CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › PROMETHEUS post-release discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PROMETHEUS post-release discussion - Page 23

post #1101 of 1957

We better get a commentary for Prometheus as great as the one from Alien.

 

post #1102 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bain View Post

unsurprisingly the extended cut has been confirmed.

 

Ridley can fuck off with his extended cut.  He made a bad movie.  The extended cut seems to be his regular alibi.

post #1103 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

So now I'm seeing as a defense of the film, "It wasn't meant to answer questions, it was meant to ask the questions the later films will answer."  Ah, so I should give it a pass because it's a two-hour prologue.  Got it.

 

All of that spin makes me dislike PROMETHEUS even more.  The have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too regarding whether if it's a true prequel or not is infuriating and makes the whole endeavor feel like a giant, fuck-you cash grab.  

post #1104 of 1957

What boggles me with this - is that it's taken 30 years to gear up to this film. You don't make a film with no clear objective, and the objective is to tell a story.

 

So either tell a story, or don't make the film. Don't wait 30 years to make a film, then once you've made it say it wasn't the real story you wanted to tell.

post #1105 of 1957

And I don't get this whole notion that the plot holes are there to generate discussion and make the audience think and theorize.  These aren't open-ended things open to interpretation like in 2001 or even Blade Runner.  These are cases where the story is simply lacking, and the theorizing to fill in the blanks is coming from every source except what's in the film itself.  If people were praising the spectacle while acknowledging the script's shortcomings, I'd just shrug it off, but this fervent desire to defend a story that's barely there is kind of baffling.

post #1106 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

If people were praising the spectacle while acknowledging the script's shortcomings, I'd just shrug it off, but this fervent desire to defend a story that's barely there is kind of baffling.

 

Whut??

post #1107 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

All this makes me wonder what a Tony Scott directed PROMETHEUS would be like?

 

all the color saturation would be bumped way up and the cameraman would have a mild form of epilepsy. (compared to MBay's cameraman who has a severe form of epilepsy and parkinson's)

post #1108 of 1957

Plus, I also agree with you. I genuinely cannot understand how people can subconsciously paper over the gaping cracks in this and defend it. I cannot see how Scott allowed this to be released in this form - I understand there'd be pressure coming from the studio to release it, but is this genuinely the best he could do? Surely he must have watched and thought it was lacking in cohesion.

post #1109 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

 

Whut??

 

Hey, I was that guy up until 2005 or so.  I read all kinds of subtext into Phantom Menace that just wasn't there.  So I know what it looks like!

post #1110 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

 

Hey, I was that guy up until 2005 or so.  I read all kinds of subtext into Phantom Menace that just wasn't there.  So I know what it looks like!

I was that guy for about a week after release in 1999 - swore never again to be blinded by the bright lights and the pretty colours.

post #1111 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Ridley can fuck off with his extended cut.  He made a bad movie.  The extended cut seems to be his regular alibi.

Not that it excuses this cut, but the fact Scott's director's cuts tend to be considerably better than the theatrical versions at least has me interested in it.
post #1112 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

Ridley can fuck off with his extended cut.  He made a bad movie.  The extended cut seems to be his regular alibi.

 

I don't think you can pin this solely on Ridley....it's Hollywood's 'modus operandi' these days. You can sell more DVDs this way.

 

Personally, I like the idea of the extended cut as long as it is smartly done. LoTR is a good example IMO, but you had a good 'cake' to begin with...adding a little extra 'frosting' made it taste a little better.

 

 

Prometheus could have been an interesting set of movies....the 1st being about the discovery of the symbols and figuring out what stars/planets they refer to. We see them send a probe to the planet where they discover the structures. The 2nd film would take place 2 years later and solely be about them getting to the planet.

 

....and Aaron Sorkin or some other respected writer is involved.....and get Trent Reznor to do the soundtrack...and....and.....

 

oh shit, does this count as fan fic ?

post #1113 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Plus, I also agree with you. I genuinely cannot understand how people can subconsciously paper over the gaping cracks in this and defend it.

 

The-Battered-Woman-Syndrome-9780826102522.jpeg

post #1114 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

Not that it excuses this cut, but the fact Scott's director's cuts tend to be considerably better than the theatrical versions at least has me interested in it.

 

But that's my problem.  Plenty of other good directors seem to release great theatrical cuts.  Why is Ridley always given such special consideration...it's like he deliberately fucks up the theatrical version so he can force people to take in his "director's/extended cut" simply because it's a longer movie.  It's like he's so "above" petty 2 hour movies and only wants to indulge in these long winded versions.  I generally reject director's cuts outright unless there was some spilled blood during the editing phase ala Gilliam's Brazil.

post #1115 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

....and Aaron Sorkin or some other respected writer is involved.....and get Trent Reznor to do the soundtrack...and....and.....

 

 

No. Just no. And I write this as a huge fan of Sorkin's work.

 

Unless you want two hours of NASA scientists walking and talking, then sure. Crappy as Lindelof's work was, Sorkin and Scott are not a good combination. Get someone who plays to Scott's strengths as a shot compositer and image builder, wherein the things we're seeing matter at least as much as the words we're hearing.

post #1116 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

But that's my problem.  Plenty of other good directors seem to release great theatrical cuts.  Why is Ridley always given such special consideration...it's like he deliberately fucks up the theatrical version so he can force people to take in his "director's/extended cut" simply because it's a longer movie.  It's like he's so "above" petty 2 hour movies and only wants to indulge in these long winded versions.  I generally reject director's cuts outright unless there was some spilled blood during the editing phase ala Gilliam's Brazil.

Who's giving him a pass? A director's cut won't fix my issues with the film (stupid, stupid characters and major logic gaps just to push the story forward), but it could enhance what I enjoyed about it.

To each his own on your stance on alternate cuts, but you're rejecting some truly wonderful films -- Kingdom of Heaven is such an improvement as to be shocking. (Of course, Fox tore KoH to shreds in editing; Prometheus' theatrical version is a cut he's satisfied with.)
post #1117 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

 

No. Just no. And I write this as a huge fan of Sorkin's work.

 

Unless you want two hours of NASA scientists walking and talking, then sure. Crappy as Lindelof's work was, Sorkin and Scott are not a good combination. Get someone who plays to Scott's strengths as a shot compositer and image builder, wherein the things we're seeing matter at least as much as the words we're hearing.


Sorkin's name was just the first one that came to mind....I was just using it as an example to springboard off of.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why Lindelof is considered a big name hollywood writer....

 

Thinking more about this.....the writing in Prometheus does have a certain TV vibe to it....somewhat superficial and not completely thought out (Lost?)

 

 

I still would like to have heard a Reznor score to this film.

post #1118 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post


Prometheus' theatrical version is a cut he's satisfied with.

 

Well that's the current line he's towing while the film is on release - what was his public statements regarding the theatrical cut of KOH on it's initial release?

post #1119 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

(Of course, Fox tore KoH to shreds in editing; Prometheus' theatrical version is a cut he's satisfied with.)

 

That's the big difference here.  In fact, I'm almost of a mind that if he was fine with Prometheus in its theatrical form, I shudder to think what he left out.

post #1120 of 1957

Wow.  I was curious to see the discussion about this movie, but I wasn't expecting to find 23 pages of tearing this movie apart.  Personally I enjoyed the movie.  Going again tomorrow night.  Did it have problems?  Yeah.  Enough to say it was the worst thing since Phantom Menace and should never had been made?  Not hardly.  I'm even more confused since this is the same place that gives that dull piece of crap John Carter a pass and blames it's lack of box office on bad marketing (whatever), and not the fact that a dull movie starring a leading man with no charisma whatsoever (sorry Tim Riggins) leads to shitty word of mouth.  This is also the same place that thinks Cabin in the Woods is the greatest movie ever made, despite it's gaps of logic, because, oh, it's a deconstruction of a deconstruction of a deconstruction of a.......  Am I exaggerating?  Perhaps a bit.  But so are the cracks in this movie.  They are there, but as opposed to papering over them, this thread seems to be taking those cracks and working at them so much to make them canyons.

post #1121 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape View Post

Who's giving him a pass?

 

I wasn't specifically referring to you, but plenty of people seem to be giving the film a pass because of this as-yet-unseen extended cut, assuming the studio fucked with Ridley or something.

post #1122 of 1957

Space Jesus, of course, Richard.

 

Though taking into account the gigantic hole Space Jesus' removal left in the film's plot maybe including him would be a positive. It will be crazy, of course, put it will at least plug said hole.

post #1123 of 1957
Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

 

Thinking more about this.....the writing in Prometheus does have a certain TV vibe to it....somewhat superficial and not completely thought out (Lost?)

 

Don't forget Wasteland, Nash Bridges and Crossing Jordan.  And I forgot he wrote the awful (and similarly unfocused) Cowboys and Aliens.

post #1124 of 1957

So, the first scene, we get an Engineer wearing a cloak and using a saucer shaped craft.

Later, we get Engineers with elephant space outfits, and U-Shaped ships.

 

Same species, but different kinds?  Maybe one race to create, and one to destroy?  Maybe they are at odds against each other?

We know that the Engineers at the end, have a planet as some sort of military base of operations.  I'm just curious as to what people think the point of that base was?

post #1125 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

 

Don't forget Wasteland, Nash Bridges and Crossing Jordan.  And I forgot he wrote the awful (and similarly unfocused) Cowboys and Aliens.


yeah, just for the hell of it, I looked up his info on IMDB.....jeebus.

the old adage about failing upwards and hollywood promoting mediocrity would seem to apply here.

post #1126 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bain View Post


I thought this as I was watching it. I was less complimentary than you though, and had thought "now they can't even remember who was smoking weed, this guy is clearly high as a kite".
It actually makes a fuck load more sense if Milburn is high. I can just about buy that. It's still a stretch, but not a ludicrous one.

 Well then, glad I'm not the only one thinking this.   And the scene of them sharing some weed was deleted.  That f'in had to have happened. 

 

Or, I'm just hoping that happened because if that's not what happened.....damn.  Just...damn. 

post #1127 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalyn View Post

Wow.  I was curious to see the discussion about this movie, but I wasn't expecting to find 23 pages of tearing this movie apart.  Personally I enjoyed the movie.  Going again tomorrow night.  Did it have problems?  Yeah.  Enough to say it was the worst thing since Phantom Menace and should never had been made?  Not hardly.  I'm even more confused since this is the same place that gives that dull piece of crap John Carter a pass and blames it's lack of box office on bad marketing (whatever), and not the fact that a dull movie starring a leading man with no charisma whatsoever (sorry Tim Riggins) leads to shitty word of mouth.  This is also the same place that thinks Cabin in the Woods is the greatest movie ever made, despite it's gaps of logic, because, oh, it's a deconstruction of a deconstruction of a deconstruction of a.......  Am I exaggerating?  Perhaps a bit.  But so are the cracks in this movie.  They are there, but as opposed to papering over them, this thread seems to be taking those cracks and working at them so much to make them canyons.

 

I think the majority of people here just expected more than the typically mindless, poorly written Hollywood fare for Ridley Scott's much lauded triumphant return to Science Fiction.  Also, even though it's not an "official"  Koff Koff, sequel to Alien, linking the maddeningly disappointing Prometheus so closely to that Masterpiece certainly doesn't help.

 

I definitely expected Prometheus to be a larger, and much smarter movie, not the rambling and confusing dumb fest that it turned out to be.

 

Good for you if you enjoyed it, however, the obvious script flaws alone will forever keep this movie from ever achieving the type of Reverence Alien and Aliens has earned.  Prometheus, like so many other films these days just feels extremely disposable.

post #1128 of 1957

Can someone clear this up for me...

 

the two guys in the head room - one has a beard, one has glasses. One gets his face sprayed with acid and falls over, one gets a worm to the mouth.

Which of the two turn up later as yoga-zombie?

post #1129 of 1957

It's face spray guy.  They find worm mouth later, and the film provides a jump scare as the worm-snake-penis-cobra thing jumps out.

post #1130 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson View Post

It's face spray guy.  They find worm mouth later, and the film provides a jump scare as the worm-snake-penis-cobra thing jumps out.

Ah I remember now - cheers.

 

So why does yoga-zombie occur?

 

And why does worm-mouth happen?

 

And what was worm's purpose?

post #1131 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Ah I remember now - cheers.

 

So why does yoga-zombie occur?

 

And why does worm-mouth happen?

 

And what was worm's purpose?

 

Because plot.

 

Long answer? Stuff happens because stuff needed to happen. Any questions about lack of motivation or internal logic can subsequently be hand waved away with claims of nitpicking nerds and of intellectual laziness towards the complainers.

 

Example:

Why did the geologist with his drones already mapping the circular cave get lost? Because plot.

Why did the previously freaking the fuck out biologist wanted to suddenly play "pet the suddenly appearing alien penis cobra?" Because plot.

post #1132 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Ah I remember now - cheers.

 

So why does yoga-zombie occur?

 

And why does worm-mouth happen?

 

And what was worm's purpose?

 

 

My guess...showing that the black goo hyper-evolves whatever creature it comes in contact with into a living weapon.  Worm turns into killer penis snake.  Man turns into killer yoga zombie killing everything it sees.  It happened a bit quicker that the scientist who only had a small amount in his water, but it was enough to already mess with his sperms DNA, seeing as how he helped create a four tailed killer sperm squid eventual giant face hugger.

post #1133 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post

The-Battered-Woman-Syndrome-9780826102522.jpeg

 

41aFQvM2WjL._SS500_.jpg

post #1134 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Ah I remember now - cheers.

 

So why does yoga-zombie occur?

 

And why does worm-mouth happen?

 

And what was worm's purpose?


take-a-number-bxp51780.jpg

post #1135 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

 

Because plot.

 

Long answer? Stuff happens because stuff needed to happen. Any questions about lack of motivation or internal logic can subsequently by hand waved away with claims of nitpicking nerds and of intellectual laziness towards the complainers.

 

Example:

Why did the geologist with his drones already mapping the circular cave get lost? Because plot.

Why did the previously freaking the fuck out biologist wanted to suddenly play "pet the suddenly appearing alien penis cobra?" Because plot.

Yeah thought so - genuinely thought I'd missed something.

 

Jesus Christ what a unmitigated cluster-fuck this was.

 

Fuck fuck fuck fuck.

 

Balls.

 

Also, in regards to the giant facehugger - don't these things exist solely to facehug/lay eggs?

 

Why did it have teeth?

 

Also, in regards to David's first time in the starmap room - isn't he watching a playback of the Engineers using the starmap rather than using it himself?

post #1136 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Ah I remember now - cheers.

 

So why does yoga-zombie occur?

 

And why does worm-mouth happen?

 

And what was worm's purpose?

 

Yoga-zombie occurs so that the several faceless characters can be killed off.   Worm-mouth happens because they needed a stupid character to get the horror element ball rolling.  Worm's purpose is for that <-- and to produce one jump scare later.  

post #1137 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

Ah I remember now - cheers.

 

So why does yoga-zombie occur?

 

And why does worm-mouth happen?

 

And what was worm's purpose?

 

I love how you received a few different answers, but all of them essentially saying the same thing.  ;)  

post #1138 of 1957
I mustn't have been paying close enough attention. I thought the zombie thing was the burn victim. Since the guy was burned in the same place I figured it was him. However everyone says acid face. Can someone clarify what I missed?

Does this speak volumes about the shittiness of the characters if I am confused who it was and refer ro them as acid and burn guy?
post #1139 of 1957

Did they say there was no readings of life?  Those sneaky vaginal penis snakes!

post #1140 of 1957

Sorry for all these questions but you guys are helping me make sense of this mess...

post #1141 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by wd40 View Post

I mustn't have been paying close enough attention. I thought the zombie thing was the burn victim. Since the guy was burned in the same place I figured it was him. However everyone says acid face. Can someone clarify what I missed?
Does this speak volumes about the shittiness of the characters if I am confused who it was and refer ro them as acid and burn guy?

 Acid Face/Yoga Zombi/Burn Victim/Dude with Mohawk and Asshole Geologist = Same Guy ;)   

post #1142 of 1957

anyone else think that "debriefing" scene with Shaw and Hollaway would have been much better if Bill Murray was in it and made fun of Fifield by going "this man has no chin!". 

post #1143 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by smugbug View Post

 Acid Face/Yoga Zombi/Burn Victim/Dude with Mohawk and Asshole Geologist = Same Guy ;)   

 

Hang on, but wasn't acid face/Dude with Mohawk really the same guy?

post #1144 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

 

Hang on, but wasn't acid face/Dude with Mohawk really the same guy?

 

Yes.  That is exactly what I'm saying.  All those listed, are of the same guy. 

post #1145 of 1957

Fifield is a triple threat of shitty characterization.  Hes a geologist with no apparent interest in geology, hes a mapmaker who can't follow his own fucking maps, and even when he's dead and zombified / infected / monsterized, people still can't figure out what his deal is.  And he's probably the most nuanced side-character in the whole goddamn movie.

post #1146 of 1957

"Hudson, sir.  He's Hicks."

post #1147 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by smugbug View Post

 

Yes.  That is exactly what I'm saying.  All those listed, are of the same guy. 

 

I think by 'burn victim' he may be refering to Holloway.

post #1148 of 1957

...help me...

post #1149 of 1957

Jesus Christ this movie wasn't that hard.  Dude with a beard and mohawk falls into black goo, burning his face (acid face), and evolving him into a killing machine, so when you see him again (note the shatteres face plate, beard, and burn scars on his face) squatting (very similar to a xeno in Alien) killing everyone, how can you think it would be anyone else?  Dude with the ashy gray face, asking to be torched, is Holloway, the guy that David infected by dipping some goo in his drink.  I am stumped by people who found this confusing.

post #1150 of 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalyn View Post

 

I think by 'burn victim' he may be refering to Holloway.

Aw, crap.  Right.  There's the whole Holloway being burned by Vickers.  

 

 

Yes, there's that.  So, then it's this:   Acid Face/Yoga Zombi/Dude with Mohawk and Asshole Geologist = Same Guy ;)   

 

And then, there's this:  Burn Victim/Scientist Boyfriend/Dude with Squid in Eye = Holloway

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › PROMETHEUS post-release discussion