Prometheus SPOILERS FROM POST 1538

Mickeroo · 03-06-2012 11:27PM

Well I just got back from it. Parts of it I loved, parts of it I hated. Overall I felt it was worth watching but it was underwhelming and the script sucked balls. Its a shame because there's some great ideas in there and it lends itself to the Alien mythos nicely.

I thought it sucked that we didn't get to know what david said to the engineer, I thought it sucked that the engineer, who were clearly intelligent, just ran around grunting and killing everyone near him, seriously they should have a had a bit of dialogue between himself and David. I also felt the Xeno-esque life form hatching at the end felt a bit tacked on and was just thrown in to go "Oh hey look, it's an alien! Sort of"

Finally I also agree the the crew were the biggest bunch of morons ever, seriously i was imagining the guys from the control room in Cabin in the Woods pumping gas in so eveyone would do things that made no sense. I was also imagining Pete Vs. Life's football commentary over Spall's death scene.

Alonso77 · 03-06-2012 11:55PM

Kinda reminded me of my reaction to Romero's Land of the Dead i.e. big expectation, underwhelmed upon leaving Cinema but grown on me on repeated viewings. Maybe Prometheus will have same effect, cant help but feel a lot of stuff was cut that may have added extra depth, then again maybe not. Early days.. etc

nyarlothothep · 04-06-2012 12:19AM

Fysh wrote: »

It wasn't meant as an insult, more harking back to previous discussions we've had on here (like the one about Aronofsky's films) where it's become apparent we both have different tastes in films. Your claim about being "liberal" seemed to be laced with some implied superiority, like you're better than the rest of us for not being bogged down with expectations or something, when a more likely scenario is that you are laden with expectations and preconceptions (like every human on the planet) and this film happened to be a better fit for what you enjoy than it was for myself and others.

I do agree that sci-fi doesn't need to be hard to work in stories where some premises are explored, but the more you want to use sci-fi details as plot devices (especially if you're trying to make a point of establishing your characters as Big Experts In Their Fields) the more you'll strain suspension of disbelief if you have either Crap Science, Blatantly Stupid Scientists, or both - IMO.

Read what I posted again In general I'd agree with your description of him, but he has written some stories (most notably the ones I mentioned by name) which are at least as much sci-fi as they are horror fantasy.

I don't know about anyone else but I certainly didn't want Prometheus to be Alien or Aliens. I wanted it to be made with as confident a display of craftmanship as those films featured, but I generally loathe franchised box-ticking exercises. Narratively it's definitely a good thing for Prometheus to have sought out different territory.

My point is, though, that you're talking about the idea of establishing a viable ongoing storytelling universe in the Aliens world that expands beyond xenomorphs as though that's a specifically good thing about Prometheus. I don't regard that as a good or a bad thing, it's not something I care about. I'm not invested in any way in the Aliens universe overall, I couldn't give a rats ass if for some reason no further stories are ever told in that world. What I do care about is that in such a storytelling environment, each chapter is good and stands in its own right, but tbh since Alien 3 it's been a case of diminishing returns from where I sit. Prometheus delivered the visuals and a narrative of its own, but as it stands it's not strong enough to interest me in coming back for Prometheus 2: Black Goo Boogaloo or anything else.

Silly me, getting airs and graces, thinking that the Film Forum of all places was somewhere where I could come and have a meeting of minds with other people who're interested in analysing film in terms of craft and technique as well as sheer spectacle. Those of us pointing out the film's flaws should just shut up and be grateful for whatever crumbs our elders and betters deign to throw us, should we?

I would posit an alternative scenario, in which you accept that those of us discussing the film's faults are in the right place to do so, that a crucial part of wider artistic analysis and critique is founded on the principle that it is possible to understand and appreciate the talent, skill and craftmanship involved in creating a piece of art without possessing it oneself, and that if you're not interested in such a level of discussion perhaps you should instead investigate some of the many other places for nattering that exist on boards.

Incidentally - in your scenario where criticisms from folk like me who try to have an understanding of the craft of filmmaking, but who have no track record in the industry, are rendered invalid or irrelevant....why should your comments carry any weight? You've shown no evidence to suggest you're a Ridley-Scott level filmmaker, so why should anyone set the weight of a mousefart by your positive comments about the film if you're willing to so quickly dismiss the opinions of a load of other people?

I have pre-conceptions maybe, but I don't stick to them if I'm proven wrong. That's why I'm better than everyone.

I will concede that some HP Lovecraft stories might intersect with the set of Sci Fi.

I think that since it is in the aliens universe, it opens up a new an interesting chapter. It's the first Alien film since Aliens which adds something new and of value to the franchise, AvP doesn't count. And what's wrong with the black goo? It's some substance developed with science so advanced that it has multiple functions, the sequel hopefully will clarify these issues. Anywho I think what Bad Panda is getting at is that people are so hyper critical of films these days that it's kinda like they should go out and make them since they seem to know so much. Now that hypercriticism could be a product of the fact that so many films are absolute sh1t, but when you hear a lot of statements like "that could only be made in the 80s", it seems that we collectively, as an audience have lost our sense of fun with regards films. So for me it's a fusion of both, increasingly snarky audiences combined with an increased output of rubbish Hollywood crap.

Opinion guy wrote:

This is where I profoundly disagree with you.

The science techy stuff I can give them a pass on.

Basic human behaviour - no. Nobody, but nobody spends a trillion dollars sending an experimental spaceship to the far reaches of the universe in search of superior aliens and crews it with most incompetent buffoons you can find. I mean not just average, not just not bad crew, but completely fcuking moronic wouldn't hire them to mind my pet rock morons.

I agree that the scene with the biologist dude had me going of ffs. But it was just an excuse to have a gross out moment. Besides which no one can say how someone else with a different psychology would behave. The biologist seemed to base his personality around making friends, eg the geologist dude. And the idea that scientists are intelligent/competent in every aspect of life is false. Although I would assume they got training before the went on the mission. Anyway who cares, their stupidity led to some gross out and funny scenes like the exploding head. Maybe they were just totally incompetent. You hear about it all the time in the news in military adventures where they're supposed to be competent but fck up.

Mickeroo · 04-06-2012 12:25AM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I agree that the scene with the biologist dude had me going of ffs. But it was just an excuse to have a gross out moment. Besides which no one can say how someone else with a different psychology would behave. The biologist seemed to base his personality around making friends, eg the geologist dude. And the idea that scientists are intelligent/competent in every aspect of life is false. Although I would assume they got training before the went on the mission. Anyway who cares, their stupidity led to some gross out and funny scenes like the exploding head. Maybe they were just totally incompetent. You hear about it all the time in the news in military adventures where they're supposed to be competent but fck up.

A supposed biologist not recognising what is basically the exact same look and behaviour of one of the most recogniseable and famous (not to mention deadly) species of snakes in existence has nothing to do with psychology I'm afraid

opinion guy · 04-06-2012 12:34AM

a5y wrote: »

there's no sign of any animal life whatsoever on planet earth at the time of their visit

I don't think that means anything. There may or may not have been. They chose not to show us. Doesn't matter.

resulting humanity is somehow identical genetically to The Engineers... after evolving from simpler life forms? (Or is this True Believer stuff going to be paired with Intelligent Design in the next trilogy? As in evolution is a disproven theory? Because its starting to look like future scripts will need that for internal consistency)

This is just an example of them getting the science wrong. If we were genetically identical to the engineers we would have been 12ft tall, pasty white and ripped

If this isn't planet earth (and later on it shows earth was not a uniquely visited planet by the jockeys), it suggests:
they did similar or identical primordial soup starting there too...

...but no one in the film mentions if life or evidence of life (sentient or otherwise) has been previously found on other planets; the only thing the scientists in the film seem to give a damn about is evidence of civilisations on earth.

Well ok. I think given the size of the alien ship - the number of canisters on board, and the number of ships on the planet that this was something they did alot of.

Perhaps this might help. I don't know if anyone else agrees. But I rather think the cup the guy drank at the start was the top section of one of the canisters that the black ooze was coming out of. Now I know what you are thinking - the size is off. But remember the Engineer was 12foot tall - it was simply a scale thing - it just looked like a cup in his big hands.

So, resulting questions that need answers after the scene:
Is this earth? No way to know, plenty of other possibilities created before the credits roll. Possibly its not important... but if thats the case the scene doesn't need to be in the film.

We know from stuff said by Scott in interviews etc it was Earth. But really - does it matter ? They tell us rather bluntly later in the film that the Engineers engineered us.

And the on that had me distracted way too much for the entire second half the film:
If this was an experiment was to creating what is now called humanity, how the hell did the genetic information from Slurps-Pot-Noodle-Upon-Waterfall both [a] manage to break down and create every form of life, including all the evolutionary dead ends and eventually reform into a "genetically identical" species?

Again they chose not to tell us when then Engineer chugged back the gooey goodness. But does it matter if it was 3.5billion years ago or 350,000 years ago ? As I said before though I rather fancy they did this every now and then fro some experimental end - explaining the 5 big extinctions in Earths history

krudler wrote: »

if they'd even used a laser or some sci-fi tool to seal her back up again it would have been some bit more believable.

Yeah I agree. I would have thought an injection of nanites and showing them knitting the tissue would have done it. Would fit with the moive too - we saw DNA strands unravelling and reforming at the start

opinion guy · 04-06-2012 12:45AM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I agree that the scene with the biologist dude had me going of ffs. But it was just an excuse to have a gross out moment. Besides which no one can say how someone else with a different psychology would behave. The biologist seemed to base his personality around making friends, eg the geologist dude. And the idea that scientists are intelligent/competent in every aspect of life is false. Although I would assume they got training before the went on the mission. Anyway who cares, their stupidity led to some gross out and funny scenes like the exploding head. Maybe they were just totally incompetent. You hear about it all the time in the news in military adventures where they're supposed to be competent but fck up.

Funnily enough the biologist didn't bother me so much.
I don't think you are getting where people are coming from on this. Its not the emotional reactions of the crew people have a problem with. Its the COMPLETE lack of any sort of professional competence. I don't know what you do for a living - but even in a secondary school science lab with ordinary everday chemicals you would use more precautions - eye googles white coats etc - than these guys are using when reanimating long dead alien heads.

senor incognito · 04-06-2012 01:27AM

What made Alien, 'Alien' and stand out as a film, was the perfect marriage of classic excitement and a new plausibility in both monster and protagonist; vampires and werewolves are one thing, but a parasite (that deposits larvae which feed off and eventually kill the host organism) is more real,it makes sense, the workplace hierarchy and bitching was real, not how future societies had often been depicted before- but made sense, and because everything felt so sensible and real, it was easy to get invested and become actually scared.

This one constantly makes it difficult to 'buy in to'. Nothing makes sense. It's hard to care

Goldstein · 04-06-2012 01:43AM

I'm disappointed in Scott but not surprised the movie stank in all departments. Damon Lindelof wrote the screenplay (Lost & Idiot Trek). The guy is a complete joke and you're never going to get a good film from an incompetent writer no matter how large your special effects and marketing budget is. The writing is so hopelessly **** you can actually identify it originating from him.

johnny_ultimate · 04-06-2012 01:54AM

I'm disappointed in Scott but not surprised the movie stank in all departments. Damon Lindelof wrote the screenplay (Lost & Idiot Trek). The guy is a complete joke and you're never going to get a good film from an incompetent writer no matter how large your special effects and marketing budget is. The writing is so hopelessly **** you can actually identify it originating from him.

Ridley Scott hasn't been on form for a long time now. When his best film since the 1980s was probably the entirely disposable Matchstick Men, it's right to temper expectations accordingly. I'm far fonder of Lindelof's work than anything post-Blade Runner. I think my extremely low directorial expectations probably allowed me to enjoy the film more than I should have.

I think you'll find critical consensus and a significant general viewership completely disagrees with you on 'Idiot Trek', even if it also has its share fair of plotholes and contrivances. Still, at least there the direction was so vivid I was entirely willing to forgive the screenwriting failings. The Ridley Scott of 2012 is no J.J. Abrams, truth be told.

a5y wrote: »

They went looking

for our beginning

what they found

could be our end

"could be our end" should perhaps be replaced with
was nothing conclusive whatsoever. Zilch

I'm not sure what you mean by this last bit. I'm sure the tagline (and I'm glad to say I avoided all but the teaser trailers up to release) specifically refers to the adventures of the good ship Prometheus. And yes, within the film that journey - the search for 'beginnings', the potential for 'our end' - is explored. Conclusive? Not entirely. But the suggestions of primordial soup and a potentially apocalyptic WMD are present and correct. The motivations behind them? Yes, some of that remains elusive and a little frustrating (especially what occurred between the jockey 'stasis' and the decision not to commit human genocide). But writers were right (and they weren't often right) to keep the specifics of the processes vague. They could have attempted to explain every little thing in the film, but some of the ideas are too grand. Not saying they aren't underexplored or clumsy in some cases, but often the intentions are pretty solid.

I think fundamentally the problem may be with the DNA match quotes rather than the prologue itself: now that could certainly of been handled better. If we choose to ignore those quotes about e, and take the 'primordial soup' theory (I'd call it a little more than a theory) as emphasised by a plethora of other scenes, then it makes perfect sense. Well, perfect sense within the film's admittedly skewed logic.

Again, creation and evolution are key concerns of the film, as is the concept of infinity. It's a film about the creation of 'life' - from human to alien to robot. And mostly about how these processes are always destined to continue on. It's hard to tell when exactly the Earth of the prologue is: but the barren, hostile and surreal landscapes are ones that have occured before during various apocalyptic events, and are destined to appear again. Not that I'm entirely convinced by this explanation myself, but hey, it's something.

Scanlas The 2nd · 04-06-2012 06:12AM

Close call but I'd say even
Prometheus made more sense than Star Trek 90210.

seligehgit · 04-06-2012 09:28AM

Really impressed with Promotheus in 3D,visually it was top class.Real pity about the storyline,very disappointing as a prequel to Alien.Expected so much better,what with all the hype.

Mickeroo · 04-06-2012 10:21AM

Star Trek was a much better film than Prometheus, one of the best summer blockbusters of the last ten years imho.

Scanlas The 2nd · 04-06-2012 11:06AM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Star Trek was a much better film than Prometheus, one of the best summer blockbusters of the last ten years imho.

Really, I was bored by star trek, at least I found Prometheus entertaining.

johnny_ultimate · 04-06-2012 11:41AM

No doubt Star Trek is contrived at times (especially Kirk's promotion speed) but all in all its a much more efficient, tightly directed beast than Prometheus. I just think its existence disproves the theory that a Lindelof script - who certainly has his weaknesses - has not made a great film. At least the characters there were individual and mostly credible in their actions. Accusations that Star Trek was 'dumbed down' don't take into account that original Star Trek was pretty dumb and cheesy in the first place, with some general attempts at social commentary not disguising the space operatic origins.

I'm thinking what may have ultimately doomed Prometheus' reception is mere money. I'd find it hard to image anyone would deny it's the most ambitious and offbeat Hollywood film in a while. With apologies to The Avengers et al., their aims and objectives tend to be modest. I think Prometheus wants to aim high, but I wonder how restrictive its 200,000,000 production cheque ultimate proved? Now, not defending the script's shortcomings at all, and much of the blame belongs to the creative talent. But like Inception's 'Ellen Page exposition girl' (although in general I think Chris Nolan remains the last bastion of intelligent storytelling in big budget cinema), it seems to me as if significant compromises need to be made in Hollywood scripts to gain funding for ideas that have the potential to confuse or try something new. Things like the DNA matching here, which to me reeks of an effort to pull potential stragglers on board. It's depressing, but alas Hollywood constantly seems to focus group 'big ideas' to within an inch of their life.

It's been a while since a Hollywood production has truly trusted the audience to fill in the blanks for themselves. The days of Blade Runner are certainly gone, and I worry the studios' reluctance to provoke or confuse is having a hugely negative effect on mainstream cinema as a whole.

They should just remake Primer with Will Smith and Chris Hemsworth and be done with it!

nyarlothothep · 04-06-2012 11:44AM

opinion guy wrote: »

Funnily enough the biologist didn't bother me so much.
I don't think you are getting where people are coming from on this. Its not the emotional reactions of the crew people have a problem with. Its the COMPLETE lack of any sort of professional competence. I don't know what you do for a living - but even in a secondary school science lab with ordinary everday chemicals you would use more precautions - eye googles white coats etc - than these guys are using when reanimating long dead alien heads.

Yeah but the alien head was de-contaminated and they were tinkering with it. In addition what they might have been doing could have been fairly innocuous given that such re-animation experiments may be routine at this stage. Their technology is far in advance of ours so they could take what seem to us as extra liberties because their knowledge of such processes is more complete. But in this case they were wrong, accidents (exploding heads) do happen. And what we got was a moderately funny scene that people will talk about and parody for decades. Seems like a win win to me.

Anyway yes, the crew exhibited a complete lack of professionalism but so what, it's a film, bad things have to happen, to me their staggering displays of ineptitude don't overshadow the main thrust of the film. There aren't plot holes, just unanswered questions, I would like to see the directors cut as I think a good few of these "plot holes" will be resolved and of course the sequel will provide the answers. It's generating a lot of discussion, a lot of theories because it hasn't spelt out much, it's left it to the audience to fill in the blanks. Can't wait for the sequel.

opinion guy · 04-06-2012 11:55AM

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Yeah but the alien head was de-contaminated and they were tinkering with it. In addition what they might have been doing could have been fairly innocuous given that such re-animation experiments may be routine at this stage. Their technology is far in advance of ours so they could take what seem to us as extra liberties because their knowledge of such processes is more complete. But in this case they were wrong, accidents (exploding heads) do happen. And what we got was a moderately funny scene that people will talk about and parody for decades. Seems like a win win to me.

You've never been in a lab have you ?

Anyway yes, the crew exhibited a complete lack of professionalism but so what, it's a film, bad things have to happen, to me their staggering displays of ineptitude don't overshadow the main thrust of the film. There aren't plot holes, just unanswered questions, I would like to see the directors cut as I think a good few of these "plot holes" will be resolved and of course the sequel will provide the answers. It's generating a lot of discussion, a lot of theories because it hasn't spelt out much, it's left it to the audience to fill in the blanks. Can't wait for the sequel.

I agree with you - many of the things people aren't happy about aren't plot holes and are unanswered questions. I kind of like that if truth be told. Makes for an intriguing sequel.

But the richest man of the universe sending the crew out of Galaxy Quest to meet the superadvanced aliens simply isn't one of those. Its a gaping, festering wound of a plothole.

bullvine · 04-06-2012 11:56AM

I still dont get the Space Jockeys, who were they really, what planet did they come from and what was their motive? It makes so sense at all to leave these unanswered unless we no for certain that a sequel will be made and clear up everything.

Its a load of bull and I feel cheated by this.

nyarlothothep · 04-06-2012 12:02PM

opinion guy wrote: »

You've never been in a lab have you ?

I agree with you - many of the things people aren't happy about aren't plot holes and are unanswered questions. I kind of like that if truth be told. Makes for an intriguing sequel.

But the richest man of the universe sending the crew out of Galaxy Quest to meet the superadvanced aliens simply isn't one of those. Its a gaping, festering wound of a plothole.

Yeah but labs are different in the future man. And it's just a film. It would be so boring having to watch real lab work on screen. It's not a big deal and there was an exploding head, how can this be a bad thing?!

As for the richest man in the universe sending out human sacrifices to the moon of death, well yes, that is a plot hole of sorts, or it just plays into the standard horror trop of having silly people wandering around ancient ruins and getting killed because of their stupidity. It's a cliche but a welcome one, it doesn't ruin the film. Besides which there are voices of reason such as Shaw and even David although he seems to have some ulterior motives.

krudler · 04-06-2012 12:06PM

bullvine wrote: »

I still dont get the Space Jockeys, who were they really, what planet did they come from and what was their motive? It makes so sense at all to leave these unanswered unless we no for certain that a sequel will be made and clear up everything.

Its a load of bull and I feel cheated by this.

happens way too much with movies these days, studios all want a big franchise or trilogy so hardly any big genre films are self contained,and all left open ended for the sequels with more questions to be answered by a third movie.

bullvine · 04-06-2012 12:08PM

I have a feeling its gonna be a little let down at the box office and the sequel will be canned, hopefully not though

dutopia · 04-06-2012 12:10PM

I had some high hopes for the movie, I guess I shouldn't be that surprised that it wasn't great. Some things that crossed my mind whilst I was watching:

Why did the 'crew' have no idea what they were getting into until they were at the planet. It just seems so unbelievable. I understand it as a storytelling device - explaining the premise to the audience, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the story.

A super rich guy doing anything to try and find a way to live longer. Boring. It's a cliched theme that's been done too many times.

The characters weren't really developed at all. Isn't this such an essential part of a story it can't be forgiven to ignore it? I never got to know the characters at all and didn't care if they lived or died.

What was up with the alien c-section thing? Why did no one help her? How was she able to run around and do everything after the 'operation'?

The geologist guy... why did they even have that part? It was stupid.

The last scene with the kind-of-alien thing was contrived and laughable.

The two guys left overnight in the alien base, it was super obvious they were going to be alien fodder. If you came across a snake looking alien thing would you really treat it like a kitten? Silly.

krudler · 04-06-2012 12:17PM

dutopia wrote: »

I had some high hopes for the movie, I guess I shouldn't be that surprised that it wasn't great. Some things that crossed my mind whilst I was watching:

Why did the 'crew' have no idea what they were getting into until they were at the planet. It just seems so unbelievable. I understand it as a storytelling device - explaining the premise to the audience, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the story.

that drove me nuts as well, its obviously in there for exposition but still, a bunch of scientists who are paid to travel 2 years away from earth with no idea why they're going there? its in Aliens as well but thats a bunch of grunt soldiers who are on a need to know basis kinda thing who dont get a choise where they're deployed to, these are civilians and professionals who take a job without knowing the details of it or what they'll be researching.

Mickeroo · 04-06-2012 12:21PM

Going by Pearce's brilliant TED viral i think its a missed opportunity that they didn't have the young amibitious Weyland leading the expedition with the 2 scientists in tow. It would also have avoided the need for the god awful make up.

krudler · 04-06-2012 12:24PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

Going by Pearce's brilliant TED viral i think its a missed opportunity that they didn't have the young amibitious Weyland leading the expedition with the 2 scientists in tow. It would also have avoided the need for the god awful make up.

I genuinely can't understand casting Pearce to play the older Weyland, he's unregonisable in sub-Jackass old man makeup anyway, why not just cast an older actor, if AVP hadnt already done it they could have just cast Lance Henriksen.

BarackPyjama · 04-06-2012 12:47PM

I wonder could people stop looking to the answers to life's questions in this movie? It's a movie about aliens, chests bursting open and spaceships.

PerrinV2 · 04-06-2012 12:53PM

krudler wrote: »

I genuinely can't understand casting Pearce to play the older Weyland, he's unregonisable in sub-Jackass old man makeup anyway, why not just cast an older actor, if AVP hadnt already done it they could have just cast Lance Henriksen.

Would that be his 4th characther to play within the alien universe?

Turtwig · 04-06-2012 12:55PM

I just re-watched Sunshine and I have to say I thought it was even better than I'd ever seen it thanks to this movie. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed this, but not as much as I'd have hoped the Characters and their actions barely made any sense.

And I'm not even going to mention the pseudo-philosophy crap.

Mickeroo · 04-06-2012 12:55PM

BarackPyjama wrote: »

I wonder could people stop looking to the answers to life's questions in this movie? It's a movie about aliens, chests bursting open and spaceships.

And the new testament is about a hippy with super powers, whats your point?

Just because its a sci-fi doesn't mean it can't be profound, arguably real sci-fi should be profound. I'm not saying Prometheus filled any of its lofty ambitions or explored its phylosophical themes to their full potential but the aliens and space-ships weren't the reason it failed to do so.

Mickeroo · 04-06-2012 12:57PM

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Would that be his 4th characther to play within the alien universe?

Kind of, but the reasoning was the two androids he played were designed in his likeness.

krudler · 04-06-2012 12:58PM

BarackPyjama wrote: »

I wonder could people stop looking to the answers to life's questions in this movie? It's a movie about aliens, chests bursting open and spaceships.

no thats what the AVP franchise is about, Alien and Aliens have far deeper meanings and themes while still being competent movies with good stories. Prometheus isnt selling itself as some popcorn munching action flick, its supposed to be a decent sci-fi movie, which in places it is, in others its as badly written as the Transformers films.

Prometheus *SPOILERS FROM POST 1538*

Comments

Prometheus SPOILERS FROM POST 1538