Prometheus *SPOILERS FROM POST 1538*

Sir Gallagher

fitz0 wrote: »

He has a belly button but no nipples. Curious.

He does have nipples if you look very closely...





..Hang on wtf am i doing up at 4 in the morning debating whether the play doh man in Prometheus has nipples or not?

Skerries

maybe "hes" the female of the species

Mickeroo

al28283 wrote: »

This confirms nothing. Why is it feasible that one engineer would go rogue but not that two would?

It's a sarifice, he didn't go rogue. The actor who played the engineer said so in an interview before the film's release.

CiaranC

I just saw this, it was atrocious.

jcf

Mickeroo wrote: »

Going to be a 20 minute longer extended cut on the Blu-Ray: http://collider.com/ridley-scott-prometheus-deleted-scenes-interview/172202/

Also, it could have been a lot worse:



THank feck that didn't happen :eek:

Source: http://www.movies.com/movie-news/ridley-scott-prometheus-interview/8232

Good interview with Scott though.

But it did happen , thats what it hints at

Mickeroo

jcf wrote: »

But it did happen , thats what it hints at

THe jesus stuff went over my head I have to say. At least it only hint at it if that's the case, the way scott was talking they were literally going to spell it out (maybe even film it) that the jews crucified an alien 2000 years ago.

Mellor

seraphimvc wrote: »

The 'evolution' in Prometheus:

Black goo melting gives lives->simple organism->???->Dinosaur->?->?->???-> Human

and BAM, the writer/s decided that the DNA of the 'engineer' is the exact match of Human. We are indeed very special.

You think that humans in real life, the film or otherwise, evolved from dinosaurs????

Mickeroo

Mellor wrote: »

You think that humans in real life, the film or otherwise, evolved from dinosaurs????

They're obviously just pointing out within the film all life on earth came from the engineers, which means dinosaurs evolved from their DNA along with us. Which makes no sense.

Mellor

Why do they say all life?

I took it that they were referring to human life, ie intelligent life. They repeatedly referred to "us", "humans"etc.

Mellor

Why do they say all life?

I took it that they were referring to human life, ie intelligent life. They repeatedly referred to "us", "humans"etc.

shizz

Mellor wrote: »

Why do they say all life?

I took it that they were referring to human life, ie intelligent life. They repeatedly referred to "us", "humans"etc.

Yeah but the scene at the beginning shows cells multiplying in the water. This to me looks like they are symbolizing them planting the "seeds of life"

Mickeroo

Mellor wrote: »

Why do they say all life?

I took it that they were referring to human life, ie intelligent life. They repeatedly referred to "us", "humans"etc.

They went to great lengths to show us earth looking barren and uninhabited at the start of the film (even if it was iceland :P). Suppose its possible there was already micro-organisms knocking around before they did what they did what with the running water and all. I took it that they were responsible for all life on earth though.

Smiles35

I say the Engineers evolved with the Xenos way back when. More advanced now, but still have the cultural history of it all. But the Engineers on the planet are sort of like rebels, they believe in creating life free of that and using goo from the Xenos to help them do it.

That's the only reason I can make out for going around doing this sort of thing in the first place and not giving their home-planets address.

Manco

A curate's egg of a film, some moments of 2001-like charisma ruined by too many examples of poor writing to mention. Also, too little of Idris Elba playing the concertina.

CyberGhost

I could write an essay on how bad this movie was, with unlikeable, stupid, generic characters and their decisions, actions and logic, how bad the script of this movie was, etc... but instead I'm just going to leave this here...

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

shizz

CyberGhost wrote: »

I could write an essay on how bad this movie was, with unlikeable, stupid, generic characters and their decisions, actions and logic, how bad the script of this movie was, etc... but instead I'm just going to leave this here...

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

And after all those questions he hadn't even touched on the scientific ones. (Apart from the evolution thingy)

Calibos

Picture the scene. I am part of the crew of an exploration mission to an earthlike planet. We find no life but the building blocks and the energy sources and minerals etc are there for life to consume once it developes.

Before leaving the planet, I take a dump in a pond.

4 Billion years later my colon bacteria have evolved into sentient space faring life.

It quite simply is a ridiculous notion that when my Colon bacteria genesis lifeforms come looking for their creater 4 billion years later, that they would find my grandchildren hundreds of million times removed looking exactly the same as me , with knowledge that it was me who seeded the Colon homeworld 4 billion years earlier and that they would decide that great great grandad times 200 million made a mistake taking a dump on PLanet Colon 4 billion years ago and that they really need to wipe out the sentient intelligent life that evolved from my colon bacteria, cause like...thats just sick.

opinion guy

Manco wrote: »

A curate's egg of a film

A what now ?

christmas2012

at the start of the film the alien like creature drinks the potion and disintegrates,then an alien ship deserts him and flies off into the distance,fast forward some thousand years later they find writings on the walls of scotland where the alien guy was,and decide to take a trip,i didnt really get the start of the film and found it a bit confusing how this human like alien would put on a suit that resembled the aliens characters in the alien films..

but having said all that i enjoyed the film immensly,i thought it was brilliant,if you watch it and keep aliens and all the other films you have seen out of your head,its a good film to watch..the price of cinema tickets is astronomical though when you factor in all the goodies like popcorn and coke and candy floss it goes up to about 50 quid easy..

Smiles35

Calibos wrote: »

Before leaving the planet, I take a dump in a pond.

Where are you going?

red dave

Smell Badda wrote: »

Calibos wrote: »

Before leaving the planet, I take a dump in a pond.

Where are you going?

That's the ambiguous part. It needs ambiguity with questions still to be answered.

PhiloCypher

christmas2012 wrote: »

at the start of the film the alien like creature drinks the potion and disintegrates,then an alien ship deserts him and flies off into the distance,fast forward some thousand years later they find writings on the walls of scotland where the alien guy was,and decide to take a trip,i didnt really get the start of the film and found it a bit confusing how this human like alien would put on a suit that resembled the aliens characters in the alien films..

but having said all that i enjoyed the film immensly,i thought it was brilliant,if you watch it and keep aliens and all the other films you have seen out of your head,its a good film to watch..the price of cinema tickets is astronomical though when you factor in all the goodies like popcorn and coke and candy floss it goes up to about 50 quid easy..

I respectfully disagree, it's a common misconception that those who didn't enjoy it were expecting an alien or Aliens type film , this is false , we weren't , what we were expecting was a film of that sort of quality . Going into this film stripped of any preconceptions about it being a Alien/Aliens repeat will not make the characters any more compelling or their actions and plot as a whole make any more sense.

bossa_nova

CyberGhost wrote: »

I could write an essay on how bad this movie was, with unlikeable, stupid, generic characters and their decisions, actions and logic, how bad the script of this movie was, etc... but instead I'm just going to leave this here...

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

I hate when people quote this 4 minute teaser from red letter media saying bad it was, have you watched the full 30 minute review from these two, they both liked it and are full of praise for it.

PhiloCypher

bossa_nova wrote: »

I hate when people quote this 4 minute teaser from red letter media saying bad it was, have you watched the full 30 minute review from these two, they both liked it and are full of praise for it.

Just watched it , and while they were not without praise for certain elements they very clearly have the same issues with the film that a lot of people have . They are just giving it a tentative pass because they're hoping that the sequel clears up the endless questions this film raises and don't want to seem unduly harsh if somehow Ridley pulls a rabbit out of a hat and the sequel, in answering some of those questions, retrospectively makes Prometheus a better film.

shizz

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Just watched it , and while they were not without praise for certain elements they very clearly have the same issues with the film that a lot of people have . They are just giving it a tentative pass because they're hoping that the sequel clears up the endless questions this film raises and don't want to seem unduly harsh if somehow Ridley pulls a rabbit out of a hat and the sequel, in answering some of those questions, retrospectively makes Prometheus a better film.

Ah that's a load of bull! The review should be on the film and the film alone. Not on what the next film "might" produce.

LeinsterDub

bossa_nova wrote: »

CyberGhost wrote: »

I could write an essay on how bad this movie was, with unlikeable, stupid, generic characters and their decisions, actions and logic, how bad the script of this movie was, etc... but instead I'm just going to leave this here...

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

I hate when people quote this 4 minute teaser from red letter media saying bad it was, have you watched the full 30 minute review from these two, they both liked it and are full of praise for it.

Are you watching the same review while not as direct as the 4 minute review the basic feel from the 30 minute review is its not the worst thing they've ever seen but it's far from positive

PhiloCypher

shizz wrote: »

Ah that's a load of bull! The review should be on the film and the film alone. Not on what the next film "might" produce.

I hear yeh , the film should be compelling in it's own right stripped of any thematic pretentions with sequels merely enhancing whats there not being used to bandaid the failings of the first film.

Manco

opinion guy wrote: »

A what now ?

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cur1.htm

opinion guy

Manco wrote: »

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cur1.htm

So its a phrase from 100 years ago. Thats pretty obscure my friend. I'm impressed with how obscure that is!

Manco

opinion guy wrote: »

So its a phrase from 100 years ago. Thats pretty obscure my friend. I'm impressed with how obscure that is!

It's a fairly well-known phrase as a search of Boards notes, you just mustn't have heard of it. But can we get the thread back on topic?