Schæffer]

Extended Cut confirmed. 20 additional minutes. I guess there is a longer cut of the fight between Dr. Shaw and the Engineer, but Scott is unsure if that will be in the cut or just a deleted scene. Scott also said the extra minutes will address a lot of the concerns people had with the movie.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/7514/original/giantprom.jpg?1339434639

Why can't they release a 140 min cut theatrically then? This is an era in which the new Batman is said to clock in at 165 minutes. :frustrated:

[Dukefrukem]

Ask Fox. They didn't even want the abdominal surgery scene in the movie, which could possibly be my favorite horror scene ever. If they cut that out, the movie would have got a PG-13 rating.

[Pop Trash]

Ask Fox. They didn't even want the abdominal surgery scene in the movie, which could possibly be my favorite horror scene ever. If they cut that out, the movie would have got a PG-13 rating.

Fox is retarded. That's the best scene in the movie. People in my audience were audibly freaking out.

[Dukefrukem]

Fox is retarded. That's the best scene in the movie. People in my audience were audibly freaking out.

When the scene finally ended, I realized had squeezed my popcorn bag crushing the popcorn on the top and my legs were twisted in front of me. That scene was done so well. I tried to imagine myself using that machine if I were in that situation.... not sure I would make it in time.

[Ezee E]

Agreed. Fantastic scene there.

[Morris Schæffer]

Ask Fox. They didn't even want the abdominal surgery scene in the movie, which could possibly be my favorite horror scene ever. If they cut that out, the movie would have got a PG-13 rating.

Well, they've been burned before on this franchise, but they also meddled with alien 3 and they greenlit the astonishing alien vs. Predator franchise and opted for one of the greatest of all living directors to be at the helm. Ridley Scott must have been fucking pissed.

[Dukefrukem]

Well, they've been burned before on this franchise, but they also meddled with alien 3 and they greenlit the astonishing alien vs. Predator franchise and opted for one of the greatest of all living directors to be at the helm. Ridley Scott must have been fucking pissed.

What exactly were they burned on?

[Dukefrukem]

Oh and I'm not sure if this was posted in the original thread or not, but Scott wants to do a sequel if this was successful.


"If we're lucky, there'll be a second part. It does leave you with some nice open questions." Asked if a sequel would be a direct prequel to Alien, Lindelof said "if we’re fortunate enough to do a sequel... it will tangentialize even further away from the original Alien.

[Morris Schæffer]

When the scene finally ended, I realized had squeezed my popcorn bag crushing the popcorn on the top and my legs were twisted in front of me. That scene was done so well. I tried to imagine myself using that machine if I were in that situation.... not sure I would make it in time.

I wish it had that effect on me. I knew there was a scene that, according to Scott, rivalled the chestburster sequence from 1979. And I was also reasonably certain that I hadn't seen it yet. So my mind was primed for when that showstopper would come. And when it happened, it felt telegraphed, and the relative cleanness and ease with which the surgery was carried out, made me smile just a little bit.

I kept thinking "what a fucking awesome bit of equipment" rather than "oh my gosh poor lass".

That said, it is one of Prometheus more visceral scenes but nowhere near as messy, dramatic as what Happened to Hurt. But that's my fault according to The Rotten Tomatoes forum.

[Morris Schæffer]

What exactly were they burned on?

The debacles of alien 3 and resurrection, the critical pounding the A vs. P movied got, but perhaps they made enough money.

[Dukefrukem]

I wish it had that effect on me. I knew there was a scene that, according to Scott, rivalled the chestburster sequence from 1979. And I was also reasonably certain that I hadn't seen it yet. So my mind was primed for when that showstopper would come. And when it happened, it felt telegraphed, and the relative cleanness and ease with which the surgery was carried out, made me smile just a little bit.

I kept thinking "what a fucking awesome bit of equipment" rather than "oh my gosh poor lass".

That said, it is one of Prometheus more visceral scenes but nowhere near as messy, dramatic as what Happened to Hurt. But that's my fault according to The Rotten Tomatoes forum.

And this is exactly why I stop reading/watching interviews/videos before I go to a movie that I am already going to see.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html

Been reading what this guy is saying. It's a long dissertation so I haven't finished yet, but it's an engaging read. There are points that will be already obvious to some, but the coherence with which it is written is illuminating. I never even spotted this mural in the movie:

http://dejanno.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/prometheus.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html

Been reading what this guy is saying. It's a long dissertation so I haven't finished yet, but it's an engaging read. There are points that will be already obvious to some, but the coherence with which it is written is illuminating. I never even spotted this mural in the movie:

http://dejanno.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/prometheus.jpg

Fucking awesome. I might have to raise my grade/go watch it again now. I hope that Scott interview is accurate.

[[ETM]]

He made good points, but even the things that do make sense he's pulling out of thin air.

[Morris Schæffer]

Big ideas indeed. The engineers created us, but one lone dude was somehow pissed at us! Why? Humanity must obviously have done something to trigger that change in them. Well, the engineers were said to be dead for two thousand years when the crew of the Prometheus found them. What happened approx. two thousand years ago on Earth? Anyway, great article. Not saying the movie is suddenly becoming some sort of masterpiece for me, but it does spark discussion.

[Watashi]

20 additional minutes isn't going to explain the imbecilic behavior of the crew. Unless there is a backstory revealing that that one scientist worked in a petting zoo for hostile alien snakes before joining the Prometheus.

[Kiusagi]

Ask Fox. They didn't even want the abdominal surgery scene in the movie, which could possibly be my favorite horror scene ever. If they cut that out, the movie would have got a PG-13 rating.

I don't know if Fox is to blame for this. I've seen Ridley Scott say in multiple interviews that the version in theaters is his cut. If there ends up being an extended cut, perhaps it will be in response to the movie's reception. I know Scott's had his movies meddled with before, but I don't get the impression this is one of those times.

[Kiusagi]

http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html

That's a great read. I doubt all of this is what was intended, but it's interesting. I want to see the film again to try to make sense of it all.

One thing, though:
Shaw did try to kill the "fetus", didn't she? She ran decontamination and it appeared to kill it. It turned out to not in the end, but she didn't know that until then.

[Dukefrukem]

20 additional minutes isn't going to explain the imbecilic behavior of the crew. Unless there is a backstory revealing that that one scientist worked in a petting zoo for hostile alien snakes before joining the Prometheus.

I just want to point out that your hangups are really minor and can be easily ignored if willing...

1. Scared Scientist gets some last minute balls to impress his friend.

2. Landing next to the "last surviving Engineer", which we know he's not the last since they are traveling to their home world in the end (presumably).

3. "maps" across Earth that only leads them to a military facility; read the blog that Morris posted.

4. Final Scene; Not awful, just incredibly forced by Fox.

[Pop Trash]

20 additional minutes isn't going to explain the imbecilic behavior of the crew. Unless there is a backstory revealing that that one scientist worked in a petting zoo for hostile alien snakes before joining the Prometheus.

This behavior isn't that far fetched. Look what happened to Steve Irwin.

[Rowland]

OMG Jesus was a space jockey!

:frustrated:

Another thought: what was the deal with those stupid holographic recordings, and what happened to the bodies of the remaining jockeys who escaped into the black goo room? The same essential exposition could have been relayed so much more evocatively just through the discovery of the bodies, i.e. the space jockey from the original Alien.

And speaking of the original space jockey, does anyone else find it profoundly disappointing to discover that it was just a buffed-up humanoid in a space suit? That doesn't really square for me with this:

http://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/o-space-jockey-and-xenomorphs-will-be-in-ridley-scott-s-prometheus-650x365.jpg

Note the hole in its chest. :cool:

[Morris Schæffer]

As a closing point, let me draw your attention to a very different strand of symbolism that runs through Prometheus: the British science fiction show Doctor Who. In the 1970s episode 'The Daemons', an ancient mound is opened up, leading to an encounter with a gigantic being who proves to be an alien responsible for having guided mankind's development, and who now views mankind as a failed experiment that must be destroyed. The Engineers are seen tootling on flutes, in exactly the same way that the second Doctor does. The Third Doctor had an companion whose name was Liz Shaw, the same name as the protagonist of Prometheus. As with anything else in the film, it could all be coincidental; but knowing Ridley Scott, it doesn't seem very likely.

awesome!

[Morris Schæffer]

I just want to point out that your hangups are really minor and can be easily ignored if willing...

4. Final Scene; Not awful, just incredibly forced by Fox.

But less forced when one considers that said creature was probably:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mqGyU267_Yw/T3CNPgZS5tI/AAAAAAAACp0/XFjGKBc6PrA/s1600/Untitled.png

So it was foreshadowed.

[[ETM]]

This behavior isn't that far fetched. Look what happened to Steve Irwin.

Oh, come on, it's not just the petting incident.

[Rowland]

I did however find this response in the comment thread rather illuminating. I picked up on most of this, but wasn't able to make it all connect as coherently as he does.
I really wanted to focus on the nature of the black goop. The Engineers were definitely awesome at genetic manipulation. That said, if LV-223 was indeed a military installation as the captain said, it would make sense that the black goop is literally raw Xenomorph genetic material, I feel this is somewhat supported by the way it interacts with varying living tissue it ones into contact with.

When it's ingested, it decimates the host like the molecular acid that Xenomorphs have for blood.
Similarly, when given access to the central nervous system, as it was when Fifield fell face down into it with a compromised mask, it took root and he began acting like a Xenomorh, complete with the strange ball he rolled himself into, and the way he attempted to climb vertical surfaces and leapt about like mad.

Here's where it gets weirdest but at the same time makes a startling amount of sense. A nativ Xenomorph will take on attributes of the host it was implanted on. This is a common theme that's been established in the series.
The black sludge is almost definitely raw Xenomorph genetic material because look at what it does when expose to reproductive organs. The worms who likely reproduce asexually, and thus are pretty much just a sex organ in general, mutated into (or birthed) the cobra like serpents who shared some obvious traits with the face hugger. Upon introduction to Shaw's womb, the ooze produced a very similar organism, who exhibited the same predatory behavior as the serpents and face huggers.

When exposed to reproductive tissue, the Xenomorh genetic material produces a Xenomorph reproductive organ. That said, it also explains why the Xenomorph at the end looked so visually distinct compared to its previous counterparts. While the Xenomorphs we are familiar with are "native" or what have you, and are product of a queen-face hugger (xeno-genetic material in contact with reproductive tissue) appear insectoid in nature regardless of the morphology of the host, the Xenomorph birthed from the corpse of the Engineer was a product of a Xenomorph reproductive unit that ALREADY HAD human DNA in it. So it was effectively double dipping into the DNA pool. This would explain the very mamian features (the gums teeth, and placenta that was attached to its gut.

So it goes a step deeper in my opinion. The Engineers were the one species that were able to find a way to render the Xenomorph into a usable tool, Something humans have been attempting to do and failing hard at since their first encounter, by "boiling them down" into a raw, yet seemingly conscious genetic material. Then, we got involved, and it all went to hell.
In essence, the space jockeys weaponized the xenomorph genetic material. Nifty.

[Morris Schæffer]

Haha. Posted by Christian H. dos Santos. :lol:

[[ETM]]

Yeah, that's a clever post, but still - it's almost entirely conjecture. Scott didn't want to make things too "on the nose" so he made it impossible to follow or deduce instead. There's a not so fine line between a dense plot that engages you and leaves you thinking about it for hours afterwards, and one that is frustratingly inconsistent and pisses you off instead, because it seems like a bunch of random shit instead of something to comprehend.

[Rowland]

;425593']Yeah, that's a clever post, but still - it's almost entirely conjecture. Scott didn't want to make things too "on the nose" so he made it impossible to follow or deduce instead. There's a not so fine line between a dense plot that engages you and leaves you thinking about it for hours afterwards, and one that is frustratingly inconsistent and pisses you off instead, because it seems like a bunch of random shit instead of something to comprehend.Oh without a doubt, but it helped me to more fully rationalize the nature of the black goop, which was still bothering me.

[[ETM]]

I'm still not buying it, even though that explanation makes the most sense so far.

[Dukefrukem]

But less forced when one considers that said creature was probably:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mqGyU267_Yw/T3CNPgZS5tI/AAAAAAAACp0/XFjGKBc6PrA/s1600/Untitled.png

So it was foreshadowed.

You know, I was trying to recall the change in the mural that was described and couldn't remember that scene until now. More rep for Morris today.

[Skitch]

I'm glad I'm not alone in loving this movie. 20 more minutes could turn it into a full on masterpiece. My biggest complaint was that it felt rushed.

[Rowland]

My biggest complaint was that it felt rushed.The jump from the cave directly to the spaceship was one moment when I actually appreciated the rush.

[Glass Co.]

God, this thing really was a mess. Still not sure if the design and performances save it.

Not since War of the Worlds have I seen a movie so filled with a mixture of great elements and awful, hand-clenching frustration as to why certain creative decisions were made. Kind of reminded me of watching Blade Runner for the first time though, which was the theatrical cut, so I still have slight hope a DC could save it.

[Skitch]

The jump from the cave directly to the spaceship was one moment when I actually appreciated the rush.

That I did too. I don't want more on Earth, but more build up after.

[Mal]

It's beautiful but its a fucking mess. Ridley Scott, news at 11.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It has soured even more with me since seeing it. I just can't understand how viewers can ignore such substantial flaws in the storytelling.

[Ezee E]

It has soured even more with me since seeing it. I just can't understand how viewers can ignore such substantial flaws in the storytelling.
Yeah, the flaws are really outweighing the things I was really digging about it. Bummer. I will have to rewatch at some point.

With that, the 3D didn't really do anything for me. I didn't even notice it, so I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. I figured the pings travelling through the ship would've provided for some neat visuals, but didn't really.

[TGM]

So I had pretty much no expectations going into this movie, and yet I still came out disappointed. Basically, with the exception of Michael Fassbender's awesome performance, everything in this movie was just so underwhelming.

The plot was a mess, characters would randomly start acting differently for no real apparent reason, Charlize Theron was completely pointless, as was the "twist" revelation concerning her character, which was never made mention to again after the fact. Certain fairly important plot points were just randomly introduced to us late in the movie when they could have and should have been introduced much earlier on and eased into the story. And the cgi creatures just looked really, really bad.

If Michael Fassbender wasn't there, I flat out would have probably hated this movie. But his presence was good enough to make me at least think a bit decently towards the movie. But yeah, no, definitely can't recommend this one at all.

[Sxottlan]

The first 45 minutes or so are compelling. I'm a sucker for the premise and the mood feels right off the top. However, there's a stretch of about 20 minutes where the plot just gives out and the movie gets stupid before our eyes. And there's just so many questions. Not the kind I find interesting to contemplate, but questions that would just help clarify the mystery:


1. Weaknesses in the set up come back magnified once they get to the planet. I think back and wonder just how did all of our ancestors know about this star system. Did the Engineers come visit Earth? Was there some genetic memory in common? How exactly did Shaw look at this image of ancient stars and discern that we're descended from aliens? Could be the same way they land on the moon and just happen to find these alien structures?

2. The sudden unpleasant detour into the Keystone Scientists is really what derailed the suspension of disbelief in what was happening. I can buy the geologist freaking out at the alien bodies, but it's such a sudden change in behavior. Not sure why the biologist wouldn't be interested and follows him out. First GIANT WTF moment: ten minutes later we cut back to these two idiots and they're still in the goddamn pyramid. Wha? The geologist whose job it was to map the site and he can't find the way out? What? And instead of these two having interesting character interaction while stuck in this "haunted house," but we instead watch incredulously as the biologist makes the ridiculously moronic decision to pet a mysterious alien penis-shaped snake sticking out of this weird goo. Naturally it likes to enter orifices.

3. Shaw's self-abortion is indeed the best scene in the film. It's gruesome and also we feel how personally horrifying it must be for Shaw, who is apparently barren and when she actually goes get pregnant, she has to kill it. Simple and terrible irony. Unfortunately, the scene requires Shaw to overpower two people who then don't chase her. So we keep waiting for people to show up in the scene, but they don't. No one seems to notice or care what Shaw is doing or that she's stumbling around and Vickers never complains about the dead fucking alien in her medical pod. When Shaw next sees the people she assaulted, they don't seem to hold a grudge.

4. Ah yes, the goo. Just what the hell does it do? No idea. Apparently it's a biological weapon (the Prometheus' captain is able to clearly discern this off screen, but doesn't tell us how). The thing is, we have no idea of even what we're seeing is the goo working like it's supposed to or if it's all some horrible accident. Does it just evolve everything that touches it? Like those little earthworms? Was David expecting something when he gave some of the goo to the scientist? Can he predict when he'd have sex with Shaw? Is the xenomorph we all know and love really supposed to be the end product? We see the image of one on the mural. But who knows? The xenomorph's reproductive cycle always made little sense to me. And here we're not sure if this is all just accidental or if this is truly how it's all supposed to start. If it is, it seems very random or requiring a lot of coincidences to work. I'm not sure how the male scientist ingesting some goo means he impregnates Shaw with what ends up being a giant facehugger. And the first apparent xenomorph (I call him Shark Boy) seen in the final scene seems incongruous with what we've before it.

I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking off, but it's late.

[Morris Schæffer]

Concerning point #1, that's a big leap that Shaw is making. I understand that she's a woman of faith who's seen some tragedy befall her, but she also seems level-headed enough to not jump to conclusions of the earth-shattering variety.

But she does anyway and maybe, just maybe, the film, in these very early scenes, jumps the shark. It might have benefited the movie's mystery to keep the mission's purpose a little more vague, only to reveal later that we're all descendants of the engineers although that would have meant adjusting the tagline also. I mean, the scene where we find out that their dna matches 100% with ours did very little to me, it felt telegraphed. I honestly would have been more satisfied if the scan came back negative, I feel that that might have challenged Shaw's beliefs quite a bit more. Isn't faith the absence of ironclad evidence? Yes, we're not talking about God here, merely something more rooted in scientific possibilities, but still.

[Dukefrukem]

And your point number 4 is explained in the film.

I keep hearing how how much of a "mess" this film is but the same four points continue to be brought up.

[transmogrifier]

And your point number 4 is explained in the film.

I keep hearing how how much of a "mess" this film is but the same four points continue to be brought up.

It's a complete and utter mess, from top to bottom.

Explain to me the purpose of Theron's character, I'll settle for that for now. I mean, seeing as it is not a mess, there must be a purpose. Especially because it is not one of those four points.

EDIT: I will admit though, I think it takes balls to claim that a whole range of different people being annoyed by the same four huge plot problems is actually evidence of...I don't know, logic and consistency? Is that what you are arguing?

[Dukefrukem]

It's a complete and utter mess, from top to bottom.

Explain to me the purpose of Theron's character, I'll settle for that for now. I mean, seeing as it is not a mess, there must be a purpose. Especially because it is not one of those four points.

EDIT: I will admit though, I think it takes balls to claim that a whole range of different people being annoyed by the same four huge plot problems is actually evidence of...I don't know, logic and consistency? Is that what you are arguing?

Well no one countered my post on being able to ignore those four points...so I'll continue to bring it up. I agree that Theron's character was pointless. I didn't say the film was without flaws, but I think they're easily ignored flaws. Why do we even care that her character is pointless? Does it bother you that you expected her to have a bigger role in the premise? I think if anything her character serves as an opposite to Dr Shaw's character; she was a cold human being, and escaping in the end to save her own life was well represented in the motifs of the notion of self-sacrifice, which Vickers has no interest in partaking. If anything, her fate was well depicted.

[Dukefrukem]

Also, what do people think of the theory that Theron's character is also an Android? The "father" reference was because Weyland built her, and she subsequently built David? Remember, the Captain also questioned this too... Weyland also calls David his son.
Weyland could have used his real daughter, as a starting point to build David. Meredith and David do look and walk alike.

[transmogrifier]

If anything, her fate was well depicted.

I think we just have fundamentally different expectations when it comes to the relationship between drama and narrative plausability.

She gets crushed by a ship rolling in a dead straight line just after we have seen another character TRIP, FALL and ROLL OVER about a meter and survive the same slow-motion, straight line "death trap". For a film with pretentions of intelligence, it is one of the most cartoonish death scenes you could imagine. I half expected her to get up all flat like the bad guy from Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

And if she is an android, I'm glad they built her with a sex drive and a presumably functional vaginal.... area, or otherwise that scene with her in the captain was gonna end pretty damn awkwardly.

In other words, you are really stretching logic thin to protect this movie.

[D_Davis]

Oh and I'm not sure if this was posted in the original thread or not, but Scott wants to do a sequel if this was successful.

I want to see sequels for this movie more than any other movie I've ever seen. I love how it sets up the possibilities for more adventures. Absolutely perfect. My friend and I were both really bummed that the film had ended because we wanted so see more - so very few films do that to me these days.

The more I think about this film the more I love it. I was completely haunted by it yesterday. While there are some flaws (mainly two scenes, one featuring the biologist, the other the captain), the film did so much right for me that I can easily overlook them.

[D_Davis]

In essence, the space jockeys weaponized the xenomorph genetic material. Nifty.

Yeah - totally. That's pretty much exactly what I took from the film. I think the opening scene is one of the engineers infecting a planet with his infected blood/DNA.

[Dukefrukem]

I think we just have fundamentally different expectations when it comes to the relationship between drama and narrative plausability.

She gets crushed by a ship rolling in a dead straight line just after we have seen another character TRIP, FALL and ROLL OVER about a meter and survive the same slow-motion, straight line "death trap". For a film with pretentions of intelligence, it is one of the most cartoonish death scenes you could imagine. I half expected her to get up all flat like the bad guy from Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

It was a pretty big ship. You just preached to me about narrative drama and you're complaining about continuity in an action scene. Minor quibble. How often do we complain about physics in action movies, or unlimited ammo in guns here? But like I said, the film has plenty of flaws, but this is hardly related to the premise.



And if she is an android, I'm glad they built her with a sex drive and a presumably functional vaginal.... area, or otherwise that scene with her in the captain was gonna end pretty damn awkwardly.

In other words, you are really stretching logic thin to protect this movie.

I'm surprised you're willing to leap to that logic, considering we dont see any evidence of sexual contact taking place. Could it possibly have been a joke? I'm assuming you remember the Captain asking her if she was an android.

[MadMan]

I want to see sequels for this movie more than any other movie I've ever seen. I love how it sets up the possibilities for more adventures. Absolutely perfect. My friend and I were both really bummed that the film had ended because we wanted so see more - so very few films do that to me these days.

The more I think about this film the more I love it. I was completely haunted by it yesterday. While there are some flaws (mainly two scenes, one featuring the biologist, the other the captain), the film did so much right for me that I can easily overlook them.That's really my entire take on the film. I'm also amused that Duke is defending a film that received only a 75 from him, although maybe that's high on his scale-I can't remember.

As much as I loved it, I strangely find myself not interested in debating with its detractors, namely because I'm as unlikely to change their mind about anything as much as they are to convince myself about certain aspects.


http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html

Been reading what this guy is saying. It's a long dissertation so I haven't finished yet, but it's an engaging read. There are points that will be already obvious to some, but the coherence with which it is written is illuminating. I never even spotted this mural in the movie:

http://dejanno.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/prometheus.jpgYeah I caught that mural, and thought it was a really cool moment in the film.

The Shaw having to remove a pre-xenomorph from her chest scene was absolutely terrifying. Sure it wasn't as disturbing/horrifying as the famous chest buster moment in the original Alien, but I think it came damn close. Oh and a buddy of mine finally saw Aliens the other day-I'll have to ask him what he thought of it, as he's viewed the rest of the films in the series minus part 4, I think.

[Morris Schæffer]

Yeah - totally. That's pretty much exactly what I took from the film. I think the opening scene is one of the engineers infecting a planet with his infected blood/DNA.

The general consensus seems to be that this is the one engineer who willingly accepted death to create life (aka mankind) with the mystery being just what happened afterwards for the engineers to turn against us. This is assuming the opening scenes take place on a primordial Earth.

[Dukefrukem]

That's really my entire take on the film. I'm also amused that Duke is defending a film that received only a 75 from him, although maybe that's high on his scale-I can't remember.

My scale:

0-60 = NAY
70-100 = YAY

The reason it's not 0-50 and 51-100 is because sometimes there are really bad movies that fall between that 51-60 range that are my guilty pleasures. You would think this would be the opposite, but I am trying to portray that I recognize these movies are bad, but their score reflects some redeeming qualities.

Examples of these movies are; Broken Arrow, The Wolfman (2010), Scream 4, Volcano, Jeepers Creepers, Transformers 3... stuff like that.

60-69 = OK
70-79 = Good
80-89 = Great
90-99 = Top Shelf Cinema
100* = Elite <-- only 1 movie has ever got a grade of 100 from me.

[Dukefrukem]

The general consensus seems to be that this is the one engineer who willingly accepted death to create life (aka mankind) with the mystery being just what happened afterwards for the engineers to turn against us. This is assuming the opening scenes take place on a primordial Earth.

Which is what I also believe, however as Scott said in an interview, it doesn't matter what planet it is.

[[ETM]]

As much as I loved it, I strangely find myself not interested in debating with its detractors, namely because I'm as unlikely to change their mind about anything as much as they are to convince myself about certain aspects.

Sadly, the burden of proof is on you, because I've yet to hear any reasonable defense or explanation of anything I thought was wrong with the film.

[Dukefrukem]

My mind gets changed all the time here, which is why I'm waiting for 8 to chime in. Has he not seen it yet? What the heck?!

[Dukefrukem]

Sequel Synopsis.


"I think they're going where she wants to go. His fundamental programming has been scrapped. Weyland [the man who built and programmed him] is dead and so now his programming is coming from God knows where. Is he being programmed by Elizabeth, or is it his own internal curiosity now that Weyland isn't telling him what to do any more? He's always been interested in Elizabeth, remember that: He's watching her dreams when she's sleeping in much the same way that he watches Lawrence of Arabia. He's a strange robot that has a curious crush on a human being, and when Weyland is eliminated, I think he is genuinely interested in what she's interested in. He reaches out partly for survival, but partly out of curiosity, and I think he's sincere that he'll take her wherever she wants to go."

[Pop Trash]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0

[Dukefrukem]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1YuvUQFJ0

LOL "Is David a secret asshole?"

A lot of his questions have answers, as funny as they are.

[Pop Trash]

A lot of his questions have answers, as funny as they are.

Answers that you came up with in your Prometheus fan fiction or...

[Dukefrukem]

Answers that you came up with in your Prometheus fan fiction or...

Why did Weyland want David to infect Holloway with the black goo? (assumption)

Did David know Holloway would have sex with Shaw after he infected him with the black goo? (obviously not)

Is he an expert in things that never ever happened? (rhetorical)

Why would the last engineer waste his time hunting down Shaw and Charlize Theron when he could have just flew his ship away and completed his mission? (what is he talking about? Wouldnt you be angry if your ship was wrecked by a puny race? )

How did those guys get lost in the caves when they had an elaborate 3D map? (because the map was on the fucking Prometheus)

Why would the Prometheus crew go on a 4 year mission when they are not even briefed on what the mission is? (money, as explained)

Why did Engineers create a star map that was just their weapons research facility? (maybe, just maybe, they didn't want to give them a map to their home-world in case of hostility? )

Why did the Engineers want to come to Earth to kill us? When they created us? (good question)

[Pop Trash]

Has anyone explained why there was only the one Engineer zombie dude and why he wanted to kill the humans? Can we infer from our self-written fan fiction that he was getting psychic commands from the rest of the Engineer dudes back on their homeland?

[Dukefrukem]

Has anyone explained why there was only the one Engineer zombie dude and why he wanted to kill the humans? Can we infer from our self-written fan fiction that he was getting psychic commands from the rest of the Engineer dudes back on their homeland?

If you want, but that would be really stupid you and should consider the wicked sweet Jesus explanation instead. ;)

And how do you know there's only one engineer zombie dude?

[Pop Trash]

And how do you know there's only one engineer zombie dude?

Cuz only one of them was on screen?

[Dukefrukem]

Cuz only one of them was on screen?

But there were multiple facilities and it's a big planet.

[Pop Trash]

But there were multiple facilities and it's a big planet.

So what we saw are actually multiple Engineer zombie guys who have absolutely no individual personality and act and look the same way (ie hulking monster zombies)? :frustrated:

[Rowland]

Shaw's self-abortion is indeed the best scene in the film. It's gruesome and also we feel how personally horrifying it must be for Shaw, who is apparently barren and when she actually goes get pregnant, she has to kill it. Simple and terrible irony. Unfortunately, the scene requires Shaw to overpower two people who then don't chase her. So we keep waiting for people to show up in the scene, but they don't. No one seems to notice or care what Shaw is doing or that she's stumbling around and Vickers never complains about the dead fucking alien in her medical pod. When Shaw next sees the people she assaulted, they don't seem to hold a grudge.I found this ridiculous as well. She bludgeons both of her captors with a metal tank that mustn't have been that heavy if she could lift and attack them with it while heavily sedated, nor do they appear to be completely knocked out, rolling around on the ground in pain and such. She then stumbles down one short hallway and enters the first room on her right, where the medical pod conveniently happens to be. What happened to those two people back in the previous room, wouldn't they chase her? Call for reinforcements? And why does David seem to not give a shit upon seeing her walking around later on all bloodied up? He even cracks a stupid joke about it.


4. Ah yes, the goo. Just what the hell does it do? No idea. Apparently it's a biological weapon (the Prometheus' captain is able to clearly discern this off screen, but doesn't tell us how). The thing is, we have no idea of even what we're seeing is the goo working like it's supposed to or if it's all some horrible accident. Does it just evolve everything that touches it? Like those little earthworms? Was David expecting something when he gave some of the goo to the scientist? Can he predict when he'd have sex with Shaw? Is the xenomorph we all know and love really supposed to be the end product? We see the image of one on the mural. But who knows? The xenomorph's reproductive cycle always made little sense to me. And here we're not sure if this is all just accidental or if this is truly how it's all supposed to start. If it is, it seems very random or requiring a lot of coincidences to work. I'm not sure how the male scientist ingesting some goo means he impregnates Shaw with what ends up being a giant facehugger. And the first apparent xenomorph (I call him Shark Boy) seen in the final scene seems incongruous with what we've before it.This is one important element of the film that was bothering the shit out of me too, because I felt like I understood how the black goo was behaving, but not why, especially considering the xenomorph imagery on the murals. As I posted earlier, the most logical conclusion is that the black goo is weaponized xenomorph genetic material. This can also explain why the space jockey ship in the original Alien had a cargo full of xenomorph eggs instead of those black goo vases, another mystery I couldn't initially reconcile, because they most likely collected the eggs to produce the black goo. Which really makes the space jockeys seem like a bunch of dicks.


after we have seen another character TRIP, FALL and ROLL OVER about a meter and survive
I noticed this too. Even more egregious, after rolling what does appear to be about one meter, she stands up and suddenly she's thirty meters away. I'm not one to typically notice or even be particularly bothered by stuff like this, but when it's so consistently obvious, the film just really seems slipshod.

[transmogrifier]

Two problems I have about your defence of the film:


It was a pretty big ship. You just preached to me about narrative drama and you're complaining about continuity in an action scene. Minor quibble. How often do we complain about physics in action movies, or unlimited ammo in guns here? But like I said, the film has plenty of flaws, but this is hardly related to the premise.

(a) You keep on taking individual moments of total ham-fisted idiocy and claiming that we are quibbling about minor issues in the context of that one scene, without ever comprehending that maybe the fact that the sheer number of said "quibbles" that infect the entire film has a cumulative effect that at the end had me thinking "Who the hell wrote this shit?".


I'm surprised you're willing to leap to that logic, considering we dont see any evidence of sexual contact taking place. Could it possibly have been a joke? I'm assuming you remember the Captain asking her if she was an android.

(b) You spend a lot of time explaining plot holes by inventing possible explanations by invoking things we DIDN'T SEE as if that is the foundation for excellent screewriting. If Theron is an android, why was she in cryogenic sleep at the start of the film (Oh, we never saw her in cyrogenic sleep, she was just wet and doing push ups!)?

How did David know the Space Jockey was coming after Elizabeth (and how did the Space Jockey know that she was the reason the ship crashed, and where she'd be, and how did he get there so fast........) (Oh, he's psychic, the film just didn't show us and the sequel is going to explain all!)

EDIT: Anyway, I'm going to leave this here, because discussing this with you is making me hate the film more and more. I think I'll bow out while I still have some positive things to focus on. :)

[Dukefrukem]

Two problems I have about your defence of the film:



(a) You keep on taking individual moments of total ham-fisted idiocy and claiming that we are quibbling about minor issues in the context of that one scene, without ever comprehending that maybe the fact that the sheer number of said "quibbles" that infect the entire film has a cumulative effect that at the end had me thinking "Who the hell wrote this shit?".



(b) You spend a lot of time explaining plot holes by inventing possible explanations by invoking things we DIDN'T SEE as if that is the foundation for excellent screewriting. If Theron is an android, why was she in cryogenic sleep at the start of the film (Oh, we never saw her in cyrogenic sleep, she was just wet and doing push ups!)?

How did David know the Space Jockey was coming after Elizabeth (and how did the Space Jockey know that she was the reason the ship crashed, and where she'd be, and how did he get there so fast........) (Oh, he's psychic, the film just didn't show us and the sequel is going to explain all!)

EDIT: Anyway, I'm going to leave this here, because discussing this with you is making me hate the film more and more. I think I'll bow out while I still have some positive things to focus on. :)

I wish you wouldn't bow out. If you were a Mallick fan, and I was asking questions, I would hope you would at least attempt to explain certain situations.

I will give you point A as I've said many times the film isn't perfect. Everything you question proves this. BUt I'll say again, I think your point B has plenty of evidence to suggest different theories about situations not by what is not shown, but what is shown... and I think that's half the fun. Yeh the opening scene kinda takes away from my android theory, but maybe she wasn't 100% human. Sort of a hybrid of human DNA and android. A first of it's kind, sort of like David is supposed to be. That would explain why the surgery machine wasn't set for female. (I realize the understanding is it is for Weyland) but why would it be in her life pod?

The Engineer went after Elizabeth to take revenge on the humans. That's obvious. How he got there so fast? Well he is a genetic marvel, probably runs very fast and he probably saw the life pod outside the ship when he left. I suppose he didn't know where she'd be, but a good place to check first would be the pod.

[Ivan Drago]

Seeing this tomorrow. My expectations are lower than the movie's current star rating here.

[Skitch]

As much as I loved it, I strangely find myself not interested in debating with its detractors, namely because I'm as unlikely to change their mind about anything as much as they are to convince myself about certain aspects.


I'm with you. I feel a lot of the complaints are either nitpicky or overlooking things the film has already stated. Seems more and more like its not a film worth really fighting over. People either seem to love it or not. And there's nothing wrong with that...if it doesn't work for you, hey, some films sure don't work for me that get a lot of love around here.

A friend emailed me this. It is from someone else online, I'm sorry, I don't know where, and I'm sorry if its already been posted. Its a long write up, and spoilery. I don't agree with everything in it, but it does present a lot of ideas I had not considered.

Prometheus contains such a huge amount of mythic resonance that it effectively obscures a more conventional plot. I'd like to draw your attention to the use of motifs and callbacks in the film that not only enrich it, but offer possible hints as to what was going on in otherwise confusing scenes.

Let's begin with the eponymous titan himself, Prometheus. He was a wise and benevolent entity who created mankind in the first place, forming the first humans from clay. The Gods were more or less okay with that, until Prometheus gave them fire. This was a big no-no, as fire was supposed to be the exclusive property of the Gods. As punishment, Prometheus was chained to a rock and condemned to have his liver ripped out and eaten every day by an eagle. (His liver magically grew back, in case you were wondering.)

Fix that image in your mind, please: the giver of life, with his abdomen torn open. We'll be coming back to it many times in the course of this article.

The ethos of the titan Prometheus is one of willing and necessary sacrifice for life's sake. That's a pattern we see replicated throughout the ancient world. J G Frazer wrote his lengthy anthropological study, The Golden Bough, around the idea of the Dying God - a lifegiver who voluntarily dies for the sake of the people. It was incumbent upon the King to die at the right and proper time, because that was what heaven demanded, and fertility would not ensue if he did not do his royal duty of dying.

Now, consider the opening sequence of Prometheus. We fly over a spectacular vista, which may or may not be primordial Earth. According to Ridley Scott, it doesn't matter. A lone Engineer at the top of a waterfall goes through a strange ritual, drinking from a cup of black goo that causes his body to disintegrate into the building blocks of life. We see the fragments of his body falling into the river, twirling and spiralling into DNA helices.

Ridley Scott has this to say about the scene: 'That could be a planet anywhere. All he’s doing is acting as a gardener in space. And the plant life, in fact, is the disintegration of himself. If you parallel that idea with other sacrificial elements in history – which are clearly illustrated with the Mayans and the Incas – he would live for one year as a prince, and at the end of that year, he would be taken and donated to the gods in hopes of improving what might happen next year, be it with crops or weather, etcetera.'

Can we find a God in human history who creates plant life through his own death, and who is associated with a river? It's not difficult to find several, but the most obvious candidate is Osiris, the epitome of all the Frazerian 'Dying Gods'.

And we wouldn't be amiss in seeing the first of the movie's many Christian allegories in this scene, either. The Engineer removes his cloak before the ceremony, and hesitates before drinking the cupful of genetic solvent; he may well have been thinking 'If it be Thy will, let this cup pass from me.'

So, we know something about the Engineers, a founding principle laid down in the very first scene: acceptance of death, up to and including self-sacrifice, is right and proper in the creation of life. Prometheus, Osiris, John Barleycorn, and of course the Jesus of Christianity are all supposed to embody this same principle. It is held up as one of the most enduring human concepts of what it means to be 'good'.

Seen in this light, the perplexing obscurity of the rest of the film yields to an examination of the interwoven themes of sacrifice, creation, and preservation of life. We also discover, through hints, exactly what the nature of the clash between the Engineers and humanity entailed.

The crew of the Prometheus discover an ancient chamber, presided over by a brooding solemn face, in which urns of the same black substance are kept. A mural on the wall presents an image which, if you did as I asked earlier on, you will recognise instantly: the lifegiver with his abdomen torn open. Go and look at it here to refresh your memory. Note the serenity on the Engineer's face here.

And there's another mural there, one which shows a familiar xenomorph-like figure. This is the Destroyer who mirrors the Creator, I think - the avatar of supremely selfish life, devouring and destroying others purely to preserve itself. As Ash puts it: 'a survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse or delusions of morality.'

Through Shaw and Holloway's investigations, we learn that the Engineers not only created human life, they supervised our development. (How else are we to explain the numerous images of Engineers in primitive art, complete with star diagram showing us the way to find them?) We have to assume, then, that for a good few hundred thousand years, they were pretty happy with us. They could have destroyed us at any time, but instead, they effectively invited us over; the big pointy finger seems to be saying 'Hey, guys, when you're grown up enough to develop space travel, come see us.' Until something changed, something which not only messed up our relationship with them but caused their installation on LV-223 to be almost entirely wiped out.

From the Engineers' perspective, so long as humans retained that notion of self-sacrifice as central, we weren't entirely beyond redemption. But we went and screwed it all up, and the film hints at when, if not why: the Engineers at the base died two thousand years ago. That suggests that the event that turned them against us and led to the huge piles of dead Engineers lying about was one and the same event. We did something very, very bad, and somehow the consequences of that dreadful act accompanied the Engineers back to LV-223 and massacred them.

If you have uneasy suspicions about what 'a bad thing approximately 2,000 years ago' might be, then let me reassure you that you are right. An astonishing excerpt from the Movies.com interview with Ridley Scott:

Movies.com: We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?

Ridley Scott: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, "Let's send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it." Guess what? They crucified him.

Yeah. The reason the Engineers don't like us any more is that they made us a Space Jesus, and we broke him. Reader, that's not me pulling wild ideas out of my arse. That's RIDLEY SCOTT.

So, imagine poor crucified Jesus, a fresh spear wound in his side. Oh, hey, there's the 'lifegiver with his abdomen torn open' motif again. That's three times now: Prometheus, Engineer mural, Jesus Christ. And I don't think I have to mention the 'sacrifice in the interest of giving life' bit again, do I? Everyone on the same page? Good.

So how did our (in the context of the film) terrible murderous act of crucifixion end up wiping out all but one of the Engineers back on LV-223? Presumably through the black slime, which evidently models its behaviour on the user's mental state. Create unselfishly, accepting self-destruction as the cost, and the black stuff engenders fertile life. But expose the potent black slimy stuff to the thoughts and emotions of flawed humanity, and 'the sleep of reason produces monsters'. We never see the threat that the Engineers were fleeing from, we never see them killed other than accidentally (decapitation by door), and we see no remaining trace of whatever killed them. Either it left a long time ago, or it reverted to inert black slime, waiting for a human mind to reactivate it.

The black slime reacts to the nature and intent of the being that wields it, and the humans in the film didn't even know that they WERE wielding it. That's why it remained completely inert in David's presence, and why he needed a human proxy in order to use the stuff to create anything. The black goo could read no emotion or intent from him, because he was an android.

Shaw's comment when the urn chamber is entered - 'we've changed the atmosphere in the room' - is deceptively informative. The psychic atmosphere has changed, because humans - tainted, Space Jesus-killing humans - are present. The slime begins to engender new life, drawing not from a self-sacrificing Engineer but from human hunger for knowledge, for more life, for more everything. Little wonder, then, that it takes serpent-like form. The symbolism of a corrupting serpent, turning men into beasts, is pretty unmistakeable.

Refusal to accept death is anathema to the Engineers. Right from the first scene, we learned their code of willing self-sacrifice in accord with a greater purpose. When the severed Engineer head is temporarily brought back to life, its expression registers horror and disgust. Cinemagoers are confused when the head explodes, because it's not clear why it should have done so. Perhaps the Engineer wanted to die again, to undo the tainted human agenda of new life without sacrifice.

But some humans do act in ways the Engineers might have grudgingly admired. Take Holloway, Shaw's lover, who impregnates her barren womb with his black slime riddled semen before realising he is being transformed into something Other. Unlike the hapless geologist and botanist left behind in the chamber, who only want to stay alive, Holloway willingly embraces death. He all but invites Meredith Vickers to kill him, and it's surely significant that she does so using fire, the other gift Prometheus gave to man besides his life.

The 'Caesarean' scene is central to the film's themes of creation, sacrifice, and giving life. Shaw has discovered she's pregnant with something non-human and sets the autodoc to slice it out of her. She lies there screaming, a gaping wound in her stomach, while her tentacled alien child thrashes and squeals in the clamp above her and OH HEY IT'S THE LIFEGIVER WITH HER ABDOMEN TORN OPEN. How many times has that image come up now? Four, I make it. (We're not done yet.)

And she doesn't kill it. And she calls the procedure a 'caesarean' instead of an 'abortion'.

(I'm not even going to begin to explore the pro-choice versus forced birth implications of that scene. I don't think they're clear, and I'm not entirely comfortable doing so. Let's just say that her unwanted offspring turning out to be her salvation is possibly problematic from a feminist standpoint and leave it there for now.)

Here's where the Christian allegories really come through. The day of this strange birth just happens to be Christmas Day. And this is a 'virgin birth' of sorts, although a dark and twisted one, because Shaw couldn't possibly be pregnant. And Shaw's the crucifix-wearing Christian of the crew. We may well ask, echoing Yeats: what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards LV-223 to be born?

Consider the scene where David tells Shaw that she's pregnant, and tell me that's not a riff on the Annunciation. The calm, graciously angelic android delivering the news, the pious mother who insists she can't possibly be pregnant, the wry declaration that it's no ordinary child... yeah, we've seen this before.

'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.'

A barren woman called Elizabeth, made pregnant by 'God'? Subtle, Ridley.

Anyway. If it weren't already clear enough that the central theme of the film is 'I suffer and die so that others may live' versus 'you suffer and die so that I may live' writ extremely large, Meredith Vickers helpfully spells it out:

'A king has his reign, and then he dies. It's inevitable.'

Vickers is not just speaking out of personal frustration here, though that's obviously one level of it. She wants her father out of the way, so she can finally come in to her inheritance. It's insult enough that Weyland describes the android David as 'the closest thing I have to a son', as if only a male heir was of any worth; his obstinate refusal to accept death is a slap in her face.

Weyland, preserved by his wealth and the technology it can buy, has lived far, far longer than his rightful time. A ghoulish, wizened creature who looks neither old nor young, he reminds me of Slough Feg, the decaying tyrant from the Slaine series in British comic 2000AD. In Slaine, an ancient (and by now familiar to you, dear reader, or so I would hope) Celtic law decrees that the King has to be ritually and willingly sacrificed at the end of his appointed time, for the good of the land and the people. Slough Feg refused to die, and became a rotting horror, the embodiment of evil.

The image of the sorcerer who refuses to accept rightful death is fundamental: it even forms a part of some occult philosophy. In Crowley's system, the magician who refuses to accept the bitter cup of Babalon and undergo dissolution of his individual ego in the Great Sea (remember that opening scene?) becomes an ossified, corrupted entity called a 'Black Brother' who can create no new life, and lives on as a sterile, emasculated husk.

With all this in mind, we can better understand the climactic scene in which the withered Weyland confronts the last surviving Engineer. See it from the Engineer's perspective. Two thousand years ago, humanity not only murdered the Engineers' emissary, it infected the Engineers' life-creating fluid with its own tainted selfish nature, creating monsters. And now, after so long, here humanity is, presumptuously accepting a long-overdue invitation, and even reawakening (and corrupting all over again) the life fluid.

And who has humanity chosen to represent them? A self-centred, self-satisfied narcissist who revels in his own artificially extended life, who speaks through the medium of a merely mechanical offspring. Humanity couldn't have chosen a worse ambassador.

It's hardly surprising that the Engineer reacts with contempt and disgust, ripping David's head off and battering Weyland to death with it. The subtext is bitter and ironic: you caused us to die at the hands of our own creation, so I am going to kill you with YOUR own creation, albeit in a crude and bludgeoning way.

The only way to save humanity is through self-sacrifice, and this is exactly what the captain (and his two oddly complacent co-pilots) opt to do. They crash the Prometheus into the Engineer's ship, giving up their lives in order to save others. Their willing self-sacrifice stands alongside Holloway's and the Engineer's from the opening sequence; by now, the film has racked up no less than five self-sacrificing gestures (six if we consider the exploding Engineer head).

Meredith Vickers, of course, has no interest in self-sacrifice. Like her father, she wants to keep herself alive, and so she ejects and lands on the planet's surface. With the surviving cast now down to Vickers and Shaw, we witness Vickers's rather silly death as the Engineer ship rolls over and crushes her, due to a sudden inability on her part to run sideways. Perhaps that's the point; perhaps the film is saying her view is blinkered, and ultimately that kills her. But I doubt it. Sometimes a daft death is just a daft death.

Finally, in the squidgy ending scenes of the film, the wrathful Engineer conveniently meets its death at the tentacles of Shaw's alien child, now somehow grown huge. But it's not just a death; there's obscene life being created here, too. The (in the Engineers' eyes) horrific human impulse to sacrifice others in order to survive has taken on flesh. The Engineer's body bursts open - blah blah lifegiver blah blah abdomen ripped apart hey we're up to five now - and the proto-Alien that emerges is the very image of the creature from the mural.

On the face of it, it seems absurd to suggest that the genesis of the Alien xenomorph ultimately lies in the grotesque human act of crucifying the Space Jockeys' emissary to Israel in four B.C., but that's what Ridley Scott proposes. It seems equally insane to propose that Prometheus is fundamentally about the clash between acceptance of death as a condition of creating/sustaining life versus clinging on to life at the expense of others, but the repeated, insistent use of motifs and themes bears this out.

As a closing point, let me draw your attention to a very different strand of symbolism that runs through Prometheus: the British science fiction show Doctor Who. In the 1970s episode 'The Daemons', an ancient mound is opened up, leading to an encounter with a gigantic being who proves to be an alien responsible for having guided mankind's development, and who now views mankind as a failed experiment that must be destroyed. The Engineers are seen tootling on flutes, in exactly the same way that the second Doctor does. The Third Doctor had an companion whose name was Liz Shaw, the same name as the protagonist of Prometheus. As with anything else in the film, it could all be coincidental; but knowing Ridley Scott, it doesn't seem very likely.

EDIT: Yes, Morris posted a link to this before. My bad. I didn't want anything spoiled for me, so I didn't read through all of the thread. I'll leave it up in case anyone missed it.

[Skitch]

Okay, now that I've read this entire thread, and have found no one discussing it, I would like to put forth my own speculation:

I believe Elizabeth Shaw was the original space jockey in Alien.

[Morris Schæffer]

Speculation usually contains some sort of deductive reasoning. This feels like a random stab at internet glory. So when you're right, you can brag to all of us because you came up with the one thing no on else did. ;)

[Pop Trash]

Wasn't the Space Jockey non-human though? It's been a few years since I've seen Alien, so my memory might be fuzzy.

[Rowland]

Wasn't the Space Jockey non-human though? It's been a few years since I've seen Alien, so my memory might be fuzzy.I posted a picture of it in this thread. It hardly resembles the Engineers in Prometheus, let alone a human.

[MadMan]

;425761']Sadly, the burden of proof is on you, because I've yet to hear any reasonable defense or explanation of anything I thought was wrong with the film.My post covered this: I don't feel like debating anything with anyone. I liked the movie, others didn't like it. I doubt anything I post is going to change their minds, so why the hell should I bother?

Well that and the fact that Duke is arguing most of the points, and Sketch just made a rather lengthy post covering aspects of the film. I don't think they need my help in that regard.

[Skitch]

Wasn't the Space Jockey non-human though? It's been a few years since I've seen Alien, so my memory might be fuzzy.

Imo, unknown. We see an Engineers helmet and bio suit with a hole in, but not inside. And the spaceship is full of alien eggs that were laid after it crashed on LV426.

I think what MedMen is trying to say is, lovers gonna lovers, haters gonna hate.

[Skitch]

Speculation usually contains some sort of deductive reasoning. This feels like a random stab at internet glory. So when you're right, you can brag to all of us because you came up with the one thing no on else did. ;)

You're like my 8th grade math teacher yelling at me to show my work. :)

[Dukefrukem]

Okay, now that I've read this entire thread, and have found no one discussing it, I would like to put forth my own speculation:

I believe Elizabeth Shaw was the original space jockey in Alien.


Wasn't the Space Jockey non-human though? It's been a few years since I've seen Alien, so my memory might be fuzzy.


Remember, the black goo mutates humans. It's a good theory.

[megladon8]

This was an enormous disappointment, and loses even more every time I think about it.

I really don't have much to say about it that hasn't already been said here, suffice to say that having a script that makes no sense and is full of holes is not intelligent writing.

Having to write oodles of fan fiction to fill in the holes does NOT equate to "a movie that's really great because it doesn't spoon feed you the answers!". No, this movie is a horrible mess because it thinks it's giving you the answers, and it thinks it's being smart, but it's just frustrating, half baked, and full of inconsistencies not just with the other films but it cannot even keep its own story and characters straight.

Visually it was sumptuous. The opening on the unnamed world with the Engineer's sacrifice was stunning. I wanted more of that.

And that climax was pathetic. The film spends the entire runtime building up the Engineers as these brilliant genetic magicians, capable of incredible technological and biological feats, whose intellect and culture is literally felt across the universe. But what's the most effective way we can use one of them to end the film?

ENGINEER SMASH!!! SMASH SMASH SMAAAASSSH!!!!


I've not felt so torn about a film in quite some time, because there is so much here with such potential, and it really cannot be overstated how impressive the film was visually.

There was something brilliant there, under the surface. The DNA, if you will. But Lindelof was not the person to take the DNA of the film from its primordial goo and create a full-fledged being. What we are left with is more akin to the Ripley/Alien hybrid at the end of Resurrection - an ugly, incoherent mass with only the most rudimentary understanding of form and movement.

An epic disappointment. I will not go so far as to say it's a terrible film outright, but it's not very good, that's for sure.

[Rowland]

ENGINEER SMASH!!! SMASH SMASH SMAAAASSSH!!!!

This reminds me of one of my favorite twitter responses to the film:


PROMETHEUS is like THE TREE OF LIFE if Chastain's questions to God were addressed to Resident Evil's Nemesis.


What we are left with is more akin to the Ripley/Alien hybrid at the end of Resurrection - an ugly, incoherent mass with only the most rudimentary understanding of form and movement.Speaking of which, I hate to say that as of now, I actually prefer Resurrection.

[megladon8]

I don't know why you'd say you hate to say that (wow, that was an awkward sentence).

Prometheus is easily the weakest of the 5 Alien films. Saying that it was better than both Alien vs Predator outings hardly seems a compliment.

Alien
Alien 3
Aliens
Alien Resurrection
Prometheus


That's how I'd rank them at this moment.

[Dukefrukem]

Prometheus is easily the weakest of the 5 Alien films.

Alien 3 is clearly the weakest. It's an entire movie where nothing happens.

[EvilShoe]

Watching Leviathan right now. Was kind of hoping to say "better than Prometheus" with plenty of exclamation marks once it's done. So far that doesn't seem likely.

So hey, looks like you've done better than Cosmatos at reinterpreting the Alien universe, Scott!

[megladon8]

Alien 3 is clearly the weakest. It's an entire movie where nothing happens.


No, it was pretty great. Lots of really amazing stuff happens. You missed the mark on that one.

I know I'm not in the majority in thinking it's one of the better entries of the series but saying what you said is pretty unfounded.


I just cannot get over how much Prometheus totally screwed itself up the butt. If you aren't going to be able to make good on communicating big ideas, don't set them up in the first place.

[EvilShoe]

I'm pretty sure Peter Weller is the android in this. Don't spoil it for me, though!!!

[Dukefrukem]

And that climax was pathetic.

This is funny to me. Does anyone remember the climax of Alien 3?

If not here is (minus the fake alt scene)

O6E4cUrozlY

[Rowland]

I don't know why you'd say you hate to say that (wow, that was an awkward sentence).I meant that more in the sense that I really didn't expect to consider Prometheus the weakest of the series, so I hate saying it now, true as it is. Like you said though, it's better than AvP, so there's that... :sad:

[EvilShoe]

How the fuck would someone forget the climax to Alien 3, Duke?

They kill off Ripley. You kind of remember a thing like that.

[megladon8]

I found the emotional release of Ripley's fall much more revealing than any of the pathetic "ENGINEER SMASH!! OF AND HERE'S SOMETHING WE THINK YOU WANTED TO SEE!" ending of Prometheus.

Plus the implications brought forth with Ripley's encounter with Weyland/Bishop #2 are staggering.

[Dukefrukem]

How the fuck would someone forget the climax to Alien 3, Duke?

They kill off Ripley. You kind of remember a thing like that.

With an alien exploding from her chest as she falls in slow mo? Don't anyone sit there with a straight face and tell me THAT is better than anything from the Prometheus ship crashing to the end.

[megladon8]

I meant that more in the sense that I really didn't expect to consider Prometheus the weakest of the series, so I hate saying it now, true as it is. Like you said though, it's better than AvP, so there's that... :sad:


It's really sad how much they missed the mark.

But in all honesty, from what I saw and experienced in the film, it was not Scott's failure.

It's perhaps some of Scott's best work as a director...well...ever.

It was the script that killed it. A complete and utter failure.

[megladon8]

With an alien exploding from her chest as she falls in slow mo? Don't anyone sit there with a straight face and tell me THAT is better than anything from the Prometheus ship crashing to the end.


Yes, very much so.

Spectacle =/= good.

[EvilShoe]

With an alien exploding from her chest as she falls in slow mo? Don't anyone sit there with a straight face and tell me THAT is better than anything from the Prometheus ship crashing to the end.
I'd say it's heaps better than Vickers' awkward death, Stringer Bell joyfully sacrificing himself (maybe because he finally had something to do), Space Jockey getting pissed off at Shaw, Fassbender's head getting stuffed in a duffel bag and Xenomorph arriving too late (or uninvited) to the party.

[Dukefrukem]

Yes, very much so.

Spectacle =/= good.

Are we talking action bits? Or climax in general? Is it just me? Or did anyone else care about Shaw's experiences in this film (emotionally, physically and spiritually) MORE than Ripley sitting around through 100 minutes of bullshitting in a prison? Don't try and drag her stories in Alien and Aliens with what happens in Alien 3.... We're talking about specific movies here not a franchise.

I wanted to see Shaw survive the "spectacle" and the climax was much more built up and released than anything multiple scene in Alien 3. This is like, not even arguable almost.

[Dukefrukem]

I'd say it's heaps better than Vickers' awkward death,

:rolleyes: The movie isn't about fucking Vickers.

[Rowland]

Given what I've read about this film's pre-production, I'd say some of writing is Scott's fault. I remember reading an article a few months back in some filmmaking magazine, trying to reposition Prometheus as Scott's return to respectable auteurdom, in which it described how he was taking a hands-on approach to the writing, reportedly tweaking the script for months with the writers while he filled his workspace with endless sketches and storyboards.

[megladon8]

Are we talking action bits? Or climax in general? Is it just me? Or did anyone else care about Shaw's experiences in this film (emotionally, physically and spiritually) MORE than Ripley sitting around through 100 minutes of bullshitting in a prison? Don't try and drag her stories in Alien and Aliens with what happens in Alien 3.... We're talking about specific movies here not a franchise.

I wanted to see Shaw survive the "spectacle" and the climax was much more built up and released than anything multiple scene in Alien 3. This is like, not even arguable almost.


Clearly it's arguable, since there are a couple of us here arguing it with you.

Yes, I cared much more about Ripley than Shaw. You know why? Ripley was a character. With depth. Shaw, like everyone else in the film, had nothing to her. Having scene with some half-baked dream of her dead father does not equal character depth.

I didn't give a hoot about a single person in Prometheus. Not one of the characters was rounded, and most of them weren't even consistent with their own bland selves.

Alien 3 had distinct characters to care about. Dutton's sacrifice at the end meant something. Prometheus had cardboard cut outs, whose deaths achieved nothing but "huh, I bet that hurt".

[EvilShoe]

:rolleyes: The movie isn't about fucking Vickers.Hey now: you're the one who gave me the right to name any scene (and I quote) "from the Prometheus ship crashing to the end". Play nice.

In my mind the movie was about a nice guy who just wanted to have a nap after a hard day at work, who got woken up by an android and then had his ship wrecked by vandals.

[[ETM]]

Yeah, I kept expecting Shaw to die a horrible death, since everyone was so disposable and forgettable. Noomi did a wonderful, amazing job physically, since they made her British and gave her only crap to speak anyway.

[megladon8]

Oh and the surgery scene was indeed great.

When she yanked the umbilical cord, I actually felt a pain in my stomach and felt a bit nauseous.

[Dukefrukem]

;425955']Yeah, I kept expecting Shaw to die a horrible death, since everyone was so disposable and forgettable. Noomi did a wonderful, amazing job physically, since they made her British and gave her only crap to speak anyway.

Seriously? She was the main focus around everything. The Discovery, The Beliefs, The Abdominal Surgery Scene, The ONLY one to stand up to Weyland and David....


Hey now: you're the one who gave me the right to name any scene (and I quote) "from the Prometheus ship crashing to the end". Play nice.


Yes well I expected you to start with the main character.

[D_Davis]

My friends and I thought it was completely awesome how the Engineer woke up and was like "Fuck you guys, I've got a mission to complete!"

Obviously, they really, really need to destroy humanity. Why? We don't know yet. Hopefully it is answered in the next film.

[Watashi]

Maybe it doesn't belong here and I've brought it up many times before, but reading articles like this (http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/grey-matters-alien-vs-predator-vs-alien-vs-prometheus), hurts my brain more than ever.

I can't comprehend how someone could prefer AvP to the other Alien films.

I just don't get this niche hole that Paul W. Anderson has with a circle of cynical critics. I'm sure Anderson is completely unaware of this backyard fame he has. It absolutely mystifies me that someone can type this:
"Anderson is the creator of the terrifyingly strange Event Horizon (1997), the neo-grindhouse exploitationer Death Race (2008), and Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010), which proved that he demonstrably owns the most visionary sense of spatial geometry in modern cinema." with a straight face.

[megladon8]

My friends and I thought it was completely awesome how the Engineer woke up and was like "Fuck you guys, I've got a mission to complete!"

Obviously, they really, really need to destroy humanity. Why? We don't know yet. Hopefully it is answered in the next film.


My problem is that I don't get why some seem to think this form of story telling is so brilliant.

"Why? We don't know yet! Isn't that incredible!"

No, it's not. It's frustrating, and the writers clearly had no idea where they were going with any of this.

[[ETM]]

My problem is that I don't get why some seem to think this form of story telling is so brilliant.

"Why? We don't know yet! Isn't that incredible!"

I find it bewildering, to be honest.

[Dukefrukem]

My problem is that I don't get why some seem to think this form of story telling is so brilliant.

"Why? We don't know yet! Isn't that incredible!"

No, it's not. It's frustrating, and the writers clearly had no idea where they were going with any of this.

Who says it's "brilliant"? I liked it because it showed the motives of the Engineers have changed. Everyone expected them to embrace the humans, after all they did leave messages on how to find them. Now why all of a sudden a change? It was a little bit shocking to me. Every question doesn't need to be answered.

I'm with DD, I also thought it was awesome. And it showed just how powerful they really are.

[megladon8]

Who says it's "brilliant"? I liked it because it showed the motives of the Engineers have changed. Everyone expected them to embrace the humans, after all they did leave messages on how to find them. Now why all of a sudden a change? It was a little bit shocking to me. Every question doesn't need to be answered.

I'm with DD, I also thought it was awesome. And it showed just how powerful they really are.


A shock doesn't mean good, though. I was shocked when I got up this morning and found my Big Mac dump from last night hadn't flushed down the toilet completely. That didn't mean it was good.

I was shocked that the one guy responsible for the "pups" that mapped out the area was the one guy who got himself lost. And no, the map was not only on Prometheus, the information was also fed to their suits. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for this other than horrendous writing.

[Dukefrukem]

A shock doesn't mean good, though.

Errr doesn't mean it was bad either.

[megladon8]

Errr doesn't mean it was bad either.


Yeah, but I've given reasons why it was bad. You're simply saying "I found it shocking, so it was good."

The shock to me was that this race that has been touted as so brilliant, so advanced, so God-like, wakes up and rampages with no attempt at communication, no explanation of any kind.

Hell, a simple Lou Ferrigno-voiced "puny humans" would have given some insight into why it Hulk'd out.

As it is, we're left writing/reading pages and pages of fan-written speculation to try and piece things together into some cohesive whole. That's not good.

[D_Davis]

My problem is that I don't get why some seem to think this form of story telling is so brilliant.
.

I'm not saying it's great storytelling, I just liked it.

[D_Davis]

The shock to me was that this race that has been touted as so brilliant, so advanced, so God-like, wakes up and rampages with no attempt at communication, no explanation of any kind.


Actually, though, the whole point of the discovery is that the humans were wrong about them. The engineers weren't brilliant. They got decimated by their own biological weapon. They might have been smart, but at the end of the day they were just another violent race hell bent on war and destruction - a lot like us.

[D_Davis]

after all they did leave messages on how to find them. Now why all of a sudden a change? It was a little bit shocking to me. Every question doesn't need to be answered.


I think those messages were saying, "Hey, we're going to destroy you." Watch out.

Isn't the phrase "we were wrong" muttered a couple of times in the film?

[[ETM]]

But we don't know any of that either. With what we've seen in the film itself, it's still wide open.

[D_Davis]

;426018']But we don't know any of that either. With what we've seen in the film itself, it's still wide open.

OK. That's fine. I can dig that. Some of my favorite SF things leave stuff wide open. Probably why I dig this so much.

[Morris Schæffer]

Watching Leviathan right now. Was kind of hoping to say "better than Prometheus" with plenty of exclamation marks once it's done. So far that doesn't seem likely.

So hey, looks like you've done better than Cosmatos at reinterpreting the Alien universe, Scott!

You can try again with Deep Star Six. ;)

[D_Davis]

This is definitely not a film I would go to the mat for. All the complaints I hear and read make sense. I just so happen to like it in spite of its faults. It struck a particular chord with me.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah, but I've given reasons why it was bad. You're simply saying "I found it shocking, so it was good."

The shock to me was that this race that has been touted as so brilliant, so advanced, so God-like, wakes up and rampages with no attempt at communication, no explanation of any kind.

Hell, a simple Lou Ferrigno-voiced "puny humans" would have given some insight into why it Hulk'd out.

As it is, we're left writing/reading pages and pages of fan-written speculation to try and piece things together into some cohesive whole. That's not good.

My point with that post was we can say anything after "I hated it" or "I loved it" And it wouldn't change how we perceive this, but I'm trying to find these "reasons why it was so bad". All i see is a bunch of hyperboles and incorrect statements.

"My problem is that I don't get why some seem to think this form of story telling is so brilliant."

No one said it was brilliant but you.

"I didn't give a hoot about a single person in Prometheus. Not one of the characters was rounded, and most of them weren't even consistent with their own bland selves."

Well I did, and I thought Shaw was a fantastic character. You saying "not one" doesn't make your statement any more correct than if I said "all of them". Please admit, that at the very minimum, Shaw was depicted well with her beliefs, her hopes, her pain and her determination. A very well rounded story arch that makes me want to see more of her story (Did anyone else feel this way?)

[Ivan Drago]

Just got back. It has a lot of cool concepts going for it, but doesn't do enough with each of them, and the story suffers greatly from it as a result. What a colossal disappointment.

[Dukefrukem]

I think those messages were saying, "Hey, we're going to destroy you." Watch out.

Isn't the phrase "we were wrong" muttered a couple of times in the film?

Yes. Good point.

[Dukefrukem]

You can try again with Deep Star Six. ;)

I hate that movie so much.

[[ETM]]

OK. That's fine. I can dig that. Some of my favorite SF things leave stuff wide open. Probably why I dig this so much.

I can dig wide open. Some of the best stuff out there is wide open. But there's wide open, and there's "here's a ball, a walkie-talkie, an oboe and a larch... make sense of that".

[megladon8]

Well I did, and I thought Shaw was a fantastic character. You saying "not one" doesn't make your statement any more correct than if I said "all of them". Please admit, that at the very minimum, Shaw was depicted well with her beliefs, her hopes, her pain and her determination. A very well rounded story arch that makes me want to see more of her story (Did anyone else feel this way?)


I will admit no such thing, because I completely disagree.

Shaw was a one-dimensional character. The only reason she may seem like she had personality was that everyone else was even less realized. Compared to Idris Elba's character, she looked like a real person.

[D_Davis]

I think an interesting religious, specifically Christian, theme is raised in the film. Christian mythology teaches that humanity was created in God's image. Seeing as how violent we are, one might assume that the Christian God is violent as well. In this film humanity seeks to find its creator, and when we do (presumably, maybe not) it's a super violent race creating a terrible biological weapon to destroy us. Sounds like we have a lot in common with these Engineers.

[D_Davis]

Are people making the argument that there is great, three-dimensional characterization in the other Alien films? Because that's kind of absurd. The space marines in Aliens are little more than Warhammer 40k creations, spouting one-liners, and the crew in the original wasn't all that fully developed either. Perhaps the only character to ever be developed, sans Ripley, is the doctor/love interest in Alien 3.

In other words, using poor characterization to condemn Prometheus is kind of silly given the track record of the franchise.

[D_Davis]

A very well rounded story arch that makes me want to see more of her story (Did anyone else feel this way?)

I did. Like I said before, I have never wanted a sequel more than I want a sequel to this film. The last film that made me feel this way at the end was Empire Strikes Back. When Shaw takes off and she says something like "We're not going to Earth, we're going to them," I was like, "FUCK YEAH!" I cannot wait to see that. I left the theater totally excited about the possibilities.

[Dukefrukem]

I will admit no such thing, because I completely disagree.

Shaw was a one-dimensional character. The only reason she may seem like she had personality was that everyone else was even less realized. Compared to Idris Elba's character, she looked like a real person.

Incorrect.
Shaw was part of the original team that unearthed the messages.

Shaw already had a strong believe system before the mission, which was mentioned more than once, about the existence of God.

After finding the DNA match, she began to question her belief system, but was not totally ready to give them up. At one point I think she takes the necklace off.

Dr. Shaw remains the driving force through the entire movie between the crew, standing up to Weyland, and trying to stay true to her beliefs that our origins have purpose and meaning, which is why she wants to go to their world at the end and not home. She wants to understand "why?".

[Dukefrukem]

I did. Like I said before, I have never wanted a sequel more than I want a sequel to this film. The last film that made me feel this way at the end was Empire Strikes Back. When Shaw takes off and she says something like "We're not going to Earth, we're going to them," I was like, "FUCK YEAH!" I cannot wait to see that. I left the theater totally excited about the possibilities.

Yes. And I wrote my post above before I read this. I was going to end my post with: "What better way to end a movie.. asking Why?"

[D_Davis]

Yes. And I wrote my post above before I read this. I was going to end my post with: "What better way to end a movie.. asking Why?"

Totally.

I love how the film is basically setting up two different stories - one we already know, and the other I hope we get to know. It's a great ground zero. There is a lot to build upon for this new chapter.

[megladon8]

Incorrect.

...


Shaw was part of the original team that unearthed the messages.

Shaw already had a strong believe system before the mission, which was mentioned more than once, about the existence of God.

After finding the DNA match, she began to question her belief system, but was not totally ready to give them up. At one point I think she takes the necklace off.

Dr. Shaw remains the driving force through the entire movie between the crew, standing up to Weyland, and trying to stay true to her beliefs that our origins have purpose and meaning, which is why she wants to go to their world at the end and not home. She wants to understand "why?".


Nothing you've said here is depth of character, it's just her place in the story, in driving the threadbare exposition.

"She's a scientist...but she also believes in God!" is not character depth.

Sorry, Duke, but none of the characters in the films were well written.

Which is honestly my smallest complaint with the film's writing, which was just completely incompetent in general.

[Ivan Drago]

How far has Damon Lindelof fallen since LOST?

Or is he just using the same tricks he used when writing LOST, they just don't work for a 2 hour film?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Are people making the argument that there is great, three-dimensional characterization in the other Alien films? Because that's kind of absurd. The space marines in Aliens are little more than Warhammer 40k creations, spouting one-liners, and the crew in the original wasn't all that fully developed either. Perhaps the only character to ever be developed, sans Ripley, is the doctor/love interest in Alien 3.

It's not just about how deep the characters are, it's about how they're presented, and how they change over the course of the film.

I'm not going to criticize Prometheus too much in this regard, because I loved David and had some admiration for Shaw and Janek (Idris Elba). I liked everyone in Alien, but that's because their characterizations were defined in subtler ways - through overlapping dialogue and behavior and responses to problems. Prometheus is part of the modern style of character, where everyone speaks in terse, declarative Trailerese, and I find that a bit more distancing.

That's a more subjective preference, though.

And in regards to the Alien-smash ending of the film, there's something kinda clever about them running into the "grunts" of an alien species, but it's still a little disappointing to have it go James Arness on everyone.

And in regards to the lack of an answer regarding why the Jockeys want to destroy life on Earth, I thought the point was to suggest the paradox of infinite regress - Lindelof's sometimes-tiresome conviction that one question only begets another question. Here, moreso than on Lost, I think it works, because this film is about meeting God, and the first question on my mind would be, "So...who do you report to?"

I don't love the decision, but I admire it.

My problems with the film lie more with its rushed pacing and overabundance of character and incident. A quieter, more thoughtful film could've covered the same terrain.

[D_Davis]

Prometheus is part of the modern style of character, where everyone speaks in terse, declarative Trailerese, and I find that a bit more distancing.


This I totally agree with. For the most uber-epic example, compare JC's The Thing with the prequel.

[Pop Trash]

Despite whatever disappointments I had with it, I would probably watch the sequel (if it gets made, which is one of my big problems with this whole "footnotes without footnotes" quality of this screenplay, the whole thing is leading up to something, but in today's Hollywood climate, it's possible it won't even see the light of day) to see where the hell they are going with all of this. Of course, the answer could be nowhere, but maybe that's the point.

[Skitch]

Its strange to me that so many people seem to be demanding definitive answers to some of the questions posed in Prometheus, especially when some films of late (Anti-Christ, Valhalla Rising, Tree Of Life) are so glorified for being open to interpretation. Don't mistake me, I'm not directly comparing Prometheus to these films other than the aspect of unanswered questions. (And I haven't seen TOL yet, but I've been told by several its a very interpretational film.)

Is it just a matter of prefered filmmaking techniques that makes the open-endedness of those films more acceptable? Why is it 'lazy writing' in Prometheus but 'brilliant' in others? I suppose this is purely an opinion of the viewer and their emotional response to the material, i.e., I think Anti-Christ is a wreck, but witchy stuff rarely works for me, but Prometheus does because my brain is more suseptible to the genre of science fiction?

[Dead & Messed Up]

This I totally agree with. For the most uber-epic example, compare JC's The Thing with the prequel.

I stayed away from the prebootquel after catching the reviews.

But now you've got me a little curious...

[MadMan]

I'll have to see the Director's Cut of Alien 3. The regular version I saw was merely decent at best. The problem is that the film is creepy enough, and I loved the ending (I can't believe the studio even allowed Fincher to go with that finale) but I didn't give a shit about most of the characters. One of the best things about the first two films is the characters. Prometheus was a mixed bag when it came to characterization, but I sort of was able to overlook it this time around. At some point I'll have to get to Resurrection, which seems to have a decent amount of fans here.

Plus people are forgetting I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan. There really wasn't any way I was going to hate this movie. Sure I disliked Robin Hood, but that's due to the fact that it was mostly boring and it didn't feel at all like a Ridley Scott movie.

[Morris Schæffer]

Its strange to me that so many people seem to be demanding definitive answers to some of the questions posed in Prometheus, especially when some films of late (Anti-Christ, Valhalla Rising, Tree Of Life) are so glorified for being open to interpretation. Don't mistake me, I'm not directly comparing Prometheus to these films other than the aspect of unanswered questions. (And I haven't seen TOL yet, but I've been told by several its a very interpretational film.)

Is it just a matter of prefered filmmaking techniques that makes the open-endedness of those films more acceptable? Why is it 'lazy writing' in Prometheus but 'brilliant' in others? I suppose this is purely an opinion of the viewer and their emotional response to the material, i.e., I think Anti-Christ is a wreck, but witchy stuff rarely works for me, but Prometheus does because my brain is more suseptible to the genre of science fiction?

This is a good question. I suppose it's definitely the style of filmmaking as the films you mentioned are comparatively and deliberately spartan and vague. I think that Malick overreached a little in the Tree of Life, but most of the time the imagery, coupled with the music triggers in the viewer an almost subliminal state of awareness. Sure, it's about a family trying to cope, about boys growing up, but then.....everything else seems to be left to the viewer to absorb and interpret. And every little detail conspires to create that mood, to keep the viewer in that mood. Prometheus is not that kind of movie, nor are any of the other alien movies and I think it's a reasonable expectation on our behalf to expect a certain amount of answers, but I never expected to be quite so befuddled by all of it although I'm still a bit intrigued also! Moreover, there's a certain baggage here that comes with a prequel, any prequel to a great movie. Baggage that those other movies simply don't have. That said, Prometheus feels particularly Brusque in some of its plot points. The pissed off engineer is a good one. Davis liked it and I too find myself wondering why he started to swing away at the folks in front of him, but that's literally the only thing at happens. Usually, there are other clues scattered to and fro to fuel the speculation, to make one go back and see it again, little hints that make the hairs on our back go up, but here we're given nothing. Zip. Nada.

That's sort of my half-assed 50 cents right there. :)

[Dukefrukem]

Its strange to me that so many people seem to be demanding definitive answers to some of the questions posed in Prometheus, especially when some films of late (Anti-Christ, Valhalla Rising, Tree Of Life) are so glorified for being open to interpretation. Don't mistake me, I'm not directly comparing Prometheus to these films other than the aspect of unanswered questions. (And I haven't seen TOL yet, but I've been told by several its a very interpretational film.)

Is it just a matter of prefered filmmaking techniques that makes the open-endedness of those films more acceptable? Why is it 'lazy writing' in Prometheus but 'brilliant' in others? I suppose this is purely an opinion of the viewer and their emotional response to the material, i.e., I think Anti-Christ is a wreck, but witchy stuff rarely works for me, but Prometheus does because my brain is more suseptible to the genre of science fiction?

Love this post.

[Dukefrukem]

Plus people are forgetting I'm a huge Ridley/Tony Scott fan.

Fixed.

[megladon8]

Its strange to me that so many people seem to be demanding definitive answers to some of the questions posed in Prometheus, especially when some films of late (Anti-Christ, Valhalla Rising, Tree Of Life) are so glorified for being open to interpretation. Don't mistake me, I'm not directly comparing Prometheus to these films other than the aspect of unanswered questions. (And I haven't seen TOL yet, but I've been told by several its a very interpretational film.)

Is it just a matter of prefered filmmaking techniques that makes the open-endedness of those films more acceptable? Why is it 'lazy writing' in Prometheus but 'brilliant' in others? I suppose this is purely an opinion of the viewer and their emotional response to the material, i.e., I think Anti-Christ is a wreck, but witchy stuff rarely works for me, but Prometheus does because my brain is more suseptible to the genre of science fiction?


It's poor writing in Prometheus because even where it's trying to be clever by letting the audience "fill in the blanks", it's giving us too much in some areas, too little in others, and is generally just poorly done.

Take something like 2001: A Space Odyssey. The interpretations people have come up with - for example the film being about man's conquest of technology - is based on the images that Kubrick produced. The match-cut from the bone flying up from the ape's hand, to the ship. How, after all of man's incredible technological advances, he must undo his ultimate nemesis with one of the most simple of tools - a screwdriver.

These are all things that can be backed up by images and themes present in Kubrick's vision. Very little "assuming" is being done, and yet many different interpretations can be made. It's quite masterful.

But in the case of Prometheus, the words and images do not back up the assumptions being made. As people have noted over and over again in the thread, people are defending the film by basically writing fan-fiction and saying "this is what they meant!" Well...if that's what they meant, why didn't they communicate it?

Kubrick made a film that was open to interpretation, but had all of the elements there for us to dig into.

Prometheus is a film that is just frustratingly vague, contradictory, and, well, dumb.

[D_Davis]

I like it.

[megladon8]

I like it.


That's good! I'm glad there are those that did!

And as I've said, I by no means hated it. I was just hugely disappointed, being such a huge fan of Scott's first film in the series (that's like, top 10 of all time material).

But when I'm told that my thoughts are "incorrect", I'm going to back it up.

[D_Davis]

http://i.imgur.com/3MenG.gif

[Dukefrukem]

...




Nothing you've said here is depth of character, it's just her place in the story, in driving the threadbare exposition.

"She's a scientist...but she also believes in God!" is not character depth.

Sorry, Duke, but none of the characters in the films were well written.

Which is honestly my smallest complaint with the film's writing, which was just completely incompetent in general.

Sorry Meg, They are. I'm not making this stuff up. With respect to DDs comments about the Alien franchise in general I've compounded an extensive "depth" character per character with the exception of Resurrection.

Alien

Lambert, the Nostromo's navigator. The weakest emotional character in the film but very emotional. She was written by Scott that way because "They convinced me that I was the audience's fears; I was a reflection of what the audience is feeling." What's interesting about her is in the book, Ripley asks Lambert if she's ever slept with Ash. Not only does this hint promiscuity among the crew members, but it also directly relates to Vickers inviting the Cpt of the Prometheus back to her cabin)

Ash, the ship's Science Officer; The sub-antagonist. (revealed to bring the Alien back to the Nostromo's corporate employers). Written to show internal conflict between the real antagonist and the rest of the crew. Standard character in movies like this.

Kane, the the host for the Alien. Disposable, but represents death and presents the danger that was aboard the ship. Designed to show just exactly what can go wrong.

Parker, the Chief Engineer. Really not much to him, but right before his demise, he shows he can be a brute force- at least honorable. He's the lax character, always chewing gum, cracking jokes and always complaining.

Dallas, the Captain . Really stupid. first to investigate the signal, second being in the air vents alone. The typically Hollywood stereotype by making the "leader" always choose the poorest decisions.

Brett, Engineer and good friend of Parker. love this character. in the DVD commentary, he actually told Scott during the audition that he doesn't like horror or monster movies. Scott wrote his character to be the timid, weary, but an regular working Joe, which hints at him being expendable.

Ripley, the protagonist. Strong, level headed, brave, designed to have the audience root for her.


Aliens


Hicks, squad leaders; represents the voice that always sides with Ripley- there for reason,

Vasquez, marine- tough, confident, cocky, almost a given that she will die.

Newt, what better way to represent innocence?

Bishop, the improved android model, but I love that there is always a sense of distrust until the final scene when he is piloting the ship. The audience is not sure whether he will turn on Ripley and the crew.

Gorman, the marines' commanding officer and disliked by the audience because of poor leadership and inability to make quick decisions.

Apone, Liked way more than Gorman- at least has leadership ability, a toughness, always gives a sense they'll make it.

Hudson, same as Vasquez, tough confident, cocky, almost a given will die, but also the comic relief, always complaining, much like Parker from Alien, only more exaggerated.

Burke, a corporate representative for the Weyland-Yutani Corporation and the sub-antagonist on the film, much like Ash's role in Alien. Very similar. Very slimy.

Drake, Vasquez's smart gun partner, Doesn't say much, which hints at his expendablity

Dietrich, first victim of the Aliens, represents the same thing Kane did in Alien.

Ripley, exact same from Alien, only even more badass, if that were even possible.


Alien 3 (please forgive me here, it's been a long time since I've seen Alien 3 since it sucks)

Ripley,

Dillon, inmate and spiritual preacher, as if that will save him. Definitely foreshadows his death. Predicable, poorly written character.

Clemens, a former inmate and doctor. Represents what Hicks does in Aliens, bonds with Ripley, tries to understand her story.

Andrews, warden. An attempt to be the sub-antagonist like Burke and Ash. He believes Ripley's presence will cause disruption amongst the inmates and attempts to control the rumors surrounding her and the creature. He rejects her claims about the existence of such a creature, only to be killed by it, how ironic. Exact same character setup as

Aaron, another sub-antagonist who opposes Ripley's insistence that the prisoners must try to fight the alien, and refutes her claim that Weyland will collect the alien instead of them.

Golic. Very disturbed thinks he can talk to the Alien, another sub-antagonist.

Morse, one of the prison's inmates who assists Ripley in combating the alien. Represents the "fight" or the Marines in Aliens.

David, one of the more intelligent inmates who is killed by the creature in the bait-and-chase sequence. I guess he wasn't so intelligent? People would call that bad writing if it were in Prometheus.

I would also like to point out this Alien is different from the ones in Alien and Aliens- Alien 3 shows them as quadrupedal, which may hint at an evolution among the DNA?


Prometheus

Shaw: archaeologist, finder of the message and believer "in God" with a "very strong faith". Her personality evolves through the film, from very subdue to overly cautions. She's smart, and I see a lot of Ripley in her when comparing Ripley's role in the firs film.

David: the sub-antagonist like Burke and Ash and Andrews. Very similar build from the previous three films here and not surprising. David appeared to have developed "its own ego, insecurities, jealousy and envy". Instead of acting like Ash and Bishop, he speaks more like HAL 9000 which makes sense if he is an earlier model. Looks very similar to Charlize Theron's character.

Weyland: Huge prick right? Instead of a representation from Weyland like we have had in the previous 3 films, we actually get Weyland himself. Very satisfying to see the dickhead who cares about harvesting aliens more than human life.

Janek: The captain- very similar to any captain, wanting to go down with his ship, and his crew standing by his side. Honorable. A realist. Very similar to the

Holloway; another archeologist and Shaw's love interest. More aggressive than Shaw, has the mentality of "leap-before-looking". He’s an extremist. Holloway "doesn't want to meet his maker. He wants to stand next to his maker. He's willing to go to the edge to get that." And this is shown with, him being the first to take off his helmet,. There’s a line in the movie where he says; "she’s the believer. I’m the scientist. I’m the skeptic. I’m the atheist"- I think this is a very nice balance between the two.

Vickers: Weyland employee, sent to “monitor the expedition” Cold, blunt and pragmatic, and desperately wants to control the situation. Scott wanted the character to lurk in the background of scenes watching other characters instead of being the focus. I think she was put here so the audience would be suspicious of her- the way she is the first to exit the pods, very controlling and the similar appearances and mannerisms David were intended to raise the possibility that David was based on Vickers's DNA, or that Vickers is an android herself or she is a hybrid of the two.

Millburn: A biologist who has interaction with Fifield- showing a little bit of clashing and annoyance between the two, but relates to him when Fifield wants to go back to the ship.

Fifield: A geologist who represents Lambert from Alien. He represents the audience on an emotional level. He’s the one who does not want to go into the tunnel, just wants to do the job and to get “paid”. The combination of both Fifield and Millburn represent the coward who is eventually revealed, much like Hudson was. Always diverting and acting tough until the situation intensifies.

[Dukefrukem]

That's good! I'm glad there are those that did!

And as I've said, I by no means hated it. I was just hugely disappointed, being such a huge fan of Scott's first film in the series (that's like, top 10 of all time material).

But when I'm told that my thoughts are "incorrect", I'm going to back it up.

Well saying Shaw is a "one-dimensional character" is incorrect. Soooooo there's that.

[megladon8]

And I'm saying your defense shows that you don't know what a fully developed character is, so there's that.

[Dukefrukem]

Solid rebuttal. I bow to your reasoning and retract everything I've said in this thread.

Implied rollseyes smilie

[megladon8]

Solid rebuttal. I bow to your reasoning and retract everything I've said in this thread.

Implied rollseyes smilie


Ugh.

Look Duke, I've given solid reasoning as to why the film and characters were poorly written. Your rebuttals have consisted of the same point over and over, and show no understanding of my point about the characters not being well-rounded. And that goes for your post above, too. Just listing a few characters traits is not proof of a strong character. Shaw's presence drove the story forward through exposition. "I'm a scientist who also believes in God, and I have daddy issues" is not a strong character by default. How that character thinks, acts and reacts, and responds to the people and situations in the story is what brings light to the character and enriches them. We got none of that here. We get a dream sequence, then the story, which reveals nothing about her as a person.

If you are going to resort to silly, petty glibness, don't get huffy when you get it right back.

[Dukefrukem]

Ugh.

Look Duke, I've given solid reasoning as to why the film and characters were poorly written. Your rebuttals have consisted of the same point over and over, and show no understanding of my point about the characters not being well-rounded.

LOL no you haven't. You just keep saying they were poorly written. And if you're speaking about some particular decision a character makes then I would agree with you. But you were the one that brought up "depth", which I've explained above the similarities between each character in each movie. Where's YOUR evidence that directly counters mine?



And that goes for your post above, too. Just listing a few characters traits is not proof of a strong character. Shaw's presence drove the story forward through exposition. "I'm a scientist who also believes in God, and I have daddy issues" is not a strong character by default. How that character thinks, acts and reacts, and responds to the people and situations in the story is what brings light to the character and enriches them. We got none of that here. We get a dream sequence, then the story, which reveals nothing about her as a person.

The character traits are important to character depth!!! They are exactly what feeds the audience and drive emotion. How are you not seeing this? "I'm a scientist who also believes in God, and I have daddy issues" is taken completely out of context, you've dumbed down everything I said into one giant inaccurate exaggeration.

"reveals nothing about her as a person" http://files.notebookforums.com/images/smilies/azz.gif Do you not see how she is trying to see both sides of her beliefs? She's a believer of God, but she's a scientist. She struggle with this throughout the whole movie. And even at the very end we are left with her asking; I want to know "Why?".




If you are going to resort to silly, petty glibness, don't get huffy when you get it right back.

Don't you dare condescend me. I'm the one that took the time to go through four movies to show you how similar each one is, how each one follows the same formula for character injection, how each one almost follows an identical path to internal conflict in addition to the xenomorph an YOU come back with a one-liner that dismisses the 30 minutes of content I wrote as; I don't know what I'm talking about. http://files.notebookforums.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

[megladon8]

Okay, Duke. I'm done.

[Dukefrukem]

So typical. Why do you always run away from a discussion? Why do you take things so personally?

[megladon8]

So typical. Why do you always run away from a discussion? Why do you take things so personally?


You're the one who turned things personal, accusing me of condescension when I am simply frustrated with how blind you are to other peoples' views. It's just like the video game thread at this point. You don't seem to even read my posts, where I have quite clearly stated solid back up to my points.

There's nothing more to be said. When I give reasoning, you say "well, that's not the reasoning I want, so you're wrong".

I'm done.

This movie sucked.

[Dukefrukem]

I didn't accuse you of condescension.... you blatantly did it. And it's still there if you want to go back and read it. How did you expect me to react as you brush off my post with "you don't know what a fully developed character is". Like, who the fuck are you? Martin fucking Scorsese? With your years of expertly written fully developed character storyboards? I'm just like you, on the same level; two dudes, on a message board, discussing shit. That's all.

I'm going back to read every single post of yours to find everything that is "clearly stated". Yes I'm that committed.

[Skitch]

As I said before, I don't think there's gonna be much in the way of successful conversation between the thumbs up and thumbs down crowds on this one.

[D_Davis]

I like this movie.

[megladon8]

I didn't accuse you of condescension.... you blatantly did it. And it's still there if you want to go back and read it. How did you expect me to react as you brush off my post with "you don't know what a fully developed character is". Like, who the fuck are you? Martin fucking Scorsese? With your years of expertly written fully developed character storyboards? I'm just like you, on the same level; two dudes, on a message board, discussing shit. That's all.

I'm going back to read every single post of yours to find everything that is "clearly stated". Yes I'm that committed.


This is one of the worst arguments ever, by the way - that one has to be a successful writer/director to know good writing/directing.

If that were the case, film criticism and anaylsis would be a completely moot endeavor.

I didn't blatantly condescend, no more than you just saying "you're incorrect".

And why did I walk away? Because this is pissing me the hell off, and I'm not resorting to a flame war. I'm done.

We disagree. Conversation over.

[Dukefrukem]

This is one of the worst arguments ever, by the way - that one has to be a successful writer/director to tell other people they don't know what they're talking about.

Fixed. Bolded is why i was offended. Not because I'm saying you are incapable of knowing good writing/directing.

Still working on your posts. Probably won't be done until tomorrow.

[Skitch]

I like this movie.

Me too. Stop screaming at me!!!

[D_Davis]

Me too. Stop screaming at me!!!

I like it way more than you do.

[D_Davis]

Here's how much you like it:
++

Here's how much I like it:
++++++++++

As you can clearly see, my illustration illustrates that I like it way more than you do.

To put it another way:

++++++++++ > ++

[megladon8]

Fixed. Bolded is why i was offended. Not because I'm saying you are incapable of knowing good writing/directing.

Still working on your posts. Probably won't be done until tomorrow.


Well I apologize for you taking it that way but my point was simply that what you were listing as examples of character depth were not, in fact, examples of character depth.

As I said a few times now, theres more to character depth than a simple list of traits. That's all. That's why I'm saying the fact that she is a scientist and religious is not, in and of itself, depth. How these traits form her responses to the situations in the film is what creates depth, and to me, her actions and reactions were no different than any other character in the story. Everyone was pretty interchangeable.

[Skitch]

Here's how much you like it:
++

Here's how much I like it:
++++++++++

As you can clearly see, my illustration illustrates that I like it way more than you do.

To put it another way:

++++++++++ > ++

You're not a mathmatician, you don't understand plus signs and greater than symbols.

[Dukefrukem]

As I said a few times now, theres more to character depth than a simple list of traits. That's all. That's why I'm saying the fact that she is a scientist and religious is not, in and of itself, depth. How these traits form her responses to the situations in the film is what creates depth, and to me, her actions and reactions were no different than any other character in the story. Everyone was pretty interchangeable.

Ok I guess I just disagree; I feel the exact opposite and I even find myself more interested in Shaw than anything Ripley ever did for us. And when you keep saying "depth" I feel even more confident that Shaw was a deeper character than anything we saw through all four Alien films.

Shaw, was probably the most complicated character between all five movies. When do we ever get to see into Ripley’s past? OR even understand where Ripley came from? Or see Ripley on Earth? We never do. We love Ripley because she always fought for what is right and she did so in a very heroic and brave manner. Ripley isn’t a transparent character, and I would argue that makes her less appealing. We know she had a daughter, whom Ripley left on Earth. But we don’t know anything about a lover, or husband. Were they divorced? What’s the story here? Shaw has an occupation, a life, a belief system, an internal conflict with those beliefs and then a physical conflict fighting for not only her life, but all of Earth. And even when the battle is over, she still has the determination to continue to question her beliefs, to get them answered.

[D_Davis]

You're not a mathmatician, you don't understand plus signs and greater than symbols.


:cry:

[Morris Schæffer]

Ripley had a daughter that she's never known because she had been drifting through space for 57 years. Yeah, that's right kid. 57 years. And that's the end of that. But not the end of Ripley's story, because in Newt, she finds a surrogate daughter and this time she's determined to make amends. I would definitely argue that Sigourney Weaver's determined, fiercely resolved performance is considerably more commanding and thus parallels Shaw's in that it's about believing in something in spite of overwhelming odds. And a little girl may be small potatoes compared to God, but it's not what it's about, but how it is about it.

[D_Davis]

Ripley's character was definitely fleshed out in the sequels. No doubt. In Alien? Not so much. Let's see what happens to Shaw in the sequel.

[Dukefrukem]

Ripley's character was definitely fleshed out in the sequels. No doubt. In Alien? Not so much. Let's see what happens to Shaw in the sequel.

http://files.notebookforums.com/images/smilies/headbang.gif

[Morris Schæffer]

In Alien she wasn't, but that's ok because (nearly) everyone knows Alien is better than Prometheus anyway. In fact, if she and the others had been more fleshed out, it is likely the 1979 landmark film wouldn't have been such a singularly terrifying experience.

[Pop Trash]

In Alien she wasn't, but that's ok because (nearly) everyone knows Alien is better than Prometheus anyway. In fact, if she and the others had been more fleshed out, it is likely the 1979 landmark film wouldn't have been such a singularly terrifying experience.

Alien ostensibly being a horror movie in space, Ripley wound up being The Final Girl in an ensemble piece. I guess you could say the same thing about Shaw in this, but it goes back to my original feeling that the minimal, stripped down horror of Alien seems to be at war with the other overarching aspects of the Prometheus mythos here.

This wants to have its cake and eat it too. It simultaniously wants to be an awe struck sci-fi like 2001, A.I., or Tree of Life (not really sci-fi, but certainly awe struck and spiritual) and be a horror/thriller like the original Alien, Jaws, Event Horizon or whatever. I think it's hard to mix these two tones. Another example of a film trying to mix these would be Sunshine, which I also think fell apart in the final act.

[megladon8]

Was the intention by Scott et al for this film to exist in the same universe as Alien, but to disregard all the other films in the franchise?

Just thinking about ages of characters, timeframes, etc...none of it would add up if we were to include any films other than the '79 original in the timeline.

[Morris Schæffer]

Alien ostensibly being a horror movie in space, Ripley wound up being The Final Girl in an ensemble piece. I guess you could say the same thing about Shaw in this, but it goes back to my original feeling that the minimal, stripped down horror of Alien seems to be at war with the other overarching aspects of the Prometheus mythos here.

Right! So this comparative discussion that has exploded here - and boy is that an understatement - is sort of moot. The characters in Alien are about as fleshed out as they need to be for the premise to work. Doesn't mean they're not real people, but sometimes a little bit goes a long way. And hiring the awesome likes of John Hurt, Harry Dean Stanton and Yaphet Kotto goes an even longer way.

By the way, Meg and Duke, I was just kidding you know. A little bit of war is fun on this board. But don't take it too far. ;)

[Dukefrukem]

Was the intention by Scott et al for this film to exist in the same universe as Alien, but to disregard all the other films in the franchise?

Just thinking about ages of characters, timeframes, etc...none of it would add up if we were to include any films other than the '79 original in the timeline.

Please explain.

[Skitch]

Please explain.

Yeah I'm not following either (except for the AvP films but I assume those are ignored). Side note: I love timeline discussions.

[megladon8]

Well, wasn't Bishop supposed to have been built by Weyland, and based off him physically?

And Weyland would have been loooooong dead at the time of Aliens (not to mention no British accent).

Maybe I'm accidentally mixing up lore from the AvP films with what went on in the Alien series.

I guess it also depends on whether or not you think it was the real Weyland at the end of Alien 3. I've heard convincing arguments for both sides.

[Morris Schæffer]

Imagine if Prometheus is never going to tie into alien...but is in fact a reboot. And those black goo containers are essentially the eggs of the rebooted universe.

[D_Davis]

Was the intention by Scott et al for this film to exist in the same universe as Alien, but to disregard all the other films in the franchise?

Just thinking about ages of characters, timeframes, etc...none of it would add up if we were to include any films other than the '79 original in the timeline.

I view it is as ground zero for two separate, and very different, stories set in the same universe that don't really need to connect in any way. It's entirely unique in this context. I understand why they're not calling it a prequel, but I think a lot of viewers are taking prequel baggage in with them. As far as I'm concerned the Star Wars films have forever tainted the word 'prequel.' I would have preferred it had they not made any revelations at all before the film was out.

[Skitch]

I just watched Alien 3 the other night. I'm pretty sure that was an android at the end. It may have had red 'blood', but when he got hit by that dude a huge chunk of his head and ear were hanging off. The kind of wound that would kill a person easily, but he seemed barely afflicted as he continued to yell "see! I'm human".

Also it could have been Weyland offspring Bishop was designed from. (I know Prometheus says he has no sons, it could have been another decendent or even an android line the company kept going to keep up the face. I don't think that would be beneath them.). I could be totally wrong on all this speculation, but all I know is don't ever trust The Company in any sort of alien universe. :)

[megladon8]

I view it is as ground zero for two separate, and very different, stories set in the same universe that don't really need to connect in any way. It's entirely unique in this context. I understand why they're not calling it a prequel, but I think a lot of viewers are taking prequel baggage in with them. As far as I'm concerned the Star Wars films have forever tainted the word 'prequel.' I would have preferred it had they not made any revelations at all before the film was out.


It's impossible not to connect the two stories, though. With Alien being such an iconic film in its own, anything bearing any resemblance at all is going to be connected in the viewers' minds.

If their intention was a completely separate film distanced completely from Alien, it would have been more logical for it to be its own thing, a whole new story in a whole new sci-fi universe.

As it is, they kind of shot themselves in the foot by having it take place in the universe but not wanting people to associate the two films.

A bit of a "they wanted to have their cake and eat it too" situation.

[D_Davis]

I thought it was good.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Maybe it doesn't belong here and I've brought it up many times before, but reading articles like this (http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/grey-matters-alien-vs-predator-vs-alien-vs-prometheus), hurts my brain more than ever.

I can't comprehend how someone could prefer AvP to the other Alien films.

I just don't get this niche hole that Paul W. Anderson has with a circle of cynical critics. I'm sure Anderson is completely unaware of this backyard fame he has. It absolutely mystifies me that someone can type this: with a straight face.

Oh boy. That Ian Grey is just Armond Whiting all over the place. It's getting on the floor.

[Bosco B Thug]

Question:

I thought the surgical machine introduced while touring Theron's fancy living quarters was hers, since it's nearly in the same room and a point is made about how rare (and thus valuable) it is. If that were the case however, why the fuck would she have it programmed to only operate on the male anatomy?! Please tell me I'm mistaken and this isn't just an inexplicable contrivance. I laughed. Oh, was it not a punchline? Whoops. :lol:

Okay, so I gave up reading through the thread at one point, but I got through a good portion of it, and I have to say: I'm happiest the most when reading Duke's posts in this thread.

It may have something to do with the fact that I had a great time. If anything, it's a refreshingly novel summer blockbuster. I was intrigued and engaged and had fun with the gonzo high-mindedness that pushes similar buttons to Cabin in the Woods, interestingly enough. It's patently ridiculous, practically like a ridiculous 60s sci-fi film (just burdened with state-of-the-art special effects), but I enjoyed it as something silly.

It was also like a Goosebumps book in its inanity and its series of unexplained monsters and plot turns. Holograms (i.e. fabricated dangers) are the essence of Goosebumps. Then we get the skeletons, the goopy vases, then spiking drinks with the goopy vases, then an alien baby, two different Smashy Goliaths, and out-of-nowhere Alien vs. Goliath. But I found it utterly crowd-pleasing. How I loved the monster brawl...

I agree about the snake scene... mind-boggling idiocy... but other nitpicks I didn't mind. Some missions are just unprofessional and incompetent. Some geologists are just slacker-ish, hired-guns like that. Some mission leaders are bratty daughters. Sometimes you just have to ignore there's an aborted alien creature in Vickers's room because you gotta go and see that god of yours (or you're a robot who marvels at her survival instincts).


Why would the Engineers come and go throughout history to leave all these "maps" across Earth that only leads them to a... military facility? Also, Lindelof did it in Star Trek, and he does it here: have crew land on huge foreign planet.... right exactly to the place where the last surviving engineer is. This is kind of the central mystery to the whole thing and, without having delved into all the speculations yet, I have no idea the answer. But, as I've presently exhibited, I think the film is fine working on the pulpy basic premise of beeyotch Gods who, at the climax, are revealed to simply hate us.

And finally, tosh on everyone, Theron's character was indispensable. She was kind of there to be the butt of the film, an errant personality and love-to-hate character, and then, in the end, the provider of some standard-issue, mean-spirited blockbuster morality. I'm with Duke, her final fate was a good punch in the gut and plausible in that cruel way, especially after seeing Noomi successfully dodge it. I loved it whenever she was on screen, perhaps ironically... her farewell scene with Weyland was hilarious... maybe Theron isn't much of an actress...

[Bosco B Thug]

Oh, and regarding the end, the

kamikaze at the end, were there still peripheral crew members alive whose lives they were sacrificing without asking? That one doctor woman? If so, hilarious.

[Skitch]

Oh, and regarding the end, the

kamikaze at the end, were there still peripheral crew members alive whose lives they were sacrificing without asking? That one doctor woman? If so, hilarious.

I wondered that too, but second viewing I saw she was with Weyland and Shaw at the meeting of the Engineer. :)

[Bosco B Thug]

I wondered that too, but second viewing I saw she was with Weyland and Shaw at the meeting of the Engineer. :) Riiight, I even remember seeing her now. Then the rest were wiped out by monster Holloway. :)

[Rowland]

Riiight, I even remember seeing her now. Then the rest were wiped out by monster Holloway. :)That wasn't a monster Holloway, his body was completely torched. I've noticed many people make this mistake, because the film isn't very clear about it, but the monster dude was Fifield the geologist, which you can tell if you pay attention to its facial features, what with the distinctive beard and everything. I posted the best interpretation I've found regarding his behavior and the nature of the black goo here (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=425586&postcount=88).

[Rowland]

By the way Bosco, your positive response is the closest I can come to recognizing the film's appeal. It reminds me of the response former-FFC writer Alex Jackson had, he wrote it in the comments section of Chaw's pan:

PROMETHEUS is more KNOWING or EPISODE 1 than ALIEN or 2001. I don't exactly mean that as pejorative. I actually like KNOWING and EPISODE 1. Some arresting images and/or good performances, along with an overall sincerity and meshugganas (sic?) is enough to sustain me. I think it's enough to make the experience worthwhile. The film is kitsch, but I really don't think that you can address the God question without lapsing into kitsch. It's ridiculous, Man in the Sky and zombie son and everything. But believing in the ridiculous may be preferable to confronting the abject terror of a universe where there are no consequences for our actions (except those irregularly applied by society) and where life has no intrinsic value or meaning aside from that which we construct ourselves. To the degree that I admire PROMETHEUS, I think it's because it's frankly a little tacky and that tackiness has it's own kind of truth.

[Bosco B Thug]

That wasn't a monster Holloway, his body was completely torched. I've noticed many people make this mistake, because the film isn't very clear about it, but the monster dude was Fifield the geologist, which you can tell if you pay attention to its facial features, what with the distinctive beard and everything. I posted the best interpretation I've found regarding his behavior and the nature of the black goo here (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=425586&postcount=88). Ah... yeah, I couldn't explain why he was in a ball, except that being how his corpse was left after getting torched. That makes sense, right? lol. And I think we assume Fifield's skull was caved in by alien acid. Also couldn't tell whose corpse that was they find when they go back.

[Rowland]

Ah... yeah, I couldn't explain why he was in a ball, except that being how his corpse was left after getting torched. And I think we assume Fifield's skull was caved in by alien acid. Also couldn't tell whose corpse that was they find when they go back.When they go back into the room, it's the biologist, and Fifield's body is missing. I assumed his face would melt from the black goo as well, but you can definitely make out his facial hair when he attacks them at the ship later.