Prometheus *SPOILERS FROM POST 1538*

shazzerman

Well, all the things I think are good in the film I put down to Scott (helped immensely, as usual, by a great design team); and I blame the script for the bad - that is my opinion from watching the film. I've seen a tale written by Lindelof (whether on his own or in collaboration) tie itself in knots of ridiculousness - cause-and-effect plot logic as loose as you like (which I hate, 'cause it is lazy) - with characters shoehorned into situations where motivation is terribly weak - and because I cannot judge Spaihts's input in terms of his track record (as this is the only example of his work I am familiar with), I am happy to demonise Damon on this one. That is my hypothesis, just a theory that I don't want to get beaten up for (ah, if only Carl Gottlieb was Ridley's go-to man for script doctoring).

tok9

It just seems a bit odd that due to this writer being famous (or infamous) that you have attached the bad to him.

Over the last decade or so, Scott hasn't actually made that many good movies. American Gangster is the only one that comes to mind for me. I'd just be curious if you hold his writers responsible for all his other failings over the years.

On top of that, this was one of the films where he was heavily involved with the script.

And as a director, when directing a scene such as when one of the scientists takes their helmet off, or the "snake" scene, a bit of common sense should kick in. This isn't some rookie director who's just happy to direct a big film.

I actually didn't hate this film but I was so disappointed with a lot of it.

shazzerman

tok9 wrote: »

It just seems a bit odd that due to this writer being famous (or infamous) that you have attached the bad to him.

Over the last decade or so, Scott hasn't actually made that many good movies. American Gangster is the only one that comes to mind for me. I'd just be curious if you hold his writers responsible for all his other failings over the years.

On top of that, this was one of the films where he was heavily involved with the script.

And as a director, when directing a scene such as when one of the scientists takes their helmet off, or the "snake" scene, a bit of common sense should kick in. This isn't some rookie director who's just happy to direct a big film.

I actually didn't hate this film but I was so disappointed with a lot of it.

I don't know what you mean here - he is directing from a shooting script after all; that bit of "common sense" should have come at the writing stage, surely? Scott, as far as I can find any reference to his input, had about as much to do with the script as James Cameron did. Spaihts wrote a screenplay - very different to the finished one; Lindelof was brought in to "redevelop" it (from Wikipedia, so not sure how true it is - but I think the finished film testifies to the this "redevelopment" and the changes such a term implies). Watching LOST (mostly in large chunks, after the first season aired at least), I could admire it a lot, it was an ambitious concept (like Prometheus) but lots (and LOTS) of it was completely frustrating for the reasons outlined in my last post above. And that frustration came back to me watching Prometheus - those scenes you mentioned, Noomi hopping around after major surgery, Pearce's character (shoehorn city). How would good direction help a scene where a character has to sprint for life an hour or two after major surgery? But, hey, enough of my yakkin'.

shazzerman

Okay, I now see that Scott had a lot more script input than I had originally thought, so apologies for that. But I still believe that Lindelof's fingerprints are all over the really messy parts of this visual treat.

Fysh

I think Lindelof gets a bit of a shoeing (deserved, IMO) because he's been involved in the writing of several projects which have had significant problems with sloppy logic, plot holes, and weak/contrived character motivations. For example, I've just read that he co-wrote Star Trek: Into Darkness, which to my mind explains a lot since I found that film to be riddled with far more issues than the 2009 film.

Snake Plisken

Fysh wrote: »

I think Lindelof gets a bit of a shoeing (deserved, IMO) because he's been involved in the writing of several projects which have had significant problems with sloppy logic, plot holes, and weak/contrived character motivations. For example, I've just read that he co-wrote Star Trek: Into Darkness, which to my mind explains a lot since I found that film to be riddled with far more issues than the 2009 film.

Well I thought it was an enjoyable well thought out movie and I look forward to the sequel, don't get all the hate that Damon gets!

Fysh

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Well I thought it was an enjoyable well thought out movie and I look forward to the sequel, don't get all the hate that Damon gets!

It was visually spectacular, and I enjoyed that aspect of it a lot. There were an overabundance of characters doing things that we've been told they should know are utterly, utterly stupid. The two that pop most easily to mind are Holloway taking his helmet off because there's oxygen in the air (even if there is a breathable atmosphere, there's a clear protocol for exploring sites involving potential new species and it's basically about avoiding any cross-contamination - not just because new bacteria ect might kill the investigators but also because if they contaminate the site with the bacteria etc in their body, they immediately compromise the integrity of any samples they take for later study) and Millburn, the biologist, displaying a stunning lack of knowledge of how to read aggressive body language. And there are plenty more.

If you're going to say "Oh, but why nitpick?" These aren't things I go out of my way to think of after I've finished watching a film, they're things that occur to me when I'm watching. I like science fiction, I read a lot of it. In written science-fiction (at least, so-called "hard" science-fiction) a great deal of value is placed on accuracy or at least verisimilitude when depicting things that have real-world analogues, and so I find it frustrating when lazy or uninformed writing ends up putting clearly incorrect or just plain stupid interpretations of ideas on the screen, mainly because it would be so easy to find out what the correct version is and use that instead.

If these things don't bother you, that's fair enough too I'm not suggesting everyone should share my opinion on the film, just explaining why I thought the writing was weak.

Missed this in the cinema and have had the Blu-Ray sitting in my to watch pile for a long time so when I saw the thread bumped decided to give it a watch.

It's a deeply flawed yet strangely captivating slice of science fiction that sadly seems to have no idea just what story it wants to tell. It's been a long time since Scott has been on form and here it feels less like an auteur filmmaker and more film making by committee. The entire thing feels like someone has taken a much long film and ruthlessly edited it down to an easy to digest 120 minutes that focuses on pretty visuals and a handful of big ideas that go nowhere.

Visually it's captivating with some genuine moments of beauty, the opening scene is breathtaking but doesn't come to much which sets the tone. Lots of pretty things to look at but nothing at all of any real interest or cohesion going on.

Normally I'd go into more detail but just can't be bothered, it's a film that is the cinematic equivalent of that pretty girl you see across the room who turns out to be a horrible racist, you'd happily look at her as long as you don't have to listen to her or take her home.

Chris_Heilong

^^^^^^^
Nail on the head there.

Cork boy 55

shazzerman wrote: »

I don't know what you mean here - he is directing from a shooting script after all; that bit of "common sense" should have come at the writing stage, surely? Scott, as far as I can find any reference to his input, had about as much to do with the script as James Cameron did. Spaihts wrote a screenplay - very different to the finished one; Lindelof was brought in to "redevelop" it (from Wikipedia, so not sure how true it is - but I think the finished film testifies to the this "redevelopment" and the changes such a term implies). Watching LOST (mostly in large chunks, after the first season aired at least), I could admire it a lot, it was an ambitious concept (like Prometheus) but lots (and LOTS) of it was completely frustrating for the reasons outlined in my last post above. And that frustration came back to me watching Prometheus - those scenes you mentioned, Noomi hopping around after major surgery, Pearce's character (shoehorn city). How would good direction help a scene where a character has to sprint for life an hour or two after major surgery? But, hey, enough of my yakkin'.

bolded

I forgive them that..
its science fiction ...
a hundreds years in future in a civilization which has instellar transports and hyper sleep and Humanoid AI
she was operated on by a state of the art machine at cutting edge of their current tech , a toy for super rich
we clearly hear the machine say "applying anesthetics" she is seen taking multiple injections and drugs and is shown in burst of severe pain afterwards several times.
Its reasonably to assume that medical advances could allow such behavior.

Cork boy 55

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

TV premiere tonight on RTE at 21:00
for those that missed it

I will tune in if i can for a second watch , not impressed the first time although i was tired and emotional also there was there was the legacy of Alien and the massive marketing campaign and hype which inflated exceptions

Give it another chance,
maybe they have made some changes as well?

Did they ever make a directors cut?

Well I watched it a second time and I really enjoyed it flaws on all (HELMETS)
Its a pretty good movie IMO.

I think the worst part of movie was the casting of some of the minor and auxiliary characters The geologist and the biologist, Chinese co-pilot etc
The red haired mohawk geologist was a terrible character both in life and death . I think if they had a cast a more rounded and believable crew with a bit better dialogue and put some flesh on them before slaughtering them all and ironed out a few errors it would have been a much better movie.

David and Shaw where excellent casting.
"it is not a traditional foetus" LOL

The one thing i don't get is why did David go bad?

Fysh

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

bolded

I forgive them that..
its science fiction ...
a hundreds years in future in a civilization which has instellar transports and hyper sleep and Humanoid AI
she was operated on by a state of the art machine at cutting edge of their current tech , a toy for super rich
we clearly hear the machine say "applying anesthetics" she is seen taking multiple injections and drugs and is shown in burst of severe pain afterwards several times.
Its reasonably to assume that medical advances could allow such behavior.

I disagree - she basically went through a massively accelerated caeserean-section delivery, had the wound sealed up with a staplegun and then proceeded to run around like her thorax (and all her abdominal muscles) hadn't been severed an hour previously, when in reality she'd be lucky to crawl without being in enough pain to make her pass out. Women who've had a c-section are told that for the first few days they need to support their incision when they cough or sneeze, so running around like a mad yoke mere hours after the surgery is ludicrous.

humanji

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The one thing i don't get is why did David go bad?

It's one of the many, many points of the story that don't make any sense. I found it to be a fun film to watch if you don't ask any questions about any aspect of it. The sequel might answer some questions, but I doubt it.

Mickeroo

Yeah I gave it another chance on Saturday night but it's still a terrible film. It is very very pretty though, and the music is great (though doesn't really suit most of the film imo).

bnt

Saw it for the first time on TV last weekend, thought it was OK. Slightly underwhelmed by the plot once I figured out the connections to the rest of the series. As for why David went "bad" ... was he really "bad", or was he merely acting in accordance with his programming? :eek:

edit: the way Fassbender himself describes David, he's a bit like HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey, in that he's clearly far superior to the humans he serves on the mission, and is feeling a bit bored and underappreciated. So, when Holloway says he'll do "anything" to figure out what's going on, David takes that as implicit permission to run his little "experiment" on Holloway.

Keplar240B

Just seen a fan edit there, They put in various deleted scenes and extras from the blueray.
Much improved maybe give it 7.5/10 or even an 8.

I have said it before but i will say it again , Fifield ruins the first half of the movie.

They should release an extended directors cut at some point.