Prometheus

[bstiff]

Either that, or David is more human than we thought, he just turned out to be a dick :)


i think at least part of davids motivation for infecting charlie stemmed from their conversation they had about the engineers/creators earlier. It was something along the lines of:

david: Why did your kind create me?

Charlie:Because we could.

David Imagine how disappointed you'd be if your creators told you that.

Charlie good thing you can't feel disappointment

Even before they landed there seemed to be some animosity toward David from Charlie stopping just short of calling him pinnochio a couple times. It seemed Davids decision to infect Charlie was an attempt to get back at someone who had been a source of irritation for a while and he did it because he could knowing that it likely couldn't be traced back to him. In addition, David David seemed a little creepy towards Shah so David may have perceived Charlie as a rival and decided to eliminate him for that reason as well. Maybe Im reading too much into David's actions. I dunno.

[Vermillion]

Maybe this (the bad reviews) mean del Toro will do his movie.

What bad reviews? This thing is averaging a 74% on rottentomatoes and 75% user feedback. That's hardly bad reviews. Hell, Ebert gave it a perfect. That puts it in the top 20 of movie reviews for the year, including all those indy films that no one watches.

The "this is horrible" crowd is really over exaggerating.

[Narradisall]

I've yet to see anyone call the film horrible.

#Edit - Actually, glancing over the 'rotten' reviews. It seems split between those people that went in with high expectations, those that were expecting aliens 'the prequel' and those that didn't get how jumbled it was.

Most seem to think it was good, boarding on greatness, but ultimately falling short.

[Krispy]

The fact that you have to write 8 paragraphs explaining the motivations of characters shows a complete failure of storytelling. It reminds me of when I ran a Resident Evil website. We would just discuss ways to fill in plot holes that explained the crazy actions and motivations of characters that was really due to terrible writing. Granted we had a lot of fun taking it seriously, but just that one can rationalize all the motivations given enough paper and ink does not excuse the movie's weak script.

[Blue]

I guess. Though for someone who didn't need the 8 paragraphs, I don't see a storytelling failure. Different strokes.

[Vermillion]

Agree with Blue. I didn't need the 8 paragraphs. I didn't have any real questions about this that and the other after the movie. Obviously some people did. Whether that was poor story telling, or people not having the capability to make their own dot-to-dot connections without being spoon fed every nuance, is I guess open for debate. Personally, I enjoy movies that don't treat me like I'm stupid and allow me to fill in some gaps with whatever my imagination can come up with.

And your 8 paragraph remark is off base. I know plenty of people who needed entire essays to understand Inception (plot, character motivation, ending). That movie, arguably, is an extremely well written and well directed movie. It's just complicated and some people didn't "get it" all.

I'm not arguing this is a masterpiece. It's not. Few movies are. This is just pretty good. Is it everyone's cup of tea? No. Could it use a more well rounded directors cut? Yes (few movies don't). Do I need one to be satisfied? No.

[Krispy]

Well, I actually think Inception has really poor writing. Like some of the most overhyped writing in history. :)

Also, I believe there is a stark difference between treating someone like they are stupid and leaving motivations unexplained. They do not entail one another in either direction. But I haven't seen the flick so I won't get my antlers too tangled on this one.

[Krispy]

I guess. Though for someone who didn't need the 8 paragraphs, I don't see a storytelling failure. Different strokes.

Funny, people said the same thing on my Resident Evil website. I guess ol' Resident Evil had some pretty sharp writing by extension. :) Different strokes indeed!

[Blue]

And you're right, there is. I think it boils down to a matter of taste though. I don't really want David's motivations explained. I like that there are traces of them but there's room for different viewers to connect different dots. Honestly, I enjoy that many of the characters were like that. While I don't disagree that some direction is good (though I believe that already exists in Prometheus), I certainly don't want to be spoon fed either.

There were enough crumbs of characterization that I was easily able to make up my own mind over David's reasonings, Meredith's, even Dr. Shaw's and when I walk out of a movie discussing it with friends over what they saw versus what I saw, that's not a bad thing.

[Blue]

Funny, people said the same thing on my Resident Evil website. I guess ol' Resident Evil had some pretty sharp writing by extension. :) Different strokes indeed!

You're being intentionally daft, which is helpful.

[Zero]

It's the classic internet exaggeration trap.

People who expected it to be the absolute greatest movie saw it and it wasn't. They say "Decent, but not the greatest." People who still haven't seen it but still expect it to be the absolute greatest movie ever say "You're all just haters. It IS the absolute greatest." And so on and on. I'm actually really glad my expectations are tempered now.

[Krispy]

Ah Blue, I'm just elbow jabbin' you. I'll take your words with me when I walk into the movie theater and see how it strikes me. But I think this is a solid principle to stand by: If characters do things and the audience can't make sense of what they are doing or why then there was a failure in communication between the creators and the audience. In fact, I can go back to any movie you love and make it not follow this principle by taking scenes out. I'm willing to bet money no one will prefer my obfuscated version. I'm willing to bet money they will just feel lost and frustrated because important information seems to be missing. Kind of like what people are reporting about Prometheus.

[Zero]

Well, I actually think Inception has really poor writing. Like some of the most overhyped writing in history. :)



I completely agree with this statement. The first half is so unbelievably lazy.

[Krispy]

My suspicion is that Nolan's brother (who has the main writing credit for all his other movies) is the real writing talent and Nolan is a better idea man than actual screenwriter.

[Blue]

Ah Blue, I'm just elbow jabbin' you. I'll take your words with me when I walk into the movie theater and see how it strikes me. But I think this is a solid principle to stand by: If characters do things and the audience can't make sense of what they are doing or why then there was a failure in communication between the creators and the audience. In fact, I can go back to any movie you love and make it not follow this principle by taking scenes out. I'm willing to bet money no one will prefer my obfuscated version. I'm willing to bet money they will just feel lost and frustrated because important information seems to be missing. Kind of like what people are reporting about Prometheus.

Wait, you haven't seen it yet? You're killin' me.

I think that if things are so terribly vague that people just walk out baffled I totally agree with you. That isn't the case here. While I don't think anyone will be able to definitely point to a scene and say "here is why so-and-so is doing X", that just isn't a failure in my mind. I honestly can't imagine a crucial scene missing that lines everything into a beautiful row. In fact, if there is such a scene or handful of them, I think the movie will be weaker because of it. Completely removing scenes blindly to make it confusing is a different thing altogether than not leading a viewer down a direct path. What you're arguing isn't even applicable here.

I saw it with four people. I had one who didn't care for it, one who was neutral, and myself and another who really enjoyed it. None of us were confused. My interpretation of characters was different than the people I went with, but no one came out completely at a loss for what was going on. That's just something I don't personally understand.

[Krispy]

I'm a natural born killer.

There are people in this very thread that have expressed that opinion, though. And I have seen it echoed all over. It's not so farfetched. So I guess my question is, what do you say to these people? I'll have to see what I think when I see it, but I might very well be in the camp of, "huh?" Let me see if I can understand your position. You would say, "You should pay more attention to the subtleties of the characters and infer their motivations instead of waiting for them to be spelled out for you. There is no one scene that will explain anyone's motivations, but you are given sufficient character descriptions to figure it out for yourself." Is that right?

(I guess it's not really relevant so I will bracket this bit off as an aside: I wouldn't have to remove scenes blindly. I could do it with surgical accuracy. For example, let's say I remove all hints as to why Ripley goes back into the ship at the end of Alien. Not blind at all and not at all for the sheer intent of confusion. But, I wonder how many people would be on board with the character in those last moments instead of just yelling at the film for having characters do stupid things without understanding why.)

[Vermillion]

I pray Krispy is joking about implying he hasn't seen it.

If he's bitching based on what other people have said without having seen it himself, well there are special circles in hell for people like that. I think they play Transformers and Sucker Punch on continuous loops there.

Thought game. In Alien, they never out right explained why Ripley goes back to try to turn off the self destruct system. It's implied that the alien is in her way and she can't get to the escape hatch so she thinks she needs to buy more time. However, she doesn't get it shut off and still has time to go back to get in the ship. Is that poor writing?

Is it crap writing that Ripley goes back for Jonsie? Where is the motivation for that? Jonsie was completely glossed over as a character. What was his back story? Why did Ripley feel the need to risk her life to save him? Especially in light that the alien had killed every other crew member on the ship. Jonsie didn't have any skills that made him necessary to escape the ship or pilot the escape shuttle. In case you don't remember, Jonsie IS A FUCKING CAT.

[Krispy]

I pray Krispy is joking about implying he hasn't seen it.

If he's bitching based on what other people have said without having seen it himself, well there are special circles in hell for people like that. I think they play Transformers and Sucker Punch on continuous loops there.

I've said it outright about four times now. I think I could come to like this special Hell. :)

If you find it so outrageous, consider it a discussion about a general storytelling principle and not specifically about Prometheus, because that is what it is worth to me.

[National Kato]

The audience I was with cheered at the end of the film, and that doesn't happen much anymore. I talked with about 5 people afterwards (not with me) and they all understood the film just fine.

I'm actually confused by some of the comments against the film in this thread. Yes, they left some questions unanswered - as they should - but many questions from previous films I feel were answered.

Then again, I also thought Krispy had already seen it by the way he was talking it down.

[Blue]

I'd say that's mostly my stance. I truth, I don't think it's a matter of people should pay more attention since I hate that line of thought as it seems arrogant since I myself didn't pay attention like a superstar. Just seems to be more a matter of what people like out of things. For me, I was satisfied at the hints of their motivations versus explicit reasonings and enjoyed connecting my own through-lines. I'm sure others will want a little tightening which is just fine.

My only real quibble here is that openness equates poor writing. There is one thing in the film that I feel was a "ball drop". Nothing else struck me as completely unexplained.

[Krispy]

For what it is worth I have been properly shamed into buying a ticket for a viewing tonight. :D

Kato, sometimes I forget you are on my Facebook.

Blue, I can agree that openness does not equate to poor writing. Thank you for playing along. I will view the movie with those thoughts in mind and report back here.

[Vermillion]

Taking wagers on Krispy's stance after seeing the movie. I imagine...

http://www.balladofironpercy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/simpsons-comic-book-guy.jpg

[National Kato]

I bet response would be better if the amount of time we see Noomi in her bandage bra and panties was balanced by equal Charlize time in bandage bra and panties. Alas, that was not to be.

[Krispy]

Taking wagers on Krispy's stance after seeing the movie. I imagine...

http://www.balladofironpercy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/simpsons-comic-book-guy.jpg

How much are you wagering? I can make this worth your time. http://sdbits.org/pic/smilies/fun.gif

[Primus]

Conversely, I think a lot of people reach pretty far to excuse terrible storytelling when they want to like something.

I went in very optimistic, was expecting something along the lines of the original Alien. Simple, slow paced, but horrific. The first half of the film was just that. It was suspenseful and intriguing. Then when you start to get the "money-shot" so to speak, it just got really nonsensical and chaotic.

Ultimately, its superficially answers some questions (none of which really enrich the universe) while creating a dozen more, and there is just way too much room for interpretation. In the end you are left with about as much knowledge and questions as when you saw the first commercial for the movie.

Character motives, the purpose/ capabilities of the black goo, its connection to Alien, are all still very vague with no real road sign to even help you bring yourself to any conclusions. I saw it with a group of friends and none of us could agree on half the shit we thought we saw, and this wasn't philosophical arguing, it was arguing the writers intent. It was bad writing.

I say skip it if you are on the fence.

I just read this was written by the guy who created Lost. Explains so much.

[Krispy]

Okay, I gave the movie a fair shake, keeping everything Blue said in mind. Final verdict: The movie was very sloppy. It really broke my heart to watch it. I think that Avatar is a superior movie in almost every regard that has to do with storytelling.

Honestly, there weren't any "plot holes" in the sense of continuity contradictions. I mean, it had its continuity issues (magic ladder), but all movies do. Sure there are a lot of unexplained events, but as Blue said, that ain't so bad. And the unexplained events really had little to do with the main plot so no matter what the answer was it wouldn't change the arc of the characters (lulz what arc?). It was all the other stuff that fell a part. Character, dialogue, pacing, thematic motifs (do we really need another childish rehash of faith versus science?), science issues (this is science fiction right? not science fantasy?), realism issues (staples+lots of dope = super woman?), etc. Pretty much everything that had to do with the script.

I could go into detail, but Vermillion made it pretty clear that to do so would be most unwelcome and whinny. So instead I'll say what I did like about this.

The imagery was fantastic. Scott really knows how to craft a scene, and it showed in the trailer. Our imaginations were instantly captured by the terrifying and awesome imagery found in it and the full detail was no let down. Everything from ship design to creature design was very cool. My only complain there was a (I thought) an over reliance on CG.

I liked the character of David. He was interesting and well acted. I just wish he went through an actual ark instead of playing out exactly how he appeared. In the end he was a shallow character, but I liked the idea of David a lot.

The idea of stumbling onto a military base is pretty neat. I wish they did more with it, but it was a good seed for a film.

I am excited to see a gritty scifi horror be successful no matter its actual merits because I would love money doors to fly open for superior projects in the same genre.

The first 30 or so minutes had some good pacing. Really set a tone.


Oh, one last thing. I have seen members try to play down the validity of negative opinions of the movie as a whole by citing Rotten Tomatoes as if to say, "See, you are in the minority."

Let's recall what Rotten Tomatoes actually quantifies. It quantifies who hated the movie versus who did not hate the movie. The did not hate category includes everything from passable to best movie ever. So really what we learn is that 74% of reviewers did not hate Prometheus. And in fact that is a general consensus. Most people do not hate Prometheus, they just think it is okay. So how do we get a more accurate bearing? Well, let's cross reference with Metacritic which attempts to give a more granulated litmus. Here we learn it has a calculated score of 64%. Below average. This falls in line with anecdotal accounts. I think it is safe to say a significant pool of people find the movie significantly lacking as a film.

Edit: I completely agree with Primus.

[Narradisall]

Krispy - Have you actually even read some of the RT reviews? I just skimmed over, and even many of the 'fresh' reviews mirror "visually stunning if not drab".

As I'll echo from before, I don't think many people have said they hated the film, it was just ok. The "This is the greatest movie ever!" crowd seem to be the ones lacking any supporting evidence bar 'I loved it'.

(On a side note, reading RT seems to sum up previous points I have made, these are all fresh reviews)

Gorgeous, somewhat baffling, and not altogether unpleasant.


In a nutshell, the best thing about Prometheus can be summed up in two words: Michael Fassbender.

Alienation for some, ecstasy for others. Certain to reign as the best disappointment of 2012, Ridley Scott's Prometheus is a work whose visual splendor can't be denied but whose narrative content will divide audiences.


The ending isn't squishy scary or deeply satisfying. Bummer. Otherwise, Prometheus kicks ass so hard and often that it's impossible not to be thrilled by it.

It goes on and on. So yeah, I think Krispy and Primus are pretty much on the money. it's not a bad film at all, but it was just average with amazing visuals.

[OUX]

I think the biggest problem I have had with the movie is that you don't take anything away from it. Just giving you questions sucks and is either cowardly or bad writing. What was the point of the beginning, why did they make us, why did they want to kill us, why would an advanced alien races leave a god damn star map to a secret military installation, why would drinking a drop of the black goo that dissolves DNA make monster sperm instead of, you know, dissolving the DNA, why even dose the guy, why does an advanced alien race fight like a bouncer (seriously, there were no guns on that military ship?), SERIOUSLY why were there no guns on the science vessel a trillion dollars and 2 years of space travel into unknown reaches of space doesn't warrant a god damn missile or two, why does a WOMAN own an automated surgery pod that ISN'T calibrated for a woman, why would they even make such a thing (my guess it was an Apple), why could the android speak/read the language and control the computers but couldn't find a ship log, what was the point of the dexus ex machina holo recordings that conveniently popped up as plot points, why didn't they run SIDEWAYS, why did the two guys that LEFT to go to the ship get stuck in the pyramid, why would the zoologist stick his hand in the face of a completely alien animal, why would wyland bother pretending he wasn't on the ship (served 0 purpose)? There are more but that is of the top of my head. All in all you learn nothing about the IPs universe in 2 hours.

The more I think about it the more it seems like a completely shit movie.

[Primus]

I do want to go on record that I thought it was a bad film. Story, characterization, and directing are the three things that matter to me when it comes to judging movies, and in these regards this film utterly failed in two of the areas. It fucking broke my heart, as this was my most anticipated movie of the year.

OUX, your rant is EXACTLY the same questions I asked my friends, two of which liked the film and couldn't supply answers!

[Vermillion]

Krispy, I'm fine with you disliking it. If you have objective views as to why it wasn't your cup of tea, then explain away. But you went into it arguing it was going to be bad story telling before you even saw it, so it's hard for me to believe you were able to check all that at the door.

I just don't like the whole "it sucked, oh I know why, because someone from lost wrote it" (not your critique). Guy writes something you disapprove of, thus that means everything he writes must suck. Or the flip side that, this is produced by Ridley, so I expect it to be amazing. Give me a break. Take the names off the director, writer, etc and evaluate it on it's face. Saying you hate something that was produced/written by a person, means you aren't evaluating the movie you are evaluating the personalities behind it. I think that's lazy self justification.

But man, reading your critiques, it makes me wonder how often you get disappointed by movies, because few movies live up to that kind of level of scrutiny.

It's not perfect. Far from it. I haven't once said that people should run out and see it and have their minds blow. I said I gave it a B+. That's above average, not great. I had issues with the stupid baby monster as a plot device (which was major), the death of the captain, the sound editing, and a few other things. I still had fun. Like I said, I'm not defending it, just offering my interpretation of what I saw. If you think that equates to bad/horrible story telling to the point that you didn't like it, then I'm cool with that.

[National Kato]

Hidden for spoiler answers to OUX's questions:

What was the point of the beginning,

To show the beginning of life, and how the Engineers seed planets.

why did they make us,

Because they could? Seems this is something left to you to decide, as Noomi flies off in search of the answer at the end of the film.

why did they want to kill us,

Because something went wrong: possibly in order to improve upon their experiment, maybe because the host organism was too vulnerable and the xenomorphs would get out of hand, possibly because they needed to 'destroy in order to create' again. Again, the film wants you to think about it - as Noomi's character does the same in her continued search.

why would drinking a drop of the black goo that dissolves DNA make monster sperm instead of, you know, dissolving the DNA,

Considering you've never seen the effects of the goo on sperm prior to Charlie being infected, how do you know it doesn't do that, too? You're assuming in the wrong direction. It both dissolves the DNA and affects reproduction. Probably. We think. Because it did so once.

why even dose the guy,

Because Weyland's whole objective was to see if the stuff would give longevity to humans. It's the whole point of the movie, really, and so David has to 'try harder' and he picks the guy who's callous towards him. I don't know how they could've telegraphed this one any clearer for the audience.

why does a WOMAN own an automated surgery pod that ISN'T calibrated for a woman,

I've only seen the film once, but I swear it said that the specific procedure she initially requests was calibrated for a man, not the whole machine. Which is why she chooses another type of surgery in order to get it out. The audience I saw it with thought that bit was one of the bigger 'laughs' in the film, because the female procedure she chooses isn't 'calibrated for women.' Sort of black technological humor, but she finds another way.

what was the point of the dexus ex machina holo recordings that conveniently popped up as plot points,

To show that David can listen in on crew members' dreams as they sleep in cryo. To also later show that David is listening to Weyland's dreams as well and getting his directives from him. In much the same way that the original movie had the android Ash with ulterior objectives from Weyland Corp and access to MU-TH-UR.

why didn't they run SIDEWAYS,

You might as well ask every horror film why they go into the woods/cabin/basement/attic/etc. It's a movie, and if everyone played it safe it'd be dull and uneventful. The science team would never have gone into the ruins until they spent weeks/months scanning and researching it and the movie would've been 240+ hours of holo data and lab samples. Exciting!

why did the two guys that LEFT to go to the ship get stuck in the pyramid,

They got turned around and lost in their rush to get out. Plus, it helps the plot.

why would wyland bother pretending he wasn't on the ship (served 0 purpose)?

Letting everyone know would've begged questions he didn't want asked. Note how none of the standard crew knew why they were there (two guys placed bets, everyone else was in the dark except for the hand-picked members). This was all shown during the briefing. There are plenty of reasons for keeping the real mission a secret. The first two Alien films also had a secret Weyland mission component.

There are more but that is of the top of my head. All in all you learn nothing about the IPs universe in 2 hours.

You learned nothing, but most of your questions were simple to explain from my perspective. That may be the difference here. I had no problem understanding what went on in the film. There were questions that were left unanswered, but by no means to the extent you felt in the dark.

Ultimately, this is my opinion of the film and its plot. You may disagree, but that's alright with me. The film allows for audience participation in the unanswered areas. I like films that do that - I don't want everything spelled out in bold letters.

Let's keep in mind the initial reaction to Alien upon its 1979 release:

"empty bag of tricks whose production values and expensive trickery cannot disguise imaginative poverty" - Time Out

"basically just an intergalactic haunted house thriller set inside a spaceship" and one of several science fiction pictures that were "real disappointments" - Roger Ebert

:D

So, maybe time will be more kind for Prometheus as well, as people watch it again and again and start to understand pieces they missed.

[Vermillion]

On OuX's critique:

- No one said this was a military base. That was what everyone guessed it was. No one knows what this was. So, chalk that up to vague, bad story telling :)
- We send multi million/billion dollar science vessels out every day. Few of them have guns. What's his face is exploring where no human has ever been before on the bottom of the ocean. Pretty sure he didn't go down there with a few missiles just in case stuff got real. And what level of weapons would be sufficient for you to pack for an unknown engagement on a tiny little ship on the other end of the universe? Pretty sure a couple of missiles and wouldn't have been relevant if they ran into any kind of real resistance.
- They said a trillion dollar mission. Anyone want to wager what a trillion dollars is worth 100 years from now. Probably not as much as you'd imagine :)
- The healing pod being only geared for men. They said there were only a handful of those ever built. So if it was a failure as an initial, limited run build, why would they tailor it for very specific female functions? It's a trauma system. Pregnancy is not a traumatic event. Captain probably only had one because she was freaking second in command of Welyan inc. And the way she acted, worrying about having an emergency abortion in a lifeboat probably wasn't on her "plan for it" list. But I still think this was only there to handle the stupid baby monster, so I didn't like it's existence to begin with.
- The whole "why didn't they run sideways" argument. People don't think when they are running for their lives. You just act. Go look at what happened with that sociopath that killed all those kids at the youth camp. Read the accounts. People ran. You know what, some of those kids simply froze in place and couldn't move. He walked up and just shot them standing there. Why don't you yell at them for not running in a zig-zag pattern? Stop trying to apply logic to a fear situation.

Agree with some of the other points to an extent. Especially the guy trying to snake charm the alien. That was weak. So not going to debate with all those.

[OUX]

Hidden for spoiler answers to OUX's questions:



To show the beginning of life, and how the Engineers seed planets.



Because they could? Seems this is something left to you to decide, as Noomi flies off in search of the answer at the end of the film.



Because something went wrong: possibly in order to improve upon their experiment, maybe because the host organism was too vulnerable and the xenomorphs would get out of hand, possibly because they needed to 'destroy in order to create' again. Again, the film wants you to think about it - as Noomi's character does the same in her continued search.



Considering you've never seen the effects of the goo on sperm prior to Charlie being infected, how do you know it doesn't do that, too? You're assuming in the wrong direction. It both dissolves the DNA and affects reproduction. Probably. We think. Because it did so once.



Because Weyland's whole objective was to see if the stuff would give longevity to humans. It's the whole point of the movie, really, and so David has to 'try harder' and he picks the guy who's callous towards him. I don't know how they could've telegraphed this one any clearer for the audience.



I've only seen the film once, but I swear it said that the specific procedure she initially requests was calibrated for a man, not the whole machine. Which is why she chooses another type of surgery in order to get it out. The audience I saw it with thought that bit was one of the bigger 'laughs' in the film, because the female procedure she chooses isn't 'calibrated for women.' Sort of black technological humor, but she finds another way.



To show that David can listen in on crew members' dreams as they sleep in cryo. To also later show that David is listening to Weyland's dreams as well and getting his directives from him. In much the same way that the original movie had the android Ash with ulterior objectives from Weyland Corp and access to MU-TH-UR.



You might as well ask every horror film why they go into the woods/cabin/basement/attic/etc. It's a movie, and if everyone played it safe it'd be dull and uneventful. The science team would never have gone into the ruins until they spent weeks/months scanning and researching it and the movie would've been 240+ hours of holo data and lab samples. Exciting!



They got turned around and lost in their rush to get out. Plus, it helps the plot.



Letting everyone know would've begged questions he didn't want asked. Note how none of the standard crew knew why they were there (two guys placed bets, everyone else was in the dark except for the hand-picked members). This was all shown during the briefing. There are plenty of reasons for keeping the real mission a secret. The first two Alien films also had a secret Weyland mission component.



You learned nothing, but most of your questions were simple to explain from my perspective. That may be the difference here. I had no problem understanding what went on in the film. There were questions that were left unanswered, but by no means to the extent you felt in the dark.

Ultimately, this is my opinion of the film and its plot. You may disagree, but that's alright with me. The film allows for audience participation in the unanswered areas. I like films that do that - I don't want everything spelled out in bold letters.

Let's keep in mind the initial reaction to Alien upon its 1979 release:

"empty bag of tricks whose production values and expensive trickery cannot disguise imaginative poverty" - Time Out

"basically just an intergalactic haunted house thriller set inside a spaceship" and one of several science fiction pictures that were "real disappointments" - Roger Ebert

:D

So, maybe time will be more kind for Prometheus as well, as people watch it again and again and start to understand pieces they missed.

I appreciate the spark and vigor but look over your response and none of those are REALLY answers. When your story elements boil down to "Because." that is a bad sign. You do see the black goo though, the alien that drinks it at the beginning of the movie, it literally shows it dissolving DNA, I would have figured with as much as they talked about us having the same DNA it would have had a similar effect.

Making you "think" about major plot points is bad writing. Do I want everything spelled out no, I never said that, there should be things you have to figure out. You should think about motives, future choices, who was tricking who, did he really love her? Those kinds of things that are good to think about, not Who won World War II at the end of saving private ryan. (You know, if it wasn't common knowledge) It would be like if you were never told Darth Vader was Luke's father and just had to "think" about why Vader saved him at the end. Adams did it like a boss, "What is the answer to the meaning of life? 42." No nonsense or wishy-washy up to you to decide BS. The intent/interpretation of the answer should be the discussion. We should be discussing our opinions on the answer not what the answer actually is. Specifically, because if you have a creation you have a reason for it. The jaded answer of Because we could isn't true and it never has been. People build clocks because they need to keep track of time, breed horses to run faster and win races, etc. Always a purpose for a creation. Not giving the answer makes it flat and if you are going to be ballsy enough to flat out say that aliens created us you need to be ballsy enough to say "specifically they created us for X reason." Then we can bicker and argue about the reliability of the source, the intentions, the obvious cultural value differences between us and them and why their choices don't mean what we think they mean. This is a case of more is more. Anything less is a cop out.

I think they were going for "Lots of fucking money" and not a realistic price point prediction of inflation. Which is fine, but that much money and there is going to be SOMETHING to use to destroy a target outside the ship other than flying into it. An industrial mining laser, an escape pod filed with excavation explosives, just something. It would have even been better for me if the alien ship had just started to take off, turned blew them the hell up and then a cut away of 2,000 year old wiring sparking out and the ship crashing back to the planet.

Trying to force me to care about the generic black, asian, white guy (none of which you have any reason to care about, accept the black guy peer pressured Charlie into having sex so he is actually kind of a gross dick) that "take a stand" and sacrifice themselves by flying their ship into an alien ship bent on destroying the earth is lazy. If Randy-fucking-Quaid did it better than you?("Tell my children I love them") You should not do it in your movie.

And I don't disagree with any of those reviews from Alien. It is relevant and considered good now because of them building the universe and building the IP. If there had never been an Aliens, or Alien 3, or comics etc. Alien would just be regarded as a 30 year old shitty horror flick. But the movies came out and they gave us answers. Where did the eggs come from? How do they reproduce? I would say that every film in the universe has given a better understanding of the setting, but this one, just through out a bunch of cliched "what if" tropes and not concern itself with capturing your imagination because it just wants to capture your money. It is a money grab.

And people that live DO think when they run for their lives. I have had 50 foot trees fall toward me after cutting them down and I promise you I just jogged to the side and didn't scream and try to out sprint a thousand pounds of falling timber.

I forgot to add them so put them in as you see appropriate: ;);):D:p:mad::cool::eek::(:(:confused:

[bstiff]

why does a WOMAN own an automated surgery pod that ISN'T calibrated for a woman, why would they even make such a thing (my guess it was an Apple),

My impression afterwards was that it was never intended for her use in the first place.

[Krispy]

Look, I'll hang my pride up here. I was being an asshole using other people's words to argue against the movie before I saw it. I'm sorry. But let's assume that I am capable of objective analysis and just call me out if it looks like I am being unfairly biased.

But man, reading your critiques, it makes me wonder how often you get disappointed by movies, because few movies live up to that kind of level of scrutiny.


I don't know if this was intended for me, but if it was: No and erhmmm.

No, I am not disappointed often because I can normally sniff out the sloppy movies before I ever make it to the theater. But even so, I saw Transformers in theaters with my dad, was somewhat buzzed from the hype, and still had a better theater going experience than I did with Prometheus. Transformers was a much better put together film than Prometheus which is one of the sloppiest movies I have seen in a while. Granted, Prometheus is much more interesting, but my interest was constantly dashed with disbelief suspension crashing questions over and over and over.

Erhmmm, the second bit is complicated. Not all movies warrant that kind of scrutiny. For example, some movies don't take themselves seriously in which case I don't. Most movies have very simple themes and settings such that passing my "scrutiny" is pretty easy. Some movies are more about being honest than transporting you to another world and making you believe it so then these movies just have to sell me on their genuineness. But movies like Prometheus which takes themselves seriously and want to transport you to another world and make you believe it. They have it much harder, I admit. And even harder than say Star Wars which makes a point of telling you "This ain't your daddy's universe." Prometheus wants you to believe this is our universe with our laws of nature. And I didn't believe it.

Here is one of the biggest qualms I had:

The main woman has a tentacle rape baby inside of her and the crew learns that she is to be put into cryo. She escapes and attempts to run to a pod, but can't run because labor or the creature thrashing around (it isn't clear) is too painful. She gets to the pod which literally cuts open her abdomen and takes it out then staples her back together. *Note that she screams out in pain despite the anesthetic -- so much for modern medicine.* She then continues to dope herself up (that's what we are led to believe is in those syringes from before) and manages to run around with a ripped open abdomen for the next couple of hours. Hell, she jumps. She falls. SHE GETS PUNCHED. Look, when your abdominal muscles get cut in half, I don't care how many staples or super glue or amazing future dope you take. YOU CANNOT PHYSICALLY RUN. Your muscles are literally cut. Even so, coming off of post op anesthesia (no matter what kind of surgery) will make you extremely nauseous and cloudy. But the most perplexing bit is that the crew sees her again and everything is forgotten. No one even asks her what happened to the tentacle monster in her placenta. If it is still there. If it isn't, then where it is. No one seems to care. In fact, they are glad that she could join them! This passes as good storytelling?!

After all this, you might be cynically wondering why I even bother to go see movies if I am so critical. Well, as someone very wise told me, you only learn from the ones that fail. Even an ambitious movie that fails is worth seeing so that you don't make those same mistakes.

[Krispy]

And I don't disagree with any of those reviews from Alien. It is relevant and considered good now because of them building the universe and building the IP. If there had never been an Aliens, or Alien 3, or comics etc. Alien would just be regarded as a 30 year old shitty horror flick.

WOAH O____O. What the fuck?

[OrangePulp]

A few things:

I don't see any problem with the "because we/they could" answer. It seems to me that a theme of the movie is not getting the answers you want. It's laid out pretty clear in the scene with David and the guy. David wants the same sort of answers that the doctors do, and he can even easily communicate face-to-face with his creators. He still doesn't get them, or rather, get the answer that he wants.

And I disagree that everything we've made has a purpose; Sometimes things end up with a purpose later, once we figure out what they're good for, but a lot of discovery and invention comes from a "because we can/what happens if I do this" sort of attitude. And hell, if it's some sort of religious thing, which seems somewhat implied by some of the film's imagery, isn't that even more supportive? Often times things in religion aren't very rational, and don't have clear explanations.

As for the crew ignoring the chick's condition, part of that did feel kinda lazy. However, I also got the impression that not everyone knew; I doubt David went around telling them. The ones that were going to put her in cryosleep, were they in on the whole thing? They seemed to be taking care of Weyland later, so maybe they were working for him the whole time. But she was clearly cracked out afterwards, and there wasn't even a "What happened to you?" from the captain, who was one of the most normal, seemingly well adjusted characters.

As for the trauma pod, I assumed it was really there for Weyland, thus being calibrated for a male.

[Krispy]

Yeah, Orange. You really have to bend over backwards to fill the plot hole relating to her condition. Maybe there is a gas on the planet that makes people not notice obvious things! That would explain everything!

[bstiff]

WOAH O____O. What the fuck?

My reaction exactly. I had no idea Alien was such a flop when it came out.

Awards (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/awards)

Maybe they were easier on movies back then?

That's like saying if there had never been Godzilla vs Mothra, the original Godzilla would be a piece of crap.

[digitalErich]

This is an interesting take on the movie. (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8020546/prometheus-ridley-scott-blockbuster-alien-franchise) It argues that Prometheus is good by way of taking the entire Aliens franchise down half a peg.

[Psykoboy2]

So....anyone know what's happening on 10-11-12?

[OUX]

WOAH O____O. What the fuck?

There are literally dozens of just "ok" movies out there and a couple of them get the upgrade to commercial IPs because if there is no new material no one cares. Star Wars is around because of the 20 years of books and video games that came out after the Return of the Jedi, not because the movies were so good 20 years later people just had to have more. Same thing with Alien, it was an ok horror flick that got put on a pedestal because it birthed an amazing universe not because it was particularly amazing itself. It isn't a masterpiece, but it doesn't have to be. You can love things that aren't masterpieces and there are plenty of masterpieces that no one even likes. (That's right go fuck yourself The English Patient)

And did you actually read those awards you linked? 1 is for the actual movie (a Saturn award like anyone cares) the rest is just for fluff, special effects, musical score, and best DVD commentary.

I love the alien universe, watched the movies, played the games, read the comics, but just because you love something doesn't mean you can't be objective about it.

But I don't love Prometheus, I actually hate it and this god damn fad of shitty writing and hide the ball suspense that Lost ushered in.

[Krispy]

This is an interesting take on the movie. (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8020546/prometheus-ridley-scott-blockbuster-alien-franchise) It argues that Prometheus is good by way of taking the entire Aliens franchise down half a peg.

I can appreciate his enthusiasm, but I did not think the exploration of creationism themes was very mature in Prometheus. I actually thought some of the caricatures, such as the Biologist, were downright offensive in how simplifying they were.

[Krispy]

There are literally dozens of just "ok" movies out there and a couple of them get the upgrade to commercial IPs because if there is no new material no one cares. Star Wars is around because of the 20 years of books and video games that came out after the Return of the Jedi, not because the movies were so good 20 years later people just had to have more. Same thing with Alien, it was an ok horror flick that got put on a pedestal because it birthed an amazing universe not because it was particularly amazing itself. It isn't a masterpiece, but it doesn't have to be. You can love things that aren't masterpieces and there are plenty of masterpieces that no one even likes. (That's right go fuck yourself The English Patient)

Both Star Wars and Alien are examples of exemplary filmmaking. But don't take my word for it, go ask any film department... anywhere.

Alien's lasting critical praise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28film%29#Lasting_critical_praise)

Star Wars is often cited as a historical landmark in technical film making and used as an example of perfect movie pacing. I mean, Jesus. Just look at the list of names of people who cite Star Wars as their major cinematic influence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope#Cinematic_influen ce). Am I to believe a movie that no one would remember if it wasn't for merchandising would have this kind of immediate and long lasting impact on cinema at large?

And I thought I was cynical.

[OUX]

This is an interesting take on the movie. (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8020546/prometheus-ridley-scott-blockbuster-alien-franchise) It argues that Prometheus is good by way of taking the entire Aliens franchise down half a peg.

I just want to punch that guy in the head. Not out of anger, but I honestly think striking him in the head could restore cognitive function.

[OUX]

Both Star Wars and Alien are examples of exemplary filmmaking. But don't take my word for it, go ask any film department... anywhere.

Alien's lasting critical praise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28film%29#Lasting_critical_praise)

Star Wars is often cited as a historical landmark in technical film making and used as an example of perfect movie pacing.

And? It was an ok movie that people loved. And I never said Star Wars wasn't a good movie, there were plenty of good movies made in the 70's and 80's, but Star Wars and Alien were made great by their expanded universe. That is why they are still around and relevant. They struck sweet spots of their times and got huge. Star Wars released today would probably do worse than John Carter because they wouldn't have the Disney to give them even that bump. Alien released today would be a direct to DVD release.

[Krispy]

And? It was an ok movie that people loved. And I never said Star Wars wasn't a good movie, there were plenty of good movies made in the 70's and 80's, but Star Wars and Alien were made great by their expanded universe. That is why they are still around and relevant. They struck sweet spots of their times and got huge. Star Wars released today would probably do worse than John Carter because they wouldn't have the Disney to give them even that bump. Alien released today would be a direct to DVD release.

Oh, this paragraph implies that you are referencing Star Wars as a "just ok movie[s]".

There are literally dozens of just "ok" movies out there and a couple of them get the upgrade to commercial IPs because if there is no new material no one cares. Star Wars is around because of the 20 years of books and video games that came out after the Return of the Jedi, not because the movies were so good 20 years later people just had to have more. Same thing with Alien, it was an ok horror flick that got put on a pedestal because it birthed an amazing universe not because it was particularly amazing itself. It isn't a masterpiece, but it doesn't have to be. You can love things that aren't masterpieces and there are plenty of masterpieces that no one even likes. (That's right go fuck yourself The English Patient)

But more importantly your thesis seems to be that nobody remembers science fiction movies unless there is an expanded universe to constantly be fed. If that is true, you have a sorely narrow view of the world, my cynical friend.

[Psykoboy2]

Here's another analysis of the film (http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html#cutid1)....referencing, of all things, Doctor Who from the 70s.

[menage]

I can't believe Alien got called a shitty horror flick. It's one of the deepest most thought Scifi/horrors ever. I did a thesis on it, every fucking thing makes sense, even the freaking cat. And on a visual level it's one big briliant metaphor.

Aliens really was the lesser movie. Not entertainng wise maybe but it really didn't touch what Alien did. It just made it action instead of thriller/ horror.

[GunnyMo]

Just got back from the theater. It proves to me once again that nobody...nobody...makes intelligent sci-fi as well as Ridley Scott. Still too high from the film to talk coherently so I'll just post highlights for me and a couple questions:

1. I was thrilled to see that credit was given back to H.R. Gigier for the fantastic art design which gave us the Alien and the entire style of the series. He was screwed out of credit in 3 & 4. Thanks to Scott for correcting that grievous wrong.

2. Watching to the end of the credits was worth seeing the "Additional footage provided by the Weyland Corporation" statement. Geek cool.

3. I damn near lost it when the Engineer brought the navigation chair out of the floor. Fantastic.

4. One big question I have: what happened to the biologist that was the first person to be infected inside the giant head chamber? The ginger geologist came back to the ship but I don't remember seeing anything about the biologist. Did I miss something?

5. There was obviously another (or couple) Engineers (and possibly my missing biologist) alive in a stasis pod who tried to get the ship to leave a second time. He (or they) must have been the second host(s) for the Alien as it mutated from the giant face hugger to a more reasonable size. I'm also taking a guess that Alien which pops out of the first Engineer was a queen hence all of the eggs in Alien.

6. Due to my media blackout on the movie I was very happily surprised to see Noomi (from the Dragon Tattoo movies) in the lead role.

7. I thought Theron's death would have been better served at the hands of an Alien but it was still enjoyable.

8. Androids in this universe tend to be torn apart with great frequency. lol

9. I was tickled to see that the planet they were on was LV-426. I was a bit confused when the Engineer ship took off and the Prometheus set a course to take it down. I was thinking, "But it has to leave so it can crash on LV-426!" It was a nice reveal that I hadn't picked up on earlier.

10. I like how they set it up for at least one sequel (pre-sequel?) with Shaw flying off with David. I hope Ridley Scott takes the reigns of that one as well.

I'm sure there's more in my head but it will take a few hours to decompress and think straight once again.

[Krispy]

Gunny, it isn't the same planet.

[OUX]

Oh, this paragraph implies that you are referencing Star Wars as a "just ok movie[s]".



But more importantly your thesis seems to be that nobody remembers science fiction movies unless there is an expanded universe to constantly be fed. If that is true, you have a sorely narrow view of the world, my cynical friend.

Fair enough, how many sci fi movies cam out from 75 to 85, and how many can you name? Call me cynical but the evidence and numbers are on my side here and that isn't just sci fi that is every genre. There are a few gems that become classics but most are just forgotten. Alien and Star Wars got there by releasing more movies and having an expanded universe. You seem to think there is something wrong with that and I am not sure why, it is not like it detracts from them at all, if anything it makes them a lot more interesting.

And I didn't say it WAS a shitty horror flick, I said it would be regarded as a shitty horror flick without it's squeals and expanded universe. The distinction is worlds apart.

[GunnyMo]

Gunny, it isn't the same planet.

How so? You have the crashed ship in the same position it was in Alien. Weyland Corporation knows it's there because they sent the Nostromo directly to it with an android given specific orders to bring back the lifeform.

Maybe there's information out there I've missed but it seems to fit the continuity very well.

I will say that the comment about a sci-fi movie needing an expanded universe to be popular is a load of horse feces. Alien continues to stand on its own as a phenomenal sci-fi movie 30 years down the road. Most horror sci-fi since then borrows from Alien. So many prominent film makes list it (and Star Wars) as inspiration and motivation. However, I know no amount of arguing will change OUX's opinion. lol I guess the rest of us will have to continue to be amused only by "expanded universes".

Prometheus is a fantastic film that let's the viewer think. Who the hell wants everything spelled out, shown and examined in a smart movie? That is not entertainment it's education.

[OUX]

Gunny, I am not saying anything that isn't true, you guys act like an expanded universe keeping an IP alive makes it a whore or lesser product. Honestly, just look at the wiki movies lists for a genre of movies in the 70's and 80's hell even the 60's, there are a few that are classics, but the vast majority you probably have never even heard of and that is because there were no sequels or expanded universe.

EDIT: And again I never said Prometheus needed to spell everything out, but if it was a math equation it would be "xyz=" Solve for x. There simply isn't enough information to productively think about anything. Anything you think of you might as write out as fanfic and call it canon. I enjoy movies and books that let me figure things out, not ones that don't have it figured out themselves.

[Rogue_hunter]

How so? You have the crashed ship in the same position it was in Alien. Weyland Corporation knows it's there because they sent the Nostromo directly to it with an android given specific orders to bring back the lifeform.

The galaxy map says directly "LV-223." The crashed alien ship was in a much rockier area in the first movie, LV-426 also had an atmosphere of argon, nitrogen and neon. It apparently also orbits a completely different star (Zeta 2 Reticuli from the first, Gleise 86 this time) and there were none of the structures. There was an entire line of those "pyramids" in that valley.

And again, if it was the same ship, Weyland, the ship's doctor and Weyland's guard's bodies would have all been on the bridge with the dead space jockey's body still in the pilot's seat. Vickers' life pod/escape ship would have been fairly close as well, something that would show up on scans of the area too.

[GunnyMo]

Gunny, I am not saying anything that isn't true, you guys act like an expanded universe keeping an IP alive makes it a whore or lesser product. Honestly, just look at the wiki movies lists for a genre of movies in the 70's and 80's hell even the 60's, there are a few that are classics, but the vast majority you probably have never even heard of and that is because there were no sequels or expanded universe.

I agree that an expanded universe is a great thing. I don't mean to sound like it isn't. I just feel that Alien can stand alone as a classic, well made sci-fi movie even without an expanded universe.

I wasn't old enough to see Alien in the theater and will admit that Aliens is what brought me into the series. However, I watched Alien before Aliens and was very pleased by it.

[GunnyMo]

The galaxy map says directly "LV-223." The crashed alien ship was in a much rockier area in the first movie, LV-426 also had an atmosphere of argon, nitrogen and neon. It apparently also orbits a completely different star (Zeta 2 Reticuli from the first, Gleise 86 this time) and there were none of the structures. There was an entire line of those "pyramids" in that valley.

And again, if it was the same ship, Weyland, the ship's doctor and Weyland's guard's bodies would have all been on the bridge with the dead space jockey's body still in the pilot's seat. Vickers' life pod/escape ship would have been fairly close as well, something that would show up on scans of the area too.

I stand corrected. lol See, information I missed. I also blame still coming down from the geek high of seeing the movie and not thinking completely straight. ;)

[GunnyMo]

One other thing I just remembered which raises further questions:

In the Giant Head Room, there is one artistic relief that seems to show the Alien in the form we know it from the first movie. So my questions about how the Alien evolved into the form we know it might be answered. Perhaps it was another genetic mutation at a different site/planet and they were attempting to either change or eliminate that. In the end, however, after seeing the Alien that came from the Engineer aboard the life boat it appears they failed.

[Krispy]

Fair enough, how many sci fi movies cam out from 75 to 85, and how many can you name? Call me cynical but the evidence and numbers are on my side here and that isn't just sci fi that is every genre. There are a few gems that become classics but most are just forgotten.

Okay, let's get definitions out of the way so that we can properly test your hypothesis, because I am skeptical that it is true. I will decide what is a science fiction movie using IMDb's list. I think that is fair. How are we defining "gems" and "classics?" I am assuming by "classics" you mean movies that have brand recognition, i.e. a layman has heard of it. And by "gems" you mean movies that are critically acclaimed, i.e. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 85% or higher. I will use IMDb Pro MOVIEmeter statistics to check brand recognition and Rotten Tomatoes to test for critical acclaim. If a movie is ranked in the top 1% of all movies in the IMDb database on the MOVIEmeter then it has brand recognition (this would be 2738 or higher). If a movie has a Rotten Tomatoes ranking of 85% or higher than it has critical acclaim. Is this agreeable? (A cursory glance shows your hypothesis crashing and burning if so...)

Alien and Star Wars got there by releasing more movies and having an expanded universe. You seem to think there is something wrong with that and I am not sure why, it is not like it detracts from them at all, if anything it makes them a lot more interesting.

No, I don't think there is something wrong with expanded universes or their popularity. I think that your hypothesis is false. I think that Alien and Star Wars are exemplary films and would be remembered regardless of an expanded universe just as Casablanca and Citizen Kane are today.

And I didn't say it WAS a shitty horror flick, I said it would be regarded as a shitty horror flick without it's squeals and expanded universe. The distinction is worlds apart.

Are they really worlds apart? Don't we regard things with some accuracy? When I regard Alien as being a brilliant movie I am emphatically reporting that I believe this is a state of the world. Not so far from each other, I think.

[OUX]

Okay, let's get definitions out of the way so that we can properly test your hypothesis, because I am skeptical that it is true. I will decide what is a science fiction movie using IMDb's list. I think that is fair. How are we defining "gems" and "classics?" I am assuming by "classics" you mean movies that have brand recognition, i.e. a layman has heard of it. And by "gems" you mean movies that are critically acclaimed, i.e. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 85% or higher. I will use IMDb Pro MOVIEmeter statistics to check brand recognition and Rotten Tomatoes to test for critical acclaim. If a movie is ranked in the top 1% of all movies in the IMDb database on the MOVIEmeter then it has brand recognition (this would be 2738 or higher). If a movie has a Rotten Tomatoes ranking of 85% or higher than it has critical acclaim. Is this agreeable? (A cursory glance shows your hypothesis crashing and burning if so...)



No, I don't think there is something wrong with expanded universes or their popularity. I think that your hypothesis is false. I think that Alien and Star Wars are exemplary films and would be remembered regardless of an expanded universe just as Casablanca and Citizen Kane are today.



Are they really worlds apart? Don't we regard things with some accuracy? When I regard Alien as being a brilliant movie I am emphatically reporting that I believe this is a state of the world. Not so far from each other, I think.

1. I think it is adorable when people try to apply scientific method to the zeitgeist. 2. Your experiment is deeply flawed, my "hypothesis" boils down to "without attention something is forgotten." 3. What are you testing? You say cursory glance when there are literally hundreds of movies you'd have to compile data on so your cursory glance is nonsense. 4. Using rotten tomatoes is deeply flawed as well, anyone on there watching and rating movies from the 1960's 70's 80's or 90's are watching them because they want to, I would say that well is pretty poisonous. You'd have to find the actual reviews from the respective decades as a control otherwise you are just using an unreliable rating source as a litmus test. At any what movies are you going to test? Testing popular movies to see if they are popular is silly in the extreme and very few reviewers make a name for themselves by attacking works the public has already embraced. If you wanted to be a legitimate sci movie reviewer, even if you thought it, if you came out and said Star Wars sucked, Bladerunner sucked, Alien sucked, Predator sucked, well no one is going to take your reviews seriously because they have already seen the movies and liked them so obviously they don't have the same taste as the reviewer.

But, far be it from me to throw a wrench in your plans to try and disprove me. Anything that is based on a book is disqualified as their longevity is directly tied to previous success. And here is a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science-fiction_films_of_the_1970s) to get your started. Rock out and prove me wrong, or something.

[Blue]

Alien is in my top five films of all time easily. I think Aliens is fun and everything after 3 has been fan-fiction. Personally, I don't see how Alien would have been regarded poorly without the other films. It's brilliant on its own merits without need for an expanded universe. One of the few films in general I'd hold as an apex of horror.

[Narradisall]

One thing that annoys me, if WHY do people keep saying it sets it up for a sequel? You really think they are going to have a sequel with her and David going to their home planet? Really?

Actually. I'm calling it.

David, unable to live up to his claim that he can fly the ship, crashes it on LC-426 or whatever one from Alien and thats how a ship ends up there.

[Krispy]

1. I think it is adorable when people try to apply scientific method to the zeitgeist. 2. Your experiment is deeply flawed, my "hypothesis" boils down to "without attention something is forgotten." 3. What are you testing? You say cursory glance when there are literally hundreds of movies you'd have to compile data on so your cursory glance is nonsense. 4. Using rotten tomatoes is deeply flawed as well, anyone on there watching and rating movies from the 1960's 70's 80's or 90's are watching them because they want to, I would say that well is pretty poisonous. You'd have to find the actual reviews from the respective decades as a control otherwise you are just using an unreliable rating source as a litmus test. At any what movies are you going to test? Testing popular movies to see if they are popular is silly in the extreme and very few reviewers make a name for themselves by attacking works the public has already embraced. If you wanted to be a legitimate sci movie reviewer, even if you thought it, if you came out and said Star Wars sucked, Bladerunner sucked, Alien sucked, Predator sucked, well no one is going to take your reviews seriously because they have already seen the movies and liked them so obviously they don't have the same taste as the reviewer.

But, far be it from me to throw a wrench in your plans to try and disprove me. Anything that is based on a book is disqualified as their longevity is directly tied to previous success. And here is a list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science-fiction_films_of_the_1970s) to get your started. Rock out and prove me wrong, or something.

OUX, you said that the evidence was on your side. This sounded like you did some research. I don't think you did and what's more I think that if we did the research, the evidence would fall against you. What I am trying to do is set up operational definitions for your terms so that we can test it and you are being hostile. Why is this? Otherwise you are offering a hypothesis that is untestable and your claim that evidence is on your side is non-substantial. So far this is just exercising the meaning of the terms.

You disagree with my operational definitions, which is fine. That's why I proposed them before going on with data analysis. Could you more clearly define "gems" and "classics" such that I can test your hypothesis? Or shall we admit that your hypothesis is untestable?

Yes, I am putting you on the spot. Because I think you made a repugnant comment that is baseless.

To recap, this was your claim, "There are a few gems that become classics but most are just forgotten. Alien and Star Wars got there by releasing more movies and having an expanded universe." Specifically, you were referencing scifi movies from 1975 to 1985 in your post.

I want to test that in fact movies who gain "gem" status are forgotten despite not having an expanded universe. The control would be movies that gain "classic" status. This is not ridiculous, we have the statistics available to gain a deeper understanding into this hypothesis. What I think is ridiculous is being hostile toward even contemplating taking this seriously. What do you have to lose?

Edit: I don't think that is a proper use of 'zeitgeist'.

Edit 2: We could use Metacritic to judge critical acclaim which compiles archived reviews from the notable eras.

[Psykoboy2]

So did anyone stay for the credits?

[KamaItachi]

So did anyone stay for the credits?

Yeah, got nothing for our troubles.

Also anyone disappointed that there wasn't a call back to that 'The trick is not to mind that it hurts' line from Lawrence of Arabia by the end?

[Krispy]

I was fairly disappointed in David's lack of character development in general. He was set up to do something great and prove his imbued humanity and then... he was just a robot. Maybe that was the point.

[KamaItachi]

I was fairly disappointed in David's lack of character development in general. He was set up to do something great and prove his imbued humanity and then... he was just a robot. Maybe that was the point.

A lot of the pre-launch hype was based around whether he was a threat or benign. I think the problem was they were trying to move away from what we had seen before, but David ended up being more of a mishmash of Ash and Bishop with hidden agenda/altruistic martyr themes not working as well as they should.

[GunnyMo]

So did anyone stay for the credits?

I wouldn't say it was worthless. There was a little notice thanking the Weyland Corporation for additional footage, I believe. I forget the exact wording. It also had the date of 10-11-12.

[GunnyMo]

A lot of the pre-launch hype was based around whether he was a threat or benign. I think the problem was they were trying to move away from what we had seen before, but David ended up being more of a mishmash of Ash and Bishop with hidden agenda/altruistic martyr themes not working as well as they should.

I think we had a 50-50 chance of an Ash or a Bishop. I think the Ash personality won that coin flip. David was there to find longevity for Weyland and, I think, to test the viability of the new species for the Corporation.

[OUX]

*snip*

Again, researching popular movies to see if they are popular is silly. You aren't putting me on the spot you putting on airs and pouting because I don't agree with you. Get over it. You don't get to just look at the classics gems or whatever figure of speech you want to twist into a serpent. You'd have to look at ALL of the movies, what about the ones that tried to have an expanded universe and still are forgotten? You want to cherry pick your evidence, and I am not interested in playing that game. And yes that is an appropriate way to use zeitgeist. You really want to prove my "repugnant" statement wrong? Print out that list I link and get a thousand people to take a survey of whether or not the have seen it/heard of it but have not seen it/never heard of it and the majority of the movies will be in the never heard of it.

I'm sorry Kripsy you can't win here, being a foaming-mouth member of Ripley's fan club doesn't give your words weight, nor does designing intentionally flawed "experiments" that are mistaken in their cognitive foundation to speak nothing of their execution. Most movies are forgotten. Most books are forgotten. Most people are forgotten. Fact of life dude, you need to accept it and move on. And the hypothesis is completely falsifiable, just not by you. You'd need marketing data, survey groups, licensing contracts, anything and everything pertaining to an IP's popularity in various stages of its life. And you would need it for all the movies released in the established time period not just the "classics or gems" or whatever you want to signify your ridiculous definitions as.

Now, can you just accept Alien was an ok horror movie and get on with your life?

[Psykoboy2]

Yeah, got nothing for our troubles.

Possibly. It still left me wondering what happens on 10-11-12.

[Blue]

I'ma let you finish, but Alien is one of the greatest horror films of all time.

EDIT: You're bustin' my flow Psyko.

[Primus]

I just don't like the whole "it sucked, oh I know why, because someone from lost wrote it" (not your critique). Guy writes something you disapprove of, thus that means everything he writes must suck. Or the flip side that, this is produced by Ridley, so I expect it to be amazing. Give me a break. Take the names off the director, writer, etc and evaluate it on it's face. Saying you hate something that was produced/written by a person, means you aren't evaluating the movie you are evaluating the personalities behind it. I think that's lazy self justification.



No, its just and afterthought, recognizing that this artist works on projects I don't enjoy. I justify my opinion with pretty much all of the questions that OUX asked. Lost was full of the same type of vague writing. This guy's style is not for me.

[KamaItachi]

Possibly. It still left me wondering what happens on 10-11-12.

Director's cut Plzkthxbye

[Krispy]

Again, researching popular movies to see if they are popular is silly. You aren't putting me on the spot you putting on airs and pouting because I don't agree with you. Get over it. You don't get to just look at the classics gems or whatever figure of speech you want to twist into a serpent. You'd have to look at ALL of the movies, what about the ones that tried to have an expanded universe and still are forgotten? You want to cherry pick your evidence, and I am not interested in playing that game. And yes that is an appropriate way to use zeitgeist. You really want to prove my "repugnant" statement wrong? Print out that list I link and get a thousand people to take a survey of whether or not the have seen it/heard of it but have not seen it/never heard of it and the majority of the movies will be in the never heard of it.

I'm sorry Kripsy you can't win here, being a foaming-mouth member of Ripley's fan club doesn't give your words weight, nor does designing intentionally flawed "experiments" that are mistaken in their cognitive foundation to speak nothing of their execution. Most movies are forgotten. Most books are forgotten. Most people are forgotten. Fact of life dude, you need to accept it and move on. And the hypothesis is completely falsifiable, just not by you. You'd need marketing data, survey groups, licensing contracts, anything and everything pertaining to an IP's popularity in various stages of its life. And you would need it for all the movies released in the established time period not just the "classics or gems" or whatever you want to signify your ridiculous definitions as.

Now, can you just accept Alien was an ok horror movie and get on with your life?

Note: If you are paying attention, I want to research critically acclaimed scifi movies to see if they retain popularity. Telling me I want to research a tautology when I have clearly defined that I am not just shows that you aren't actually reading what I write.

OUX, would you then kindly explain what evidence you were citing and how you were using your terms so that I can check your analysis? Again, these aren't my ridiculous terms, they are yours. Why are you being hostile? Why are you calling me names? I hope it isn't because I am holding you accountable for your words. I will quote you once again,

"Call me cynical but the evidence and numbers are on my side here and that isn't just sci fi that is every genre. There are a few gems that become classics but most are just forgotten."

As an side, IMDb Pro has all of those marketing statistics, including historical, that you want. It also has a measure of how many people are searching a given movie title at a given point in time, but I am only interested in the present, personally.

[Vermillion]

See that's the thing. I keep seeing Alien held up as some kind of cinematic masterpiece. It's not. I watched it again before Prometheus just as a refresher. It has a lot of the same issues people are slamming Prometheus for. It's slow and plodding for the first half. Then it switches up to horror for the second half. The characters are mostly "under developed", Weyland industries motives are never known. There is the person who does the "I'm not letting an infected person on my ship" bit. And BS story telling, guy gets random monster that bleeds acid attached to his face. It falls off, he wakes up, and everyone's all "sweet, let's all grab some dinner" 5 minutes later. Ash should have put that boy on ice immediately to fulfill his mission of obtaining the specimen. But no, he just sends him out and about. No one explains why the alien kills some people and not others. There is no concept of a queen or needing them for the eggs. There is no rationale given as to what the alien ship is or why it was sending off a distress signal. If you are going to bitch about "more questions than answers" and "weak story writing", then I don't see how you legitimately claim there is that big a difference in quality of the movies.

Seriously, sit down and rewatch it. Don't watch it for when it was written or where it stands in the IP. Watch it as it just came out or was just added to the Alien storyline as a prequel. It ages very well, but it's just above average story telling, not some masterpiece.

And it's stupid she goes back for the cat. I don't care what kind of melodramatic, cling to humanity, thesis you wrote :)

Heck, my wife saw Alien for the first time when I rewatched it and she thought it was beyond boring and not remotely scary. She was like "why is she going back for the cat", "why is there a random room with rain and chains", "why is she turning off the self destruct" and "that is the dumbest, overly complicated self destruct sequence ever". She has some valid points.

And you can argue that Aliens is the lesser movie. I think you are wrong. But I'd be arguing from an emotional standpoint, because it's the first movie I remember seeing in the theater with my dad (I was 10ish) and it gave me nightmares for weeks. And it's now one of my favorite movies of all time. He also took me to see Pet Cemetery around the same time, it's just how he rolled, which is completely awesome.


p.s. I also want to thank everyone participating in the thread. It's good to have a civil conversation about geek stuff. Please don't take anything I take personally, I am using it in the "sitting around the bar, arguing about who is hotter: Charlize Theron or Scarlett Johnansen." There is no right or wrong answer, it's just preference. And no, Prometheus is neither of them. Prometheus is Megan Fox. Easy on the eyes, not great but passable in her professional.

[OUX]

Note: If you are paying attention, I want to research critically acclaimed scifi movies to see if they retain popularity. Telling me I want to research a tautology when I have clearly defined that I am not just shows that you aren't actually reading what I write.

OUX, would you then kindly explain what evidence you were citing and how you were using your terms so that I can check your analysis? Again, these aren't my ridiculous terms, they are yours. Why are you being hostile? Why are you calling me names? I hope it isn't because I am holding you accountable for your words. I will quote you once again,

"Call me cynical but the evidence and numbers are on my side here and that isn't just sci fi that is every genre. There are a few gems that become classics but most are just forgotten."

As an side, IMDb Pro has all of those marketing statistics, including historical, that you want. It also has a measure of how many people are searching a given movie title at a given point in time, but I am only interested in the present, personally.

I have plenty of evidence. Name all the sci fi movies released between 75 and 85. Go. I will wait. No cheating either.

EDIT:and no I am really not paying attention, you are the avatar of the guy that gets his lights punched out for correcting a dude named Shank's grammar in a biker bar. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are and if all you want to do is test whether critical acclaim translates directly into IP longevity be my guest but that has almost nothing to do with what we were talking about, that expanded universes kept the works relevant and alive.

EDIT EDIT: @Vermillion thank you, it was an okay movie and I enjoyed it but it wasn't the second coming of christ.

[Primus]

My metaphor for Prometheus is a hot chick with no vagina.

[pomeroy]

http://pugsly.bechange.com/forum_fodder/oh_g_this_thread_sucks.jpg

[digitalErich]

http://pugsly.bechange.com/forum_fodder/oh_g_this_thread_sucks.jpg
I'm not the kind of person to post this sort of thing, but I will agree with it.

[civil_dead]

david: Why did your kind create me?

Charlie:Because we could.

David Imagine how disappointed you'd be if your creators told you that.

Charlie good thing you can't feel disappointment.

Ironically this sums up the movie for me. It was poorly written and directed, though pretty.

It was neither quiet enough to be cerebral nor tense enough to be thrilling. So it just sat like an expensive blob in-between the mind and the cock. Utterly forgettable, IMO.



- - -
Sent from a phone so please forgive any grammatical, spelling or factual errors.

[Lint of Death]

http://pugsly.bechange.com/forum_fodder/oh_g_this_thread_sucks.jpg

Granted, I tried reading a few pages backwards from this post rather than from the top, but sure I'll subscribe to your newsletter :(

[menage]

See that's the thing. I keep seeing Alien held up as some kind of cinematic masterpiece. It's not. I watched it again before Prometheus just as a refresher. It has a lot of the same issues people are slamming Prometheus for. It's slow and plodding for the first half. Then it switches up to horror for the second half. The characters are mostly "under developed", Weyland industries motives are never known. There is the person who does the "I'm not letting an infected person on my ship" bit. And BS story telling, guy gets random monster that bleeds acid attached to his face. It falls off, he wakes up, and everyone's all "sweet, let's all grab some dinner" 5 minutes later. Ash should have put that boy on ice immediately to fulfill his mission of obtaining the specimen. But no, he just sends him out and about. No one explains why the alien kills some people and not others. There is no concept of a queen or needing them for the eggs. There is no rationale given as to what the alien ship is or why it was sending off a distress signal. If you are going to bitch about "more questions than answers" and "weak story writing", then I don't see how you legitimately claim there is that big a difference in quality of the movies.

I won't argue that all of it is brilliant. I even agree that a lot of crap could have been handled better, but compared to other scifi horror movies this one of the few which is consistent and really thought out in it's theme. Most just base their premise on big monster kills crew hero saves the day. It's not the best movie ever, it is one of the best scifi horror ones. Big difference.

For every flaw there's a stroke of brilliance you wouldn't even notice until you dive deeper into the train of thought. The theme of reproduction is so thought out it really gives the movie a deep layer most horror scifi can even dream to touch imo. I do agree a lot of it's visual. I'm a designer and feel these things to be important. And I can enjoy that aspect of a movie even if the script is lacking. Moreso than why the hell she went back for the cat. That's the script part. I do agree there's a lot wrong with it. But designwise it's a masterpiece.

Probably a lot ended up on the cutting floor. Hollywood isn't without it's producers fucking up a movie. Movies like Blade Runner had dozens of revisions as well (talking about a scifi movie without and expanded universe which stood the test of time?), so did Alien.

I do find the "but we don't know and get to know about this" argument entirely void. I don't care if I don't know what the corporation is, it makes them more menacing and clinical imo. The Alien queen is absent because it isn't relevant to this story. It just kills because it's a warrior drone doing it's job regardless. He got stuck on the ship so there's no queen, and the crew has no clue so why would it come up. Origins of the alien ship or the alien is unimportant imo as well. It does kill every person on board so I don't know what you're saying. It's also probably the first human-alien hybrid ever created (an assumption, I can't remember all of it) it may have been learning what it's prey is like, so I could communicate it back to the hive. Killing everyone straight away would have been les usefull to the group? These aren't stupid creatures.

I like that it's slow, like the original The Ring movie it makes the impact when something does happen a lot more tense. And not knowing a lot of it adds to the scale of it a lot more than knowing every single thing. It takes away imagination.

Aliens just went let's fucking kill em all with big guns and explosions. It wasn't tense at all. Fun yes, but not really scary or tense.

[OUX]

Probably a lot ended up on the cutting floor. Hollywood isn't without it's producers fucking up a movie. Movies like Blade Runner had dozens of revisions as well (talking about a scifi movie without and expanded universe which stood the test of time?), so did Alien.


Hey, menage, the movie Blade Runner? It IS the expanded universe. Philip K Dick says hello. And it is part of a moderate expanded universe, with Blade Runner comics, Blade Runner novels, and Blade Runner video games.

[menage]

I know I know. But the movie is a lot better known to the general public than the rest. I know there's a videogame, and that's it's based on a novel. You really only hear everyone about the movie. Not so with Star Wars and such.

I never heard anyone about the rest, while Star Wars and alike have a way more mainstream appeal on all fronts. Blade Runner also never had a sequel. Which is good, but movie wise / storywise it's a pretty solitairy experience. Nothing to do with expanded universes.

It's a pretty vague line cause when something is based on a novel and someone paints some fanart are we there already?

Expanded universes really needs a bit more than that for me.

Same for something like Dune. You have the novels, and they made a movie, but if we're adding a strategy game to the mix, is that part really that influental?? And reason why it's still regarded so high? I can call everything expanded like that. I think I saw some Star Wars Cheetos on my way to the busstop.

[OUX]

I suppose it depends on the goal of your definition. If you are talking about canon or keeping public interest. Cheetos bags are obviously not canon, but they do keep people thinking about the franchise.

[menage]

I agree, canon def. is something I think needs to be there to be part of the universe. With all the crossovers especially in comicbooks it's pretty hard to keep the canon in tact without adding a lot of loopholes. Aliens vs Predator is a good example of taking it a bit further than I like. It devaluates the brand and makes it more nerd/geek. Not really solid storytelling most of the time. Still fun, but it loses artistic value in the process most of the time.

Games/movies/books set in the same world but with different chara's/writers/angles/reboots, kinda make it all a mass of info. Often losing what's it originally about. Alien has devaluated into cool scifi geek, but the original really stood for something. A lot more than then the sequels or crossovers especially do.

Lord of the Rings, the hobbit and the Silmarillion are awesome because they all fit. Even if it was taken over by his son in parts.

It's all pretty personal though. But it's something that can turn something great into a piece of shit. Like Star wars often does. And a lot of LOTR games do as well. Making it into a franchise to make money instead of really adding something.

[Voodoo]

Talking about canon... Wasn't the idea of the Space Jockey ship being a bomber with bio-weapons a non-canon suggestion?

[violent]

I saw it yesterday and while it wasn't the greatest movie out there, it was still better than 95% of the drivel out there.

[resikel]

Watched it last night. I think like most of Scott's movie, the Director's Cut DVD will make it more cohesive.

[Krispy]

I have plenty of evidence. Name all the sci fi movies released between 75 and 85. Go. I will wait. No cheating either.

EDIT:and no I am really not paying attention, you are the avatar of the guy that gets his lights punched out for correcting a dude named Shank's grammar in a biker bar. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are and if all you want to do is test whether critical acclaim translates directly into IP longevity be my guest but that has almost nothing to do with what we were talking about, that expanded universes kept the works relevant and alive.

EDIT EDIT: @Vermillion thank you, it was an okay movie and I enjoyed it but it wasn't the second coming of christ.

OUX, that is not evidence of your thesis. What if I happen to be obsessed with scifi movies from 1975 to 1985? You would have ridiculous results. At best it would be anecdotal reason to investigate further.

You said I didn't have the proper tools to falsify your thesis. That's fine. But then you don't seem to either. If you do, I would love to see your data.

Since I know you don't have any, how about you don't try to talk down to people who disagree with you by citing "evidence" and "numbers" you don't actually have?

I am holding you accountable for your words and I suggest you hold yourself accountable for your words too. You might not make such flagrant arguments with such authoritarian regale in the future.

Why do you find it necessary to personally attack me? Do you think it shows strength in your character or argument?

Note: I have not argued that Alien is a masterpiece.

Edit: Sorry for derailing your thread, gents. I'll let this go. My point was made.

[OUX]

Sorry chico, unless your point was that you need scientific evidence to know that the sky is blue, water is wet and people have short attention spans you had no point.

[Krispy]

Oh, I see. You are so obviously right that no investigation is needed. :)

My point has been made better than I thought.

[violent]

As I watched that movie, I was trying to logically piece the small details together to make up what was going on. That sort of exercise is both rare and enjoyable to me.

[OUX]

You mean it is obvious most things are forgotten? Well, duh. It is obvious, to everyone. Well, apparently everyone but you. You have no point, pointless.

[Rogue_hunter]

So did anyone stay for the credits?

Yeah, got nothing for our troubles.

Also anyone disappointed that there wasn't a call back to that 'The trick is not to mind that it hurts' line from Lawrence of Arabia by the end?

I wouldn't say it was worthless. There was a little notice thanking the Weyland Corporation for additional footage, I believe. I forget the exact wording. It also had the date of 10-11-12.

Possibly. It still left me wondering what happens on 10-11-12.

There is a website now, http://www.whatis101112.com/. Only one short video and a floating book, but who knows what else they will add.

[Voodoo]

It appears that the race that created the engineers was left on the cutting room floor. LoL!

[digitalErich]

This Prometheus FAQ (http://www.toplessrobot.com/2012/06/robs_prometheus_faq.php) is written to be funny, but the points it brings up are hard to argue the with.

[PathMaster]

So....anyone know what's happening on 10-11-12?

I believe it is the date of the actual founding of the Weyland company. I think.

I liked the movie, it was awesome.

Prometheus as a term could be applied to several scenes. And David, his motivation was purposely ambiguous, just like all the other androids from the movies. He needed to find out info for Weyland. He wanted some revenge on David for the jokes, and David wanted to meet and engineer.

As to the Operating Table. It was on the lifecraft, I would assume first it would be for emergencies of those aboard the lifecraft. OR, and I think this is more likely, it was on board for Weyland in case they could so something to save him with what they learned.

Other than that, it did create new questions and left them unanswered. But if what I l heard rumored comes to pass, this movie would be treated as a common point for two lines of movies essentially. Supposedly David and Shaw will be seen again and we may get the answers that Shaw wanted to know, ie Why did they decide to destroy their seed?

And I am glad I was not the only one who questioned where that ladder came from. And my friend kept railing on the stomach surgery, and I frankly have no explanation.

[Narradisall]

Path - I'm not trolling here, but can you tell me "why" you liked it?

As every discussion I see where someone says it was the greatest movie ever etc, there is often very little lack of reasoning behind it, so I'm just curious.

Even all the postive reviews I read sum it up as the amazing visuals, the score etc but very little on the actual story.

I'm reluctant to ask because the level of hyperbole from the "greatest film ever" crowd seems to border on the 'Ridley Scott made it' and crazy fanboy level.

So as you said you liked it, but obviously are aware of some of the flaws, I'm curious just as to why you thought it was awesome, despite the flaws.

If any of that makes sense!

[National Kato]

Who's saying it was the 'greatest film ever?'

[PathMaster]

Path - I'm not trolling here, but can you tell me "why" you liked it?

As every discussion I see where someone says it was the greatest movie ever etc, there is often very little lack of reasoning behind it, so I'm just curious.

Even all the postive reviews I read sum it up as the amazing visuals, the score etc but very little on the actual story.

I'm reluctant to ask because the level of hyperbole from the "greatest film ever" crowd seems to border on the 'Ridley Scott made it' and crazy fanboy level.

So as you said you liked it, but obviously are aware of some of the flaws, I'm curious just as to why you thought it was awesome, despite the flaws.

If any of that makes sense!

I did like it, I also like Avengers more, but for different reasons. Neither would be what I would call the greatest movie ever.

Honestly, I liked the pacing. I was never bored. It kept my interest throughout with ease. I also liked the story. Were their flaws? Of course, but I do not expect perfection from anything, otherwise I would never finish any book or for that matter and media. As to some of the flaws I noted like the ladder and the post surgery action, I expect them to be easily explained by the technology of the future and it was most likely glossed over or left on the cutting room floor. I would not at all be surprised to see more explanation or at least hints in a director's cut.

And trying to explain David's motivation for his actions I think are purposely ambiguous. We are unsure, because frankly we do not know. He is not like us. His thought processes are vastly different from ours and I left it at that. We could guess, as most have, but why would I let something like that ruin an entire movie?

As to the lack of story based reviews. I imagine some of that is based on not trying to spoil things for some. Thankfully that seems to be happening more frequently, as I despise spoilers. Otherwise, there are a few twists but nothing crazy. The story could be boiled down to some very common themes in similar media, but you can do that to nearly any story. In the end I enjoyed the film, as a form of escapism, it did it's job wonderfully.

So in short? It brought me into the world of Alien and left me wanting more.

[Hotcod]

The more I've had cause to think or talk about it (which hasn't be much thankfully) the more I hate it.

It can be summed up by what I feel about the start

I've only skimmed the thread but I see people saying "they are showing the start of life on earth". Which it probably just is but it makes no sense when put in context of the rest of the film. We are made out of an engineer killing him self by drinking the black goo that the rest of the film keeps telling us is a bio weapon when it's pretty clear that the motivation of all the other engineers in the film is now to destroy us?

How in hell does that make sense? The method they give for the creation of us is directly at odds with everything we are then presented with in the rest of the film. I understand that they wanted to undermine the first impression in some way but there seems to be no logic at all behind the set up that actually relates to what is meant to undercut it. It's the "evolution" crap all over again. No internal logic.

I actually while watching the film thought what we where seeing at the start was in fact something a lot different. I ended the film presuming that the start was in fact a sabotage by an engineer who disagreed with the plan to wipe out earth and was sacrificing him self to start the outbreak on the planet that killed most of the other engineers. It was born out of the idea that the whole thing made no sense unless there was an internal politics at play....

But saddly this much more interesting (to me) idea has nothing that really holds it up in the rest of the film and so even if that was the intent the film utterly fails to give any support for it... and the most likely thing is that that start of the film is just what people say it is but badly badly told.

And that pretty much applies to the rest of the film. Everything we see is seemingly exactly what it is and the resulting questions are then pointless and shallow because they are most likely born out of the film explaining it's self badly rather than any real attempt to create deeper mysteries.

It's a pretty and shallow action film. It should have been way better.

[Spectre-7]

Just got back, and I enjoyed it quite a lot. Honestly, for folks who were disappointed, I'm not really sure what they were expecting. I went in looking for a particularly pretty horror flick with plenty of squick, and I got what I was after. Was it a revelatory experience? Not in the least, but neither was Alien for that matter.

[GunnyMo]

Just got back, and I enjoyed it quite a lot. Honestly, for folks who were disappointed, I'm not really sure what they were expecting. I went in looking for a particularly pretty horror flick with plenty of squick, and I got what I was after. Was it a revelatory experience? Not in the least, but neither was Alien for that matter.

I think you summed my thoughts up exactly. Honestly, I went into it looking for the connections to the Alien universe and not so much for a mind blowing, science fiction epic. I loved the film even with its faults.

I don't quite get the hate some people are throwing at it as if the film insulted their very being. And the nitpicking? Good Satan, give it a rest, folks. Sometimes I wonder if people go to movies to enjoy them or to rip them apart online afterwards. lol

I still haven't found an answer as to what happened to the biologist, or his eventual Alien baby, who was the first one attacked. His plot line seemed to just disappear. The ginger geologist that was with him was infected and went back to the ship to wreak havoc; the biologist faded away. I'm not hating on the film for that, though.

[GunnyMo]

As to some of the flaws I noted like the ladder and the post surgery action, I expect them to be easily explained by the technology of the future and it was most likely glossed over or left on the cutting room floor. I would not at all be surprised to see more explanation or at least hints in a director's cut.

Exactly. I will say, however, that I am almost positive I saw one of the crew carrying what looked like a foldable metal ladder as they walked into the dome. Hell, even looking at the ladder as David climbed it you could tell it was designed to be lightweight and portable. That people are flipping out over the magic ladder is retarded. lol

You are right on about the post surgery complaints. Who's to say that the anesthetic used did not also contain nano's and/or micro organisms designed to greatly increase healing and/or aid in post surgical recovery/movement? She wasn't running around like nothing happened, either. There were plenty of shots with Shaw doubled over in pain. Even the pod itself lends credence to that. Vickers mentioned it could do a "bypass" and there is no ICU or long term recovery setup anywhere around. Obviously, the surgical techniques, equipment and medicine available make recovery much easier than it is now. That type of information seems to me to be a given in a sci-fi film such as this. It doesn't need to be explained because even common sense would say, "Ok, the film is 80 years in the future so it's a good bet medicine has come a long way." The medical techniques used today would be considered magic by someone from 1932.

Folks can suspend disbelief that there are androids who look and act almost exactly like humans in the movie but flip out over the mysterious technicalities of a surgery. ;)

[Primus]

I just read an interview with Ridley Scott about the movie, now that it was released, and he was going off about the Aztecs and Jesus Christ. How the movie was supposed to convey that is beyond me. I think hes about as confused on the project as anyone else.

[National Kato]

I just read an interview with Ridley Scott about the movie, now that it was released, and he was going off about the Aztecs and Jesus Christ. How the movie was supposed to convey that is beyond me. I think hes about as confused on the project as anyone else.

I read the same interview and he doesn't say that's the message. He just says they discussed that possibility during early pre-production. He wasn't 'going off' about Jesus, he answered a question about Jesus that the interviewer brought up.

Here's the exact quote. Let's not take things out of context in an already nitpicky thread:

Movies.com: You throw religion and spirituality into the equation for Prometheus, though, and it almost acts as a hand grenade. We had heard it was scripted that the Engineers were targeting our planet for destruction because we had crucified one of their representatives, and that Jesus Christ might have been an alien. Was that ever considered?

Ridley Scott: We definitely did, and then we thought it was a little too on the nose. But if you look at it as an “our children are misbehaving down there” scenario, there are moments where it looks like we’ve gone out of control, running around with armor and skirts, which of course would be the Roman Empire. And they were given a long run. A thousand years before their disintegration actually started to happen. And you can say, "Let's send down one more of our emissaries to see if he can stop it." Guess what? They crucified him.

He even says in the interview that the beginning of the film doesn't have to be Earth.

Movies.com: That is our planet, right?

RS: No, it doesn’t have to be. That could be anywhere. That could be a planet anywhere. All he’s doing is acting as a gardener in space. And the plant life, in fact, is the disintegration of himself.

It's a good interview (http://www.movies.com/movie-news/ridley-scott-prometheus-interview/8232).

[Krispy]

Gunny, where you see an obviously-this-can-be-explained-with-science-fantasy I see an attempt to rationalize a plothole. At what point do we stop apologizing for bad writing and just accept it at face value? There is a analog to these obviously stories in science called just-so stories. Old myths that explained why the sun rose due to mythic beasts are just-so stories. The stories explain everything you want to know given all the data you have and fill in the missing pieces, but there is no reason to believe one other than it makes hard questions go away.

But this could also be a difference in philosophy. I think that movies should be self contained. If a movie needs to have ploy holes addressed ad hoc then I consider that a failure of writing (or editing!) the same way I consider an argument that has to be amended ad hoc a failure.

[Primus]

That was my point. He basically was going on a deliberation on everything that made the cutting floor, and ultimately doesn't relate to the movie we saw.

[Krispy]

I get that we have different threshholds for this stuff. Like I said, I evaluate science fiction much more seriously than science fantasy. Not everyone does. So I guess I'm not really looking for a hard nosed answer. In a way you have already given your answer. :)

[PathMaster]

The ladder did indeed look to be collapsible. And to honestly get upset over something like a ladder suddenly appearing just seems asinine to me.

I think that people got exactly what they wanted from the movie. If you went in expecting something bad or flawed then that is what you got. I enjoyed the movie, it was a fun scifi flick.

[Krispy]

I think that people got exactly what they wanted from the movie. If you went in expecting something bad or flawed then that is what you got. I enjoyed the movie, it was a fun scifi flick.

That's kind of a cheap way to dismiss people who were disappointed by Prometheus. Everyone who reported on this movie was excited by the trailers. I guarantee it. They wanted to watch this movie. And it obviously has flaws, just check Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. Some people are willing to overlook them and others are not. I think that's the more candid analysis.

[PathMaster]

That's kind of a cheap way to dismiss people who were disappointed by Prometheus. Everyone who reported on this movie was excited by the trailers. I guarantee it. They wanted to watch this movie. And it obviously has flaws, just check Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. Some people are willing to overlook them and others are not. I think that's the more candid analysis.

Are you sure about that? Everyone? That statement is as sweeping as my previous one. And as false as mine too.

Let me retool my statement, a little. I think those who went in expecting a different movie, could come out of the theater and not be happy.

I myself was surprised, as I think the trailers had me expecting more of an action film. Throw in the idea of an Alien related film and many also expected some horror or at least some scares. To me, it was none of those. It was a enjoyable film for me.

I don't really have an issue with people dumping on the film (despite my earlier comments). To each their own. But for me, I will not pick apart a film and give it a thumb down because a few details were not fully mapped out.

[Psykoboy2]

Could be a spoiler. http://i.imgur.com/btcSV.jpg

[Krispy]

I don't really have an issue with people dumping on the film (despite my earlier comments). To each their own. But for me, I will not pick apart a film and give it a thumb down because a few details were not fully mapped out.

Still, that is oversimplifying people's reasons for disliking the film. There was a lot worst problems with it as a movie than just a few plot holes. Plot holes are just the ones that get the most mileage on an internet forum because people are more interested in talking about the story than pacing and character arcs.

[Wasson_]

actually...I feel way better about the movie now that Spectre kindly pointed out that it took place on a different planet than LV-426...

I just assumed it was like a "warm" season when Prometheus landed. lol.

[Narradisall]

Who's saying it was the 'greatest film ever?'

I've seen multiple such comments from across the web, and some on this site. I'm not looking to start another pissing match though, but I've seen a distinct lack of 'why' in such claims.

So in short? It brought me into the world of Alien and left me wanting more.

Thanks Path, so you enjoyed it, but at least can see it's more of a flawed gem. I found it ok, but lacking in many area's that would make it memorable or great.

[Narradisall]

Can someone tell me, what's the ladder thing about? I'm nto that nit-picky, and I must have completely missed whatever this ladder was that appeared?

[civil_dead]

I really don't understand the mentality surrounding this discussion. We seem to be divided between those that can have a meaningful critique and those that feel that somehow those that do are over-thinking things. I really don't understand how one couldn't do that.

I treat this as I treat any art form: with a critical eye and a certain set of expectations in accordance with the artist. In this case I know Ridley Scott is capable of a cerebral, well-paced, beautifully shot, expertly directed and tightly-edited film. Prometheus was none of these things except for being pretty. Most of the dialogue was forgettable, with the usual stupid archetypes thrown in for good measure. Really, it was as hollow a movie as could have been made by someone with Scott's talents. If someone else had directed this I would have adjusted my expectations and my disappointment would have been lesser or even non-existant.

I knew i was in trouble when within the first act the "crazy" geoligist declares that he's an expert in rocks and corpses of aliens held no interest/challenge for him. I secretly hope this was Scott's nod to the audience, telling them that if they were expecting something other than dead ideas they should leave. I know I certainly did mentally and emotionally.

[Narradisall]

civil - I think there's a lot of overreacting about this film personally.

On the one side, you have people picking it to pieces over the smallest of things (not denying there are some major things too), and on the other side you have people claiming it's a masterpiece with little to back it up other than "Ridley Scott is awesome!" and claiming all the haters hate it just because.

I found it to be pretty, but forgettable. I wasn't expecting it to be linked to Alien much (as I was led to believe from comments by Ridley and others before that it was 'lightly' tied to the alien films, but a seperate film based in the same universe), and instead I found alien references were jammed into it as much as possible, which really did more to detract from the film than improve it imo.

The raging debate aside, I stand by my initial commets about the film, it was average. It wasn't the terribad people are making it out to be, niether is it the second coming.

I doubt if this wasn't a Ridley Scott film that this debate would be raging across the net as much as it is.

[civil_dead]

I think the fact that it was a Ridley Scott film is precisely why the film is getting the scrutiny it is. For example, if it had been that guy that does those shit films (300 etc) I would have felt it was forgettable fun. But Scott is one of those rare mainstream directors that can pull of nuance and bombast in equal measure. In this film we got only the latter.

BTW, the best critique I've read/heard is from a tiny podcast I listen to weekly: Film Fandango on Absolute Radio (I'm a massive Danielle Ward fan): http://www.absoluteradio.co.uk/podcasts/Film-Fandango/2012-06-11/. Well worth checking out (if only to hear DW's fucking awesome voice--swoon).

[GunnyMo]

Can someone tell me, what's the ladder thing about? I'm nto that nit-picky, and I must have completely missed whatever this ladder was that appeared?

When they are at the closed door with the decapitated Engineer lying on the ground in front of it David uses a metal ladder to climb up to a set of "switches" he then uses to open the door. Some people are complaining that they didn't see any of the crew carrying a ladder into the room so it's a magically appearing ladder. As I pointed out earlier, if you look at the ladder as David climbs it you can clearly see it was light weight, portable and in all likelihood collapsible. I am also certain I saw one of the crew carrying what looked like the aforementioned collapsed ladder.

[Narradisall]

Oh yeah, I do remember that now. As someone I was with went "Where'd the ladder come from?"

It looked easily moveable, but I recall I didn't see anyone carrying it. I kinda shrugged it off though, hence why I forgot about it. Films are riddled with that type of stuff.

[OUX]

I think my major critique boils down to "If Alien didn't exist, what would I think about this movie?" If he didn't want a true prequel that is fine, doable even, but Prometheus just falls flat on its own merits. With them trying so hard not to have a direct link to Alien it still needs the other movie to be passable/interesting.

[Voodoo]

How would you feel if he kept the original plot point of Jesus being an Engineer and his death being the reason they decided to wipe the Earth clean?

Also, removed from the movie (strange enough), was that the Xenomorph race is a naturally existing race that is everything that the Engineers are not. Their bioweapon is based on the Xenomorph physiology. I'm reading more and more that is what those two murals were about. Makes sense to me. There was also to be a third race that, essentially created the two of them.

I'm guessing someone has played a lot of Starcraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xel_Naga#Xel.27Naga). LoL!

Mr Scott has also casually said and there are plans for 2 more movies in the works.

[Vermillion]

Could be a spoiler. http://i.imgur.com/btcSV.jpg

What's interesting is that the next step is: Alien + human = Alien.

[Narradisall]

Voodoo -

I would have thought it was dumb, but at least a reason would have been provided.

That xenomorph explanation seems good and sound, plus that way it still makes Alien V Predator cannon! (Yes it was an awful film).

Does sound very starcraft like to me, haha.

So, like starcraft, is this 1/3 of a film? :D

[Hyperglide]

Redlettermedia has a great review up on the movie.

There are spoilers in it for about 4 minutes but they warn you ahead of time if you haven't seen the movie yet.

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-prometheus/

[Krispy]

Conclusion: I want to like it but after 24 minutes of talking about it, I just can't seem to convince myself.

[Hyperglide]

Conclusion: I want to like it but after 24 minutes of talking about it, I just can't seem to convince myself.

That's the 30 second version of it. :D

[evilgoodwin]

I just want to know how long its been since Hollywood murdered your parents and took a shit in your heart. :P

I liked it. Did it meet my expectations? No. But I doubt any movie could ever meet the expectations I had for this movie. So that's my fault.

But it's a good movie, and I like it, and I don't have to fucking give an explanation on why I liked something. If I had to justify liking everything in my life, I'd become too cynical to stand myself.

Loved the movie.

[KamaItachi]

I just want to know how long its been since Hollywood murdered your parents and took a shit in your heart. :P

I liked it. Did it meet my expectations? No. But I doubt any movie could ever meet the expectations I had for this movie. So that's my fault.

But it's a good movie, and I like it, and I don't have to fucking give an explanation on why I liked something. If I had to justify liking everything in my life, I'd become too cynical to stand myself.

Loved the movie.

I liked the movie, I wish it had been better, but there's not much I can do about that. On the other hand, I don't think I've enjoyed taking about a movie like this for a long, long time.

[Spectre-7]

But it's a good movie, and I like it, and I don't have to fucking give an explanation on why I liked something. If I had to justify liking everything in my life, I'd become too cynical to stand myself.

But... if you don't explain why you liked it, how is anyone supposed to prove you're wrong? :confused:

[Krispy]

By my estimate, it has been the apologists who have been demanding the most explanation.

[evilgoodwin]

Maybe I did come off a little harsh, but I can not be cynical about movies anymore. I heard a guy bitching about the fucking windshield continuity error in Terminator 2 and my brain almost popped. He said it was bullshit that they didn't catch that. I said he was bullshit for being pissed off at less than one second of mistake.

And then he called me a prole and sent me to be reeducated... Nice guy, actually, and he might be right about Terminator 2...

[Krispy]

Before you read on, I am not trying to make anyone feel like they shouldn't like Prometheus. I enjoy watching some pretty heavily flawed movies sometimes; a learned trait from my dad. But I don't think that entitles people to be blind to a movie's faults or to ignore a movie's faults and if discussing faults makes anyone uncomfortable then my posts will probably annoy them.

I'll agree that getting upset over a little continuity error is too much. You have to shoot the movie out of order and everyone is trying to do it as fast as possible and continuity can be really fucking hard to keep track of. That's why you literally hire one to three people whose soul job is to keep track of continuity. But there is a big difference between a prop showing up on set without continuity (such as the ladder) and plot points occurring without continuity such as everything that happens after she gets pregnant. I have a really hard time accepting plot continuity issues while other people don't. It completely breaks my engrossment.

[OUX]

I just want to know how long its been since Hollywood murdered your parents and took a shit in your heart. :P

I liked it. Did it meet my expectations? No. But I doubt any movie could ever meet the expectations I had for this movie. So that's my fault.

But it's a good movie, and I like it, and I don't have to fucking give an explanation on why I liked something. If I had to justify liking everything in my life, I'd become too cynical to stand myself.

Loved the movie.

I feel like you are defending a wife that cheated on you with a mail man and asked you to stay together and raise the baby all after she had you get a vasectomy because she didn't want kids. And you keep saying I love her, I love her. And we keep saying she is no good for you man, you deserve better. There is better out there for you don't love her!:p

[JayK47]

I was just glad to go out and see a decent science fiction movie. Not perfect, but I'd be asking for too much. It was at least better than a vampire romance, an animated Disney family friendly happy happy joy joy in 3D, Adam Sandler "here's a nice piece of shit" please make it stop, and re-imagining of anything comic book retarded any day.

[evilgoodwin]

I feel like you are defending a wife that cheated on you with a mail man and asked you to stay together and raise the baby all after she had you get a vasectomy because she didn't want kids. And you keep saying I love her, I love her. And we keep saying she is no good for you man, you deserve better. There is better out there for you don't love her!:p

Must have seen a different movie then. Because I saw a movie that gave me a few enjoyable hours, and not a lifetime of resentment.

And even if I run with your metaphor, is there better that I haven't seen? Is there new beauty I can meet? Or should I just not try anymore and leave it up to others to give me what they think I want?

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[Narradisall]

evil - As long as that logic applies to all the people calling anyone who didn't think it was a good movie a "hater" despite them laying out perfectly reasonable reasons why the film failed to meet their standards, then I'm fine with it.

I don't rank the film bad, but it's not good in my opinion, and being as no one has provided anything to back up why this film is good other than "I liked it", I'll hold my opinion and leave them to theirs.

It's the hypocrisy that rankles me.

[Dark Prince]

It's sounding like I'm better off waiting for the dvd on this one. It looked interesting from the trailers but also looked like I had seen half the movie already.

[PathMaster]

Wait for the Director's cut.

[Narradisall]

It's sounding like I'm better off waiting for the dvd on this one. It looked interesting from the trailers but also looked like I had seen half the movie already.

I will give it this, I saw the trailers and did my usual "Great, now I've seen all the best bits!" but it did still throw a lot of new stuff out there.

Go see it and make your mind up for yourself, but I do think i will see the Directors cut one day when it comes out and see if it fits together better.

[OUX]

Must have seen a different movie then. Because I saw a movie that gave me a few enjoyable hours, and not a lifetime of resentment.

And even if I run with your metaphor, is there better that I haven't seen? Is there new beauty I can meet? Or should I just not try anymore and leave it up to others to give me what they think I want?

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

Of course there are better movies out there, or women, I forget where that metaphor was going, but the point is there are better things out there. You deserve to not have gaping plot holes and shoddy, ham-fisted symbolism pushed on you by a 30 year old friend.

[evilgoodwin]

Of course there are better movies out there, or women, I forget where that metaphor was going, but the point is there are better things out there. You deserve to not have gaping plot holes and shoddy, ham-fisted symbolism pushed on you by a 30 year old friend.

But... but I'M almost 30...

[OUX]

But... but I'M almost 30...

I think that might make Alien your nanny in this ridiculously extended metaphor.

[evilgoodwin]

I think that might make Alien your nanny in this ridiculously extended metaphor.

I just wanna know who I'm supposed to be banging.

[OUX]

I just wanna know who I'm supposed to be banging.

Gremlins 2. 22 years old, funny, heartfelt, and a streak of freaky.

[muddi900]

This thread is wonderful. I mean you like listening to the guy who read the wikipedia page on Greek mythology, but why would you mind if other people thought it's stupid?