Prometheus *SPOILERS FROM POST 1538*

missingtime wrote: »

Woah. I'm obviously way off here.

How do we know its a different planet? Because of the distance from earth etc? Or even the terrain?

Sorry if this was discussed previously

You need to time warp back a few months when the rest of us got this all figured out!

We initially found out because Scott tells us in an interview.

Its not the same ship, its not the same planet, and its not the same engineer.

Handsome Bob wrote: »

That would be a bit of a risk though, given we know these things don't discriminate when latching onto someone's face and could hatch at any moment.

It just plays more into my Engineers are dumb asses theory.

Or the theory that Lindelof bluffed his way through another sci fi story creating a mythology with mysteries that he hopes he'll never have to explain because he hasnt thought it through, again.

I think the criticism of Lindelof has been ridiculous.

For a fool of a writer, he's been making a pretty decent living.

tok9 wrote: »

For a fool of a writer, he's been making a pretty decent living.

Good for him, but I'd prefer someone who can write a pretty good script.

tok9 wrote: »

I think the criticism of Lindelof has been ridiculous.

For a fool of a writer, he's been making a pretty decent living.

we can applaud him for his artifice in creating pseudo profound bull**** with all the dramatic weight of a mayfly, and still think him a fool that shouldn't have been let within an arses roar of this franchise.

bullvine wrote: »

Probably correct, not like hes working with some young director, he working with Ridley Scott, any problems have to lie with Ridley. He should shoulder the blame!

I think Tim Kelly from Chud said it best :

And with that, I’m left contemplating whether genre filmmaking is indeed a young filmmaker’s game. In recent years we’ve seen the likes of John Carpenter, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and now Ridley Scott revisit genres or universes they helped bring to prominence – all to middling results. Prometheus never sinks to levels of Star Wars prequel or Crystal Skull awfulness, but it offers a strikingly-similar soulless experience – one that revels in technical mastery while neglecting the captivating storytelling that put its predecessor on the map.

Ridley upon coming around to the idea of returning to the universe he created and which made him as a director, became so enamored with the visuals that were now possible that he completely took his eye of the ball when it came to creating a compelling self contained film.

marco_polo wrote: »

All the moreso since any interviews I have read appear to indicate that most of the core plot elements have their roots firmly in Spaights original drafts.

Yep, and just to add, in case anyone thinks it was Lindelof who came up with the "pretentious" title of Prometheus, it was actually the studio who did that, according to Scott. In the same interview with Scott he also mentions a lot of the mythology were his ideas inspirsed in part by Milton's Paradise Lost.

But people see Lindelof's name attached to this film as another way to vent their frustrations at Lost.

Went to see this midweek. Im coming to it as an admirer of Alien and a huge fan of Aliens.
On the whole I found Prometheus disappointing. The summer cinema schedule is packed with eye candy filled blockbusters. I can go to any number of those every year for my fix of SFX. But when you go into a Ridley Scott film which is set in the Alien universe, you expect more than this. From the word go, it gave me the feeling of a director and scriptwriter throwing lots of shít at the wall and seeing what sticks. In this case the shít being the high brow issues relating to the genesis of humanity, the engineers, the creation of the xenomorphs etc .... and the wall being the final, signed off script. As has been outlined many times before there were numerous plotholes and contrivances which when you spend any length of time thinking about, just dont stand up to any scrutiny.

The casting was pretty poor and the character development non existant.
I wont be the one to derail the Fassbender love-in here though The character of David was well realised. Morally ambiguous, friendly and menacing with a pitch perfect upper crust British accent. But I could take or leave any of the others.
The casting of Guy Pierce was bizarre, surely an older actor with less makeup would have been better. Rapace as Shaw threw herself into it, but she didnt bring the same authority to the part of the leading female as Weaver did before. Admittedly she had alot less to work with here. The character of Holloway was utterly unlikeable. What is the sense in having a scene where Shaw's partner is burned alive in slow motion to the sounds of her own screaming, when there has been nothing done in the preceding hour and a half to get the audience to care about him. If he hadnt been a príck throughout, that might have worked. As it was it was just an excuse to see Charlize Theron brandish a flamethrower. Speaking of which, what was the point of her character? There was a nice little subplot going early on about whether she was an android like David. Nothing was made of it. Very little was made of her relationship to Weyland either. She just seemed to be a cold bitch who didnt mind if everyone died a horrible death. Thats all well and good if the audience is given a reason to hate her too, but her death has no payoff or reasoning behind it, except to see a giant spaceship fall ontop of someone!

And then there is the crew of the ship. Fifield is supposed to be a geologist but looks and acts like a convict! His painful death along with the other guy is forgettable. Both of them are the most unprofessional and unbelievable scientists Ive clapped eyes on in a Sci-fi film in a long time! That goes for Holloway too, "Lets take off our helmets in this alien enviroment for the craic, HOO-RAH, WE CRAZY!" Groan. Heres a mental idea. Why not cast suitable actors to play the part of serious scientists, develop them alittle, make us give a shít and THEN give them gruesome deaths. As it was I was happy to see these tools getting eaten.

Thats my major problem with the film. Sub par plot with poor writing, characters who are massively against type and nothing to get invested in in any way. A missed opportunity.
Everyone says that Scott is the master of creating a believable world. He has a great eye for set design etc. That obvious from the spectacle here but it seems he needs a great script and an army of talented writers to make the most of the visual treats. Sadly, he was missing them here.

pixelburp wrote: »

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Prometheus, comparing it to Aliens is silly (also: 'the original'??).
They may share a common mythology, but they're films from two completely different genres.

They are two sci fi films by the same director set in the same universe so the comparison in terms of quality is valid imo.

If what you say was true top 10 film lists would be totally invalid unless they were comprised entirely of films from the same genre .