Escape to the Movies: Prometheus

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

jbm1986:
Another part that bothered me was after

maybe I missed something?

All you missed was the lack of continuity between certain scenes.

Another thing that has come to mind. Nothing about the planet/moon they were on hinted at this being the primary planet of the albino aliens. So why did they keep mentioning it to primitive/early civilization man for tens of thousand years? Was it always a military base/production facility for weapons of mass destruction? Was the expectation that human's would develop enough to travel there? Why would they want this if the plan was to ship the monsters to earth?

whiffleball:

Not much of a disturbing surgery, if you count it as that. Hell, the whole surgery consisted of swabbing her stomach with iodine, lasering a hole, pulling out mess, and then stitching her up. Why wasn't there any blood when the opened a whole in her stomach? Why didn't machine do something with the "foreign object" after it removed it, but instead left it dangling above her? Also, it kind of looked like horizontal Caesarean anyways.

Well, appearantly it was disturbing enough to give that specific scene a certain reputation and induce seizures in 15-yr-old Australian boys who want to prove they're tough.
But generally speaking you're right, that's why I said "disturbing". Ever saw "The Cell"? The scene with the horse that gets seperated into several segments by glass-plates? That kind of "disturbing".
To the rest, well, more plotholes and more aspects that make this machine look more and more like an invention of Dr. Wiley while he was stoned.

As for the helmets thing, that seemed to only be used as an example of the guy's reckless behavior. But if that was the case, why did we need to show him to be reckless?

That's another argument I can't wrap my head around. Sorry, but there's reckless and then there's mindnumbingly stupid. He was among the people specifically chosen for this trip on a new world, which may include finding the origins of the human race and the first thing he does is to take off his helmet in an unfamiliar atmosphere? Hell, the fact that he put that helmet on in the first place means, that he was aware of a potential risk. And then, all of a sudden, someone used the Dunce-switch and doi-doi-doi, helmet off because I can.
That's really beyond reckless.

adamtm:
Actually the first thing I thought about when I saw it was a hamfisted abortion statement.
But that might just be me.

That would be Twilight: Breaking Dawn. Come to think of that, is that a new Hollywood-Trend? Botched up/messy C-sections?

I agree with pretty much everything said.

Special mention goes to the soundtrack though, which could handle tense horror, action, and more hopeful tones as well, which goes a long way to making you understand the characters perseverance in finding answers.

Headbiter:

adamtm:
Actually the first thing I thought about when I saw it was a hamfisted abortion statement.
But that might just be me.

That would be Twilight: Breaking Dawn. Come to think of that, is that a new Hollywood-Trend? Botched up/messy C-sections?

Just how the scene was set up:

Woman has something in her body she wants to get rid off. (unwanted pregnancy, literally)
Machine denies her request. (its agains the "law" of the machine)
Does it anyways against the "recomendation". (abortion clinic)
Must pay the "price" (pain).

The only way this could have been more clear is if she said "i want an abortion" instead of "c-section".

I dont know, i might be overthinking this.

adamtm:

Just how the scene was set up:

Woman has something in her body she wants to get rid off. (unwanted pregnancy, literally)
Machine denies her request. (its agains the "law" of the machine)
Does it anyways against the "recomendation". (abortion clinic)
Must pay the "price" (pain).

The only way this could have been more clear is if she said "i want an abortion" instead of "c-section".

I dont know, i might be overthinking this.

I didn't think about the abortion symbolism like that. If anything, it seemed pro-choice. The framework for that scene was "there's something really bad inside me, and I'm going to do whatever it takes to get it out." So she goes to the med-pod, gets an impromptu surgery on self-administered painkillers like a BOSS, and saves her life.

I mean, she never had any second thoughts about getting the surgery, and didn't feel bad about it afterward (she would have been completely loony if she did)

Hammeroj:

There's a reason I talked about the aliens seeding humans specifically, and then took a relatively small timescale. For one, we're supposed to believe the aliens have the exact same DNA as humans (let's just say the DNA is very similar because the idea of identical DNA is fairly dumb), which is why these aliens simply seeding all life on earth (and other planets) is not even an option. The chance of something extremely like them (down to the vast majority of the DNA at least) evolving all over again from a single celled organism over hundreds of millions of years is ludicrously small. And they'd have to wait out those hundreds of millions of years, somehow without themselves being affected by evolution, and keep spending incredible amounts of resources checking up on this planet once in a while.

You say the end result would somehow be a genetically identical sentient race, but how the hell is that even remotely the main possibility? How do you control a mechanism of such massive proportions, which, ironically, is happening at such minuscule steps at a time? And which does not have any sort of goal? Evolution is not a bloody ladder. Unless, of course, magic. But magic is not what makes sci-fi good.

This whole thing tries way too hard to cram Christian theology into aliens. The "god" creating man in his own image, the birth by a woman who shouldn't give birth (replace "virgin" with "barren") which happens on Christmas, the "the aliens got wiped out 2000 years ago" thing (Guess what happened then), and so on.

I'm not trying to defend the science of this movie at all. I don't know that I've ever seen a sci-fi movie with really sound science. I think Ridley Scott has at best a "15 minute wikipedia scan" knowledge of how DNA works, and decided to just run with an idea. I can generally accept that - Blade Runner is full of poor scientific assumptions but still tells a poignant, touching story. My biggest disappointment about Prometheus as opposed to Alien is that it's a downgrade from "hard sci-fi" to just "sci-fi". The main difference being that sci-fi tends to have a lot of what you said - magic, basically (aka the "future whatever device").

But simply because we have no idea how life would evolve on another planet, we can assume there was a fairly earthlike planet the Jockeys came from (since they settled on a moon pretty close to earth conditions, it's likely they'd pick one that's habitable to them - therefore, their own planet is probably pretty similar to earth), and they have some sort of ability to use DNA at the most basic level, or their own DNA, as a model or guide for a similar evolutionary process, modified slightly for earth conditions (different elements, gravity, etc.)

You say the chances of evolving in a similar pattern are extremely small, but we don't actually know that for sure. Natural selection holds that mutations guide evolution, and in that case, it would be virtually impossible to have the same beings evolve twice. But natural selection doesn't always hold up today as a reliable method for evolution, so although we know that evolution certainly HAPPENS, we still don't understand all its mechanics. There's a concept called "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (not as highbrow a concept as it sounds) that applies to certain embryonic animals. What it means is that as the animal develops, it basically goes through the characteristics of its previous evolutionary forms - ie: it starts as a multicelled organism, develops organs, gills, becomes fishlike, then becomes amphibian-like, etc. Maybe what the Jockey does at the beginning of the movie is an extremely advanced and drawn out version of that.

Anyway, I'm just trying to say that some of the scientific concepts proposed aren't THAT ridiculous, they're just out there. As for the intentions of the Space Jockeys, I got nothin. Why would they seed life on earth for billions of years, come back and share a star map that goes to a MILITARY INSTALLATION, and then immediately decide upon waking to go kill everyone on earth? And I honestly didn't even notice the Christian overtones in the movie, I sincerely hope that's all coincidence. In an interview for Prometheus Scott said he considers religion to be one of the most dangerous and destructive forces out there, so I'm hoping the images were all a fluke. If he tries to tie this into some grand Christian mythos in the next film that'll probably kill my interest in the franchise.

Luca72:

adamtm:

Just how the scene was set up:

Woman has something in her body she wants to get rid off. (unwanted pregnancy, literally)
Machine denies her request. (its agains the "law" of the machine)
Does it anyways against the "recomendation". (abortion clinic)
Must pay the "price" (pain).

The only way this could have been more clear is if she said "i want an abortion" instead of "c-section".

I dont know, i might be overthinking this.

I didn't think about the abortion symbolism like that. If anything, it seemed pro-choice. The framework for that scene was "there's something really bad inside me, and I'm going to do whatever it takes to get it out." So she goes to the med-pod, gets an impromptu surgery on self-administered painkillers like a BOSS, and saves her life.

I mean, she never had any second thoughts about getting the surgery, and didn't feel bad about it afterward (she would have been completely loony if she did)

I never said the statement was anti-abortion.
The interpretation can be either way.

I try to enjoy a movie in 2 ways: while I am watching it, and later when I get to think back on what I saw.

A good movie will have those tie-ins that you only realize later when you think more about it, and which is made cooler for it as a result. A bad movie relies too much on the tie-ins or meta information about the movie and doesn't explain enough at the time to the audience.

Sure if you take the time to think about it, maybe there was a reason the geologist and biologist got lost, wandered around and were no longer panicked, went back to the same room that scared them in the first place and started interacting with strange alien worms. But it takes a lot to justify that reaction and none of the reasons I have heard were actually revealed on-screen. I think the fact that so many people thought it was completely out-of-character and totally dumb proves this point.

Similarly, when the crew finds out Shaw is pregnant with an Alien lifeform their reaction is decidedly less severe than when Charlie was just "sick". Rather than toss her off the ship they decide to put her in cryo and ship her back to Earth. Okay, maybe I can see that. If she is already on the ship then just contain her. However she resists, beats the crap out of 2 doctors, runs to the auto-doc, and then has herself operated on to pull out the alien baby.

But the ridiculous thing to me is that no one bothers to find her after she ran away from the doctors putting her in cryo.. After she got the alien creature extracted, no one bothered to isolate the alien and deal with it. They never ever touched upon this on-screen again. It was like the crew conveniently forgot about this, so that the alien creature could attack the Engineer later at the end of the movie. What?!

Additionally, after having the equivalent of a C-section she is able to walk around like it was nothing, and in fact she gets better by the end of the film to the point where she is able to jump and run and roll without a problem. Okay, I can sorta buy that maybe because it is the future and medical science is advanced.

I can accept any one of the number of flaws in the movie (and those were only a few), but put together the film loses me. While watching it I was mildly entertained (I did think the auto-doc scene was kinda cool and a nice twist from the normal chest buster ending we expected). But as I think back after the fact the movie had far too many convenient holes that make it seem more like a cheap horror movie where the characters have to make stupid decisions to make sure bad stuff happens to them.

Being a huge fan of the original Alien and I have to confess a severe fondness for Aliens as well I looked forward to this movie with glee. (I rewatched both with MiLady before watching Prometheus)

I watched Prometheus more in the mindset of it being it's own movie rather than specifically an Alien franchise movie and I really liked it.

Were there things in there that made me go "well, that doesn't really make sense", absolutely! But I was glad to just wave that off just to be able to enjoy the movie as is.

I for one am hoping for a DVD/HD directors cut and I will be certain to check that out.

winter2:

I for one am hoping for a DVD/HD directors cut and I will be certain to check that out.

lets hope it doesnt take 20 years to get a directors cut. as he did with alien or blade runner. but im sure looking forward to it to have it on dvd and watch it again.
it is a movie you have to think about and watch it few more times to understand everything. pretty much the same as with the matrix or ghost in the shell.

Metalrocks:

winter2:

I for one am hoping for a DVD/HD directors cut and I will be certain to check that out.

lets hope it doesnt take 20 years to get a directors cut. as he did with alien or blade runner. but im sure looking forward to it to have it on dvd and watch it again.
it is a movie you have to think about and watch it few more times to understand everything. pretty much the same as with the matrix or ghost in the shell.

If he takes 20yrs, I doubt we'll get a directors cut. Isn't he like 70yrs old?

Hammeroj:
-snip-

You are my hero, man. Exactly what I wanted to point out except I'd probably add the remarkable stupidity of getting crushed under the rolling ship. To quote Cave Johnson: "You're supposed to be scientists. Use some common sense".

I could probably tolerate it if they actually spent some time exploring the relationship with Christianity. Yes, it's a little bit out there but at least ONE of the plot lines would have made some sense. At the moment it's like a philosophist shouting a couple of "big questions" and then sitting down arms folded thinking 'How smart am I?' and ignoring any pleas for his own thoughts.

Well, one good thing I will say about the movie: it wasn't boring. I wish I was a little more mentally prepared for "Three Stooges in Space".

Soopy:

Metalrocks:

winter2:

I for one am hoping for a DVD/HD directors cut and I will be certain to check that out.

lets hope it doesnt take 20 years to get a directors cut. as he did with alien or blade runner. but im sure looking forward to it to have it on dvd and watch it again.
it is a movie you have to think about and watch it few more times to understand everything. pretty much the same as with the matrix or ghost in the shell.

If he takes 20yrs, I doubt we'll get a directors cut. Isn't he like 70yrs old?

lol. im aware of his age. was a bit sarcastic there.
just wanted to point out that directors cut versions, always takes that long for him.
blade runner is the best example. more then 20 years past and suddenly in 2007, we get a collectors edition with 5 version of the movie including the directors cut, saying that after so long, he thought it would be ok to add more scenes in to the movie.
the same with alien, the 2003 version. adding more scenes you never saw before.

Metalrocks:

Soopy:

Metalrocks:

lets hope it doesnt take 20 years to get a directors cut. as he did with alien or blade runner. but im sure looking forward to it to have it on dvd and watch it again.
it is a movie you have to think about and watch it few more times to understand everything. pretty much the same as with the matrix or ghost in the shell.

If he takes 20yrs, I doubt we'll get a directors cut. Isn't he like 70yrs old?

lol. im aware of his age. was a bit sarcastic there.
just wanted to point out that directors cut versions, always takes that long for him.
blade runner is the best example. more then 20 years past and suddenly in 2007, we get a collectors edition with 5 version of the movie including the directors cut, saying that after so long, he thought it would be ok to add more scenes in to the movie.
the same with alien, the 2003 version. adding more scenes you never saw before.

I was also being sarcastic :p

lol. now its clear :) we both should have used ":p" to make it clear we are kidding.

Tenzen:
I can accept any one of the number of flaws in the movie (and those were only a few), but put together the film loses me.

And in the end all of those unexplained transitions and plot holes make the film pretty forgettable. I enjoyed it, but it had no impact and I don't have any real interest in watching it again.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around all the people on this thread saying to ignore the plot holes and stupid character reactions, and "just enjoy the movie". If you ignore plot and characters, what is left? Pretty pictures? Are we as an audience to just take the mindset of toddlers watching dancing lights?

whiffleball:
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all the people on this thread saying to ignore the plot holes and stupid character reactions, and "just enjoy the movie". If you ignore plot and characters, what is left? Pretty pictures? Are we as an audience to just take the mindset of toddlers watching dancing lights?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoffsLaw

I can come up with some criticism for this movie, but I think your atheistic bias turned you a bit in the wrong direction here. At the very least, this movie carries with it a message of religious ambiguity, and the strengthening of belief as a result- there are no answers at the conclusion, and while "God" is not given as the final correct answer to being, it is certainly given as one possible alternative. In my mind this is part of the brilliance of the film's theme. Searching for answers in spite of overwhelming failure and uncertainty is the driving force behind both science and religion. Ridley Scott was NOT trying to say that "God is an alien" or "God is a bastard", he was saying that frankly, we can't know, but "god" help us if we ever stop searching.

What's with all the spoilers in this video? :| Not only talking about a reveal from the end of the movie, but saying who the villain is and who the android is, etc... Normally, if Bob is posting a video that includes spoilers, he throws up a big spoiler warning at the beginning so that people who prefer to avoid spoilers (like me) can turn the video off. I mean I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know how much this will affect my enjoyment of it, but if we aren't supposed to find out that it's a prequel until the end of the movie, then Bob shouldn't mention it in the review and certainly shouldn't put it in the blurb underneath the video!

I've been avoiding spoilers up until this point and didn't realize that the movie is a prequel. (I was under the impression it was an Alien reboot) So, that reveal could have been a crowning moment of awesome for me, but now... I'm just feeling peeved because it's been spoiled. Bob, if you're reading this, could you please, in future, put spoiler warnings ahead of spoilers? You've done it in the past and I was counting on you to do it this time too, and I feel like you've let me down. :(

adamtm:

whiffleball:
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all the people on this thread saying to ignore the plot holes and stupid character reactions, and "just enjoy the movie". If you ignore plot and characters, what is left? Pretty pictures? Are we as an audience to just take the mindset of toddlers watching dancing lights?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoffsLaw

I understand that some art can be enjoyed without deep analysis or much thought, but there is a point in "storytelling" art where this cannot apply. If you introduce characters and then have them perform actions completely contrary to the background that you provided with no explanation, it can derail the participation of the observer. As an observer, in one way or another, I am meant to become engrossed in the story.

An example I can give that I've heard others use before is "Michael Bay" movies. These movies are usually described as mindless action fests with under-developed or poor characters. You can view these "mindlessly" and still experience some visceral enjoyment.

But, if, in Transformers, Optimus Prime suddenly started killing humans with no explanation given, the audience is presented with actions that they would not be able to gloss over, at least in my opinion. This would be a thought provoking scene, and that thought would be "What the f*ck?!" I believe actions like this make for bad storytelling and derail any chance I can have at enjoying a movie.

whiffleball:

adamtm:

whiffleball:
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all the people on this thread saying to ignore the plot holes and stupid character reactions, and "just enjoy the movie". If you ignore plot and characters, what is left? Pretty pictures? Are we as an audience to just take the mindset of toddlers watching dancing lights?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoffsLaw

I understand that some art can be enjoyed without deep analysis or much thought, but there is a point in "storytelling" art where this cannot apply. If you introduce characters and then have them perform actions completely contrary to the background that you provided with no explanation, it can derail the participation of the observer. As an observer, in one way or another, I am meant to become engrossed in the story.

An example I can give that I've heard others use before is "Michael Bay" movies. These movies are usually described as mindless action fests with under-developed or poor characters. You can view these "mindlessly" and still experience some visceral enjoyment.

But, if, in Transformers, Optimus Prime suddenly started killing humans with no explanation given, the audience is presented with actions that they would not be able to gloss over, at least in my opinion. This would be a thought provoking scene, and that thought would be "What the f*ck?!" I believe actions like this make for bad storytelling and derail any chance I can have at enjoying a movie.

Absolutely agreed.
That is pretty much the mindset I was in with every major turning point in Prometheus.

what was the deal with the pauses in the audio of your review?

The thing that I found most odd:

We have people doing things to each other that in any other movie would make them mortal enemies, and afterwards everybody acts all ok with it. It makes no goddamn sense!

Note that I barely brought myself to respond, for one because I don't see there being a whole lot of contention between us, and because after this thread I'm getting fairly burned out on the topic, so I'll be quick, or try to.

Luca72:
I'm not trying to defend the science of this movie at all. I don't know that I've ever seen a sci-fi movie with really sound science. I think Ridley Scott has at best a "15 minute wikipedia scan" knowledge of how DNA works, and decided to just run with an idea. I can generally accept that - Blade Runner is full of poor scientific assumptions but still tells a poignant, touching story. My biggest disappointment about Prometheus as opposed to Alien is that it's a downgrade from "hard sci-fi" to just "sci-fi". The main difference being that sci-fi tends to have a lot of what you said - magic, basically (aka the "future whatever device").

But you are! Not that I have a problem with it.

I'm not asking for the science to be really sound, I'm asking for it to be at least somewhat sound and not to be actively wrong. The fact that this is done purely to set up the "they made us and we totally look like them" angle doesn't help.

But simply because we have no idea how life would evolve on another planet, we can assume there was a fairly earthlike planet the Jockeys came from (since they settled on a moon pretty close to earth conditions, it's likely they'd pick one that's habitable to them - therefore, their own planet is probably pretty similar to earth), and they have some sort of ability to use DNA at the most basic level, or their own DNA, as a model or guide for a similar evolutionary process, modified slightly for earth conditions (different elements, gravity, etc.)

This whole thing started off with me asking a question. The question being, how exactly does one propose something like this would happen? Because to me, this sounds the same as moving every single water molecule in an ocean exactly the way you want them to. For years.

I'm not really interested in these vague notions of "using DNA at its most basic levels", because it doesn't really explain anything, and if anything, only exacerbates the undertaking. Controlling every single strand of DNA just joins the ranks of accounting for the innumerable amounts of natural disasters, climate shifts, ice ages, asteroid strikes, disease outbreaks (so on, so forth). I know you do actually get to something in the next paragraph, just sayin'.

You say the chances of evolving in a similar pattern are extremely small, but we don't actually know that for sure. Natural selection holds that mutations guide evolution, and in that case, it would be virtually impossible to have the same beings evolve twice. But natural selection doesn't always hold up today as a reliable method for evolution, so although we know that evolution certainly HAPPENS, we still don't understand all its mechanics. There's a concept called "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (not as highbrow a concept as it sounds) that applies to certain embryonic animals. What it means is that as the animal develops, it basically goes through the characteristics of its previous evolutionary forms - ie: it starts as a multicelled organism, develops organs, gills, becomes fishlike, then becomes amphibian-like, etc. Maybe what the Jockey does at the beginning of the movie is an extremely advanced and drawn out version of that.

Not necessarily mutations. Simple variation is a huge, if not the biggest part of it, from what I understand. Any links to where natural selection doesn't hold up? This sort of thing seems like it would be either universally true or false. Unless you mean that it doesn't entirely explain some things and there are holes left by that.

The difference between that and what the jockeys did is that in one case, all the DNA is right there in the embryo. Don't get me wrong, I think that's a somewhat poetic/cute thought, but really, there are so many holes in that type of theory that I got tired even thinking about them. For instance, our DNA doesn't actually hold the full information of every of our great great grandpappies. Hell, as far as humans are concerned it doesn't hold the full information of any of our predecessors. But even if you go the AC route and say that it does, you immediately run into a wall of trying to reconcile this rigid direction with the ideas of diversification and variation. There's only so many times one can wave the magic wand before an idea becomes completely inane.

And I honestly didn't even notice the Christian overtones in the movie, I sincerely hope that's all coincidence. In an interview for Prometheus Scott said he considers religion to be one of the most dangerous and destructive forces out there, so I'm hoping the images were all a fluke. If he tries to tie this into some grand Christian mythos in the next film that'll probably kill my interest in the franchise.

You mean aside from the obvious things, right? The obsession with the cross, or the "That's why I choose to believe.", "You don't have a soul" (directed at the android), or "You wouldn't understand because you're a robot" lines (directed at the android again after he asks why the main character why she believes). The funny thing about that last one is that the robot would've understood it pretty easily, if he's anything as advanced as he's cracked up to be. It's just one of those things people say that mean nothing and only sound incredibly narrow-minded. Moving on from the rant.

Before writing the last paragraph, I was actually about to give the filmmakers props for making the religious references not really all that blatant. They're clearly there for a reason, but at least the film doesn't beat you over the head with them. But then I remembered all of the above. They actually do bash you over the head with religious nonsense, they just don't do it with that background stuff. And it got me thinking, hey, maybe if this film wasn't trying to cram actual religion and idiotic debates about it in a ham-fisted way, I would actually be quite intrigued by all the little references.

..Really, he said that? Wow, would not have guessed. I don't know what exactly you mean by images, but if you're talking about the religious references and motifs, they were definitely not a fluke. Them making us in their own image, the birth on Christmas by a woman who shouldn't give birth (apparently Mary had a cousin named Elizabeth that gave birth while supposedly barren), the 2000 years ago something bad happened thing. Especially coupled with an interview where Ridley was talking about how humans (from the movie's perspective) were like insubordinate children (citing the roman empire) and that's why the aliens left us or something to that extent. Given that we're told that whatever outbreak on the alien facility happened, happened around 2000 years ago, that there are no references to them in the form of sculptures and paintings after that or that the Engineer instantly wants to kill us clearly hints that we did something 2000 years ago. So either Jesus was actually an alien and was somehow tied to the outbreak light years away (that's some remote controlled jar opener), or all the references point directly at nothing. Or maybe they just got pissed off that we killed the guy and on their way to kill us one of them fumbled that jar or something.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens, I guess.

P.S. There goes me trying to be quick.

Hammeroj:
snip

I'll admit the DNA stuff is something I only thought of when I saw your post. I'm really just saying that I can get the concept to SORT OF make sense in my head, although it takes some mental maneuvering. I'm also aware that this is a lot more effort than I generally spend to get myself to like a movie. I don't think it's a bad movie at all, but it's definitely a disappointing one, and it really shouldn't have been.

As for the Christianity stuff, I noticed the cross, the "virgin birth", etc. but at the time I thought it was just using Christian imagery as a placeholder for religion in general. I thought it was a broader "belief" vs. "fact" statement, but in hindsight I see I was wrong. There's another interview with Scott where he admits that at at least one point during production the Jockeys were definitely returning to earth because we'd killed Jesus, one of their own. Don't know if this is still the running theme or not. The Christianity theme felt pretty out of place in the movie, and I'm not sure why they were so intent on shoehorning it in.

It seems pretty clear that Ridley Scott started to make an Alien prequel, then decided to branch out with a "Blade Runner-ish" exploration on what it is that makes us human, and didn't really flesh the idea out in time to make a complete movie about it. I thought the conversations and even motivations of David were very poignant, and was surprised at how strong the android theme was in the movie, while the actual extra terrestrial stuff felt totally rushed.

If anyone's still interested in exploring the themes of the movie, I think this guy ( http://cavalorn.livejournal.com/584135.html ) has some pretty good ideas. In particular, that you can divide the important characters by those willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of others (Prometheus myth, Janek, Holloway, the engineers, etc.) and those willing to sacrifice others for themselves (Weyland, David, the xenomorph), and there's a pretty consistent thread that ties that theme together

I enjoyed the movie. Once I had time to digest it after leaving the theater, there were some bad uses of character as a plot device. The two guys down in the ship when they're hanging out in the giant head room. What the hell was that? Some of the writing for Theron's part was kind of shitty and was poorly delivered in some places. Indeed Fassbender was great as the android who kind of hates humans. I did kind of wish for a little bit more of an explanation as to why David did what he did during the movie, but didn't follow through. All in all, I'd give it a 3.5 out 5 mostly because I miss having good Science Fiction at the theater.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, although I had two problems with it; one that I typically do with sci-fi movies and the other with other people's characterization of some of the characters.

First, I fucking hate the scientists in sci-fi movies. They're always just so retarded and dismissive of genuine concerns. Even in instances where they're supposed to be the good guy. Not just the biologist

It's this attitude of "we have to know" that just grinds me. I'm more the kind of guy that takes David's position: "Why do you have to know?" To me that was easily the most thought-provoking question in the whole movie, and then it just gets blown off with a retarded, "Because...I'm a human, you wouldn't understand."

The second problem I had was Charlize and Michael Fassbender's characterization by some as bad guys. But they never really seemed like that.

There seems to be a lot of "it was an all-right movie" going on here.

That movie was bad! Shaw couldn't pick an accent, her boyfriend was a dummy, and the writing was poor. I can count the number of line each character speaks on my hands.

Evil blonde chick reacts stupidly to finding out that aliens exist, in that she demonstrates that she doesn't care, and that her concerns are elsewhere... ALIENS EXIST! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE A PERSON?

Boyfriend acts stupidly after finding out aliens exist, that they are all dead, and that he can't talk to them. He found his maker and now all he can do is cry about how he have a chat over Starbucks with them.

Stupid scientist stupidly approaching an obviously hostile acting alien.

Out of nowhere awkward lines:
"This device only does Male operations." [It was in evil blonde chick's room...]
"I can't create life, what does that say about me."
"You wouldn't understand because you're just a Robot."

I do not need to go on.

Having gone to see the movie today after having read a number of mixed reviews, I personally found that I liked it. Yeah, it has a fair number of flaws (too much Idiot Ball, for starters), but I think the scope and ideas behind it make it worthwhile.

I liken it to last year's Super-8: a flawed movie that you either liked despite the flaws or you couldn't because of said flaws (but you regret not liking it). You can see where Ridley Scott was trying to go and he gets maybe 3/4 of the way there.

This is the kind of movie you have to see to make up your own mind. On that basis alone, I'd recommend watching it.

I thought it was a weird mix of prequel/origin/spin off. I really really loved this film (god I do love Noomi Rapace) but I wish it settled on which film it wanted to be. I either wanted more Alien references or none at all

But if they do 100% confirm it's status as a prequel, I'm glad. I was REALLY into it. I loved the references. I nearly squealed when I saw some things.

parintachin:
I saw it this weekend (it was out last friday in europe), and here's one I really have to disagree with you on Bob.

This is a failure, and a bad one at that.

The visuals are great - it's well shot, and most of the CG is pretty neat. The music is nice if not exactly smooth. The acting is surprisingly good, considering what these people had to work with; especially Theron and Fassbeder stand out.

But the script is insultingly stupid. The whole basic plot makes absolutely no sense, even in its own framework, and every single character not played by Charlize Theron is borderline retarded and / or so insultingly improfessional as to seem so. Fassbender's robot can't help it; he was apparently made that way; the rest must have been dropped on the head a few times at birth ...

A few weeks late, finally saw the movie tonight, and going to echo this post.

This review seems to be alot like the rankings in College Football; my beloved Michigan Wolverines have been highly rated for years (with a couple of years that we shall not speak of) in the various polls. They get this rating because in 1997, they won the National Championship. And from about 1890 to sometime in the 1960's, they won a whole lot of championships. And they were a good team from the 1960's to 2006ish. Ergo, Michigan is a good football team.

Notice how I have only mentioned one season individually, that being 1997? Yeah. Michigan of 2012 is going to end up rated in the top 25 before the season starts because... erm, it's Michigan. Ergo it's a good football team. And it's going to stay in the top 25 for a few weeks even if it loses because it's Michigan. If the exact same set of players played the exact same games with the only difference being that they were playing for the Maine Lobster Claws instead of the Michigan Wolverines, they wouldn't be noticed by the rest of college football let alone get ranked.

Where am I going with this? Ridley Scott = Michigan. Bob = College Football Pollster. This movie gets a good rating because it's Ridley Scott, ergo it has to be a good movie. If this had been done by, say, Michael Ricardo Rodriguez, it would be torn apart. If it had been done by Uwe Boll, it would be a biatch fest about how terrible Uwe Boll is. But it's Ridley Scott, so... dude, it's Ridley Scott!

Personally I left the movie feeling rather annoyed. I didn't enjoy the movie, I didn't enjoy how I needed to have a fairly large understanding of the Alien universe to have any idea what was going on. (not just the movies, but the comics. Which are usually rather good, but then they were Dark Horse comics, so written for adults in mind.)

I hope that a Directors Cut comes out for this movie, since I don't really see a sequel being made unless they need to keep the copyright (a la Fantastic Four, Spiderman and X-Men franchises) going for a while longer. This movie begs for a sequel but doesn't deserve one.

I was pretty satisfied with the whole thing except for the begining.

I was able to figure out the significance of every detail except for the very start, what was the point of marshmellow man offing himself like that.

I honestly found the movie pretty good.....
Yeah, a little too preachy on the christian part and a little hard to stomach for someone who loathes this charriot of the gods bs.....cinematography on the other hand was great, the actors were superb and the effects very watchable.
No movie to lit the world on fire, but a very watchable scifi-flick.

I still haven't seen Prometheus, but the description of the downplayed Alien references put me in mind of another thing that had some downplayed Alien references: "Cyberantics: A Little Adventure." This was a science fiction children's book about a robot ant published by Dark Horse Comics in 1992. It was EXCELLENT. There was so much going on in this book...the straightforward narrative about the ant, the footnotes about ant biology, and the backstory about the ant's creator. Anyhow, it was a tie-in to a Dark Horse Comics Alien miniseries, Aliens: Hive. Both are worth seeking out.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here