Prometheus *SPOILERS FROM POST 1538*

Eggy Baby!

krudler wrote: »

the Guy Pearce makeup looks much better there than it does in the movie. I kept thinking of Bad Grandpa from Jackass when he was on screen



"Hi I'm Peter Weyland and welcome to Jackass!"

Thank you so much for making me realise this!

Kirby2k07

Anyone know what and if it has any relevance to prometheus the strange blue mist monitering the nest is in Alien when John Hurt falls over by he eggs? Thought that might have been answered in prometheus but I think I might have missed it?

stylie

The guy at the start, is he seeding the Planet with life or with DNA to make smart life like us ? because if he is seeding it with life then what was he breathing ?

Mizu_Ger

I finally got around to seeing this (in 3D) yesterday and liked it.

I think its wrong to compare this to any of the Alien films. It's obviously set in the same universe, but it's its own film and storyline. Ridley Scott was on Radio Five Live a few weeks ago (Mark Kermode's podcasted show) and said that there would be 2 more films after this one, which would bring the story closer to the start of Alien.

It was always engrossing. The film looked fatastic and I felt the 3D added to the sweeping shots of the world (Scott also said in that interview that 3D would be suited to westerns, ie. good for giving a sense of size to the landscape, which is what he does here). The story was interesting and I'd definitely be interested in seeing where it goes. There were some scenes that I felt were unneccessary and I think the first half would be better with a slightly slower pace.

The one thing I didn't like was the score. It was too much and should have been cut back a lot, but overall I came out happy. The story has lots of potential and I am sure answers to questions everyone's asking about the story will be forthcoming.

Scott also mentioned in the interview (when asked) that he may have more footage to add to the film. So, I'd expect to see a director's cut on DVD/Blu-ray at some stage (I wish he'd just release the film the way he wanted to begin with, surely he has the clout).

This is the direct link to the podcast: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/kermode/kermode_20120601-1008a.mp3

lukin

Maybe I missed something but why did David spike Holloway's drink?

Rubber_Soul

Chancer3001 wrote: »

just saw it, 6 out of 10, some great scenes but not a great story.

1 - Why the fack is Guy pearce wearing awful make up? Just cast an old man ffs!!

Scott said in an interview that he intended to have a few scenes of a younger Weyland in the film, hence Pearce being cast. However some got dropped in the cutting room and some didn't make the shooting script. Some it will probably show up in an extended version.


Just caught this from Total Film

The ending of the film has sparked a particular amount of debate, specifically the scene in which David accompanies Weyland to the engineer’s sleep-pod, and rouses the “God” from his slumber. David is a master of all known languages, and manages to converse with the being, before things all turn a bit sour.

Given that the sequence isn’t subtitled, we were expecting never to know exactly what David said to anger the Engineer. Did he deliver Weyland’s message as asked, or did he take matters into his own hands in that suspicious manner so beloved of “synthetics”?

Well, according to Dr. Anil Biltoo, the film’s official translator and linguistics consultant, David did as he was asked, translating his words as follows: “This man is here because he does not want to die. He believes you can give him more life.”

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/translator-explains-prometheus-ending

Rubber_Soul

lukin wrote: »

Maybe I missed something but why did David spike Holloway's drink?

To test what the goo did to a human. It was after Weyland asked him to try harder and in a way he asked Holloway's permission by asking how far was he willing to go to get his answers etc.

jcf

2 more films ???? seriously ??????


2 more ???? wtf ???

Mickeroo

stylie wrote: »

The guy at the start, is he seeding the Planet with life or with DNA to make smart life like us ? because if he is seeding it with life then what was he breathing ?

i think the official explanation for that is the script writers didn't really think about what they were doing :pac:

unplayable

not sure about this after first viewing may need to see it again but much much better than 90% of crap in the theaters these days i.e new rom coms every week

bullvine

StarshipPooper wrote: »

Scott said in an interview that he intended to have a few scenes of a younger Weyland in the film, hence Pearce being cast. However some got dropped in the cutting room and some didn't make the shooting script. Some it will probably show up in an extended version.


Just caught this from Total Film

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/translator-explains-prometheus-ending

Yet more utter rubbish, they honestly hadnt a clue where to go with this film

Mickeroo

Over-educated problems

SeantheMan

stylie wrote: »

The guy at the start, is he seeding the Planet with life or with DNA to make smart life like us ? because if he is seeding it with life then what was he breathing ?

I assumed he was *testing* this black substance to see what would happen to their species if consumed, while the ship watched from above.

The substance seems to make whatever it interacts with extremely aggressive, so maybe it was a military trial or something..

I dunno, the film has so many questions

Mizu_Ger

SeantheMan wrote: »

I assumed he was *testing* this black substance to see what would happen to their species if consumed, while the ship watched from above.

The substance seems to make whatever it interacts with extremely aggressive, so maybe it was a military trial or something..

I dunno, the film has so many questions

I thought that the ship had just dropped him off (on Earth) and his DNA was then to seed the planet with life. Hard to tell. I would think that these questions are there for the next 2 films to answer (if they get made).

Zubeneschamali

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

his DNA was then to seed the planet with life.

I think stylie is pointing out that the Engineer(s) wouldn't be able to walk about without a spacesuit, as before there were plants on earth there would have been no free oxygen, and dudes with exactly the same DNA as us need oxygen.

al28283

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think stylie is pointing out that the Engineer(s) wouldn't be able to walk about without a spacesuit, as before there were plants on earth there would have been no free oxygen, and dudes with exactly the same DNA as us need oxygen.

I think the fact that there were aliens on earth who created all life kind of means that the whole history of the planet is somewhat different that reality, so why not oxygen?

Calibos

al28283 wrote: »

I think the fact that there were aliens on earth who created all life kind of means that the whole history of the planet is somewhat different that reality, so why not oxygen?

The Geological record.

Outkast_IRE

Calibos wrote: »

The Geological record.

But its sci-fi they have already taken liberties in most other areas

jcf

People really shouldn't get hung up on science facts with this , I'd be more concerned with the poor script and just bad story - I read the empire interview with Ridley Scott a few months back and the guy does not have a clue, I can't remember exactly but he was saying something like science today tells us we have been around for a few thousand years and there was nothing before that - it must be rubbish there had to be other civilizations before us ??

It was then that I began to realize the film would be a big disappointment.

He may be a great artist but he's no scientist , it's like getting angry at a creationist for saying the earth is 4000 yrs old.

al28283

Calibos wrote: »

The Geological record.

The geological record is irrelevant in a world where basic science doesn't make sense

PC CDROM

Jaysus. Huge thread is HUGE!

I enjoyed the film. I can't wait for the directors cut as I think it is going to be the proper version, if that makes sense.

Due to the size of this thread I am going to read most of it backwards, so sorry if I am repeating the obvious!

PC CDROM

SeantheMan wrote: »

I assumed he was *testing* this black substance to see what would happen to their species if consumed, while the ship watched from above.

The substance seems to make whatever it interacts with extremely aggressive, so maybe it was a military trial or something..

I dunno, the film has so many questions

To be honest having seen "pics" of the film being made he wasn't alone on the planet before the ship took off and it looked like he was being "blessed" or something.

As I have said above I am going backwards here... if I don't see the link to http://www.prometheus-movie.com/media/ I'll post it.

indough

why are people obsessing over tiny insignificant details like how they could breath without oxygen or that they didn't use realistic propulsion systems? its just a slightly less than dumb sci-fi movie and that's all it was ever going to be. i get the impression some of you wouldn't be happy unless the script read like a haynes manual.

al28283

indough wrote: »

why are people obsessing over tiny insignificant details like how they could breath without oxygen or that they didn't use realistic propulsion systems? its just a slightly less than dumb sci-fi movie and that's all it was ever going to be. i get the impression some of you wouldn't be happy unless the script read like a haynes manual.

I think if the basics of the plot made sense then the science would be easy to overlook

indough

al28283 wrote: »

I think if the basics of the plot made sense then the science would be easy to overlook

i just dont get why people are focussing on these things that dont really matter when there are such obvious and more significant problems with the plot

pixelburp

Yes, it's a bit bizarre the level of pedantry people are going into to criticise the science of this movie. Really, this actually annoys people? 90% of sci-fi cinema has wobbly science at best & yet generally this doesn't stop us enjoying films for what they were. It's not even as if Prometheus pitched itself as hard sci-fi - ala Sunshine or 2001 - so I don't think it's fair criticism to have a go at the iffy astrophysics.

Fair enough if you might have problems with the script (and for the record I still think it was a fantastic & imaginative film, if a little flawed) , but picking on the minutiae is a bit petty. I do wonder sometimes what film-fans did before the internet, seems at times like obsessive nit-picking is a by-product of this world.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

I do wonder sometimes what film-fans did before the internet, seems at times like obsessive nit-picking is a by-product of this world.

Took their rage out like this?

Mizu_Ger

pixelburp wrote: »

Yes, it's a bit bizarre the level of pedantry people are going into

Without it the internet wouldn't exist!

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

Really, this actually annoys people?

It depends.

Look at 2001, for example. All of the human technology is very well researched and filmed, but the Monolith is effectively magic. This is deliberate, and works brilliantly. (The ape-men at the start are completely wrong, but we only know that because of science done since the 60s).

Or take District 9: there is a whole pile of iffy science in there, including black goo that mutates humans for absolutely no sensible reason. But it doesn't matter, as it's some sort of unexplaiined alien technology which we are not supposed to understand.

But when scientists in a movie just start talking total sh!te about well understood basic science, it knocks me right out of the movie.

It's like if a doctor on House suddenly started talking about driving out demons and nobody passed any remarks, it just makes me go "WHAT did he just say?".

chin_grin

So after me posting up the spoiler vid from redlettermedia earlier (and, justifiably being put in my place for not reading the last few posts) I finally went to see this last night.

I went in with a complete blank slate and told myself I'd make up my mind either during or directly after the movie. (even with knowing the storyline...I wanted to experience the awe and horror).

Was shocked me as engrossing as the film was I was bored out of my mind! I'm not saying that there needed to be Michael Bay levels of 'sh!t-blowing-up'-ness, but that I didn't even give a flying f*ck when characters started to die as we didn't invest much time in to them to begin with.

Also they did really sh!tty things...completely out of character.

A few examples: Fifield. Why in the hell did he get completely p!ssed off for no apparent reason!? There was no lead up to his outburst...yeah he was a bit sulky and short with people, but that didn't mean that he'd just turn on the whole team and go off on his own.

Meredith. Why does a stuck-up business woman sleep with a drunken offer from the captain, was there a history there or something?

Nothing was ever fleshed out! The tension scenes were over before you could care about them and the themes running through this made it quite pretentious.

Like religion:

The immaculate conception.
The washing of the fathers feet.
The constant referral to her faith.
(And any others I failed to mention).

I also noticed a few callbacks of dialogue to the original Aliens that seemed completely out of place. The characters were just shy of looking at the camera and winking.

Also the ending....where we see the race of the aliens we know and love. Struck me as tacked on for continuitys' sake and not needed at all.

It reminded me of the final scene in Contagion...where it actually

goes back to where the infection originated.

(spoilered just in case!)...we're told through the whole movie...we don't need to be spoon fed!

I should have had alarm bells ringing when I realised that it was the same writer as Lost. Hated that series.