Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Prometheus *SPOILERS FROM POST 1538*
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 33867
Only if your version of "sci-fi" means "any old crap goes, because we're dealing with magic, and we all know there are no rules to magic!"
Well no that isn't my contention at all. Considering though that a core element of the film explicitly revolves around an alien race of apparent world-builders, I don't think arguments on where the water came from, or what the Engineers were breathing should really come into a shopping-list of legitimate criticisms. It's not a question of simply dismissing all inconsistencies as "magic", or anything equally glib (which I didn't do anyway so hey-ho), but about squaring it against the context of what was happening elsewhere and saying "does it fit?" Which in my mind, it does. It's not neat by any means but not impossible either: the Engineers were gods in effect, their technology was distinctly biological in structure so I was happy fill in the ambiguities & inconsistencies with the idea that "The engineers did it". If you see that as delusions of magic, then that's your prerogative
I've watched enough spare-operas by now though; and if I can deal with the idea of noisy space battles & shooty lasers, I can deal with the idea that the water might have been put there by the Engineers ... somehow, rather than by any geological process. I won't hang the movie over it though. In fact, this is a movie set in a universe where world-building is already an established part of the mythologies - Weyland-Yutani are good at "Building Better Worlds" themselves[...]
Or that anyone who's ever been employed in a role even tangentially related to scientific research would think that 10 seconds worth of data suggesting the air might be breathable is enough reason to just take your helmet off and expose yourself to whatever nasties may be present in the environment (not to mention exposing the local environment to the number of disgusting nasties on which we depend for our ongoing survival - eg digestive tract bacteria). Or you know, most of the complete bollocks passed off as science in the film.
Well here you've just shifted tack onto the charactisation, not the wobbly science; and on that score yeah, I think most people in this thread - even those like myself who enjoyed the film despite its faults - acknowledge that some of the characters behaved idiotically simply to further the plot. But then I've met my fair share of 'stupid' scientists, so maybe it tallies with reality
There's a difference between "not being bothered by bad science in a film" and "bad science not being present in a film", you know. Just because you personally don't find it bothering you doesn't mean it's somehow not bad storytelling.
I'm aware of the difference; as I said above, I think the context is key here in forgiving (for want of a better word) some of the geological inconsistencies0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »Its more than that, what they were breathing i.e. air and dying into water, was itself created by life. Early lifeforms produced oxygen, and it reacted with hydrogen in then then very hot atmosphere to produce water. The Engineer was past all that, so we don't really know what was up.
Pretty sure its was a combination of already present water(from comets) + tidal forces that created life not vice versa.Can I ask, and also referring to Zubeneschamali's post and any other relating to the water and oxygen argument, are you all suggesting that the scene is flawed because without life on a planet there would be no water or oxygen? Do you actually believe that all of the water on earth came from the oxygen produced by early life mixing with hydrogen in the very hot atmosphere? And if so, you guys are saying that the engineers creating all life is a flawed concept because there was water and oxygen present in the opening scene so there must have been life to produce this?
That's a genuine question and I am baffled by it. Water on our planet is present due to collisions with comets, and other celestial bodies comprising of ice, and the early earth. It has nothing to do with oxygen produced by early life forms. Hopefully I've read those posts wrongly and people understand this basic fact.
I'd have to read pages and pages back to be sure but I'm fairly sure this isn't a widely held belief in this thread. At least I hope it isn't.Well no that isn't my contention at all. Considering though that a core element of the film explicitly revolves around an alien race of apparent world-builders, I don't think arguments on where the water came from, or what the Engineers were breathing should really come into a shopping-list of legitimate criticisms. It's not a question of simply dismissing all inconsistencies as "magic", or anything equally glib (which I didn't do anyway so hey-ho), but about squaring it against the context of what was happening elsewhere and saying "does it fit?" Which in my mind, it does. It's not neat by any means but not impossible either: the Engineers were gods in effect, their technology was distinctly biological in structure so I was happy fill in the ambiguities & inconsistencies with the idea that "The engineers did it". If you see that as delusions of magic, then that's your prerogative
When a film fails on as many levels as prometheus and generates a thread that reaches 2285 posts a certain level of pedantry is to be expected, as all the main flaws have already been hit on leaving us to pick at the bones so to speak . So understand, its not that we (or at least I) think these nit picks are the most outstanding issues in the film they are merely small parts of a whole as to why we think this film was such a disappointment.I've watched enough spare-operas by now though; and if I can deal with the idea of noisy space battles & shooty lasers, I can deal with the idea that the water might have been put there by the Engineers ... somehow, rather than by any geological process. I won't hang the movie over it though. In fact, this is a movie set in a universe where world-building is already an established part of the mythologies - Weyland-Yutani are good at "Building Better Worlds" themselves
You're willing to overlook those things as they were fun films that likely never claimed to be anything more then what they were 'a Space opera' so you had no reason to Look any deeper . Prometheus on the other hand aims to tackle the origin of the species and thus opens itself up to having the soundness of it's science questioned. look I'm more then willing to overlook Science faux pas if the story is compelling( Star wars sound in space ,Sunshines not 1 but 2 bombs the size of manhattan:rolleyes: etc ) but Prometheus story was a confusing mess so it gets a fail grade from me .Well here you've just shifted tack onto the charactisation, not the wobbly science; and on that score yeah, I think most people in this thread - even those like myself who enjoyed the film despite its faults - acknowledge that some of the characters behaved idiotically simply to further the plot. But then I've met my fair share of 'stupid' scientists, so maybe it tallies with reality
It kinda blows my mind how anyone could be so cognisant of the films flaws and still enjoy it , is it because its Ridley Scott ? would you be this lenient with any other director ?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 10278
Well no that isn't my contention at all. Considering though that a core element of the film explicitly revolves around an alien race of apparent world-builders, I don't think arguments on where the water came from, or what the Engineers were breathing should really come into a shopping-list of legitimate criticisms. It's not a question of simply dismissing all inconsistencies as "magic", or anything equally glib (which I didn't do anyway so hey-ho), but about squaring it against the context of what was happening elsewhere and saying "does it fit?" Which in my mind, it does. It's not neat by any means but not impossible either: the Engineers were gods in effect, their technology was distinctly biological in structure so I was happy fill in the ambiguities & inconsistencies with the idea that "The engineers did it". If you see that as delusions of magic, then that's your prerogative
I've watched enough spare-operas by now though; and if I can deal with the idea of noisy space battles & shooty lasers, I can deal with the idea that the water might have been put there by the Engineers ... somehow, rather than by any geological process. I won't hang the movie over it though. In fact, this is a movie set in a universe where world-building is already an established part of the mythologies - Weyland-Yutani are good at "Building Better Worlds" themselves
I have no problem with the premise of the Engineers being responsible for a galactic panspermian agenda, or that they seeded the Earth in ways we don't know about.
What I have a problem with is stupid nonsense like "They're 100% identical to us genetically" when their biology is clearly demonstrated to be blatantly non-human (ranging from the simple "they look different, which requires at least minor deviations" to the rather more problematic "they appear to be wandering around and breathing in an environment where we're being given strong hints that there's no life and therefore no breathable atmosphere"). It's not that I think they can't use those ideas - it's just the way they used them in the film that irks me. Making it clear that the characters didn't understand the technology being used would've been a much better approach than trying to provide clever answers that actually turned out to be bloody silly
If you want to do "big questions" sci-fi, it's generally helpful to not get basic stuff wrong along the way...Well here you've just shifted tack onto the charactisation, not the wobbly science; and on that score yeah, I think most people in this thread - even those like myself who enjoyed the film despite its faults - acknowledge that some of the characters behaved idiotically simply to further the plot. But then I've met my fair share of 'stupid' scientists, so maybe it tallies with reality
Heh, I work in a research department with a bunch of scientists, several of whom have been silly in various ways. However, I reject the assertion that anyone could make any reputation for themselves as a research scientist while being so goddamn stupid as to be willing to take a few seconds worth of experimental data as enough reason to take their helmet off on an unexplored planet; not just because of the high risk of death but because of the blatand disregard for contamination of both their own body and the local environment. It wouldn't happen, and the reaction from the others is nowhere near forceful enough to suggest that any of them are actually competent research scientists, even though the dialogue tells us that they are.
Again, it could've easily been solved with a 30-second scene informing us (maybe through David talking to someone unspecified) that these are in fact a bunch of gobshyte mavericks just competent enough in their fields to be of use, but too undisciplined to have a successful career in academic research.I'm aware of the difference; as I said above, I think the context is key here in forgiving (for want of a better word) some of the geological inconsistencies
Sorry, that bit of my earlier post came across a lot more condescendingly than I'd intended
I did enjoy watching the film, mostly on a visual scale - it was very impressive in that regard. It just disappoints me that Scott, who's previously helmed some pretty successful big-screen sci-fi with decent enough script, was happy to go along with the tripe-like dialogue and characterisation in this script. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 10278
^ No they're throwing a nerdrage about the alien at the start of the movie, on Earth, who is breathing the air. To which my reply is still that they were terraforming by that point. Hardly worth getting hung up about. I dont really think the dude would have been on the planet yet trying to seed life without air there to act as a catalyst.
As for the rest of it I could give a f*ck. Its worth mentioning now I got myself into a car accident trying to see this movie on launch night. T-boned someone when I rolled through a red light. All in all? I spent about a grand trying to see this fcuking movie. At this point, I really don't give a sh*t about continuity or factual errors. Still enjoyable 2 hour film, had a psycho robot, a tough motherf*cking ripley-style bitch, and a medpod that was only calibrated for men (WHY was it only calibrated for Men, and was owned by a woman, who knows, but it was highly amusing!) and some really neat nods to the original Alien movie so honestly I'm not down for all this nerdpicking.
I get that each of us will have different perspectives on the film, and I did find it alright in a kind of friday night fluff sense (particularly 'cause it was very pretty) but, well, you being in a car accident on the way to see the film is absolutely irrelevant to whether the film has more plot holes than a colander.
If you don't want to see people justifiably taking the script to task over its many, many faults, then perhaps not reading the thread would be a better option than trying to pull some sort of "I'm more invested than you so STFU" card. I mean, yes, it's inventive, full marks for that, I just don't understand how it has any bearing on the film. Unless you're suggesting that going to see the film while concussed makes it better 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsUtP_67xkA
Advertisement