PROMETHEUS post-release discussion - Page 20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

I don't think I do. Janek could have led them out via the comms, he had a complete 3D map of the structure right in front of him in the ship.

Yeah, but Janek was busy finding out if Vickers was an android or not when the shit was hitting the fan in that chamber with Milburn and Fifield.   And Milburn/Fifield couldn't go anywhere, due to that storm.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

Or have Janek try to help them Google map their way out from the ship, only for their comms to fail, or maybe the floor gives way and they fall into a lower chamber (making David's observation that the Alien mural and the weird green gem plugged at the base of it was "Another door") and that's where they find penis snake. Y'know, give everyone something to do and have them discover things by being proactive rather than just stupid.

There are a million ways that stuff could have gone that would have made more sense. The scientists could've simply split up to run experiments (actually do what they're there to do) and Fifield and Milburn bump into the penis snake. Wham. John Hurt all over again. In fact, I don't even understand why Janek needed to be boning Vickers at that moment. It's a weird coincidence and his hearing them die over the comms wouldn't have changed a thing anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smugbug 

Yeah, but Janek was busy finding out if Vickers was an android or not when the shit was hitting the fan in that chamber with Milburn and Fifield.   And Milburn/Fifield couldn't go anywhere, due to that storm.  

They got themselves lost before everyone left due to the storm. That's what's bugging me.

Also, why would Shaw and the rest think they had already left if all of the vehicles were still there?  Did they think Fifield and Milburn headed back to the ship on foot?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

 

It makes sense to me. And to be open, many of the faults discussed here didn't occur to me until after the film was over.  I'm agreed that Scott is a master visual storyteller. And while I'd have to really look at his oeuvre to give a final answer, I'm OK with tentatively calling him a master storyteller, with no qualification. 

 

The film worked for you (and some others) like gangbusters. Cool enough. It was merely an "OK" one for me during, and post-game analysis has really turned my opinion. And that, for me, is the sign of a movie that actually works or doesn't. It should hold up both in memory and under some level of scrutiny. PROMETHEUS is broken by the details of the story - a story that Scott approved and has been explaining in interviews cited in this thread. I think those problems take this from an "OK" movie - even a B-grade SF thriller - to a actively bad one. (I do think Lindelof carries a lot of the blame here, but it's ultimately Scott's show.)

First of all, thanks. This is the sort of conversation I really like, where we (hopefully!) come to some kind of understanding despite seeing the film in such different ways. Also, I really hate being misunderstood, especially when it's my fault (and I think this is a case where it was), so I'm glad that I was able to make sense.

I'll be honest, I'm grateful for the post-game analysis. It's really helped me clarify what I thought worked about the film and it's also opened me up to the flaws of the movie, which serve to a) temper my reaction, and b) highlight the stuff that I thought worked all the more. (E.g., the script is a fuckity mess, but I liked watching the movie because Scott's a great filmmaker/storyteller, as you seem to agree.) Interestingly, I think that the sign of a good movie is that it lets you gloss over its flaws while you're watching it; if the flaws don't interrupt the experience, that's to the film's credit. Obviously that wasn't your experience, and I get that 100%. Somehow, I remained immune to the flaws while watching it.

But now I'm wondering how the film will play after discussing these flaws on CHUD's boards. (And elsewhere.) Obviously a truly GREAT movie holds up during and after the viewing experience, so I don't think Prometheus can be called great, but it has a lot of merit even in the face of its warts.

And I'm with you on Scott. I think he's got to take the brunt of the blame. I think Lindelof is the perpetrator of some of the biggest missteps in the script (the Weyland reveal, I'm 100% convinced, is all Lindelof), but I think the Tweets to his account accusing him of childhood rape are way out of line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Dylan 

You arent the only one. I love Watchmen too. Maybe we should start a club.

Well, at least we now know where the squid from Watchmen got to at least.

And the main bugginess of the story:  the biologist and geologist don't act at all excited at all about the possibility of the wealth  of samples (alien samples, even) lying before them.  I would think that once Janek tells them the storm is coming and they'd have to sit tight for the night - Fifield would just open his bag, pick up whatever tools he'd need to collect samples and get to work.  The same for Milburn.  

Besides, it is scarier when characters aren't entirely aware of the danger (penis snakes) lurking about.  I'd rather be yelling at the screen in shock over a character getting attacked by some creature, rather than slapping my forehead at the utter stupidity on display. 

I think the biggest WFT moment for me was Janek and his co pilots (?) sacrificing themselves just based on Shaw's observations. Talk about character moments that aren't earned.
 

The other problem is that they seem obviously freaked out by what they're seeing, so they decide to take off. So the guy who made the maps can't get back to the transport before the people who didn't, and then he and the dude who are obviously scared of alien shit try to pet a penis snake? That's just bad everything.

So, an extended cut coming to bluray (said so, people owe me $1000 in Monopoly money).  Rather than continue to bash Ridley for pushing onwards with a lame script (maybe like Weyland he thought he didn't have much time for another redraft, so just said: "fuck it, roll camera!"), how about we veer the discussion more towards asking why studios continually prevent him from releasing ideal versions of his films?

I mean he's not David fucking Lynch, or David Lean, his movies aren't drastically long or full of fucked up shit, in fact he's pretty mainstream friendly, so I'm struggling to understand this hesitance to just let him do his thing.  The idea that he's 100% in control of his productions all the time and has clout to do whatever he pleases is bullshit in my opinion.  Yeah he has a lot of influence compared to most directors, but he's seemingly had an antagonistic relationship with studios forever.  Kingdom of Heaven in particular was shred to bits, when you'd think at that point in his career he'd have 'clout'.  

There are too many extended cuts of his films, and quite a few drastically improve on the theatrical.  In his latest interview he babbles on briefly about art v commerce, but it's like he doesn't want to piss his financiers off so he just sounds incoherent.

What's going on here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Engineer 

 

I like this, and now I wonder if there is some correlation between the Weyland/Vickers relationship and the Engineer/Humankind relationship, somehow.  Both Weyland and the Engineer have traveled far to extend their species' reach, and both have issues with their progeny: Vickers and Humankind.  Often, parents have issues with the way their offspring live their lives, just as kids often see how their parents lived and what they've achieved and reject those choices in their own lives. (Or course, Weyland is more the controlling parent whereas The Engineer is the more violent one.)   Maybe this is why Vickers comes off as the "rich bitch in charge" that I called her earlier.   Maybe her character figures if she can't win her father's love, she'll take his company and riches.  And maybe that's the origin of her nature in being closed-off and holding others (the crew/David) in such contempt.  It's an interesting theory, once you consider that BLADE RUNNER mined similar themes of the parent/child dynamic with its Roy Batty/Eldon Tyrell relationship.  Tyrell both admires and fears his creation where Batty both seeks acceptance from and answers from his creator.  Add this to ALIEN and PROMETHEUS' recurring motif of birth and rebirth (chestbursters) and I'm not entirely sure what we get (or if I'm just grabbing at straws and there is anything to get) but it's certainly intriguing.  Plus, I haven't seen any of Scott's films since MATCHSTICK MEN (although it is another story regarding a difficult child/parent relationship), so I can't say if this theme crosses into any of his more recent works.  I dunno, just spitballing here...

I think there's a lot of potential in this. I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish it had been touched on in the film, and as I've said, I think that could have been done if Weyland hadn't been used for a stupid "gotcha" beat in the third act. But I wanted to know more about the Weylands and David. Why is there such a breach between Weyland and Vickers? Why does Weyland accept David as his son more than he accepts Vickers as his daughter? The easy answer is that David is literally programmed to honor his father whereas Vickers, with free will, doesn't have to follow his every order to the letter. David is the perfect surrogate son, Vickers is a disappointment.

It's interesting to think that the Engineers aim to destroy humanity out of disappointment, but the film doesn't support that enough, which is frustrating to me. Certainly it's not a theme that's off the table as a result-- obviously we can talk about it at length on our own with the material we've been given-- but I think the film itself could have said more about creation and birth and death had it explored the relationship between the Weyland family in greater detail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smugbug 

 

QFT.  Yes.  This.  And this movie did not bore at all.  I wish this was outstanding.  Really, do.  After what Scott has accomplished film-wise in the early parts of his career, I wanted that Scott to be evident in this film.  There were hints that he was, but you can only do so much to elevate a sucky script.

Exactly. I wish the Scott of old had been more present in the script stage of the production; what he does in filming Prometheus is good, but really hampered by its terrible script.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognizant 

What's going on here?

I'm parsing this down, but I think it's that his films are just too ambitious in their uncut forms. (For the most part.) At least, too ambitious for studios like Universal and Fox to handle.

Random thoughts:

- It sure was pretty.

- No matter how much faith you have, you're not running around and taking huge running leaps hours after having your abdomen lasered open and stapled shut. You're having trouble with simple things like laughing, and you're hobbling around on a drip for a day or so. (And really? Staples? Some of the surgery — the fast healing time, etc. — could've been handwaved as "Well, future technology," but then the thing shoots staples into a fresh wound. Oy.)

- This was quite the medley of unpleasant ways to die.

- Stephen Stills can rest assured that he'll still have fans in 2093.

- Every snark I've read (really, Vickers, just run a few feet to the side) is hilariously spot-on.

- The score is occasionally nicely brooding, but oh for what Jerry Goldsmith did 33 years ago.

- I would still recommend seeing it on the best, biggest screen possible to anyone who's found the ads visually intriguing. Just don't expect it to be, uh, not stupid. Which it is. It is colossally stupid. It is stupid in small ways and stupid in large ways. Moreover, it is stupid in a way only a stupid movie that thinks it's deep can be stupid. Narratively it's MST3K material, but Devin has a point when he says it's best taken as a visual experiment. It is extremely flashy and smooth big-movie science-fiction moviemaking, made with big toys and big money. As a tone poem about hostile environments and inhumanity, it might just about hang together. But it's so distant in every way from the quality of Alien that the comparison is embarrassing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 

I think the biggest WFT moment for me was Janek and his co pilots (?) sacrificing themselves just based on Shaw's observations. Talk about character moments that aren't earned.
 

Well, it was suppose to be more about Janek.  That was Janek's big character change from a "paid company man" to someone who gave a shit.  Granted, the change was happening after Shaw told him how many of those cylinders were in that ship and knowing what the content of those cylinders were.  That little moment between him and Shaw (after he c-section), his exposition on what that planet was - all this lead him to the realization of what he needed to do once the Engineer's vessel left the ground.  

I totally got that.  I got that his two pilots and he had been through a lot of missions before and they were gonna stay near their captain until the end.  I got that. 

Not trying to pile on, honest, but this really hits the mark for me:

(Though he is probably unfairly slandering many--well, some anyway-- supermodels)

By the way, did anyone else get creeped out by the way that some of the pools of water, and rocks, in the opening landscape flyovers resembled something like a squid or octopus, with the darkened pools as blank, staring eyes?

OK, maybe just me, but I loved that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognizant 

 

What's going on here?

 Studio suits in charge who hate film.  But love money.  I think that's been the primary problem with Hollywood for a long time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Also, why would Shaw and the rest think they had already left if all of the vehicles were still there?  Did they think Fifield and Milburn headed back to the ship on foot?

The big APC-looking thing was driving away, so I guess they assumed Fifield and Milburn were on board.  But yeah, I don't see how those two got lost when everyone else got out with no problems.  Hell, all it would take is something as simple as the hallways shifting to force them in a different direction.  But nope, they're just stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 

I think the biggest WFT moment for me was Janek and his co pilots (?) sacrificing themselves just based on Shaw's observations. Talk about character moments that aren't earned.
 

We kept seeing these significant shots of that other crewman, the non-Asian side of the bet, but he never says a word.  And then suddenly we're supposed to be moved by these two old friends deciding to sacrifice themselves out of the blue.  It's crazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognizant 

So, an extended cut coming to bluray (said so, people owe me $1000 in Monopoly money).  Rather than continue to bash Ridley for pushing onwards with a lame script (maybe like Weyland he thought he didn't have much time for another redraft, so just said: "fuck it, roll camera!"), how about we veer the discussion more towards asking why studios continually prevent him from releasing ideal versions of his films?

Again, please point out where Scott was forced by the studio to release this version of the film.  Are we so eager to keep his reputation untarnished that anything wrong with this film has to be the fault of shadowy hooded figures deep in the bowels of Fox?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smugbug 

I totally got that.  I got that his two pilots and he had been through a lot of missions before and they were gonna stay near their captain until the end.  I got that. 

I got it too.  The problem was, I didn't feel it.  It's a perfectly understandable, perfectly empty moment.

Am I the only who thought, as Shaw and David Head were sailing away in the Engineer ship, "are there bathrooms in that thing?"  Are there such things as intergalactic rest stops for when Shaw needs to tinkle? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

The big APC-looking thing was driving away, so I guess they assumed Fifield and Milburn were on board.  But yeah, I don't see how those two got lost when everyone else got out with no problems.  Hell, all it would take is something as simple as the hallways shifting to force them in a different direction.  But nope, they're just stupid.

Hmm, I guess one of the unnamed crew was the driver and he just waited while everyone went inside.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognizant 

So, an extended cut coming to bluray (said so, people owe me $1000 in Monopoly money).  Rather than continue to bash Ridley for pushing onwards with a lame script (maybe like Weyland he thought he didn't have much time for another redraft, so just said: "fuck it, roll camera!"), how about we veer the discussion more towards asking why studios continually prevent him from releasing ideal versions of his films?

I mean he's not David fucking Lynch, or David Lean, his movies aren't drastically long or full of fucked up shit, in fact he's pretty mainstream friendly, so I'm struggling to understand this hesitance to just let him do his thing.  The idea that he's 100% in control of his productions all the time and has clout to do whatever he pleases is bullshit in my opinion.  Yeah he has a lot of influence compared to most directors, but he's seemingly had an antagonistic relationship with studios forever.  Kingdom of Heaven in particular was shred to bits, when you'd think at that point in his career he'd have 'clout'.  

There are too many extended cuts of his films, and quite a few drastically improve on the theatrical.  In his latest interview he babbles on briefly about art v commerce, but it's like he doesn't want to piss his financiers off so he just sounds incoherent.

What's going on here?

I think the combination of his track record, talent and profesionalism makes him the ideal director for most studios; actors seem to be always interested in work with him, and he has huge "nerd cred", so to speak.

However, him working through his own production company (Scott Free), his perfectionism and control issues mean he's a director studios have to compromise and reach deals with when it comes to theatrical cuts and so on; Scott has been through enough unpleasantness in his career to be a hardass AND know how to deal with executives/producers (for example, i think i once read his comittment to practical effects over CGI has caused some problems with studios), so the worst case scenario with him is having a working, solid theatrical release and a DC version on the home market, which most studios and executives i suppose can live with.

Look at the guy's track record; Alien, Blade Runner, Black Rain, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven DC, Black Hawk Down, even the smaller and less succesful works like Kingdom of Heaven GI Jane, White Squall, A Good Year, Body of Lies and the rest are solid, working movies that studios can rely on.

The guy isnt a visionary/manical director with his own style and vision he imposes on his films, but rather a practical, dependable and profesional director whose style is grandiose and visually impecable; like i said before, they guy knows how to work the studio system, and whatever pride/demands the studio has to abandon in order to have him are usually worth it.

Extended Cut isn't the same as Director's Cut. From all intents and purposes, the theatrical release IS his Director's Cut. This isn't a Kingdom of Heaven where the film was cut to shit or Blade Runner where the studio added narration. This "extended cut" seems to be a case of little character moments here and there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognizant 

So, an extended cut coming to bluray (said so, people owe me $1000 in Monopoly money).  Rather than continue to bash Ridley for pushing onwards with a lame script (maybe like Weyland he thought he didn't have much time for another redraft, so just said: "fuck it, roll camera!"), how about we veer the discussion more towards asking why studios continually prevent him from releasing ideal versions of his films?

I mean he's not David fucking Lynch, or David Lean, his movies aren't drastically long or full of fucked up shit, in fact he's pretty mainstream friendly, so I'm struggling to understand this hesitance to just let him do his thing.  The idea that he's 100% in control of his productions all the time and has clout to do whatever he pleases is bullshit in my opinion.  Yeah he has a lot of influence compared to most directors, but he's seemingly had an antagonistic relationship with studios forever.  Kingdom of Heaven in particular was shred to bits, when you'd think at that point in his career he'd have 'clout'.  

There are too many extended cuts of his films, and quite a few drastically improve on the theatrical.  In his latest interview he babbles on briefly about art v commerce, but it's like he doesn't want to piss his financiers off so he just sounds incoherent.

What's going on here?

And where is it stated that any studio has "prevented" him from releasing what he wants?  He has full control, and makes the cuts himself.  I mean, he's not new to this.  He knows what an acceptable running time is, and what "pace" is. 

I will never buy the argument that he makes these stunning works, and the evil studio cuts it all away.  No, he get's a script, films what he films, and pieces the film together the way he wants.  Only after everyone tells him that there is problems, does he go back to redo it.  Stop making it sound like he is getting the bums rush.  He makes his own calls, I mean, THE FILM GOT AN R RATING!!!!  That tells you how much control he has. 

But, I could be wrong.  If only he and his brother had thier own production company!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Again, please point out where Scott was forced by the studio to release this version of the film.  Are we so eager to keep his reputation untarnished that anything wrong with this film has to be the fault of shadowy hooded figures deep in the bowels of Fox?

I'm going by dodgy memory here, but Scott was continually asked in interviews in the months leading to release about the film's rating, as if everyone already knew he was going to have a fight on his hands regardless of his stature as a director, and he kept evading the issue with platitudes, and then finally just before release said we would be seeing his ideal version.  And then we get an announcement of an extended cut, and a rambling speech about art v commerce.  I mean doesn't the existence of an extended cut in the first place show that he didn't get his way entirely?  I'm sure some of the 20 minutes of footage that will be in the extended cut will have our heads scratching and asking "why was this cut?"

I'm not saying the dude is infallible, nobody is, and Scott's been quite uneven the last ten years with his output, but I am saying that the studios pick on him for some reason I can't figure out.  This guy has left a worthy legacy, and at the same time his films aren't that hard to digest for mainstream audiences and so I feel that truncating his films makes no sense.

But anyway, we're just dudes typing away at our keyboards without any info, I don't know what's going on behind the scenes.  It just strikes me odd that he keeps releasing extended cuts of his most ambitious films when you'd think studios would just let him do whatever he wants.  Dude's gonna be 75, he's earned it.  Even if you think Prometheus is shit, you'd rather see it crash and burn spectacularly with everything he filmed up there on the big screen, than this cut-up version we got.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Also, why would Shaw and the rest think they had already left if all of the vehicles were still there?  Did they think Fifield and Milburn headed back to the ship on foot?

Really, they couldn't be bothered to do a simple head count?

Other random things that make no sense:

I have a hard time believing that a corporation that spent a trillion dollars on an expedition this important would hire a hot head mohawked tatooed dick of a geologist.  Is this guy really the best in his field?  "I'm just here to make money".....uh, kind of doubt it.

Why would the "Engineers" leave the humans maps in the form of cave paintings containing directions to a military storage facility full of biological doomsday goo?

The movie made a big point to show the really cool bronze heavy space suits in the background of about 10 shots.  Why the hell did no one ever get into and used the really cool bronze heavy space suits?

As has been stated before, why did the guy want to touch the creepy albino cobra-worm snake with the ass-vagina for a face?  It was dangerous looking from the get go......Was this a Croc hunter guy joke?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smugbug 

 

 

Well, it was suppose to be more about Janek.  That was Janek's big character change from a "paid company man" to someone who gave a shit.  Granted, the change was happening after Shaw told him how many of those cylinders were in that ship and knowing what the content of those cylinders were.  That little moment between him and Shaw (after he c-section), his exposition on what that planet was - all this lead him to the realization of what he needed to do once the Engineer's vessel left the ground.  

 

I totally got that.  I got that his two pilots and he had been through a lot of missions before and they were gonna stay near their captain until the end.  I got that. 

I get that it could've been something. But considering how so little is understood throughout the film, we only believe that Shaw knows what she's talking about because it wouldn't be a movie if she's weren't right. In reality, with the evidence at hand, nobody would know for sure what motivation is driving those Space Jockey's. That could have been simply solved from David's fast learning of their language. But even the Space Jockey keeps quiet when David starts talking to it.

I guess my point is, Janek is learning things from a fucking ship. He's not out there in the field. He's relying on cameras and rummaging thoughts from other characters and we're supposed to buy that he would end his life because of that. Not to mention, as someone said above, his buddies who seemed all to willing just to toss their souls in the wind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognizant 

 

I'm going by dodgy memory here, but Scott was continually asked in interviews in the months leading to release about the film's rating, as if everyone already knew he was going to have a fight on his hands regardless of his stature as a director, and he kept evading the issue with platitudes, and then finally just before release said we would be seeing his ideal version.  And then we get an announcement of an extended cut, and a rambling speech about art v commerce.  I mean doesn't the existence of an extended cut in the first place show that he didn't get his way entirely?  I'm sure some of the 20 minutes of footage that will be in the extended cut will have our heads scratching and asking "why was this cut?"

Unless all these missing character and plot scenes featured full frontal nudity from the entire cast while buckets of gore poured forth from every corner of the screen, the cuts had dick-all to do with the film's rating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smugbug 

Am I the only who thought, as Shaw and David Head were sailing away in the Engineer ship, "are there bathrooms in that thing?"  Are there such things as intergalactic rest stops for when Shaw needs to tinkle? 

I don't even know how they flew the ship. Even if David somehow figured out how to make it fly to the engineers' home planet, who's going to sit in the pilot's chair? None of them seem the right size. And if you don't have to sit in it, what was the jockey/engineer doing there? If Shaw is in one of the cryochambers, that means that David's head must control the ship. I also find it kind of funny imagining Shaw dragging David's body and head a couple of miles to another ship, then going back to the rescue pod to get supplies and bring them back to the ship again. But if she would have done that she should have met the alien, so... Yeah.

Back to the original idea of the space jockey and it's bomber ship in Alien.

Anyone else think they could have went outside the box, and have Weyland Co, learn about the Alien, and Engineers plan to use them agianst us

Only for Weyland Co to want this creature, not for money and greed, but to study and learn about it, to prevent a future attack?

Maybe us obtaining it, and engineering it would cause a relation between us and them, like the USSR and the USA.  Mutual destruction.

All along, WY wanted this thing to save us, and that is the reason it was top priority. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

 

Unless all these missing character and plot scenes featured full frontal nudity from the entire cast while buckets of gore poured forth from every corner of the screen, the cuts had dick-all to do with the film's rating.

that was the GRR Martin cut of the film. 

I'm a manned space flight proponent, but David is so advanced you wonder why there are any humans in this mission. Is it because there are very few of him?

He can conduct experiments, figure out how alien technology operates, figure out their language, act as a doctor, doesn't need cryo sleep, doesn't need space suits, etc. I know, a movie full of androids wouldn't be as interesting so I get that, but I felt they could have been a bit more creative with his use. 

His character doesn't make full sense but you can't deny he's the most fun. He mind rapes the crew while they sleep, is a fan of cinema, conducts dangerous experiments for shits and giggles, and like to mess around with dangerous alien technology pushing buttons without know what they do while putting everybody in the expedition in danger. They should have just forgotten about "space jockeys" and aliens and just made a movie about David messing up some random space exploration movie.

Replace Data with David and do a remake of ST:NG, that would be a fun movie/series!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jexxon 

 then going back to the rescue pod to get supplies and bring them back to the ship again. But if she would have done that she should have met the alien, so... Yeah.

I mentioned it early, but for some reason I thought I remembered a scene where she was already packing supplies from that ship ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackson 

The movie made a big point to show the really cool bronze heavy space suits in the background of about 10 shots.  Why the hell did no one ever get into and used the really cool bronze heavy space suits?

I noticed them too, but I think the answer is those suits are to be used for EVA's in the vacuum of outer space. On a planet with Earth-similar atmospheric pressure they wouldn't be needed. Which again makes you wonder why they were so prominently displayed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 

I get that it could've been something. But considering how so little is understood throughout the film, we only believe that Shaw knows what she's talking about because it wouldn't be a movie if she's weren't right. In reality, with the evidence at hand, nobody would know for sure what motivation is driving those Space Jockey's. That could have been simply solved from David's fast learning of their language. But even the Space Jockey keeps quiet when David starts talking to it.

 

I guess my point is, Janek is learning things from a fucking ship. He's not out there in the field. He's relying on cameras and rummaging thoughts from other characters and we're supposed to buy that he would end his life because of that. Not to mention, as someone said above, his buddies who seemed all to willing just to toss their souls in the wind.

And pow wow moments between the essential characters, discussing strategy, etc.  I hate to compare this to Alien, but aw well, here goes:  in Alien, there were very important crew pow wow moments.  After Kane's death, after Brett's and before Dallas' disappearance and after Dallas' disappearance.  These helped to create more character cohesion and moved the story foreword.

In Prometheus - there was one essential pow wow moment.  And that was between Shaw and Janek.  Besides the one where Vickers introduces herself and the primary objective is discussed.  That's it.  For a mission that's costing trillions of dollars, that doesn't seem right.  And from my experience, engineers/tech heads are about meeting and planning.  This seems rather odd for a group of scientists.  There are whole swaths of this film where all of them are acting on their own.

I mean, why didn't Janek meet with Vickers, Shaw, etc. and discuss his assumptions and so on.  And this is ultimately what bugged the crap out of me with Stargate: SGU.  How the crew never trusted or refused to work with each other.  And that's a low-end TV series.  I didn't expect that in this movie. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica 

 

I mentioned it early, but for some reason I thought I remembered a scene where she was already packing supplies from that ship ...

She did.   It looked like from sort of vending machine contraption in the pod.  This was right before she heard a noise off camera and grabbed the ax before exploring the source of that noise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

 I think the main reason I'm not really angry at this movie is that while I was an engaged, thoughtful observer, many of the potential holes and whatnot people have brought up didn't occur to me while watching. That, to me, is a sign that your film has succeeded.

All it's succeeded at doing is distracting people with visuals to cover up the bad script...like the majority of modern Hollywood blockbusters.  Scott is exceedingly good at that. 

And the plot holes don't go away just because they didn't bother you.  They exist, and are a mark against the film.  We're not making this stuff up.

I'm not slamming you at all, I just took issue with the claim that the film has succeeded because certain people don't mind or notice the very obvious holes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackson 

I have a hard time believing that a corporation that spent a trillion dollars on an expedition this important would hire a hot head mohawked tatooed dick of a geologist.  Is this guy really the best in his field?  "I'm just here to make money".....uh, kind of doubt it.

Well, it's a secret expedition that they didn't reveal to the guys they hired.  I'm thinking they didn't get the best, but whomever would sign up for a mission they know nothing about.  The best probably totally them to screw off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smugbug 

Something occurred to me early this morning.  I can't get this film out of my head, btw.  Anyways, the scene where the Fifield/Monster is outside the ship.   He's sitting/crouching very similarly like the Alien was in Alien, right before it strikes Lambert.  As a matter of fact, that scene in Prometheus is similar to the scene in Alien with Lambert.  Except, of course, minus the tail.  

yeah, it's like a little homage to the excised crab walk.  And it did look really weird and creepy.  It would have looked even better had they gone for the fully mutated Fifield design, rather than ,mutated throwback effort.

hIn fact, there's heaps in this like stuff the he had to cut from Alien.  I know in Alien they had a scene with Ripley and Lambert, Rip asking Lambert if she'd ever slept with Ash.  That was cut for pacing, but Ridley always said he wanted to explore the "lax attitudes to sex" in the future. Cue Theron/elba scene.

There are lots of little dialogue twists as well (the aforementioned "we are leaving" being one of them).  I liked the reversal at the end "Elsiabeth, can you hear me?", "Yes, I can hear you" reverse on Ash/Ripley.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

It is colossally stupid. It is stupid in small ways and stupid in large ways. Moreover, it is stupid in a way only a stupid movie that thinks it's deep can be stupid. Narratively it's MST3K material, but Devin has a point when he says it's best taken as a visual experiment. It is extremely flashy and smooth big-movie science-fiction moviemaking, made with big toys and big money. As a tone poem about hostile environments and inhumanity, it might just about hang together. But it's so distant in every way from the quality of Alien that the comparison is embarrassing.

So...what we're saying (and please note: I don't disagree with anything Martin's written here) is that PROMETHEUS is this years' SUCKER PUNCH?

The parallels are disturbingly clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica 

I'm a manned space flight proponent, but David is so advanced you wonder why there are any humans in this mission. Is it because there are very few of him?

If you're going to meet your creator, you don't send a proxy.

Although a film about a human creation meeting humanity's creator could be interesting.  Sort of, "Look what they did, can they join the club now?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

 

So...what we're saying (and please note: I don't disagree with anything Martin's written here) is that PROMETHEUS is this years' SUCKER PUNCH?

 

The parallels are disturbingly clear.

Shouldn't that be directed to the Watchmen enthusiasts in the thread? (No offense to them-- I like about half of Watchmen myself)

But in all seriousness, both are ambitious films with failed narratives and impressive visuals, so there's that. But at least Prometheus had moments that kept me intrigued or interested (even if they never really panned out); Sucker Punch never even managed that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

 

If you're going to meet your creator, you don't send a proxy.

 

Although a film about a human creation meeting humanity's creator could be interesting.  Sort of, "Look what they did, can they join the club now?"

Or more importantly, it might end up making for a very boring movie. I'll admit, it's one of those points that it might make more sense in the real world but it would suck for a movie. It does feel though that the Androids in this universe are not used in the best possible ways though.

BTW, what you mention did happen in the end, the first being the Engineer interacts with is David ... and as I had mentioned in a previous page, it seemed to me that the alien was freaked out by David. Maybe because it signaled how much we had advanced (besides the fact that we mastered deep space travel?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

 

If you're going to meet your creator, you don't send a proxy.

Among other things, he might get his head ripped off.

I didn't necessarily mean an android from this particular franchise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I didn't necessarily mean an android from this particular franchise.

Yes, I did get that. Sorry if that appeared unduly flippant (the appropriate level of flippancy can be hard to gauge).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeb 

 

Shouldn't that be directed to the Watchmen enthusiasts in the thread? (No offense to them-- I like about half of Watchmen myself)

 

But in all seriousness, both are ambitious films with failed narratives and impressive visuals, so there's that. But at least Prometheus had moments that kept me intrigued or interested (even if they never really panned out); Sucker Punch never even managed that.

 Yeah, I think PROMETHEUS wins by having characters that more closely resemble actual human beings (including, ironically, the android!). But Martin's post really pointed out the similarities in the film's strengths and weaknesses.

May I add that the ultra facehugger at the end is a truly horrifying nightmare? A typical facehugger is already the worst thing ever and the queen facehugger from Alien 3 was something else

you want that in your shower?

But Shaw's baby can fold around you like drapes. And it has multiple vaginas, eyes and I don't even wanna know how far that tube goes down the throat.

Movie will probably be the ultimate blast for every tentacle hentai lover.

Regarding the Sucker Punch comparison, Scott is also a better director than Snyder (who I like) even at his worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smugbug There are whole swaths of this film where all of them are acting on their own.

 

That's why it feels so meandering to me. Especially if you have characters you don't know much about. They kill off ones who had potential to be something. I wanted to see more of Spall's character, but that doesn't mean that I felt for his death. He's a sketch. All of these characters (aside from David) are sketches and not full on portrait drawings we can hang on our wall and admire. Shaw and Janek both had loads of potential too. Vickers was a nothing to me. And poor Guy Pearce. At least it's a testament to that actor that he can rise above oddly inauthentic make-up. But even the actors feel confused about what their motivations seem to be.

What about that one moment when Janek told them he was picking up a life form? How confusing was that small moment? Was he joking? Was Ridley not giving us the information to decide if he was? It's small stuff like that when I'm like, what's going on and why does it feel wrong that I don't get it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackson 

I have a hard time believing that a corporation that spent a trillion dollars on an expedition this important would hire a hot head mohawked tatooed dick of a geologist.  Is this guy really the best in his field?  "I'm just here to make money".....uh, kind of doubt it.

It feels like Scott wanted a more scientifically minded crew this time around, but he also wanted to stubbornly stick with that 'blue collar working class' vibe from Alien.  Doesn't work at all.  

On the Nostromo, everyone's roles were clearly defined: captain, science officer, warrant officer, navigator, techs.  Its such a simple thing, and even though those guys were essentially truckers, space travel is a big (and very expensive) deal and everyone on the Nostromo, even the schlubby 'lets make some money' guys, treat it as such.  The crew is just a fucking mess in Prometheus.  As characters, they're barely there, but most of them don't even have a reason to be part of this crew beyond the script calling for a third act body count.

Probably sounds like nitpicking, and comparing to Alien is probably unfair, but this seems like such an easy, obvious fix to me.  Cut down on crew members; give the remaining ones something to do; show them doing it.  Its not going to correct all those 'big ideas' that are constantly being fumbled, but at least on some basic level, Prometheus might work as a sci-fi horror movie.