PROMETHEUS post-release discussion - Page 25

The main problem I have with the whole discussion over the flaws is the superior attitude of those who didn't like it towards those who did. I've had some time to mull over the movie more, and I agree: it's heavily flawed in certain areas. But that doesn't erase the fact that I enjoyed the film. Is that not allowed? Are we some kind of club now where the rules are "If you like heavily flawed films, you're an undiscriminating idiot"? I don't think anyone here has actually gone that far, but I've detected that unwelcome "How can you like this movie?" attitude from a few people I otherwise respect.

 

As I noted earlier, it's the same problem I had with where the John Carter threads went. If you didn't like the movie, fine. But be intelligent and mature about it towards those of us who did, especially if we recognize that the film has flaws, and we're being intelligent and mature about it

Fairly hilarious: Prometheus in 15 Minutes.

This. What was subtext in Alien is just, well, text in Prometheus. Instead of the sexual-terror elements being subtle, almost subconscious, it's right out there in the open, plain as the toothy vagina-mouth on an alien penis-snake. When it's that obvious and superficial, it just doesn't get under your skin the same way (pun intended). I can't help but see this as an undeniable sign of Sir Ridley's decline as a filmmaker.

Hee hee hee. I love Cleolinda. And I have absolutely no problem with making fun of the movie. All I ask is for mutual respect.

 

I've picked up on that too. And I disdain it just as much. It's dick-measuring pretension. So do like I do and just ignore it. Are they really worth respecting if that's the bent they take toward people who liked a film they didn't? 

They kicked MAX VON SYDOW to the curb?!  FUCK THEM.

I seriously don't get how you can have David be obsessed with Lawrence of Arabia and then you DON'T cast Peter O'Toole as Weyland. That sort of casting writes itself!

I don't know, that's a bit on the nose don't you think?

 

Yeah, the point I've been struggling to get across is basically this: any given movie offers various things and can be appreciated in different ways and from different angles. Weakness in one area does not automatically invalidate strengths in another. Personally I found Prometheus weak in some areas (that have been dwelt on endlessly here), but very strong in others. The impression I get from this thread is that there is only considered to be one 'right' way to assess the movie's qualities, and that's through this rigid "has this film been constructed correctly?" approach, which I find a bit reductive and short sighted.

Something else just occurred to me.  While many of the critics were positive about the film (currently 74% on RT, Ebert giving it 4 stars), the audience's reaction seems to be, like that here in the thread, to be a collective "meh," split between "I was entertained to the point that I didn't notice the flaws" to "it's technically well crafted but muddled in it's thinking" to "this is nothing more than shiny garbage calling itself an Alien film" -- the swing being arguably toward the more negative.  (Nothing against those who loved it.  There's nothing wrong with having a good time at the movies, folks.) 

 

What I wonder is this: Studios and sometimes filmmakers follow these discussions.  Be it through market research, or through internet based interviewers referencing popular opinion or industry insiders actually coming online and testing the waters, themselves, (Stallone on AICN, for example) it's been shown how important the will of the people can be in responding to and shaping a film.  And nothing speaks louder to the studio greenheads than box-office numbers.  Prometheus brought in, what?  $55 million US or so over the weekend, including the midnight Thursday shows?  That's a lot of money but not that much by industry standards for a sci-fi/horror landmark event film with this much popular expectation -- possibly due to the advance word from foreign screenings and theatrical previews filled with sci-fi and Ridley Scott superfans (like ourselves - the CHUD boards gave me the first inkling what to expect).  And word of mouth on the film is fairly middling.  So...

 

Do we think there will be a Prometheus II, after this is all said and done?  And if so, do we think Ridley will try harder to make a coherent film?  One where the human behaviors and narrative drama equals his grandeur visuals?  Or do we think he'll just stick to whatever plan he has and continue unfettered by the criticisms of his audience?  While he's respected and revered by film fans mostly for his work on Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator (and to a certain respect Legend, Thelma and Louise and Black Hawk Down), he hasn't had a movie that failed to connect with its target audience like Prometheus may have in a long time.  Or are we the ones who are the outsiders?  How are the non-superfans dealing with the flick?  Are they having a good time with it?  Even people I know who haven't seen it yet are now wary, based on the online word of mouth.  Certainly, an expanded cut DVD/blu release might solve some of the film's problems, but probably not enough of them in any great film-changing ways...

 

What do we think is the likelyhood of this becoming a situation where we get an absolutely stunning sequel?  Will Ridley step up and nail a second chapter, if he's allowed to by the purse string holders at Fox?   

Edited by Engineer - 6/12/12 at 6:10pm

No.  He's the same man he's been for his last handful of films.

 

Oh, you can like it, sure, but NOT BEFORE YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT'S REMOTELY POSSIBLE.

 

I know I've been pretty vocal about my disappointment in Prometheus, but at the end of the day, this is an ambitious, passionate work of original science fiction, with A-list talent to back it up.  While it stumbles quite a bit, and its mostly a failure in my eyes, the fact that we got this big weird gorgeous movie in the first place - as a summer tentpole no less - is great.  So yeah, I'm all for a sequel.  A world where people are clamoring for a follow-up to Prometheus over another Transformers movie or another tired superhero reboot is a world I want to be a part of. 

I kind of already did that several pages ago, but I suspect you're exaggerating for humor.

 

The more I think about it, the more I liken this to something like Spider-Man 3 or Scott's superior cut of Legend: jumbled messes that are nevertheless captivating because of the direction and performances.

 

Don't you mean a bit on the "VAGINA WITH TEETH"?

 

I will be very, VERY surprised if there is a sequel to Prometheus.

That being said, I would be somewhat intrigued to see the direction a sequel would take but instead of throwing money at a sequel, spend the money toward "fixing" this film.

Gimme a 4+ hour mega DVD cut of the film where the premise can be expanded on and refined...but there's no chance in hell of that happening, so..... 

 

One thing that I'm sure other people have brought up is that, amongst the 'fans',  expectations for this film were off the chart. This, no doubt has been a major factor in much the disappointment being voiced about it. IMO, too much was given away in the trailers....they showed the Prometheus crashing into the alien ship for fucks sake....that should have been a big moment in the movie, but anyone that had seen the trailer, knew it was coming before the movie even started....it was just a question of when. 

There should have been more of the viral advertising....dole out info in small increments....keep it mysterious. But they sold it as a summer action film...even to the point that there were was a god damned beer tie-in ?!?!

 

Anybody else mention the shot of David drinking a glass of milk, around when everyone else wakes up (I think)? Cool reference to Ian Holm drinking the milk in the control room while they are exploring the planet in Alien.
 

That was Holloway drinking milk.  :-)

Mindsploision!!!
 

Pretty sure they showed both of them drinking milk seperately, first David, then Holloway...I'll try to catch it again next time.
 

Holy shit, I can't believe that Coors Light ad is real.

Quote:

 

He's drinking a green liquid during his language lesson.  Pretty sure it's not milk.

 

That would be cool, wouldn't it?  Putting a few million toward a fully expanded (even bloated) version of Prometheus is something I could support, as long as it were more sensible and relateable.

 

That commercial above: Wow, indeed.  I half expected it to be like those silly 80's Pepsi ads, only this time showing the Black Oil Weapons Room Penis Cobra grabbing a Coors Light out of the Idiot Botanist's hands and starting to shotgun it.

 

Question: was that shot at the twenty second mark in the film?  The one that looks like the ground erupting or a geiser?  Was that from the Engineer ship readying for takeoff sequnece?  Having trouble placing that one.

Yeah but was there green light reflecting on the glass in that scene? The mystery deepens...
 

 

I like that the commercial includes the shot of Janek using a flame thrower on Rage Zombie Fifield.  Because nothing says intergalatic kegger like burning a dude to death after he killed half your crew.

 

that's my biggest issue with this movie, and where my turmoil comes in.  Usually I like anything if it looks pretty/is entertaining.  Thus love for Tron:Legacy, John Carter, The Thing (2011).  This is causing me to really mull this one over in my mind, as I'm not sure why those plot holes and shoddy lines rip me so completely out of this one (and they do) when they didn't the other 3.

 

I'm starting to suspect it's the score.  All the time I was battling with it, trying to work out what it was trying to achieve.  And thus I couldn't immerse, because one of the sensational (meaning it's perceived by one of my senses, not "brilliant") aspects of the film didn't tie up with another.  I always knew I was watching a "movie" because I couldn't get lost in it.

I thought this was a pretty video game.

 

Ugh.

 

Okay, I want you to point to a few specific posts that you see as people not being intelligent or mature towards you, or what you see as examples of a "how can you like this movie?" attitude.

 

I'm seeing far more defensive, unpleasant sniping from people who thought it was a good film than any condescension from people who didn't. Such as, frankly, this post. Seriously, you don't see anything vaguely hypocritical here? You say "stop saying I'm not allowed to enjoy this film" and try to call others out for not being intelligent or mature?

 

I really am looking for an answer. But I'm getting a much stronger vibe that the people who really like the movie are taking the criticisms of it personally, as if a slight on the film is a slight on them for enjoying it. It isn't. If you liked it? Fine. I liked it, too.*

 

*Seriously, it's dumb as hell, but besides some wonky or staid performances, everything else about this film is top-notch. I think that the opening sequence and the Worst Abortion Ever will remain as some of the best stand-alone scenes coming out of movies this year.

 

EDIT: Ugh, dammit, I sound mean. I didn't want to get combative. Why, Chris? Why'd you make me hit you? Why'dda do that?

Edited by Whiteboy Jones - 6/12/12 at 9:03pm

This thread is very long and impossible to keep up with. May my hyperbole in the pre-release thread haunt me to the grave. I was told things by friends close to the production who were enthusiastic. Also, there's a bunch of stuff either cut from the script or not shot for sure, stuff like the Weyland dream. However, the film did include space shotguns and I did get to play with them. So there's that.

Well, this thread is even longer than I expected, and I was expecting it to be pretty long as I imagine there's a fair bit of arguing going on; I know already from the B-Action Thread alone (not to mention, Twitter) that there are wildly different opinions on the movie, from outright love to outright disappointment.

 

I was seemingly one of the few that wasn't blown away by the teaser trailers. I was MEH to it and to steal a line from Fazer in the aforementioned B-Action Thread, the movie was more ProMEHtheus than anything else. Great sound and visuals for sure (especially in a format like IMAX or one comparable to it, which is how I saw it tonight) and the idea for the story certainly is promising, but man I thought they botched it while trying to tell the story. There are nice moments for sure but as a whole... disappointing.

 

And it seems like all the plot holes that they had are too easily being explained away as "Oh, they meant to do it! It'll likely get explained in the sequel!" when that just sounds like a cop-out to me. And it doesn't explain why when-for example-Elizabeth discovers that Old Man Weyland is on the ship and alive she's all against going back out there but in the NEXT SCENE with Idris Elba (at least he was pretty awesome throughout) she's all *for* going out there; huh? It was stuff like that which I found distressing and it took me out of the whole experience.

 

I also can't explain why Elba and Charlize Theron suddenly became an item in one scene and he got a booty call from him, but I still got a huge laugh out of it because Elba got a random booty call from her. And I'll just presume that old Ridley is a huge fan of Stephen Stills for that totally unexpected reference to him and his most famous solo song.

 

I guess I'll have to spend the rest of tonight going through (or at least skimming) this thread and I'll reply to the things that catch my eye the most.

Has anyone checked out Roger Ebert's latest blog entry?  "Promethian Panspermia"

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/06/_one_of_my_creationist.html

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, a few commenting, pointed out the "LV-423" mistake.  A rather interesting entry.  He also believes Elizabeth Shaw to be the only fully realized character in the movie.  

I would have liked to imagine that the jars of goo were left there as a test of humanity's collective character, like the formula in "Swamp Thing" that brings out what is already inside. We don't see a benevolent human transform into a "good alien" for contrast, though, so there's really nothing to back that up.

I'm fine with the complicated life cycle, at least. Prometheus seems to cast the xenomorphs as something other than a distinct species - they're hybridized mutants designed to wipe out populations, the inevitable end result of an equation whose factors are a dominant constant (the black goo, which is probably brimming with engineered viral DNA or prions) and a mostly recessive variable (the host species). Plug any life form in, and no matter how many iterations it takes an Alien comes out. We're spared having to figure out how natural evolution could produce a Predator-derived Alien, with a Predator's face, which is descended from a human-derived Alien, with an Alien's face, which hatched from an egg laid by a Queen that hatched out of God knows what. Fuck that. The goo did it.

It's interesting that the biblically named David is the one with the closest connection to his creator, who then leads him to do some pretty monstrous things.  Of course, he also finds humanity, his creators in the general sense, and the Engineers' "creations" to be found wanting as well.

How terribly frustrating it must have been for him.

 

Err ... wearing the cross and the comment about Darwinism have nothing to do with each other. The comment that scientist makes (the idiot who wanted to pet the snake right?) was an objection to the very idea that we were created by some alien species ... that's what he was referring to "dismissing centuries of Darwinism", not the fact that Naomi is a Christian.

 

He was right BTW, still doesn't make sense how all life originates from the one Engineer, including dinosaurs and all ... but anyways ...

 

I hate having to agree with him sometimes because I've always thought he was a totally loathsome human being but in this case I do agree with much of what he said.

 

 

Yeah. As others have said apparently a proposed second movie will explain what happened with another ship that looks almost the same and why it crash-landed on another moon.

 

 

I agree. A lot of random things appear to happen randomly just for the hell of it.

 

 

What you had spoilered, I agree with. The random educated guesses appeared to be right; that sounds like bad writing unless a lot got cut out, but apparently that isn't the case according to rumor.

 

 

Exactly. The biggest discovery in the history of humankind is made and most of the characters are "Yeah, whatever" about it? Maybe we're expecting things to be too realistic but that just sounds illogical.

 

 

I suppose that could be interpreted in several different ways, which I am fine with. It's not like I am someone who needs to have everything spoon-fed to them in a simplistic manner; ambiguity is a fine thing and in fact I often wish for movies to not be so obvious and dumbed down. Although, I am sure it's been mentioned already but there's an article on Bloody Disgusting talking about a book based on the movie which explains some things, such as the opening scene, the giant stone head, and what have you. As the book said concerning the opening scene, indeed that alien was "seeding" Earth. That stone head was a self-effigy, them bragging about how awesome they are.

 

Anyhow, back to my point... it's just that with this there seemed to be a lot of plot holes and explaining a lot of it away as that's how it was meant to be or "Everything is going to be explained in Part 2" seems to be cheap excuses for a lackluster script.

 

Concerning David and his rather obvious name, I've also heard it being tied to Michelangelo and the David he created. You know, both are creations and all that.

 

It looks like it'll take me days to go through the entire thread but I was surprised at how negative it was. From what I was able to gather from elsewhere, the opinion was more mixed. I've come across some reviews which rate the movie quite highly, and I'm not talking about Ebert's take. I mean, fans of the series and other random folks have really liked it.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I loved "Tron: Legacy," "John Carter," and "The Thing (2011)." To me, they're infinitely more entertaining than "Prometheus" solely on the basis that those films made me get lost in them, despite their flaws and plot holes. "Prometheus" made me an active "critic" instead of a mesmerized audience.

I'm going to list down the factors that led to my shattering disappointment...

Trailers that gave everything away
All of the trailers I've watched numerous times hyped me up for the film. I was prepared for mind-blowing sci-fi and everything that I saw in the trailers were just icing to an extremely delectable sci-fi/horror cake. No way that ship crashing to that alien ship is a big climax to this film. No way that alien ship rolling/crashing down was one of the biggest and final scenes. Then I watched the movie. It's as if I just read through a short summary of the film in Wikipedia.

Simple, yet messy plot structure
The ideas presented were definitely not your typical summer blockbuster fare. The three movies that I loved above had ridiculously simple plots. But their plotting made me lose myself in the moment. The plotting that occurred were based on "sensible"/"logical" character beats that are not overtly obvious. No film is perfect in regards to plot holes. Even the best of films can be scrutinized for having them. But that's the filmmaker's magic trick: the film has to make us ignore such gaping plot holes. "Prometheus" was blatantly showing its plot holes. Like a drunk magician not caring that you're seeing how the trick is done. Or like David just pushing your buttons just because he can.

Confusing character actions
This has been discussed a lot already (Milburn & Fifield Go To White Castle, The Shaw Shanked Abortion, and Idris, Thelma, & Louise), so I won't elaborate on this further. But I just want to add that agracu already informed us that Milburn was a "botanist" and not a "biologist." Anyway, it was completely depressing that these "selected" hightly-specialized few were no different from frightened teens of an '80s slasher flick. I expected more from them. In fact, I wished I knew any of them! And perhaps I'm to blame for that. However, I probably would have ignored such cliched horror tropes if the "mysteries" had a satisfying payoff. Which brings me to...

Confusing/contradicting mysteries which never revealed anything
In a nutshell, the film is about aliens who created life on our planet (and possibly other planets); our future selves then finally found our "Creators" only to find out that they had plans to wipe out humanity two thousand years ago but such a plan failed because of a mishap in LV-223... See, that is a very simple plot structure, but the mysteries that were brought up did not allow us to find answers, but, rather create more questions and mysteries.

Folks here have called this a TV Series Premiere, an expensive TV prologue, and a LOST in Space. The thing is, that is exactly what I felt I was watching. As a standalone film, it was not a satisfying one. If anything, it's probably part one of a two-part film (ala "Kill Bill"). I'll even accept it as that. But the mysteries presented just seemed so random and the clues that I was paying attention to did not seem to have any correlation with each other, specifically the proto-alien at the very end. Yes, I had goosebumps seeing it and wanted to clap, but that did not even happen because I only imagined being excited at that point. I felt that I was more focused in wondering what I just watched and that nothing really made sense. Specifically that proto-alien:

- Proto-alien is in the mural
- Proto-alien's "birth" can only come from a giant facehugger and Space Jockey.
- Why is this the "first" when such an alien already existed two thousand years ago and even longer?
- Maybe the Space Jockeys were kidnapping humans and would let their baby facehuggers rape their kind?
- But if so, what happened to the Prime Directive of wiping out humanity from two thousand years ago?
- Stop fucking thinking. Ridley Scott probably doesn't know what the answers to that was. He just thought that it was really awesome for humans getting obliterated after meeting with their maker. I get it, Ridley. You hate religion.

After all that, I forgive Ridley Scott. My top three films are "Alien," "Blade Runner," with "2001: A Space Odyssey" being my number one. Maybe it's his old age. He probably hasn't seen "Event Horizon," "Sunshine," and even "Pandorum" (yes, I went there). He probably hasn't played games like "Dead Space." These are copycats/homages that managed to have improved upon Ridley Scott's sci-fi/horror opus.

I do want to see what happens next. Noomi was an amazing heroine and I want to follow her further adventures with David. Fassbender, definitely, was a stand-out. Charlize I loved as well; though she was a hard-ass brat princess, she had the most common sense compared to all of them -- inluding Shaw and her boyfriend. It's unfortunate that she got killed in an overdramatic bad guy death (as someone has said). I did not have a problem with the overdramatic, Shakespearean reveal of Weyland. If you're a trillionaire and know that you just might find the secret to eternal life, why will you share it with anyone? Faking his death so that he alone can selfishly live forever is a very "trillionaire" mindset thinking. Not like I'd know.

Anyway, I will force myself to love this film. It is an honorable disaster and I just hope that its sequel (if it happens) gets better and sheds better light on the mysteries it had opened up.

I don't think Milburn was a botanist.  I ended up having to watch this twice and made a concerted effort to listen to what he said.  I believe he does say biologist.

 

Yeah, that's rather goofy; I know it's a movie trope for a mysterious substance to behave in convenient ways, but it just seems lazy. And I wish they would have gone in the entire way on one idea over another instead of trying to fit in a few different things and thus things being as muddied as they were.

 

Because she acts mean at times and doesn't want to spend a lot of time on the planet? That character seemed to be rather ambiguous so a big villain death is just strange.

 

 

If only. That is quite the ballsy idea (even if it would have ended up being a bad one if done bad) so you know that sort of thing would rarely be attempted in Hollywood. 

 

 

The book I mentioned in the last post I made in the thread, their visiting of Earth periodically was for "genetic upgrades both intellectual and physical" of the human race. OK then. I don't know about the star maps, though, unless back then they wanted a visit and something happened later on and they just changed their mind.

 

 

Unfortunately being obvious is the way to go in Hollywood; plus they're worried that it's subtle and thus most people won't get it so it later has to be hammered into everyone's head. I was not surprised by that at all.

 

 

I am not surprised as it seems to happen often. There was a time (at least on some other sites) where it was common for just about any horror discussion to turn into a big argument over the quality of Rob Zombie's version of Halloween.

 

 

Yeah, it is pretty strange. I guess that Hollywood isn't filled with too many original ideas. I don't want to turn anyone off by constantly bashing them, but it seems like too often it's warranted. I mean, both revolving around ideas of Erich von Daniken and At the Mountains of Madness? At least this was world's better than AvP, but that is about as low of a compliment as you can give.

 

 

It's the movies so a lot of shit that makes no sense tends to happen. Still, when you see her first encounter the machine and she seemingly turned it on by accident, it's rather goofy that later on she suddenly can program it with little problem.

 

 

As it's been mentioned before, Damon has said in multiple places that he wasn't the one who put in the Alien nods; he worked on other things. So who knows who is to blame; maybe it's everyone for coming up with that as a final draft.

 

 

That could very well be true. I mean, I was not too bothered by how what you see at the end isn't exactly what we all know and love; I just presumed that one would appear and I am sure a lot of people did too, but the theory does make sense. And I am not mad that you have to come up with theories for some things, as that can be a lot of fun and spur a lot of debate. That was not one of the issues I had with the film, that's for sure.

 

 

I did notice that. I paid little heed to it. I just presumed that her character was that ignorant of space and distance.

 

 

Amongst all the bitching I've done I will admit that I really liked the effects and design. All the technology looked great and something I wish I could interact with. The hologram stuff was cool too. If only there weren't problems with the story.

 

I just watched the movie mere hours ago and I can't answer definitively but I thought he said biologist rather than botanist. I remember the other dude being a geologist, but no matter the occupation I thought it was rather goofy that they let ANY person leave the group to wander around a mysterious place, let alone two members of a group that wasn't too large to begin with. I know, it's a hoary cliche that has been done thousands of times before and even the great movies have moments that don't seem to make a whole lot of sense, but when a film that is supposed to be cerebral and serious and there are many illogical things like that, they tend to stick out.

Ug, the score. For me 50% of the score was fitting and fine(yet unmemorable), but that "theme" that keeps popping up... ug. It fit in the very beginning, but then worked against the film bigtime. It felt like the kind of thing you'd hear once or twice in Saving Private Ryan, and never again. The score annoyed me more than all the other issues I had with the movie, which were plenty.

Still, overall I dug the movie. I hope the extended cut fixes some of the issues I had, but I'm not holding my breath. When I walked out the theater my first thoughts were "damn, that felt like a 3 hour movie slashed down to 2.". Turns out I may have been off by a half hour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgfDnflqMGA

 

BOOM.

That theme sounds like it should accompany something majestic and awe-inspiring, which is fine for the beginning, when I thought this film was going to knock it out of the park.  And it works at the end, as a sort of yearning, searching piece.  But it just doesn't work for the tone of anything in the middle.

Have to say I'm quite fond of the theme. It's very Spielbergian 'wide-eyed awe' which is slightly incongruous with the general tone elsewhere, but I don't think in a particularly bad way.

 

 

One word review: "DURR-MEH-theus"!!!

Whiteboy: It's not really anyone specific, just a general vibe I'm getting. I was admittedly venting a bit, so I apologize if it came across as a little whiny.

The vibe isn't that general - a couple of pages back those defending the movie were dismissed as having battered wife syndrome.

By one poster in one post.

I'm so very fond of the theme!!!

 

Why are you people attacking it?  It's like you're attacking me with your stabby-stabby knives of condescension! 

 

Seriously, I love the theme.  I wish the movie and the rest of the score had lived up to it.

 

I love the theme too! 

 

Yes, I'm fairly certain that was kind of his point.

 

Sounds like it could come from the same suite as this.

 

Edited by SeanCE - 6/13/12 at 7:33am