PROMETHEUS post-release discussion - Page 31

That explains Everything.

That was great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryoken 
The whole theme of the movie is the dichotomy between creators and created; The Engineers/Humanity/Xenomorphs, Weyland/Vickers/David and God/Humnity/Science; In the first and main example, there's humanity, the engineers and the xenomorphs; in my opinion, I think David figured out the Engineers game and calls it out onscreen; "Sometimes to create, you have to destroy", he says to Shaw, and his meaning is two fold; he means that while the engineers were creators of humans, we ended up being surpassed by their second creation, the Xenomorphs; that's what happened 2000 years earlier; the Engineers were on their way to seed earth and infect humanity to further move their experiment, when the outbreak happened; David tells Halloway about how dissapointing it would be to meet your creator, only to find out he just made you because he could...and thats what David has figured out; humans are a discarded experiment, perhaps even a failure...the xenomorphs are the ultimate lifeform, and thus, humans are nothing more than breeding stock for the engineers (we see that the engineers are aware of the Xenomorphs and their life cycle in the murals and the carvings in the urn chamber); the other meaning of David's statement is about his own existence; he is Weyland's creation superior to his creator in form and function, yet he is bound to serve him; Shaw states that if Weyland were to die, David would be free...and didnt David state that all children want the death of their fathers? I think that the movie's script leaves this to be far too vague, and that kills the heavy themes of the film, which in this case is David's betreyal of his God and Father, Weyland, and the Engineers marking humans as a failed experiment to be discarded. 

 

The second example is in the relationship of Weyland and his two children, David and Vickers; you can tell that Vickers is a failure to Weyland; in his eyes, she will not surpass him or even live up to his expectations, so he made David as his heir and Legacy, thus creating a rift between all three; Vickers calls him out when she tells him that "a king has his reign, and then he dies", in her eyes, Weyland has cheated her out of her legacy and destiny by creating David, thus destroying the circle of children taking over their fathers; meanwhile, David feels cheated and is resentful of being subjugated by inferior beings, and perhaps even of being denied of recognition as superior; in fact, you could say that the whole movie and its events are designed and manipulated by David in order to free himself from his creator.

 

Finally, you have the clash between God/Man/Science; Shaw's arc is the main expositor of this one, as you see her faith be tested against meeting her creators; Charlie, having no faith and believing only in science, gives up when he believes God is dead; Shaw, as someone of faith, sees only another question, another truth to pursue; and in the end, Shaw is the one that survives, and chooses to believe and have faith, and continue pursuing her truth; its not an anti-science message, but rather a message that faith and science are hand to hand in helping mankind survive and pursue the truth of their existence; at the very end, David, a product of science with no soul, questions Shaws insistence to find the truth about the Engineers, and she anwers that she simply needs to know, that she believes there's an answer out there, and that David, not being human, would never understand...and then she says she's sorry, and David replied that its okay...because David himself has accepted he wont ever understand her either, even when he's now free from Wayland; in the end, the whole idea that drives Prometheus is the same as the myth that gives the film its namesake; the idea of a creator and creation clashing, of God against science and of faith versus fact, and its a shame that the script , flawed and muddled as it is, doesnt explore this idea in a more extensive and clearer way...at least, thats my opinion.

This is why I find it stupid to outright dismiss this movie as the dumbest piece of shit of all time because of some duff dialogue and unlikely plot points. This wasn't my exact reading, but these elements are all in there and quite deliberately so - these are the kind of connections you're obviously being invited to think about. Sorry to keep picking on the Avengers, a movie I do think is pretty good, but could anything in it trigger thoughts even remotely like those above?

The idea that all children want to kill their creators is what stuck with me after leaving the theater.

That Shaw is the exception, at least in part that her dream shows her missing her father, gives an optimistic note about humanity rising above this mentality.
 

I can seriously see a PREQUEL to 'Prometheus', rather than a SEQUEL...

I love the look of the engineers with all the new pics coming out of them. You can see how humans are derived from them. I still don't get the genetic link between engineer>human>squid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

This is why I find it stupid to outright dismiss this movie as the dumbest piece of shit of all time

Who said that?

Be less literal minded.

ah, what I miss, we still talking about this dumb piece of shit movie?

Oh, wait......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anorexic Starlet 

You can see how humans are derived from them.

I dunno, for me that's actually more of a plot/logic hole than it is something that strengthens the story.  If the engineers are responsible for seeding all life on Earth (essentially filling the abiogenesis gap that exists in our present understanding), it doesn't explain how natural selection and random mutation ultimately resulted in an apparently anatomically similar species (nevermind the fact that they say 100% match which makes zero sense considering that would mean identical twins.)

edit:  The writers probably get a lot of leeway by the poor science education in the US in this respect, heh.

I think having the engineers look like us was the point. The engineers looked like us, created irresponsibly like us,  destroyed irresponsibly like us and were not in control of their own creations like us. David says it very succinctly when he talks about dealing with the dissapointment of meeting a creator who merely built you 'because he can' and cares nothing for you.

I see this is far less a vision about what our creators might be, than a challenge to us as we gain the ability to create life how will we use it.

David was a technological marvel. There was no thought given to the morality of bringing a self aware creature into existance. David is programmed into obeying Weyland- who ends up being just another rich old white dude who does not want to die. He is looked down upon by the beings around him to whom he is both physically and intellectually superior. We are never told of David's inner life. But we are given plenty of clues. From his dream voyeurism, to his identification with Lawrence of Arabia, to his often venemous comments. David is a being who is in chains, can find little to no meaning for his existance, is profoundly dissapointed in his creators and is bound by an internal set of rules that prevent him from acting as he would. It is stated by the people around him time and time again that he has no feelings, soul, significance.....but his actions and affect say otherwise.

Prometheus as a film is a failed mess, we have 30 pages of testimony before us on that point.  But the whole 'what is a creator's responsibility to his creation?' question is posed eloquently and fascinatingly through the character of David and through the Engineers implied attitude toward humanity.  Prometheus is as much a spiritual prequel to Blade Runner as it is to Alien in this regard. Too bad Scott failed to execute. Whether it was Lindelhoff, the suits, or Ridley's inability to bring forth his vision.....we may never know. But there is a damn good movie buried beneath the shit, and I eagerly await the directors cut as I mentioned in the first couple of pages of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

Running out of the very obvious and fairly narrow path of an oncoming ship?  Yes.

Before this comes up again, I would like to emphasize that None of us here have ever had to do this, and never will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Before this comes up again, I would like to emphasize that None of us here have ever had to do this, and never will.

I will be observing you for the rest of your life with great interest!

Why not just drop a giant saucer ship on his brain mythbusters style Nooj?

The Engineers look fantastic in those photos. I think it's because they are static. They seem God-like in ways they NEVER do on film. All I remember from the film is one of them convulsing and melting into a waterfall or running around or punching or fighting squids. 

In the photos they appear monk-like, and intelligent. In the film they are WWF wrestlers. I wish we got the photo version. Oh well. 

So David directly states that the black liquid is itself an organic compound -- a mass composed of tiny, living cells that possess the ability to grow rapidly when, presumably, they are "triggered" by the presence of a potential host. Hence Shaw saying that the humans have somehow affected the atmosphere in the room. The goo is both entirely dependent on other life forms to trigger its own development, and capable of stimulating dead matter and giving rise to completely new life -- essentially it is itself a "living metaphor" that eschews the creator-created dichotomy that is so prevalent elsewhere in the film. The snake creature is presumably a mature version of the worms we see in the liquid and in Holloway's eye, although the film is unclear as to whether this is the final stage in this particular creature's life cycle, or merely the last one we actually see -- certainly the squid represents a human-snake hybrid, as it introduces limbs and a more distinct head area, which in its more domed appearance forecasts the future phallus-shaped xenomorph head.

The nature of the life to which the liquid gives rise is dependent on the nature of the "original" life form's contact with the substance -- Holloway consumes a small amount, only a drop, and is thus subject to a protracted combustion, while the engineer at the film's opening consumes a large amount and therefore combusts pretty much immediately. Both are subject to the same process, but the deterioration they experience is happening at different rates. Fifield, meanwhile, does not consume the substance, but is only exposed to it externally, and was probably killed by the organism's acid blood by the time his body began to experience the effects of the goo. Hence, it reanimates Fifield's dead cells, giving rise to a horribly distorted version of the "life" that we so blindly prize, and also suggesting that the inherent violence of the xenomorphs is likely due to the the aftereffects of the rejuvenation of dead tissue, a process that, if the portrayal of their evolution appearing in this film can be called somewhat definitive, occurs at various points along their evolutionary cycle (impregnating the dead engineer, "rejuvenating" Shaw's reproductive organs, etc.).

So as other posters have pointed out, you could say that the Engineers seem to worship the xenomorphs as an embodiment of death. On a more literal level, the xenomorphs are living death, which would be another example of how the film disrupts the dichotomy between the animate and the inanimate in its tackling the "big questions:" it shows the potential horrors of questioning natural processes, demonstrating that exploring life's origins can be just another way to pervert and degrade it. Even the appearance of the xenomorphs is a frightening confluence of technological and biological design elements (bringing to mind the metaphor scientists frequently draw between cells and computing systems, and Ash's own characterization of the xenomorph as a "killing machine"), with an emphasis placed on sexual imagery to show the creature's close link to the concepts of conception, birth, reproduction, and propagation (and also death, considering the conceptual links that have been drawn to it from sex). Essentially, the entire film is designed to explore the problematic implications of the creative act, especially as it pertains to life and the notion of a "divine creator." It lays blame equally on faith and science: on one for inextricably tying together the equally foolish notions of creativity and godliness, and on the other for making such hubris frighteningly viable.

So screw anybody who's saying this movie is "dumb."

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham 

The Engineers look fantastic in those photos. I think it's because they are static. They seem God-like in ways they NEVER do on film. All I remember from the film is one of them convulsing and melting into a waterfall or running around or punching or fighting squids. 

 

In the photos they appear monk-like, and intelligent. In the film they are WWF wrestlers. I wish we got the photo version. Oh well. 

I was actually pretty impressed by the engineer in the opening scene.  Between the seamless other-worldly physique, skin tone and very subtle highlights, textures, veins, plus the background imagery, I really wasn't sure how much of the scene was digital or real/practical.  It'll be nice getting to see a making-of for whomever designed and painted that latex suit.  I would go so far as to say that it was probably the most haunting tangible representation of a God-like being that I've ever seen on screen... which made their final presentation as a generic movie monster very.. underwhelming, if not frustrating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

So screw anybody who's saying this movie is "dumb."

 The movie isn't 'dumb' as such, but has an overwhelming amount of dumb moments in it. Not only do we have the worst scientific crew ever assembled, we have a whole sequence where the film effectively becomes 'Friday the 13th', including weed smoking.

It has great imagery and some neat ideas, but it's also a mess. 

Weed smoking, and two characters go off to have sex while the people that actually need help die horribly while no one mans the bridge.  It's so Friday the 13th it hurts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Before this comes up again, I would like to emphasize that None of us here have ever had to do this, and never will.

On the contrary, enough people have had to do so to justify at least one book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/0870334336

I'd realy like to see a reading of the film that dispensed with all the "you could says" and "presumablys" and "probablys" and based itself solely with what we're provided on-screen.  With the leaps being made, some of you guys should be headed to London.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

So screw anybody who's saying this movie is "dumb."

Genre films are a great way to push challenging, intellectual ideas, without boring the audience. 

But a movie is the sum of its parts.  The narrative being the primary carrier of information.  If the narrative fails to function properly (genre film or not), all the subtext and meaning in the world cannot save it.  Ridley and Lindeloff could've easily decided to collaborate on a book about the nature of creation and existence instead, but they didn't.  They chose to make a genre film so they have to play by those rules and either succeed or fail.  They failed.  The movie is dumb because nearly everything in it is presented in a dumb way that not only makes little sense, but does a disservice to the big ideas presented in the film.

You could even say the Engineer decided to kill everybody because they were too stupid to live.  As a creation, they were an embarrassment to him. 

If you (or others) enjoy Prometheus, more power to you.

Anyone noticed that just before Vickers gets 'crunched' she rolls on her back, throws hers arms across her face ...AND DOES BEAT-FOR-BEAT THE EXACT SAME SCREAM THAT RIPLEY HEARS LAMBERT DO ON THE PA?

It finally dawned on me....everyone was assuming that this film is a prequel to Alien. It's actually a sequel to The X-Files alien invasion story line.

black goo = black oil  ??!?!?!?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcpnrZ9sDxo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan 

On the contrary, enough people have had to do so to justify at least one book on the subject.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/0870334336

Before I click, I have to ask, is this a book about running from crashing spaceships? While on another, unknown planet? After experiencing a number of high stress disasters?

If not, I think we can shut up about this absolutely stupid detail. Like, maybe forever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle 

I hated the way they explained plot points through dumb exposition. Shaw asks why they are trying to destroy Earth and David just says something like: "First they create, then they destroy". Huh? How does that explain the Engineers motivations?

Kind of like us, eh?

Personally, the scene where Holloway was torched; the torch was simply the closest weapon to Vickers.  Also, the hysteria during the execution scene was because of human attachment to the victim; the crew had an attachment (tenuous at the least, but substantial still)...and even more so with Shaw, so would they have reason to express outrage during the execution?  Think of it this way: it's easier to identify with the one who's pulling the trigger on the over the terminally ill...through a monitor, but once you find yourself holding the gun, aiming at the diseased...you'll find your will to pull the trigger lacking.  Ask yourself this while holding the gun: 'do I really want this kind of blood on my hands?'
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Mal 

Just popping back in after spending some time at Ebert's blog, where I was reminded that some folks like to engage a movie on its own terms, and discuss its merits thoughtfully, rather than tripping over their own cleverness on their way to being outraged over irrelevant details (like, say, wardrobe choices, or which direction a character zagged, and why). It was refreshing. Nevertheless, this is the place to which I always return, because at least there are dirty words, and people post funny pictures.
It occurred to me today that everyone seems to be wondering why the engineers left these roadmaps to the stars if they were intent on killing humans anyway, but I haven't seen anyone considering that the cave drawings were left by ancient civilizations who once knew their creators.
I'm wondering if the engineers seeded the planet, and then remained in contact with their creations until some sort of rift occurred. Perhaps the humans turned against their creators and attempted to destroy them (which would explain the aggressive, angry engineer at the end). Or, perhaps the engineers saw the evil in their creations (perhaps even a reflection of their own moral shortcomings), and abandoned the Earth to its own destruction.
Either way, the cave paintings wouldn't be an invitation, but rather a warning: "This is where the creators came from."
Thoughts?

A lot of this could have been addressed, or even hinted at, if the Engineers were given a personality or motivation or character that would in any way make them interesting. But they don't and so we have absolutely no idea what they're all about, or why they do what they do, or what they want. The movie spends time showing David studying communication, demonstrating a dialogue that's been in place for 40,000 years starting with the cave drawings, building to a big meeting between man and creator, and setting up different directions the movie could thematically go in along the way. And then the Engineer punches people and throws them around and dies and the movie ends with the main character saying, "Would you like to know more?" 

For this reason I don't have a lot of motivation to debate the film, especially when the movie's defenders seem intent on pointing out what an asshole I am. A lot of the people who liked this movie seem to harbor hostility towards the people who didn't like it. I know it sucks to have a bunch of folks mocking something you enjoy, but still.

Finally saw it this afternoon and Prometheus worked for me because it sets out how dumb it is fairly early on and I just went with it. From the moment the crew decides to roll on down to the alien planet and into the alien structure without sending probes and/or robots first you know it's going to be one of those "don't go down to the basement alone you idiot" films and time and again the characters behave in exactly that way. They're morons and I'm evil enough that it's enjoyable to watch them fail.

This isn't serious sci-fi of the Children Of Men or Solaris. This is a megabudget B-movie. It could have been so much better and doesn't live up to Alien or even Aliens but I still enjoyed almost all of it because the things that are right are so much fun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Mal 
It occurred to me today that everyone seems to be wondering why the engineers left these roadmaps to the stars if they were intent on killing humans anyway, but I haven't seen anyone considering that the cave drawings were left by ancient civilizations who once knew their creators.
 

Maybe someone should have asked David about the origin of the maps. He seems to have explanations for all the plot holes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Mal 

It occurred to me today that everyone seems to be wondering why the engineers left these roadmaps to the stars if they were intent on killing humans anyway, but I haven't seen anyone considering that the cave drawings were left by ancient civilizations who once knew their creators.

Either way, the cave paintings wouldn't be an invitation, but rather a warning: "This is where the creators came from."
Thoughts?

But there's nothing in the paintings or images that make it look like a direct warning. They show a giant figure pointing to the star formation with a group of humans praying/bowing next to the giant. If it was a warning you would think that there would be some kind of writing that clarified it. In fact, it seems kind of odd that there is no writing on any of them.

Well I watched it.

Although it was a great film in terms of design and I thoroughly enjoyed it as a big studio gig... the whole thing was ruined (for me) by the... well.... whole thing.

It was almost like it was made by some other 'for hire' copycat director who didn't quite secure the rights to copy the franchise proper. Also reminiscent of the way Highlander 2 went: that instead of sword and sorcery immortals they turned out to be hover-board flying aliens. 

I know that Scott says it wasn't a true prequel and that it had strands of its DNA and whatnot... but I think it's obvious it was a return to the origin that spawned the franchise... so therefore a prequel... or maybe a history of that particular universe.... i.e. when you watch A L I E N after seeing Prometheus, you will invariably look at the Space Jockey and imagine the giant human skeleton underneath. Or will you?

This is my problem. The creature that I see is the bones and remains of the actual creature. It's not a suit... it's a truly nonsensical weird alien form... almost more alien than the 'Xenomorph' alien itself. I expected a story that wasn't connected to humans in any way. that's purely my personal expectations and subjectivity. It's pointless wishing it was a different story... because it's done now.  

For me I can't get into the details of how someone would run away from a 300 foot doughnut because it's just a film that uses those sort gags to create spectacle. These details were part of the style that we should really expect when it comes to big SFX heavy movies of today.

Again... I thoroughly enjoyed it. 

The makeup, effects and design were great by-the-way... I should know... that's what I do for a living. Well done guys and gals. 

I will still look forward to the next one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I'd realy like to see a reading of the film that dispensed with all the "you could says" and "presumablys" and "probablys" and based itself solely with what we're provided on-screen.

Well, you start and everyone can contribute. Do a Top 100 type structure and everyone can argue the factuality of each entry?

Better than arguing about that fucking wheel-of-death spaceship crash. (I think the Jockey was aiming the fucker!)

This is one of the concept maquettes. It's not far from the final design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

So screw anybody who's saying this movie is "dumb."

The "science" of the movie isn't the dumb part. The characters are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I'd realy like to see a reading of the film that dispensed with all the "you could says" and "presumablys" and "probablys" and based itself solely with what we're provided on-screen.  With the leaps being made, some of you guys should be headed to London.

Yes, Jesus... You could probably find a reading of The Room that makes it seem smart, if you try hard enough. Doesn't actually make it so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham 

The Engineers look fantastic in those photos. I think it's because they are static. They seem God-like in ways they NEVER do on film. All I remember from the film is one of them convulsing and melting into a waterfall or running around or punching or fighting squids. 

 

In the photos they appear monk-like, and intelligent. In the film they are WWF wrestlers. I wish we got the photo version. Oh well. 

I honestly wish we'd never seen the Engineers in the film. Not in the beginning and not anywhere else. Showing their remains would have been so much more effective than showing them running around punching things. Be cause the idea is so much more terrifying than the truth. Unless that's what Ridley and co were going for, in which case, well done I guess?

We've seen their remains... 

Ridley wanted to return to them to explain their being there and whats and wherefores, so it was inevitably going to be about them.

Just having them not punching would have sufficed.

Making the Engineers humanoid is the film's worst decision. Alien's Space Jockey suggested a species that is very much removed from us -- that was the whole mystique. Turning that incomprehensible face into a damn helmet destroys the appeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Peace 

Making the Engineers humanoid is the film's worst decision. Alien's Space Jockey suggested a species that is very much removed from us -- that was the whole mystique. Turning that incomprehensible face into a damn helmet destroys the appeal.

Absolutely. 

There are 'humanoids' depicted on the triptych mural that Giger designed for A L I E N that shows the 'jockey/engineer' that still retains a non-human 'biomechanical' form.

this was originally going to adorn the walls of the 'egg silo'.

So, I finally got to see this sucker today, which meant catching up on this thread. I'm still processing the film, but will try not to repeat too much stuff that people have said already. Short version: Enjoyed it, despite it taking a hard left into Wackytown at about the 1hr mark and never looking back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucho 

This isn't serious sci-fi of the Children Of Men or Solaris. This is a megabudget B-movie. 

IMO, this is the source of the the film's failings. They tried to marry a heady piece of hard sci-fi with a creature feature, and did so by starting it out as one, veering it sharply into the other and failing to achieve any genuine blend between the two. Stuff like Fifield and Millburn acting like unscientific dickheads is what we expect from a splatter film, but not the kind of film Prometheus wants us to think it is in its first hour. As soon as we find the Urn Chamber and possible answers to all these huge questions the film's been dangling at us, Scott and Lindelof suddenly go "Okay! It's a monster movie now!" and shift the tone accordingly, but not appropriately. Meanwhile, they keep juggling all those questions with no intent to actually try and answer them - not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but combined with the film's overall lurch into the B-movie zone it just feels off.

The result is a film that I enjoyed, but nowhere near as much as I was hoping. It's not that they couldn't have married the heady and schlocky sides; they opted for the lurching tonal gear-change instead, and boy can you feel those gears grind at times. Take Shaw, for example: the woman we see in the first half of the film at no point feels like she could run, jump and get alien-punched about the place with her belly slit open (I mean, what the hell were those staples made of?). Likewise, the mysterious, pensive-looking Engineer at the film's opening suggests an intelligence that's nowhere to be seen in the Hulk-smashy one we see at the end. This was particularly disappointing, because...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Peace 

Making the Engineers humanoid is the film's worst decision. Alien's Space Jockey suggested a species that is very much removed from us -- that was the whole mystique. Turning that incomprehensible face into a damn helmet destroys the appeal.

I agree on this one, and have to admit I felt a twinge of disappointment when I first found out that that mysterious, trunk-faced creature we all grew up watching was actually some generic-if-slightly-mumpy bald geezer in a suit all along. The film almost turned me around with the opening, and the Engineer making his sacrifice to seed the planet with life. The first hour in fact does a great job of setting up these guys to be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Very Interesting Indeed, but as soon as the goo starts flying it becomes all about simply stopping them as opposed to learning what they're about. They become common, everyday space villains, and while that's in service to the comparison with humanity's own failings, it kind of ruins the mystique they had in Alien, and what the first half of this film suggests about them.

Unlike a lot of people here, I quite like the score, but again I think the fact that it works better in the first half of the film than in the second is another symptom of the film's overall tonal problem. Again, it's trying to change style halfway through while juggling the elements of the first half, without ever fully realizing them.

I think the film has enough interesting ideas to at least qualify as an interesting failure, and I'll definitely be buying the blu. It is, as many others pointed out, a stupidly gorgeous film that works well for the first hour. It's just when it remembers that it's an Alien prequel and veers off into horror territory that it loses its way, and I'm tempted to agree with those who've said that it'd have been much better off ditching the 'Alien prequel' aspect and just being its own thing. I'm interested in seeing this extended cut too, as the second half felt a bit higgledy-piggledy in the cutting. Lots of stuff happening, but very little connective tissue to make it feel like a flowing narrative rather than a lurch through plot points to get to the end.

I seriously doubt that the longer cut will solve all the film's problems - there's stuff going on here with tone and characterization that I think are more inherent to the story's fundamental structure - but I suspect that we might get an Alien 3 sort of situation, where the extended cut gives us a flawed film that at least flows better than the theatrical version, and makes it if not a totally redeemed viewing experience, then at least a more satisfying one. 

'Prometheus' tries to be "...ALL things to ALL men...", which is precisely where it fails...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workyticket 

IMO, this is the source of the the film's failings. They tried to marry a heady piece of hard sci-fi with a creature feature, and did so by starting it out as one, veering it sharply into the other and failing to achieve any genuine blend between the two. Stuff like Fifield and Millburn acting like unscientific dickheads is what we expect from a splatter film, but not the kind of film Prometheus wants us to think it is in its first hour.

My read was different Worky.

I thought that unlike Sunshine, Prometheus set itself up as being about people who were little more than splatter film fodder from the moment Charlie was all "It's Christmas, I want my presents" and they roll out into the structure within moments of landing with Noomi's "Let's go into this unexplored, unprobed environment with no weapons because this is a scientific expedition". Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb DUMB as a brick. Right from the opening scenes it sets up that "Don't go check out that noise in the basement alone you imbecile!" splatter film vibe. Later David compliments Noomi on her great survivial instincts. Sure, she's good at running away from shit once it's in her face but where the fuck were those instincts earlier in the day?

I think that may be why I enjoyed Prometheus more than a lot of other folks. It never even began to let me take it seriously so I just rolled with the shit-ton of barmy crap that happens later on without much trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workyticket 
They tried to marry a heady piece of hard sci-fi with a creature feature

I think this is the heart of the problem. Even with a competent script, trying to meld a 2001-style chin scratcher and a b-movie monster-rama might not be workable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yads 

I think this is the heart of the problem. Even with a competent script, trying to meld a 2001-style chin scratcher and a b-movie monster-rama might not be workable.

And remember, Alien is brilliant and all, but it's a brilliant B-monster movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

The chances of being hit by relatively small pieces of debris were very small.  The chances of being smashed by a ship coming directly toward you, which you run along the path of is 100% certain.  They chose the latter.

 

But if you want to keep defending this shitty marvel, be my guest.

What I don't understand (and I have not heard this discussed) is that the alien ship is receding very quickly into the distance, away from the launch point that was opening up underneath Shaw.  Prometheus takes off and even goes to "SUPER ION DRIVE CORE MODE" to ram the darn thing.  I seem to recall the escape pod that vickers was in be launched backwards from the ship as it headed towards it's triple suicide mission.  As the ship gets hit, does it not appear to be dropping straight down?  How could it be dropping straight down on top of Shaws and Vickers when it is clearly about 10 miles away by then?  That also goes for Prometheus' debris raining down.

Also, wasn't Shaw running back down the connecting tunnel to the temple?  Yet she somehow climbs vertically up a tube to the surface right above the ship...I think the mapmaker was involved again on this one....All that technology and nobody had an iPhone on their wrist to see a map.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bedeekin 

 

For me I can't get into the details of how someone would run away from a 300 foot doughnut because it's just a film that uses those sort gags to create spectacle. These details were part of the style that we should really expect when it comes to big SFX heavy movies of today.

Yep, those pesky standards always getting in the way of shitty entertainment.

http://badassdigest.com/2012/06/17/film-crit-hulk-smash-the-damon-lindleof-intervention/
 

Film Crit Hulk on Lindelof and Prometheus. Do not miss. Says everything I wanted to say about this film.